ABSTRACT
AIMS: In low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), sutureless surgical aortic valve replacement (SU-SAVR) may be an alternative to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The risk of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) in this population is incompletely characterized. This study aims to investigate the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of HFH in patients undergoing SU-SAVR versus TAVI. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients referred for AVR between 2013 and 2020 at two centres were consecutively included. The decision for SU-SAVR or TAVI was determined by a multidisciplinary Heart Team. Cox regression and competing risk analysis were conducted to assess adverse events. Of 594 patients (mean age 77.5 ± 6.4, 59.8% male), 424 underwent SU-SAVR, while 170 underwent TAVI. Following a mean follow-up of 34.1 ± 23.1 months, HFH occurred in 112 (27.8%) SU-SAVR patients and in 8 (4.8%) TAVI patients (P < 0.001). The SU-SAVR cohort exhibited higher all-cause mortality (138 [32.5%] patients compared with 30 [17.6%] in the TAVI cohort [P < 0.001]). These differences remained significant after sensitivity analyses with 1:1 propensity score matching for baseline variables. SU-SAVR with HFH was associated with increased all-cause mortality (61.6% vs. 23.1%, P < 0.001). Independent associates of HFH in SU-SAVR patients included diabetes, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lower glomerular filtration rate and lower left ventricular ejection fraction. SU-SAVR patients with HFH had a 12-month LVEF of 59.4 ± 12.7. CONCLUSIONS: In low-risk AS, SU-SAVR is associated with a higher risk of HFH and all-cause mortality compared to TAVI. In patients with severe AS candidate to SU-SAVR or TAVI, TAVI may be the preferred intervention.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Although the epicardial predominance of substrate abnormalities has been well demonstrated in early stages of arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC), endocardial (ENDO) ablation may suffice to eliminate ventricular tachycardia (VT) in some patients. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to report the long-term outcomes of ENDO-only ablation in ARVC patients and factors that predict VT-free survival. METHODS: We included consecutive patients with Task Force Criteria diagnosis of ARVC undergoing a first ENDO-only VT ablation between 1998 and 2020. Ablation was predominantly guided by activation/entrainment mapping for mappable VTs and pace mapping/targeting abnormal electrograms for unmappable VTs. The primary endpoint was freedom from any recurrent sustained VT after the last ENDO-only ablation. RESULTS: Seventy-four ARVC patients underwent ENDO-only VT ablation. VT noninducibility was achieved in 49 (66%) patients. During median follow-up of 6.6 years (Q1-Q3: 3.4-11.2 years), 40 (54.1%) patients remained free from any VT recurrence with rare VT ≤2 episodes in additional 12.2%. Among patients with noninducibility, VT-free survival was 75.5% during long-term follow-up. In multivariable analysis, >45 y of age at diagnosis (HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.17-0.98) and VT noninducibility (HR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.16-0.80) were predictors of VT-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term VT-free survival can be achieved in over half of ARVC patients following ENDO-only VT ablation, increasing to over 75% if VT noninducibility is achieved. Our results support consideration of a stepwise ENDO-only approach before proceeding to epicardial ablation if VT noninducibility can be achieved particularly in older patients.
ABSTRACT
Background Interatrial block (IAB) has been associated with supraventricular arrhythmias and stroke, and even with sudden cardiac death in the general population. Whether IAB is associated with life-threatening arrhythmias (LTA) and sudden cardiac death in dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) remains unknown. This study aimed to determine the association between IAB and LTA in ambulant patients with DCM. Methods and Results A derivation cohort (Maastricht Dilated Cardiomyopathy Registry; N=469) and an external validation cohort (Utrecht Cardiomyopathy Cohort; N=321) were used for this study. The presence of IAB (P-wave duration>120 milliseconds) or atrial fibrillation (AF) was determined using digital calipers by physicians blinded to the study data. In the derivation cohort, IAB and AF were present in 291 (62%) and 70 (15%) patients with DCM, respectively. LTA (defined as sudden cardiac death, justified shock from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator or anti-tachypacing, or hemodynamic unstable ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia) occurred in 49 patients (3 with no IAB, 35 with IAB, and 11 patients with AF, respectively; median follow-up, 4.4 years [2.1; 7.4]). The LTA-free survival distribution significantly differed between IAB or AF versus no IAB (both P<0.01), but not between IAB versus AF (P=0.999). This association remained statistically significant in the multivariable model (IAB: HR, 4.8 (1.4-16.1), P=0.013; AF: HR, 6.4 (1.7-24.0), P=0.007). In the external validation cohort, the survival distribution was also significantly worse for IAB or AF versus no IAB (P=0.037; P=0.005), but not for IAB versus AF (P=0.836). Conclusions IAB is an easy to assess, widely applicable marker associated with LTA in DCM. IAB and AF seem to confer similar risk of LTA. Further research on IAB in DCM, and on the management of IAB in DCM is warranted.
