Recent developments and controversies in transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Interventional cardiology has been revolutionised by transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), which has become established as the benchmark treatment for severe aortic stenosis in patients at high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Increased procedural familiarity and progression in device technology has enabled improvements to be made in complication rates, which have led to a commensurate expansion in the use of TAVI; it is now a viable alternative to AVR in patients at intermediate surgical risk, and has been used in cohorts such as those with bicuspid aortic valves or pure, severe aortic regurgitation. Given the rapid expansion in the use of TAVI, including cohorts of younger patients with fewer co-morbidities, attention must be paid to further reducing remaining complications, such as cardiac tamponade or stroke. To this end, novel techniques and devices have been devised and trialled, with varying levels of success. Furthermore, significant work has gone into refining the technique with exploration of alternative imaging modalities, as well as alternative access routes to provide greater options for patients with challenging vascular anatomy. Whilst significant progress has been made with TAVI, areas of uncertainty remain such as the management of concomitant coronary artery disease and the optimum post-procedure antiplatelet regimen. As such, research in this field continues apace, and is likely to continue as use of TAVI becomes more widespread. This review provides a summary of the existing evidence, as well as an overview of recent developments and contentious issues in the field of TAVI.

Changing characteristics and mode of death associated with chronic heart failure caused by left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a study across therapeutic eras.

BACKGROUND: Therapies for patients with chronic heart failure caused by left ventricular systolic dysfunction have advanced substantially over recent decades. The cumulative effect of these therapies on mortality, mode of death, symptoms, and clinical characteristics has yet to be defined. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study was a comparison of 2 prospective cohort studies of outpatients with chronic heart failure caused by left ventricular systolic dysfunction performed between 1993 and 1995 (historic cohort: n=281) and 2006 and 2009 (contemporary cohort: n=357). In the historic cohort, 83% were prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and 8.5% were prescribed ß-adrenoceptor antagonists, compared with 89% and 80%, respectively, in the contemporary cohort. Mortality rates over the first year of follow-up declined from 12.5% to 7.8% between eras (P=0.04), and sudden death contributed less to contemporary mortality (33.6% versus 12.7%; P<0.001). New York Heart Association class declined between eras (P<0.001). QTc dispersion across the chest leads declined from 85 ms (SD, 2) to 34 ms (SD, 1) and left ventricular end-diastolic dimensions declined from 65 mm (SD, 0.6) to 59 mm (SD, 0.5) (both P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Survival has significantly improved in patients with chronic heart failure caused by left ventricular systolic dysfunction over the past 15 years; furthermore, sudden death makes a much smaller contribution to mortality, and noncardiac mortality is a correspondingly greater contribution. This has been accompanied by an improvement in symptoms and some markers of adverse electric and structural left ventricular remodeling.