[The PRIORITY study - PRedictIng long term Outcomes afteR Isolated coronary arTery bypass surgerY]. / Lo studio PRIORITY - PRedictIng long term Outcomes afteR Isolated coronary arTery bypass surgerY.

The allocation of clinical and economic resources is an emerging issue in health management. A useful update necessarily depends on the evaluation of long-term outcomes of clinical and surgical resources that can permit emphasis on all amendable fields, improve quality of care, and reduce health costs. The PRIORITY (PRedictIng long term Outcomes afteR Isolated coronary arTery bypass surgerY) study represents the first innovative step toward the updating of health management in a selected field, surgery for coronary artery disease, which is one of the most prevalent diseases and requires allocation of high-cost resources, although information on long-term outcomes is limited. The aims of the PRIORITY study are the identification of preoperative risk factors for long-term outcomes and the development of clinical and administrative preoperative scores that can guide clinicians and the national health system to more appropriate actions for increasing quality of care and reducing costs.

Outcome After General Anesthesia Versus Monitored Anesthesia Care in Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes of monitored anesthesia care (MAC) compared with general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). DESIGN: Secondary analysis from the observational and prospective OBSERVANT (OBservational Study of Effectiveness of avR-taVi procedures for severe Aortic steNosis Treatment) study. SETTING: Multicenter study, including Italian hospitals performing TAVR interventions. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand four hundred ninety-four patients with severe and symptomatic aortic stenosis. INTERVENTIONS: Transfemoral TAVR under general or local anesthesia. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A propensity score procedure was applied, and 310 pairs were matched with similar baseline characteristics (EuroSCORE II: local anesthesia 6.6±5.9% v general anesthesia 7.0±7.7%, p = 0.430). MAC was associated with similar 30-day mortality compared with GA (3.9% v 4.8%, p = 0.564). TAVR was performed under MAC without any increased risk of other adverse events. The risk of paravalvular regurgitation≥mild was similar between the study groups (MAC 49.5% v general anesthesia 57.0%, p = 0.858). Two patients receiving on MAC had severe paravalvular regurgitation, whereas this complication was not observed after GA. Permanent pacemaker implantation was 19.1% in the MAC group v 14.8% in the GA group (p = 0.168). Mean intensive care unit stay was 3.5 days for the GA group v 2.9 days for the MAC group (p = 0.086). A similar 3-year survival rate was observed (MAC 69.4% v GA 69.9%, p = 0.966). CONCLUSIONS: Transfemoral TAVR can be performed under MAC with similar immediate and late outcomes as compared with GA. A possible risk of severe paravalvular regurgitation and pacemaker implantation with TAVR under MAC requires further investigation.

The Impact of EuroSCORE II Risk Factors on Prediction of Long-Term Mortality.

BACKGROUND: The European System for Cardiac Operation Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II has not been tested yet for predicting long-term mortality. This study was undertaken to evaluate the relationship between EuroSCORE II and long-term mortality and to develop a new algorithm based on EuroSCORE II factors to predict long-term survival after cardiac surgery. METHODS: Complete data on 10,033 patients who underwent major cardiac surgery during a 7-year period were retrieved from three prospective institutional databases and linked with the Italian Tax Register Information System. Mortality at follow-up was analyzed with time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: The Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival at 1 and 5 were, respectively, 95.0% ± 0.2% and 84.7% ± 0.4%. Both discrimination and calibration of EuroSCORE II decreased in the prediction of 1-year and 5-year mortality. Nonetheless, EuroSCORE II was confirmed to be an independent predictor of long-term mortality with a nonlinear trend. Several EuroSCORE II variables were independent risk factors for long-term mortality in a regression model, most of all very low ejection fraction (less than 20%), salvage operation, and dialysis. In the final model, isolated mitral valve surgery and isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery were associated with improved long-term survival. CONCLUSIONS: The EuroSCORE II cannot be considered a direct estimator of long-term risk of death, as its performance fades for mortality at follow-up longer than 30 days. Nonetheless, it is nonlinearly associated with long-term mortality, and most of its variables are risk factors for long-term mortality. Hence, they can be used in a different algorithm to stratify the risk of long-term mortality after surgery.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Compared With Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: The proven efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in high-risk patients is leading to the expansion of its indications toward lower-risk patients. However, this shift is not supported by meaningful evidence of its benefit over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). This analysis aims to describe outcomes of TAVI versus SAVR in low-risk patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared the outcome after TAVI and SAVR of low-risk patients (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II [EuroSCORE II] <4%) included in the Observational Study of Effectiveness of SAVR-TAVI Procedures for Severe Aortic Stenosis Treatment (OBSERVANT) study. The primary outcome was 3-year survival. Secondary outcomes were early events and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 3 years. Propensity score matching resulted in 355 pairs of patients with similar baseline characteristics. Thirty-day survival was 97.1% after SAVR and 97.4% after TAVI (P=0.82). Cardiac tamponade, permanent pacemaker implantation, major vascular damage, and moderate-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation were significantly more frequent after TAVI compared with SAVR. Stroke rates were equal in the study groups. SAVR was associated with higher risk of cardiogenic shock, severe bleeding, and acute kidney injury. At 3 years, survival was 83.4% after SAVR and 72.0% after TAVI (P=0.0015), whereas freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events was 80.9% after SAVR and 67.3% after TAVI (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with low operative risk, significantly better 3-year survival and freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were observed after SAVR compared with TAVI. Further studies on new-generation valve prostheses are necessary before expanding indications of TAVI toward lower-risk patients.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease Stages 3b to 5.

