Normal-Flow Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis: Comparing the U.S. and European Guidelines.

Patients with normal-flow low-gradient (NFLG) severe aortic stenosis present both diagnostic and management challenges, with debate about the whether this represents true severe stenosis and the need for valve replacement. Studies exploring the natural history without intervention have shown similar outcomes of patients with NFLG severe aortic stenosis to those with moderate aortic stenosis and better outcomes after valve replacement than those with low-flow low-gradient severe aortic stenosis. Most studies (all observational) have shown that aortic valve replacement was associated with a survival benefit vs surveillance. Based on available data, the European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery guidelines and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging/American Society of Echocardiography suggest that these patients are more likely to have moderate aortic stenosis. This clinical entity is not mentioned in the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. Here we review the definition of NFLG severe aortic stenosis, potential diagnostic algorithms and points of error, the data supporting different management strategies, and the differing guidelines and outline the unanswered questions in the diagnosis and management of these challenging patients.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Failed Surgical or Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Valves: A Comprehensive Review.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has proven to be a safe, effective, and less invasive approach to aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis. In patients who underwent prior aortic valve replacement, transcatheter and surgical bioprosthetic valve dysfunction may occur as a result of structural deterioration or nonstructural causes such as prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and paravalvular regurgitation. Valve-in-Valve (ViV) TAVR is a procedure that is being increasingly utilized for the replacement of failed transcatheter or surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves. Data regarding long-term outcomes are limited due to the recency of the procedure's approval, but available data regarding the short- and long-term outcomes of ViV TAVR are promising. Studies have shown a reduction in perioperative and 30-day mortality with ViV TAVR procedures compared to redo surgical repair of failed bioprosthetic aortic valves, but 1-year and 5-year mortality rates are more controversial and lack sufficient data. Despite the reduction in 30-day mortality, PPM and rates of coronary obstruction are higher in ViV TAVR as compared to both redo surgical valve repair and native TAVR procedures. New transcatheter heart valve designs and new procedural techniques have been developed to reduce the risk of PPM and coronary obstruction. Newer generation valves, new procedural techniques, and increased operator experience with ViV TAVR may improve patient outcomes; however, further studies are needed to better understand the safety, efficacy, and durability of ViV TAVR.

Palliative care in the cardiovascular intensive care unit: A systematic review of current literature.

BACKGROUND: There has been an evolution in the disease severity and complexity of patients presenting to the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). There are limited data evaluating the role of palliative care in contemporary CICU practice. METHODS: PubMed Central, CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were evaluated for studies on palliative care in adults (≥18 years) admitted with acute cardiovascular conditions - acute myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, advanced heart failure, post-cardiac surgery, spontaneous coronary artery dissection, Takotsubo cardiomyopathy, and pulmonary embolism - admitted to the CICU, coronary care unit or cardiovascular intensive care unit from 1/1/2000 to 8/8/2022. The primary outcome of interest was the utilization of palliative care services. Secondary outcomes of included studies were also addressed. Meta-analysis was not performed due to heterogeneity. RESULTS: Of 5711 citations, 30 studies were included. All studies were published in the last seven years and 90 % originated in the United States. Twenty-seven studies (90 %) were retrospective analyses, with a majority from the National Inpatient Sample database. Heart failure was the most frequent diagnosis (47 %), and in-hospital mortality was reported in 67 % of studies. There was heterogeneity in the timing, frequency, and background of the care team that determined palliative care consultation. In two randomized trials, there appeared to be improvement in quality of life without an impact on mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the growing recognition of the role of palliative care, there are limited data on palliative care consultation in the CICU.

