Structural Heart最新文献

Background

The long-term outcomes of patients undergoing functional assessment of coronary lesions with fractional flow reserve (FFR) while awaiting transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are unknown. Data on the safety of intracoronary adenosine use in this setting are scarce. The objectives of this study were to describe (1) the long-term outcomes based on the coronary artery disease (CAD) assessment strategy used and (2) the safety of intracoronary adenosine in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).

Methods

1023 patients with severe AS awaiting TAVI were included. Patients were classified according to their CAD assessment strategy: angiography guided or FFR guided. Patients were further subdivided according to the decision to proceed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI): angiography-guided PCI (375/1023), angiography-guided no-PCI (549/1023), FFR-guided PCI (50/1023), and FFR-guided no-PCI (49/1023). Patients were followed up for the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs).

Results

At a mean follow-up of 33.7 months, we observed no significant differences in terms of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) in the angiography-guided group (42.4%) compared with the FFR-guided group (37.4%) (p = 0.333). When comparing outcomes of the FFR-guided no-PCI group (32.7%) with the angiography-guided PCI group (46.4%), no significant difference was noted (p = 0.999). Following intracoronary adenosine, a single adverse event occurred.

Conclusions

In this population, intracoronary adenosine is safe and well tolerated. We found no significant benefit to an FFR-guided strategy compared with an angiography-guided strategy with respect to MACCEs. Although clinically compelling, avoiding the procedural risks of PCI by deferring the intervention in functionally insignificant lesions failed to show a statistically significant benefit.

Cardiac tumors are rare conditions, typically diagnosed on autopsy, but with the advancement of imaging techniques they are now encountered more frequently in clinical practice. Echocardiography is often the initial method of investigation for cardiac masses and provides a quick and valuable springboard for their characterization. While some cardiac masses can be readily identified by echocardiography alone, several require incorporation of multiple data points to reach diagnostic certainty. Herein, we will provide an overview of the main clinical, diagnostic, and therapeutic characteristics of cardiac masses within the framework of their location.

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be used to urgently or emergently treat severe aortic stenosis, but outcomes for this high-risk population have not been well-characterized. We sought to describe the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients undergoing urgent or emergent vs. elective TAVR.

Methods

We identified all adults who received TAVR for primary aortic stenosis between 2013 and 2019 within an integrated health care delivery system in Northern California. Elective or urgent/emergent procedure status was based on standard Society of Thoracic Surgeons definitions. Data were obtained from electronic health records, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons-American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry, and state/national reporting databases. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models were performed.

Results

Among 1564 eligible adults that underwent TAVR, 81 (5.2%) were classified as urgent/emergent. These patients were more likely to have heart failure (63.0% vs. 47.4%), reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (21.0% vs. 11.8%), or a prior aortic valve balloon valvuloplasty (13.6% vs. 5.0%) and experienced higher unadjusted rates of 30-day and 1-year morbidity and mortality. Urgent/emergent TAVR status was independently associated with non-improved quality of life at 30-days (hazard ratio, 4.87; p < 0.01) and acute kidney injury within 1-year post-TAVR (hazard ratio, 2.11; p = 0.01). There was not a significant difference in adjusted 1-year mortality with urgent/emergent TAVR.

Conclusions

Urgent/emergent TAVR status was uncommon and associated with high-risk clinical features and higher unadjusted rates of short- and long-term morbidity and mortality. Procedure status may be useful to identify patients less likely to experience significant short term improvement in health-related quality of life post-TAVR.

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve intervention (TAVI) can lead to the embolization of debris. Capturing the debris by cerebral embolic protection (CEP) devices may reduce the risk of stroke. New evidence has allowed us to examine the effects of CEP in patients undergoing TAVI. We aimed to assess the effects of CEP overall and stratified by the device used (SENTINEL or TriGuard) and the surgical risk of the patients.

Methods

We selected randomized controlled trials using electronic databases through September 17, 2022. We estimated random-effects risk ratios (RR) with (95% confidence interval) and calculated absolute risk differences at 30 days across baseline surgical risks derived from the TAVI trials for any stroke (disabling and nondisabling) and all-cause mortality.

