Transcatheter heart valve explant with infective endocarditis-associated prosthesis failure and outcomes: the EXPLANT-TAVR international registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Surgical explantation of transcatheter heart valves (THVs) is rapidly increasing, but there are limited data on patients with THV-associated infective endocarditis (IE). This study aims to assess the outcomes of patients undergoing THV explant for IE. METHODS: All patients who underwent THV explant between 2011 and 2022 from 44 sites in the EXPLANT-TAVR registry were identified. Patients with IE as the reason for THV explant were compared to those with other mechanisms of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD). RESULTS: A total of 372 patients from the EXPLANT-TAVR registry were included. Among them, 184 (49.5%) patients underwent THV explant due to IE and 188 (50.5%) patients due to BVD. At the index transcatheter aortic valve replacement, patients undergoing THV explant for IE were older (74.3 ± 8.6 vs. 71 ± 10.6 years) and had a lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score [2.6% (1.8-5.0) vs. 3.3% (2.1-5.6), P = .029] compared to patients with BVD. Compared to BVD, IE patients had longer intensive care unit and hospital stays (P < .05) and higher stroke rates at 30 days (8.6% vs. 2.9%, P = .032) and 1 year (16.2% vs. 5.2%, P = .010). Adjusted in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year mortality was 12.1%, 16.1%, and 33.8%, respectively, for the entire cohort, with no significant differences between groups. Although mortality was numerically higher in IE patients 3 years postsurgery (29.6% for BVD vs. 43.9% for IE), Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant differences between groups (P = .16). CONCLUSIONS: In the EXPLANT-TAVR registry, patients undergoing THV explant for IE had higher 30-day and 1-year stroke rates and longer intensive care unit and hospital stays. Moreover, patients undergoing THV explant for IE had a higher 3-year mortality rate, which did not reach statistical significance given the relatively small sample size of this unique cohort and the reduced number of events.

A Randomized Trial of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells for Moderate to Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome from COVID-19.

Rationale: There are limited therapeutic options for patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome with inflammation-mediated lung injury. Mesenchymal stromal cells offer promise as immunomodulatory agents. Objectives: Evaluation of efficacy and safety of allogeneic mesenchymal cells in mechanically-ventilated patients with moderate or severe COVID-19-induced respiratory failure. Methods: Patients were randomized to two infusions of 2 million cells/kg or sham infusions, in addition to the standard of care. We hypothesized that cell therapy would be superior to sham control for the primary endpoint of 30-day mortality. The key secondary endpoint was ventilator-free survival within 60 days, accounting for deaths and withdrawals in a ranked analysis. Measurements and Main Results: At the third interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the trial halt enrollment as the prespecified mortality reduction from 40% to 23% was unlikely to be achieved (n = 222 out of planned 300). Thirty-day mortality was 37.5% (42/112) in cell recipients versus 42.7% (47/110) in control patients (relative risk [RR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.21; P = 0.43). There were no significant differences in days alive off ventilation within 60 days (median rank, 117.3 [interquartile range, 60.0-169.5] in cell patients and 102.0 [interquartile range, 54.0-162.5] in control subjects; higher is better). Resolution or improvement of acute respiratory distress syndrome at 30 days was observed in 51/104 (49.0%) cell recipients and 46/106 (43.4%) control patients (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-3.21). There were no infusion-related toxicities and overall serious adverse events over 30 days were similar. Conclusions: Mesenchymal cells, while safe, did not improve 30-day survival or 60-day ventilator-free days in patients with moderate and/or severe COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Emergency and Compassionate Use of a Novel Ascending Endograft for Ascending and Arch Aortic Pathology.

