Efficacy and safety of a minimalistic balloon aortic valvuloplasty strategy in a centre without heart surgery.

Background: Balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) is a palliative tool for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) at prohibitive risk for surgery or as a bridge to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BAV is traditionally performed in hospitals with onsite cardiac surgery due to its potential complications. Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of BAV procedures performed by trained high-volume operators in a centre without onsite surgery and to assess the effect of a minimalistic approach to reduce periprocedural complications. Methods: From 2016 to 2021, 187 BAV procedures were performed in 174 patients. Patients were elderly (mean age: 85.0±5.4 years) and had high-risk (mean European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score [EuroSCORE] II: 10.1±9.9) features. According to the indications, 4 cohorts were identified: 1) bridge to TAVR (n=98; 56%); 2) bridge to SAVR (n=8; 5%); 3) cardiogenic shock (n=11; 6%); and 4) palliation (n=57; 33%). BAV procedures were performed using the standard retrograde technique via femoral access in 165 patients (95%), although radial access was used in 9 patients (5%). Ultrasound-guided vascular puncture was performed in 118 patients (72%) and left ventricular pacing was administered through a stiff guidewire in 105 cases (60%). Results: BAV safety was confirmed by 1 periprocedural death (0.6%), 1 intraprocedural stroke (0.6%), 2 major vascular complications (1%) and 9 minor vascular complications (5%). Nine cases of in-hospital mortality occurred (5%), predominantly in patients with cardiogenic shock. Conclusions: BAV is a safe procedure that can be performed in centres without onsite cardiac surgery using a minimalistic approach that can reduce periprocedural complications.

Sacubitril/valsartan has an underestimated impact on the right ventricle in patients with sleep-disordered breathing, especially central sleep apnoea syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan has been demonstrated to significantly improve left ventricular performance and remodelling in patients with heart failure. However, its effects on the right ventricle in patients with chronic heart failure and sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) have not been studied. AIM: To investigate the impact of sacubitril/valsartan treatment on right ventricular function in patients with SDB. METHODS: This was a subanalysis of an observational prospective multicentre study involving 101 patients. At inclusion, patients were evaluated by echocardiography and nocturnal ventilatory polygraphy, which allowed patients to be divided into three groups: "central-SDB"; "obstructive-SDB"; and "no-SDB". RESULTS: After 3 months of sacubitril/valsartan therapy, a positive impact on right ventricular function was observed. In the general population, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion increased by +1.32±4.74mm (P=0.024) and systolic pulmonary artery pressure decreased by -3.1±10.91mmHg (P=0.048). The central-SDB group experienced the greatest echocardiographic improvement, with a significant increase in tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion of +2.1±4.9mm (P=0.045) and a significant reduction in systolic pulmonary artery pressure of -8.4±9.7mmHg (P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril/valsartan improved right ventricular function in patients with heart failure and SDB after only 3 months of treatment. The greatest improvement in right ventricular function was observed in the central-SDB group.

Beta Blockers Improve Prognosis When Used Early in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: An Analysis of the FRENSHOCK Multicenter Prospective Registry.

BACKGROUND: Beta blockers (BBs) are a cornerstone for patients with heart failure (HF) and ventricular dysfunction. However, their use in patients recovering from a cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a bone of contention, especially regarding whether and when to reintroduce this class of drugs. METHODS: FRENSHOCK is a prospective multicenter registry including 772 CS patients from 49 centers. Our aim was to compare outcomes (1-month and 1-year all-cause mortality) between CS patients taking and those not taking BBs in three scenarios: (1) at 24 h after CS; (2) patients who did or did not discontinue BBs within 24 h; and (3) patients who did or did not undergo the early introduction of BBs. RESULTS: Among the 693 CS included, at 24 h after the CS event, 95 patients (13.7%) were taking BB, while 598 (86.3%) were not. Between the groups, there were no differences in terms of major comorbidities or initial CS triggers. Patients receiving BBs at 24 h presented a trend toward reduced all-cause mortality both at 1 month (aHR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.1, p = 0.10) and 1 year, which was, in both cases, not significant. Compared with patients who discontinued BBs at 24 h, patients who did not discontinue BBs showed lower 1-month mortality (aHR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.92, p = 0.03) and a trend to lower 1-year mortality. No reduction in outcomes was observed in patients who underwent an early introduction of BB therapy. CONCLUSIONS: BBs are drugs of first choice in patients with HF and should also be considered early in patients with CS. In contrast, the discontinuation of BB therapy resulted in increased 1-month all-cause mortality and a trend toward increased 1-year all-cause mortality.