One-year clinical outcomes following Edwards INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve implantation in 487 young patients with severe aortic stenosis: a single-center experience.

Introduction: The use of an aortic bioprosthesis is on the rise in younger patients with severe aortic stenosis despite the risk of accelerated structural valve degeneration (SVD). In the search for an optimal valve substitute that would not be prone to SVD, the INSPIRIS bioprosthesis represents a promising solution to lowering the risk of SVD. Here, we report the 1-year outcomes of the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic bioprosthesis in a population of young patients who underwent aortic valve replacement. Methods: In this prospective single-center study, we included all consecutive patients receiving INSPIRIS RESILIA bioprosthesis between June 2017 and July 2021. Patients with isolated severe aortic regurgitation were excluded. Clinical assessment and transthoracic echocardiography were performed preoperatively and at 1 year post-operatively. The primary outcome was overall mortality at one year. Results: A total of 487 patients were included. The mean age was 58.2 ± 11.5 years, 75.2% were men. Most of the interventions were elective, with a mean EuroSCORE II of 4.8 ± 7.9. The valve annulus size in most cases was either 23 mm or 25 mm. Overall mortality at 1-year was 4.1%. At 1-year, 7 patients (1.4%) had a stroke, 4 patients (0.8%) had a myocardial infarction, and 20 patients (4.1%) were hospitalized for congestive heart failure. The Kaplan-Meier estimated survival rates and survival without major adverse cardiac events at 1-year were 96.4% and 96.7%, respectively. At 1-year follow-up, 10 patients (2.1%) had endocarditis and 1 patient (0.2%) had partial prosthetic thrombosis. Pacemaker implantation at 1-year post-operative was necessary in 27 patients (5.5%). Severe patient prosthesis mismatch and severe intra valvular regurgitation were 1.2% and 0.6%, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier estimated survival rates at 1-year of no infective endocarditis preoperative and infective endocarditis preoperative were 97.9 ± 0.7% and 89.5 ± 3.3%, respectively (P < 0.001). Excluding endocarditis-related complication, no structural valve deterioration and no valve failure requiring redo surgery were reported. Conclusion: This is the largest single-center descriptive study of the 1-year outcomes after INSPIRIS RESILIA bioprosthesis implantation. The EDWARDS INSPIRIS RESILIA bioprosthesis provides encouraging clinical outcomes with an excellent 1- year survival rates and good hemodynamic performance. Long-term studies are mandatory to assess valve durability.

Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for circulatory failure in COVID-19 patients: insights from the ECMOSARS registry.

OBJECTIVES: The clinical profile and outcomes of patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) who require veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) or veno-arterial-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VAV-ECMO) are poorly understood. We aimed to describe the characteristics and outcomes of these patients and to identify predictors of both favourable and unfavourable outcomes. METHODS: ECMOSARS is a multicentre, prospective, nationwide French registry enrolling patients who require veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)/VA-ECMO in the context of COVID-19 infection (652 patients at 41 centres). We focused on 47 patients supported with VA- or VAV-ECMO for refractory cardiogenic shock. RESULTS: The median age was 49. Fourteen percent of patients had a prior diagnosis of heart failure. The most common aetiologies of cardiogenic shock were acute pulmonary embolism (30%), myocarditis (28%) and acute coronary syndrome (4%). Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (E-CPR) occurred in 38%. In-hospital survival was 28% in the whole cohort, and 43% when E-CPR patients were excluded. ECMO cannulation was associated with significant improvements in pH and FiO2 on day 1, but non-survivors showed significantly more severe acidosis and higher FiO2 than survivors at this point (P = 0.030 and P = 0.006). Other factors associated with death were greater age (P = 0.02), higher body mass index (P = 0.03), E-CPR (P = 0.001), non-myocarditis aetiology (P = 0.02), higher serum lactates (P = 0.004), epinephrine (but not noradrenaline) use before initiation of ECMO (P = 0.003), haemorrhagic complications (P = 0.001), greater transfusion requirements (P = 0.001) and more severe Survival after Veno-Arterial ECMO (SAVE) and Sonographic Assessment of Intravascular Fluid Estimate (SAFE) scores (P = 0.01 and P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: We report the largest focused analysis of VA- and VAV-ECMO recipients in COVID-19. Although relatively rare, the need for temporary mechanical circulatory support in these patients is associated with poor prognosis. However, VA-ECMO remains a viable solution to rescue carefully selected patients. We identified factors associated with poor prognosis and suggest that E-CPR is not a reasonable indication for VA-ECMO in this population.

Prognostic value of forward flow indices in primary mitral regurgitation due to mitral valve prolapse.

