Incidence and predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation following treatment with the repositionable Lotus™ transcatheter aortic valve.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence and predictors of permanent pacemaker (PPM) requirement following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the mechanically expanded LotusTM Valve System (Boston Scientific). BACKGROUND: Pacemaker implantation is the most common complication following TAVR. Predictors of pacing following TAVR with the Lotus valve have not been systematically assessed. METHODS: Consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent Lotus valve implantation were prospectively recruited at a single-centre. Patients with a pre-existing PPM were excluded. Baseline ECG, echocardiographic and multiple detector computed tomography as well as procedural telemetry and depth of implantation were independently analyzed in a blinded manner. The primary endpoint was 30-day incidence of pacemaker requirement (PPM implantation or death while pacing-dependent). Multivariate analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of the primary endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 104 consecutive patients underwent TAVR with the Lotus valve with 9/104 (9%) with a pre-existing PPM excluded. New or worsened procedural LBBB occurred in 78%. Thirty-day incidence of the primary pacing endpoint was 28%. The most common indication for PPM implantation was complete heart block (CHB) (69%). Independent predictors of the primary endpoint included pre-existing RBBB (hazard ratio [HR] 2.8, 95% CI 1.1-7.0; P = 0.032) and depth of implantation below the noncoronary cusp (NCC) (HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.0-5.7; P = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: Almost a third of Lotus valve recipients require pacemaker implantation within 30 days. The presence of pre-existing RBBB and the depth of prosthesis implantation below the NCC were significant pacing predictors. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

A review of the coronary applications of the drug coated balloon.

The drug coated balloon (DCB) platform offers several theoretical benefits over stent-based technologies. It allows the homogenous transfer of an anti-proliferative drug to reduce neo-intimal hyperplasia whilst potentially maintaining normal vessel anatomy and function. They also avoid the introduction of an additional stent layer in the context of in-stent restenosis. The data pertaining to the treatment of de-novo coronary disease still favors the new generation of drug eluting stents. DCB may, however, have a role in the context of challenging coronary anatomy and small vessel disease where results with stent insertion are poor. The body of evidence supporting the role of DCB in the treatment of in-stent restenosis is more substantial and appears to yield similar results to DES without the introduction of an additional stent layer. Further trials are required to clarify the ideal duration of dual anti-platelet treatment following DCB use and to further elucidate the ideal clinical context for their use.

Safety and efficacy of valve repositioning during transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the Lotus Valve System.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficacy of valve repositioning following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the Lotus Valve System (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA). INTRODUCTION: TAVR is a well-established treatment for severe aortic stenosis. The Lotus Valve System is fully repositionable and retrievable. Valve repositioning has the potential to minimize TAVR-related complications caused by valve malposition; however, the effect on adverse event rates such as stroke is unknown. METHODS: Consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis treated with the Lotus Valve System (n=125) were prospectively recruited. Patients who did not require valve repositioning (Group A) were compared to patients who required one or more valve repositions (Group B). The primary end-point was 30-day occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Secondary end-points included each component of the primary end-point, new pacemaker insertion, and procedural or 30-day major adverse events, defined according to VARC-2 definitions. RESULTS: Valve repositioning was utilized in 60.8% (76/125) of patients including 17.1% (13/76) who required full valve resheathing. The most frequent indications for valve repositioning were altering the depth and angulation of initial implantation (69.7%), reducing paravalvular regurgitation (13.2%), and attempt to correct new or worsened heart block (7.9%). Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. The primary end-point occurred in 12.2% and 6.6% of Group A and B, respectively (p=0.10). Thirty-day new pacemaker implantation was 34.1% and 18.8% in Group A and B, respectively (p=0.06). The secondary end-point measures were not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSION: Repositioning facilitated correct anatomical positioning of all devices leading to optimal prosthesis hemodynamics and a trend to lower pacemaker rate without increased risk of MACCE.

Usefulness of cooling and coronary catheterization to improve survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Survival rates after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) continue to be poor. Recent evidence suggests that a more aggressive approach to postresuscitation care, in particular combining therapeutic hypothermia with early coronary intervention, can improve prognosis. We performed a single-center review of 125 patients who were resuscitated from OHCA in 2 distinct treatment periods, from 2002 to 2003 (control group) and from 2007 to 2009 (contemporary group). Patients in the contemporary group had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors but similar cardiac arrest duration and prehospital treatment (adrenaline administration and direct cardioversion). Rates of cardiogenic shock (48% vs 41%, p = 0.2) and decreased conscious state on arrival (77% vs 86%, p = 0.2) were similar in the 2 cohorts, as was the incidence of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (33% vs 43%, p = 0.1). The contemporary cohort was more likely to receive therapeutic hypothermia (75% vs 0%, p <0.01), coronary angiography (77% vs 45%, p <0.01), and percutaneous coronary intervention (38% vs 23%, p = 0.03). This contemporary therapeutic strategy was associated with better survival to discharge (64% vs 39%, p <0.01) and improved neurologic recovery (57% vs 29%, p <0.01) and was the only independent predictor of survival (odds ratio 5.5, 95% confidence interval 1.2 to 26.2, p = 0.03). Longer resuscitation time, presence of cardiogenic shock, and decreased conscious state were independent predictors of poor outcomes. In conclusion, modern management of OHCA, including therapeutic hypothermia and early coronary angiography is associated with significant improvement in survival to hospital discharge and neurologic recovery.