Association Between Clinical Trial Participation Status and Outcomes With Mitral Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (M-TEER) for selected patients with severe mitral regurgitation. However, the generalizability of trial results to real-world patients remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to compare baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes among trial participants with nonparticipants undergoing M-TEER. METHODS: Using the National Inpatient Sample database years 2016-2020, M-TEER admissions were identified and categorized into trial participants vs none. We also identified a cohort of trial noneligible patients based on clinical exclusion criteria from pivotal trials. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to compare in-hospital outcomes. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes included in-hospital complications, length of stay, and hospitalization cost. RESULTS: Among 38,770 M-TEER admissions from 2016 to 2020, 11,450 (29.5%) were trial participants, 22,975 (59.3%) were eligible nonparticipants, and 2,960 (7.6%) were noneligible. Baseline characteristics and comorbidity profiles were mostly similar between trial participants vs eligible nonparticipants. In-hospital mortality (adjusted OR [aOR]: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.60-1.62), cardiogenic shock (aOR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.80-1.42), mechanical circulatory support (aOR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.58-1.41), mechanical ventilation (aOR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.74-1.42), and conversion to mitral valve surgery (aOR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.57-2.03) were not different between both groups. Conversely, M-TEER for noneligible patients was associated with higher rates of mortality (aOR: 6.27; 95% CI: 3.75-10.45) and complications. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of real-world M-TEER patients would have been eligible for clinical trial participation and had comparable clinical profiles and in-hospital outcomes to trial participants. However, noneligible patients had worse in-hospital outcomes compared with trial participants.

Outcomes with intracoronary vs. intravenous epinephrine in cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support (ACLS) guidelines recommend intravenous (IV) and intraosseous (IO) epinephrine as a basic cornerstone in the resuscitation process. Data about the efficacy and safety of intracoronary (IC) epinephrine during cardiac arrest in the catheterization laboratory are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and safety of IC vs. IV epinephrine for resuscitation during cardiac arrest in the catheterization laboratory. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a prospective observational study that included all patients who experienced cardiac arrest in the cath lab at two tertiary centres in Egypt from January 2015 to July 2022. Patients were divided into two groups according to the route of epinephrine given; IC vs. IV. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included rate of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), time-to-ROSC, and favourable neurological outcome at discharge defined as modified Rankin Scale (MRS) <3. A total of 162 patients met our inclusion criteria, mean age (60.69 ± 9.61), 34.6% women. Of them, 52 patients received IC epinephrine, and 110 patients received IV epinephrine as part of the resuscitation. Survival to hospital discharge was significantly higher in the IC epinephrine group (84.62% vs. 53.64%, P < 0.001) compared with the IV epinephrine group. The rate of ROSC was higher in the IC epinephrine group (94.23% vs. 70%, P < 0.001) and achieved in a shorter time (2.6 ± 1.97 min vs. 6.8 ± 2.11 min, P < 0.0001) compared with the IV group. Similarly, favourable neurological outcomes were more common in the IC epinephrine group (76.92% vs. 47.27%, P < 0.001) compared with the IV epinephrine group. CONCLUSION: In this observational study, IC epinephrine during cardiac arrest in the cath lab appeared to be safe and may be associated with improved outcomes compared with the IV route. Larger randomized studies are encouraged to confirm these results.

Mitral Valve Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair After TAVR: A Nationwide Analysis.

Patients with persistent severe mitral regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may benefit from mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (M-TEER). Using the Nationwide Readmission Database, we identified patients who had M-TEER within 6 months after TAVR and compared their outcomes with patients who had M-TEER without previous recent TAVR during the same calendar year between 2014 and 2020. Because Nationwide Readmission Database data do not cross years, analysis was restricted to the last half of each calendar year. End points included in-hospital mortality and 30-day and 90-day postdischarge rehospitalization rates. In 23,885 M-TEER patients, 396 (1.7%) had a previous recent TAVR. The number of post-TAVR M-TEER procedures increased progressively over time from 16 in 2014 to 92 in 2020. Patients who had M-TEER after a recent TAVR versus those without previous TAVR had similar in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.12 to 1.23, p = 0.11), but higher rates of 30-day all-cause hospitalization and heart failure hospitalization (adjusted odds ratios 1.34, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.79, p = 0.04 and 1.63, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.36, p = 0.009, respectively). Nonetheless, in patients who underwent M-TEER post-TAVR, the cumulative 90-day all-cause hospitalization and heart failure hospitalization rates were less after M-TEER compared with before M-TEER (from 45.7% to 31.5%, p = 0.007, and from 29.0% to 16.6%, respectively, both p = 0.005). In conclusion, M-TEER procedures after TAVR in the United States are increasing. Patients with M-TEER after TAVR had similar in-hospital mortality as those who underwent M-TEER without recent TAVR, but higher 30-day hospitalization rates. Nonetheless, 90-day hospitalization rates were decreased after M-TEER in patients with previous TAVR.

