Towards personalized antithrombotic management with drugs and devices across the cardiovascular spectrum.

Intravascular thrombus formation and embolization are among the most frequent events leading to a number of cardiovascular conditions with high morbidity and mortality. The underlying causes are stasis of the circulating blood, genetic and acquired coagulation disorders, and reduced antithrombotic or prothrombotic properties of the vascular wall (Virchow's triad). In the venous system, intravascular thrombi can cause venous thrombosis and pulmonary and even peripheral embolism including ischaemic stroke [through a patent foramen ovale (PFO)]. Thrombi in the left atrium and its appendage or ventricle form in the context of atrial fibrillation and infarction, respectively. Furthermore, thrombi can form on native or prosthetic aortic valves, within the aorta (in particular at sites of ulcers, aortic dissection, and abdominal aneurysms), and in cerebral and peripheral arteries causing stroke and critical limb ischaemia, respectively. Finally, thrombotic occlusion may occur in arteries supplying vital organs such the heart, brain, kidney, and extremities. Thrombus formation and embolization can be managed with anticoagulants and devices depending on where they form and embolize and on patient characteristics. Vitamin K antagonists are preferred in patients with mechanical valves, while novel oral anticoagulants are first choice in most other cardiovascular conditions, in particular venous thromboembolism and atrial fibrillation. As anticoagulants are associated with a risk of bleeding, devices such as occluders of a PFO or the left atrial appendage are preferred in patients with an increased bleeding risk. Platelet inhibitors such as aspirin and/or P2Y12 antagonists are preferred in the secondary prevention of coronary artery disease, stroke, and peripheral artery disease either alone or in combination depending on the clinical condition. A differential and personalized use of anticoagulants, platelet inhibitors, and devices is recommended and reviewed in this article.

What is the optimal timing for thoracic endovascular aortic repair in uncomplicated Type B aortic dissection?

BACKGROUND: Uncomplicated Stanford Type B aortic dissection (un-TBAD) is characterized by a tear in the aorta distal to the left subclavian artery without ascending aorta and arch involvement. Optimized cardiovascular control (blood pressure and heart rate) is the current gold standard treatment according to current international guidelines. However, emerging evidence indicates that thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is both safe and effective in the treatment of un-TBAD with improved long-term survival outcomes in combination with optimal medical therapy (OMT) relative to OMT alone. However, the optimal timeframe for intervention is not entirely clarified. AIMS: This review critically addresses current state-of-the-art comparing TEVAR with OMT and corresponding clinical outcomes for un-TBAD based on timing of intervention. METHODS: We carried out a comprehensive literature search on multiple electronic databases including PUBMED and Scopus to collate all research evidence on timing of TEVAR in uncomplicated Type B aortic dissection. RESULTS: TEVAR has proven to be a safe and effective treatment for un-TBAD in combination with OMT through comparable survival outcomes, improved aortic remodeling, and relatively low periprocedural added risks. Though the timing of intervention remains controversial, it is becoming clear that performing TEVAR during the subacute phase of un-TBAD yields better outcomes compared to earlier and delayed (>90 days) intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is required into both short- and long-term outcomes of TEVAR in addition to its optimal therapeutic window for un-TBAD. With stronger evidence, TEVAR is likely to be adopted as the gold-standard intervention for un-TBAD with definitive timeframe guidelines.

Long-term outcomes of total arch replacement versus proximal aortic replacement in acute type A aortic dissection: Meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived individual patient data.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term outcomes of a conservative approach (with proximal aortic replacement with or without hemiarch replacement) versus an aggressive approach (with total aortic arch replacement) in the treatment of acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD). METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived individual patient data from studies with follow-up comparing the aforementioned approaches to treat patients with ATAAD. RESULTS: Eighteen studies met our eligibility criteria, comprising 5243 patients with follow-up (Conservative: 3676 patients; Aggressive: 1567 patients). We observed a statistically significant difference in overall survival favoring the aggressive approach (hazard ratios [HR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-0.98, p = .022), but no statistically significant difference in the risk of reoperation (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66-1.2, p = .439) in the overall follow-up. Landmark analyses revealed that, in the first 3 months after the procedure, mortality rates were comparable between conservative and aggressive approaches (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.88-1.24, p = .627), but the results beyond 3 months showed improved survival in patients undergoing the aggressive surgical procedure (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.85, p < .001). The landmark analyses also revealed that, in the first 7 years after the procedure, reoperation rates were comparable between the approaches (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.76-1.40, p = .848), but the results beyond 7 years showed a lower risk of reoperation in patients undergoing the aggressive surgical procedure (HR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01-0.75, p = .025). CONCLUSION: The aggressive approach seems to confer better long-term survival and lower risk of the need for reoperation in the follow-up of patients treated for ATAAD.

