Comparative Outcomes of Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-analysis and Parametric Extrapolation of Clinical Trials.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to pool randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and extrapolate pooled time-to-event data to compare long-term outcomes. METHODS: An electronic database search was performed for RCTs comparing SAVR with TAVR. The most current longest follow-up data for each RCT were included. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Survival data were pooled for Kaplan-Meier analysis as well as parametric modeling with extrapolation. RESULTS: Seven RCTs comprising 7774 patients were included. Mean valve gradient at 5 y was comparable between SAVR [11 mmHg (3.7; 18.3)] and TAVR [8.1 mmHg (1.9; 14.3)] (P = 0.38). TAVR had a higher mean valve area at 30 d, 1 y, and 2 y [1.68 cm2 (1.22; 2.13) versus 1.8 cm2 (1.35; 2.25), P = 0.02]. SAVR had a higher freedom from any paravalvular leak at 30 d and 1 y [86% (81; 90) versus 39% (36; 41), P < 0.01]. All-cause death was lower in the SAVR group at 5 y [39% (29; 50) versus 43% (31; 57), P < 0.01]. Although no differences were seen between SAVR and TAVR in the pooled Kaplan-Meier analysis of all-cause mortality and composite of all-cause mortality or stroke, parametric modeling with extrapolation showed significant divergence for both outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled all-cause mortality as well as pooled composite of all-cause mortality or stroke indicated better survival with SAVR at 5 y. Long-term parametric extrapolation also indicated superior survival with SAVR.

Outcomes of outflow graft stenting in HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist devices: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: LVAD outflow graft stenosis continues to remain prevalent with a high complication rate. We sought to pool the existing evidence on indications, utilization patterns, and outcomes of transcatheter interventions for outflow graft stenosis in the HeartMate 3 LVAD. METHODS: An electronic search was performed to identify all studies in the English literature reporting on HeartMate 3 LVAD outflow graft stenting. Patient-level data were extracted for analysis. RESULTS: Thirteen published reports and one unpublished case comprising a total of 28 patients were included. Median patient age was 68.5 years [Interquartile range: 58, 71] and 25.9% (7/27) were female. Dyspnea [60.7% (17/28)] was the most common presenting symptom. Low flow alarms were present in 60% (15/25) of patients. Findings included external compression [35.7% (10/28)], graft twist [21.4% (6/28)], graft twist and external compression [14.3% (4.28)], intraluminal thrombus [10.7% (3/28)], graft twist and intraluminal thrombus [3.6% (1/28)], and pseudoaneurysm of outflow graft [3.6% (1/28)]. Median time from LVAD implantation to stenting was 2.1 years [1.4, 3]. Immediate flow normalization after stenting was observed in 85.7% (24/28). The 30-day mortality was 12% (3/25). Overall mortality was 12% (3/25) at a median follow-up of 3.9 months [1, 17]. CONCLUSION: Outflow graft stenting in the HeartMate 3 LVAD appears to be a reasonable treatment option for outflow graft stenosis, with low overall rates of complications and mortality. Further refinement of indications and approaches may improve outcomes.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Across Hemodynamic Subtypes of Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis: A Network Meta-analysis.

Background: Studies assessing outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) with hemodynamic subtypes have demonstrated mixed results with respect to outcomes and periprocedural complications. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of TAVR in patients across various hemodynamic subtypes of severe AS. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched through September 2023 to identify all observational studies comparing outcomes of TAVR in patients with paradoxical low flow low gradient (pLFLG), classic LFLG, and high gradient AS (HGAS). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The secondary outcomes were components of MACE (mortality, myocardial infarction [MI], stroke). A bivariate, influential, and frequentist network meta-analysis model was used to obtain the net odds ratio (OR) with a 95% CI. Results: A total of 21 studies comprising 17,298 (8742 experimental and 8556 HGAS) patients were included in the quantitative analysis. TAVR was associated with a significant reduction in the mean aortic gradient, and an increase in the mean aortic valve area irrespective of the AS type. Compared with HGAS, TAVR in classic LFLG had a significantly higher (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.04-2.72), while pLFLG (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.72-1.35) had a statistically similar incidence of MACE at a median follow-up of 1-year. TAVR in LFLG also had a significantly higher need for surgery (OR, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.24-10.32), and a greater risk of periprocedural (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.17-3.41), 1-month (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.08-2.64), and 12-month (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.05-1.88) mortality compared with HGAS. The incidence of MI, major bleeding, vascular complications, paravalvular leak, pacemaker implantation, and rehospitalizations was not significantly different between all other types of AS (HGAS vs LFLG, pLFLG). Conclusions: TAVR is an effective strategy in severe AS irrespective of the hemodynamic subtypes. Relatively, pLFLG did not have significantly different risk of periprocedural complications compared with HGAS, while classical LFLG AS had higher risk of MACE, primarily driven by the greater mortality risk.

Evaluation of Intracardiac Pressures Using Subharmonic-aided Pressure Estimation with Sonazoid Microbubbles.