Meta-Analysis Assessing Efficacy and Safety of Vitamin K Antagonists Versus Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Atrial Fibrillation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF) are at a higher risk for thromboembolic and bleeding events. The optimal antithrombotic strategy for patients with AF after TAVI remains unclear. We sought to determine the comparative efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) versus oral vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in these patients. Electronic databases such as PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched till January 31, 2023, for relevant studies evaluating clinical outcomes of VKA versus DOAC in patients with AF after TAVI. Outcomes assessed were (1) all-cause mortality, (2) stroke, (3) major/life-threatening bleeding, and (4) any bleeding. Hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled in meta-analysis using random effect model. Nine studies (2 randomized and 7 observational) were included in systematic review, and 8 studies with 25,769 patients were eligible to be included in the meta-analysis. The mean age of the patients was 82.1 years, and 48.3% were male. Pooled analysis using random-effects model showed no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality (HR 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.10, p = 0.33), stroke (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16, p = 0.70), and major/life-threatening bleeding (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.35, p = 0.70) in patients that received DOAC compared with oral VKA. Risk of any bleeding was lower in the DOAC group compared with oral VKA (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.91, p = 0.0001). In patients with AF, DOACs appear to be a safe alternative oral anticoagulation strategy to oral VKA after TAVI. Further randomized studies are required to confirm the role of DOACs in those patients.

Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair for mitral regurgitation using PASCAL or MitraClip.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data regarding the comparative efficacy and safety of Mitral valve transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (MTEER) using the PASCAL or MitraClip systems for patients with mitral regurgitation (MR). METHODS: An electronic search was conducted for MEDLINE, COCHRANE, and EMBASE, through February 2023, for studies comparing the clinical outcomes of MTEER using PASCAL versus MitraClip systems among patients with severe MR. The primary study outcome was residual MR ≤ 2 at discharge. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: The final analysis included six studies with a total of 1581 patients, with a weighted follow-up period of 3.5 months. Two studies only included patients with degenerative MR, while the remaining studies included both degenerative and functional MR. There was no significant difference in procedure duration between MTEER with the PASCAL or MitraClip systems. There was no difference in residual MR ≤ 2 at discharge (94.7% vs. 91.9%; odds ratio [OR]: 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-2.27) or residual MR ≤ 2 at the mid-term follow-up (94.6% vs. 91.0%, p = 0.05) among the PASCAL versus MitraClip systems. There was no difference between both groups in residual MR ≤ 1 at discharge (73.1% vs. 63.8%, p = 0.12), while there was greater incidence of residual MR ≤ 1 at midterm follow-up with the PASCAL system (71.3% vs. 56.2%, p < 0.001). There was no difference between the PASCAL and MitraClip MTEER systems in technical success (97.0% vs. 97.9%, p = 0.15), procedural success (89.1% vs. 87.1%, p = 0.78), single leaflet detachment (1.8% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.55), or all-cause mortality (3.6% vs. 4.6%, p = 0.71). CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, we demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety between the PASCAL and MitraClip MTEER systems at short- and mid-term assessments. Randomized trials are warranted to evaluate the comparative long-term outcomes between both MTEER systems.

The Cardiovascular Manifestations of COVID-19.

The Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus, has resulted in unprecedented morbidity and mortality worldwide. While COVID-19 typically presents as viral pneumonia, cardiovascular manifestations such as acute coronary syndromes, arterial and venous thrombosis, acutely decompensated heart failure (HF), and arrhythmia are frequently observed. Many of these complications are associated with poorer outcomes, including death. Herein we review the relationship between cardiovascular risk factors and outcomes among patients with COVID-19, cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19, and cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19 vaccination.