BACKGROUND: There are scarce data on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with renal failure. METHODS: We evaluated the impact of renal failure on outcomes after TAVI and SAVR and compared the results of these procedures in patients with chronic kidney disease stages 3b to 5 from the Observational Study of Effectiveness of AVR-TAVI Procedures for Severe Aortic Stenosis Treatment (OBSERVANT) study. RESULTS: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 3b to 5 was associated with an increased risk of mortality after either TAVI or SAVR compared with CKD stages 1 to 3a. Among 170 propensity score-matched pairs with CKD stages 3b to 5, patients who underwent TAVI had a significantly higher rate of permanent pacemaker implantation, vascular damage, and mild to moderate paravalvular regurgitation, and tended to have a higher 30-day mortality (7.1% versus 2.9%; p = 0.09). Thirty-day mortality after transapical TAVI was 7.1%. SAVR had a significantly higher rate of blood transfusions, stroke, and acute kidney injury. At 2 years, patients undergoing TAVI had somewhat higher all-cause mortality (31.2% versus 23.4%; p = 0.118), major cardiac and cerebrovascular events (37.2% versus 31.0%; p = 0.270), and a lower risk of dialysis (12.4% versus 21.2%; p = 0.052) compared with SAVR. CONCLUSIONS: CKD stages 3b to 5 increases the risk of mortality after TAVI and SAVR. In this subset of patients, SAVR was associated with somewhat better early and late survival. The risk of acute kidney injury was higher after SAVR. These findings suggest that CKD stages 3b to 5 does not contraindicate SAVR. Strategies to prevent severe acute kidney injury should be implemented with either SAVR or TAVI.

Early and Midterm Outcome of Propensity-Matched Intermediate-Risk Patients Aged ≥80 Years With Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (from the Italian Multicenter OBSERVANT Study).

The aim of this study was to analyze procedural and postprocedural outcomes of patients aged ≥80 years treated by transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) as enrolled in the OBservational Study of Effectiveness of SAVR-TAVR procedures for severe Aortic steNosis Treatment (OBSERVANT) Study. TAVI is offered to patients with aortic stenosis judged inoperable or at high surgical risk. Nevertheless, it is common clinical practice to treat elderly (≥80 years) patients by TAVI regardless of surgical risk for traditional SAVR. OBSERVANT is a multicenter, observational, prospective cohort study that enrolled patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who underwent SAVR or TAVI from December 2010 to June 2012 in 93 Italian participating hospitals. Information on demographic characteristics, health status before intervention, therapeutic approach, and intraprocedural and 30-day outcomes was collected. An administrative follow-up was set up to collect data on midterm to long-term outcomes. We reviewed baseline and procedural data of patients aged ≥80 years, looking for different early and late outcome after TAVI or SAVR. Patients treated by TAVI were sicker than SAVR because of higher rate of co-morbidities, advanced illness, frailty, and Logistic EuroSCORE. After propensity matching, early and midterm mortality were comparable between the 2 groups. However, patients treated by TAVI had higher rate of vascular complications (6.0% vs 0.5%; p <0.0001), permanent pacemaker implantation (13.4% vs 3.7%; p <0.0001), and paravalvular leak (8.9% vs 2.4%; p <0.0001). Patients who underwent SAVR had more frequent bleedings needing transfusion (63.2% vs 34.5%; p <0.0001) and acute kidney injury (9.6% vs 3.9%; p = 0.0010). In conclusion, patients aged ≥80 years treated by TAVI or SAVR had similar early and midterm mortality.

