Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair: Outcome Improvement with Operator Experience and a Second-Generation Device.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Recent randomized data comparing percutaneous mitral valve repair (PMVR) versus optimal medical treatment in patients with functional MR (FMR) seemed to highlight the importance of the learning curve not only for procedural outcomes but also for patient selection. The aim of the study was to compare a contemporary series of patients undergoing PMVR using a second-generation Mitraclip device (Mitraclip NT) with previous cohorts treated with a first-generation system. METHODS: This multicenter study collected individual data from 18 centers between 2012 and 2017. The cohort was divided into three groups according to the use of the first-generation Mitraclip during the first (control-1) or second half (control-2) or the Mitraclip NT system. RESULTS: A total of 545 consecutive patients were included in the study. Among all, 182 (33.3%), 183 (33.3%), and 180 (33.3%) patients underwent mitral repair in the control-1, control-2, and NT cohorts, respectively. Procedural success was achieved in 93.3% of patients without differences between groups. Major adverse events did not statistically differ among groups, but there was a higher rate of pericardial effusion in the control-1 group (4.3%, 0.6%, and 2.6%, respectively; p = 0.025). The composite endpoint of death, surgery, and admission for congestive heart failure (CHF) at 12 months was lower in the NT group (23.5% in control-1, 22.5% in control-2, and 8.3% in the NT group; p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: The present paper shows that contemporary clinical outcomes of patients undergoing PMVR with the Mitraclip system have improved over time.

Impact of Preexisting Left Bundle Branch Block in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Recipients

BACKGROUND: The impact of preexisting left bundle branch block (LBBB) in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) recipients is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of preexisting LBBB on clinical outcomes after TAVR. METHODS AND RESULTS: This multicenter study evaluated 3404 TAVR candidates according to the presence or absence of LBBB on baseline ECG. TAVR complications and causes of death were defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions. Follow-up outpatient visits or telephone interviews were conducted at 30 days, 12 months, and yearly thereafter. Echocardiography examinations were performed at baseline, at hospital discharge, and at 1-year follow-up. Preexisting LBBB was present in 398 patients (11.7%) and was associated with an increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI; 21.1% versus 14.8%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.12­2.04) but not death (7.3% versus 5.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.84­2.12) at 30 days. At a mean follow-up of 22±21 months, there were no differences between patients with and without preexisting LBBB in overall mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75­1.18) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.68­1.21). In a subanalysis of 2421 patients without PPI at 30 days and with complete follow-up about the PPI, preexisting LBBB was not associated with an increased risk of PPI or sudden cardiac death. Patients with preexisting LBBB had a lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at baseline and at 1-year follow-up (P <0.001 for both), but those with low LVEF exhibited a similar increase in LVEF over time after TAVR compared with patients with no preexisting LBBB (P=0.327). CONCLUSIONS: Preexisting LBBB significantly increased the risk of early (but not late) PPI after TAVR, without any significant effect on overall mortality or cardiovascular mortality. Preexisting LBBB was associated with lower LVEF pre-TAVR but did not prevent an increase in LVEF post-TAVR similar to patients without LBBB.

The Learning Curve and Annual Procedure Volume Standards for Optimum Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Findings From an International Registry

OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to determine the procedural learning curve and minimum annual institutional volumes associated with optimum clinical outcomes for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a complex procedure requiring significant training and experience for successful outcome. Despite increasing use of TAVR across institutions, limited information is available for its learning curve characteristics and minimum annual volumes required to optimize clinical outcomes. METHODS: The study collected data for patients at 16 centers participating in the international TAVR registry since initiation of the respective TAVR program. All cases were chronologically ordered into initial (1 to 75), early (76 to 150), intermediate (151 to 225), high (226 to 300), and very high (>300) experience operators for TAVR learning curve characterization. In addition, participating institutions were stratified by annual TAVR case volume into low-volume (<50), moderate-volume (50 to 100), and high-volume (>100) groups for comparative analysis. Procedural and 30-day clinical outcomes were collected and multivariate regression analysis performed for 30-day mortality and the early safety endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 3,403 patients comprised the study population. On multivariate analysis, all-cause mortality was significantly higher for initial (odds ratio [OR]: 3.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.93 to 7.60), early (OR: 2.41; 95%CI: 1.51 to 5.03), and intermediate (OR: 2.53; 95% CI: 1.19 to 5.40) experience groups compared with the very high experience operators. In addition, the early safety endpoint was significantly worse for all experience groups compared with the very high experience operators. Low annual volume (<50) TAVR institutions had significantly higher all-cause30-day mortality (OR: 2.70; 95% CI: 1.44 to 5.07) and worse early safety endpoint (OR: 1.60; 95% CI: 1.17 to 2.17) compared with the moderate- and high-volume groups. There was no difference in patient outcomes between intermediate and high annual volume groups. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR procedures display important learning curve characteristics with both greater procedural safety and a lower mortality when performed by experienced operators. In addition, TAVR performed at low annual volume (<50 procedures) institutions is associated with decreased procedural safety and higher patient mortality. These findings have important implications for operator training and patient care at centers performing TAVR.