Transcatheter vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Pure Native Aortic Regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: Patients with pure native aortic regurgitation (AR) have been excluded from transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) trials. We sought to examine midterm outcomes with TAVR in AR compared with surgical AVR (SAVR) in a contemporary cohort. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries who underwent elective TAVR or SAVR for pure AR from 2016 to 2019 were identified. Patients with concomitant aortic stenosis and who underwent a valve-in-valve intervention or concomitant mitral valve or ascending aorta operation were excluded. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality in the longest follow-up. Secondary outcomes included stroke, endocarditis, and redo AVR. Overlap propensity score weighting was used to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: During the study period, 11,027 patients with pure AR underwent elective AVR (TAVR, n = 1147; SAVR, n = 9880). SAVR patients were younger, with fewer comorbidities and less frailty compared with TAVR patients. TAVR was associated with adjusted 30-day mortality comparable to SAVR. After a median follow-up of 31 months (interquartile range, 18-44 months), TAVR was associated with higher adjusted risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 1.03-1.93; P = .02) and need for redo-AVR (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.05-4.34; P = .03) compared with SAVR. The risk of stroke (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.95-2.87; P = .07) and endocarditis (HR, 2.60; 95% CI, 0.92-7.36; P = .07) was numerically higher with TAVR. CONCLUSIONS: In Medicare patients with pure native AR, TAVR with the current commercially available transcatheter valves has comparable short-term outcomes. Although long-term outcomes were inferior to SAVR, the possibility of residual confounding, biasing long-term outcomes, given older and frailer TAVR patients, cannot be excluded.

Meta-Analysis on Transcarotid Versus Transfemoral and Other Alternate Accesses for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Transcarotid access has emerged as the preferred access site for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with prohibitive iliofemoral anatomy. This study aimed to compare outcomes with transcarotid with those of other accesses in patients who underwent TAVI. Cochrane, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases were searched for all published studies that compared outcomes with transcarotid with those of other accesses (transfemoral, transaxillary/subclavian, transaortic, and transapical) in patients who underwent TAVI. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included major bleeding, major vascular complications, stroke, myocardial infarction, permanent pacemaker implantation, and peri-aortic valve insufficiency. We included 22 observational studies with a total of 11,896 patients. Outcomes were reported during hospitalization and at 1-month follow-up. The transcarotid approach had higher mortality at 1 month (3.7% vs 2.6%, p = 0.02) but lower major vascular complications during hospitalization (1.5% vs 3.4%, p = 0.04) than did transfemoral access. The transcarotid approach had lower major vascular complications (2% vs 2.3%, p = 0.04) than did the transaxillary/subclavian but higher major bleeding (5.3% vs 2.6%, p = 0.03). The transaortic approach was associated with higher in-hospital (11.7% vs 1.9%, p = 0.02) and 1-month mortality (14.4% vs 3.9%, p = 0.007) rates than was transcarotid access. The transcarotid approach numerically reduced mortality and the risk of major vascular complications and major bleeding compared with the transapical approach; however, this did not reach statistical significance. The transcarotid approach did not increase the risk of stroke compared with transfemoral or the other alternative accesses. In conclusion, the transcarotid or transaxillary/subclavian approach had associated comparable outcomes that were better than those of the transapical and transaortic approaches. There was no difference in stroke risk between transcarotid access and other accesses.