PURPOSE: Patients with complicated ascending aortic pathology, including patients with acute type A aortic dissection may be at extreme risk for open repair. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), infrequently used for the ascending aorta, may be considered an alternative in this setting. We describe early results for emergency and compassionate (E&C) use of a novel endograft, specifically designed for use to treat pathology of the ascending aorta. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This case series evaluated 19 patients (mean age, 68.84±13.12 years; 57.9% female) treated with ascending TEVAR for acute and chronic acute (4), subacute (1), or chronic (1) aortic dissection or pseudoaneurysm (13). Six of the 19 patients (31.5%) were treated under compassionate use and 13 patients (68.4%) were treated under the emergency use exemption. Ten patients (52.6%) received additional devices to extend treatment into the arch and descending aorta. RESULTS: Device delivery was achieved in all patients (100%). Thirty-day mortality and stroke occurred in 3 patients (15.8%) and in 1 patient (5.3%), respectively. In 1 patient (5.3%), with an Unanticipated Adverse Device Event, the aorta ruptured when the endograft eroded into the adventitial portion of dissection site at the posterior aspect of the ascending wall. Devices were explanted in 2 patients (10.5%), 353 and 610 days after the index procedure, respectively. Six patients had endoleaks (31.6%), including type I (n=2, 10.5%), type II endoleaks (n=3, 15.8%), and indeterminate endoleak (n=1, 5.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Delivery and deployment of a novel ascending thoracic stent graft with or without an additional branched arch extension is feasible in patients with complex anatomy and pathology, including acute aortic dissection and pseudoaneurysm. Additional experience with this novel device will further refine the patient population most suitable for endovascular ascending aortic repair for these pathologies. CLINICAL IMPACT: This study describes a novel stent graft specifically designed for treatment of ascending aortic pathology, including acute type A dissection. The patients described in this series constituted a group outside the formal US FDA sponsored clinical trial, and were those accepted as part of an emergency and compassionate use basis.

ARISE: First-In-Human Evaluation of a Novel Stent Graft to Treat Ascending Aortic Dissection.

BACKGROUND: Operative mortality for type A aortic dissection is still 10-20% at centers of excellence. Additionally, 10-20% are not considered as viable candidates for open surgical repair and not offered life-saving emergency surgery. ARISE is a multicenter investigation evaluating the novel GORE® Ascending Stent Graft (ASG; Flagstaff, AZ). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess early feasibility of using these investigational devices to treat ascending aortic dissection. METHODS: This a prospective, multicenter, non-randomized, single-arm study that enrolls patients at high surgical risk with appropriate anatomical requirements based on computed tomography imaging at 7 of 9 US sites. Devices are delivered transfemorally under fluoroscopic guidance. Primary endpoint is all-cause mortality at 30 days. Secondary endpoints include major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 30 days, 6 months, and 12 months. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were enrolled with a mean age of 75.7 years (range 47-91) and 11 (57.9%) were female. Ten (52.6%) had DeBakey type I disease, and the rest were type II. Sixteen (84.2%) of the patients were acute. Patients were treated with safe access, (7/19 (36.8%) percutaneous, 10/19 (52.6%) transfemoral, 2/19 (10.5%) iliac conduit), delivery, and deployment completed in all cases. Median procedure time was 154 mins (range 52-392) and median contrast used was 111 mL (range 75-200). MACCE at 30 days occurred in 5 patients including mortality 3/19 (15.8%), disabling stroke in 1/19 (5.3%), and myocardial infarction in 1/19 (5.3%). CONCLUSION: Results from the ARISE early feasibility study of a specific ascending stent graft device to treat ascending aortic dissection are promising.

Composite Metric for Benchmarking Site Performance in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Results From the STS/ACC TVT Registry.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a transformative therapy for aortic stenosis. Despite rapid improvements in technology and techniques, serious complications remain relatively common and are not well described by single outcome measures. The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is site-level variation in TAVR outcomes in the United States using a novel 30-day composite measure. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapies Registry to develop a novel ranked composite performance measure that incorporates mortality and serious complications. The selection and rank order of the complications for the composite was determined by their adjusted association with 1-year outcomes. Sites with risk-adjusted outcomes significantly more or less frequent than the national average based on a 95% probability interval were classified as performing worse or better than expected. RESULTS: The development cohort consisted of 52 561 patients who underwent TAVR between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. Based on associations with 1-year risk-adjusted mortality and health status, we identified 4 periprocedural complications to include in the composite risk model in addition to mortality. Ranked empirically according to severity, these included stroke, major, life-threatening or disabling bleeding, stage III acute kidney injury, and moderate or severe perivalvular regurgitation. Based on these ranked outcomes, we found that there was significant site-level variation in quality of care in TAVR in the United States. Overall, better than expected site performance was observed in 25/301 (8%) sites, performance as expected was observed in 242/301 sites (80%), and worse than expected performance was observed in 34/301 (11%) sites. Thirty-day mortality; stroke; major, life-threatening, or disabling bleeding; and moderate or severe perivalvular leak were each substantially more common in sites with worse than expected performance as compared with other sites. There was good aggregate reliability of the model. CONCLUSIONS: There are substantial variations in the quality of TAVR care received in the United States and 11% of sites were identified as providing care below the average level of performance. Further study is necessary to determine structural, process-related, and technical factors associated with high- and low-performing sites.

The impact of local vs general anesthesia in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic surgery.

