RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The anatomic substrate of bicuspid valves may lead to suboptimal TAVR stent expansion and geometry. AIM: We evaluated determinants of stent geometry in bicuspid valves treated with Sapien transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) valves. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective registry of patients (February 2019 to August 2022) who underwent post-TAVR computed tomography to determine stent area (vs. nominal valve area) and stent ellipticity (maximum diameter/minimum diameter). Predictors of relative stent expansion (minimum area/average of inflow + outflow area) and stent ellipticity were evaluated in a multivariable regression model, including valve calcium volume (indexed by annular area), presence of raphe calcium, sinus diameters indexed by area-derived annular diameter, and performance of pre-dilation and post-dilation. RESULTS: The registry enrolled 101 patients from four centers. The minimum stent area (vs. nominal area) was 88.1%, and the maximum ellipticity was 1.10, with both observed near the midframe of the valve in all cases. Relative stent expansion ≥90% was observed in 64/101 patients. The only significant predictor of relative stent expansion ≥90% was the performance of post-dilation (OR: 4.79, p = 0.018). Relative stent expansion ≥90% was seen in 86% of patients with post-dilation compared to 57% without (p < 0.001). The stent ellipticity ≥1.1 was observed in 47/101 patients. The significant predictors of stent ellipticity ≥1.1 were the indexed maximum sinus diameter (OR: 0.582, p = 0.021) and indexed intercommisural diameter at 4 mm (OR: 2.42, p = 0.001). Stent expansion has a weak negative correlation with post-TAVR mean gradient (r = -0.324, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Relative stent expansion ≥90% was associated with the performance of post-dilation, and stent ellipticity ≥1.1 was associated with indexed intercommisural diameter and indexed maximum sinus diameter. Further studies to determine optimal deployment strategies in bicuspid valves are needed.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Hemodynamic management of adults with distributive shock often includes the use of catecholamine-based vasoconstricting medications. It is unclear whether adding vasopressin or vasopressin analogues to catecholamine therapy is beneficial in the management of patients with distributive shock. The purpose of this guideline was to develop an evidence-based recommendation regarding the addition of vasopressin to catecholamine vasopressors in the management of adults with distributive shock. METHODS: We summarized the evidence informing this recommendation by updating a recently published meta-analysis. Then, a multidisciplinary panel from the Canadian Critical Care Society developed the recommendation using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. RESULTS: The updated systematic review identified 25 randomized controlled trials including a total of 3,737 patients with distributive shock. Compared with catecholamine therapy alone, the addition of vasopressin or its analogues was associated with a reduced risk of mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 0.99; low certainty), reduced risk of atrial fibrillation (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.88; high certainty), and increased risk of digital ischemia (RR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.24 to 5.25; moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: After considering certainty in the evidence, values and preferences, cost, and other factors, the expert guideline panel suggests using vasopressin or vasopressin analogues in addition to catecholamines over catecholamine vasopressors alone for the management of distributive shock (conditional recommendation, low certainty evidence).
