Prognostic Impact of Anemia in Patients Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement: A Nationwide Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) have high readmission rates. Several risk factors have been proposed as potential modifiable targets, including anemia. We examined the association between anemia at discharge and subsequent outcomes in these patients. METHODS: Using Danish nationwide registries, we identified all patients who underwent AVR between 2015-2021, were alive at discharge (index date), and had an available hemoglobin (Hb) measurement taken between procedure and discharge. Patients were categorized as having i) moderate/severe anemia (Hb<6.2 mmol/L) or ii) no/mild anemia (Hb≥6.2 mmol). The one-year rates of all-cause mortality, all-cause hospital admission, heart failure (HF) admission, and atrial fibrillation (AF) admission were compared using multivariable Cox regression models. RESULTS: 8,614 patients were identified; 2,847 (33.1%) had moderate/severe anemia (60.2% male, median age 74) and 5,767 (66.9%) had no/mild anemia (68.0% male, median age 76). For these two groups, respectively, the cumulative one-year incidences of the outcomes were: i) all-cause mortality: 5.1% vs. 4.3%; ii) all-cause admission: 53.8% vs. 47.5%; iii) AF admission: 14.0% vs. 11.6%); iv) HF admission: 6.8% vs. 6.2%. In adjusted analysis, moderate/severe anemia, compared with no/mild anemia, was associated with higher rates of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 1.27 [95%CI 1.02-1.58]), all-cause admission (HR 1.22 [95%CI 1.14-1.30]), and AF admission (HR 1.23 [95%CI 1.08-1.40]), but not HF admission (HR 1.09 [95%CI 0.91-1.31]). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing AVR, moderate/severe anemia at discharge, compared with no/mild anemia, was associated with increased all-cause mortality, all-cause hospital admission, and AF admission, but not HF admission, at one-year post-discharge.

Patient characteristics and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation in a failed surgical prosthesis vs in a native valve: A Danish nationwide study.

BACKGROUND: Valve-in-valve-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a feasible and increasingly used treatment option for failed surgical aortic prosthesis, but data from clinical practice are limited. We aimed to examine patient characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing TAVI in a surgival valve (valve-in-valve TAVI) compared with patients undergoing TAVI in a native valve. METHODS: Using nationwide registries, we identified all Danish citizens, who underwent TAVI from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2020. RESULTS: A total of 6,070 patients undergoing TAVI were identified; 247 (4%) patients had a history of SAVR (The valve-in-valve cohort). The median age of the study population was 81 (25th-75th percentile 77-85) and 55% were men. Patients with valve-in-valve-TAVI were younger but had a greater burden of cardiovascular comorbidities compared with patients with native-valve-TAVI. Within 30 days post procedure, 11 (0.2%) and 748 (13.8%) patients who underwent valve-in-valve-TAVI and native-valve-TAVI, respectively, had a pacemaker implantation. The cumulative 30-day risk of death among patients with valve-in-valve-TAVI was 2.4% (95% CI: 1.0%-5.0%) and 2.7% (95% CI: 2.3%-3.1%) in patients with native-valve-TAVI, respectively. Correspondingly, the cumulative 5-year risk of death was 42.5% (95% CI: 34.2%-50.6%) and 44.8% (95% CI: 43.2%-46.4%), respectively. In multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis, valve-in-valve-TAVI was not associated with a significantly different risk of death at 30 days (Hazard ratio (HR) = 0.95, 95% CI 0.41-2.19) and 5 years (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.62-1.00) post-TAVI compared with native-valve-TAVI. CONCLUSIONS: TAVI in a failed surgical aortic prosthesis as compared to TAVI in a native valve, was not associated with significantly different short- and long-term mortality, suggesting that valve-in-valve-TAVI is a safe procedure.

Diuretic treatment before and after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A Danish nationwide study.

OBJECTIVES: We examined loop diuretic treatment before and 1-year after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), as a proxy for changes in symptom severity and secondly assessed how changes in loop diuretics related to mortality risk. BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials suggest that approximately one third of patients undergoing TAVI do not achieve symptom relief, but "all-comer" data are lacking. METHODS: Using Danish nationwide registries, we identified all citizens, who underwent TAVI from 2008 to 2019 and were alive at 1-year post-discharge. Loop diuretic treatment pre-TAVI and at 1-year post-TAVI were assessed and grouped as receiving 1) no-loop diuretics; 2) low: 1-40 mg of furosemide (or equivalent bumetanide) daily; 3) intermediate: 41-120 mg of furosemide daily; or 4) high: >120 mg furosemide daily. RESULTS: Among the 4431 patients undergoing TAVI, 2173 (49%) patients were not treated with loop diuretics at the time of TAVI, 918 (21%) had low-loop diuretics, 881 (20%) had intermediate-loop diuretics, and 459 (10%) had high-loop diuretics. At 1-year post-TAVI, 893 (20%) patients had increased, 1010 (23%) had reduced, and 2528 (57%) had unchanged loop diuretic treatment. The cumulative 5-year risk of death in patients surviving one year, was 61% (95% CI: 56.4% to 65.3%) in patients with increased and 47% (95% CI: 44.9% to 49.9%) in patients with reduced/unchanged loop diuretic treatment, respectively. In multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis, increased loop diuretic treatment was associated with a higher risk of death compared with reduced/unchanged loop diuretic treatment (Hazard ratio: 1.4; 95% CI: 1.22 to 1.52). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing TAVI, surviving one year, one fifth of patients had increased loop diuretic treatment, and a little over one fifth had reduced loop diuretic treatment 1-year post-procedure. In patients with increased diuretic treatment, the risk of death was higher compared to those with reduced/unchanged loop diuretic treatment.

Benzalkonium Chloride-Preserved Anti-Glaucomatous Eye Drops and Their Effect on Human Conjunctival Goblet Cells in vitro.

INTRODUCTION: Most intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering eye drops are preserved with benzalkonium chloride (BAK). This can increase side effects and decrease adherence. Particularly, damage to the mucin-producing conjunctival goblet cells may be an issue due to instability of the tear film. We aimed to investigate the effect of IOP-lowering eye drops preserved with BAK on cultured human conjunctival goblet cells. METHODS: Eye drops Brimonidine Tartrate Teva (BT) with 0.005% BAK, Dorzolamide Stada (DS) with 0.0075% BAK, Optimol® (OP) with 0.01% BAK, and Latanoprost Teva (LT) with 0.02% BAK were included. Human primary cultured goblet cell survival was evaluated using a lactate dehydrogenase assay on human goblet cells after treatment for 30 min and 6 h with the different anti-glaucoma drug formulations. RESULTS: All eye drops examined, except BT, reduced goblet cell survival. The impact of eye drops on goblet cell viability was correlated with the time of exposure as well as to the concentration of BAK. After 30 min of exposure, cell viability was 93% for BT (0.005% BAK; p = 0.93), 71% for DS (0.0075% BAK; p = 0.067), 70% for OP (0.01% BAK; p = 0.054), and 69% for LT (0.02% BAK; p = 0.022), and exposure for 6 h reduced cell survival to 74% for BT (p = 0.217), 52% for DS (p = 0.011), 34% for OP (p = 0.017), and 31% for LT (p = 0.0007). CONCLUSION: LT, OP, and DS reduced human goblet cell survival in a time-dependent manner. BT did not affect goblet cell survival. Cell survival was correlated with the BAK concentration in the eye drops making 0.02% BAK-preserved LT most toxic and 0.005% BAK-preserved BT least toxic. Based on the present study, decreasing BAK in eye drops for chronic use seems important to reduce damage to the goblet cells. However, future studies are needed to further explore this finding.