Criteria for endovascular intervention in type B aortic dissection.

BACKGROUND: The use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for the management of uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (un-TBAD) remains controversial. There is a lack of consensus over whether pre-emptive TEVAR should be carried out in patients with un-TBAD at risk of progression to complicated TBAD. We present a review of current evidence and seek to suggest criteria where endovascular intervention in un-TBAD may prove beneficial relative to pharmacotherapy alone. METHODS AND MATERIALS: PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched using terms including: type B aortic dissection, risk factors, medical therapy, TEVAR, false lumen (FL) expansion, and mortality. Papers were selected based on title and abstract. RESULTS: Optimal medical therapy remains the mainstay treatment for patients with un-TBAD, however, patients with un-TBAD present with varying degrees of disease progression risk. Factors such as age, aortic morphology, history of connective tissue disorders, FL thrombosis, and aortic branch involvement may potentiate progression from un-TBAD to complicated TBAD. Short- and long-term outcomes associated with TEVAR for TBAD remain promising. CONCLUSION: Pre-emptive TEVAR may be beneficial in patients with un-TBAD presenting with the above factors, however, further prospective research into the optimal timing for TEVAR in un-TBAD is required.

Mid- and long-term outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair in acute and subacute uncomplicated type B aortic dissection.

BACKGROUND: Uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (un-TBAD) has been managed conservatively with medical therapy to control the heart rate and blood pressure to limit disease progression, in addition to radiological follow-up. However, several trials and observational studies have investigated the use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in un-TBAD and suggested that TEVAR provides a survival benefit over medical therapy. Outcomes of TEVAR have also been linked with the timing of intervention. AIMS: The scope of this review is to collate and summarize all the evidence in the literature on the mid- and long-term outcomes of TEVAR in un-TBAD, confirming its superiority. We also aimed to investigate the relationship between the timing of TEVAR intervention and results. METHODS: We carried out a comprehensive literature search on multiple electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE to collate and summarize all research evidence on the mid- and long-term outcomes of TEVAR in un-TBAD, as well as its relationship with intervention timing. RESULTS: TEVAR has proven to be a safe and effective tool in un-TBAD, offering superior mid- and long-term outcomes including all-cause and aorta-related mortality, aortic-specific adverse events, aortic remodeling, and need for reintervention. Additionally, performing TEVAR during the subacute phase of dissection seems to yield optimal results. CONCLUSION: The evidence demonstrating a survival advantage in favor TEVAR over medical therapy in un-TBAD means that with further research, particular trials and observational studies, TEVAR could become the gold-standard treatment option for un-TBAD patients.

Artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and management of arrhythmias.

The field of cardiac electrophysiology (EP) had adopted simple artificial intelligence (AI) methodologies for decades. Recent renewed interest in deep learning techniques has opened new frontiers in electrocardiography analysis including signature identification of diseased states. Artificial intelligence advances coupled with simultaneous rapid growth in computational power, sensor technology, and availability of web-based platforms have seen the rapid growth of AI-aided applications and big data research. Changing lifestyles with an expansion of the concept of internet of things and advancements in telecommunication technology have opened doors to population-based detection of atrial fibrillation in ways, which were previously unimaginable. Artificial intelligence-aided advances in 3D cardiac imaging heralded the concept of virtual hearts and the simulation of cardiac arrhythmias. Robotics, completely non-invasive ablation therapy, and the concept of extended realities show promise to revolutionize the future of EP. In this review, we discuss the impact of AI and recent technological advances in all aspects of arrhythmia care.

Buddy Balloon versus Buddy Wire Technique Regarding Accuracy of Stent Placement during Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

We aimed to evaluate whether the buddy balloon technique (BBT) is superior to the buddy wire technique (BWT) with regard to the accuracy of stent placement during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).We enrolled patients who had been identified with significant stent movement before the stent was dilated at five hospitals and were randomly converted to either the BBT or BWT technique. The primary endpoints were the incidence of technical success and major adverse cardiovascular events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and in-stent restenosis) at 2 years of follow-up. The secondary endpoints were the contrast volume used for the procedure and the total procedural time.From August 2018 to July 2019, 66 patients were enrolled, with 33 patients in each group. All patients were successfully followed up to 2 years. At the primary endpoints, compared with patients treated using BWT, those in the BBT group showed significantly better technical success (93.94% versus 39.39%, respectively; P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of major cardiovascular adverse events (6.06% versus 12.12%, respectively; P = 0.392). At the secondary endpoints, the contrast volume used for the procedure was lower with BBT (85.97 ± 22.45 versus 115.00 ± 21.45 mL, respectively; P < 0.0001); similarly, the total procedural time was shorter with BBT (65.94 ± 12.14 versus 74.33 ± 15.36 minutes, respectively; P < 0.0001).BBT could better restrict stent movement and facilitate precise stent deployment, with significant superiority over BWT. In addition, BBT can reduce the procedural time and contrast dose.

