Size of Self-Expandable Transcatheter Heart Valve and Mid-Term Adverse Events After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

The hemodynamic performance of self-expandable valves (SEVs) is a preferable choice for small aortic annuli in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, no data are, so far, available regarding the relation between the size of SEVs and clinical outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of prosthesis size on adverse events after TAVR using SEVs. We retrospectively analyzed 1,400 patients (23-mm SEV: 13.6%) who underwent TAVR using SEVs at 12 centers. The impact of SEV size on all-cause death and heart failure (HF) after TAVR was evaluated by multivariate Cox regression and propensity score (PS) matching analysis. During the follow-up period (median 511 days), 201 all-cause deaths and 87 HF rehospitalizations were observed. The incidence of all-cause death was comparable between small- (23-mm SEV) and larger-sized (26- or 29-mm SEV) (16.8% vs 13.9%, log-rank p = 0.29). The size of SEV was not associated with a higher incidence of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.86 in Cox regression; HR 1.31, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.23 in PS matching) and HF after TAVR (subdistribution HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.72 in Cox regression; subdistribution HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.30 in PS matching). The multivariate model including postprocedural prosthesis-patient mismatch showed consistent results. In conclusion, small SEVs had comparable midterm clinical outcomes to larger-sized SEVs, even if the prosthesis-patient mismatch was observed after TAVR.

Performance and outcomes of the SAPIEN 3 Ultra RESILIA transcatheter heart valve in the OCEAN-TAVI registry.

BACKGROUND: Data on the performance of the latest-generation SAPIEN 3 Ultra RESILIA (S3UR) valve in patients who undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are scarce. AIMS: We aimed to assess the clinical outcomes, including valve performance, of the S3UR. METHODS: Registry data of 618 consecutive patients with S3UR and of a historical pooled cohort of 8,750 patients who had a SAPIEN 3 (S3) valve and underwent TAVR were collected. The clinical outcomes and haemodynamics, including patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM), were compared between the 2 groups and in a propensity-matched cohort. RESULTS: The incidence of in-hospital death, vascular complications, and new pacemaker implantation was similar between the S3UR and the S3 groups (allp>0.05). However, both groups showed significant differences in the degrees of paravalvular leakage (PVL) (none-trivial: 87.0% vs 78.5%, mild: 12.5% vs 20.5%, ≥moderate: 0.5% vs 1.1%; p<0.001) and the incidence of PPM (none: 94.3% vs 85.1%, moderate: 5.2% vs 12.8%, severe: 0.5% vs 2.0%; p<0.001). The prevalence of a mean pressure gradient ≥20 mmHg was significantly lower in the S3UR group (1.6% vs 6.2%; p<0.001). Better haemodynamics were observed with the smaller 20 mm and 23 mm S3UR valves. The results were consistent in a matched cohort of patients with S3UR and with S3 (n=618 patients/group). CONCLUSIONS: The S3UR has equivalent procedural complications to the S3 but with lower rates of PVL and significantly better valve performance. The better valve performance of the S3UR, particularly in smaller valve sizes, overcomes the remaining issue of balloon-expandable valves after TAVR.

Physiological Assessment with iFR prior to FFR Measurement in Left Main Disease.

Despite guideline-based recommendation of the interchangeable use of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide revascularization decision-making, iFR/FFR could demonstrate different physiological or clinical outcomes in some specific patient or lesion subsets. Therefore, we sought to investigate the impact of difference between iFR and FFR-guided revascularization decision-making on clinical outcomes in patients with left main disease (LMD). In this international multicenter registry of LMD with physiological interrogation, we identified 275 patients in whom physiological assessment was performed with both iFR/FFR. Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) was defined as a composite of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The receiver-operating characteristic analysis was performed for both iFR/FFR to predict MACE in respective patients in whom revascularization was deferred and performed. In 153 patients of revascularization deferral, MACE occurred in 17.0% patients. The optimal cut-off values of iFR and FFR to predict MACE were 0.88 (specificity:0.74; sensitivity:0.65) and 0.76 (specificity:0.81; sensitivity:0.46), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) was significantly higher for iFR than FFR (0.74; 95%CI 0.62-0.85 vs. 0.62; 95%CI 0.48-0.75; p = 0.012). In 122 patients of coronary revascularization, MACE occurred in 13.1% patients. The optimal cut-off values of iFR and FFR were 0.92 (specificity:0.93; sensitivity:0.25) and 0.81 (specificity:0.047; sensitivity:1.00), respectively. The AUCs were not significantly different between iFR and FFR (0.57; 95%CI 0.40-0.73 vs. 0.46; 95%CI 0.31-0.61; p = 0.43). While neither baseline iFR nor FFR was predictive of MACE in patients in whom revascularization was performed, iFR-guided deferral seemed to be safer than FFR-guided deferral.