OBJECTIVE: General anesthesia (GA) is associated with inherent risks that can be avoided by the use of lesser invasive anesthetic strategies. We hypothesize that examine and compare the use of local or regional anesthesia (LRA) to that of GA in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). METHODS: Patients undergoing TEVAR between 2010 and 2020 in the Vascular Quality Initiative were analyzed. Exclusion criteria included receipt of branched or physician-modified endografts and devices extending distally beyond zone 5. Patients were categorized as receiving LRA or GA. Center volume was reported by quartile according to annualized TEVAR volume, and operative outcomes were compared using appropriate frequentists tests. Univariable and multivariable regression models for anesthesia type and operative outcomes were created to compare unadjusted and adjusted rates of each outcome. Long-term survival was estimated using a Kaplan-Meier survival estimator, whereas adjusted survival analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Of the 17,099 patients who underwent TEVAR, 7299 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 3.8% received LRA. There were no significant differences in the annual proportion of patients who received LRA from 2011 to 2020 (P = .49, χ2 test for trend). Only 18.8% of patients who received LRA were treated at the highest quartile volume centers. Patients who received LRA were older and more comorbid compared with those who received GA. There were no differences in in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-1.38; P = .44) or composite of any complication (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.54-1.14; P = .22) between patients who received LRA compared with those who received GA. This also applied to patients presenting with rupture. Receipt of LRA was associated with lower odds of postoperative congestive heart failure (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.01-0.89; P = .01) as well as decreased length of intensive care unit (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.40-0.72; P < .01) and hospital length of stay (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46-0.84; P < .01). LRA was not associated with decreased long-term survival compared with GA (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.72-1.25; P = .72). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a greater number of baseline comorbidities, patients undergoing TEVAR with LRA experienced shorter intensive care unit and postoperative lengths of stay, with similar operative outcomes and long-term survival compared with patients who received GA. Similar findings were found among the rupture cohort. LRA should be considered more frequently in select patients undergoing TEVAR.

Midterm Outcomes of Endovascular Repair of Aortic Arch Aneurysms with the Gore Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis.

OBJECTIVE: Aortic aneurysms involving aortic arch vessels are anatomically unsuitable for standard thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) without cervical debranching of the arch vessels. Three year outcomes of a single branched thoracic endograft following previous publication of peri-operative and one year outcomes are reported. METHODS: This was a multicentre feasibility trial of the GORE TAG Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis (TBE), a thoracic endovascular graft incorporating a single retrograde branch for aortic arch vessel perfusion. The first study arm enrolled patients with an intact descending thoracic aortic aneurysm extending to the distal arch with left subclavian artery (LSA) incorporation (zone 2). The second arm enrolled patients with arch aneurysms requiring incorporation of the left carotid or innominate artery (zone 0/1) and extra-anatomic surgical revascularisation of the remaining aortic arch vessels. Outcomes at three years are reported. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 40 patients (31 zone 2, nine zone 0/1). The majority were male (52%). Mean follow up was 1 408 ± 552 days in the zone 2 and 1 187 ± 766 days in the zone 0/1 cohort. During three year follow up there was no device migration, fracture, or aortic rupture in either arm. In the zone 2 arm, freedom from re-intervention was 97% at one and three years but there were two side branch occlusions. Two patients had aneurysm enlargement > 5 mm without documented endoleak or re-intervention. Freedom from death at one and three years was 90% and 84%. In the zone 0/1 arm there were no re-interventions, loss of branch patency, or aneurysm enlargement at three years. Cerebrovascular events occurred in three patients during follow up: two unrelated to the device or procedure, and one of unknown relationship. Two patients in this arm died during the follow up period, both unrelated to the procedure or the aneurysm. CONCLUSION: Initial three year results of the TBE device for endovascular repair of arch aneurysms show favourable patency and durability with low rates of graft related complications.

