Prophylactic EUS-guided gallbladder drainage prevents acute cholecystitis in patients with malignant biliary obstruction and cystic duct orifice involvement: a randomized trial (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) and cystic duct orifice tumoral involvement have an increased risk for the development of acute cholecystitis after self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement. We aimed to determine whether primary EUS-guided gallbladder drainage prevents acute cholecystitis in these patients. METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized control trial in patients with distal MBO enrolled from July 2018 to July 2020. Patients were randomized into 2 groups: an interventional group treated with conventional ERCP biliary drainage with SEMS placement and subsequent primary EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) and a control group treated with conventional biliary drainage alone. The primary outcome of the study was the occurrence of post-treatment acute cholecystitis, assessed for ≤12 months or until death. The secondary outcomes were hospitalization length and median survival time. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were included in the study: 22 in each group. Five patients in the control group (22.7%) and none in the intervention group experienced acute cholecystitis. The median hospitalization time was significantly lower in the interventional group than in the control group (2 days vs 1 day, P = .017). There was no difference in the observed median survival rates in the primary EUS-GBD group (2.9 months) and the control group (2.8 months) (P = .580). CONCLUSION: In this single-center study of patients with unresectable MBO and occlusion of the cystic duct orifice, prophylactic EUS-GBD demonstrated a reduced incidence of acute cholecystitis.

Cardiac amyloidosis and left atrial appendage closure. The CAMYLAAC study.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis (ATTR-CA) patients often have atrial fibrillation and increased bleeding/thrombogenic risks. We aimed to evaluate outcomes of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) compared with patients without a known diagnosis of CA. METHODS: Comparison at long-term of patients diagnosed with ATTR-CA who underwent LAAC between 2009 and 2020 and those without a known diagnosis of CA. RESULTS: We studied a total of 1159 patients. Forty patients (3.5%) were diagnosed with ATTR-CA; these patients were older and had more comorbidities, higher HAS-BLED and CHA2DS2-VASc scores, and lower left ventricular function. Successful LAAC was achieved in 1137 patients (98.1%) with no differences between groups. Regarding in-hospital and follow-up complications, there were no differences between the groups in ischemic stroke (5% vs 2.5% in those without a known diagnosis of CA; P=.283), hemorrhagic stroke (2.5% and 0.8% in the control group; P=.284), major or minor bleeding. At the 2-year follow-up, there were no significant differences in mortality (ATTR-CA: 20% vs those without known CA: 13.6%, 0.248); however, the at 5-year follow-up, ATTR-CA patients had higher mortality (40% vs 19.2%; P <.001) but this difference was unrelated to hemorrhagic complications or ischemic stroke. CONCLUSIONS: LAAC could reduce the risk of bleeding complications and ischemic cerebrovascular events without increasing the rate of early or mid-term complications. Although long-term survival was impaired in ATTR-CA patients, it was comparable to that of patients without a known diagnosis of CA at the 2-year follow-up, suggesting that LAAC for patients with ATTR-CA might not be futile.

Impact of Preexisting Left Bundle Branch Block in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Recipients

BACKGROUND: The impact of preexisting left bundle branch block (LBBB) in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) recipients is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of preexisting LBBB on clinical outcomes after TAVR. METHODS AND RESULTS: This multicenter study evaluated 3404 TAVR candidates according to the presence or absence of LBBB on baseline ECG. TAVR complications and causes of death were defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions. Follow-up outpatient visits or telephone interviews were conducted at 30 days, 12 months, and yearly thereafter. Echocardiography examinations were performed at baseline, at hospital discharge, and at 1-year follow-up. Preexisting LBBB was present in 398 patients (11.7%) and was associated with an increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI; 21.1% versus 14.8%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.12­2.04) but not death (7.3% versus 5.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.84­2.12) at 30 days. At a mean follow-up of 22±21 months, there were no differences between patients with and without preexisting LBBB in overall mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75­1.18) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.68­1.21). In a subanalysis of 2421 patients without PPI at 30 days and with complete follow-up about the PPI, preexisting LBBB was not associated with an increased risk of PPI or sudden cardiac death. Patients with preexisting LBBB had a lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at baseline and at 1-year follow-up (P <0.001 for both), but those with low LVEF exhibited a similar increase in LVEF over time after TAVR compared with patients with no preexisting LBBB (P=0.327). CONCLUSIONS: Preexisting LBBB significantly increased the risk of early (but not late) PPI after TAVR, without any significant effect on overall mortality or cardiovascular mortality. Preexisting LBBB was associated with lower LVEF pre-TAVR but did not prevent an increase in LVEF post-TAVR similar to patients without LBBB.

