Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Navitor System: Real-World United Kingdom Experience.

The Navitor transcatheter heart valve (THV) is the latest iteration of the Portico self-expanding valve system. Early prospective studies have shown promising outcomes, however, there is a lack of complementary 'real-world' data. This study aimed to assess early safety and efficacy outcomes of the Navitor THV using registry data from 6 high-volume United Kingdom transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) centers. Demographic, procedural, and in-hospital outcome data were retrieved from 6 United Kingdom centers. The primary safety end point was 30-day mortality. Primary efficacy end points were procedural success, mean aortic gradient, and ≥moderate paravalvular leak. Secondary end points included rates of new permanent pacemaker implantation, stroke, and vascular injury. A total of 574 patients (mean age 83.4 years; 54.5% female) underwent Navitor TAVR between January 2020 and May 2023. The 30-day mortality in this patient cohort was 1.6%. Procedural success was 98.1%, mean echo-derived gradient post-TAVR was 7.7 ± 4.8 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.2 to 8.3, p <0.001) and 5.1% of patients had ≥moderate paravalvular leak (sample proportion estimate [p̂] = 0.051, 95% CI [0.035, 0.073], p <0.001). New permanent pacemaker implantation to discharge was required in 11% (p̂ = 0.119, 95% CI 0.088 to 0.158, p <0.001), stroke occurred in 1.2% of patients (p̂ = 0.017, 95% CI 0.006 to 0.036, p <0.001) and significant vascular injury in 1.6% (p̂ = 0.014, 95% CI 0.005 to 0.032, p <0.001). In conclusion, early procedural outcomes with Navitor TAVR compare favorably to new-generation THVs. Procedural success was high with a low incidence of complications.

Validation of the CREST model & Comparison with SCAI Shock Classification for Prediction of Circulatory Death in Resuscitated Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

OBJECTIVE: We validated the CREST model, a 5 variable score for stratifying risk of circulatory etiology death (CED) following out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), and compared its discrimination with the SCAI shock classification. BACKGROUND: CED occurs in approximately a third of patients admitted after resuscitated OHCA. There is an urgent need for improved stratification of the OHCA patient on arrival to a cardiac arrest centre to improve patient selection for invasive interventions. METHODS: The CREST model and SCAI shock classification were applied to a dual-centre registry of 723 patients with cardiac etiology OHCA, both with and without ST-elevation myocardial infarction, between May 2012 to December 2020. The primary endpoint was 30-day CED. RESULTS: Of 509 patients included (62.3 years, 75.4% male), 125 patients had CREST=0 (24.5%), 162 were CREST=1 (31.8%), 140 were CREST=2 (27.5%), 75 were CREST=3 (14.7%), 7 were CREST of 4 (1.4%) and no patients were CREST=5. CED was observed in 91 (17.9%) patients at 30 days [STEMI - 51/289 (17.6%); NSTEMI - 40/220 (18.2%)]. For the total population, and both NSTEMI & STEMI subpopulations, increasing CREST score was associated with increasing CED (all p<0.001). CREST score and SCAI classification had similar discrimination for the total population (AUC=0.72/calibration slope=0.95), NSTEMI cohort (AUC=0.75/calibration slope=0.940) and STEMI cohort (AUC=0.69 and calibration slope=0.925). AUC meta-analyses demonstrated no significant differences between the two classifications. CONCLUSIONS: The CREST model and SCAI shock classification have similar prediction for the development of CED after OHCA.

Complex percutaneous coronary intervention in patients unable to undergo coronary artery bypass grafting during the COVID-19 pandemic: insights from the UK-ReVasc Registry.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiac surgery for coronary artery disease was dramatically reduced during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many patients with disease ordinarily treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) instead underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We sought to describe 12-month outcomes following PCI in patients who would typically have undergone CABG. METHODS: Between March 1 and July 31, 2020, patients who received revascularization with PCI when CABG would have been the primary choice of revascularization were enrolled in the prospective, multicenter UK-ReVasc Registry. We evaluated the following major adverse cardiovascular events at 12 months: all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, stroke, major bleeding, and stent thrombosis. RESULTS: A total of 215 patients were enrolled across 45 PCI centers in the United Kingdom. Twelve-month follow up data were obtained for 97% of the cases. There were 9 deaths (4.3%), 5 myocardial infarctions (2.4%), 12 repeat revascularizations (5.7%), 1 stroke (0.5%), 3 major bleeds (1.4%), and no cases of stent thrombosis. No difference in the primary endpoint was observed between patients who received complete vs incomplete revascularization (residual SYNTAX score £ 8 vs > 8) (P = .22). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with patterns of coronary disease in whom CABG would have been the primary therapeutic choice outside of the pandemic, PCI was associated with acceptable outcomes at 12 months of follow-up. Contemporary randomized trials that compare PCI to CABG in such patient cohorts may be warranted.