[Cognitive and quality of life trajectory after either surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients]. / Evoluzione dello stato cognitivo e della qualità di vita in pazienti con stenosi aortica ad alto rischio clinico sottoposti a sostituzione valvolare chirurgica o per via transcatetere.

RATIONALE: The impact of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) on cognitive status and quality of life in high-risk patients has been incompletely investigated. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter study including all patients treated with TAVI and high-risk patients undergoing AVR (age ≥80 years or logistic EuroSCORE ≥15%) at participating centers. Multidimensional geriatric evaluation including Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), EuroQol 5D (EQ5D) and Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) were performed at baseline and at 3- and 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 518 patients (151 AVR and 367 TAVI) were enrolled in 10 Italian institutions. Patients receiving AVR were older (82.7 ± 2.4 years), with a lower logistic EuroSCORE (12.5 ± 7.1%) as compared with TAVI patients (81.5 ± 6.2 years and 19.6 ± 14.0%, respectively, p=0.001 and p<0.001). Overall, 35.5% of patients showed some degree of cognitive impairment at baseline, with no differences between groups. No significant changes in the cognitive status were observed between baseline and follow-up and between groups at any time point. TAVI patients had a lower quality of life at baseline as compared with AVR patients. Generic and heart failure-related quality of life improved significantly after either procedure. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients, both TAVI and AVR are associated with a significant improvement of quality of life up to 1 year without a detrimental effect on cognitive function.

Reliability of Modern Scores to Predict Long-Term Mortality After Isolated Aortic Valve Operations.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary scores for estimating perioperative death have been proposed to also predict also long-term death. The aim of the study was to evaluate the performance of the updated European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II, The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score, and the Age, Creatinine, Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction score for predicting long-term mortality in a contemporary cohort of isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR). We also sought to develop for each score a simple algorithm based on predicted perioperative risk to predict long-term survival. METHODS: Complete data on 1,444 patients who underwent isolated AVR in a 7-year period were retrieved from three prospective institutional databases and linked with the Italian Tax Register Information System. Data were evaluated with performance analyses and time-to-event semiparametric regression. RESULTS: Survival was 83.0% ± 1.1% at 5 years and 67.8 ± 1.9% at 8 years. Discrimination and calibration of all three scores both worsened for prediction of death at 1 year and 5 years. Nonetheless, a significant relationship was found between long-term survival and quartiles of scores (p < 0.0001). The estimated perioperative risk by each model was used to develop an algorithm to predict long-term death. The hazard ratios for death were 1.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.07 to 1.12) for European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II, 1.34 (95% CI, 1.28 to 1.40) for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, and 1.08 (95% CI, 1.06 to 1.10) for the Age, Creatinine, Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction score. CONCLUSIONS: The predicted risk generated by European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II, The Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, and Age, Creatinine, Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction scores cannot also be considered a direct estimate of the long-term risk for death. Nonetheless, the three scores can be used to derive an estimate of long-term risk of death in patients who undergo isolated AVR with the use of a simple algorithm.

Immediate and Intermediate Outcome After Transapical Versus Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