The Use of Midodrine as an Adjunctive Therapy to Liberate Patients from Intravenous Vasopressors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Studies.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating the role of midodrine as an adjunctive therapy to liberate patients with shock from intravenous (IV) vasopressors have yielded mixed results. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of midodrine as an adjunctive therapy to liberate patients with shock from IV vasopressors. METHODS: Electronic searches of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases through April 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the use of midodrine versus control in patients with shock and a low dose of IV vasopressors. The primary outcome was total IV vasopressor time, while the secondary outcomes included time-to-IV vasopressor discontinuation, IV vasopressor restart, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and incidence of bradycardia. RESULTS: The final analysis included four RCTs with a total of 314 patients: 158 in the midodrine group and 156 in the control group, with a weighted mean age of 64 years (54.2% men). There was no significant difference in the total IV vasopressor time between the midodrine and control groups (standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 1.38 to 0.32, p = 0.22; I2 = 92%). Also, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the time-to-IV vasopressor discontinuation (SMD - 0.05; 95% CI - 0.57 to 0.47, p = 0.09), IV vasopressor restart (19.3 vs. 28.3%; risk ratio [RR] 0.74; 95% 0.25-2.20, p = 0.59), ICU LOS (SMD - 0.49; 95% CI - 1.30 to 0.33, p = 0.24), and hospital LOS (SMD 0.01; 95% CI - 0.27 to 0.29, p = 0.92). However, compared with the control group, the midodrine group had a higher risk of bradycardia (15.3 vs. 2.1% RR 5.56; 95% CI 1.54-20.05, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with vasopressor-dependent shock, midodrine was not associated with early liberation of vasopressor support or shorter ICU or hospital length of stay. Adding midodrine increased the risk of bradycardia. Further large RCTs are needed to better evaluate the efficacy and safety of midodrine in liberating patients from IV vasopressors.

Meta-Analysis on Invasive Versus Conservative Strategy in Patients Older Than Seventy Years With Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

Management of non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) has evolved over the years, but most published data are from younger patients. Data on the NSTEMI management in older patients remain limited. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the long-term outcomes of invasive versus conservative strategies in older patients (>70 years old) with NSTEMI. Of 1,550 reports searched, 4 randomized controlled trials (1,126 patients) were included in the analysis, with a median follow-up of 1.25 years (range: 1 to 2.5 years). The median age of included patients was 83.6 (interquartile range: 2.8 years). The invasive strategy was associated with significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (odds ratio [OR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40 to 0.91, I2 = 54%; 3 trials] and unplanned revascularization (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.64, I2 = 1.7%; 3 trials] than was the conservative strategy. There was no difference in all-cause mortality (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.18, I2 = 0%; 4 trials], myocardial infarction (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.19, I2 = 54.7%; 4 trials], or bleeding (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.93, I2 = 0%; 3 trials] between the strategies. In conclusion, the use of initial invasive strategy in older patients presenting with NSTEMI was associated with a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event and unplanned revascularization than that of the initial conservative strategy without increased bleeding.

Anterior-Posterior versus anterior-lateral electrodes position for electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: The optimal electrodes position for elective direct current (DC) cardioversion of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) remains uncertain. Methods: An electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases was performed through March 2022 for randomized trials that examined the outcomes of anterior-posterior (AP) versus anterior-lateral (AL) electrodes position during cardioversion of (AF). The main outcome was the success rate of cardioversion. Data were pooled using random effects model. Results: The final analysis included 10 RCTs with a total of 1677 patients. There was no difference in the rate of successful cardioversion between the AP versus AL groups (86.6 vs 87.9 %; RR 1.00; 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.06). Subgroup analysis by the shock waveform showed no significant interaction between monophasic and biphasic waveforms (Pintercation = 0.23). meta-regression analyses showed no effect modification of primary outcome according to body mass index (p = 0.15), left atrial diameter (p = 0.64), valvular heart disease (p = 0.34), lone AF (p = 0.58), or the duration of AF (p = 0.70). There was no significant difference between the AP and AL electrode position groups in successful cardioversion at low energy (RR 0.94; 95 % CI 0.74 to 1.19), the number of the delivered shocks (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.03; 95 % CI -0.32 to 0.26) or the mean energy of the delivered shocks (SMD -0.11 and 95 % CI -0.30 to 0.07). There was lower transthoracic impedance with AP versus AL electrode position (SMD -0.28; 95 %CI -0.47 to -0.10). Conclusion: Meta-analysis of randomized data showed no difference between AP and AL electrode positions in the success rate of DC cardioversion of AF. Either AP or AL electrode positions should be acceptable approaches for elective DC cardioversion of patients with AF.