Prognostic value of the dynamic hepatorenal function on intermediate‐term mortality in TAVI patients with survival to discharge

BackgroundRenal and liver dysfunctions are risk factors for mortality in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has the potential to break the vicious cycle between AS and hepatorenal dysfunction by relieving aortic valve obstruction.HypothesisA part of patients can derive hepatorenal function improvement from TAVI, and this noncardiac benefit improves the intermediate‐term outcomes.MethodsWe developed this retrospective cohort study in 439 consecutive patients undergoing TAVI and described the dynamic hepatorenal function assessed by model for end‐stage liver disease model for end‐stage liver disease (MELD)‐XI score in subgroups. The endpoint was 2‐year all‐cause mortality.ResultsReceiver‐operating characteristic analysis showed that the baseline MELD‐XI score of 10.71 was the cutoff point. A high MELD‐XI score (>10.71) at baseline was an independent predictor of the 2‐year mortality hazard ratio (HR: 2.65 [1.29–5.47], p = .008). After TAVI, patients with irreversible high MELD‐XI scores had a higher risk of 2‐year mortality than patients who improved from high to low MELD‐XI scores (HR: 2.50 [1.06–5.91], p = .03). Factors associated with reversible MELD‐XI scores improvement were low baseline MELD‐XI scores (≤12.00, odds ratio [OR]: 2.02 [1.04–3.94], p = .04), high aortic valve peak velocity (≥5 m/s, OR: 2.17 [1.11–4.24], p = .02), and low body mass index (≤25 kg/m², OR: 2.73 [1.25–5.98], p = .01).ConclusionHigh MELD‐XI score at baseline is an independent predictor for 2‐year mortality. Patients with hepatorenal function improvement after TAVI have better outcomes. For patients with irreversible hepatorenal dysfunction after TAVI, further optimization of the subsequent treatment after TAVI is needed to improve the outcomes.     

Impact of frailty on mortality and quality of life in patients with a history of cancer undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly offered for aortic stenosis (AS) treatment in patients with a history of cancer. The impact of frailty on outcomes in this specific patient population is not well described.HypothesisFrailty is associated with mortality and poorer quality of life (QOL) outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR with a history of cancer.MethodsThis retrospective single center cohort study included AS patients who underwent TAVR from August 1, 2012 to May 15, 2020. Frailty was measured using serum albumin, hemoglobin, gait speed, functional dependence, and cognitive impairment. The primary outcome was a composite of all‐cause mortality and QOL at 1 year. A poor primary outcome was defined as either all‐cause mortality, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary (KCCQ‐OS) score <45 or a KCCQ‐OS score decline of ≥10 points from baseline. Regression analysis was used to determine the impact of frailty on the primary outcome.ResultsThe study population was stratified into active/recent cancer (n = 107), remote cancer (n = 85), and non‐cancer (n = 448). Univariate analysis of each cohort showed that frailty was associated with the primary outcome only in the non‐cancer cohort (p = .004). Multivariate analysis showed that cancer history was not associated with a poor primary outcome, whereas frailty was (1.7 odds ratio, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1–2.8; p = .028).ConclusionsFrailty is associated with mortality and poor QOL in the overall and non‐cancer cohorts. Further investigation is warranted to understand frailty''s effect on the cancer population. Frailty should be heavily considered during TAVR evaluation.     

Invasive therapy versus conservative therapy for patients with stable coronary artery disease: An updated meta‐analysis

BackgroundHeart disease remains the leading cause of death in the United States. Although there are clear indications for revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndromes, there is debate regarding the benefits of revascularization in stable ischemic heart disease. We sought to perform a comprehensive meta‐analysis to assess the role of revascularization compared to conservative medical therapy alone in patients with stable ischemic heart disease.HypothesisThere is no significant difference in all‐cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality between invasive and medical arms.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search from January 2000 to June 2020. Our literature search yielded seven randomized controlled trials. We analyzed a total of 12 013 patients (6109 in revascularization arm and 5904 in conservative medical therapy arm). Primary outcome was all‐cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (death, myocardial infarction [MI], or stroke), cardiovascular mortality, MI, and stroke. Additional subgroup analysis for all‐cause mortality was performed comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare metal stent versus conservative therapy; and PCI with drug eluting stent versus conservative therapy.ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference in primary outcome of all‐cause mortality between either arm (odds ratio [OR] = 0.95; 95% CI [confidence interval], 0.83 to 1.08; p = .84). There were statistically significant lower rates of MACE (death, MI or stroke) in the revascularization arm when compared to conservative arm.ConclusionsOur analysis did not show any survival advantage of an initial invasive strategy over conservative medical therapy in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD).     

