Three-year clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with bicuspid aortic disease: Comparison between self-expanding and balloon-expandable valves.

INTRODUCTION: Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis is a complex anatomical scenario for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Favorable short-term clinical outcomes have been reported with TAVI in this setting, but long-term data are scarce. METHODS: We retrospectively included, in a single-center registry, patients with BAV stenosis who underwent TAVI before 2020. We compared patients treated with self-expanding valves (SEV) versus balloon-expandable valves (BEV). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke and need for aortic valve (AV) reintervention at 3 years. Secondary endpoints included each component of the primary endpoint, cardiovascular mortality, permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rate, mean gradient and ≥moderate paravalvular leak (PVL) rate. RESULTS: A total of 150 consecutive patients (SEV = 83, BEV = 67) were included. No significant differences were reported between SEV and BEV groups for the primary composite endpoint (SEV 35.9% vs. BEV 32%, p = 0.66), neither for clinical secondary endpoints (all-cause mortality SEV 28.1% vs. BEV 28%, p = 0.988; cardiovascular mortality SEV 14.1% vs. BEV 20%, p = 0.399; stroke SEV 12.5% vs. BEV 6%, p = 0.342; need for AV reintervention SEV 0% vs. BEV 0%; PPI SEV 28.1% vs. BEV 24%, p = 0.620). A lower mean gradient persisted up to 3 years in the SEV group (SEV 8.8 ± 3.8 mmHg vs. BEV 10.7 ± 3.2 mmHg, p = 0.063), while no significant difference was found in the rate of ≥ moderate PVL (SEV 3/30 vs. BEV 0/25, p = 0.242). CONCLUSIONS: In this single center registry, we observed favorable 3-year clinical outcomes in nonselected BAV patients treated with different generation devices, without significant differences between patients receiving SEV or BEV.

Evolut PRO and SAPIEN ULTRA Performance in Small Aortic Annuli: The OPERA-TAVI Registry.

BACKGROUND: The performance of latest iteration transcatheter aortic valve replacement platforms in patients with small aortic anatomy remains underexplored. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate effectiveness and performance between the self-expanding (SE) Evolut PRO and PRO+ and the balloon-expandable (BE) SAPIEN ULTRA in patients with small aortic annuli. METHODS: Data from the OPERA-TAVI (Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO vs. SAPIEN 3 ULTRA Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry were used, with 1:1 propensity score matching. Primary endpoints included 1-year effectiveness composite (all-cause mortality, disabling stroke, or heart failure hospitalization) and 30-day device-related (hemodynamic structural valve dysfunction and nonstructural valve dysfunction) outcomes. RESULTS: Among 3,516 patients, 251 matched pairs with aortic annular area <430 mm2 were assessed. The 1-year primary effectiveness outcome did not differ significantly between cohorts (SE 10.8% vs BE 11.2%; P = 0.91). The 30-day device-oriented composite outcome was more favorable in the Evolut PRO group (SE 4.8% vs BE 10.4%; P = 0.027). Notably, SE valve recipients showed higher rates of disabling stroke (SE 4.0% vs BE 0.0%; P < 0.01) and paravalvular leaks (mild or greater: SE 48.5% vs BE 18.6% [P < 0.001]; moderate: SE 4.5% vs BE 1.2% [P = 0.070]). The BE group had higher rates of prosthesis-patient mismatch (moderate or greater: SE 16.0% vs BE 47.1% [P < 0.001]; severe: SE 1.3% vs BE 5.7% [P = 0.197]) and more patients with residual mean gradients >20 mm Hg (SE 1.0% vs BE 13.5%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with small aortic annuli, transcatheter aortic valve replacement with latest iteration devices is safe. SE platforms are associated with more favorable device performance in terms of hemodynamic structural and nonstructural dysfunction. Randomized data are needed to validate these findings and guide informed device selection.

Sex-Related Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Self-Expanding or Balloon-Expandable Valves: Insights from the OPERA-TAVI Registry.

