A heart valve dedicated for aortic regurgitation: Review of technology and early clinical experience with the transfemoral Trilogy system.

Aortic regurgitation (AR) is associated with morbidity and premature mortality. Surgical aortic valve replacement is not an option for many patients due to an adverse surgical risk profile, whilst transcatheter aortic valve implantation with most available prostheses has demonstrated suboptimal implantation success and outcomes. The JenaValve Trilogy™ system provides an attractive solution for such patients as it utilizes clips that directly attach onto the native valve leaflets to anchor. Initially designed for transapical delivery, the current transfemoral delivery system is under investigation in the United States and approved for aortic stenosis and regurgitation in Europe. We present an expert review on the technical aspects of the Trilogy system, provide a guide for implantation, discuss the available evidence for the technology and provide illustrative case examples.

Evidence to support magnetic resonance conditional labelling of all pacemaker and defibrillator leads in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices.

AIMS: Many cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators are not approved by regulators for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Even following generator exchange to an approved magnetic resonance (MR)-conditional model, many systems remain classified 'non-MR conditional' due to the leads. This classification makes patient access to MRI challenging, but there is no evidence of increased clinical risk. We compared the effect of MRI on non-MR conditional and MR-conditional pacemaker and defibrillator leads. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients undergoing clinical 1.5T MRI with pacemakers and defibrillators in three centres over 5 years were included. Magnetic resonance imaging protocols were similar for MR-conditional and non-MR conditional systems. Devices were interrogated pre- and immediately post-scan, and at follow-up, and adverse clinical events recorded. Lead parameter changes peri-scan were stratified by MR-conditional labelling. A total of 1148 MRI examinations were performed in 970 patients (54% non-MR conditional systems, 39% defibrillators, 15% pacing-dependent) with 2268 leads. There were no lead-related adverse clinical events, and no clinically significant immediate or late lead parameter changes following MRI in either MR-conditional or non-MR conditional leads. Small reductions in atrial and right ventricular sensed amplitudes and impedances were similar between groups, with no difference in the proportion of leads with parameter changes greater than pre-defined thresholds (7.1%, 95% confidence interval: 6.1-8.3). CONCLUSIONS: There was no increased risk of MRI in patients with non-MR conditional pacemaker or defibrillator leads when following recommended protocols. Standardizing MR conditions for all leads would significantly improve access to MRI by enabling patients to be scanned in non-specialist centres, with no discernible incremental risk.

Early pacemaker implantation for transcatheter aortic valve implantation is safe and effective.

BACKGROUND: Permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is a common complication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The optimum timing of PPM implantation is still unclear as conduction abnormalities evolve and a balance needs to be struck between conservative delays in the hope of conduction recovery and overutilization of pacing. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of early PPM implantation, without an observation period, among TAVI patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective, observational study of 1398 TAVI patients. Clinical and pacing data were collected at baseline, 30 days and at a median of 15 (4-21) months post-TAVI. Study endpoints included PPM-related complications, pacing utilization and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: One hundred five patients (8.2%) required a PPM, of which 13 were implanted pre and 92 post-TAVI. Seventy-six percent required pacing for either second- or third-degree heart block. Time to implantation for post-TAVI PPM was 1 (0-3) day. Six patients experienced a pacing-related complication- lead displacement (n = 3), hematoma (n = 2), and device infection (n = 1). Pacing utilization defined as pacing >10% of the time or a pacing requirement at the time of the pacing check was demonstrated in 83% of patients. Multivariate analysis revealed complete heart block (CHB) was the only independent predictor of pacing utilization. Hospital length of stay for the post-TAVI PPM group was longer than the group without PPM (4 [2-8] vs. 3 [2-4] days; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Early PPM implantation in TAVI patients is safe and majority of patients require pacing in the short and mid-term.

Prevalence and outcome of dual aortic stenosis and cardiac amyloid pathology in patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

