Insight Into the Optimal Timing of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Patients being considered for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are frequently diagnosed with coronary artery disease. In patients requiring revascularization, there is a paucity of data informing when to perform percutaneous coronary artery intervention (PCI). We evaluated the impact of PCI timing on clinical outcomes and readmissions after TAVR. From the National Readmissions Database 2016 to 2019, we stratified the duration between PCI and TAVR into 3 groups: same-day PCI and TAVR, TAVR ≤30 days after PCI, and TAVR >30 days after PCI. We then compared primary and secondary outcomes among them. A total of 5207 patients were included, 1413 (27.1%) of whom underwent PCI and TAVR on the same day, while 2161 (41.5%) underwent TAVR ≤30 days after PCI, and 1632 (31.3%) underwent TAVR >30 days after PCI. There was no significant difference for in-hospital mortality among the groups (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16-1.48, p = 0.203 for same-day versus ≤30 days; aOR 2.07, 95% CI 0.68-6.30, p = 0.199 for same-day versus >30 days). Patients who underwent TAVR ≤30 days after PCI had higher odds of acute kidney injury (aOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.05-2.10, p = 0.024), nonhome discharge (aOR 1.53, 95% CI 1.20-1.96, p = 0.001), and 90-day readmission (aOR 1.35, 95% CI 1.04-1.76, p = 0.026) compared with those who underwent same-day PCI and TAVR. Concomitant PCI and TAVR was associated with lower rates of 90-day readmissions and acute kidney injury compared with TAVR shortly after PCI (<30 days) and should be considered in select patients.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for patients with severe bicuspid aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (BAV) were excluded from all the trileaflet aortic valve stenosis (TAV) pivotal trials, and therefore, their outcomes are not clearly defined. The aim of the study was to evaluate the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with BAV and compared them with those of TAV. METHODS: We evaluated the outcomes following TAVR of patients with BAV at our institution between April 2011 and November 2016 and compared them with the outcomes of patients with TAV treated with TAVR. The χ2 and the Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare the groups, and a Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to estimate long-term survival. RESULTS: TAVR was performed in a total of 567 patients, from which 50 (8.8%) had BAV and 517 (91.2%) had TAV. Patients with BAV were younger and had higher prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lower prevalence of coronary artery disease, higher body mass index, and lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (STS PROM). Patients with BAV had a slightly higher mean aortic valve gradient postoperatively (median 12 mm Hg [10-15] vs 10 [7-13], P < .001), but paravalvular aortic regurgitation was not different between the groups (> mild 4.0% vs 3.5%, P = .541). Clinical outcomes were not different between the groups, including stroke (2.0% vs 1.5, P = .567) and the 30-day all-cause mortality (6.0% vs 1.5, P = .064). The 2-year survival (82.0% vs 83.4, P = .476) was similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: This initial experience suggests that TAVR can be safely performed in patients with BAV, achieving similar short-term procedural and clinical outcomes when compared with patients with TAV.

Response to Exercise Training and Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure and Diabetes Mellitus: Insights From the HF-ACTION Trial.

BACKGROUND: In HF-ACTION (Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training), exercise training improved functional capacity in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Previous studies have suggested that diabetes mellitus (DM) may be associated with an attenuated response to exercise. We explored whether DM attenuated the improvement in functional capacity with exercise. METHODS AND RESULTS: HF-ACTION randomized 2331 patients with HFrEF to medical therapy with or without exercise training over a median follow-up of 2.5 years. We examined the interaction between DM and exercise response measured by change in 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) and peak VO2. We also examined outcomes by DM status. In HF-ACTION, 748 (32%) patients had DM. DM patients had lower functional capacity at baseline and had lower exercise volumes at 3 months. There was a significant interaction between DM status and exercise training for change in peak VO2 (interaction P = .02), but not 6MWD. In the exercise arm, DM patients had a smaller mean increase in peak VO2 than non-DM patients (P = .03). There was no interaction between DM and exercise on clinical outcomes. After risk adjustment, DM was associated with increased all-cause mortality/hospitalization (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: In HF-ACTION, DM was associated with lower baseline functional capacity, an attenuated improvement in peak VO2, and increased hospitalizations.