TRI-SCORE is superior to EuroSCORE II and STS-Score in mortality prediction following transcatheter edge-to-edge tricuspid valve repair.

BACKGROUND: The development of transcatheter tricuspid edge-to-edge repair for tricuspid regurgitation is a therapeutic milestone but a specific periprocedural risk assessment tool is lacking. TRI-SCORE has recently been introduced as a dedicated risk score for tricuspid valve surgery. AIMS: This study analyzes the predictive performance of TRI-SCORE following transcatheter edge-to-edge tricuspid valve repair. METHODS: 180 patients who underwent transcatheter tricuspid valve repair at Ulm University Hospital were consecutively included and stratified into three TRI-SCORE risk groups. The predictive performance of TRI-SCORE was assessed throughout a follow-up period of 30 days and up to 1 year. RESULTS: All patients had severe tricuspid regurgitation. Median EuroSCORE II was 6.4% (IQR 3.8-10.1%), median STS-Score 8.1% (IQR 4.6-13.4%) and median TRI-SCORE 6.0 (IQR 4.0-7.0). 64 patients (35.6%) were in the low TRI-SCORE group, 91 (50.6%) in the intermediate and 25 (13.9%) in the high-risk groups. The procedural success rate was 97.8%. 30-day mortality was 0% in the low-risk group, 1.3% in the intermediate-risk and 17.4% in the high-risk groups (p < 0.001). During a median follow-up of 168 days mortality was 0%, 3.8% and 52.2%, respectively (p < 0.001). The predictive performance of TRI-SCORE was excellent (AUC for 30-day mortality: 90.3%, for one-year mortality: 93.1%) and superior to EuroSCORE II (AUC 56.6% and 64.4%, respectively) and STS-Score (AUC 61.0% and 59.0%, respectively). CONCLUSION: TRI-SCORE is a valuable tool for prediction of mortality after transcatheter edge-to-edge tricuspid valve repair and its performance is superior to EuroSCORE II and STS-Score. In a monocentric cohort of 180 patients undergoing edge-to-edge tricuspid valve repair TRI-SCORE predicted 30-day and up to one-year mortality more reliably than EuroSCORE II and STS-Score. AUC area under the curve, 95% CI 95% confidence interval.

Vascular Access-Site Choice and Outcomes in Patients With Previous Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Undergoing Coronary Catheterization in a High-Volume Transradial Center.

BACKGROUND: Transradial access for coronary angiography was observed to be superior to femoral access. Nevertheless, femoral artery access is still frequently used, especially in challenging subgroups with high procedural complexity, like patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). PURPOSE: We analyzed access-site choice and outcomes of CABG patients undergoing coronary catheterization in different clinical settings. METHODS: A total of 1206 consecutive CABG patients undergoing coronary angiography and intervention were included in this study. Procedural and clinical outcomes were compared between transradial and transfemoral access. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of access-site choice. RESULTS: Coronary catheterization was performed via radial access in 753 patients (63.1%) and via femoral access in 442 patients (36.9%). During the study period, femoral artery utilization dropped from 55.2% to a minimum of 28.2% per year (P<.01). Short stature (odds ratio [OR], 1.62; P<.01), peripheral artery disease (OR, 1.42; P=.04), cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (OR, 4.17; P<.001), ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (OR, 2.56; P=.01), and coexisting left and right internal mammary artery (LIMA/RIMA) bypass grafts (OR, 2.67; P<.001) were independently associated with femoral access-site choice. Study outcomes including access-site complications (4.3% vs 1.6%; P<.01) as well as short- and long-term mortality (30-day mortality: 6.8% vs 2.0%; hazard ratio, 3.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.84-6.70; P<.001) were more likely to occur with femoral access. Length of stay was shorter in the radial cohort (3.7 ± 5.1 days vs 5.3 ± 7.2 days; P<.001). CONCLUSION: Radial access appears to be favorable even in complex CABG patients. Although radial access was set as the standard vascular approach, femoral access was chosen in one-third of all patients. Independent predictors for femoral access were short stature, peripheral artery disease, acute settings like CPR and STEMI, as well as coexisting LIMA and RIMA grafts.