AIMS: Cardiac amyloidosis is common in elderly patients with aortic stenosis (AS) referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We hypothesized that patients with dual aortic stenosis and cardiac amyloid pathology (AS-amyloid) would have different baseline characteristics, periprocedural and mortality outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients aged ≥75 with severe AS referred for TAVI at two sites underwent blinded bone scintigraphy prior to intervention (Perugini Grade 0 negative, 1-3 increasingly positive). Baseline assessment included echocardiography, electrocardiogram (ECG), blood tests, 6-min walk test, and health questionnaire, with periprocedural complications and mortality follow-up. Two hundred patients were recruited (aged 85 ± 5 years, 50% male). AS-amyloid was found in 26 (13%): 8 Grade 1, 18 Grade 2. AS-amyloid patients were older (88 ± 5 vs. 85 ± 5 years, P = 0.001), with reduced quality of life (EQ-5D-5L 50 vs. 65, P = 0.04). Left ventricular wall thickness was higher (14 mm vs. 13 mm, P = 0.02), ECG voltages lower (Sokolow-Lyon 1.9 ± 0.7 vs. 2.5 ± 0.9 mV, P = 0.03) with lower voltage/mass ratio (0.017 vs. 0.025 mV/g/m2, P = 0.03). High-sensitivity troponin T and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide were higher (41 vs. 21 ng/L, P < 0.001; 3702 vs. 1254 ng/L, P = 0.001). Gender, comorbidities, 6-min walk distance, AS severity, prevalence of disproportionate hypertrophy, and post-TAVI complication rates (38% vs. 35%, P = 0.82) were the same. At a median follow-up of 19 (10-27) months, there was no mortality difference (P = 0.71). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation significantly improved outcome in the overall population (P < 0.001) and in those with AS-amyloid (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: AS-amyloid is common and differs from lone AS. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation significantly improved outcome in AS-amyloid, while periprocedural complications and mortality were similar to lone AS, suggesting that TAVI should not be denied to patients with AS-amyloid.

Aortic regurgitation: from mechanisms to management.

Aortic regurgitation (AR) is a common clinical disease associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Investigations based largely on non-invasive imaging are pivotal in discerning the severity of disease and its impact on the heart. Advances in technology have contributed to improved risk stratification and to our understanding of the pathophysiology of AR. Surgical aortic valve replacement is the predominant treatment. However, its use is limited to patients with an acceptable surgical risk profile. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is an alternative treatment. However, this therapy remains in its infancy, and further data and experience are required. This review article on AR describes its prevalence, mechanisms, diagnosis and treatment.

Surgical management of atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and recommendations.

AIMS: Surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has been demonstrated to be a safe procedure conducted concomitantly alongside cardiac surgery. However, there are conflicting guideline recommendations surrounding indications for surgical ablation. We conducted a systematic review of current recommendations on concomitant surgical AF ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified publications from MEDLINE and EMBASE between January 2011 and December 2022 and additionally searched Guideline libraries and websites of relevant organizations in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Of 895 studies screened, 4 were rigorously developed (AGREE-II > 50%) and included. All guidelines agreed on the definitions of paroxysmal, persistent, and longstanding AF based on duration and refraction to current treatment modalities. In the Australia-New Zealand (CSANZ) and European (EACTS) guidelines, opportunistic screening for patients >65 years is recommended. The EACTS recommends systematic screening for those aged >75 or at high stroke risk (Class IIa, Level B). However, this was not recommended by American Heart Association or Society of Thoracic Surgeons guidelines. All guidelines identified surgical AF ablation during concomitant cardiac surgery as safe and recommended for consideration by a Heart Team with notable variation in recommendation strength and the specific indication (three guidelines fail to specify any indication for surgery). Only the STS recommended left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) alongside surgical ablation (Class IIa, Level C). CONCLUSION: Disagreements exist in recommendations for specific indications for concomitant AF ablation and LAAO, with the decision subject to Heart Team assessment. Further evidence is needed to develop recommendations for specific indications for concomitant AF procedures and guidelines need to be made congruent.

Long-Term Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Outcomes in Chronic Versus Acute Coronary Syndromes (TARGET All Comers Trial).

In the Targeted therapy with a localised abluminal coated, low-dose sirolimus-eluting, biodegreadable polymer coronary stent (TARGET; NCT02520180) All Comers trial the biodegradable polymer (BP) sirolimus-eluting FIREHAWK stent was noninferior to the durable polymer (DP) everolimus-eluting XIENCE stent with respect to target lesion failure (TLF) at 1 and 5 years; however, the long-term safety and efficacy in the setting of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are not known. We sought to assess the long-term outcomes in ACS versus chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) with BP sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) versus DP everolimus-eluting stent (EES). The TARGET AC study was a multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial of all comer patients randomly allocated 1:1 to BP SES or DP EES (stratified by ST-elevation myocardial infarction and study site). In this predefined substudy, the outcomes were compared based on clinical presentation (ACS vs CCS) and treatment allocation. A total of 1,653 patients were enrolled (728 with ACS and 922 with CCS), with 94% completing the 5-year follow-up. The baseline characteristics were well-matched between the 2 stent types; however, co-morbidities were more prevalent in the CCS than in the ACS population. TLF (15.5% vs 17.7%, p = 0.24), patient-oriented outcomes (32.0% vs 34.4%, p = 0.31), and stent thrombosis (4.1% vs 3.3%, p = 0.40) were similar between patients with ACS and patients with CCS. In the ACS cohort, the outcomes at 5 years for BP SES versus DP EES were similar for TLF (16.0% vs 14.9%, p = 0.70), ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (5.6% vs 8.3%, p = 0.17), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (2.7% vs 4.6%, p = 0.18). The same was true for the CCS cohort, with 5-year outcomes for BP SES versus DP EES for TLF (18.0% vs 17.4%, p = 0.82), ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (6.4% vs 5.0%, p = 0.37), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (3.0% vs 1.8%, p = 0.26). In conclusion, in the TARGET AC trial, 1 in 3 patients had a major adverse event at 5 years, irrespective of CCS or ACS presentation. Long-term, the BP sirolimus-eluting FIREHAWK stent was as safe and effective as the DP everolimus-eluting XIENCE stent across the spectrum of clinical presentations.