The noninferiority of transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared to surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic disease: Evidence based on 16 randomized controlled trials

Background:Currently, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) as an effective and convenient intervention has been adopted extensively for patients with severe aortic disease. However, the efficacy and safety of TAVI have not yet been well evaluated and its noninferiority compared with traditional surgical aortic valve replacement (sAVR) still lack sufficient evidence. This meta-analysis was designed to comprehensively compare the noninferiority of TAVI with sAVR for patients with severe aortic disease.Methods:A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to October 1, 2020 was conducted for relevant studies that comparing TAVI and sAVR in the treatment of severe aortic disease. The primary outcomes were early, midterm and long term mortality. The secondary outcomes included early complications and other late outcomes. Two reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted the data independently. All statistical analyzes were performed using the standard statistical procedures provided in Review Manager 5.2.Results:A total of 16 studies including 14394 patients were identified. There was no difference in 30-day, 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year all-cause or cardiovascular mortality as well as stroke between TAVI and sAVR. Regarding to the 30-day outcomes, compared with sAVR, TAVI experienced a significantly lower incidence of myocardial infarction (risk ratio [RR] 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40–0.97; 5441 pts), cardiogenic shock (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.19–0.59; 1936 pts), acute kidney injury (AKI) > stage 2 (RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.25–0.54; 5371 pts), and new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) (RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.24–0.35; 5371 pts) respectively, but higher incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (RR 3.16; 95% CI 1.61–6.21; 5441 pts) and major vascular complications (RR 2.22; 95% CI 1.14–4.32; 5371 pts). Regarding to the 1- and 2-year outcomes, compared with sAVR, TAVI experienced a significantly lower incidence of NOAF, but higher incidence of neurological events, transient ischemic attacks (TIA), permanent pacemaker and major vascular complications respectively. Regarding to the 5-year outcomes, compared with sAVR, TAVI experienced a significantly lower incidence of NOAF, but higher incidence of TIA and reintervention respectively.Conclusions:Our analysis shows that TAVI was equal to sAVR in early, midterm and long term mortality for patients with severe aortic disease. In addition, TAVI may be favorable in reducing the incidence of both early, midterm and long term NOAF. However, pooled results showed superiority of sAVR in reducing permanent pacemaker implantation, neurological events, TIA, major vascular complications and reintervention.     

Validation study to determine the accuracy of central blood pressure measurement using the SphygmoCor XCEL cuff device in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Central aortic blood pressure could be helpful in the evaluation of patients with aortic stenosis (AS). The SphygmoCor XCEL device estimates central blood pressure (BP) measurement with its easy‐to‐use, operator‐independent procedure. However, this device has not been properly validated against invasive measurement in patients with severe AS. We evaluated the relationship between cuff‐brachial BP, transfer function‐estimated and invasively measured central aortic pressure in patients with severe AS before and after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Agreement between techniques was analyzed and, according to the ARTERY Society recommendations, the minimum acceptable error was a mean difference ± SD ≤5 ± ≤8 mm Hg. A total of 94 patients with AS undergoing TAVR had simultaneous non‐invasive and invasive measurements of central BP before and after the procedure. Before TAVR central systolic BP was in average slightly underestimated, though with wide variability, when using the default calibration of brachial‐cuff SBP (mean difference ± SD, −3 ± 15 mm Hg), and after TAVR the degree of underestimation increased (mean difference ± SD, −9 ± 13 mm Hg). The agreement tended to improve for those patients with low aortic gradient stenosis compared to those with high gradient at baseline (mean difference ± SD, −2 ± 11 mm Hg vs. −4 ± 17, respectively, p = .3). The cuff‐brachial systolic BP yielded numerically lower degree of agreement and weaker correlation with invasive measurements than SphygmoCor XCEL. In patients with severe AS the SphygmoCor XCEL cuff device, despite showing strong correlation, does not meet the ARTERY Society accuracy criteria for non‐invasive measurement of central SBP.     

