Endovascular management of left ventricular assist device outflow graft stenosis.

Stenosis of left ventricular assist devices has traditionally required open operative management with device revision or replacement; however, endovascular therapy is emerging as an alternative to open surgery. Limited by the rarity of this approach, consensus is lacking regarding the optimal technique. In this publication, we present a case report of outflow graft stenosis managed with endovascular treatment and discuss technical considerations including preoperative planning, stent selection, and procedural adjuncts.

Is Compliance With Guideline Recommended Follow-Up After Aortic Dissection Associated With Survival?

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute aortic dissection (AD) remain at risk for long-term complications and thus are recommended to adhere closely to American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association aorta guideline-based follow-up imaging and clinic visits. The long-term outcomes of compliance with such a model are not well understood. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients at a regional AD center who survived hospital discharge for AD and who were analyzed by compliance with initial follow-up at 3 months and long term after AD. The primary end point was death. RESULTS: A total of 172 (66% type A; 33% type B) patients survived hospitalization and were followed up over 48 months (interquartile range [IQR], 21, 88 months). Of these patients, 122 (71%) attended the first follow-up appointment, and 90 (52%) attended more than two-thirds of recommended appointments. Patients who attended the first follow-up visit had improved long-term follow-up compliance (75% [IQR, 50%, 91%]) compared with patients who did not attend the first visit (18% [IQR, 0%, 57%]). Noncompliance with the scheduled long-term follow-up was associated with a 50% increase in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.2, 2.1; P < .001). Furthermore, in patients with low compliance (consistently attending less than one-third of follow-up appointments), the lifetime risk of death after AD was more than double that of patients with high compliance (consistently attending more than two-thirds of appointments) (hazard ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.5, 3.1; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one-third of patients with AD do not attend the first recommended follow-up visit, and such failure was associated with later noncompliance with subsequent follow-up. Low-compliant patients have double the lifetime risk of death after AD than do high-compliant patients.

Aortic Size and Clinical Care Pathways Before Type A Aortic Dissection.

Patients with aortic enlargement are recommended to undergo serial imaging and clinical follow-up until they reach surgical thresholds. This study aimed to identify aortic diameter and care of patients with aortic imaging before aortic dissection (AD). In a retrospective cohort of AD patients, we evaluated previous imaging results in addition to ordering providers and indications. Imaging was stratified as >1 or <1 year: 62 patients (53% men) had aortic imaging before AD (most recent test: 82% echo, 11% computed tomography, 6% magnetic resonance imaging). Imaging was ordered most frequently by primary care physicians (35%) and cardiologists (39%). The most frequent imaging indications were arrhythmia (11%), dyspnea (10%), before or after aortic valve surgery (8%), chest pain (6%), and aneurysm surveillance in 13%. Of all patients, 94% had aortic diameters below the surgical threshold before the AD. Imaging was performed <1 year before AD in 47% and aortic size was 4.4 ± 0.8 cm in ascending aorta and 4.0 ± 0.8 cm in sinus. In patients whose most recent imaging was >1 year before AD (1,317 ± 1,017 days), the mean ascending aortic diameter was 4.2 ± 0.4 cm. In conclusion, in a series of patients with aortic imaging before AD, the aortic size was far short of surgical thresholds in 94% of the group. In >50%, imaging was last performed >1 year before dissection.

Impact of a multidisciplinary acute aortic dissection program: Improved outcomes with a comprehensive initial surgical repair strategy.

OBJECTIVE: As part of a multidisciplinary aortic dissection (AD) program, a more comprehensive repair strategy for patients with acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) and frequent endografting for suitable patients with type B aortic dissection (ATBAD) was adopted in 2015. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of these changes. METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of a prospective database containing all patients treated for acute AD between 2003 and 2020. Patients were grouped based on differing repair strategies (pre 2015 vs post 2015). Clinical characteristics, procedural details, and survival data were analyzed. RESULTS: During this time, 323 patients (210 pre, 113 post) were treated for acute AD at our institution. There were 221 patients with ATAAD (149 pre, 72 post) and 102 patients with ATBAD (61 pre, 41 post). The majority (60%) were males, with a mean age of 65.9 ± 15.2 years. There were no differences in cardiovascular risk factors or demographics between the groups. After 2015, fewer patients with ATAAD underwent medical management alone (15% pre vs 4% post; P = .014), and most that underwent surgical intervention had a total arch or aggressive hemiarch repair (27% pre vs 78% post; P < .001). Seventy-four patients (73%) with ATBAD were treated medically, whereas 28 underwent medical management and endografting (23% pre, 34% post; P = .214). For all patients with AD, 30-day mortality was significantly improved (26% pre vs 10% post; P < .001) especially among patients who underwent ATAAD surgery (23% pre vs 9% post; P = .018). Three-year Kaplan-Meier survival estimates showed survival improvement among patients with ATAAD (Log rank P-value = .019); however, this improvement does not extend to type B dissections or the overall cohort. A survival analysis landmarked to 30 days after initial presentation showed no statistical difference in survival from 30 days to 3 years post-presentation. CONCLUSIONS: A more comprehensive repair strategy in the management of patients with acute AD resulted in improved overall patient outcomes and significantly decreased 30-day mortality, even though more complex repairs were performed. The long-term impact of the changes made to our program remains to be evaluated.