Evidence regarding gender-related differences in response to transcatheter aortic valve implantation according to the valve type is lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of gender on the treatment effect of Evolut PRO/PRO+ (PRO) or SAPIEN 3 Ultra (ULTRA) devices on clinical outcomes. The Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO vs SAPIEN 3 Ultra Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (OPERA-TAVI) is a multicenter, multinational registry including patients who underwent the latest-iteration PRO or ULTRA implantation. Overall, 1,174 of 1,897 patients were matched based on valve type and compared according to gender, whereas 470 men and 630 women were matched and compared according to valve type. The 30-day and 1-year outcomes were evaluated. In the PRO and ULTRA groups, men had a higher co-morbidity burden, whereas women had smaller aortic root. The 30-day (device success [DS], early safety outcome, permanent pacemaker implantation, patient-prosthesis mismatch, paravalvular regurgitation, bleedings, vascular complications, and all-cause death) and 1-year outcomes (all-cause death, stroke, and heart failure hospitalization) did not differ according to gender in both valve groups. However, the male gender decreased the likelihood of 30-day DS with ULTRA versus PRO (p for interaction = 0.047). A higher risk of 30-day permanent pacemaker implantation and 1-year stroke and a lower risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch was observed in PRO versus ULTRA, regardless of gender. In conclusion, gender did not modify the treatment effect of PRO versus ULTRA on clinical outcomes, except for 30-day DS, which was decreased in men (vs women) who received ULTRA (vs PRO).

One-year clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the latest iteration of self-expanding or balloonexpandable devices: insights from the OPERA-TAVI registry.

BACKGROUND: Midterm comparative analyses of the latest iterations of the most used Evolut and SAPIEN platforms for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are lacking. AIMS: We aimed to compare 1-year clinical outcomes of TAVI patients receiving Evolut PRO/PRO+ (PRO) or SAPIEN 3 Ultra (ULTRA) devices in current real-world practice. METHODS: Among patients enrolled in the OPERA-TAVI registry, patients with complete 1-year follow-up were considered for the purpose of this analysis. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to compare TAVI patients receiving PRO or ULTRA devices. The primary endpoint was a composite of 1-year all-cause death, disabling stroke and rehospitalisation for heart failure. Five prespecified subgroups of patients were considered according to leaflet and left ventricular outflow tract calcifications, annulus dimensions and angulation, and leaflet morphology. RESULTS: Among a total of 1,897 patients, 587 matched pairs of patients with similar clinical and anatomical characteristics were compared. The primary composite endpoint did not differ between patients receiving PRO or ULTRA devices (Kaplan-Meier [KM] estimates 14.0% vs 11.9%; log-rank p=0.27). Patients receiving PRO devices had higher rates of 1-year disabling stroke (KM estimates 2.6% vs 0.4%; log-rank p=0.001), predominantly occurring within 30 days after TAVI (1.4% vs 0.0%; p=0.004). Outcomes were consistent across all the prespecified subsets of anatomical scenarios (all pinteraction>0.10). CONCLUSIONS: One-year clinical outcomes of patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI and receiving PRO or ULTRA devices in the current clinical practice were similar, but PRO patients had higher rates of disabling stroke. Outcomes did not differ across the different anatomical subsets of the aortic root.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease: Procedural Planning and Clinical Outcomes.

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is the most common congenital heart disease, with a prevalence of 1-2% and occurring in >20% of octogenarians referred for aortic valve replacement. However, BAV patients have been systematically excluded from pivotal randomized trials. Since TAVI indications are moving toward low-risk patients, an increase in the number of BAV patients who undergo TAVI is expected. BAV represents a challenge due to its unique morphological features (raphe, extreme asymmetrical valve calcifications, cusp asymmetry and aortopathy) and the lack of consensus about the accurate sizing method. The role of multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) in the planification of the TAVI procedure is well-established, being useful to define the optimal valve sizing and the implantation strategy. New-generation devices, more experience of the operators and better planification of the procedure have been associated with similar clinical outcomes in bicuspid and tricuspid patients undergoing TAVI.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Latest-Iteration Self-Expanding or Balloon-Expandable Valves: The Multicenter OPERA-TAVI Registry.