Pre-Existing Left Bundle Branch Block and Clinical Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Background: Few reports on pre-existing left bundle branch block (LBBB) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are currently available. Further, no present studies compare patients with new onset LBBB with those with pre-existing LBBB. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the association between pre-existing or new onset LBBB and clinical outcomes after TAVR. Methods: Using data from the Japanese multicenter registry, 5,996 patients who underwent TAVR between October 2013 and December 2019 were included. Patients were classified into 3 groups: no LBBB, pre-existing LBBB, and new onset LBBB. The 2-year clinical outcomes were compared between 3 groups using Cox proportional hazards models and propensity score analysis to adjust the differences in baseline characteristics. Results: Of 5,996 patients who underwent TAVR, 280 (4.6%) had pre-existing LBBB, while 1,658 (27.6%) experienced new onset LBBB. Compared with the no LBBB group, multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that pre-existing LBBB was associated not only with a higher 2-year all-cause (adjusted HR: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.06-1.82; P = 0.015) and cardiovascular (adjusted HR: 1.60; 95% CI: 1.04-2.48; P = 0.031) mortality, but also with higher all-cause (adjusted HR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.07-1.91; P = 0.016) and cardiovascular (adjusted HR: 1.81, 95% CI:1.12-2.93; P = 0.014) mortality than the new onset LBBB group. Heart failure was the most common cause of cardiovascular death, with more heart failure deaths in the pre-existing LBBB group. Conclusions: Pre-existing LBBB was independently associated with poor clinical outcomes, reflecting an increased risk of cardiovascular mortality after TAVR. Patients with pre-existing LBBB should be carefully monitored.

Immediate pharmacotherapy intensification after cardiac resynchronization therapy: incidence, characteristics, and impact.

AIMS: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established treatment for drug-refractory heart failure (HF) in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). Acute haemodynamic improvement after CRT implantation may enable the intensification of HF medication soon thereafter. Immediate pharmacotherapy intensification (IPI) after CRT implantation achieves a synergetic effect, possibly leading to a better prognosis. This study aimed to explore the incidence, characteristics, and impact of IPI on real-world outcomes among CRT recipients with a history of hospitalization for acute HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: This multicentre retrospective study enrolled CRT recipients with LBBB morphology, a QRS width ≥120 ms, a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, and New York Heart Association II-IV HF symptoms. All patients had previous HF hospitalizations within the previous year and received guideline-directed medical therapy before CRT implantation. Patient baseline characteristics, including HF medication, were collected. IPI was defined as the intensification of beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists within 30 days of CRT implantation. The primary endpoint was all-cause death or first hospitalization for HF; the secondary endpoint was all-cause death. We enrolled 194 patients (75% male; mean age, 65 ± 13 years; 78% with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy). One hundred five (54%) patients received IPI. Patients who received IPI exhibited a significantly shorter QRS duration (159 ± 26 vs. 171 ± 32 ms; P = 0.004), higher estimated glomerular filtration rate (55.2 ± 20.0 vs. 47.8 ± 24.7 mL/min/1.73 m2 ; P = 0.022), and more dilated cardiomyopathy. During a median follow-up period of 29 months, 70 (36%) patients reached the primary endpoint and 42 (22%) patients died. Patients with IPI showed significantly better outcomes for the primary and secondary endpoints than patients without IPI. The volumetric responder ratio at 6 months after implantation was not significantly different between patients with and without IPI; however, patients who received IPI had reduced mortality even at 6 months after implantation. In the multivariate analysis, IPI was an independent predictor of the primary endpoint (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.97; P = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: Immediate intensification of HF medication was achieved in 54% of CRT recipients and was significantly higher in patients without excessive QRS prolongation, preserved renal function, and dilated cardiomyopathy than others. In patients with LBBB morphology and QRS ≥ 120 ms, IPI was associated with a significantly better prognosis and fewer HF hospitalizations after CRT implantation than others.