A few studies recently reported controversial results with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) versus transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TA-TAVR), often without adequate adjusted analysis for baseline differences. Data on patients who underwent TF-TAVR and TA-TAVR from the Observational Study of Effectiveness of avR-tavI procedures for severe Aortic stenosis Treatment study were analyzed with propensity score 1-to-1 matching. From a cohort of 1,654 patients (1,419 patients underwent TF-TAVR and 235 patients underwent TA-TAVR), propensity score matching resulted in 199 pairs of patients with similar operative risk (EuroSCORE II: TF-TAVR 8.1 ± 7.1% vs TA-TAVR, 8.4 ± 7.3%, p = 0.713). Thirty-day mortality was 8.0% after TA-TAVR and 4.0% after TF-TAVR (p = 0.102). Postoperative rates of stroke (TA-TAVR, 2.0% vs TF-TAVR 1.0%, p = 0.414), cardiac tamponade (TA-TAVR, 4.1% vs TF-TAVR 1.5%, p = 0.131), permanent pacemaker implantation (TA-TAVR, 8.7% vs TF-TAVR 13.3%, p = 0.414), and infection (TA-TAVR, 6.7% vs TF-TAVR 3.6%, p = 0.180) were similar in the study groups but with an overall trend in favor of TF-TAVR. Higher rates of major vascular damage (7.2% vs 1.0%, p = 0.003) and moderate-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation (7.8% vs 5.2%, p = 0.008) were observed after TF-TAVR. On the contrary, TA-TAVR was associated with higher rates of red blood cell transfusion (50.0% vs 30.4%, p = 0.0002) and acute kidney injury (stages 1 to 3: 44.4% vs 21.9%, p <0.0001) compared with TF-TAVR. Three-year survival rate was 69.1% after TF-TAVR and 57.0% after TA-TAVR (p = 0.006), whereas freedom from major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events was 61.9% after TF-TAVR and 50.4% after TA-TAVR (p = 0.011). In conclusion, TF-TAVR seems to be associated with significantly higher early and intermediate survival compared with TA-TAVR. The transfemoral approach, whenever feasible, should be considered the route of choice for TAVR.

1-Year Outcomes After Transfemoral Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Results From the Italian OBSERVANT Study.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of prospective and controlled data on the comparative effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in a real-world setting. OBJECTIVES: This analysis aims to describe 1-year clinical outcomes of a large series of propensity-matched patients who underwent SAVR and transfemoral TAVR. METHODS: The OBSERVANT (Observational Study of Effectiveness of SAVR-TAVI Procedures for Severe Aortic Stenosis Treatment) trial is an observational prospective multicenter cohort study that enrolled patients with aortic stenosis (AS) who underwent SAVR or TAVR. The propensity score method was applied to select 2 groups with similar baseline characteristics. All outcomes were adjudicated through a linkage with administrative databases. The primary endpoints of this analysis were death from any cause and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 1 year. RESULTS: The unadjusted enrolled population (N = 7,618) included 5,707 SAVR patients and 1,911 TAVR patients. The matched population had a total of 1,300 patients (650 per group). The propensity score method generated a low-intermediate risk population (mean logistic EuroSCORE 1: 10.2 ± 9.2% vs. 9.5 ± 7.1%, SAVR vs. transfemoral TAVR; p = 0.104). At 1 year, the rate of death from any cause was 13.6% in the surgical group and 13.8% in the transcatheter group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72 to 1.35; p = 0.936). Similarly, there were no significant differences in the rates of MACCE, which were 17.6% in the surgical group and 18.2% in the transcatheter group (HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.36; p = 0.831). The cumulative incidence of cerebrovascular events, and rehospitalization due to cardiac reasons and acute heart failure was similar in both groups at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that SAVR and transfemoral TAVR have comparable mortality, MACCE, and rates of rehospitalization due to cardiac reasons at 1 year. These data need to be confirmed in longer term and dedicated ongoing randomized trials.

A simple risk tool (the OBSERVANT score) for prediction of 30-day mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Risk stratification tools used in patients with severe aortic stenosis have been mostly derived from surgical series. Although specific predictors of early mortality with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been identified, the prognostic impact of their combination is unexplored. We sought to develop a simple score, using preprocedural variables, for prediction of 30-day mortality after TAVR. A total of 1,878 patients from a national multicenter registry who underwent TAVR were randomly assigned in a 2:1 manner to development and validation data sets. Baseline characteristics of the 1,256 patients in the development data set were considered as candidate univariate predictors of 30-day mortality. A bootstrap multivariate logistic regression process was used to select correlates of 30-day mortality that were subsequently weighted and integrated into a scoring system. Seven variables were weighted proportionally to their respective odds ratios for 30-day mortality (glomerular filtration rate <45 ml/min [6 points], critical preoperative state [5 points], New York Heart Association class IV [4 points], pulmonary hypertension [4 points], diabetes mellitus [4 points], previous balloon aortic valvuloplasty [3 points], and left ventricular ejection fraction <40% [3 points]). The model showed good discrimination in both the development and validation data sets (C statistics 0.73 and 0.71, respectively). Compared with the logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation in the validation data set, the model showed better discrimination (C statistic 0.71 vs 0.66), goodness of fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow p value 0.81 vs 0.00), and global accuracy (Brier score 0.054 vs 0.073). In conclusion, the risk of 30-day mortality after TAVR may be estimated by combining 7 baseline clinical variables into a simple risk scoring system.

