Toulouse, France
Toulouse, France

Time filter

Source Type

Noc M.,University of Ljubljana | Fajadet J.,Clinique Pasteur | Lassen J.F.,Aarhus University Hospital | Kala P.,Masaryk University | And 4 more authors.
EuroIntervention | Year: 2014

Due to significant improvement in the pre-hospital treatment of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), an increasing number of initially resuscitated patients are being admitted to hospitals. Because of the limited data available and lack of clear guideline recommendations, experts from the EAPCI and 'Stent for Life' (SFL) groups reviewed existing literature and provided practical guidelines on selection of patients for immediate coronary angiography (CAG), PCI strategy, concomitant antiplatelet/anticoagulation treatment, haemodynamic support and use of therapeutic hypothermia. Conscious survivors of OHCA with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) should be treated according to recommendations for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and high-risk non-ST-segment elevation -ACS (NSTE-ACS) without OHCA and should undergo immediate (if STEMI) or rapid (less than two hours if NSTE-ACS) coronary invasive strategy. Comatose survivors of OHCA with ECG criteria for STEMI on the post-resuscitation ECG should be admitted directly to the catheterisation laboratory. For patients without STEMI ECG criteria, a short 'emergency department or intensive care unit stop' is advised to exclude non-coronary causes. In the absence of an obvious non-coronary cause, CAG should be performed as soon as possible (less than two hours), in particular in haemodynamically unstable patients. Immediate PCI should be mainly directed towards the culprit lesion if identified. Interventional cardiologists should become an essential part of the 'survival chain' for patients with OHCA. There is a need to centralise the care of patients with OHCA to experienced centres. © Europa Digital & Publishing 2014.


Portalez D.,Clinique Pasteur | Mozer P.,Hopital Pitie Salpetriere | Cornud F.,Hopital Cochin | Renard-Penna R.,Hopital Pitie Salpetriere | And 3 more authors.
European Urology | Year: 2012

Background: Wide variations in acquisition protocols and the lack of robust diagnostic criteria make magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) detection of prostate cancer (PCa) one of the most challenging fields in radiology and urology. Objective: To validate the recently proposed European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) scoring system for multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate. Design, setting, and participants: An institutional review board-approved multicentric prospective study; 129 consecutive patients (1514 cores) referred for mpMRI after at least one set of negative biopsies. Intervention: Transfer of mpMRI-suspicious areas on three-dimensional (3D) transrectal ultrasound images by 3D elastic surface registration; random systematic and targeted cores followed by core-by-core analysis of pathology and mpMRI characteristics of the core locations. The ESUR scores were assigned after the procedure on annotated Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine archives. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Relationships between ESUR scores and biopsy results were assessed by the Mann-Whitney U test. The Yates correction and Pearson χ2 tests evaluated the association between categorical variables. A teaching set was randomly drawn to construct the receiver operating characteristic curve of the ESUR score sum (ESUR-S). The threshold to recommend biopsy was obtained from the Youden J statistics and tested in the remaining validation set in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy. Results and limitations: Higher T2-weighted, dynamic weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced ESUR scores were observed in areas yielding cancer-positive cores. The proportion of positive cores increased with the ESUR-S aggregated in five increments (ESUR-S 3-5: 2.9%; ESUR-S 6-8: 11.1%; ESUR-S 9-10: 38.2%; ESUR-S 11-12: 63.4%; and ESUR-S 13-15: 83.3%; p < 0.0001). A threshold of ESUR-S ≥9 exhibited the following characteristics: sensitivity: 73.5%; specificity: 81.5%; positive predictive value: 38.2%; negative predictive value: 95.2%; and accuracy: 80.4%. Although the study was not designed to compare repeat biopsy strategies, more targeted cores than random systematic cores were found to be positive for cancer (36.3% compared with 4.9%, p < 0.00001). Conclusions: In the challenging situation of repeat biopsies, the ESUR scoring system was shown to provide clinically relevant stratification of the risk of showing PCa in a given location.© 2012 European Association of Urology.