BACKGROUND: The latest iterations of devices for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have brought refinements to further improve patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare early outcomes of patients undergoing TAVR with the self-expanding (SE) Evolut PRO/PRO+ (Medtronic, Inc) or balloon-expandable (BE) Sapien 3 ULTRA (Edwards Lifesciences) devices. METHODS: The OPERA-TAVI (Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO vs Sapien 3 Ultra Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry collected data from 14 high-volume centers worldwide on patients undergoing TAVR with SE or BE devices. After excluding patients who were not eligible for both devices, patients were compared using 1:1 propensity score matching. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 device success and early safety, respectively. RESULTS: Among 2,241 patients eligible for the present analysis, 683 pairs of patients were matched. The primary efficacy outcome did not differ between patients receiving SE or BE transcatheter aortic valves (SE: 87.4% vs BE: 85.9%; P = 0.47), but the BE device recipients showed a higher rate of the primary safety outcome (SE: 69.1% vs BE: 82.6%; P < 0.01). This finding was driven by the higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (SE: 17.9% vs BE: 10.1%; P < 0.01) and disabling stroke (SE: 2.3% vs BE: 0.7%; P = 0.03) in SE device recipients. On post-TAVR echocardiography, the rate of moderate to severe paravalvular regurgitation was similar between groups (SE: 3.2% vs BE: 2.3%; P = 0.41), whereas lower mean transvalvular gradients were observed in the SE cohort (median SE: 7.0 vs BE: 12.0 mm Hg; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The OPERA-TAVI registry showed that SE and BE devices had comparable Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 device success rates, but the BE device had a higher rate of early safety. The higher permanent pacemaker implantation and disabling stroke rates in SE device recipients drove this composite endpoint.

The Reduction of Mortality in Acute Myocardial Infarction: From Bed Rest to Future Directions.

Despite the reduction of mortality secondary to cardiovascular diseases observed in the last decades, ischemic heart disease remains the most common cause of death worldwide. Among the spectrum of ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction accounts for most deaths. Since the introduction of the coronary care units in the 1960s, and until the latest antithrombotic drugs, myocardial infarction survival improved by 40-50%. However long-term mortality after myocardial infarction has not improved as short-term mortality. Moreover, the decline of mortality has apparently reached a "plateau" in the past 15 years. In this review we describe the steps of the improvement in ischemic heart disease mortality, from the bed rest to the possible future of treating microcirculation. In fact, coronary artery disease is not only a disease of large vessels that can be visualized with coronary angiography. The small network of pre-arterioles and arterioles that supply the myocardium can be also affected in ischemic heart disease. Thus, despite the introduction of effective recanalization strategies for epicardial coronary arteries such as thrombolysis and, more recently, primary percutaneous intervention, some patients may not achieve effective myocardial reperfusion due to microvascular dysfunction or damage after myocardial myocardial infarction. This phenomenon is named no reflow. We believe that no reflow, through the incomplete reperfusion that can account for a higher rate of adverse event in the follow up, should be regarded as one of the open issues in the modern treatment of myocardial infarction.

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft for left main coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal revascularization strategy for patients with left main coronary artery disease is still controversial. This is systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents compared with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) for LM disease. METHODS: Online electronic databases were systematically reviewed until January 2020 for randomized trials comparing PCI with drug-eluting stents and CABG. Primary outcomes were: all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and repeated revascularization. Secondary outcomes included periprocedural and nonperiprocedural MI. The period of follow-up included 30 days, 1 year, and 5 years. Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval were calculated with a fixed-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 4595 patients (5 randomized trials) with left main coronary artery disease were included. At 30 days and 1 year, PCI was associated with lower incidence of stroke, higher repeated revascularization, and similar odds of mortality and MI compared with CABG. At 5 years, PCI was associated with higher rates of MI (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.79; P = .003) and repeat revascularization (odds ratio, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.58-2.26; P < .001) than CABG. PCI was associated with lower periprocedural MI at 30 days, whereas at 5 years PCI was associated with higher nonperiprocedural MI (odds ratio, 2.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-3.31; P < .001). Mortality and stroke rate did not differ at 5-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with left main coronary artery disease treated with either PCI or CABG do not show significant difference in early or 5-year mortality. Although CABG was associated with higher stroke rates at 30 days and 1 year, PCI was associated with an increase in MI and need for repeat revascularization at 5 years.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for degenerated bioprosthetic aortic and mitral valves - an update on indications, techniques, and clinical results.

