Contemporary experience of mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair technology in patients with mitral annular calcification.

BACKGROUND: Mitral annular calcification (MAC) has been an exclusion for many of the earlier pivotal trials that were instrumental in gaining device approval and indications for mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (M-TEER). AIMS: To evaluate the impact of MAC on the procedural durability and success of newer generation MitraClip® systems (G3 and G4 systems). METHODS: Data were collected from Northwell TEER registry. Patients that underwent M-TEER with third or fourth generation MitraClip device were included. Patients were divided into -MAC (none-mild) and +MAC (moderate-severe) groups. Procedural success was defined as ≤ grade 2 + mitral regurgitation (MR) postprocedure, and durability was defined as ≤ grade 2 + MR retention at 1 month and 1 year. Univariate analysis compared outcomes between groups. RESULTS: Of 260 M-TEER patients, 160 were -MAC and 100 were +MAC. Procedural success was comparable; however, there were three patients who required conversion to cardiac surgery during the index hospitalization in the +MAC group versus none in the -MAC group (though this was not statistically significant). At 1-month follow-up, there were no significant differences in MR severity. At 1-year follow-up, +MAC had higher moderate-severe MR (22.1% vs. 7.5%; p = 0.002) and higher mean transmitral gradients (5.3 vs. 4.0 mmHg; p = 0.001) with no differences in mortality, New York Heart Association functional class or ejection fraction. CONCLUSION: In selective patients with high burden of MAC, contemporary M-TEER is safe, and procedural success is similar to patients with none-mild MAC. However, a loss of procedural durability was seen in +MAC group at 1-year follow-up. Further studies with longer follow-ups are required to assess newer mTEER devices and their potential clinical implications in patients with a high burden of MAC.

Prevalence and long-term prognosis of patients with complete bundle branch block (right or left bundle branch) with normal left ventricular ejection fraction referred for stress echocardiography.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of stress echocardiography (SE) in patients with complete bundle branch blocks (BBB) with normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) has not been well described. We sought to determine the prognostic value of SE in patients with BBB and normal LVEF. METHODS: We analyzed 7214 patients (58 ± 14 years; 57% female) with a mean follow-up time of 9 ± 4 years. Dobutamine SE was performed in 51% of patients and exercise SE was performed in 49%. All-cause mortality data were obtained from the Social Security Death Index. RESULTS: There were 222 (3%) patients with right bundle branch block (RBBB) and 50 (0.7%) patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). Patients with LBBB were 3 times more likely to have an abnormal stress test after adjusting for age, gender, mode of stress test, and coronary artery disease risk factors (OR = 3.3; 95% CI: 1.86-5.92; P < 0.001). The mortality rates were 4.5%/year for patients with LBBB, 2.5%/year for patients with RBBB, and 1.9%/year for patients without BBB (P < 0.001). Among patients with a normal SE, those with LBBB had similar mortality to those without LBBB (HR = 0.9; 95% CI: 0.4-2.2; P = 0.8). Patients with LBBB and abnormal SE had more than 2 times greater risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 2.4; 95% CI: 1.4-4.2; P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: A normal stress echocardiogram in LBBB is associated with benign prognosis while those with LBBB and abnormal SE have the worst outcomes.

Coronary Artery Tortuosity Found in a Marathon Runner.

Coronary artery tortuosity (CAT) is an anatomical anomaly in which the coronary arteries contain kinks or coils. It is usually found incidentally in elderly patients with long-standing uncontrolled hypertension. This case illustrates a 58-year-old female marathon runner who was found to have CAT, originally presenting with chest pain, hypotension, presyncope, and a severe cramping sensation in her legs.

Appropriateness of statins in patients aged ≥80 years and comparison to other age groups.

In patients aged ≥80 years without previous coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease, or cerebrovascular disease, no evidence has shown a benefit from statin therapy. We examined the prevalence of statin use in patients aged ≥80 years for the indication of primary prevention. We reviewed the comprehensive electronic health records at the Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania for all patients aged >55 years with ≥1 primary care encounter from January 24, 2004 and December 31, 2009. The records were scrutinized for the use of a statin, active medical diagnoses, and laboratory values. Patients without a previous diagnosis of coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease, or cerebrovascular disease were considered to have a primary prevention indication for statin therapy. The prevalence of statin use was examined, and a multivariate analysis was conducted to determine the predictors of use. A total of 89,086 patients were included in the analysis, with 22,646 patients aged ≥80 years. Of all the patients, 26% were prescribed a statin, of whom, 71% (n = 16,687) received it for primary prevention. Of the 14,604 patients aged ≥80 years with a primary prevention indication, 3,145 (22%) received a statin. A plot of 5-year age cohorts from 55 to >90 years demonstrated an n-shaped relation between age and statin use for primary prevention (18%, 23%, 27%, 29%, 28%, 26%, 21%, and 12%, p <0.001). Compared to patients aged <65 years, the ratio of statin prescription for secondary to primary prevention was 31% lower in patients aged ≥80 years (1.3 vs 1.9). Those aged ≥80 years with a primary prevention indication had, with treatment, a mean low-density lipoprotein level of 84 ± 26 mg/dl. In conclusion, many patients aged ≥80 years receive statin therapy for primary prevention and are treated to aggressive low-density lipoprotein levels. Because the efficacy is uncertain and the potential adverse effects are many, we urgently need to define the cost, benefit, and risk of statin use in the very elderly.