How the COVID-19 pandemic changed treatment of severe aortic stenosis: a single cardiac center experience

BackgroundCurrently, two effective therapeutic options for severe aortic stenosis (AS) are available, one catheter-based [transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)], the other open surgical approach [surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR)]. The COVID-19 pandemic has limited the availability of medical procedures. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to assess if this pandemic had any impact on the treatment strategy of severe AS in a single cardiac center.MethodsThis study involved AS patients treated in 3-month periods (February through April) over 3 consecutive years 2018, 2019 [defined as COV(–) group] and 2020 [COV(+)]. We assessed if there were any differences regarding patients’ clinical profile, applied therapeutic method, procedure complexity and early clinical outcomes.ResultsIn the years 2018 through 2019, approximately 50% of AS patients were treated classically (SAVR) while in 2020 this rate dropped to 34%. The preoperative clinical characteristic of TAVI subjects was comparable irrespective of the year. Regarding SAVR, more patients in COV(+) underwent urgent and more complex procedures. More of them were found in NYHA class III or IV, and had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (51.9%±14.4% vs. 58.3%±8.1%; P=0.021) than in COV(–) individuals. During the pandemic, a change in applied therapeutic methods and differences in patients’ clinical profile did not have an unfavorable impact on in-hospital mortality (2.0% before vs. 3.6% during pandemic) and morbidity. Of note, intubation time and in-hospital stay were significantly shorter (P<0.05) in 2020 (4.2 hours and 7.5 days) than in the previous years (7.5 hours and 9.0 days, respectively).ConclusionsThe coronavirus pandemic has changed substantially the management of severe AS. The shift into less invasive treatment method of AS patients resulted in shortening of in-hospital stay without compromise of short-term outcomes.     

Impact of the new pulmonary hypertension definition on long‐term mortality in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing valve replacement

BackgroundThe new 2018 pulmonary hypertension (PH) definition includes a lower mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) cut‐off (>20 mmHg rather than ≥25 mmHg) and the compulsory requirement of a pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) ≥3 Wood units (WU) to define precapillary PH. We assessed the clinical impact of the 2018 compared to the 2015 PH definition in aortic stenosis (AS) patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR).MethodsSevere AS patients (n = 487) undergoing pre‐AVR right heart catheterization were classified according to the 2015 and 2018 definitions. Post‐AVR mortality (median follow‐up 44 months) was assessed.ResultsBased on the 2015 definition, 66 (13%) patients exhibited combined pre and postcapillary PH (CpcPH), 116 (24%) isolated post‐capillary PH (IpcPH), 28 (6%) precapillary PH, and 277 (57%) no PH at all. Overall, 52 (11%) patients were reclassified: 23 no PH into IpcPH; 8 no PH into precapillary PH; 20 precapillary PH into no PH; 1 CpcPH into IpcPH. By the 2015 definition, only CpcPH patients displayed increased mortality, whereas by the 2018 definition, precapillary PH patients also experienced higher mortality than those without PH. Among the PH definition components, PVR ≥3 WU was the strongest predictor of death (hazard ratio > 4).ConclusionsIn severe AS, a higher number of IpcPH patients are diagnosed by the 2018 definition, even though they have the same prognosis as those without PH. Patients with true precapillary PH are more accurately identified by the 2018 definition that includes a pulmonary vascular disease criterion, that is, PVR ≥3 WU, a strong mortality predictor.     

Effects of COPD on in-hospital outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Results from the National Inpatient Sample database

BackgroundComorbid chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) increases morbidity and mortality among aortic valve replacement patients undergoing conventional surgery. The impact of COPD in patients undergoing less invasive transcatheter aortic valve insertion (TAVI) is unclear.HypothesisThis study evaluates the in‐hospital outcomes of TAVI in patients with and without COPD.MethodsThis population‐based, retrospective study of 8466 TAVI patients (29.87% with COPD) evaluates the effects of COPD on short‐term clinical outcomes (in‐hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications) using data from the National Inpatient Sample database from 2011 to 2014. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine factors associated with in‐hospital mortality and postoperative complications. Linear regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with length of hospital stay.ResultsCOPD is significantly associated with increased risk of respiratory complications and pneumonia after TAVI (aOR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.24‐1.64; P < .001) but not in‐hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, or non‐respiratory postoperative complications as compared to non‐COPD patients. Concomitant COPD is significantly associated with increased risk of respiratory complications or pneumonia after TAVI but may still be the best treatment option for some patients.ConclusionsPatients with comorbid COPD who receive TAVI have greater risk of developing postoperative respiratory complications and pneumonia. Vigilance for specific respiratory complications is highly warranted when treating this subgroup. Treatment decisions must be individualized.     

