Long-Term Follow-Up of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Portico Versus Evolut Devices.

New-generation devices such as Evolut and Portico have provided favorable results in patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for aortic stenosis, but their comparative effectiveness remains debated, despite its relevance when envisioning TAVI in low-risk patients. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of 2 leading TAVI devices (Evolut and Portico) used by the same team of experienced TAVI operators, focusing on long-term outcomes, including major adverse events (i.e., the composite of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, major vascular complication, or major bleeding). Unadjusted and propensity score-adjusted analyses were carried out. A total of 233 patients were included, 119 (51.1%) receiving Evolut and 114 (49%) Portico. Baseline and procedural data showed significant between-device differences, including functional class, surgical risk, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal function, transesophageal guidance, device size, postdilation, and procedural time (all p <0.05). Yet, acute and in-hospital outcomes were not significantly different (all p >0.05). Follow-up status was ascertained in 228 (98%) patients after 15.0 ± 7.6 months. Unadjusted analysis showed similar rates of major adverse events, as well as the individual risk of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, major vascular complication, major bleeding, and pacemaker implantation (all p >0.05). Even at propensity score-adjusted analysis outcomes were not significantly different with Evolut and Portico (all p >0.05). In conclusion, Evolut and Portico devices yield similarly favorable results at long-term follow-up when used by experienced TAVI operators.

Impact of Tirofiban on Serum Troponin Changes in Patients Undergoing Carotid Artery Stenting: A Propensity Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optional periprocedural antithrombotic management for carotid artery stenting (CAS) is still debated. METHODS: We aimed to compare the procedural and 1-month outlook of patients undergoing CAS with tirofiban as parenteral antiplatelet therapy. We retrospectively compared patients receiving tirofiban during CAS versus those undergoing CAS without tirofiban, using propensity score matching. Ancillary antithrombotic therapy included in all patients aspirin, clopidogrel, and unfractioned heparin. The primary outcome was the change in serum troponin from baseline to postprocedural peak levels. A total of 30 patients undergoing CAS were included, 15 receiving tirofiban on top of heparin and dual oral antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and 15 receiving only heparin and DAPT. Bail-out use of tirofiban was an exclusion criterion. RESULTS: Baseline troponin was 3.00 (0.06; 5.20) ng/mL in the tirofiban group vs. 4.6 (0.02; 13.10) ng/mL in the no-tirofiban group (P = 0.229), and postprocedural peak 3.5 (0.06; 5.50) ng/mL vs. 6.30 (0.09; 28.40) ng/mL (P = 0.191). Peak-baseline difference in troponin was lower in the tirofiban group than in the no-tirofiban group: 0.3 (0.00; 1.7) ng/mL vs. 1.3 (0.01; 10.00) ng/mL (P = 0.044); the relative peak-baseline change in troponin was analogously different: 24.3% (0%; 44.7%) vs. 50% (21.3%; 80.0%) (P = 0.039). No case of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or transient ischemic attack occurred during in-hospital stay or at 1-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Tirofiban during CAS might provide periprocedural myocardial protection and reduce myocardial injury as determined by serial troponin measurements.

Impact of Predilation Before Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation with New-Generation Devices.

BACKGROUND: Significant aortic stenosis can be effectively treated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients at high or intermediate surgical risk. Predilation is often performed to facilitate TAVI implantation, but its risk-benefit balance with new-generation devices is detabed. We aimed to appraise whether predilation is still needed with new-generation devices for TAVI. METHODS/MATERIALS: We queried the prospective multicenter RISPEVA (Registro Italiano GISE sull'impianto di Valvola Aortica Percutanea) Study, comparing patients with vs without predilation receiving Acurate, Evolut, Lotus, Portico, or Sapien3. Baseline, procedural features and early clinical and echocardiographic results were compared with unadjusted and adjusted analyses. RESULTS: A total of 1409 subjects were included, 1055 (74.9%) receiving predilation, and 354 (25.1%) undergoing direct TAVI. Several baseline and procedural differences were evident at unadjusted analysis between the two groups, including device success, procedural success, contrast volume, procedural time, mean post-procedural gradient, and prevalence of aortic regurgitation 2+ (all p < 0.05). Adjusted analysis showed that only procedural time remained significantly impacted by predilation (average reduction in procedural time with predilation of -12.9 [95% confidence interval -21.0; -4.8] minutes, p = 0.002). Subgroup unadjusted and adjusted analysis showed that predilation was associated with shorter procedural times only when Evolut or Portico devices were used (all p < 0.05). Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up up to 1 month showed similar results irrespective of predilation at both unadjusted and adjusted analysis. CONCLUSION: TAVI without predilation is not associated with adverse procedural, clinical or echocardiographic results when new-generation devices are used. Predilation may however reduce procedural time with Evolut and Portico devices.

[Cardiovascular risk in systemic inflammatory diseases]. / Il rischio cardiovascolare nelle patologie infiammatorie sistemiche.

Systemic inflammatory diseases are associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The link between inflammatory and cardiovascular diseases can be attributed to the coexistence of classical risk factors and inflammatory mechanisms activated during systemic inflammatory diseases involving the immune system. Unfavorable metabolic effects of anti-inflammatory drugs can also contribute to increase cardiovascular risk. Yet, clinical implications of these findings are not entirely clear, and deeper knowledge and awareness of cardiac involvement in inflammatory diseases are necessary. The aim of this review is to summarize cardiac involvement in systemic inflammatory diseases and to identify aspects where evidence is currently lacking that would deserve further investigation in the future.