Regional Distribution of Extracellular Volume Quantified by Cardiac CT in Aortic Stenosis: Insights Into Disease Mechanisms and Impact on Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Extracellular volume fraction (ECV) is a marker for myocardial fibrosis and infiltration, can be quantified using cardiac computed tomography (ECVCT), and has prognostic utility in several diseases. This study aims to map out regional differences in ECVCT to obtain greater insights into the pathophysiological mechanisms of ECV expansion and its clinical implications. METHODS: Three prospective cohorts were included: patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and coexisting AS and transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis were referred for a transcatheter aortic valve replacement and had ECG-gated CT angiography and Technetium-99m-labelled 3,3-diphosphono-1,2-propanodicarboxylic acid scintigraphy to differentiate between the 2 cohorts. Controls had CT angiography and cardiac magnetic resonance demonstrating no significant coronary artery disease or infarction. Global and regional ECVCT was analyzed, and its association with mortality was assessed for patients with AS. RESULTS: In 199 patients, controls (n=65; 66% male), AS (n=115), and coexisting AS and transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis (n=19) had a global ECVCT of 26.1 (25.0-27.8%) versus 29.1 (27.5-31.1%) versus 37.4 (32.5-46.6%), respectively; P<0.001. Across cohorts, ECVCT was higher at the base (versus apex), the inferoseptum (versus anterolateral wall), and the subendocardium (versus subepicardium); P<0.05 for all. Among patients with AS, epicardial ECVCT, rather than any other regional value or global ECVCT, was the strongest predictor of mortality at a median of 3.9 (max 6.3) years (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.08-1.36]; P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Regional differences in ECVCT suggest a predilection for fibrosis and amyloid infiltration at the base, subendocardium, inferior wall, and septum more than the anterior and lateral myocardium. ECVCT can predict long-term mortality with the subepicardium demonstrating the strongest discriminatory power. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT03029026 and NCT03094143.

Predictors of outcome in patients with moderate mixed aortic valve disease.

OBJECTIVES: Grading the severity of moderate mixed aortic stenosis and regurgitation (MAVD) is challenging and the disease poorly understood. Identifying markers of haemodynamic severity will improve risk stratification and potentially guide timely treatment. This study aims to identify prognostic haemodynamic markers in patients with moderate MAVD. METHODS: Moderate MAVD was defined as coexisting moderate aortic stenosis (aortic valve area (AVA) 1.0-1.5 cm2) and moderate aortic regurgitation (vena contracta (VC) 0.3-0.6 cm). Consecutive patients diagnosed between 2015 and 2019 were included from a multicentre registry. The primary composite outcome of death or heart failure hospitalisation was evaluated among these patients. Demographics, comorbidities, echocardiography and treatment data were assessed for their prognostic significance. RESULTS: 207 patients with moderate MAVD were included, aged 78 (66-84) years, 56% male sex, AVA 1.2 (1.1-1.4) cm2 and VC 0.4 (0.4-0.5) cm. Over a follow-up of 3.5 (2.5-4.7) years, the composite outcome was met in 89 patients (43%). Univariable associations with the primary outcome included older age, previous myocardial infarction, previous cerebrovascular event, atrial fibrillation, New York Heart Association >2, worse renal function, tricuspid regurgitation ≥2 and mitral regurgitation ≥2. Markers of biventricular systolic function, cardiac remodelling and transaortic valve haemodynamics demonstrated an inverse association with the primary composite outcome. In multivariable analysis, peak aortic jet velocity (Vmax) was independently and inversely associated with the composite outcome (HR: 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.93; p=0.021) in an adjusted model along with age (HR: 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.08; p<0.001), creatinine (HR: 1.002, 95% CI 1.001 to 1.003; p=0.005), previous cerebrovascular event (85% vs 42%; HR: 3.04, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.99; p=0.001) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (HR: 0.97, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.99; p=0.007). Patients with Vmax ≤2.8 m/s and LVEF ≤50% (n=27) had the worst outcome compared with the rest of the population (72% vs 41%; HR: 3.87, 95% CI 2.20 to 6.80; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with truly moderate MAVD have a high incidence of death and heart failure hospitalisation (43% at 3.5 (2.5-4.7) years). Within this group, a high-risk group characterised by disproportionately low aortic Vmax (≤2.8 m/s) and adverse remodelling (LVEF ≤50%) have the worst outcomes.