Late cardiac death in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND Little evidence exists of the burden and predictors of cardiac death after transcatheter aortic valvereplacement (TAVR).OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence and predictors of cardiac death from advancedheart failure (HF) and sudden cardiac death (SCD) in a large patient cohort undergoing TAVR.METHODS The study included a total of 3,726 patients who underwent TAVR using balloon (57%) or self-expandable(43%) valves. Causes of death were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium–2.RESULTS At a mean follow-up of 22 18 months, 155 patients had died due to advanced HF (15.2% of total deaths,46.1% of deaths from cardiac causes) and 57 had died due to SCD (5.6% of deaths, 16.9% of cardiac deaths). Baselinecomorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, left ventricular ejection fraction #40%, lowermean transaortic gradient, pulmonary artery systolic pressure >60 mm Hg; p 160 ms had a greater SCD risk (HR: 4.78, 95% CI: 1.56 to 14.63; p » 0.006).CONCLUSIONS Advanced HF and SCD accounted for two-thirds of cardiac deaths in patients after TAVR.Potentially modifiable or treatable factors leading to increased risk of mortality for HF and SCD were identified. Future.

Permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: impact on late clinical outcomes and left ventricular function.

BACKGROUND: Very few data exist on the clinical impact of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of PPI after transcatheter aortic valve implantation on late outcomes in a large cohort of patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1556 consecutive patients without prior PPI undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation were included. Of them, 239 patients (15.4%) required a PPI within the first 30 days after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. At a mean follow-up of 22±17 months, no association was observed between the need for 30-day PPI and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.30; P=0.871), cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.17; P=0.270), and all-cause mortality or rehospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.30; P=0.980). A lower rate of unexpected (sudden or unknown) death was observed in patients with PPI (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.85; P=0.023). Patients with new PPI showed a poorer evolution of left ventricular ejection fraction over time (P=0.017), and new PPI was an independent predictor of left ventricular ejection fraction decrease at the 6- to 12-month follow-up (estimated coefficient, -2.26; 95% confidence interval, -4.07 to -0.44; P=0.013; R(2)=0.121). CONCLUSIONS: The need for PPI was a frequent complication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation, but it was not associated with any increase in overall or cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for heart failure after a mean follow-up of ≈2 years. Indeed, 30-day PPI was a protective factor for the occurrence of unexpected (sudden or unknown) death. However, new PPI did have a negative effect on left ventricular function over time.

High-risk diabetic patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease: characteristics and medium-term outcomes of percutaneous revascularization with drug-eluting stents.

Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents is an alternative for patients with high-risk unprotected left main coronary artery disease; those with diabetes mellitus are at even higher risk. Recent advances in percutaneous coronary intervention could lead to better results. The aim of this study was to evaluate medium-term results in a real-world sample of high-risk diabetic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents for unprotected left main coronary artery disease.From 3 tertiary hospitals, we retrospectively identified 334 high-risk patients, of whom 141 (42%) were diabetic and 193 (58%) were nondiabetic. The diabetes mellitus group showed a higher prevalence of peripheral vascular disease and left ventricular dysfunction. Angiographic and procedural characteristics did not differ significantly, with the exception of poor distal vessels in the diabetes mellitus group (44.5% vs 28.5%, P = 0.006). The use of intra-aortic balloon pumping and intravascular ultrasonography was low in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients. After a median follow-up of 22.4 months, cardiac death was higher in the diabetes mellitus group (16.2% vs 7.5%, P = 0.015), especially in insulin-dependent diabetic patients (25.8%). The incidence of major adverse cardiac events, including cardiac death, target-lesion revascularization, and myocardial infarction was similar in both groups (23.8% vs 18.3%, P = NS).High-risk diabetic patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents for unprotected left main coronary artery disease present with a worse clinical profile that carries a higher cardiac mortality rate in the medium term, especially in insulin-dependent diabetic patients.