Impact of Radial Access on Contrast-Induced Acute Kidney Injury in Patients With Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts.

PURPOSE: We investigated the impact of radial access on contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) in patients with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) undergoing cardiac catheterization. METHODS: This retrospective monocenter study included 527 CABG patients undergoing cardiac catheterization via radial (58.1%, N = 306) or femoral access (41.9%, N = 221). Primary outcome measure was CI-AKI defined in accordance with the KDIGO criteria. Independent predictors for CI-AKI were assessed. 1-year mortality was assessed depending on the occurrence of CI-AKI. RESULTS: In total, 99 CABG patients (18.8%) developed CI-AKI within 48 h after cardiac catheterization. Compared to patients without CI-AKI, amount of contrast media used (203.1 ± 102.6 ml vs. 204.2 ± 98.2 ml; P = 0.892) as well as procedural times (87.9 ± 44.8 vs. 79.8 ± 37.0; P = 0.190) were similarly. Regarding vascular access, there was no significant difference in the incidence of CI-AKI between radial and femoral approach (19.0% vs. 18.6%; p = 0.907). However, poor left ventricular ejection fraction (odds ratio [OR] = 1.72, P = 0.026), chronic kidney disease (OR = 2.30, P = 0.001) and acute coronary syndrome (OR = 1.64, P = 0.043) were independent predictors for CI-AKI. The occurrence of CI-AKI was significantly associated with an increased 1-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.52, P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: With 18.8%, CI-AKI is a frequent complication in CABG patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. Radial access did not decrease the risk when compared to the femoral approach.

Predictors of left ventricular reverse remodeling after percutaneous therapy for mitral regurgitation with the MitraClip system.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the predictors and clinical impact of left ventricular reverse remodeling (LVRR) after MitraClip (MC) therapy for degenerative (DMR) and functional mitral regurgitation (FMR). BACKGROUND: MC therapy induces LVRR in patients with mitral regurgitation (MR) at high-risk for surgery. However, specific data on predictors of LVRR therapy are limited. METHODS: This study included 164 patients treated by MC implantation with complete clinical and echocardiographic evaluation at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. LVRR was defined as a decrease of ≥10% of the left ventricular end-diastolic diameter after 12 months and was found in 49% of the patients. RESULTS: LVRR was associated with significantly reduced event rate 2 years after MC procedure. In the total cohort, multivariate regression analysis determined severe recurrent/residual MR after 12 months (p = .010, odds ratio [OR] = 0.26), male gender (p = .050, OR = 0.49) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <20% (p = .046, OR = 0.24) as predictors of absence of LVRR. In the subgroup analysis according to etiology of MR, multivariate regression analysis revealed severe recurrent/residual MR after 12 months (p = .04, OR = 0.184) to inversely predict LVRR only in the DMR subgroup. In FMR, residual severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) inversely predicts LVRR (p = .032, OR = 0.361). CONCLUSIONS: LVRR occurs in half of the patients after MC and is associated with reduced MACCE rates at follow-up. Combined information on residual/recurrent MR, baseline LVEF and gender predict LVRR after MC procedure. While residual/recurrent MR is the independent predictor for the absence of LVRR in DMR, in FMR only severe residual TR independently predict LVRR.