Purpose To investigate if the right ventricular (RV) systolic and left ventricular (LV) diastolic pressures can be obtained noninvasively using the subharmonic-aided pressure estimation (SHAPE) technique with Sonazoid microbubbles. Materials and Methods Individuals scheduled for a left and/or right heart catheterization were prospectively enrolled in this institutional review board-approved clinical trial from 2017 to 2020. A standard-of-care catheterization procedure was performed by advancing fluid-filled pressure catheters into the LV and aorta (n = 25) or RV (n = 22), and solid-state high-fidelity pressure catheters into the LV and aorta in a subset of participants (n = 18). Study participants received an infusion of Sonazoid microbubbles (GE HealthCare), and SHAPE data were acquired using a validated interface developed on a SonixTablet (BK Medical) US scanner, synchronously with the pressure catheter data. A conversion factor, derived using cuff-based pressure measurements with a SphygmoCor XCEL PWA (ATCOR) and subharmonic signal from the aorta, was used to convert the subharmonic signal into pressure values. Errors between the pressure measurements obtained using the SHAPE technique and pressure catheter were compared. Results The mean errors in pressure measurements obtained with the SHAPE technique relative to those of the fluid-filled pressure catheter were 1.6 mm Hg ± 1.5 [SD] (P = .85), 8.4 mm Hg ± 6.2 (P = .04), and 7.4 mm Hg ± 5.7 (P = .09) for RV systolic, LV minimum diastolic, and LV end-diastolic pressures, respectively. Relative to the measurements with the solid-state high-fidelity pressure catheter, the mean errors in LV minimum diastolic and LV end-diastolic pressures were 7.2 mm Hg ± 4.5 and 6.8 mm Hg ± 3.3 (P ≥ .44), respectively. Conclusion These results indicate that SHAPE with Sonazoid may have the potential to provide clinically relevant RV systolic and LV diastolic pressures. Keywords: Ultrasound-Contrast, Cardiac, Aorta, Left Ventricle, Right Ventricle ClinicalTrials.gov registration no.: NCT03245255 © RSNA, 2024.

Low absolute risk of thrombotic and cardiovascular events in outpatient pregnant women with COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Pregnancy may contribute to an excess risk of thrombotic or cardiovascular events. COVID-19 increases the risk of these events, although the risk is relatively limited among outpatients. We sought to determine whether outpatient pregnant women with COVID-19 are at a high risk for cardiovascular or thrombotic events. MATERIALS & METHODS: We analyzed pregnant outpatients with COVID-19 from the multicenter CORONA-VTE-Network registry. The main study outcomes were a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombotic events, and a composite of adjudicated cardiovascular events. Events were assessed 90 days after the COVID-19 diagnosis and reported for non-pregnant women ≤45 years, and for men ≤45 years, as points of reference. RESULTS: Among 6585 outpatients, 169 were pregnant at diagnosis. By 90-day follow-up, two pregnant women during the third trimester had lower extremity venous thrombosis, one deep and one superficial vein thrombosis. The cumulative incidence of thrombotic events was 1.20 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.0 to 2.84 %). Respective rates were 0.47 % (95 % CI: 0.14 % to 0.79 %) among non-pregnant women, and 0.49 % (95 % CI: 0.06 % to 0.91 %) among men ≤45 years. No non-thrombotic cardiovascular events occurred in pregnant women. The rates of cardiovascular events were 0.53 % (95 % CI: 0.18 to 0.87) among non-pregnant women, and 0.68 % (95 % CI: 0.18 to 1.18) in men aged ≤45 years. CONCLUSIONS: Thrombotic and cardiovascular events are rare among outpatients with COVID-19. Although a higher event rate among outpatient pregnant women cannot be excluded, the absolute event rates are low and do not warrant population-wide cardiovascular interventions to optimize outcomes.

Trends and Outcomes of TAVI and SAVR in Cancer and Noncancer Patients: A Nationwide Analysis.

Background: Patients with severe aortic stenosis and cancer are often denied surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) due to a prohibitive risk of perioperative mortality. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the safety of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with severe aortic stenosis and cancer. Methods: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database (2002-2018) was used to study the outcomes of TAVI vs SAVR in patients with active or prior history of prostate, lung, colorectal, breast, and renal cancer. A propensity score-matched analysis to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and its components. Results: A total of 1,505,995 crude population and a subset of 345,413 noncancer and 33,565 cancer patients were selected on propensity score-matched analysis. The yearly trend showed a steep increase in the utilization of TAVI. Compared with SAVR, TAVI had a lower risk of in-hospital mortality in prostate cancer, while there was no difference among other cancer types. Patients with lung (aOR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.43-0.97) and prostate cancer (aOR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.66-0.96) had lower, while colorectal cancer (aOR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.08-1.90) had higher odds of MACE with TAVI. The incidence of major bleeding was lower with TAVI (except for lung cancer), while the risk of stroke was similar (except for colorectal cancer) between TAVI and SAVR. Conclusions: TAVI in patients with prostate, breast, lung, and renal cancer appears to be a reasonable alternative to SAVR with lower or similar risks of mortality and MACE.