Introduction: Aortic and mitral bioprosthesis are the gold standard treatment to replace a pathological native valve. However, bioprostheses are prone to structural valve degeneration, resulting in limited long-term durability. During the past decade, the implantation of transcatheter stent-valves within degenerated aortic and mitral bioprostheses, (the so-called 'valve-in-valve' procedure), represents a valid alternative to redo surgery in patients with high-risk surgical profiles.Areas covered: We reviewed the clinical outcomes and the procedural details of transcatheter aortic and mitral valve-in-valve series according to current published literature and include a practical guide for valve sizing and stent-valve positioning and strategies to prevent complications.Expert opinion: In both aortic and mitral positions meticulous planning is fundamental in these procedures to avoid serious complications including patient prosthesis mismatch, coronary obstruction and left ventricular outflow tract obstruction.

Completeness of revascularisation in acute coronary syndrome patients with multivessel disease.

A significant proportion of patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have multivessel disease (MVD). Despite the abundance of clinical trials in this area, several questions regarding the procedure of complete coronary revascularisation remain unanswered. This state-of-the-art review summarises the latest evidence on complete revascularisation (CR) in this subset of patients and critically appraises clinical decision making based on non-culprit lesion (NCL) assessment. Future areas of research are put into perspective.

Balloon versus self-expandable transcatheter aortic valve implantation for bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: A meta-analysis of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: There is a rising trend for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in bicuspid aortic stenosis patients. Data on the use of self-expandable (SEV) vs. balloon-expandable (BEV) valves in these patients are scarce. Therefore, we systematically compared clinical outcomes in bicuspid aortic stenosis patients treated with SEV and BEV. METHODS: Data were extracted from PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, ClinicalTrials.gov, SciELO, LILACS, Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant articles. Eight studies published from 2013 to 2020 including a total of 1,080 patients (BEV: n = 620; SEV: n = 460) were selected. Primary endpoints were procedural, 30-day and 1-year mortality. Secondary endpoints were new pacemaker implantation, annular rupture, coronary obstruction, moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak, need of second valve, stroke and acute kidney injury. RESULTS: We found no statistically significant difference in mortality between patients treated with BEV vs. SEV during index procedure, at 30 days and at 1 year. BEVs showed a statistically significant higher risk of annulus rupture (2.5%) in comparison with SEV (0%) (OR 5.81 [95% CI, 3.78-8.92], p < .001). New generation BEVs were also associated with significantly less paravalvular leak when compared to new generation SEVs (OR 0.08 [95% CI, 0.02-0.35], p = .001). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of observational studies of TAVI for bicuspid valves, showed no difference in short- and mid-term TAVI mortality with BEVs and SEVs. BEVs presented a higher risk of annular rupture in comparison with SEV.

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: An Updated Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate early results of valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for structural valve degeneration (SVD). BACKGROUND: ViV TAVR has been increasingly used for SVD, but it remains unknown whether it produces better or at least comparable results as redo SAVR. METHODS: Observational studies comparing ViV TAVR and redo SAVR were identified in a systematic search of published research. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed, comparing clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Twelve publications including a total of 16,207 patients (ViV TAVR, n = 8,048; redo SAVR, n = 8,159) were included from studies published from 2015 to 2020. In the pooled analysis, ViV TAVR was associated with lower rates of 30-day mortality overall (odds ratio [OR]: 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32 to 0.87; p = 0.017) and for matched populations (OR: 0.419; 95% CI: 0.278 to 0.632; p = 0.003), stroke (OR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.76; p < 0.001), permanent pacemaker implantation (OR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.22 to 2.43; p = 0.536), and major bleeding (OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.93; p = 0.034), as well as with shorter hospital stay (OR: -3.30; 95% CI: -4.52 to -2.08; p < 0.001). In contrast, ViV TAVR was associated with higher rates of myocardial infarction (OR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.23; p = 0.045) and severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (OR: 4.63; 95% CI: 3.05 to 7.03; p < 0.001). The search revealed an important lack of comparative studies with long-term results. CONCLUSIONS: ViV TAVR is a valuable option in the treatment of patients with SVD because of its lower incidence of post-operative complications and better early survival compared with redo SAVR. However, ViV TAVR is associated with higher rates of myocardial infarction and severe patient-prosthesis mismatch.

Fractional flow reserve-guided multivessel angioplasty in myocardial infarction: three-year follow-up with cost benefit analysis of the Compare-Acute trial.

