ABSTRACT
Background: Though the co-prevalence of aortic stenosis (AS) and cardiac amyloidosis (CA) is increasingly recognized, the role of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with CA remains unclear. Methods: The National Readmission Dataset (2016-18) and ICD-10 codes were used to identify those with CA and AS, in conjunction with TAVR status. The primary outcome was a composite of heart failure (HF) readmissions and all-cause mortality. All outcomes were followed up to 1-year with a median follow up time 172-days. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate cox-proportional hazard regression were used for time-to-event analysis. Results: Of 1,127 CA patients, 92 (8.2%) had undergone TAVR. Patients with CA who received TAVR were younger and more commonly had coronary artery disease (67.3% vs 44.2%). Teaching (93.6% vs 81.1%) and large hospitals (77.7% vs 59.3%) performed more TAVRs. In multivariate analysis, TAVR was associated with an improved primary outcome (8.9% vs 24.4%, HR:0.32; 95% CI 0.14-0.71, p = 0.007) and with reduced HF readmissions (3.8% vs 19.4%, HR:0.22; 95% CI 0.07-0.68, p = 0.008). All-cause mortality was numerically lower in TAVR patients with CA but did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: CA patients who receive TAVR are younger, and the procedure is more commonly performed at large, teaching hospitals. TAVR was associated with a lower primary composite outcome of HF readmissions and all-cause mortality.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Nodofascicular and nodoventricular (NFV) accessory pathways connect the atrioventricular node and the Purkinje system or ventricular myocardium, respectively. Concealed NFV pathways participate as the retrograde limb of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT). Manifest NFV pathways can comprise the anterograde limb of wide-complex SVT but are quite rare. The purpose of this report is to highlight the electrophysiological properties and sites of ablation for manifest NFV pathways. METHODS: Eight patients underwent electrophysiology studies for wide-complex tachycardia (3), for narrow-complex tachycardia (1), and preexcitation (4). RESULTS: NFV was an integral part of the SVT circuit in 3 patients. Cases 1 to 2 were wide-complex tachycardia because of manifest NFV SVT. Case 3 was a bidirectional NFV that conducted retrograde during concealed NFV SVT and anterograde causing preexcitation during atrial pacing. NFV was a bystander during atrioventricular node re-entrant tachycardia, atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, and orthodromic atrioventricular re-entrant tachycardia in 4 cases and caused only preexcitation in 1. Successful NFV ablation was achieved empirically in the slow pathway region in 1 case. In 5 cases, the ventricular insertion was mapped to the slow pathway region (2 cases) or septal right ventricle (3 cases). The NFV was not mapped in cases 5 and 7 because of its bystander role. QRS morphology of preexcitation predicted the right ventricle insertion sites in 4 of the 5 cases in which it was mapped. During follow-up, 1 patient noted recurrent palpitations but no documented SVT. CONCLUSIONS: Manifest NFV may be critical for wide-complex tachycardia/manifest NFV SVT, act as the retrograde limb for narrow-complex tachycardia/concealed NFV SVT, or cause bystander preexcitation. Ablation should initially target the slow pathway region, with mapping of the right ventricle insertion site if slow pathway ablation is not successful. The QRS morphology of maximal preexcitation may be helpful in predicting successful right ventricle ablation site.