Rationale and design of Non-antithrombotic Therapy After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (NAPT) Trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the wide implementation of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), the optimal antithrombotic therapy after TAVI has not been established yet. Owing to the accumulating evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) over dual antiplatelet therapy, the latest guideline recommends life-long SAPT. However, there is scarce evidence supporting SAPT compared with non-antithrombotic therapy. Given the vulnerability of patients undergoing TAVI in terms of high bleeding risk, the benefit of SAPT may be canceled out by its potential increased bleeding risk. STUDY DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES: Non-antithrombotic Therapy After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (NAPT) Trial is a prospective, randomized controlled, open-label blinded endpoint multicenter trial conducted in Japan, testing the non-inferiority of non-antithrombotic therapy compared with aspirin monotherapy in patients who underwent TAVI and had no indications for long-term oral anticoagulation therapy (OAC). Patients who successfully underwent trans-femoral TAVI for severe aortic stenosis with either balloon-expandable or self-expandable valves are eligible for inclusion. Key exclusion criteria are (i) occurrence of perioperative complications (ii) indications of taking antithrombotic drugs for other reasons; (iii) eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2 or hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. A total of 360 patients will be randomized (1:1) to aspirin monotherapy vs. non-antithrombotic therapy. The primary outcome is a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and bleeding. All bleeding events based on the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 are included as a component of the primary outcome. CONCLUSION: The NAPT trial will determine the non-inferiority of a non-antithrombotic therapy compared with aspirin monotherapy after TAVI.

Deferred Versus Performed Revascularization for Left Main Coronary Disease With Hemodynamic Significance.

BACKGROUND: The majority of randomized controlled trials of revascularization decision-making excludes left main coronary artery disease (LMD). Therefore, contemporary clinical outcomes of patients with stable coronary artery disease and LMD with proven ischemia remain poorly understood. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term clinical outcomes of physiologically significant LMD according to the treatment strategies of revascularization versus revascularization deferral. METHODS: In this international multicenter registry of stable LMD interrogated with the instantaneous wave-free ratio, patients with physiologically significant ischemia (instantaneous wave-free ratio ≤0.89) were analyzed according to the coronary revascularization (n=151) versus revascularization deferral (n=74). Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline clinical characteristics. The primary end point was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization of left main stem. The secondary end points were as follows: cardiac death or spontaneous LMD-related myocardial infarction; and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization of left main stem. RESULTS: At a median follow-up period of 2.8 years, the primary end point occurred in 11 patients (14.9%) in the revascularized group and 21 patients (28.4%) in the deferred group (hazard ratio, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.20-0.89]; P=0.023). For the secondary end points, cardiac death or LMD-related myocardial infarction occurred significantly less frequently in the revascularized group (0.0% versus 8.1%; P=0.004). The rate of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization of left main stem was also significantly lower in the revascularized group (5.4% versus 17.6%; hazard ratio, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.056-0.70]; P=0.012). CONCLUSIONS: In patients who underwent revascularization for stable coronary artery disease and physiologically significant LMD determined by instantaneous wave-free ratio, the long-term clinical outcomes were significantly improved as compared with those in whom revascularization was deferred.

Physiology-guided PCI versus CABG for left main coronary artery disease: insights from the DEFINE-LM registry.

