Coronary revascularization and TAVI: before, during, after or never?

Aortic valve stenosis and coronary artery disease (CAD) frequently coexist in elderly patients selected for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Therapeutic strategies to manage concomitant obstructive CAD are therefore an important consideration in the overall management of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI. Conventional surgical aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting is the treatment of choice for low and intermediate risk patients with symptomatic severe AS and concomitant obstructive CAD. However, TAVI and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are viable alternative options for high-risk or inoperable patients presenting with symptomatic severe AS. PCI has been shown to be feasible and safe in selected high-risk or inoperable patients with symptomatic severe AS. However, the optimal timing of PCI relative to the TAVI procedure has been a subject of debate. The most frequent approch is staged PCI typically performed a few weeks prior to TAVI. However, concomitant PCI has also been shown to be a feasible and safe approach, particularly in patients with a low level of CAD complexity and an absence of severe renal impairment. Conversely, staged PCI should be considered in patients with higher degrees of CAD complexity, particularly in the presence of severe renal impairment. The aim of the present review is to discuss the safety and feasibility of performing PCI in elderly patients with severe AS and the optimal timing of PCI relative to the TAVI procedure using the most up-to-date available evidence.

Long-term outcome of the unrestricted use of everolimus-eluting stents compared to sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents in diabetic patients: the Bern-Rotterdam diabetes cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Newer generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) improve clinical outcome compared to early generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). We investigated whether the advantage in safety and efficacy also holds among the high-risk population of diabetic patients during long-term follow-up. METHODS: Between 2002 and 2009, a total of 1963 consecutive diabetic patients treated with the unrestricted use of EES (n=804), SES (n=612) and PES (n=547) were followed throughout three years for the occurrence of cardiac events at two academic institutions. The primary end point was the occurrence of definite stent thrombosis. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in 1.0% of EES, 3.7% of SES and 3.8% of PES treated patients ([EES vs. SES] adjusted HR=0.58, 95% CI 0.39-0.88; [EES vs. PES] adjusted HR=0.29, 95% CI 0.13-0.67). Similarly, patients treated with EES had a lower risk of target-lesion revascularization (TLR) compared to patients treated with SES and PES ([EES vs. SES], 5.6% vs. 11.5%, adjusted HR=0.68, 95% CI: 0.55-0.83; [EES vs. PES], 5.6% vs. 11.3%, adjusted HR=0.51, 95% CI: 0.33-0.77). There were no differences in other safety end points, such as all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) and MACE. CONCLUSION: In diabetic patients, the unrestricted use of EES appears to be associated with improved outcomes, specifically a significant decrease in the need for TLR and ST compared to early generation SES and PES throughout 3-year follow-up.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: patient selection.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a disruptive technology as it satisfies a previously unmet need which is associated with a profound therapeutic benefit. In randomized clinical trials, TAVI has been shown to improve survival compared with medical treatment among patients considered not suitable candidates for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), and to provide similar outcomes as SAVR in selected high-risk patients. Currently, TAVI is limited to selected elderly patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. As this patient population frequently suffers from comorbid conditions, which may influence outcomes, the selection of patients to undergo TAVI underlies a complex decision process. Several clinical risk score algorithms are routinely used, although they fall short to fully appreciate the true risk among patients currently referred for TAVI. Beyond traditional risk scores, the clinical assessment by an interdisciplinary Heart Team as well as detailed imaging of the aortic valve, aortic root, descending and abdominal aorta as well as peripheral vasculature are important prerequisites to plan a successful procedure. This review will familiarize the reader with the concepts of the interdisciplinary Heart team, risk scores as well as the most important imaging algorithms suited to select appropriate TAVI patients.

Safety and outcome of patients with an acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction transferred for primary coronary intervention: the Neuchâtel experience.

BACKGROUND: Transferring patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from a community hospital to a PCI centre has been evaluated in randomised trials and shown to be safe and effective. A prolonged transfer time may restrict the benefit of this strategy. AIM: We sought to assess 1) safety of transfer from Neuchâtel to Berne, 2) time intervals of patients transferred either directly from on-site or after evaluation in the local emergency room, and 3) clinical long-term outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS: 42 patients with STEMI eligible for reperfusion therapy were prospectively included between January 2003 and June 2004. Twenty patients (48%, group 1) were directly transferred to the PCI centre from on-site. Twenty-two were transferred after initial treatment in the local emergency room: 11 patients (26%, group 2) presented spontaneously at the hospital and 11 patients (26%, group 3) were admitted by the rescue team. No major complication occurred during transport. Median transport time was 33 minutes. Median time from first healthcare contact to balloon consisted of 131 minutes in group 1, 158 minutes in group 2 and 174 minutes in group 3. The overall rate of Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) at 6 months amounted to 9.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Transfer for primary PCI of our patients with acute STEMI was safe. Direct transfer from on-site to the PCI centre reduced the time of ischaemia. The overall MACE rate was low.

Diastolic dysfunction in human cardiac allografts is related with reduced SERCA2a gene expression.

Previous studies demonstrated that impaired left ventricular (LV) relaxation in cardiac allografts limits exercise tolerance post-transplant despite preserved systolic ejection fraction (EF). This study tested in human cardiac allografts whether the isovolumic relaxation time (IVRT), which provides the basis for most of diastolic LV filling, relates with gene expression of regulatory proteins of calcium homeostasis or cardiac matrix proteins. Gene expression was studied in 31 heart transplant recipients (25 male, 6 female) 13-83 months post-transplant with LVEF >50%, LV end-diastolic pressure <20 mmHg, normal LV mass index and without allograft rejection or significant cardiac pathology. IVRT related with the other diastolic parameters e-wave velocity (r = -0.46; p = 0.01), e/a-wave ratio (r = -0.5; p < 0.01) but not with heart frequency (r = -0.16; p = 0.4). No relation of IVRT was observed for immunosuppression, mean rejection grade or other medication. IVRT was not related with gene expression of desmin, collagen I, phospholamban, the Na+-Ca2+ exchanger, the ryanodine receptor or interstitial fibrosis but correlated inversely with SERCA2a (r = -0.48; p = 0.02). Prolonged IVRT is associated with decreased SERCA2a expression in cardiac allografts without significant other pathology. Similar observations in non-transplanted patients with diastolic failure suggest that decreased SERCA2a expression is an important common pathomechanism.