[Results of the OBSERVANT study: clinical characteristics and short-term outcome of the enrolled population treated with transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve implantation]. / Risultati dello studio OBSERVANT: caratteristiche cliniche ed esiti a breve termine della popolazione arruolata sottoposta a sostituzione valvolare aortica (transcatetere versus chirurgica).

BACKGROUND: OBSERVANT represents the first national observational study on the comparative effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) at short, medium and long term, in a patient population with severe aortic stenosis (AS). The aim of this paper is to describe patient characteristics and short-term outcomes of the enrolled population. METHODS: OBSERVANT is an observational prospective multicenter cohort study that enrolled AS patients undergoing SAVR or TAVI from December 2010 to June 2012 in the participating hospitals. Information on demographic characteristics, health status prior to intervention, therapeutic approach, intraprocedural and 30-day outcomes was collected. An administrative follow-up was set up to collect data on long-term outcomes. RESULTS: The enrolled population included 7618 patients undergoing transfemoral/transubclavian TAVI (TF/TS-TAVI, n=1652), transapical TAVI (TA-TAVI, n=259) or SAVR (n=5707). SAVR patients were younger and with a lower risk profile than TAVI patients (logistic EuroSCORE: SAVR 6.4 ± 7.3%, TF/TS-TAVI 14.1 ± 12.1%, TA-TAVI 15.5 ± 11.0%; p<0.001). When 30-day mortality rates were stratified by logistic EuroSCORE, a statistically significant difference was found only in the patient subgroup with logistic EuroSCORE ≤5% (SAVR 1.0%, TF/TS-TAVI 4.7%, TA-TAVI 0.0%; p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Findings from the OBSERVANT study confirm that patients undergoing TAVI are older and sicker than patients undergoing SAVR. Nevertheless, the logistic EuroSCORE shows that, in Italy, also patients at intermediate surgical risk are treated with TAVI. Stratifying by logistic EuroSCORE, SAVR seems to be superior to TAVI in the subgroup of patients at very low risk. More sophisticated analyses on patient subgroups with comparable risk profile and on long-term follow-up will allow to obtain valuable information on the effectiveness of TAVI and SAVR procedures.

In-hospital mortality risk assessment in elective and non-elective cardiac surgery: a comparison between EuroSCORE II and age, creatinine, ejection fraction score.

OBJECTIVES: Age, creatinine, ejection fraction (ACEF) score is a simplified algorithm for prediction of mortality after elective cardiac surgery. Although mainly conceived for elective cardiac surgery, no information is available on its performance in non-elective surgery and on comparison with the new EuroSCORE II. This study was undertaken to compare the performance of ACEF score and EuroSCORE II within classes of urgency. METHODS: Complete data on 13 871 consecutive patients who underwent major cardiac surgery in a 6-year period were retrieved from three prospective institutional databases. Discriminatory power was assessed using the c-index and h with Delong, bootstrap and Venkatraman methods. Calibration was evaluated with calibration curves and associated statistics. RESULTS: The in-hospital mortality rate was 2.5%. The discriminatory power of ACEF score within elective and non-elective surgery was similar (area under the curve (AUC) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-0.74 and AUC 0.68, 95% CI 0.62-0.73, respectively) but significantly lower than that of EuroSCORE II (AUC 0.80, 95% CI 0.77-0.83 for elective surgery; AUC 0.82, 95% CI 0.78-0.85 for non-elective surgery). The calibration patterns were different in the two subgroups, but the summary statistics underscored a miscalibration in both of them (U-statistic and Spiegelhalter Z-test P-values <0.05). Even the calibration of EuroSCORE II was insufficient, although it was demonstrated to be well calibrated in the first tertile of predicted risk. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the performance of ACEF score in predicting in-hospital mortality in elective and non-elective cardiac surgery is comparable. Nonetheless, it is not as satisfactory as the new EuroSCORE II, as its discrimination is significantly lower and it is also miscalibrated.