Impact of Hospital Practice and Staffing Differences on Transesophageal Echocardiography Use in Cardiac Valve or Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and quantify the predictors of intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) use among the patients undergoing cardiac valve or isolated coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. DESIGN: An observational cohort study. SETTING: This study used the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrative claims dataset of the beneficiaries undergoing valve or isolated CABG surgery between 2013 to 2015. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥65 years of age undergoing cardiac valve or isolated CABG surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Generalized linear mixed-model (GLMM) analyses were used to examine the relationship between the TEE and patient characteristics, hospital factors, and staffing differences, while accounting for clustering within hospitals. The proportion of variation in TEE use attributable to patient-level characteristics was quantified using odds ratios. Hospital-level factors and staffing differences were quantified using the median odds ratios (MOR) and interval odds ratios (IOR). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 261,860 patients (123,702 valve procedures and 138,158 isolated CABG), the GLMM analysis demonstrated that the strongest predictor for intraoperative TEE use was the hospital where the surgery occurred (MOR for TEE of 2.57 in valve and 4.16 in isolated CABG). The TEE staffing variable reduced the previously unexplained across-hospital variability by 9% in valve and 21% in isolated CABG, and hospitals with anesthesiologist TEE staffing (versus mixed) were more likely to use TEE in both valve and CABG (MOR for TEE of 1.21 in valve and 1.84 in isolated CABG). CONCLUSION: Hospital practice was the strongest predictor for TEE use overall. In isolated CABG surgery, hospitals with anesthesiologist TEE staffing were a primary predictor for TEE use.

Outcomes of acute type A aortic dissection during the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database.

PURPOSE: There have been reported reductions of hospital presentation for acute cardiovascular conditions such as myocardial infarction and acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study examined presentation patterns and outcomes of ATAAD in North America immediately before, and during, the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (STS ACSD) was queried to identify patients presenting with ATAAD in the 12 months pre-pandemic (March 2019-February 2020), and during the early pandemic (March through June 2020). Demographics and operative characteristics were compared using χ² test and Wilcoxon Rank-sum test. The median annual case volume designated low-volume centers versus high-volume centers (>10 cases per month). Step-wise variable selection was used to create a risk set used for adjustment of all multivariable models. RESULTS: There were 5480 patients identified: 4346 pre-pandemic and 1134 during pandemic. There was significantly lower volume of median cases per month during the COVID-19 pandemic period (286 interquartile range [IQR]: 256-306 vs. 372 IQR: 291-433,p = .0152). In historically low-volume centers (<10 cases per year), there was no difference in volume between the two periods (142 IQR: 133-166 vs. 177 IQR: 139-209, p = NS). In high-volume centers, there was a decline during the pandemic (140 IQR: 123-148 vs. 212 IQR: 148-224, p = .0052). There was no difference in overall hospital-to-hospital transfers during the two time periods (54% of cases pre-pandemic, 55% during). Patient demographics, operative characteristics, malperfusion rates, and cardiac risk factors were similar between the two time periods. There was no difference in unadjusted operative mortality (19.01% pre-pandemic vs. 18.83% during, p = .9) nor major morbidity (52.42% pre-pandemic vs. 51.24% during, p = .5). Risk-adjusted multivariable models showed no difference in either operative mortality nor major morbidity between time periods. CONCLUSIONS: For patients presenting to the hospital with ATAAD during the first surge of the pandemic, operative outcomes were similar to pre-pandemic despite a 30% reduction in volume. Out-of-hospital mortality from ATAAD during the pandemic remains unknown. Further understanding these findings will inform management of ATAAD during future pandemics.

Delays in the Identification and Assessment of in-Hospital Stroke Patients.

OBJECTIVES: In-hospital stroke is associated with poor outcomes. Reasons for delays, use of interventions, and presence of large vessel occlusion are not well characterized. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective single center cohort of 97 patients with in-hospital stroke was analyzed to identify factors associated with delays from last known normal to symptom identification and to stroke team alerting. Stroke interventions and presence of large vessel occlusion were also assessed. RESULTS: Strokes were predominantly on surgery services (70%), ischemic (82%), and severe (median NIHSS 16; interquartile range [IQR] 6-24). There were long delays from last known normal to symptom identification (median 5.1 hours, IQR 1.0-19.7 hours), symptom identification to stroke team alerting (median 2.1 hours, IQR 0.5-9.9 hours), and total time from last known normal to alerting (median 11.4 [IQR 2.7-34.2] hours). In univariable analysis, being on a surgical service, in an ICU, intubated, and higher NIHSS were associated with delays. In multivariable analysis only intubation was independently associated with time from last known normal to symptom identification (coefficient 20 hours, IQR 0.2 - 39.8, p=0.047). Interventions were given to 17/80 (21%) ischemic stroke patients; 3 (4%) received IV tPA and 14 (18%) underwent thrombectomy. Vascular imaging occurred in 57/80 (71%) ischemic stroke patients and 21/57 (37%) had large vessel occlusion. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized patients with stroke experience long delays from symptom identification to stroke team alerting. Intubation was strongly associated with delay to symptom identification. Although stroke severity was high and large vessel occlusion common, many patients did not receive acute interventions.