Leadless Pacemaker Implantation Across Percutaneous Tricuspid Valve Prothesis Implanted Via Valve-in-Valve Technique.

We present the case of an 82-year-old woman with history of bivalvular replacement (mitral mechanical prothesis and tricuspid bioprothesis) and subsequent tricuspid percutaneous valve-in-valve bioprothesis implantation. The patient developed an indication for pacemaker implantation. We describe the feasibility of leadless pacemaker implantation across the tricuspid prothesis when all other techniques fail.

Haemodynamic validation of the three-step HFA-PEFF algorithm to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: The HFA-PEFF algorithm (Heart Failure Association-Pre-test assessment, Echocardiography and natriuretic peptide score, Functional testing in cases of uncertainty, Final aetiology) is a three-step algorithm to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). It provides a three-level likelihood of HFpEF: low (score < 2), intermediate (score 2-4), or high (score > 4). HFpEF may be confirmed in individuals with a score > 4 (rule-in approach). The second step of the algorithm is based on echocardiographic features and natriuretic peptide levels. The third step implements diastolic stress echocardiography (DSE) for controversial diagnostic cases. We sought to validate the three-step HFA-PEFF algorithm against a haemodynamic diagnosis of HFpEF based on rest and exercise right heart catheterization (RHC). METHODS AND RESULTS: Seventy-three individuals with exertional dyspnoea underwent a full diagnostic work-up following the HFA-PEFF algorithm, including DSE and rest/exercise RHC. The association between the HFA-PEFF score and a haemodynamic diagnosis of HFpEF, as well as the diagnostic performance of the HFA-PEFF algorithm vs. RHC, was assessed. The diagnostic performance of left atrial (LA) strain < 24.5% and LA strain/E/E' < 3% was also assessed. The probability of HFpEF was low/intermediate/high in 8%/52%/40% of individuals at the second step of the HFA-PEFF algorithm and 8%/49%/43% at the third step. After RHC, 89% of patients were diagnosed as HFpEF and 11% as non-cardiac dyspnoea. The HFA-PEFF score resulted associated with the invasive haemodynamic diagnosis of HFpEF (P < 0.001). Sensitivity and specificity of the HFA-PEFF score for the invasive haemodynamic diagnosis of HFpEF were 45% and 100% for the second step of the algorithm and 46% and 88% for the third step of the algorithm. Neither age, sex, body mass index, obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or paroxysmal atrial fibrillation influenced the performance of the HFA-PEFF algorithm, as these characteristics were similarly distributed over the true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative cases. Sensitivity of the second step of the HFA-PEFF score was non-significantly improved to 60% (P = 0.08) by lowering the rule-in threshold to >3. LA strain alone had a sensitivity and specificity of 39% and 14% for haemodynamic HFpEF, increasing to 55% and 22% when corrected for E/E'. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with rest/exercise RHC, the HFA-PEFF score lacks sensitivity: Half of the patients were wrongly classified as non-cardiac dyspnoea after non-invasive tests, with a minimal impact of DSE in modifying HFpEF likelihood.

Efficacy of prophylactic platelet rich plasma (PRP) following open saphenous vein harvesting in cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Wound infection represents a frequent trouble following open saphenous vein harvesting in cardiac surgery. Platelets' growth factors are crucial for the healing process. Prophylactic platelet rich plasma (PRP) application on leg wound might reduce the incidence of saphenous vein harvest site infections in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). METHODS: Between January 2009 and December 2020, 987 consecutive patients underwent CABG using saphenous vein as conduit graft and were retrospectively divided into two groups. All patients had standard surgical leg wound closure and wound care, but treatment group received adjunctive topical application of PRP (no-PRP and PRP group, respectively). The primary outcome was wound infection. RESULTS: Saphenous vein harvest site infection rate was similar between PRP (3.5%) and No-PRP (5.2%) group, p = 0.215. The ASEPSIS score was lower for the PRP group (PRP: 3.6 ± 9.1 vs. No-PRP: 5.3 ± 11.2; p = 0.014). Performing a subgroup analysis, the diabetic patients (PRP-DM) group had a lower rate of infection than control group (No-PRP DM) (2.6% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.026). PRP-DM patients had an inferior ASEPSIS score (PRP-DM: 2.7 ± 8.3 vs. No PRP-DM: 7.5 ± 13.2, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Topical application of autologous PRP on saphenoug vein harvest site might reduce the rate of surgical site infection, with particular benefit among diabetic patients.