AIMS: The Compare-Acute trial showed superiority of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided acute complete revascularisation compared to culprit-only treatment in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) at one year. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome at three years, together with cost analysis of this strategy. METHODS AND RESULTS: After primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), 885 patients with STEMI and MVD were randomised (1:2 ratio) to FFR-guided complete revascularisation (295 patients) or infarct-related artery (IRA)-only treatment (590 patients). After 36 months, the primary endpoint (composite of death, myocardial infarction, revascularisation, stroke) occurred significantly less frequently in the FFR-guided complete revascularisation group: 46/295 patients (15.6%) versus 178/590 patients (30.2%) (HR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.33-0.64; p<0.001). This benefit was driven mainly by the reduction of revascularisations in the follow-up (12.5% vs 25.2%; HR 0.45, 95% CI: 0.31-0.64; p<0.001). Cost analysis shows benefit of the FFR-guided complete revascularisation strategy, which can reduce the cost per patient by up to 21% at one year (8,150€ vs 10,319€) and by 22% at three years (8,653€ vs 11,100€). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with STEMI and MVD, FFR-guided complete revascularisation is more beneficial in terms of outcome and healthcare costs compared to IRA-only revascularisation at 36 months.

Exercise chronotropic incompetence phenotypes the level of cardiovascular risk and exercise gas exchange impairment in the general population. An analysis of the Euro-EX prevention trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronotropic insufficiency (CI) is defined as the inability of the heart to increase its rate commensurate with increased demand. Exercise CI is an established predictor of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with cardiovascular diseases. AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate how exercise CI phenotypes different levels of cardiovascular risk and how it may better perform in defining cardiovascular risk when analysed in the context of cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET)-derived measures and standard echocardiography in a healthy population with variable cardiovascular risk profile. METHODS: Apparently healthy individuals (N = 702, 53.8% females) with at least one major cardiovascular risk factor (MCVRF; hypertension, diabetes, tabagism, dyslipidaemia, body mass index > 25), enrolled in the Euro-EX prevention trial, underwent CPET. CI was defined as the inability to reach 80% of the chronotropic index, that is, the ratio of peak heart rate - rest heart rate/peak heart rate - age predicted maximal heart rate (AMPHR: 220 - age), they were divided into four groups according to the heart rate reserve (<80%>) and respiratory gas exchange ratio (RER; < 1.05>) as a marker of achieved maximal performance. Subjects with a RER < 1.05 (n = 103) were excluded and the final population (n = 599) was divided into CI group (n = 472) and no-CI group (n = 177). RESULTS: Compared with no-CI, CI subjects were more frequently females with a history of hypertension in a high rate. CI subjects also exhibited a significantly lower peak oxygen uptake (VO2) and circulatory power and an echocardiographic pattern indicative of higher left atrial volume index and left ventricular mass index. An inverse stepwise relationship between heart rate reserve and number of MCVRFs was observed (one MCVRF: 0.71 ± 0.23; two MCVRFs: 0.68 ± 0.24, three MCVRFs: 0.64 ± 0.20; four MCVRFs: 0.64 ± 0.23; five MCVRFs: 0.57 ± 18; p < 0.01). In multivariate analysis the only variable found predicting CI was peak VO2 (p < 0.05; odds ratio 0.91; confidence interval 0.85-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: In a population of apparently healthy subjects, exercise CI is common and phenotypes the progressive level of cardiovascular risk by a tight relationship with MCVRFs. CI patients exhibit some peculiar abnormal exercise gas exchange patterns (lower peak VO2 and exercise oscillatory ventilation) and echo-derived measures (higher left atrium size and left ventricle mass) that may well anticipate evolution toward heart failure.

Sudden cardiac death in the young: the bogeyman.

Sudden cardiac death in the young is a relatively uncommon but marked event usually related to congenital diseases or anomalies. Despite the prevalence of each condition being variable, most common causes include primary myocardial diseases and arrhythmic disorder, frequently with inheritance pattern. Sudden cardiac death is usually preceded by symptoms, thus making personal and family history fundamental for its prevention. Nevertheless, in more than 50% of cases, sudden cardiac death is the first manifestation of the disease. In this review, we describe the different causes of sudden cardiac death, their incidence, and currently used preventive strategies.