Safety and efficacy of cerebral embolic protection in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: an updated meta-analysis.

Background: The use of cerebral embolic protection devices during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) reveals conflicting data. Aims: This updated meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the SENTINEL Cerebral Protection System. Methods: A literature search for relevant studies up to September 2022 was performed. Study outcomes were divided based on time period - overall (up to 30 days) and short (≤7 days). The outcomes studied include stroke (disabling, non-disabling), mortality, neuroimaging findings, transient ischaemic attack, acute kidney injury and major vascular and bleeding complications. Results: A total of 15 studies involving 294,134 patients were included. Regarding overall outcomes, significant reductions were noted for mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-0.88; p=0.008), all stroke (OR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46-0.88; p=0.006) and disabling stroke (OR 0.42, 95% CI: 0.23-0.74; p=0.003) using the SENTINEL device. No significant differences were noted for other outcomes. There was significant heterogeneity across the studies for mortality (p=0.013) and all stroke (p=0.003). Including only randomised data (n=4), there was only significant reduction in the incidence of disabling stroke (OR 0.39, 95% CI: 0.17-0.89; p=0.026) in the SENTINEL group. In studies reporting ≤7-day outcomes (n=8), use of the SENTINEL device demonstrated significantly lower rates of all stroke (p<0.001), disabling stroke (p<0.001) and major bleeding complications (p=0.02). No differences in neuroimaging outcomes were noted. Conclusions: In this updated meta-analysis, use of the SENTINEL Cerebral Protection System was associated with lower rates of mortality, all stroke and disabling stroke, although significant heterogeneity was noted for mortality and all stroke. Including exclusively randomised data, there was only significant reduction in the incidence of disabling stroke. No significant adverse outcomes with device use were noted.

Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Transcatheter, Minimally Invasive, and Conventional Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.

The landscape of aortic valve replacement (AVR) has evolved dramatically over the years, but time-varying outcomes have yet to be comprehensively explored. This study aimed to compare the all-cause mortality among 3 AVR techniques: transcatheter (TAVI), minimally invasive (MIAVR), and conventional AVR (CAVR). An electronic literature search was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TAVI with CAVR and RCTs or propensity score-matched (PSM) studies comparing MIAVR with CAVR or MIAVR to TAVI. Individual patient data for all-cause mortality were derived from graphical reconstruction of Kaplan-Meier curves. Pairwise comparisons and network meta-analysis were conducted. Sensitivity analyses were performed in the TAVI arm for high risk and low/intermediate risk, as well as patients who underwent transfemoral (TF) TAVI. A total of 27 studies with 16,554 patients were included. In the pairwise comparisons, TAVI showed superior mortality to CAVR until 37.5 months, beyond which there was no significant difference. When restricted to TF TAVI versus CAVR, a consistent mortality benefit favoring TF TAVI was seen (shared frailty hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76 to 0.98, p = 0.024). In the network meta-analysis involving majority PSM data, MIAVR demonstrated significantly lower mortality than TAVI (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.82) and CAVR (HR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.80); this association remained compared with TF TAVI but with a lower extent of benefit (HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.65 to 0.99). In conclusion, the initial short- to medium-term mortality benefit for TAVI over CAVR was attenuated over the longer term. In the subset of patients who underwent TF TAVI, a consistent benefit was found. Among majority PSM data, MIAVR showed improved mortality compared with TAVI and CAVR but less than the TF TAVI subset, which requires validation by robust RCTs.

Impact of aortic annular size and valve type on haemodynamics and clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

INTRODUCTION: Data on patients with small aortic annuli (SAA) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are limited. We aim to describe the impact of aortic annular size, particularly SAA and TAVI valve type on valve haemodynamics, durability and clinical outcomes. METHOD: All patients in National Heart Centre Singapore who underwent transfemoral TAVI for severe symptomatic native aortic stenosis from July 2012 to December 2019 were included. Outcome measures include valve haemodynamics, prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), structural valve degeneration (SVD) and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 244 patients were included. The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 6.22±6.08, with 52.5% patients with small aortic annulus (<23mm), 33.2% patients with medium aortic annulus (23-26mm) and 14.3% patients with large aortic annulus (>26mm). There were more patients with self-expanding valve (SEV) (65.2%) versus balloon-expandable valve (BEV) (34.8%). There were no significant differences in indexed aortic valve area (iAVA), mean pressure gradient (MPG), PPM, SVD or mortality across all aortic annular sizes. However, specific to the SAA group, patients with SEV had larger iAVA (SEV 1.19±0.35cm2/m2 vs BEV 0.88±0.15cm2/m2, P<0.01) and lower MPG (SEV 9.25±4.88 mmHg vs BEV 14.17±4.75 mmHg, P<0.01) at 1 year, without differences in PPM or mortality. Aortic annular size, TAVI valve type and PPM did not predict overall mortality up to 7 years. There was no significant difference in SVD between aortic annular sizes up to 5 years. CONCLUSION: Valve haemodynamics and durability were similar across the different aortic annular sizes. In the SAA group, SEV had better haemodynamics than BEV at 1 year, but no differences in PPM or mortality. There were no significant differences in mortality between aortic annular sizes, TAVI valve types or PPM.

