Two-Year Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Using New-Generation Transcatheter Devices Compared With Redo-SAVR.

Few studies have compared the clinical outcomes between valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) with new-generation valves and re-operative surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SAVR). We compared the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent ViV-TAVR with those of patients who underwent Redo-SAVR at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center between 2015 and 2021. New-generation valves were used for ViV-TAVR. A propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics. The primary end point was all-cause mortality at 30 days and 2 years. In-hospital procedural and clinical outcomes were also compared between the groups. A total of 256 patients (140 who underwent ViV-TAVR and 116 who underwent Redo-SAVR) were eligible for PSM. In the unmatched cohort, patients in the ViV-TAVR group were older and had more co-morbidities than those in the Redo-SAVR group. After PSM, there were no significant differences in all-cause death between the ViV-TAVR and Redo-SAVR groups at 30 days (3.9% vs 2.6%, p = 0.65) or 2 years (6.5% vs 7.8%, p = 0.75). The incidences of stroke and heart failure rehospitalization were similar at 30 days and 2 years. The cumulative complication rates during hospitalization were significantly lower in the ViV-TAVR group than in the Redo-SAVR group (11.7% vs 28.6% p = 0.015). The long-term outcomes of ViV-TAVR using new-generation valves were similar to those of Redo-SAVR, although ViV-TAVR was associated with lower rates of in-hospital complications.

New adverse coronary events in valve-in-valve TAVR and native TAVR-A 2-year matched cohort.

Objective: To assess the incidence of new adverse coronary events (NACE) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and valve-in-valve TAVR (ViV-TAVR). Background: ViV-TAVR is an accepted treatment for degenerative prostheses among patients with high surgical-risk. TAVR studies have suggested an increased risk of coronary artery obstruction and flow stasis causing thrombus formation. Whether contemporary ViV-TAVR is associated with higher rate of coronary events compared to TAVR is unknown. Methods: We used data from 1,224 TAVR patients between 2016 and 2021. We propensity-matched patients following ViV-TAVR and TAVR by significant predictors to overcome confounders in patients' baseline characteristics and procedural factors. Results: The matched population included 129 patients in each group. In line with prior reports, there was a higher in-hospital coronary artery obstruction rate with ViV-TAVR (3.1 vs. 1.6%; p = 0.23). Despite this, 2-year cumulative NACE rates were similar between groups (4.7 vs. 6.2%, respectively, p = 0.79), with no difference between its components: myocardial infarction (MI) (p = 0.210), unplanned coronary catheterization (p = 0.477), or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (p = 0.998). Moreover, hypoattenuated leaflets thickening (HALT) at 30-day CT was observed in nearly a quarter of the patients with no difference between groups (23.9 vs. 23.1%, HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.50-1.28, p = 0.872). The progression rate of the coronary artery calcium score (CACS), assessed in a third of patients, was similar between groups (p log-rank = 0.468, 95% CI 0.12-1.24). Low coronary artery height was an unfavorable predictor for in-hospital coronary obstruction and 2-year NACE rate (HR 1.20 and HR 1.25, p = 0.001 and p < 0.0001, respectively). Conclusion: At 2-year follow-up, ViV-TAVR was not associated with a higher rate of myocardial infarction, unplanned catheterization, coronary artery bypass grafting, or hypoattenuated leaflet thickening.

Cardiac rehabilitation performance predicts 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac Rehabilitation is an essential following major adverse cardiovascular events however there is no current data correlating rehab performance to long term outcomes. HYPOTHESIS: Patient exercise performance during cardiac rehabilitation reliably predicts future cardiovascular events. METHODS: We conducted a single-center study of 486 consecutive patients who participated in a CR program between January 2018 and August 2021. We assessed patient performance using a novel index, the CR-score, which integrated duration, speed of work, and workload conducted on each training device (TD). We used a binary recursive partition model to determine the optimal thresholds for cumulative CR score. We used Cox regression analysis to assess the mortality rate among patients who developed MACE ("study group") and those who did not ("control group"). RESULTS: Among 486 eligible patients, 1-year MACE occurred in 27 (5.5%) patients and was more common in patients with prior cerebrovascular accident or transient ischemic attack (14.8% vs. 3.5%, p < .001). Age, gender, comorbidities, heart failure, and medical treatment did not significantly affect the outcome. The median cumulative CR score of the study group was significantly lower than the control group (595 ± 185.6 vs. 3500 ± 1104.7, p < .0001). A cumulative CR-score of ≥1132 correlated with the outcome (98.5% sensitivity, 99.6% specificity, 95% CI: 0.985-0.997, area 0.994, p < .0001). Patients older than 55 with a cumulative CR score of <1132 were at particularly high risk (OR: 7.4, 95% CI: 2.84-18.42) for 1-year MACE (log-rank p = .03). CONCLUSION: Our proposed CR-score accurately identifies patients at high risk for 1-year MACE following the rehabilitation program. Multicenter validation is required.