Comparison of a Single Versus Double Perclose Technique for Percutaneous Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: The optimal strategy for arterial closure in percutaneous transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) remains under debate. METHODS: Single-center, prospective, observational study of consecutive patients undergoing TF-TAVR between March 2018 and December 2019 who underwent closure with an upfront single vs double Perclose device. Device success, access-site vascular, and bleeding complications were defined according to the Valvular Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 criteria. Inverse-probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance baseline characteristics between groups. RESULTS: A total of 241 patients (mean age, 81.4 ± 8.5 years, 47% women) were included, of which 127 underwent an upfront single-Perclose (SP) strategy and 114 underwent an upfront double-Perclose (DP) strategy. Fifty-six percent of patients were treated with a CoreValve (Medtronic). The SP group was less likely to be on dialysis and on aspirin, but were more likely to receive a CoreValve, with larger valve sizes and larger delivery sheaths. Baseline characteristics were well balanced after IPTW adjustment. Device success rate was comparable between groups (96% in the SP group vs 93% in the DP group; P=.39). The SP technique was associated with fewer vascular complications (8.7% in the SP group vs 26.3% in the DP group; P<.01; IPTW relative risk [RR], 0.34; 95% confidence Interval [CI], 0.16-0.71) and bleeding complications (2.4% in the SP group vs 12.3% in the DP group; P<.01; IPTW RR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.76) compared with the DP technique. There were no differences in 30-day mortality. CONCLUSION: An upfront SP technique is equally efficacious and not associated with increased vascular and bleeding complications compared with an upfront DP technique in patients undergoing percutaneous TF-TAVR.

Incidence, predictors, and impact on survival of left ventricular systolic dysfunction and recovery in advanced cancer patients.

Although left ventricular (LV) dysfunction occurs not uncommonly in the course of cancer therapy, little is known about its natural history and prognostic impact on patients. To investigate the incidence, predictors, and impact on survival of LV systolic dysfunction and recovery during cancer therapy, we conducted a retrospective cohort observational study over 1 year at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. We enrolled patients with a decrease in ejection fraction by echocardiography to <50% while undergoing cancer therapy from January 2009 to December 2009. We collected and analyzed their chart data. Of 7,648 patients with echocardiograms in 2009, 366 (4.8%) had ejection fraction <50% and 104 met study criteria. LV systolic dysfunction was associated with cardiotoxic therapy in 53 patients (51%). Recovery occurred in 57 patients (55%) and was independently predicted by younger age, smaller left atrial volume index, and lower B-type natriuretic peptide. At last follow-up, 69 patients (66%) were dead, and 35 (34%) were alive. There was a 20% advantage in 2-year survival among patients with LV systolic recovery compared with those without (95% confidence interval 4% to 41%, p = 0.02). In this retrospective study, LV systolic dysfunction recovery occurred in over half of the patients, appeared independent of cardiotoxic etiology, and associated with a 20% survival benefit at 2 years. Multivariable predictors of recovery are younger age, a small left atrial volume index, and lower B-type natriuretic peptide.