Midterm Results of Retrograde In Situ Needle Fenestration During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair of Aortic Arch Pathologies.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and feasibility of the in situ needle fenestration (ISNF) technique for reconstruction of the left subclavian artery (LSA) during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) of complicated aortic arch pathologies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted from January 2014 to December 2019 of 50 patients (mean age 60.2±11.1; 45 men) who underwent ISNF to revascularize the LSA during TEVAR. Twenty-one of the patients also required revascularization of the left common carotid artery (LCCA; n=19) and innominate artery (IA; n=2) using physician-modified in vitro fenestration. Overall, 73 supra-aortic branches were targeted for revascularization. RESULTS: ISNF was successful in 48 patients (96%); one LSA could not be stented and a tortuous LSA prevented the needle from fenestrating the graft. No perioperative major adverse event occurred. There were no type I and 4 type III endoleaks (8%), 3 of which occurred among the first 20 cases. Types II and IV endoleaks were found in 3 (6%) and 6 (12%) cases, respectively; all disappeared during a median follow-up of 15 months (range 3-66). One death (2%) occurred within 12 months due to cerebral hemorrhage. Two patients (4%) required open reinterventions at 6 and 62 months. CONCLUSION: ISNF for revascularization of the LSA during TEVAR seems to be feasible with acceptable midterm outcomes. The learning curve and evolving patient selection criteria affected technical success, complications, and the need for reinterventions. Long-term durability requires further evaluation.

Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan Therapy for Acute Decompensated Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction during the Vulnerable Phase: A Multicenter, Assessor-Blinded, Prospective, Observational, Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The 3-month period after hospitalization for acute cardiac failure is a vulnerable phase with the highest risk of mortality and rehospitalization. Safety and efficacy of early initiation of sacubitril/valsartan during the index hospitalization for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is unclear. Therefore, we tested whether sacubitril/valsartan could result in a lower rate of a composite outcome of first hospitalization for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes compared to inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system alone. METHODS: We enrolled patients hospitalized for ADHF and reduced ejection fraction at 4 sites; patients were divided into a sacubitril/valsartan group or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) group. All patients were followed up for 3 months after discharge. The primary endpoint was outcomes as a composite of death from cardiovascular causes and rehospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: In total, 251 patients who received sacubitril/valsartan and 251 patients who received ACEIs/ARBs had similar propensity scores and were included and compared. The primary endpoint was reached in 40 patients (15.9%) treated with sacubitril/valsartan and in 59 patients (23.5%) managed by ACEI/ARB (HR, 0.650; 95% CI: 0.435-0.971; p = 0.035). The NYHA class improved in 72.1% of patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group and in 59.8% of patients in the ACEI/ARB group (HR, 1.303; 95% CI: 1.097-1.548, p = 0.004). The key safety outcomes endpoints did not significantly differ. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with ADHF and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, we observed that sacubitril/valsartan therapy led to reduction in death from cardiovascular causes and rehospitalizations for heart failure when compared to ACEI/ARB therapy alone during the vulnerable phase. Our results support that sacubitril/valsartan may be administered early in the vulnerable phase after ADHF and improves NYHA class.

Prognostic impact of impaired left ventricular midwall function during progression of aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: In hypertension, indexes of midwall left ventricular (LV) function may identify patients at higher cardiovascular (CV) risk independent of normal LV ejection fraction (EF). We analyzed the association of baseline and new-onset LV midwall dysfunction with CV outcome in a large population of patients with asymptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS: One thousand four hundred seventy-eight patients with asymptomatic AS and normal EF (≥50%) at baseline in the Simvastatin Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) study were followed for a median of 4.3 years. LV systolic function was assessed by biplane EF and midwall shortening (MWS, low if <14% in men/16% in women) at baseline and annual echocardiographic examinations. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three CV deaths and heart failure hospitalizations occurred during follow-up. In Cox analyses, adjusting for age, gender, body mass index, hypertension, EF, AS severity, LV hypertrophy and systemic arterial compliance, low baseline MWS predicted 61% higher risk of a major CV event and a twofold higher risk of death and heart failure hospitalization (P < .05). New-onset low MWS developed in 574 patients, particularly in elderly women with higher blood pressure and more severe AS (P < .05). In time-varying Cox analysis, new-onset low MWS was associated with a twofold higher risk of CV death and heart failure hospitalization, independent of changes over time in EF, AS severity, LV hypertrophy and systemic arterial compliance (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Low MWS develops in a large proportion of patients with AS and normal EF during valve disease progression and is a marker of increased CV risk.