Chieffo A.,San Raffaele Scientific Institute | Buchanan G.L.,San Raffaele Scientific Institute | Van Mieghem N.M.,Erasmus Medical Center | Tchetche D.,Clinique Pasteur | And 11 more authors.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology | Year: 2013

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the Medtronic CoreValve (MCV) versus the Edwards SAPIEN/SAPIEN XT transcatheter heart valve (ESV) for severe aortic stenosis. Background: No large matched comparison study has been conducted so far evaluating both commercially available devices. Methods: The data from databases of 4 experienced European centers were pooled and analyzed. Due to differences in baseline clinical characteristics, propensity score matching was performed. Study objectives were Valve Academic Research Consortium outcomes at 30 days and 1 year. Results: In total, 793 patients were included: 453 (57.1%) treated with the MCV and 340 (42.9%) with the ESV. After propensity matching, 204 patients were identified in each group. At 30 days, there were no differences in all-cause mortality (MCV, 8.8% vs. ESV, 6.4%; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.422; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.677 to 2.984; p = 0.352), cardiovascular mortality (MCV, 6.9% vs. ESV, 6.4%; HR: 1.083; 95% CI: 0.496 to 2.364; p = 0.842), myocardial infarction (MCV, 0.5% vs. ESV, 1.5%; HR: 0.330; 95% CI: 0.034 to 3.200; p = 0.339), stroke (MCV, 2.9% vs. ESV, 1.0%; HR: 3.061; 95% CI: 0.610 to 15.346; p = 0.174), or device success (MCV, 95.6% vs. ESV, 96.6%; HR: 0.770; 95% CI: 0.281 to 2.108; p = 0.611). Additionally, there were no differences in major vascular complications (MCV, 9.3% vs. ESV, 12.3%; HR: 0.735; 95% CI: 0.391 to 1.382; p = 0.340) or life-threatening bleeding (MCV, 13.7% vs. ESV, 8.8%; HR: 1.644; 95% CI: 0.878 to 3.077; p = 0.120). MCV was associated with more permanent pacemakers (22.5% vs. 5.9%; HR: 4.634; 95% CI: 2.373 to 9.050; p < 0.001). At 1 year, there were no differences in all-cause (MCV, 16.2% vs. ESV, 12.3%; HR: 1.374; 95% CI: 0.785 to 2.407; p = 0.266) or cardiovascular (MCV, 8.3% vs. ESV, 7.4%; HR: 1.145; 95% CI: 0.556 to 12.361; p = 0.713) mortality. Conclusions: No differences between the 2 commercially available transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation devices were observed at the adjusted analysis in Valve Academic Research Consortium outcomes except for the need for permanent pacemakers with the MCV. © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation.


Gregorini L.,University of Milan | Marco J.,Clinique Pasteur | Heusch G.,University of Duisburg - Essen
Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology | Year: 2012

A percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a unique condition to study the effects of ischemia and reperfusion in patients with severe coronary atherosclerosis when coronary vasomotor function is compromised by loss of endothelial and autoregulatory vasodilation. We studied the effects of intracoronary non-selective α-, as well as selective α 1- and α 2-blockade in counteracting the observed vasoconstriction in patients with stable and unstable angina and in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Coronary vasoconstriction in our studies was a diffuse phenomenon and involved not only the culprit lesion but also vessels with angiographically not visible plaques. Post-PCI vasoconstriction was reflected by increased coronary vascular resistance and associated with decreased LV-function. α 1-Blockade with urapidil dilated epicardial coronary arteries, improved coronary flow reserve and counteracted LV dysfunction. Non-selective α-blockade with phentolamine induced epicardial and microvascular dilation, while selective α 2-blockade with yohimbine had only minor vasodilator and functional effects. Intracoronary α-blockade also attenuated the no-reflow phenomenon following primary PCI. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled "Coronary Blood Flow". © 2011 Elsevier Ltd.


Stone G.W.,Columbia University Medical Center | Teirstein P.S.,Scripps Research Institute | Meredith I.T.,Monash Medical Center | Farah B.,Clinique Pasteur | And 6 more authors.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology | Year: 2011

