Changes in demographics, treatment and outcomes in a consecutive cohort who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation between 2005 and 2020.

INTRODUCTION: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has matured to the treatment of choice for most patients with aortic stenosis (AS). We sought to identify trends in patient and procedural characteristics, and clinical outcomes in all patients who underwent TAVI between 2005 and 2020. METHODS: A single-centre analysis was performed on 1500 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI, divided into three tertiles (T) of 500 patients treated between November 2005 and December 2014 (T1), January 2015 and May 2018 (T2) and June 2018 and April 2020 (T3). RESULTS: Over time, mean age and gender did not change (T1 to T3: 80, 80 and 79 years and 53%, 55% and 52% men, respectively), while the Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score declined (T1: 4.5% to T3: 2.7%, p < 0.001). Use of general anaesthesia also declined over time (100%, 24% and 1% from T1 to T3) and transfemoral TAVI remained the default approach (87%, 94% and 92%). Median procedure time and contrast volume decreased significantly (186, 114 and 56 min and 120, 100 and 80 ml, respectively). Thirty-day mortality (7%, 4% and 2%), stroke (7%, 3% and 3%), need for a pacemaker (19%, 22% and 8%) and delirium (17%, 12% and 8%) improved significantly, while major bleeding/vascular complications did not change (both approximately 9%, 6% and 6%). One-year survival was 80%, 88% and 92%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Over our 15 years' experience, patient age remained unchanged but the patient risk profile became more favourable. Simplification of the TAVI procedure occurred in parallel with major improvement in outcomes and survival. Bleeding/vascular complications and the need for pacemaker implantation remain the Achilles' heel of TAVI.

Clinical consequences of consecutive self-expanding transcatheter heart valve iterations.

OBJECTIVE: To compare early clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with three consecutive generations of self-expanding valves (SEVs). METHODS: Clinical endpoints of consecutive patients who underwent TAVI with CoreValve, Evolut R or Evolut PRO were included in a prospective database. RESULTS: TAVI was performed with CoreValve (n = 116), Evolut R (n = 160) or Evolut PRO (n = 92). Evolut R and Evolut PRO showed a tendency towards lower permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rates compared to CoreValve (CoreValve 27% vs Evolut R 16% vs Evolut PRO 18%, p = 0.091). By multivariable regression analysis CoreValve had a significantly higher risk for PPI (odds ratio (OR) 2.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31-5.94, p = 0.008) compared to Evolut R, while Evolut R and PRO were similar. Severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) occurred only with CoreValve, but no significant difference was observed in moderate PVL (10% vs 8% vs 6%, p = 0.49). CoreValve had a tendency towards a higher risk for more-than-mild PVL as compared with the Evolut platform (R + PRO) (OR 2.46, 95% CI 0.98-6.16, p = 0.055). No significant differences in all-cause mortality (7% vs 4% vs 1%, p = 0.10), stroke (6% vs 3% vs 2%, p = 0.21) or major vascular complications (10% vs 12% vs 4%, p = 0.14) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: TAVI with self-expanding valves was safe, and device iterations may result in a lower need for PPI. More-than-mild PVL seemed to occur less often with repositionable technology.

Insulin glargine is more potent in activating the human IGF-I receptor than human insulin and insulin detemir.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether human insulin (HI) and insulin analogues differ in their ability to activate the human IGF-I receptor (IGF-IR), the human insulin receptor A (IR-A) and the human insulin receptor B (IR-B) in vitro. METHODS: HI, short-acting insulin analogues (insulin aspart; insulin lispro) and long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine; insulin detemir) were compared by using kinase receptor activation (KIRA) bioassays specific for IGF-IR, IR-A or IR-B, respectively. These assays quantify ligand activity by measuring receptor auto-phosphorylation upon ligand binding. HI and insulin analogues were tested in a range from 0.1 to 100 nM. RESULTS: Short-acting analogues: Overall, short-acting insulin analogues did not differ substantially from HI, nor from each other. Insulin lispro was slightly more potent than HI and insulin aspart in activating the IGF-IR, only reaching statistical significance at 100 nM (p<0.01). Long-acting analogues: At <10 nM insulin glargine was as potent as HI in activating the IRs and IGF-IR. At 10-100 nM insulin glargine was significantly more potent than HI in activating the IR-B (p<0.05) and IGF-IR (p<0.001). Insulin glargine was more potent than insulin detemir in activating all three receptors (p<0.001). Insulin detemir was less potent than HI in activating the IRs at 1-10 nM (p<0.01) and IGF-IR at >1 nM (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Insulin glargine was more potent in activating the IGF-IR than HI and insulin detemir. Since KIRA bioassays do not mimic the exact in vivo situation, further research is needed to find out whether our data have implications for clinical use of insulin glargine.