Clinical impact of baseline right bundle branch block in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement

This study sought to assess the influence of baseline right bundle branch block (RBBB) on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality as well as sudden cardiac death (SCD) among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Few data exist regarding the late clinical impact of pre-existing RBBB in TAVR recipients. A total of 3,527 patients (mean age 82 8 years, 50.1% men) were evaluated according to the presence of RBBB on baseline electrocardiography. Intraventricular conduction abnormalities were classified according to the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology Foundation, and Heart Rhythm Society recommendations for standardization and interpretation of the electrocardiogram. TAVR complications and causes of death were defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 definitions. RBBB was present on baseline electrocardiography in 362 patients (10.3%) and associated with higher 30-day rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) (40.1% vs. 13.5%; p < 0.001) and death (10.2% vs. 6.9%; p » 0.024). At a mean follow-up of 20 18 months, pre-existing RBBB was independently associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06 to 1.63; p » 0.014) and cardiovascular mortality (HR: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.89; p » 0.006) but not with SCD (HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.22 to 2.32; p » 0.57). Patients with pre-existing RBBB and without PPI at discharge from the index hospitalization had the highest 2-year risk for cardiovascular death (27.8%; 95% CI: 20.9% to 36.1%; log-rank p » 0.007). In a subanalysis of 1,245 patients without PPI at discharge from the index hospitalization and with complete follow-up regarding the need for PPI, pre-existing RBBB was independently associated with the composite of SCD and PPI (HR: 2.68; 95% CI: 1.16 to 6.17; p » 0.023)

Comparison of balloon-expandable vs. self-expandable valves in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation: from the CENTER-collaboration

AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with balloon-expandable (BE) valves vs. self-expandable (SE) valves. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is a minimally invasive and lifesaving treatment in patients with aortic valve stenosis. Even though BE-valves and SE-valves are both commonly used on a large scale, adequately sized trials comparing clinical outcomes in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis treated with BE-valves compared with SE-valves are lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this CENTER-collaboration, data from 10 registries or clinical trials, selected through a systematic search, were pooled and analyzed. Propensity score methodology was used to reduce treatment selection bias and potential confounding. The primary endpoints were mortality and stroke at 30 days follow-up in patients treated with BE-valves compared with SE-valves. Secondary endpoints included clinical outcomes, e.g. bleeding during hospital admission. All outcomes were split for early-generation BE-valves compared with early-generation SE-valves and new-generation BE-valves with new-generation SE-valves. The overall patient population (N = 12 381) included 6239 patients undergoing TAVI with BE-valves and 6142 patients with SE-valves. The propensity matched population had a mean age of 81 ± 7 years and a median STS-PROM score or 6.5% [interquartile range (IQR) 4.0-13.0%]. At 30-day follow-up, the mortality rate was not statistically different in patients undergoing TAVI with BE-valves compared with SE-valves [BE: 5.3% vs. SE: 6.2%, relative risk (RR) 0.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7-1.0, P = 0.10]. Stroke occurred less frequently in patients treated with BE-valves (BE: 1.9% vs. SE: 2.6%, RR 0.7; 95% CI 0.5-1.0, P = 0.03). Also, patients treated with BE-valves had a three-fold lower risk of requiring pacemaker implantation (BE: 7.8% vs. SE: 20.3%, RR 0.4; 95% CI 0.3-0.4, P < 0.001). In contrast, patients treated with new-generation BE-valves more frequently experienced major and life-threatening bleedings compared with new-generation SE-valves (BE: 4.8% vs. SE: 2.1%, RR 2.3; 95% CI 1.6-3.3, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this study, which is the largest study to compare valve types in TAVI, we demonstrated that the incidence of stroke and pacemaker implantation was lower in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI with BE-valves compared with SE-valves. In contrast, patients treated with new-generation BE-valves more often suffered from major or life-threatening bleedings than patients with new-generation SE-valves. Mortality at 30-days was not statistically different in patients treated with BE-valves compared with SE-valves. This study was a propensity-matched analysis generated from observational data, accordingly current outcomes will have to be confirmed in a large scale randomized controlled trial. (AU)

Late cardiac death in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND Little evidence exists of the burden and predictors of cardiac death after transcatheter aortic valvereplacement (TAVR).OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence and predictors of cardiac death from advancedheart failure (HF) and sudden cardiac death (SCD) in a large patient cohort undergoing TAVR.METHODS The study included a total of 3,726 patients who underwent TAVR using balloon (57%) or self-expandable(43%) valves. Causes of death were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium–2.RESULTS At a mean follow-up of 22 18 months, 155 patients had died due to advanced HF (15.2% of total deaths,46.1% of deaths from cardiac causes) and 57 had died due to SCD (5.6% of deaths, 16.9% of cardiac deaths). Baselinecomorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, left ventricular ejection fraction #40%, lowermean transaortic gradient, pulmonary artery systolic pressure >60 mm Hg; p 160 ms had a greater SCD risk (HR: 4.78, 95% CI: 1.56 to 14.63; p » 0.006).CONCLUSIONS Advanced HF and SCD accounted for two-thirds of cardiac deaths in patients after TAVR.Potentially modifiable or treatable factors leading to increased risk of mortality for HF and SCD were identified. Future.