Background: Degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR) due to mitral valve prolapse (MVP) is a common valve disease associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Timing for surgery is debated for asymptomatic patients without Class I indication, prompting the search for novel parameters of early left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction. Aims: To evaluate the prognostic impact of preoperative forward flow indices on the occurrence of post-operative LV systolic dysfunction. Methods: We retrospectively included all consecutive patients with severe DMR due to MVP who underwent mitral valve repair between 2014 and 2019. LVOTTVI, forward stroke volume index, and forward LVEF were assessed as potential risk factors for LVEF <50% at 6 months post-operatively. Results: A total of 198 patients were included: 154 patients (78%) were asymptomatic, and 46 patients (23%) had hypertension. The mean preoperative LVEF was 69 ± 9%. 35 patients (18%) had LVEF ≤ 60%, and 61 patients (31%) had LVESD ≥40 mm. The mean post-operative LVEF was 59 ± 9%, and 21 patients (11%) had post-operative LVEF<50%. Based on multivariable analysis, LVOTTVI was the strongest independent predictor of post-operative LV dysfunction after adjustment for age, sex, symptoms, LVEF, LV end systolic diameter, atrial fibrillation and left atrial volume index (0.75 [0.62-0.91], p < 0.01). The best sensitivity (81%) and specificity (63%) was obtained with LVOTTVI ≤15 cm based on ROC curve analysis. Conclusion: LVOTTVI represents an independent marker of myocardial performance impairment in the presence of severe DMR. LVOTTVI could be an earlier marker than traditional echo parameters and aids in the optimization of the timing of surgery.

Incidence of Persistent Left Bundle Branch Block After Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the incidence, prognosis, and predictive factors of new onset of persistent left bundle branch block (NOP-LBBB) after rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (RD-AVR). METHODS: This was an observational, retrospective, single-center study of 274 consecutive patients with no baseline ventricular conduction disorder and no previous permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) who underwent RD-AVR with an INTUITY valve (n = 55) or INTUITY Elite Valve (n = 219) (Edwards Lifesciences). Transthoracic echocardiography and 12-lead electrocardiography was performed preoperatively, at discharge, and at 1-month and 1-year intervals. The incidence, prognosis, and predictive factors of NOP-LBBB were evaluated. RESULTS: NOP-LBBB occurred in 58 patients (21.2%) after discharge. In multivariate analysis, age (P < .01), INTUITY valve diameter ≥23 mm (P = .02), and INTUITY Elite implantation (P = .01) were independent predictors of NOP-LBBB. By 1:1 propensity matching analysis between the NOP-LBBB group and the control group, there were no significant differences in 1-year overall mortality (P = .23), hospitalization for congestive heart failure (P = .99), or PPI (P = .99). NOP-LBBB exposed patients to a high rate of dysrhythmic events (12.1% vs 1.4%, P < .01) and was associated with a significant decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (0.62 ± 0.095 vs 0.652 ± 0.0783, P = .02) without an impact on New York Heart Association functional status (1.25 ± 0.32 and 1.52 ± 0.70, P = .32). PPI was performed in 17 patients (6.2%) before discharge, including 14 NOP-LBBB patients. CONCLUSIONS: NOP-LBBB after RD-AVR is prevalent in patients with no prior conduction disorders. INTUITY Elite is associated with a significantly higher rate of NOP-LBBB. The persistence of NOP-LBBB predisposed patients to the occurrence of high-grade conduction disorders and might have led to PPI but did not increase death or hospitalization for congestive heart failure.

Two Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for One Gunshot.

Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) is an adjuvant treatment for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with refractory hypoxemia. Contraindications to therapeutic anticoagulation must be ruled out prior to ECMO implementation. We report the case of a 17-year-old male admitted in intensive care unit (ICU) for penetrating chest trauma due to multiple gunshot wounds. The body computed tomography (body CT scan) documented right pulmonary contusions and a homolateral hemothorax. His condition rapidly deteriorated with refractory hypoxemia due to lung contusion requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and polytransfused hemorrhagic shock. During his stay in ICU, venovenous ECMO (VV-ECMO) was implemented twice, firstly for trauma-induced ARDS and secondly after thoracic surgery. This case emphasizes the successful use of VV-ECMO in posttraumatic ARDS without increasing the risk of bleeding.

Myocardial Revascularization Strategies in ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Without Urgent Revascularization: Insight From a Nationwide Study.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the outcomes of patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) without early (<48 hours) revascularization, according to percutaneous versus surgical revascularization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Based on the French administrative hospital discharge database, the study collected information for all consecutive patients seen for a STEMI in France between January 1, 2010, to June 31, 2019, who underwent either a first percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or a first coronary artery bypass graft between 48 hours and 90 days after the index hospitalization. Propensity score matching was used for the analysis of outcomes. RESULTS: Of 71,365 patients with STEMI in the analysis, 59,340 patients underwent PCI and 12,025 patients underwent coronary artery bypass graft. In a matched analysis of 12,012 patients by arm, surgical revascularization was associated with lower rates of all cause (5.1% vs 7.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.75) and cardiovascular (2.6% vs 3.1%; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.91) death. Rehospitalization for heart failure was less often reported after surgery (5.5% vs 7.5%; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.81) whereas stroke incidence was not statistically different between the two arms (2.1% vs 2.3%; HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.00). Major bleeding was less often reported in the PCI arm (4.6% vs 6.1%; HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.22 to 1.41). CONCLUSION: In patients with STEMI who did not undergo urgent revascularization (ie, within 48 hours after presentation), surgical revascularization was associated with better outcomes and should be individually considered as an alternative to PCI.