Objectives: We sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes with a novel platinum chromium everolimus-eluting stent (PtCr-EES) compared with a predicate cobalt chromium everolimus-eluting stent (CoCr-EES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background: Randomized trials have demonstrated an excellent safety and efficacy profile for the CoCr-EES. The PtCr-EES uses the identical antiproliferative agent and polymer but with a novel platinum chromium scaffold designed for enhanced deliverability, vessel conformability, side-branch access, radiopacity, radial strength, and fracture resistance. Methods: A total of 1,530 patients undergoing PCI of 1 or 2 de novo native lesions were randomized at 132 worldwide sites to CoCr-EES (n = 762) or PtCr-EES (n = 768). The primary endpoint was the 12-month rate of target lesion failure (TLF), the composite of target vessel-related cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction (MI), or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) in the per-protocol population (patients who received <1 assigned study stent), powered for noninferiority. Results: The 12-month rate of TLF in the per-protocol population occurred in 2.9% versus 3.4% of patients assigned to CoCr-EES versus PtCr-EES, respectively (difference: 0.5%, 95% confidence interval: -1.3% to 2.3%, pnoninferiority = 0.001, psuperiority = 0.60). By intention-to-treat, there were no significant differences between CoCr-EES and PtCr-EES in the 12-month rates of TLF (3.2% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.72), cardiac death or MI (2.5% vs. 2.0%, p = 0.56), TLR (1.9% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.96), or Academic Research Consortium definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.4% vs. 0.4%, p = 1.00). Conclusions: In this large-scale, prospective, single-blind randomized trial, a novel PtCr-EES was noninferior to the predicate CoCr-EES for TLF, with nonsignificant differences in measures of safety and efficacy through 12-month follow-up after PCI. (A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Trial to Assess an Everolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent System [PROMUS Element] for the Treatment of up to Two De Novo Coronary Artery Lesions: NCT00823212) © 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation.


Khawaja M.Z.,University of Sussex | Haworth P.,University of Sussex | Ghuran A.,University of Sussex | Lee L.,University of Sussex | And 5 more authors.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology | Year: 2010

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is increasingly being used to treat severe aortic stenosis in patients with high operative risk. In an aging population the incidence of aortic stenosis is rising, and increasing numbers of elderly patients are undergoing aortic valve replacement with bioprosthetic valves. Therefore, there is a corresponding increase in prosthetic degeneration. This presents cardiologists with a cohort of patients for whom the risk of re-do aortic valve surgery is prohibitive. We present the first series of such patients with degenerative bioprosthetic stenosis or regurgitation successfully treated with CoreValve (Medtronic, Luxembourg) implantation. © 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation.


Kandzari D.E.,Piedmont Heart Institute | Leon M.B.,Columbia University Medical Center | Meredith I.,Monash University | Fajadet J.,Clinique Pasteur | And 2 more authors.
JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions | Year: 2013

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate late safety and efficacy outcomes among patients enrolled in clinical trials comparing Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stents (E-ZES) (Medtronic, Inc., Santa Rosa, California) with first-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS). Background: Despite demonstration of higher angiographic luminal loss and restenosis with E-ZES compared with alternative DES, whether differences in these early angiographic measures translate into more disparate late clinical events is uncertain. Methods: Among 3,616 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization in 5 registration trials, late safety and efficacy events were compared between E-ZES (n = 2,132) versus sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stents (n = 888) or BMS (n = 596). Results: Compared with a parallel cohort of patients treated with first-generation DES and BMS, 5-year rates of cardiac death/myocardial infarction (MI) (5.8% vs. 8.8% DES, p = 0.003; vs. 8.4% BMS, p = 0.02) and major adverse cardiac events (16.1% vs. 20.6% DES, p = 0.009; vs. 24.6% BMS, p < 0.001) were significantly lower with E-ZES. The E-ZES was associated with significantly lower target lesion revascularization (TLR) compared with BMS (7.4% vs. 16.3%, p < 0.001) but similar to comparator DES (7.4% vs. 8.1%, p = 0.63). Despite higher TLR in the first year with E-ZES compared with DES, between 1- and 5-year follow-up, rates of cardiac death/MI, TLR, and definite/probable stent thrombosis were significantly lower with E-ZES. Conclusions: Over 5 years, significant differences in cardiac death/MI and composite endpoints favored treatment with E-ZES over comparator BMS and DES. Rates of clinical restenosis and safety events, including stent thrombosis beyond the first year of revascularization, remain stable with E-ZES, leading to significant differences compared with first-generation DES. © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation.