Coronary artery disease and TAVI: Current evidence on a recurrent issue

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a frequent finding in patients with aortic stenosis (AS). Concomitant coronary artery bypass and aortic valve replacement is considered the gold standard treatment in surgical candidates. However, limited evidence is available regarding the role of coronary revascularization in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). How to evaluate CAD severity in patients with AS, whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) needs to be performed and what is the timing for revascularization to minimize procedural risks, remains matters of debate. The aim of this review is to summarize epidemiology, diagnostic tools and possible options for CAD management in patients undergoing TAVI with specific focus on the pros and the cons of the different timing of PCI.     

Setting a benchmark for resource utilization and quality of care in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation in Europe—Rationale and design of the international BENCHMARK registry

BackgroundThe use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for treating aortic stenosis (AS) has increased exponentially in recent years. Despite the availability of clinical practice guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease, disparities in quality of care (QoC) for TAVI patients remain widespread across Europe. Tailored QoC measures will help to reduce resource utilization and improve patient outcomes without compromising patient safety. Using a clear set of QoC measures, the BENCHMARK registry aims to document the progress that can be achieved if such tailored QoC measures are implemented.MethodsThe BENCHMARK registry (BENCHMARK) is a non‐interventional, multicenter registry in patients with severe symptomatic AS undergoing TAVI with a 1‐ and 12‐months follow‐up. BENCHMARK will be conducted at 30 centers across Europe and will enroll a total of 2400 consecutive TAVI patients. Patients suffering from severe symptomatic AS who undergo TAVI with a balloon‐expandable transcatheter aortic valve will be included. The registry will comprise four phases: (1) a retrospective baseline evaluation phase; (2) an education phase; (3) an implementation phase; and (4) a prospective effect documentation phase (prospective phase). The registry''s primary objectives are to reduce the length of hospital stay and accelerate the post‐procedural patient recovery pathway, but without compromising safety. The study started in April 2021 and has an estimated completion date of May 2023.DiscussionBENCHMARK will establish QoC measures to reduce resource utilization, intensive care unit bed occupancy, and overall length of hospitalization with uncompromised patient safety post‐TAVI (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT04579445","term_id":"NCT04579445"}}NCT04579445).     

Impella support following emergency percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis and cardiogenic shock

BackgroundTo investigate the feasibility and outcomes of Impella 2.5 support in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) and cardiogenic shock (CS), who underwent emergency percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).Methods and resultsWe retrospectively analyzed a consecutive series of patients with severe AS and CS who underwent Impella 2.5 support following emergency BAV with or without subsequent PCI. Outcome data included 30-day outcomes, periprocedural as well as throughout the circulatory support period complications. Eight patients with severe AS and CS were identified. Impella 2.5 implantation was successful following emergency BAV in all patients attempted. Additional PCI was performed in four patients. No periprocedural deaths or periprocedural neurologic events occurred. Mean procedure time was 125.9 min (range 64–210 min). Mortality at 30 days was 50%.ConclusionsImpella 2.5 can be used as hemodynamic support in patients with severe AS and CS following emergency percutaneous BAV and may help to improve tolerability of PCI in these high-risk patients.     

Incidence,predictors and prognostic value of serious hemorrhagic complications following transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Background

TAVI is an alternative solution for patients with aortic valve stenosis (AS) who are refused for conventional surgery. We sought to evaluate the incidence, characteristics, predictors and prognosis impact of serious hemorrhagic complications following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

Methods

One hundred and seventy one consecutive patients with symptomatic severe AS (83.5 ± 6.1 y; 53% women; mean EuroSCORE = 22.1 ± 12.3) underwent transapical (TA) or transfemoral (TF) TAVI in our institution using Edwards SAPIEN© and Medtronic CoreValve© devices. The primary evaluated criterion was the incidence of any bleeding complication, according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) criteria.