There have been no studies comparing clinical outcomes of physiology-guided revascularization in patients with unprotected left main coronary disease (ULMD) between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The aim of this study was to assess the long-term clinical outcomes between PCI and CABG of patients with physiologically significant ULMD. From an international multicenter registry of ULMD patients interrogated with instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), we analyzed data from 151 patients (85 PCI vs. 66 CABG) who underwent revascularization according to the cutoff value of iFR ≤ 0.89. Propensity score matching was employed to adjust for baseline clinical characteristics. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The secondary endpoints were the individual components of the primary endpoint. Mean age was 66.6 (± 9.2) years, 79.2% male. Mean SYNTAX score was 22.6 (± 8.4) and median iFR was 0.83 (IQR 0.74-0.87). After performing propensity score matching analysis, 48 patients treated with CABG were matched to those who underwent PCI. At a median follow-up period of 2.8 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 8.3% in PCI group and 20.8% in CABG group, respectively (HR 3.80; 95% CI 1.04-13.9; p = 0.043). There was no difference in each component of the primary event (p > 0.05 for all). Within the present study, iFR-guided PCI was associated with lower cardiovascular events rate in patients with ULMD and intermediate SYNTAX score, as compared to CABG. State-of-the-art PCI vs. CABG for ULMD. Study design and primary endpoint in patients with physiologically significant ULMD. MACE was defined as the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. The blue line denotes the PCI arm, and the red line denotes the CABG arm. PCI was associated with significantly lower risk of MACE than CABG. CABG: coronary artery bypass grafting; iFR: instantaneous wave-free ratio; MACE: major adverse cardiovascular events; PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention; ULMD: unprotected left main coronary artery disease.

Edoxaban vs. Vitamin K Antagonist for Atrial Fibrillation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Japanese Patients　- A Subanalysis of the ENVISAGE-TAVI AF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Japanese patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are often female and have a small body size, potentially impacting bleeding risk with antithrombotic therapy. Outcomes of direct oral anticoagulant use in these patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) need to be clarified.Methods and Results: This prespecified analysis included Japanese patients from ENVISAGE-TAVI AF, a prospective, randomized, open-label, adjudicator-masked trial that compared treatment with edoxaban and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with AF after TAVR. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were net adverse clinical events (NACE; composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, systemic embolic event, valve thrombosis, and International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis [ISTH]-defined major bleeding) and ISTH-defined major bleeding, respectively. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and on-treatment analyses were performed. Overall, 159 Japanese patients were enrolled (edoxaban group: 82, VKA group: 77) and followed for on average 483 days. Mean patient age was 83.8 years; 52.2% were female. In the ITT analysis, NACE rates were 10.9%/year with edoxaban and 12.5%/year with VKA (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-1.90); major bleeding occurred in 8.9%/year and 7.3%/year, respectively (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.45-3.05). In edoxaban- and VKA-treated patients, rates of ischemic stroke were 1.8%/year and 1.0%/year, respectively; fatal bleeding rates were 0.9%/year and 2.0 %/year. On-treatment results were similar to ITT. CONCLUSIONS: In Japanese patients with AF after successful TAVR, edoxaban and VKA treatment have similar safety and efficacy profiles.

Correlation of Intravascular Ultrasound and Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio in Patients With Intermediate Left Main Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: There is great degree of interobserver variability in the visual angiographic assessment of left main coronary disease (LMCD). Fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound are often used in this setting. The use of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) for evaluation of LMCD has not been well studied. The aim of this study is to evaluate the use of iFR in the assessment of angiographically intermediate LMCD. METHODS: This is an international multicenter retrospective observational study of patients who underwent both iFR and intravascular ultrasound evaluation for angiographically intermediate LMCD. An independent core laboratory performed blinded off-line analysis of all intravascular ultrasound data. A minimum lumen area of 6 mm2 was used as the cutoff for significant disease. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five patients (mean age, 68.4±9.5 years, 84.8% male) were included in this analysis. Receiver operating curve analysis showed that an iFR of ≤0.89 identified minimum lumen area <6 mm2 with an area under the curve of 0.77 (77% sensitivity, 66% specificity; P<0.0001). Among the 69 patients without ostial left anterior descending artery or left circumflex artery disease, receiver operating curve analysis showed that an iFR of ≤0.89 identified minimum lumen area <6 mm2 with an area under the curve of 0.84 (70% sensitivity, 84% specificity; P<0.0001). The correlation was not significantly different when the body surface area was considered. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, in patients with intermediate LMCD, iFR of ≤0.89 correlates with intravascular ultrasound minimum lumen area <6 mm2 regardless of body surface area. The current study supports the use of iFR for the evaluation of intermediate LMCD.

Inter-observer differences in interpretation of coronary pressure-wire pullback data by non-expert interventional cardiologists.

