Predictive role of Selvester QRS score in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

INTRODUCTION: Few data exist regarding the late clinical impact of the Selvester score prediction of myocardial fibrosis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study evaluated the predictive power of the Selvester score on survival in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVR. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with severe AS who had preoperative electrocardiograms were included. Clinical follow-up was obtained retrospectively. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were cardiovascular death and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). Two-hundred twenty-eight patients were included (mean age, 81.5 ± 7.4 years; women, 58.3%). Deceased patients had a higher mean score (4.6 ± 3.2 vs. 1.4 ± 1.3; p < .001). At a mean follow-up of 36.2 ± 21.2 months, the Selvester score was independently associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48-1.84; p < .001), cardiovascular death (HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.38-1.74; p < .001), and MACE (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.30-1.68; p < .001). After 5 years, the mortality risk was incrementally related to the Selvester score. The involvement of the inferior wall of the left ventricle was a lower mortality risk factor (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18-0.98; p = .046). For a Selvester score of 3, the area under the curve showed 0.92, 0.94, and 0.86 (p < .001), respectively, for 1, 2, and 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated Selvester scores increase the risk of poor outcomes in patients with AS undergoing TAVR. The involvement of the anterior or lateral wall presents worse prognosis.

Prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing electrocoagulation and radiofrequency in the treatment of patients with great saphenous vein insufficiency and lower limb varicose veins.

OBJECTIVE: Thermoablation has been replacing conventional surgery in the surgical treatment of great saphenous vein (GSV) reflux in patients with lower limb varicose veins; however, thermoablation is expensive. Intravenous electrocoagulation (EC) may, selectively and safely, cause necrosis of the GSV wall, but the clinical results have never been studied. The objective of this study was to compare EC and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the treatment of GSV insufficiency, considering efficacy, complications, and effect on quality of life. METHODS: This was a prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Patients with lower limb varicose veins and GSV reflux confirmed by duplex ultrasound were randomized into two treatment groups: EC and RFA. Patients were followed up at 1 week, 3 months, and 6 months after the procedure. Occlusion of the GSV confirmed by duplex ultrasound was considered the primary outcome, and the rate of complications and improvement in quality of life, using the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire score, were the secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were included, with a total of 85 treated GSVs; 43 were treated with RFA and 42 with EC. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding age (P = .264), sex (P = .612), Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire score (P = .054), and diameter (P = .880) and depth (P = .763) of the treated GSV. In the intraoperative period, immediately after thermoablation, all GSVs treated with EC presented no flow and incompressibility in the treated segment, whereas 12 limbs still had flow in the treated GSV (P < .001) and 9 veins showed compressibility (P < .001) when treated with RFA. The main postoperative complication was paresthesia; however, there was no statistical significance between the groups (P = .320) regarding its presence. Time to return to routine activities was lower in the EC group than in the RFA group (P = .026). There was no difference between the groups at the 3-month (P = .157) and 6-month (P = .157) follow-up in occlusion of the GSV and improvement of the quality of life score (P = .786 and P = .401, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: EC has been shown to be an effective method for ablation of the GSV, with venous occlusion rate, occurrence of complications, and effect on quality of life similar to those with RFA.

Experimental determination of the best time and duration for endovenous great saphenous vein electrocoagulation.

OBJECTIVE: Endovenous electrocoagulation provokes immediate selective venous wall necrosis. In this study, we aim to determine the best power and time of electrocoagulation necessary to cause intima and media but not adventitia layer damage in great saphenous vein (GSV) insufficiency treatment. METHODS: We studied 100 varicose GSV fragments submitted to endovenous electrocoagulation. The power (60, 90, or 120 W) and time (5, 10, or 15 seconds) were randomly assigned. The fragments were submitted to histopathologic examination to analyze the depth of tissue necrosis. Dose-response models for the analysis of binary data were used to identify the best association between power and the time of electrocoagulation necessary to cause intima and media but not adventitia layer necrosis. We also applied a logistic regression model to investigate the impact of body mass index and GSV diameter on the electrocoagulation effects. RESULTS: The time (odds ratio [OR], 1.26; P = .0009) was found to be a stronger predictor of the depth of vessel necrosis than the power of electrocoagulation applied (OR, 1.05; P < .0001). The power and time that were most likely to cause intima and media but not adventitia layer destruction were 60.4 W × 5 seconds, 58.8 W × 10 seconds, and 8.9 W × 15 seconds. The initial GSV diameter (median, 5.36 mm; minimum, 2.3 mm; maximum, 10 mm; OR, 0.96; P = .82) and body index mass (median, 24.7 kg/m(2); minimum, 15.6 kg/m(2); maximum, 36.2 kg/m(2); OR, 1.08; P = .26) showed a poor correlation with the depth of histologic vessel destruction. CONCLUSIONS: The time of electrocoagulation strongly predicts the depth of GSV wall necrosis more than the amount of power applied. Determination of the best time and power of electrocoagulation ratio may help optimize GSV endovenous electrocoagulation closure rates and decrease the complications index. The GSV diameter and body mass index do not influence endovenous electrocoagulation effects.