Effect of severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction on hospital outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation or surgical aortic valve replacement: results from a propensity-matched population of the Italian OBSERVANT multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: Despite demonstration of the superior outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus optimal medical therapy for severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction, studies comparing TAVI and surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in this high-risk group have been lacking. METHODS: We performed propensity matching for age, gender, baseline comorbidities, previous interventions, priority at hospital admission, frailty score, New York Heart Association class, EuroSCORE, and associated cardiac diseases. Next, the 30-day mortality and procedure-related morbidity of 162 patients (81 TAVI vs 81 AVR) with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction ≤ 35%) were analyzed at the Italian National Institute of Health. RESULTS: The 30-day mortality was comparable (P = .37) between the 2 groups. The incidence of periprocedural acute myocardial infarction (P = .55), low output state (P = .27), stroke (P = .36), and renal dysfunction (peak creatinine level, P = .57) was also similar between the 2 groups. TAVI resulted in significantly greater postprocedural permanent pacemaker implantation (P = .01) and AVR in more periprocedural transfusions (P < .01) despite a similar transfusion rate per patient (2.8 ± 3.7 for TAVI vs 4.4 ± 3.8 for AVR; P = .08). The postprocedural intensive care unit stay (median, 2 days after TAVI vs 3 days after AVR; P = .34), intermediate care unit stay (median, 0 days after both TAVI and AVR; P = .94), and hospitalization (median, 11 days after TAVI vs 14 days after AVR; P = .51) were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction, both TAVI and AVR are valid treatment options, with comparable hospital mortality and periprocedural morbidity. Comparisons of the mid- to long-term outcomes are mandatory.

Reliability of new scores in predicting perioperative mortality after mitral valve surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The study was designed to validate euroSCORE II and ACEF (age, creatinine, and ejection fraction) scores in patients undergoing isolated or associated mitral valve surgery and compare them with logistic euroSCORE and Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores. METHODS: Data on 3441 consecutive patients undergoing isolated or associated mitral valve surgery in a 6-year period were retrieved from 3 prospective institutional databases. Discriminatory power was assessed with the C index. Calibration was evaluated with calibration curves and associated statistics. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality was 3.4%. Discriminatory power was uniformly good (for euroSCORE II: area under curve, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.84; for logistic euroSCORE: area under the curve, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.83; for ACEF: area under the curve, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.79) but significantly higher in euroSCORE models (P < .05 for Delong, bootstrap, Venkatraman methods). Calibration pattern was slightly better for the ACEF score, although related summary statistics (unreliability, Hosmer-Lemeshow test, Spiegelhalter z-test for calibration accuracy) were not significant even for euroSCORE II. The euroSCORE II demonstrated a performance similar to Society of Thoracic Surgeons score. Logistic euroSCORE confirmed the progressive trend toward overprediction previously demonstrated in the general cardiac surgical population (summary statistics P < .05). Analysis of score performances in the surgical group studied showed results comparable to the global population. CONCLUSIONS: The euroSCORE II and ACEF scores are good predictors of perioperative mortality in patients undergoing isolated or associated mitral valve surgery, with better discrimination for the first and better calibration for the second. No algorithm seems suitable for risk estimation in mid and high-risk patients.

Different impact of sex on baseline characteristics and major periprocedural outcomes of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve interventions: Results of the multicenter Italian OBSERVANT Registry.

BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), the role of sex on outcome after TAVI or surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) has been poorly investigated. We investigated the impact of sex on outcome after TAVI or AVR. METHODS: There were 2108 patients undergoing TAVI or AVR who were enrolled in the Italian Observational Multicenter Registry (OBSERVANT). Thirty-day mortality, major periprocedural morbidity, and transprosthetic gradients were stratified by sex according to interventions. RESULTS: Female AVR patients showed a worse risk profile compared with male AVR patients, given the higher mean age, prevalence of frailty score of 2 or higher, New York Heart Association class of 3 or higher, lower body weight, and preoperative hemoglobin level (P ≤ .02). Similarly, female TAVI patients had a different risk profile than male TAVI patients, given a higher age and a lower body weight and preoperative hemoglobin level (P ≤ .005), but with a similar New York Heart Association class, frailty score, EuroSCORE (P = NS), a better left ventricular ejection fraction and a lower prevalence of left ventricular ejection fraction less than 30%, porcelain aorta, renal dysfunction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, arteriopathy, and previous cardiovascular surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention (P ≤ .01). Women showed a smaller aortic annulus than men in both populations (P < .001). Female sex was an independent predictor in the AVR population for risk-adjusted 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.34; P = .043) and transfusions (OR, 1.47; P = .003), but not for risk-adjusted acute myocardial infarction, stroke, vascular complications, permanent atrioventricular block (P = NS). Female sex was an independent predictor in the TAVI population for risk-adjusted major vascular complications (OR, 2.92; P = .018) and transfusions (OR, 1.93; P = .003), but proved protective against moderate to severe postprocedural aortic insufficiency (P = .018). CONCLUSIONS: Female sex is a risk factor for mortality after aortic valve replacement, for major vascular complications after TAVI, and for transfusions after both approaches.

