Systematic review and meta-analysis of early aortic valve replacement versus conservative therapy in patients with asymptomatic aortic valve stenosis with preserved left ventricle systolic function.

BACKGROUND: A quarter of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) were asymptomatic, and only a third of them survived at the end of 4 years. Only a select subset of these patients was recommended for aortic valve replacement (AVR) by the current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. We intended to study the effect of early AVR (eAVR) in this subset of asymptomatic patients with preserved left ventricle function. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched PubMed and Embase for randomised and observational studies comparing the effect of eAVR versus conservative therapy in patients with severe, asymptomatic AS and normal left ventricular function. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were composite major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (study defined), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, cardiac death, sudden death, the development of symptoms, heart failure hospitalisations and major bleeding. We used GRADEPro to assess the certainty of the evidence. In the randomised controlled trial (RCT) only analysis, we found no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the early aortic intervention group versus the conservative arm (CA) (incidence rate ratio, IRR (CI): 0.5 (0.2 to 1.1), I2=31%, p=0.09). However, in the overall cohort, we found mortality benefit for eAVR over CA (IRR (CI): 0.4 (0.3 to 0.7), I2=84%, p<0.01). There were significantly lower MACE, cardiac death, sudden death, development of symptoms and heart failure hospitalisations in the eAVR group. We noticed no difference in MI, stroke and major bleeding. CONCLUSION: We conclude that there is no reduction in all-cause mortality in the eAVR arm in patients with asymptomatic AS with preserved ejection fraction. However, eAVR reduces heart failure related hospitalisations and death or heart failure hospitalisations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022306132.

Procedural Safety and Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Patients Receiving Ultra-Long Everolimus-Eluting Stent: A Single-Center Real-World Experience.

Background: Diffuse long coronary lesions are difficult to treat percutaneously. The aim of the present study was to assess the procedural safety and long-term efficacy of the ultra-long (48-mm) drug-eluting stent Xience Xpedition. Methods: This was an investigator-initiated, observational, all-comers study. A total of 92 patients with 93 lesions were enrolled in the study from October 2016 to October 2020. The primary outcome of the study was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). Secondary outcomes were individual components of the primary outcome and procedural success. Results: The mean (standard deviation (SD)) age of the participants was 58.8 (10.8) years. More than half of the patients had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) at presentation (55.4%). Ten patients were in cardiogenic shock (CGS; 10.8%). Most of the lesions were located in the left anterior descending artery (48.3%). American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) type C was the most common lesion type amongst the intervened vessels (46.74%), with a mean syntax score (SD) of 16.99 (8.89). The mean stent diameter used was 2.77 mm (0.25). MACE was observed in 7.6% of patients studied at a median follow-up of 24 months. MACE was significantly lower in the population without CGS, occurring in only 2.4% of the patients; a significant difference in MACE was observed in patients with and without CGS (P < 0.001). Procedural success was obtained in 89.2% of total population; however, 96.3% of patients without CGS had procedural success. Conclusions: The deployment of the ultra-long 48-mm Xience Xpedition stent is feasible, safe, and effective; and it was associated with a good intermediate-term clinical outcome.