Ventricular arrhythmias in patients with prior aortic valve intervention: Characteristics, ablation and outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Data regarding ventricular tachycardia (VT) or premature ventricular complex (PVC) ablation in patients with aortic valve (AV) intervention (AVI) is limited. Catheter ablation (CA) can be challenging given perivalvular substrate in the setting of prosthetic valves. We sought to investigate the characteristics, safety, and outcomes of CA in patients with prior AVI and ventricular arrhythmias (VA). METHODS: We identified consecutive patients with prior AVI (replacement or repair) who underwent CA for VT or PVC between 2013 and 2018. We investigated the mechanism of arrhythmia, ablation approach, perioperative complications, and outcomes. RESULTS: We included 34 patients (88% men, mean age 64 ± 10.4 years, left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction 35.2 ± 15.0%) with prior AVI who underwent CA (22 VT; 12 PVC). LV access was obtained through trans-septal approach in all patients except one patient who had percutaneous transapical access. One patient had combined retrograde aortic and trans-septal approach. Scar-related reentry was the dominant mechanism of induced VTs. Two patients had bundle branch reentry VTs. In the VT group, substrate mapping demonstrated heterogeneous scar that involved the peri-AV area in 95%. Despite that, the site of successful ablation included the periaortic region only in 6 (27%) patients. In the PVC group, signal abnormalities consistent with scar in the periaortic area were noted in 4 (33%) patients. In 8 (67%) patients, the successful site of ablation was unrelated to the periaortic area. No procedure-related complications occurred. The survival and recurrence-free survival rate at 1 year tended to be lower in VT group than in PVC group (p = .06 and p = .05, respectively) with a 1-year recurrence-free survival rate of 52.8% and 91.7%, respectively. No arrhythmia-related death was documented on long-term follow-up. CONCLUSION: CA of VAs can be performed safely and effectively in patients with prior AVI.

Characteristics and outcomes of ventricular tachycardia and premature ventricular contractions ablation in patients with prior mitral valve surgery.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding ventricular tachycardia (VT) or premature ventricular complex (PVC) ablation following mitral valve surgery (MVS) is limited. Catheter ablation (CA) can be challenging given perivalvular substrate in the setting of mitral annuloplasty or prosthetic valves. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the characteristics, safety, and outcomes of radiofrequency CA in patients with prior MVS and ventricular arrhythmias (VA). METHODS: We identified consecutive patients with prior MVS who underwent CA for VT or PVC between January 2013 and December 2018. We investigated the mechanism of arrhythmia, ablation approach, peri-operative complications, and outcomes. RESULTS: In our cohort, 31 patients (77% men, mean age 62.3 ± 10.8 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 39.2 ± 13.9%) with prior MVS underwent CA (16 VT; 15 PVC). Access to the left ventricle was via transseptal approach in 17 patients, and a retrograde aortic approach was used in 13 patients. A combined transseptal and retrograde aortic approach was used in one patient, and a percutaneous epicardial approach was combined with trans-septal approach in one patient. Heterogenous scar regions were present in 94% of VT patients and scar-related reentry was the dominant mechanism of VT. Forty-seven percent of PVC patients had abnormal substrate at the site targeted for ablation. Clinical VA substrates involved the peri-mitral area in six patients with VT and five patients with PVC ablation. No procedure-related complications were reported. The overall recurrence-free rate at 1-year was 72.2%; 67% in the VT group and 78% in the PVC group. No arrhythmia-related death was documented on long-term follow-up. CONCLUSION: CA of VAs can be performed safely and effectively in patients with MVS.

Trends, predictors, and outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with bicuspid aortic valve related disease: Insights from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and Nationwide Readmission Database.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has increasingly been utilized in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) related aortic stenosis (AS) with insufficient large-scale data on its safety. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample and Nationwide Readmission Database (2011-2018) were queried to identify patients undergoing TAVI for BAV versus trileaflet aortic valve (TAV) associated AS. The in-hospital, 30- and 180-day odds of outcomes were assessed using a propensity-matched analysis (PSM) to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: A total of 216,723 TAVI (TAV: 214,050 and BAV: 2,673) crude and 5,347 matched population (TAV: 2,674 and BAV: 2,673) was included in the final analysis. At index admission, the adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality (aOR: 1.57, 95% CI: 0.67-3.66), stroke (aOR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.38-1.57), cardiac tamponade (aOR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.17-3.36), vascular complications (aOR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.09-1.22), cardiogenic shock (aOR: 1.77, 95% CI: 0.93-3.38), paravalvular leak (aOR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.26-1.14), need for mechanical circulatory support device, and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPM) (aOR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.69-1.52) were not significantly different between TAVI for BAV versus TAV. At 30- and 180-day follow-up duration, the risk of stroke and major postprocedural complications remained similar, except that TAVI in BAV had a higher incidence of PPM implantation compared with TAV. The yearly trend showed an increase in the utilization of TAVI for both TAV and BAV and a steady decline in the overall annual rate of in-hospital complications. CONCLUSION: TAVI utilization in patients with BAV has increased over the recent years. The relative odds of in-hospital mortality, and all other major complications, were similar between patients undergoing TAVI for BAV- and TAV-related AS.

Utilization and procedural adverse outcomes associated with Watchman device implantation.

AIMS: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the Watchman device [percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO)] has resulted in the widespread use of this procedure in many centres across the USA. We sought to estimate the nationwide utilization and frequency of adverse outcomes associated with Watchman device implantation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the Watchman device implantation peri-procedural complications and comparison of the results with the previous studies. METHODS AND RESULTS: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) was queried for all hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter during the year 2016 with percutaneous LAAO during the same admission (ICD-10 code-02L73DK). The frequency of peri-procedural complications, including mortality, procedure-related stroke, major bleeding requiring blood transfusion, and pericardial effusion, was assessed. We compared the complication rates with the published randomized controlled trials and the European Watchman registry. An estimated 5175 LAAO procedures were performed in 2016. The majority of procedures was performed in males (59.1%), age ≥75 years (58.7%), and White (83.1%). The overall complication rate was 1.9%. The in-hospital mortality was 0.29%. Pericardial effusion requiring pericardiocentesis was the most frequent complication (0.68%). Bleeding requiring transfusion was noted in 0.1% of device implants. The rates of post-procedure stroke and systemic embolism were 0% and 0.29%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous LAAO with the Watchman device in the USA is associated with low in-hospital complications and a similar safety profile to a recently published EWOLUTION cohort. The complication rates were lower than those reported in the major randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We report the frequency of peri-procedural complications of the LAAO using the Watchman device from the NIS database. We also compare the frequency of peri-procedural complications with the previously published RCTs and EWOLUTION cohort. Our findings are in concordance with findings from EWOLUTION cohort and compare favourably with RCTs.