Results

VARC serious hemorrhagic complications occurred in 34.5% of patients (n = 23 life-threatening/disabling (LT/D) and n = 36 major bleedings). Most of these complications were related to access site complications (69%). Multivariable analysis revealed that TA access, low weight and underlying coronary artery diseases were independent predictors for development of serious bleeding. The mortality was significantly higher in patients with serious events compared to patients without bleeding (p = 0.008, log-rank analysis). Although the survival didn't significantly differ in patients with major hemorrhagic events, subjects with LT/D bleeding events had a higher mortality than the subjects with no hemorrhagic complications (p < 0.001, log-rank analysis). Occurrence of VARC LT/D event independently predicted all-cause mortality (HR = 5.35 [2.51–11.43], p < 0.001) during the first year following TAVI in multivariate Cox regression analysis.

Conclusion

Severe bleeding is frequent following TAVI procedure and is mainly related to local hemorrhage. VARC LT/D events are associated with decreased survival after AS correction.     

Increased mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with severe aortic stenosis and low ejection fraction: A meta-analysis of 6898 patients

Background

There is conflicting evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedures in patients with severe aortic stenosis and low left ventricular ejection fraction (EF). The primary aim of this study was to determine the impact of TAVI on short- and long-term mortality in patients with low EF (EF < 50%); the secondary aim was to analyze the impact of TAVI procedure on EF recovery in the same setting of patients.

Methods and results

Twenty-six studies enrolling 6898 patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI procedure were included in the meta-analysis and analyzed for 30-day, 6-month and 1-year all-cause and cardiovascular mortality; a further meta-analysis was also performed in patients with low EF to assess EF changes post TAVI.In low EF patients, both all-cause and cardiovascular short- and long-term mortality were significantly higher when compared to patients with normal EF (30-day-all-cause mortality: 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01 to 0.25, I² = 49.65, Q = 21.85; 1-year-all-cause mortality: 0.25; 95% [CI]: 0.16 to 0.34, I² = 25.57, Q = 16.12; 30-day-cardiovascular mortality: 0.03; 95% [CI]: − 0.31 to 0.36, I² = 66.84, Q = 6.03; 1-year-cardiovascular mortality: 0.29; 95% [CI]: 0.12 to 0.45, I² = 0.00, Q = 1.88). Nevertheless, in low EF patients TAVI was associated with a significant recovery of EF, which started at discharge and proceeded up to 1-year-follow-up.

Conclusions

Patients with low EF severe aortic stenosis have higher mortality following TAVI compared to normal EF patients, despite a significant and sustained improvement in EF.     

Non‐vitamin K oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in post transcatheter aortic valve replacement patients with clinical indication for oral anticoagulation: A meta‐analysis

BackgroundCurrent guidelines recommend oral anticoagulation (OAC) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with clinical indication, but the optimal antithrombotic regimen remains uncertain. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of non‐vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients undergoing TAVR with concomitant indication of OAC.HypothesisComparing with VKAs therapy, NOACs are similar in reducing the all‐cause mortality and major bleeding in post‐TAVR patients requiring OAC medication.MethodsWe searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases to identify studies that investigated NOACs versus VKAs after TAVR in patients with another indication of OAC, which were published before 28th September 28, 2021. The effectiveness of outcomes was all‐cause mortality and stroke or systemic embolism, while the main safety outcome was major and/or life‐threatening bleeding. The hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used as a measure of treatment effect.ResultsOur search identified eight studies. We included 4947 post‐TAVR patients with another indication of OAC allocated to the NOAC (n = 2146) or VKA groups (n = 2801). There were no significant differences in the all‐cause mortality (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.77–1.08, p = .29, I ² = 47%), stroke or systemic embolism (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.68–1.37, p = .84, I ² = 0%), and major and/or life‐threatening bleeding (HR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.89–1.32, p = .40, I ² = 30%) in both groups.ConclusionAmong post‐TAVR patients who required OAC therapy, NOACs therapy compared to VKAs is similar in reducing the all‐cause mortality, stroke or systemic embolism, and major and/or life‐threatening bleeding events.     

