Effect of a pragmatic home-based mobile health exercise intervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a randomized pilot trial.

AIMS: Impaired physical function is common in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and associated with worse outcomes. Participation in centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) after cardiovascular procedures is sub-optimal. We aimed to test a home-based mobile health exercise intervention as an alternative or complementary approach. METHODS AND RESULTS: At five centres, after a run-in period, eligible individuals treated with TAVR were randomized 1:1 at their 1-month post-TAVR visit to an intervention group [activity monitor (AM) with personalized daily step goal and resistance exercises] or a control group for 6 weeks. Among 50 participants, average age was 76 years, 34% were female, average STS score was 2.91.8, and 40% had Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) 9. Daily compliance with wearing the AM and performing exercises averaged 8590%. In the intention to treat population, there was no evidence that the intervention improved the co-primary endpoints: daily steps +769 (95% CI 244 to +1783); SPPB +0.68 (0.27 to 1.53); and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire 1.7 (9.1 to 7.1). The intervention did improve secondary physical activity parameters, including moderate-to-intense daily active minutes (P<0.05). In a pre-specified analysis including participants who did not participate in CR (n=30), the intervention improved several measures of physical activity: +1730 (1003360) daily steps; +66 (28105) daily active minutes; +53 (2780) moderate-to-intense active minutes; and 157 (265 to 50) sedentary minutes. CONCLUSION: Among selected participants treated with TAVR, this study did not provide evidence that a pragmatic home-based mobile health exercise intervention improved daily steps, physical performance or QoL for the overall cohort. However, the intervention did improve several measures of daily activity, particularly among individuals not participating in CR. TRIAL REGISTRY: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03270124.

Preventing or Minimizing Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is now routinely performed in patients with aortic stenosis with low mortality and complication rates. Although periprocedural risks have been substantially minimized, procedure- and contrast-induced acute kidney injury (AKI) remains a major concern. AKI remains a frequent complication of contrast-guided interventional procedures and is associated with a significantly adverse prognosis. We review the currently available clinical data related to AKI, with emphasis on contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN), and discuss a novel, integrated approach aiming to minimize AKI risk in high-risk patients. A stepwise algorithm is also proposed for the management of these complex patients.

Should Interventional Cardiologists Super-Subspecialize?: Moving From Patient Selection to Operator Selection.

The field of interventional cardiology has expanded rapidly. As a result, four evolving areas have evolved - peripheral vascular interventions, structural heart interventions, adult congenital heart intervention, and chronic total occlusion. The complexity of these procedures and the number of devices available has grown rapidly. In addition, the professional and public expectations of procedural success and of minimizing case-avoidance have also grown. Specific issues include volume-outcome relationships, maintaining currency and proficiency, accessibility to specialized procedures, and the need to maintain a fundamental level of expertise in acute coronary interventions.

Trans-Septal Puncture Through Gore® Cardioform Septal Occluder Device - Step by Step Approach.

We describe the patient selection, intraprocedural imaging, and procedural technique for transseptal puncture through the Gore® Cardioform interatrial septal occluder. Due to new indications for PFO closure and increasing need for access to the left atrium via percutaneous approach, we expect an increasing need for utilization of a trans-septal puncture technique through these devices.

The case for a qualitative lesion assessment system for coronary angiography.

Since the advent of coronary angiography, the standard for reporting of coronary lesion severity has been to utilize percent diameter stenosis (%DS). Given the imperfections of %DS as well as the widespread availability of intraprocedural intracoronary imaging and physiology assessment, it is time to consider a simpler yet more clinically relevant lesion assessment system. We compiled ten actual cases and presented these cases to 10 operators, providing 100 independent lesion assessments. For each case, operators were asked to describe lesions using %DS and a simplified lesion assessment system. We assessed the relationship between %DS and qualitative lesion assessment as well as the relationship of both measurements to the chosen plan. Greater variability exists with %DS than with qualitative lesion assessment. Despite this, there is good correlation between %DS and the qualitative lesion assessment (ρ = 0.8221). There remains overlap of lesion assessment using the qualitative lesion assessment tool suggesting that even with this simpler tool, there remains interobserver variability (ICC = 0.5164, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2924-0.7955). When assessing how both lesion assessment, there appears to be a stronger correlation between the qualitative lesion assessment and the chosen plan versus the %DS and the chosen plan (ρ = 0.9069 vs ρ = 0.8001, P < .01). Given the superior performance of the proposed qualitative system and the ability to estimate lesion severity using both anatomic and clinical factors, we feel that professional societies and clinicians should begin to embrace this simplified means of lesion assessment.