Results

Among 6 trials (n = 3921), CEP vs. control did not reduce any stroke [RR: 0.95 (0.50-1.81)], disabling [RR: 0.75 (0.18-3.16)] or nondisabling [RR: 0.99 (0.65-1.49)] strokes, or all-cause mortality [RR: 1.23 (0.55-2.77)]. However, when analyzed by device, SENTINEL reduced disabling stroke [RR: 0.46 (0.22-0.95)], translating into 6 fewer per 1000 in high-risk, 3 fewer per 1000 in intermediate-risk, and 1 fewer per 1000 in low surgical-risk patients. CEP vs. control did not reduce the risk of any bleeding [RR: 1.03 (0.44-2.40)], major vascular complications [RR: 1.41 (0.57-3.48)], or acute kidney injury [RR: 1.36 (0.57-3.28)].

Conclusions

This updated meta-analysis showed that SENTINEL CEP might reduce disabling stroke in patients undergoing TAVI. Patients with high and intermediate surgical risks were most likely to derive benefits.

Background

Patients with dialysis-dependent end-stage renal disease (ESRD) taking midodrine may be at high risk for poor outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We evaluated dialysis-dependent ESRD patients taking midodrine.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of non-clinical trial TAVR patients from February 2012 to December 2020 from 11 facilities in a Western US health system. Patient groups included ESRD patients on midodrine before TAVR (ESRD [+M]), ESRD patients without midodrine (ESRD [−M]), and non-ESRD patients. The endpoints of 30-day and 1-year mortality were represented by Kaplan–Meier survival estimator and compared by log-rank test.

Results

Forty-five ESRD (+M), 216 ESRD (−M), and 6898 non-ESRD patients were included. ESRD patients had more comorbid conditions, despite no significant difference in predicted Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality risk between ESRD (+M) and ESRD (−M) (8.7% vs. 9.2%, p = 0.491). Thirty-day mortality was significantly higher for ESRD (+M) patients vs. ESRD (−M) patients (20.1% vs. 5.6%, p = 0.001) and for ESRD (+M) vs. non-ESRD patients (2.5%, p < 0.001). One-year mortality trended higher for ESRD (+M) vs. ESRD (−M) patients (41.9% vs. 29.8%, p = 0.07), and was significantly higher for ESRD (+M) vs. non-ESRD patients (10.7%, p < 0.001). Compared to ESRD (−M), ESRD (+M) patients had a higher incidence of 30-day stroke (6.7% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.033), 30-day vascular complications (6.7% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.011), and a lower rate of discharge to home (62.2% vs. 84.7%, p < 0.001). In contrast, ESRD (−M) patients had no significant differences from non-ESRD patients for these outcomes.

Conclusions

Our experience suggests ESRD patients on midodrine are a higher acuity population with worse survival after TAVR, compared to ESRD patients not on midodrine. These findings may help with risk stratification for ESRD patients undergoing TAVR.

Background

Cardiac computed tomography angiography was used to identify anatomical characteristics of the aortic root in patients with severe aortic regurgitation (AR) as compared to those with aortic stenosis (AS) to judge feasibility of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the JenaValve Trilogy system.

Methods

Cardiac computed tomography angiography was performed prior to planned TAVR for 107 patients with severe AR and 92 patients with severe AS. Measurements related to aortic root and coronary artery anatomy were obtained and compared between groups. Perimeter >90 mm and aortic annulus angle ​>70 degrees were defined as the theoretical exclusion criteria for TAVR. A combination of sinus of Valsalva diameter <30 mm and coronary height <12 mm was defined as high risk for coronary occlusion.

Results

The mean age of patients in the AR group was 74.9 ± 11.2 years, 46% were women, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score for mortality was 3.6 ± 2.1. Comparatively, the mean age of patients in the AS group was 82.3 ± 5.53 years, 65% were women, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeonsrisk score was 5.5 ± 3.3. Annulus area, perimeter, diameter, and angle were larger in patients with severe AR. Sinus of Valsalva diameters and heights were larger in patients with severe AR. More AR patients were excluded based on perimeter (14 vs. 2%) and annulus angle (6 vs. 1%). More AS patients exhibited high-risk anatomy for left main coronary occlusion (21 vs. 7%) and right coronary occlusion (14 vs. 3%). The maximum dimension of the ascending aorta was larger in patients with severe AR (39 vs. 35 mm). The percentage of referred AR patients with significant aortopathy requiring surgical intervention was very low (only 1 AR patient with ascending aorta diameter >5.5 cm).

Conclusions

A significantly larger proportion of patients with severe AR are excluded from TAVR as compared to AS due to large aortic annulus size and steep annulus angulation. By far the most prevalent excluding factor is aortic annulus size, with fewer patients excluded due to angulation. AR patients have lower-risk anatomy for coronary occlusion. Larger transcatheter valve sizes and further delivery system modifications are required to treat a larger proportion of AR patients.