Standardized radial approach reduces access site complications: a prospective observational registry.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of complications by Doppler sonography after radial access for cardiac catheterization in a prospective observational registry. BACKGROUND: The radial approach for cardiac catheterization is being used with increasing frequency. In randomized trials, the risk of bleeding was lower with radial access compared with femoral access. However, there are still concerns in terms of the radial access because of reported high rates of radial artery occlusion (RAO) up to 30%. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective observational registry, a total of 369 procedures were performed using a standardized radial approach in terms of sheath size, anticoagulation, and postinterventional hemostasis. The rates of RAO, hematoma, and vascular complications were assessed the day after catheterization. RESULTS: A diagnostic procedure was performed in 25.7% and a coronary intervention in 74.3% of patients. Sheath size was 5 Fr in 12.2% (N=45) or 6 Fr in 87.8% (N=324). Doppler sonography showed RAO in 3.8% (N=14/369), with no difference between the 5- and the 6-Fr sheath (2.2 vs. 4.0%, P=0.56). A hematoma of 5 cm or more was documented after two (0.5%) procedures. There was no need for any blood transfusion or surgery. A small hematoma (every hematoma <5 cm) was observed in 16.0% (N=59). There was no statistical difference in the frequency of RAO, hematoma, or vascular complications between procedures performed with 5-Fr or less or 6-Fr sheaths and the use of dual antiplatelet therapy or oral anticoagulation. CONCLUSION: Radial access for coronary catheterization is effective and safe. With a standardized approach, the rates of bleeding events and RAOs are low.

Impact of cell number and microvascular obstruction in patients with bone-marrow derived cell therapy: final results from the randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled intracoronary Stem Cell therapy in patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction (SCAMI) trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the number of transplanted autologous bone-marrow cells (BMC) has been linked to improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Complete obstruction of myocardial microvasculature is indicated by microvascular obstruction (MO) in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR). We analyzed whether the number of transplanted cells and presence of MO were associated with improved LVEF in the double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized intracoronary Stem Cell therapy in patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction (SCAMI) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients (N = 42) received study therapy mean 7 days after AMI. Median number of transplanted BMC was 324 × 10(6). CMR was performed prior to study therapy and annually up to 3 years and revealed no difference between BMC and placebo population. Patients treated with a cell number above the median experienced a significant improvement in LVEF compared with patients with cell number below the median 3.6 ± 3.4 versus -0.5 ± 6.4 % (difference 4.1, 95 % CI 0.2 to 8.1 %, p = 0.04) at 6 months. The difference in LVEF change between the groups remained with 3.8 % (p = 0.12) at 12 months, 4.5 % (p = 0.07) at 24 months and 5.6 % (p = 0.03) at 36 months. BMC treated patients without MO experienced a better improvement in LVEF compared with patients with MO at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months with 3.5, 5.3, 6.4 and 3.2 %. CONCLUSIONS: In the randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind SCAMI trial improvement in LVEF up to 3 years was higher in BMC patients treated with a high cell number or without MO.

Everolimus-eluting stents compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents for treatment of coronary in-stent restenoses.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus-eluting stent (EES) implantation was superior to paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) implantation for treatment of de-novo coronary artery disease. We evaluated the outcome of EES compared with PES for treatment of restenosis in bare-metal and drug-eluting stents (DES). METHODS AND MATERIALS: In a prospective observational study patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) were treated with EES (N=91) or PES (N=107). Dual antiplatelet therapy was given for 6 months. Patients were scheduled for 6 months angiographic follow-up and 24 months clinical follow-up. Primary outcome measure was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as a composite of cardiac death, any myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization (TLR). RESULTS: Baseline data showed some differences between groups including frequency of DES restenosis, length of stented segment and reference vessel diameter. For EES versus PES occurrence of MACE (18.7% vs. 15.0%, p=0.48) and need for TLR did not differ (13.2% vs. 9.3%, p=0.39). In-stent late loss was similar with 0.20±0.39 mm for EES and 0.18±0.31mm for PES (p=0.34). Binary angiographic restenosis rate for the total segment was 18.0% and 16.7% (p=0.85), respectively. In multivariable analysis the stented length (p=0.014), minimal lumen diameter post stenting (p<0.01) and repeated restenosis (p<0.001) were risk factors for a higher late loss but not type of DES or presence of diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSIONS: In this observational registry treatment of DES and BMS restenosis with EES versus PES implantation resulted in similar clinical and angiographic outcome.