Advanced age and the clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implan-tation

Aortic valve stenosis （AS） is common in the elderly. Although surgical replacement of the valve has been the gold standard of management, many patients have been excluded from surgery because they were very old, frail, or had co-morbidities that increased operative risks. In the last decade, transcatheter aortic valve implantation （TAVI） has emerged as a new treatment option suitable for these patients. This article reviews the available literature on the role of TAVI in elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis. Published studies showed that elderly individuals who underwent TAVI experienced better in-hospital recovery, and similar short and mid-term mortality compared to those underwent surgical treatment of AS. However, long-term outcomes of TAVI in elderly patients are still unknown. The available data in the literature on the ef-fect of advanced age on clinical outcomes of TAVI are limited, but the data that are available suggest that TAVI is a beneficial and tolerable procedure in very old patients. Some of the expected complications after TAVI are reported more in the oldest patients such as vascular in-jures. Other complications were comparable in TAVI patients regardless of their age group. However, very old patients may need closer monitoring to avoid further morbidities and mortality.     

In vitro study of coronary flow occlusion in transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been developed recently for patients with high morbidities and who are believed to be not tolerate standard surgical aortic valve replacement. Nevertheless, the TAVI is associated with complications such as potential obstruction of coronary ostia, mitral valve insufficiency, and stent migration although it seems promising. Impairment of the coronary blood flow after TAVI is catastrophic and it was believed to be associated with the close position of the coronary orifice and the aortic leaflets and valve stent. However, few data was available as to the anatomic relationship between valve stent and aortic root anatomic structures including the coronary arterial ostia, aortic leaflets.

Methods

The aortic roots were observed in 40 hearts specimens. The width of aortic leaflet, height of aortic sinus annulus to the sinutubular junction (STJ), distance between aortic sinus annulus to its corresponding coronary ostia, and coronary arterial ostia to its corresponding STJ level were measured. Moreover, the relationships of valve stent, aortic leaflets and coronary ostia before/post stent implantation and after the open of aorta were evaluated respectively.

Results

Approximate three quarters of the coronary ostia were located below the STJ level. The mean distances from left, right and posterior aortic sinus annulus to the related STJ level was comparable, which was 18.5±2.7, 18.9±2.6, 18.7±2.6 mm, respectively. Meanwhile, the height of left and right aortic sinus annulus to its corresponding coronary ostia was 16.6±2.8 and 17.2±3.1 mm for left and right side respectively.

Conclusions

Most of the coronary ostia were located below the STJ level and could be covered by the leaflets. This highlights the need of modified stents to prevent occlusion of coronary flow after TAVI.     

Role of coronary angiogram before transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUNDCoexistent coronary artery disease is commonly seen in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Previous studies showed that pre-TAVI coronary revascularisation was not associated with improved outcomes, challenging the clinical value of routine coronary angiogram (CA).AIMTo assess whether a selective approach to perform pre-TAVI CA is safe and feasible.METHODSThis was a retrospective non-randomised single-centre analysis of consecutive patients undergoing TAVI. A selective approach for performing CA tailored to patient clinical need was developed. Clinical outcomes were compared based on whether patients underwent CA. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infraction, repeat CA, and re-admission with heart failure.RESULTSOf 348 patients (average age 81 ± 7 and 57% male) were included with a median follow up of 19 (9-31) mo. One hundred and fifty-four (44%) patients, underwent CA before TAVI procedure. Patients who underwent CA were more likely to have previous myocardial infarction (MI) and previous percutaneous revascularisation. The primary endpoint was comparable between the two group (22.6% vs 22.2%; hazard ratio 1.05, 95%CI: 0.67-1.64, P = 0.82). Patients who had CA were less likely to be readmitted with heart failure (P = 0.022), but more likely to have repeat CA (P = 0.002) and MI (P = 0.007). In those who underwent CA, the presence of flow limiting lesions did not affect the incidence of primary endpoint, or its components, except for increased rate of repeat CA.CONCLUSIONSelective CA is a feasible and safe approach. The clinical value of routine CA should be challenged in future randomised trials     

Association between bicuspid aortic valve phenotype and patterns of valvular dysfunction: A meta‐analysis