The physiological pattern of coronary artery disease as determined by pressure-wire (PW)-pullback is important for decision-making of revascularization and risk stratification of patients. However, it remains unclear whether inter-observer differences in interpreting PW-pullback data are subject to the expertise of physicians. This study sought to investigate the subjectivity of this assessment among non-experts. Expert interventional cardiologists classified 545 PW-pullback traces into physiologically focal or physiologically diffuse disease pattern. Defining expert-consensus as the reference standard, we evaluated ten non-expert doctors' classification performance. Observers were stratified equally by two ways: (i) years of experience as interventional cardiologists (middle-level vs. junior-level) and (ii) volume of institutions where they belonged to (high-volume center vs. low-volume center). When judged against the expert-consensus, the agreement of non-expert observers in assessing physiological pattern of disease (focal or diffuse) ranged from 69.1 to 85.0% (p for heterogeneity < 0.0001). There was no evidence for a moderating effect of years of experience; the pooled accuracy of middle-level doctors was 78.8% (95% confidential interval [CI] 72.8-84.7%) vs. 79.1% for junior-level doctors (95% CI 75.9-82.2%, p = 0.95 for difference). On the other hand, we observed a significant moderating effect of center volume. Accuracy across non-experts in high-volume centers was 82.7% (95% CI 80.3-85.1%) vs. 75.1% for low-volume centers (95% CI 71.9-78.3%, p = 0.0002 for difference). Interpretation of PW-pullback by non-expert interventional cardiologists was considerably subjective.

Safety of Revascularization Deferral of Left Main Stenosis Based on Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the long-term clinical outcomes of patients with left main coronary artery (LM) stenosis in whom treatment strategy was based on the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). BACKGROUND: The overall safety of iFR to guide revascularization decision making in patients with stable coronary artery disease has been established. However, no study has examined the safety of deferral of revascularization of LM disease on the basis of iFR. METHODS: This multicenter observational study included 314 patients in whom LM stenosis was deferred (n = 163 [51.9%]) or revascularized (n = 151 [48.1%]) according to the iFR cutoff ≤0.89. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The secondary endpoints were each individual component of the primary endpoint and also cardiac death. RESULTS: At a median follow-up period of 30 months, the primary endpoint occurred in 15 patients (9.2%) in the deferred group and 22 patients (14.6%) in the revascularized group (hazard ratio: 1.45; 95% confidence interval: 0.75 to 2.81; p = 0.26), indicating no evidence of a significant difference between the 2 groups. For the secondary endpoints, findings in the iFR-based deferral and revascularization groups were as follows: all-cause death, 3.7% versus 4.6%; cardiac death, 1.2% versus 2.0%; nonfatal myocardial infarction, 2.5% versus 5.3%; and target lesion revascularization, 4.3% versus 5.3% (p > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Deferral of revascularization of LM stenosis on the basis of iFR appears to be safe, with similar long-term outcomes to those in patients in whom LM revascularization was performed according to iFR values.

Per-Vessel Level Analysis of Fractional Flow Reserve and Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Discordance　- Insights From the AJIP Registry.

BACKGROUND: The per-vessel level impact of physiological pattern of disease on the discordance between fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) has not been clarified.Methods and Results:Using the AJIP registry, vessels with FFR/iFR discordance (133/671 [19.8%]) were analyzed. In the left anterior descending artery (LAD), physiologically diffuse disease, as assessed by pressure-wire pullback, was associated with FFR-/iFR+ (83.3% [40/48]), while physiologically focal disease was associated with FFR+/iFR- (57.4% [31/54]), significantly (P<0.0001). These differences were not significant in non-LAD (P=0.17). CONCLUSIONS: The impact of physiological pattern of disease on FFR/iFR discordance is more pronounced in the LAD.