Results of a prospective follow-up study after type A aortic dissection repair: a high rate of distal aneurysmal evolution and reinterventions.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the anatomical evolution of residual aortic dissection after type A repair and factors associated with poor prognosis at a high-volume aortic centre. METHODS: Between 2017 and 2019, all type A aortic dissections were included for prospective follow-up. Patients without follow-up computed tomography (CT) scan available for radiological analysis and patients without residual aortic dissection were excluded from this study. The primary end point was a composite end point defined as dissection-related events including aneurysmal evolution (increased diameter > 5 mm/year), aortic reintervention for malperfusion syndrome, aortic diameter >55 mm, rapid aortic growth >10 mm/year or aortic rupture and death. The secondary end points were risk factors for dissection-related events and reintervention analysis. All immediate and last postoperative CT scans were analysed. RESULTS: Among 104 patients, after a mean follow-up of 20.4 months (8-41), the risk of dissection-related events was 46.1% (48/104) and the risk of distal reintervention was 17.3% (18/104). Marfan syndrome (P < 0.01), aortic bicuspid valve (P = 0.038), innominate artery debranching (P = 0.025), short aortic cross-clamp time (P = 0.011), initial aortic diameter >40 mm (P < 0.01) and absence of resection of the primary entry tear (P = 0.015) were associated with an increased risk of dissection-related events or reintervention during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Residual aortic dissection is a serious disease requiring close follow-up at an expert centre. This study shows higher reintervention and aneurysmal development rates than currently published. To improve long-term outcomes, the early demographic and anatomic poor prognostic factors identified may be used for more aggressive treatment at an early phase.

Rapid deployment versus trans-catheter aortic valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: A propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are insufficient studies comparing rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) and trans-aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). AIMS: We compared 2-year outcomes between RDAVR with INTUITY and TAVR with SAPIEN 3 in intermediate-risk patients with AS. METHODS: Inclusion criteria were patients with severe AS at a EuroSCORE II ≥ 4%, who received RDAVR or TAVR implantation and clinical evaluation by the Heart Team. Regression adjustment for the propensity score was used to compare RDAVR and TAVR. Primary outcome was the composite criterion of death, disabling stroke, or rehospitalization. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: major bleeding complications postoperation, paravalvular regurgitation ≥ 2, patient-prosthesis mismatch, and pacemaker implantation. RESULTS: A total of 152 patients were included from 2012 to 2018: 48 in the RDAVR group and 104 in the TAVR group. The mean age was 82.7 ± 6.0,51.3% patients were female, the mean EuroSCORE II was 6.03 ± 1.6%, mean baseline LVEF was 56 ± 13%, mean indexed effective orifice area was 0.41 ± 0.1 cm/m2 , and the mean gradient was 51.7 ± 14.7 mmHg. RDAVR patients were younger (79.5 ± 6 years vs. 82.6 ± 6 years; p = .01), and at higher risk (EuroSCORE II, 6.61 ± 1.8% vs. 5.63 ± 1.5%; p = .005), Twenty-two patients (45.99%) in the RDAVR group and 32 (66.67%) in the TAVR group met the composite criterion. Through the 1:1 propensity score matching analysis, there was a significant difference between the groups, favoring RDAVR (HR = 0.58 [95% CI: 0.34-1.00]; p = .04). No differences were observed in terms of patient-prosthesis mismatch (0.83 [0.35-1.94]; p = .67), major bleeding events (1.33 [0.47-3.93]; p = .59), paravalvular regurgitation ≥ 2 (0.33[0-6.28]; p = .46), or pacemaker implantation (0.84 [0.25-2.84]; p = .77) CONCLUSION: RDAVR was associated with better 2-year outcomes than TAVR in intermediate-risk patients with severe symptomatic AS.

Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Aortic Valve Replacement as an Alternative to Surgical Re-Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) represent the 2 treatments for aortic bioprosthesis failure. Clinical comparison of both therapies remains limited by the number of patients analyzed. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to analyze the outcomes of VIV TAVR versus redo SAVR at a nationwide level in France. METHODS: Based on the French administrative hospital-discharge database, the study collected information for patients treated for aortic bioprosthesis failure with isolated VIV TAVR or redo SAVR between 2010 and 2019. Propensity score matching was used for the analysis of outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 4,327 patients were found in the database. After matching on baseline characteristics, 717 patients were analyzed in each arm. At 30 days, VIV TAVR was associated with lower rates of the composite of all-cause mortality, all-cause stroke, myocardial infarction, and major or life-threatening bleeding (odds ratio: 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.44 to 0.88; p = 0.03). During follow-up (median 516 days), the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, all-cause stroke, myocardial infarction, or rehospitalization for heart failure was not different between the 2 groups (odds ratio: 1.18; 95% confidence interval: 0.99 to 1.41; p = 0.26). Rehospitalization for heart failure and pacemaker implantation were more frequently reported in the VIV TAVR group. A time-dependent interaction between all-cause and cardiovascular mortality following VIV TAVR was reported (p-interaction <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: VIV TAVR was observed to be associated with better short-term outcomes than redo SAVR. Major cardiovascular outcomes were not different between the 2 treatments during long-term follow-up.