Predictive factors for lower extremity amputations in diabetic foot infections.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the epidemiology of diabetic foot infections (DFIs) and its predictive factors for lower extremity amputations. A prospective study of 100 patients with DFIs treated at the National University Hospital of Singapore were recruited in the study during the period of January 2005-June 2005. A protocol was designed to document patient's demographics, type of DFI, presence of neuropathy and/or vasculopathy and its final outcome. Predictive factors for limb loss were determined using univariate and stepwise logistic regression analysis. The mean age of the study population was 59.8 years with a male to female ratio of about 1:1 and with a mean follow-up duration of about 24 months. All patients had type 2 diabetes mellitus. Common DFIs included abscess (32%), wet gangrene (29%), infected ulcers (19%), osteomyelitis (13%), necrotizing fasciitis (4%) and cellulitis (3%). Thirteen patients were treated conservatively, while surgical debridement or distal amputation was performed in 59 patients. Twenty-eight patients had major amputations (below or above knee) performed. Forty-eight percent had monomicrobial infections compared with 52% with polymicrobial infections. The most common pathogens found in all infections (both monomicrobial and polymicrobial) were Staphylococcus aureus (39.7%), Bacteroides fragilis (30.3%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (26.0%) and Streptococcus agalactiae (21.0%). Significant univariate predictive factors for limb loss included age above 60 years, gangrene, ankle-brachial index (ABI) <0.8, monomicrobial infections, white blood cell (WBC) count ≥ 15.0×10(9)/L, erythrocyte sedimentation rate ≥100 mm/hr, C-reactive protein ≥15.0 mg/dL, hemoglobin (Hb) ≤10.0g/dL and creatinine ≥150 µmol/L. Upon stepwise logistic regression, only gangrene, ABI <0.8, WBC ≥ 15.0×10(9)/L and Hb ≤10.0g/dL were significant.

Assessment of sensory neuropathy in patients with diabetic foot problems.

Our aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of three different modalities for testing sensory neuropathy in diabetic patients with and without diabetic foot problems. The three devices used included the pin-prick testing using the Neurotip® (PPT), the Semmes-Weinstein 5.07/10 g monofilament testing (SWMT), and the rapid-current perception threshold (R-CPT) measurements using the Neurometer® testing. Our study population consisted of 54 patients (108 feet) with diabetic foot problems treated at the National University Hospital in Singapore by our multi-disciplinary diabetic foot care team. Our results showed no difference in sensory neuropathy detected by PPT and 5.07/10 g SWMT in both the pathological and normal foot. In the pathological foot, there was significant increase in sensory neuropathy detected by the Neurometer® device at both the big toe and ankle sites as compared to PPT and 5.07/10 g SWMT. In the normal foot, there was a significant increase in sensory neuropathy detected by the Neurometer® device at the big toe site only as compared to PPT and 5.07/10 g SWMT. Finally, the Neurometer® measurements detected a statistically higher proportion of feet with sensory neuropathy as compared to detection by the PPT or 5.07/10 g SWMT.

Foot screening for diabetics.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to evaluate the results of foot screening performed in a study population of 2137 diabetics (3926 feet) screened from 2006 to 2008 by the National University Hospital (NUH) multi-disciplinary team for diabetic foot problems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A standardised protocol was designed. Foot screening consisted of detailed history taking and clinical examination including assessment for sensory neuropathy by Semmes Weinstein monofilament (SWMF) and neurothesiometer and assessment of vasculopathy by ankle-brachial index (ABI) and total body irradiation (TBI). The foot screening was performed by a trained staff nurse. All patients were classified according to King's College Classification. RESULTS: Majority of the patients were in the fifth (27.9%) and sixth (30.0%) decades of life. Two thousand sixty-four had type II diabetes, and only 73 had type I diabetes. Neuropathy was found in 1307 (33.3%) feet based on 5.07 SWMF. Vasculopathy was recorded in 510 (13.0%) and 546 (13.9%) feet based on ABI <0.8 and TBI <0.7. According to King's Classification, 1069 (50.0%) were Stage 1: Normal and 615 (28.8%) were Stage 2: At-Risk. CONCLUSION: Foot screening should be performed as early as possible to detect "At-Risk" feet and prevent the development of diabetic foot complications, thereby further reducing the risk of major amputations.