Demographics and outcomes of patients younger than 75 years undergoing aortic valve interventions in Rotterdam.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is considered a safe and effective alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for elderly patients across the operative risk spectrum. In the Netherlands, TAVI is reimbursed only for patients with a high operative risk. Despite this, one fifth of TAVI patients are < 75 years of age. We aim to compare patient characteristics and outcomes of TAVI and SAVR patients < 75 years. METHODS: This study included all patients < 75 years without active endocarditis undergoing TAVI or SAVR for severe aortic stenosis, mixed aortic valve disease or degenerated aortic bioprosthesis between 2015 and 2020 at the Erasmus University Medical Centre. Dutch authority guidelines were used to classify operative risk. RESULTS: TAVI was performed in 292 patients, SAVR in 386 patients. Based on the Dutch risk algorithm, 59.6% of TAVI patients and 19.4% of SAVR patients were at high operative risk. There was no difference in 30-day all-cause mortality between TAVI and SAVR (2.4% vs 0.8%, p = 0.083). One-year and 5­year mortality was higher after TAVI than after SAVR (1-year: 12.5% vs 4.3%, p < 0.001; 5­year: 36.8% vs 12.0%, p < 0.001). Within risk categories we found no difference between treatment strategies. Independent predictors of mortality were cardiovascular comorbidities (left ventricular ejection fraction < 30%, atrial fibrillation, pulmonary hypertension) and the presence of malignancies, liver cirrhosis or immunomodulatory drug use. CONCLUSION: At the Erasmus University Medical Centre, in patients < 75 years, TAVI is selected for higher-risk phenotypes and overall has higher long-term mortality than SAVR. We found no evidence for worse outcome within risk categories.

Immediate versus staged complete revascularisation in patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel disease.

BACKGROUND: Complete revascularisation is supported by recent trials in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) without cardiogenic shock. However, the optimal timing of non-culprit lesion revascularisation is currently debated. AIMS: This prespecified analysis of the BioVasc trial aims to determine the effect of immediate complete revascularisation (ICR) compared to staged complete revascularisation (SCR) on clinical outcomes in patients with STEMI. METHODS: Patients presenting with STEMI and MVD were randomly assigned to ICR or SCR. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, any unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation, or cerebrovascular events at 1-year post-index procedure. RESULTS: Between June 2018 and October 2021, 608 (ICR: 305, SCR: 303) STEMI patients were enrolled. No significant differences between ICR and SCR were observed at 1-year follow-up in terms of the primary endpoint (7.0% vs 8.3%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47-1.50; p=0.55): all-cause mortality (2.3% vs 1.3%, HR 1.77, 95% CI: 0.52-6.04; p=0.36), myocardial infarction (1.7% vs 3.3%, HR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.17-1.47; p=0.21), unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation (4.1% vs 5.0%, HR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.38-1.71; p=0.57) and cerebrovascular events (1.4% vs 1.3%, HR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.25-4.03; p=0.99). At 30-day follow-up, a trend towards a reduction of the primary endpoint in the ICR group was observed (ICR: 3.0% vs SCR: 6.0%, HR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.22-1.11; p=0.09). ICR was associated with a reduction in overall hospital stay (ICR: median 3 [interquartile range {IQR} 2-5] days vs SCR: median 4 [IQR 3-6] days; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes at 1 year were similar for STEMI patients who had undergone ICR and those who had undergone SCR.

Timing of Complete Multivessel Revascularization in Patients Presenting With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Complete revascularization of the culprit and all significant nonculprit lesions in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD) reduces major adverse cardiac events, but optimal timing of revascularization remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare immediate complete revascularization (ICR) and staged complete revascularization (SCR) in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS and MVD. METHODS: This prespecified substudy of the BIOVASC (Percutaneous Complete Revascularization Strategies Using Sirolimus Eluting Biodegradable Polymer Coated Stents in Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Disease) trial included patients with NSTE-ACS and MVD. Risk differences of the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization (UIDR), or cerebrovascular events and its individual components were compared between ICR and SCR at 1 year. RESULTS: The BIOVASC trial enrolled 1,525 patients; 917 patients presented with NSTE-ACS, of whom 459 were allocated to ICR and 458 to SCR. Incidences of the primary composite outcome were similar in the 2 groups (7.9% vs 10.1%; risk difference 2.2%; 95% CI: -1.5 to 6.0; P = 0.15). ICR was associated with a significant reduction of MIs (2.0% vs 5.3%; risk difference 3.3%; 95% CI: 0.9 to 5.7; P = 0.006), which was maintained after exclusion of procedure-related MIs occurring during the index or staged procedure (2.0% vs 4.4%; risk difference 2.4%; 95% CI: 0.1 to 4.7; P = 0.032). UIDRs were also reduced in the ICR group (4.2% vs 7.8%; risk difference 3.5%; 95% CI: 0.4 to 6.6; P = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: ICR is safe in patients with NSTE-ACS and MVD and was associated with a reduction in MIs and UIDRs at 1 year.