Relation of Guideline Adherence to Outcomes in Patients With Asymptomatic Severe Primary Mitral Regurgitation.

Current guidelines empirically recommend serial clinical evaluations for asymptomatic patients with severe mitral regurgitation (MR). However, there is a paucity of data on the effectiveness of such monitoring. This study sought to examine the potential benefit of guideline adherence among asymptomatic patients with severe primary MR. Asymptomatic patients with severe primary MR who had been evaluated in the Allina Health system between January 1, 2012 and May 30, 2018 were examined. The medical records were manually reviewed for demographics, comorbidities, echocardiographic data, subsequent interventions, and clinical outcomes. Patients were grouped according to occurrence of guideline adherence, which was defined as a serial clinical evaluation with echocardiography every 12 ± 1 month until mitral valve surgery, or death. Over the study period, 246 patients (67.3 ± 15.5 years, 61.4% men) with severe, asymptomatic primary MR were identified, including 154 patients (62.6%) with and 92 patients (37.4%) without guideline adherence. Overall, there were no differences in demographics, morbidities, MR severity, or left ventricular function between patient adherence groups. During follow-up (40.9; 21.2, 58.3 months), patients with adherence more frequently had surgery or transcatheter therapy performed (64.3% vs 18.5%; p <0.001) and the time to intervention was earlier (13.6 [3.9-22.7] vs 44.2[25.6-57.3] months; p <0.001). Compared to non-adherent patients, those with guideline adherence had a significantly higher five-year survival free from all-cause mortality (92.0% vs 74.3%, p = 0.002), and freedom from death or hospitalization for heart failure (90.1% vs 69.3%, p = 0.001). Adherent patients also had a significantly better survival free from combined endpoint of death, re-hospitalization for heart failure, myocardial infarction, and stroke (84.5% vs 63.2%, p = 0.002). In patients with asymptomatic severe primary MR, guideline adherence with serial evaluations every 12 months or less is associated with earlier therapy and improved long-term outcomes. These data support educational efforts to promote guideline adherence.

Impact of the Commercial Introduction of Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair on Mitral Surgical Practice.

Background There has been uncertainty regarding the effect of transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) with MitraClip on cardiac surgical practice. Our aim was to examine the impact of the commercial introduction of TMVr to a comprehensive mitral program. Methods and Results We evaluated 875 patients (aged 69±14 years; 58% men) who underwent transcatheter or mitral surgical procedures over a 6-year period at our institution. Main outcomes were changes in surgical procedural volume after TMVr introduction and short-term mortality for surgical and TMVr procedures. The numbers of patients treated with MitraClip, isolated mitral repair, and any mitral surgery were 249, 292, and 626 patients, respectively. Compared with surgery, patients with MitraClip were older (aged 82±8 versus 64±12 years; P<0.001) and had more severe morbidity. Following the introduction of MitraClip, surgical volumes steadily increased to a rate of 10 (95% CI, 3-7) procedures per year for isolated mitral procedures and 17 (95% CI, 13-20) procedures per year for all mitral surgeries. Both MitraClip and surgical volumes increased at the same rate (P=0.42). In-hospital mortality was 3.2% for MitraClip and 2.1% for all mitral surgeries (P=0.33). At 30 days, survival free of all mortality (P=0.17) and freedom from heart failure rehospitalization (P=0.75) were similar for transcatheter and surgical procedures. Conclusions The commercial introduction of TMVr may be associated with growth in cardiac surgery, without detracting from other therapies, and favorable clinical outcomes for all treated mitral regurgitation patients. These findings demonstrate the potential benefits of complementary therapies in the treatment of patients with mitral regurgitation.

Contemporary Reasons and Clinical Outcomes for Patients With Severe, Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis Not Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Although aortic valve replacement (AVR) can be lifesaving, many patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis do not undergo appropriate therapy. This study sought to examine the characteristics, outcomes, and reasons for not pursuing AVR in a contemporary cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined 548 patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis not treated with AVR through March 2017. Patients were grouped according to AVR appropriateness based on the presence of medical futility. Demographics, rationale for no AVR therapy, and outcomes were assessed. There were 359 (65.5%) potentially appropriate candidates for AVR and 189 (34.5%) others patients with futility. Among potentially appropriate patients, 62.1% had severe symptoms, 74.4% had not been referred for AVR, and 40.1% were low risk. Patient refusal was common (54.6%), with incorrect symptom assignment or aortic stenosis severity classification accounting for nearly all other explanations. Compared with patients with futility, potentially appropriate AVR patients had lower rates of both referral to cardiology or surgery (85.2% versus 92.6%; P=0.01) and complete heart team evaluations (10.6% versus 17.5%; P=0.02). Palliative consultation occurred in only 124 patients (22.6%) overall and in only 10.0% of those without futility. Overall, the 1-year mortality was 54.7%, with heart failure hospitalization occurring in 19.3%. CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary study, two-thirds of patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis treated medically were potentially appropriate AVR candidates and had poor outcomes. Most had incomplete heart team evaluations, commonly had severe symptoms or lesion severity misinterpreted, and were not evaluated by palliative care. Given the potential for beneficial outcomes among those untreated, further efforts to address these shortcomings are needed.