Cardiac procedural deferral during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

We aimed to examine factors impacting variability in cardiac procedural deferral during the COVID-19 pandemic and assess cardiologists' perspectives regarding its implications. Unprecedented cardiac procedural deferral was implemented nationwide during the COVID-19 pandemic. A web-based survey was administered by Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the American College of Cardiology Interventional Council to cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) directors and interventional cardiologists across the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among 414 total responses, 48 states and 360 unique cardiac catheterization laboratories were represented, with mean inpatient COVID-19 burden 16.4 ± 21.9%. There was a spectrum of deferral by procedure type, varying by both severity of COVID-19 burden and procedural urgency (p < .001). Percutaneous coronary intervention volumes dropped by 55% (p < .0001) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement volumes dropped by 64% (p = .004), with cardiologists reporting an increase in late presenting ST-elevation myocardial infarctions and deaths among patients waiting for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Almost 1/3 of catheterization laboratories had at least one interventionalist testing positive for COVID-19. Salary reductions did not influence procedural deferral or speed of reinstituting normal volumes. Pandemic preparedness improved significantly over time, with the most pressing current problems focused on inadequate testing and staff health risks. During the COVID-19 pandemic, cardiac procedural deferrals were associated with procedural urgency and severity of hospital COVID-19 burden. Yet patients did not appear to be similarly influenced, with cardiologists reporting increases in late presenting ST-elevation myocardial infarctions independent of local COVID-19 burden. The safety and importance of seeking healthcare during this pandemic deserves emphasis.

Is timing everything? Bioprosthetic valve fracture in valve-in-valve TAVR.

We present a challenging case of early bioprosthetic valve degeneration following valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement and bioprosthetic valve fracture.

Management of acute myocardial infarction during the COVID-19 pandemic: A Consensus Statement from the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP).

The worldwide pandemic caused by the novel acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has resulted in a new and lethal disease termed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although there is an association between cardiovascular disease and COVID-19, the majority of patients who need cardiovascular care for the management of ischemic heart disease may not be infected with this novel coronavirus. The objective of this document is to provide recommendations for a systematic approach for the care of patients with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a recognition of two major challenges in providing recommendations for AMI care in the COVID-19 era. Cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 are complex with patients presenting with AMI, myocarditis simulating an ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) presentation, stress cardiomyopathy, non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, coronary spasm, or nonspecific myocardial injury, and the prevalence of COVID-19 disease in the US population remains unknown with risk of asymptomatic spread. This document addresses the care of these patients focusing on (a) varied clinical presentations; (b) appropriate personal protection equipment (PPE) for health care workers; (c) the roles of the emergency department, emergency medical system, and the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL); and (4) regional STEMI systems of care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains the standard of care for STEMI patients at PCI-capable hospitals when it can be provided in a timely manner, with an expert team outfitted with PPE in a dedicated CCL room. A fibrinolysis-based strategy may be entertained at non-PCI-capable referral hospitals or in specific situations where primary PCI cannot be executed or is not deemed the best option.

Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Position Statement From the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP).

The worldwide pandemic caused by the novel acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has resulted in a new and lethal disease termed coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Although there is an association between cardiovascular disease and COVID-19, the majority of patients who need cardiovascular care for the management of ischemic heart disease may not be infected with this novel coronavirus. The objective of this document is to provide recommendations for a systematic approach for the care of patients with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a recognition of two major challenges in providing recommendations for AMI care in the COVID-19 era. Cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 are complex with patients presenting with AMI, myocarditis simulating an ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) presentation, stress cardiomyopathy, non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, coronary spasm, or nonspecific myocardial injury, and the prevalence of COVID-19 disease in the U.S. population remains unknown with risk of asymptomatic spread. This document addresses the care of these patients focusing on 1) the varied clinical presentations; 2) appropriate personal protection equipment (PPE) for health care workers; 3) role of the Emergency Department, Emergency Medical System and the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory; and 4) Regional STEMI systems of care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, primary PCI remains the standard of care for STEMI patients at PCI capable hospitals when it can be provided in a timely fashion, with an expert team outfitted with PPE in a dedicated CCL room. A fibrinolysis-based strategy may be entertained at non-PCI capable referral hospitals or in specific situations where primary PCI cannot be executed or is not deemed the best option.

Triage Considerations for Patients Referred for Structural Heart Disease Intervention During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An ACC/SCAI Position Statement.

