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.

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.

Haemoglobin A1c (HbA1C) in non-diabetic and diabetic vascular patients. Is HbA1C an independent risk factor and predictor of adverse outcome?

BACKGROUND: Plasma Haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) reflects ambient mean glycaemia over a 2-3 months period. Reports indicate that patients, with and without diabetes, with an elevated HbA1c have an increased risk of adverse outcome following surgical intervention. Our aim was to determine whether elevated plasma HbA1c level was associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing vascular surgical procedures. METHODS: Plasma HbA1c was measured prospectively in 165 consecutive patients undergoing emergency and elective vascular surgical procedures over a 6-month period. Patients were categorized into four groups depending on whether their plasma HbA1c was < or =6%, 6.1-7%, 7.1-8% or >8% and clinical data was entered into a prospectively maintained database. Patients were also classified by diabetic status with suboptimal HbA1c in a patient without diabetes being >6 to < or =7% and suboptimal HbA1c in a patient with diabetes being >7%. Patients with plasma HbA1c >7% were reclassified as having undiagnosed diabetes mellitus. Composite primary endpoints were all cause 30-day morbidity and mortality and all cause 6-month mortality. Composite secondary endpoints were procedure specific complications, adverse cardiac events, stroke, infection and mean length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Of the 165 patients studied, 43 (26.1%) had diabetes and the remaining 122 (73.9%) did not. The mean age was 72 years and 59% were male. Suboptimal HbA1c levels were found in 58% patients without diabetes and in 51% patients with diabetes. In patients without diabetes those with suboptimal HbA1c levels (6-7%) had a significantly higher incidence of overall 30-day morbidity compared to patients with HbA1c levels < or =6% (56.5 vs 15.7%, p<0.001). Similarly, for patients with diabetes those with suboptimal HbA1c levels (HbA1c >7%) had a significantly higher incidence of 30-day morbidity compared to those with HbA1c levels < or =7% (59.1% vs 19%, p=0.018). Multivariate analysis revealed that a plasma HbA1c level of >6 to < or =7% was a significant independent predictor of overall 30-day morbidity in patients without diabetes undergoing vascular surgical procedures. No difference in mortality, composite secondary endpoints, procedure specific complications, stroke or mean length of hospital stay was observed between any of the groups in the study. CONCLUSION: Suboptimal HbA1c levels may hold prognostic significance in patients without diabetes undergoing vascular surgery.