Temporal trends and outcomes in utilisation of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve therapies in aortic valve stenosis patients with heart failure.

INTRODUCTIONS & AIMS: Heart failure (HF) is a common comorbidity in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We sought to access the temporal trends and outcomes of TAVR or SAVR in HF patients. METHOD: The NIS database from 2011-2014 was queried for patients that underwent TAVR or SAVR and were subsequently diagnosed with HF. Temporal trends in the utilisation of TAVR or SAVR in HF patients were analysed. RESULTS: Among 27 982 patients who were diagnosed with HF of whom 17 681 (63.2%) had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) while 10 301 (36.8%) had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), 9049 (32.3%) underwent TAVR and 16 933 (76.7%) underwent SAVR. Patients with HFrEF and HFpEF had higher utilisation of TAVR compared with SAVR over the course of the study period (P trend < .001). TAVR was associated with lower mortality [2.8% in 2012 and 1.8% in 2014 (P .013)] compared with SAVR. Similarly, multiple logistic regression showed a statistically significant lower in-hospital mortality in the TAVR group compared with SAVR (aOR 0.634; CI 0.504, 0.798, P < .001). CONCLUSION: For patients with severe aortic valve stenosis and heart failure who undergo aortic valve intervention, TAVR is associated with less odds of in-hospital mortality compared with SAVR.

Balloon Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Failing Self-Expandable Transcatheter Valve in Degenerated Surgical Bioprosthesis: Valve-in-Valve-in-Valve Implantation for the Treatment of Early Degenerative Prosthetic Insufficiency.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as the standard of care for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high surgical risk. However, transcatheter valves can degenerate, and redo TAVI has been reported after surgical aortic valve implantation and post initial TAVI. Case Report: We describe the case of a 70-year-old male who presented with decompensated heart failure secondary to severe prosthetic valve insufficiency. The patient had a history of distant triple coronary artery bypass surgery in 2004, surgical ascending aortic aneurysm repair and stentless aortic valve replacement in 2012, and transcatheter CoreValve (Medtronic) implantation in 2015 for the failing stentless aortic valve. In 2019, the patient presented with heart failure symptoms. A 29-mm SAPIEN 3 valve (Edwards Lifesciences) was implanted for the third time (valve-in-valve-in-valve) with excellent clinical and echocardiographic results and no evidence of coronary obstruction. Conclusion: Early (<5 years) bioprosthetic valve insufficiency after initial valve-in-valve implantation can be successfully treated with a second TAVI.

The impact of peripheral arterial disease on patients with mechanical circulatory support.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are indicated as bridging or destination therapy for patients with advanced (Stage D) heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Due to the clustering of the mutual risk factors, HFrEF patients have a high prevalence of peripheral arterial disease (PAD). This, along with the fact that continuous flow LVAD influence shear stress on the vasculature, can further deteriorate the PAD. METHODS: We queried the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database (2002-2014) to identify the burden of pre-existing PAD cases, its association with LVAD, in-hospital mortality, and other complications of LVAD. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. RESULTS: A total of 20,817 LVAD patients, comprising of 1,625 (7.8%) PAD and 19,192 (91.2%) non-PAD patients were included in the study. The odds of in-hospital mortality in PAD patients were significantly higher compared to non-PAD group (OR 1.29, CI, 1.07-1.55, P = 0.007). The PAD group had significantly higher adjusted odds as compared to non-PAD group for acute myocardial infarction (aOR 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07-1.55, P = 0.007), major bleeding requiring transfusion (aOR, 1.286; 95% CI, 1.136-1.456, P < 0.001), vascular complications (aOR, 2.360; 95% CI, 1.781-3.126, P < 0.001), surgical wound infections (aOR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.17-1.94, P = 0.002), thromboembolic complications (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.36-2.10, P < 0.001), implant-related complications (aOR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.19-1.80, P < 0.001), and acute renal failure (aOR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.12-1.43, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PAD patients can have high LVAD associated mortality as compared to non-PAD.