Minimising radiation exposure in catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias.

BACKGROUND: Conventional fluoroscopy guided catheter ablation (CA) is an established treatment option for ventricular arrhythmias (VAs). However, with the complex nature of most procedures, patients and staff bare an increased radiation exposure. Near-zero or zero-fluoroscopy CA is an alternative method which could substantially reduce or even eliminate the radiation dose. Our aim was to analyse procedural outcomes with fluoroscopy minimising approach for treatment of VAs in patients with structurally normal hearts (SNH) and structural heart disease (SHD). METHODS: Fifty-two (age 53.4 ± 17.8 years, 38 male, 14 female) consecutive patients who underwent CA of VAs in our institution between May 2018 and December 2019 were included. Procedures were performed primarily with the aid of the three-dimensional electro-anatomical mapping system and intra-cardiac echocardiography. Fluoroscopy was considered only in left ventricular (LV) summit mapping for coronary angiography and when epicardial approach was planned. Acute and long-term procedural outcomes were analysed. RESULTS: Sixty CA procedures were performed. Twenty-five patients had SHD-related VAs (Group 1) and 27 patients had SNH (Group 2). While Group 1 had significantly higher total procedural time (256.9 ± 71.7 vs 123.6 ± 42.2 min; p < 0.001) compared to Group 2, overall procedural success rate [77.4% (24/31) vs 89.7% (26/29); p = 0.20)] and recurrence rate after the first procedure [8/25, (32%) vs 8/27, (29.6%); p = 0.85] were similar in both groups. Fluoroscopy was used in 3 procedures in Group 1 where epicardial approach was needed and in 4 procedures in Group 2 where LV summit VAs were ablated. Overall procedure-related major complication rate was 5%. CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroscopy minimising approach for CA of VAs is feasible and safe in patients with SHD and SNH. Fluoroscopy could not be completely abolished in VAs with epicardial and LV summit substrate location.

Minimally invasive surgical aortic valve replacement versus transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation in low-risk octogenarians : Observational, retrospective and single-center study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare short-term and mid-term outcomes in low-risk octogenarian population treated with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (tf-TAVI) or minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (mini-AVR) for severe aortic stenosis. METHODS: In this single-center, retrospective cohort study we gathered data on low-risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons [STS] score < 4%) octogenarians before and after tf-TAVI and mini-AVR performed between January 2013 and May 2019; follow-up was completed in May 2022. Short-term outcomes were hospital length of stay, in-hospital all-cause mortality and other major postoperative outcomes. Mid-term clinical outcomes were 1­year and 3­year all-cause mortality. Propensity score-based matching was performed. RESULTS: In total 106 patients were matched, resulting in 53 pairs. In-hospital complications were similar between the matched groups of patients with the exception of mild and moderate paravalvular leak (mini-AVR vs. tf-TAVI: mild PVL: 3.8% vs. 45.3%, p < 0.001; moderate PVL: 0% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.4952) and of postprocedural acute kidney injury that was more frequent in mini-AVR group (mini-AVR vs. tf-TAVI: 22.6% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.023). Hospital length of stay (p = 0.239) and in-hospital mortality (p = 0.495) did not differ between groups. The 1-year and 3­year all-cause mortality Kaplan-Meier estimates were similar between mini-AVR and tf-TAVI. CONCLUSION: In the present study on low-risk octogenarians, transfemoral TAVI and minimally invasive AVR showed comparable short-term and mid-term results. Both procedures are deemed safe and effective. Larger RCTs will be required to determine which low-risk patients will benefit most from TAVI.

Similar clinical outcomes with transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement in octogenarians with aortic stenosis.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the preferred treatment option for severe aortic stenosis in the elderly and in patients with comorbidities. We sought to compare outcomes after TAVI and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in octogenarians. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study conducted at our tertiary center, clinical data were gathered before and after TAVI and SAVR procedures performed from January 2013 to May 2019; follow-up completed in March 2021. The primary outcome was 1-year mortality. Patients were stratified according to Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score and procedure type. Propensity score-based matching was also performed. Results: Of 542 patients who matched the inclusion criteria, 273 underwent TAVI and 269 SAVR. TAVI patients were older (85.8 ± 3.0 vs. 82.2 ± 2.2 years; P < 0.001) and had a higher mean STS score (5.0 ± 4.0 vs. 2.8 ± 1.3; P < 0.001) and EuroSCORE II (5.3 ± 4.1 vs. 2.8 ± 6.0; P < 0.001). Rates of postoperative permanent pacemaker insertion (15.0% vs. 9.3%; P = 0.040) and paravalvular leak (9.9% vs. 0.8%; P < 0.001) were higher and acute kidney injury lower (8.8% vs. 32.7%; P < 0.001) after TAVI, with no difference between treatment groups for major bleeding (11.0% vs. 6.7%; P = 0.130) or 30-day mortality (5.5% vs. 3.7%; P = 0.315). A statistically significant difference was found between TAVI and SAVR in low- and intermediate-risk groups when it came to occurrence of paravalvular leak, acute kidney injury, and new onset AF (all P < 0.001). Conclusion: This analysis of an octogenarian "real-life" population undergoing TAVI or SAVR (with a biological valve) showed similar outcomes regarding clinical endpoints in low- and medium-risk (STS score) groups.