BackgroundValvular dysfunction is a common complication in patients with bicuspid aortic valves (BAV). The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between BAV morphology patterns and valve dysfunction.MethodsWe searched the PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CNKI until May 31, 2020, to identify all studies investigating the morphology of BAV and valvular dysfunction, and data were extracted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA). Data were analyzed using Stata 15.1 software. The additional characteristics (gender, mean age) were collected to perform a meta‐regression analysis.ResultsThirteen studies on BAV‐RL (n = 2002) versus BAV‐RN (n = 1254) and raphe (n = 4001) versus without raphe (n = 673) were included. The BAV‐RL patients showed a higher incidence of aortic regurgitation than BAV‐RN patients (OR = 1.46; 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.90, p = .005), while the BAV‐RL patients showed a lower incidence of aortic stenosis than BAV‐RN patients (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.76, p = .000); BAV patients with raphe presents a higher incidence of aortic regurgitation than those without raphe (OR = 1.95, 95% CI: 1.12–3.39, p = .017). No differences were found between raphe and without raphe group in the incidence of aortic stenosis (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.76, p = .907). Mean age and gender had no influence on observed differences.ConclusionsOur results confirmed a relationship between different BAV phenotypes and aortic valve dysfunction. BAV‐RL and BAV with raphe are more likely to develop aortic regurgitation, while patients with BAV‐RN present a higher possibility to develop aortic stenosis.     

Rhythm outcomes after aortic valve surgery: Treatment and evolution of new‐onset atrial fibrillation

BackgroundThe impact of new‐onset atrial fibrillation (AF) after aortic valve (AV) surgery on mid‐ and long‐term outcomes is under debate. Here, we sought to follow up heart rhythms after AV surgery, and to evaluate the mid‐term prognosis and effectiveness of treatment for patients with new‐onset AF.MethodsThis single‐center cohort study included 978 consecutive patients (median age, 59 years; male, 68.5%) who underwent surgical AV procedures between 2017 and 2018. All patients with postoperative new‐onset AF were treated with Class III antiarrhythmic drugs with or without electrical cardioversion (rhythm control). Status of survival, stroke, and rhythm outcomes were collected and compared between patients with and without new‐onset AF.ResultsNew‐onset AF was detected in 256 (26.2%) patients. For them, postoperative survival was comparable with those without new‐onset AF (1‐year: 96.1% vs. 99.3%; adjusted P = .30), but rate of stroke was significantly higher (1‐year: 4.0% vs. 2.2%; adjusted P = .020). With rhythm control management, the 3‐month and 1‐year rates of paroxysmal or persistent AF between patients with and without new‐onset AF were 5.1% versus 1.3% and 7.5% versus 2.1%, respectively (both P < .001). Multivariate models showed that advanced age, impaired ejection fraction, new‐onset AF and discontinuation of beta‐blockers were predictors of AF at 1 year.ConclusionsIn most cases, new‐onset AF after AV surgery could be effectively converted and suppressed by rhythm control therapy. Nevertheless, new‐onset AF predisposed patients to higher risks of stroke and AF within 1 year, for whom prophylactic procedures and continuous beta‐blockers could be beneficial.     

Minimally-invasive versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: systematic review with meta-analysis of propensity-matched studies

BackgroundMinimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MiAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) provide aortic valve replacement (AVR) by less invasive methods than conventional surgical AVR, by avoiding complete sternotomy. This study directly compares and analyses the available evidence for early outcomes between these two AVR methods.MethodsElectronic databases were searched from inception until August 2019 for studies comparing MiAVR to TAVI, according to predefined search criteria. Propensity-matched studies with sufficient data were included in a meta-analysis.ResultsEight studies with 9,744 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Analysis of risk-matched patients showed no difference in early mortality (RR 0.76, 95% CI, 0.37–1.54, P=0.44). MiAVR had a signal towards lower rate of postoperative stroke, although this did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.42, 95% CI, 0.13–1.29, P=0.13). MiAVR had significantly lower rates of new pacemaker (PPM) requirement (OR 0.29, 95% CI, 0.16–0.52, P<0.0001) and postoperative aortic insufficiency (AI) or paravalvular leak (PVL) (OR 0.05, 95% CI, 0.01–0.20, P<0.0001) compared to TAVI, (OR 0.42, 95% CI, 0.13–1.29, P=0.13), while acute kidney injury (AKI) was higher in MiAVR compared to TAVI (11.1% vs. 5.2%, OR 2.28, 95% CI, 1.25–4.16, P=0.007).ConclusionsIn patients of equivalent surgical risk scores, MiAVR may be performed with lower rates of postoperative PPM requirement and AI/PVL, higher rates of AKI and no statistical difference in postoperative stroke or short-term mortality, compared to TAVI. Further prospective trials are needed to validate these results.