Mid-term assessment of structural valve deterioration of perceval S sutureless prosthesis using the last European consensus definition.

OBJECTIVES: Durability of sutureless aortic bioprosthetic valves remains a major issue. The aim of this study was to assess structural valve deterioration (SVD) and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) of the Perceval bioprosthesis using the new proposed standardized definitions. METHODS: All patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with sutureless Perceval S prostheses up to September 2016 were included. Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up was performed. New standardized definitions were used to assess the durability of sutureless bioprosthetic valves. From 2013 to 2016, 214 patients were included. RESULTS: The mean age and EuroSCORE II were 79 years and 2.74. Thirty-day mortality was 0.47%. The survival rate was 96.8%, 88.1% and 85.7% at 1, 3 and 4 years, respectively. The median echocardiographic follow-up was 3.28 years. The mean pressure gradient was 11.3 mmHg. No cases showed evidence of severe SVD, 17 patients had moderate SVD with a mean pressure gradient of 24 mmHg and 8 patients had definite late BVF. The incidence of moderate SVD and BVF at 4 years was 8.8% and 2.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Mid-term follow-up to 6.3 years after aortic valve replacement with the Perceval bioprosthesis documents favourable haemodynamic and clinical outcomes and low rates of SVD and BVF.

Value of a comprehensive exercise echocardiography assessment for patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Exercise echocardiography (ExE) may assess left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic function, LV outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction, and mitral regurgitation (MR). We aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of these assessments during exercise in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). METHODS: LV systolic function, LV-derived filling pressures, LVOT gradients, and MR were prospectively evaluated during treadmill ExE in 285 patients with HCM and preserved LV ejection fraction (EF) (≥50%). Recordings were obtained at rest and peak exercise for LV systolic function and at rest and post-exercise for LVOT gradients, MR, and ratio of early LV inflow velocity to early tissue Doppler annulus velocity (E/e´). RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients (13%) had LVOT obstruction at rest, and 76 (27%) developed exercise-induced LVOT obstruction. New wall motion abnormalities were detected in 38 patients (13%). E/e´>14 was observed in 129 patients at rest (45%) and in 134 at post-exercise (47%). Corresponding figures for significant MR (moderate or severe) were 21 (7%) and 17 (6%). During follow-up (3.9 ± 2.5 years), 27 patients had a hard event, 39 a combined event (hard plus new atrial fibrillation or syncope), and 58 a combined event or intervention. Exercise electrocardiographic testing, exercise LVEF, and the combination of positive ExE and increased E/e´ with exercise predicted outcome. The worst event rate corresponded to patients with raised E/e' values at post-exercise and positive ExE (annualized hard event-rate of 5.9%). CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive assessment during ExE is feasible for patients with HCM and preserved LV systolic function, and provides significant incremental prognostic information.

Economic evaluation of complete revascularization versus stress echocardiography-guided revascularization in the STEACS with multivessel disease.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Economic studies may help decision making in the management of multivessel disease in the setting of myocardial infarction. We sought to perform an economic evaluation of CROSS-AMI (Complete Revascularization or Stress Echocardiography in Patients With Multivessel Disease and ST-Segment Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction) randomized clinical trial. METHODS: We performed a cost minimization analysis for the strategies (complete angiographic revascularization [ComR] and selective stress echocardiography-guided revascularization [SelR]) compared in the CROSS-AMI clinical trial (N=306), attributable the initial hospitalization and readmissions during the first year of follow-up, using current rates for health services provided by our health system. RESULTS: The index hospitalization costs were higher in the ComR group than in SelR arm (19 657.9±6236.8 € vs 14 038.7±4958.5 €; P <.001). There were no differences in the costs of the first year of follow-up rehospitalizations between both groups for (ComR 2423.5±4568.0 vs SelR 2653.9±5709.1; P=.697). Total cost was 22 081.3±7505.6 for the ComR arm and 16 692.6±7669.9 for the SelR group (P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the CROSS-AMI trial, the initial extra economic costs of the ComR versus SelR were not offset by significant savings during follow-up. SelR seems to be more efficient than ComR in patients with ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease treated by emergent angioplasty. Study registred at ClinicalTrial.gov (Identifier: NCT01179126).