Algorithmic Versus Expert Human Interpretation of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Coronary Pressure-Wire Pull Back Data.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate whether algorithmic interpretation (AI) of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) pressure-wire pull back data would be noninferior to expert human interpretation. BACKGROUND: Interpretation of iFR pressure-wire pull back data can be complex and is subjective. METHODS: Fifteen human experts interpreted 1,008 iFR pull back traces (691 unique, 317 duplicate). For each trace, experts determined the hemodynamic appropriateness for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and, in such cases, the optimal physiological strategy for PCI. The heart team (HT) interpretation was determined by consensus of the individual expert opinions. The same 1,008 pull back traces were also interpreted algorithmically. The coprimary hypotheses of this study were that AI would be noninferior to the interpretation of the median expert human in determining: 1) the hemodynamic appropriateness for PCI; and 2) the physiological strategy for PCI. RESULTS: Regarding the hemodynamic appropriateness for PCI, the median expert human demonstrated 89.3% agreement with the HT in comparison with 89.4% for AI (p < 0.01 for noninferiority). Across the 372 cases judged as hemodynamically appropriate for PCI according to the HT, the median expert human demonstrated 88.8% agreement with the HT in comparison with 89.7% for AI (p < 0.0001 for noninferiority). On reproducibility testing, the HT opinion itself changed 1 in 10 times for both the appropriateness for PCI and the physiological PCI strategy. In contrast, AI showed no change. CONCLUSIONS: AI of iFR pressure-wire pull back data was noninferior to expert human interpretation in determining both the hemodynamic appropriateness for PCI and the optimal physiological strategy for PCI.

Prognostic study of cardiac events in Japanese patients with chronic kidney disease using ECG-gated myocardial Perfusion imaging: Final 3-year report of the J-ACCESS 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is considered useful for risk stratification among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), without renal deterioration by contrast media. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Japanese Assessment of Cardiac Events and Survival Study by Quantitative Gated SPECT (J-ACCESS 3) is a multicenter, prospective cohort study investigating the ability of MPI to predict cardiac events in 529 CKD patients without a definitive coronary artery disease. All patients were assessed by stress and rest MPI with 99mTc-tetrofosmin and data were analyzed using a defect scoring method and QGS software. Major cardiac events were analyzed for 3 years after registration. The mean eGFR was 29.0 ± 12.8 (mL/minute/1.73 m2). The mean summed stress/rest/difference (SSS, SRS, SDS) scores were 1.9 ± 3.8, 1.1 ± 3.0, and 0.8 ± 1.8, respectively. A total of 60 cardiac events (three cardiac deaths, six sudden deaths, five nonfatal myocardial infarctions, 46 hospitalization cases for heart failure) occurred. The event-free survival rate was lower among patients with kidney dysfunction, higher SSS, and higher CRP values. Multivariate Cox regression analysis independently associated SSS ≥8, eGFR <15 (mL/minute/1.73 m2), and CRP ≥0.3 (mg/dL) with cardiac events. CONCLUSIONS: Together with eGFR and CRP, MPI can predict cardiac events in patients with CKD.

Mechanistic implication of decreased plasma atrial natriuretic peptide level for transient rise in the atrial capture threshold early after ICD or CRT-D implantation.

PURPOSE: Despite the use of steroid-eluting leads, a transient but not persistent rise in the atrial/ventricular capture threshold (TRACT/TRVCT) can occur early after pacemaker implantation in patients with sick sinus syndrome. This study aimed to assess the prevalence, predictors, and mechanisms of TRACT/TRVCT in patients with heart failure undergoing implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation. METHOD: One hundred twenty consecutive patients underwent ICD (N = 70) or CRT (N = 50) implantation. Capture threshold was measured at implantation, 7-day, 1-month, and 6-month post-implantation. TRACT/TRVCT was defined as a threshold rise at 7 days by more than twice the height of the threshold at implantation, with full recovery during follow-up. Atrial and brain natriuretic peptide (ANP and BNP) levels were measured before implantation. RESULTS: TRACT and TRVCT were observed in 13 (11%) and 10 (8%) patients, respectively. Patients with TRACT had lower ANP level (median 72 [42-105] vs. 99 [49-198] pg/mL, P = 0.06), lower ANP/BNP ratio (0.29 [0.20-0.36] vs. 0.50 [0.33-0.70], P < 0.01), lower atrial sensing amplitude (2.0 ± 0.8 vs. 2.7 ± 1.3 mV, P = 0.02), and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (32 ± 12 vs. 40 ± 14%, P = 0.04) than those without TRACT. TRACT recovered within 1 month, whereas TRVCT recovered within 6 months. In multivariable analysis, ANP/BNP ratio was the only independent predictor of TRACT (OR, 0.018; 95% CI, 0.001-0.734; P = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Atrial degenerative change characterized by lower ANP/BNP ratio was associated with the occurrence of TRACT in patients with heart failure. TRVCT could also occur, but it required a longer recovery time than TRACT.