Results differ between transaortic and open surgical aortic valve replacement in women.

BACKGROUND: Despite the well-known impact of female sex on outcome after surgical aortic valve replacement (sAVR), few studies investigated its role after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS: After propensity-matching for age, baseline comorbidities, previous interventions, priority, frailty score, New York Heart Association class, left ventricular function and associated cardiac diseases, hospital mortality, and procedure-related morbidities of 388 women (194 TAVR versus 194 sAVR)-of 5,231 patients enrolled in 70 centers participating in this prospective multicenter national registry-were analyzed at a central management unit of the Italian National Institute of Health. RESULTS: Although hospital mortality was comparable (4.1% TAVR versus 3.1% sAVR; p = 0.177), women undergoing sAVR showed a higher rate of transfusion (63.9% versus 37.1% TAVR; p = 0.0001); higher number of transfusions per patient (3.6 ± 0.4 versus 2.3 ± 0.3 TAVR; p = 0.049); a higher incidence of low cardiac output state (5.7% versus 3.6% TAVR; p = 0.017) and acute renal failure (8.8% versus 4.1% TAVR; p = 0.01); and higher mean transprosthetic gradients (15.7 ± 12.6 mm Hg versus 11.9 ± 10.7 mm Hg TAVR; p = 0.004). In contrast, women undergoing TAVR experienced significant postprocedural aortic regurgitation (mild, 37.6% versus 7.7% sAVR; moderate-to-severe, 7.1% versus 1.5% sAVR; p = 0.0001) and a higher rate of stroke (7.7% versus 2.5% sAVR; p = 0.037), major vascular complications (9.3% versus 0.5% sAVR; p = 0.0001), pacemaker implantation (12.4% versus 6.2% sAVR; p = 0.004), need for emergent percutaneous coronary intervention (1.0% versus 0% sAVR; p = 0.007), and longer intermediate care unit length of stay (2.5 ± 4.4 days versus 1.4 ± 2.6 days sAVR; p = 0.008). Perioperative myocardial infarction and lengths of intensive care unit stay and hospitalization were comparable (not significant). CONCLUSIONS: Women undergoing sAVR and TAVR experienced different periprocedural morbidities. These data strongly suggest the need to strictly individualize the indications.

Reliability of new scores in predicting perioperative mortality after isolated aortic valve surgery: a comparison with the society of thoracic surgeons score and logistic EuroSCORE.

BACKGROUND: There is still a wide debate concerning the performance of commonly used risk prediction models in assessing the risk of patients undergoing isolated aortic valve surgery. This study was designed to compare the performances of European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II and age, creatinine, and ejection fraction (ACEF) score with those of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score and logistic EuroSCORE in patients undergoing isolated aortic valve surgery. METHODS: Data on 1,758 consecutive patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement in a 6-year period were retrieved from 3 prospective institutional databases. Discriminatory power was assessed using the c-index. Calibration was evaluated with calibration curves and associated statistics. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality rate was 1.4%. The discriminatory power was similar in all algorithms (area under the curve 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72 to 0.88 for logistic EuroSCORE; 0.81, 95% CI 0.73 to -0.88 for EuroSCORE II; 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.88 for ACEF; 0.85, 95% CI 0.78-0.93 for STS score) and not significantly different (p values > 0.05 for all tests). The EuroSCORE II had a better calibration, being the only score with nonsignificant associated statistics (unreliability test, Hosmer-Lemeshow test, and Spiegelhalter Z-test for calibration accuracy). Nonetheless, EuroSCORE II calibration plot highlighted a trend over under-prediction. CONCLUSIONS: The EuroSCORE II is a good predictor of perioperative mortality in isolated aortic valve surgery, with lower discrimination if compared with STS and a better calibration when compared with logistic EuroSCORE, ACEF, and STS scores. Its performance is optimal in the lowest tertile of patients, whereas it under-predicts mortality afterward. None of these algorithms seems suitable for risk estimation in mid and high-risk patients that are the ones who might benefit most from transcatheter procedures.