Progression of the ascending aorta diameter after surgical or transcatheter bicuspid aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Ascending aorta dilatation in patients with bicuspid aortic valve is related both to genetic and haemodynamic factors. Aim of this study is to compare late progression of ascending aorta dilatation in bicuspid aortic valve patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) vs transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). METHODS: Data of 189 consecutive patients who underwent aortic valve replacement for severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis were prospectively collected. Patients who underwent SAVR were compared to patients who underwent TAVI. Indication to the procedure was validated by the institutional Heart Team. Aortic diameters were evaluated by transthoracic echocardiogram. Differences between preoperative and long-term follow-up ascending aorta diameters were compared in the two groups. RESULTS: Between January 2015 and December 2021, 143(76%) patients underwent SAVR and 46(24%) patients underwent TAVI. At 4.6 (Standard Deviation, SD 1.7) years follow-up, patients in the TAVI group showed significantly lower survival (P = 0.00013) and event-free survival (P < 0.0001). Ascending aorta diameter progression was lower in surgical compared to transcatheter patients, 0.95(0.60,1.30) mm vs 1.65(0.67, 2.63) mm, P = 0.02. Ascending aorta diameter progression indexed for body surface area and height, was lower in the surgical group: 0.72(0.38,1.05) mm/m2 vs 1.05(0.39,1.71) mm/m2 P = 0.02, and 0.59(0.36,0.81) mm/m vs 1.11(0.44,1.78) mm/m, P = 0.001, respectively. At multivariable linear regression analysis transcatheter procedure, baseline aortic diameter, and paravalvular leak were significantly associated with increased postoperative ascending aorta dilatation. CONCLUSIONS: Bicuspid aortic valve patients who underwent SAVR, showed significantly less long-term ascending aorta diameter progression than patients who underwent transcatheter procedure.

A Feasibility Study Investigating an Exercise Program in Metastatic Cancer Based on the Patient-Preferred Delivery Mode.

BACKGROUND: Feasibility of exercise in patients with metastatic cancer is still a challenge. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of an exercise intervention based on a patient-preferred delivery mode in patients affected by metastatic cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-four patients with a confirmed diagnosis of metastatic cancer were recruited in a 3-month exercise program. Whereas the exercise program consisted of aerobic and resistance activities performed twice a week, the participants may choose the mode of delivery: home based, personal training, or group based. The primary endpoint was the feasibility, defined by recruitment rate, attendance, adherence, dropout rate, tolerability (comparing the session RPE with the target RPE), and safety (using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0). Secondary endpoints included cardiorespiratory fitness (six minutes walking test), muscle strength (handgrip strength test and isometric leg press test), flexibility (the back scratch and chair sit and reach tests), anthropometric parameters (body mass index and waist-hip ratio), quality of life (EORTC QLQ C-30 questionnaire), and amount of physical exercise (Godin's Shepard Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire). Descriptive statistics, Student t test, and Wilcoxon signed rank test were used to analyze data. RESULTS: The study recruitment rate was 81%. Out of 44 recruited patients, 28 chose the personal training program, 16 chose the home-based program, and none chose the group-based program. Nine dropouts occurred (20%), 6 in the personal training program, and 3 in the home-based intervention. The median attendance rate was 92%, adherence was 88%, tolerability was 100%, and 9 nonsevere adverse events were registered during the exercise sessions. An increase in cardiorespiratory fitness (P < .001) and flexibility (P = .011 for chair sit and reach; P = .040 for back scratch) was observed at the end of the intervention, while no changes in anthropometric values and muscle strength were detected. Different quality-of-life domains were improved following the intervention, including physical (P = .002), emotional (P < .001), and role functioning (P = .018), fatigue (P = .030), and appetite loss (P = .005). CONCLUSION: A 3-month exercise program based on a patient-preferred delivery mode is feasible in patients with metastatic cancer and may improve physical function and quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04226508.