Coronary sinus Reducer device for the treatment of refractory angina: A multicenter initial experience.

INTRODUCTION: The coronary sinus Reducer (CSR) device has emerged as a complementary therapy in patients with severe angina refractory to optimal medical therapy and not amenable to revascularization. Our aim was to assess the safety and efficacy of the CSR in a real-world setting. METHODS: Twenty-six patients with refractory angina (RA) and evidence of myocardial ischemia attributable to the left coronary artery considered unsuitable for revascularization were treated with the CSR at two centers between May 2017 and July 2019. Safety endpoints were procedural success and complications. Efficacy endpoints, assessed at six-month follow-up, were reduction in CCS class, improvement in quality of life (QoL) assessed using the short version of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-7), and reduction in antianginal therapy. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients had end-stage coronary artery disease without revascularization targets and three had microvascular disease without epicardial stenosis. Procedural success was achieved in 23 patients, with two device/procedure-related complications and one anatomically-related failure to deliver the device. A total of 24 patients had the device implanted and entered the efficacy analysis. Eighteen patients (75.0%) had a reduction of at least one CCS class, 41.7% had a reduction of at least two classes, and 16.7% became asymptomatic, with a mean reduction in CCS class of 1.3±0.2 (p=0.001) at six-month follow-up. All SAQ-7 domains improved, notably physical limitation (p=0.001), angina frequency (p=0.005) and QoL (p=0.006). There was a mean reduction in anti-ischemic drugs from 3.4±1.1 to 2.9±1.2 (p=0.010). CONCLUSION: In this real-world, multicenter experience, implantation of the CSR was associated with improvement in angina and QoL in patients with RA.

Levosimendan in outpatients with advanced heart failure: Single-center experience of 200 intermittent perfusions.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with advanced heart failure (HF) have high morbidity and mortality, with only a small proportion being eligible for advanced therapies. Intermittent outpatient levosimendan infusion has been shown to provide symptomatic relief and reduce the rate of HF events. Our aim was to assess the safety and efficacy of outpatient levosimendan administration in an advanced HF population. METHODS: This is a report of a single-center experience of consecutive advanced HF patients referred for intermittent intravenous outpatient administration of levosimendan, between January 2018 and March 2021. Baseline and follow-up evaluation included clinical assessment, laboratory tests, transthoracic echocardiography and cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Baseline and clinical follow-up data were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: A total of 24 patients (60.8 years, 83% male, mean left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] 24%), with a median of 1.5 HF hospitalizations in the previous six months, were referred for outpatient levosimendan pulses, the majority as a bridge to transplantation or due to clinical deterioration. At six-month follow-up there was a significant reduction in HF hospitalizations to 0.4±0.7 (p<0.001). NYHA class IV (52.2% to 12.5%, p=0.025) and NT-proBNP (8812.5 to 3807.4 pg/ml, p=0.038) were also significantly reduced. Exercise capacity was significantly improved, including peak oxygen uptake (p=0.043) and VE/VCO2 slope (p=0.040). LVEF improved from 24.0% to 29.7% (p=0.008). No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Repeated levosimendan administration in advanced HF patients is a safe procedure and was associated with a reduction in HF hospitalizations, functional and LVEF improvement, and reduction in NT-proBNP levels during follow-up.

The prognostic value of the cardiorespiratory optimal point during submaximal exercise testing in heart failure.

INTRODUCTION: Peak oxygen consumption (pVO2) is a key parameter for assessing the prognosis of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, it is less reliable when the cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) is not maximal. OBJECTIVE: To compare the prognostic power of various exercise parameters in submaximal CPET. METHODS: Adult patients with HFrEF undergoing CPET in a tertiary center were prospectively assessed. Submaximal CPET was defined as a respiratory exchange ratio ≤1.10. Patients were followed for one year for the primary endpoint of cardiac death and urgent heart transplantation (HT). Various CPET parameters were analyzed as potential predictors of the combined endpoint and their prognostic power (area under the curve [AUC]) was compared using the Hanley-McNeil test. RESULTS: CPET was performed in 442 HFrEF patients (mean age 56±12 years, 80% male), of whom 290 (66%) had a submaximal CPET. Seventeen patients (6%) reached the primary endpoint. The cardiorespiratory optimal point (COP) had the highest AUC value (0.989, p<0.001), and significantly higher prognostic power than other tested parameters, with pVO2 presenting an AUC of 0.753 (p=0.001). COP ≥36 had significantly lower survival free of HT during follow-up (p<0.001) and presented a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 89% for the primary endpoint. CONCLUSION: COP had the highest prognostic power of all parameters analyzed in a submaximal CPET. This parameter can help stratify HFrEF patients who are physiologically unable to reach a maximal level of exercise.

Contemporary prevalence of coronary artery disease in patients referred for heart valve surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing heart valve surgery are routinely evaluated for the presence of coronary artery disease (CAD). Currently, concomitant valve intervention and surgical revascularization is recommended when there is obstructive CAD. The aim of our study was to evaluate the prevalence of CAD, its treatment strategies, and their prognostic implications in a contemporary population of patients with valvular heart disease (VHD) referred for valve surgery (HVS). METHODS: In a multicenter registry, consecutive patients with formal indication for HVS referred for a preoperative routine invasive coronary angiogram (ICA) were analyzed. Baseline characteristics, CAD prevalence and revascularization patterns, as well as their impact on short and mid-term all-cause mortality, were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 1133 patients were included; most had aortic stenosis (69%) and obstructive CAD was present in 307 (27.1%). HVS was ultimately performed in 82.3%. In patients with CAD, 53.4% were revascularized. After a mean follow-up time of 29.06±18.46 months, all-cause mortality rate was 12.9%. In multivariate analysis, not having HVS (HR 6.845, 95% CI=4.281-10.947, P<0.001), obstructive CAD (HR 2.762, 95% CI=1.764-4.326, P<0.01), COPD (HR 2.043, 95% CI=1.014-4.197, P=0.022), and age (HR 1.030, 95% CI=1.009-1.063, P=0.047), were independent predictors of all-cause mortality. In patients with obstructive CAD who underwent HVS, revascularization was not significantly associated with survival (HR 2.127, 95% CI=0.0-4.494, P=0.048; log rank P=0.042). CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary cohort of patients with VHD and surgical indication, overall obstructive CAD prevalence was 27%. CAD presence and severity were associated with higher mortality. However, revascularization was not associated with a survival benefit, except in patients with left anterior descending artery disease.