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has strained health care resources around the world, causing many institutions to curtail or stop elective procedures. This has resulted in an inability to care for patients with valvular and structural heart disease in a timely fashion, potentially placing these patients at increased risk for adverse cardiovascular complications, including CHF and death. The effective triage of these patients has become challenging in the current environment as clinicians have had to weigh the risk of bringing susceptible patients into the hospital environment during the COVID-19 pandemic against the risk of delaying a needed procedure. In this document, the authors suggest guidelines for how to triage patients in need of structural heart disease interventions and provide a framework for how to decide when it may be appropriate to proceed with intervention despite the ongoing pandemic. In particular, the authors address the triage of patients in need of transcatheter aortic valve replacement and percutaneous mitral valve repair. The authors also address procedural issues and considerations for the function of structural heart disease teams during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Triage considerations for patients referred for structural heart disease intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic: An ACC/SCAI position statement.

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has strained health care resources around the world, causing many institutions to curtail or stop elective procedures. This has resulted in an inability to care for patients with valvular and structural heart disease in a timely fashion, potentially placing these patients at increased risk for adverse cardiovascular complications, including CHF and death. The effective triage of these patients has become challenging in the current environment, as clinicians have had to weigh the risk of bringing susceptible patients into the hospital environment during the COVID-19 pandemic against the risk of delaying a needed procedure. In this document, the authors suggest guidelines for how to triage patients in need of structural heart disease interventions and provide a framework for how to decide when it may be appropriate to proceed with intervention despite the ongoing pandemic. In particular, the authors address the triage of patients in need of transcatheter aortic valve replacement and percutaneous mitral valve repair. The authors also address procedural issues and considerations for the function of structural heart disease teams during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Exploratory analysis of myocardial function after extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation vs conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

OBJECTIVE: Ventricular unloading is associated with myocardial recovery. We sought to evaluate the association of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) on myocardial function after cardiac arrest. We conducted a retrospective exploratory analysis, comparing ejection fraction (EF) after adult cardiac arrest, between ECPR and conventional CPR. RESULTS: Among 1119 cases of cardiac arrest, 116 had an echocardiogram post-return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and were included. Thirty-eight patients had ≥ 2 echocardiograms. ECPR patients had differences in age, hypertension and chronic heart failure. ECPR patients had a lower EF post-ROSC (24% vs 45%; p < 0.01) and were more likely to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (25% vs 3%; p < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, only ECPR use (ß-coeff: 10.4 [95% CI 3.68-17.13]; p < 0.01) independently predicted improved myocardial function. In this exploratory study, EF after cardiac arrest may be more likely to improve among ECPR patients than CCPR patients. Our methodology should be replicated to confirm or refute the validity of our findings.

Pressure Volume System for Management of Heart Failure and Valvular Heart Disease.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To introduce the reader to the basics of pressure-volume (PV) analysis, its current role in management of heart failure and valvular disease, and the possibilities for future use. RECENT FINDINGS: The recent introduction of FDA-approved miniaturized conductance catheters that can produce PV loops in the clinical setting has set the stage for the translation of this important research technique into clinical practice. The use of these catheters has shed important insights into the pathophysiology of many common conditions associated with heart failure including heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and right heart failure and has been utilized to assist in optimization of lead placement during cardiac resynchronization therapy. The use of PV loops has enhanced our understanding and diagnosis of common conditions associated with heart failure. In addition, it has shown promise as an adjunct to therapeutic procedures. Future directions may include the use of PV loops in the management of patients with heart failure requiring mechanical circulatory support and to help predict the utility of percutaneous valvular interventions.

Views of Appropriate Use Criteria for catheterization and percutaneous coronary revascularization by practicing interventional cardiologists: Results of a survey of American College of Cardiology Interventional Section members.

OBJECTIVES: The American College of Cardiology (ACC) Interventional Section Council leadership sought to examine the views of interventional cardiologists regarding the practical implementation and the value of the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) in their clinical practice. BACKGROUND: The ACC AUC for revascularization were originally intended to assess trends in revascularization patterns by hospitals and physicians to ensure that both under- and over-utilization were minimized. As a quality assurance tool, the AUC were designed to allow physicians to obtain insight into their practice patterns and improve their practice. Recent trends toward tying payment to performance have raised concerns that these criteria will be incorrectly applied to individual patient reimbursement, which is not what they were designed to do. Consequently, the AUC have become controversial, not for their value in quality assessment, but for the manner in which agencies have used the AUC as a tool to potentially deny payment for certain patients. METHODS: Utilizing an online survey, members of the ACC Interventional Section were queried regarding the use of AUC, how they use them, and how they feel utilization impacts the care of patients. RESULTS: We found substantial variability in how the AUC were utilized and concern regarding the value of AUC. Among our findings was that respondents were split (51% vs 49%) regarding the value of AUC to patients and/or their laboratory. CONCLUSIONS: In this article, we discuss the implications of these findings and consider options on how AUC might be made a better-accepted and more impactful tool for clinicians and patients.