Kandzari D.E.,Piedmont Heart Institute | Barker C.S.,University of Houston | Leon M.B.,Columbia University | Mauri L.,Brigham and Women's Hospital | And 3 more authors.
JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions | Year: 2011

Objectives: We sought to evaluate differences in late safety outcomes relative to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration in patients treated with zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES). Background: Despite treatment recommendations for at least 12 months of DAPT following drug-eluting stent revascularization, device-specific outcomes relative to DAPT duration are absent. Methods: Among 2,032 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization with ZES in 5 trials, late safety events were compared relative to DAPT duration for patients with <6 months DAPT adherence and survival free of major ischemic and bleeding events. Results: A total of 1,414 event-free patients on DAPT at 6 months were identified. Patient group comparisons relative to DAPT included: 6 months versus <12 months, and 6 months versus ≥24 months. Through 3 years, risk-adjusted ischemic event rates did not significantly differ between groups: 6 versus ≥12 months: death (2.7% vs. 2.2%), myocardial infarction (MI, 0.3% vs. 1.1%), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST, 0.3% vs. 0%); 6 versus ≥24 months: death (1.6% vs. 1.6%), MI (0.4% vs. 1.2%), and definite/probable ST (0.1% vs. 0.2%). Composite events also did not statistically vary between DAPT durations. In multivariable analysis, 6-month versus longer DAPT duration was not associated with increased likelihood of thrombotic events at 3-year follow-up. Major bleeding was negligible across groups. Conclusions: Among patients treated with ZES, late-term events of death, MI, stroke, and ST do not significantly differ between patients taking 6 months DAPT compared with continuation beyond 1 year. These findings merit further study to identify the appropriate duration of DAPT according to specific drug-eluting stents. © 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation.


Fajadet J.,Clinique Pasteur | Chieffo A.,San Raffaele Scientific Institute
European Heart Journal | Year: 2012

Coronary artery bypass surgery is considered as the gold standard treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease. Over the last 20 years, improvement in stent technology and operators experience explained the increased number of reports on the results of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) for the treatment of left main (LM) coronary artery lesion. The recent data comparing efficacy and safety of PCIs using drug-eluting stent and coronary artery bypass surgery showed comparable results in terms of safety and a lower need for repeat revascularization for coronary artery bypass surgery. Patient selection for both techniques is fundamental and directly impacts the clinical outcome. Further randomized trials must be conducted to precise the indications of both techniques of revascularization in the treatment of LM disease. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2011.


Meredith Am I.T.,Monash University | Walters D.L.,University of Queensland | Dumonteil N.,Toulouse University Hospital Center | Worthley S.G.,Royal Adelaide Hospital | And 12 more authors.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology | Year: 2014

Results Mean age was 84.4 years, 57% of the patients were female, and 76% were New York Heart Association functional class III/IV. Mean aortic valve area was 0.7 ± 0.2 cm2. The valve was successfully implanted in all patients, with no cases of valve embolization, ectopic valve deployment, or additional valve implantation. All repositioning (n = 26) and retrieval (n = 6) attempts were successful; 34 patients (28.6%) received a permanent pacemaker. The primary device performance endpoint was met, because the mean gradient improved from 46.4 ± 15.0 mm Hg to 11.5 ± 5.2 mm Hg. At 30 days, the mortality rate was 4.2%, and the rate of disabling stroke was 1.7%; 1 (1.0%) patient had moderate PVR, whereas none had severe PVR.Conclusions REPRISE II demonstrates the safety and effectiveness of the Lotus valve in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high surgical risk. The valve could be positioned successfully with minimal PVR. (REPRISE II: REpositionable Percutaneous Replacement of Stenotic Aortic Valve Through Implantation of Lotus™ Valve System - Evaluation of Safety and Performance; NCT01627691).Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement provides results comparable to those of surgery in patients at high surgical risk, but complications can impact long-term outcomes. The Lotus valve, designed to improve upon earlier devices, is fully repositionable and retrievable, with a unique seal to minimize paravalvular regurgitation (PVR).Objectives The prospective, single-arm, multicenter REPRISE II study (REpositionable Percutaneous Replacement of Stenotic Aortic Valve Through Implantation of Lotus Valve System: Evaluation of Safety and Performance) evaluated the transcatheter valve system for treatment of severe symptomatic calcific aortic valve stenosis.Methods Patients (n = 120; aortic annulus 19 to 27 mm) considered by a multidisciplinary heart team to be at high surgical risk received the valve transfemorally. The primary device performance endpoint, 30-day mean pressure gradient, was assessed by an independent echocardiographic core laboratory and compared with a pre-specified performance goal. The primary safety endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included safety/effectiveness metrics per Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria. © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Loading Clinique Pasteur collaborators
Loading Clinique Pasteur collaborators