Survival outcomes of TAVR and self-expanding versus balloon-expandable valves in patients with advanced cardiac dysfunction.

AIMS: There is a growing body of literature on long-term outcomes post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), but to our knowledge, few research have focused on patients with advanced cardiac dysfunction. This challenging category of patients was excluded from the Partner 3 clinical trial. There are no data to guide the choice of valve type in patients with severely depressed ejection fraction. This study evaluates the safety, efficacy, and outcomes of TAVR in patients with severe aortic stenosis and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35%. It compares post-TAVR survival outcomes with self-expanding (SEV) versus balloon-expandable (BEV) valves in the context of cardiac dysfunction. METHODS AND RESULTS: A retrospective cohort was conducted on 977 patients who underwent TAVR at Toulouse University Hospital between January 2016 and December 2020. The study population included two groups: LVEF ≤ 35% (N = 157) and LVEF ≥ 50% (N = 820). The group of LVEF ≤ 35% was divided into two subgroups according to the type of implanted device: self-expanding (N = 66) versus balloon-expandable (N = 91). The living status of each of study's participants was observed in December 2022. Patients with low ejection fraction were younger (82 vs. 84.6 years) and commonly males (71.3% vs. 45.6%). Procedural success was almost 98% in both study groups (97.5% vs. 97.9%). The prevalence of all in-hospital post-TAVR complications [acute kidney injury (3.8% vs. 2.2%), major bleeding events (2.5% vs. 3.2%), stroke (1.3% vs. 1.6%), pacemaker implantation (10.2% vs. 10.7%), major vascular complication (4.5% vs. 4.5%), new onset atrial fibrillation (3.2% vs. 3.4%), and in-hospital death (3.2% vs. 2.8%)] were similar between groups (LVEF ≤ 35% vs. LVEF ≥ 50%). No difference in long-term survival has been revealed over 3.4 years (P = 0.268). In patients with LVEF ≤ 35%, except for post-TAVR mean aortic gradient (7.8 ± 4.2 vs. 10.2 ± 3.6), baseline and procedural characteristics were comparable between SEV versus BEV subgroups. An early improvement in LVEF (from 29.2 ± 5.5 to 37.4 ± 10.8) was observed. In patients with LVEF ≤ 35%, the all-cause mortality rate was significantly higher in BEV than that in SEV subgroups, respectively (40.7% vs. 22.7%, P = 0.018). Kaplan-Meier curve showed better survival outcomes after SEV implantation (P = 0.032). A Cox regression identified BEV as independent predictor of mortality [HR = 3.276, 95% CI (1.520-7.060), P = 0.002]. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of low LVEF, TAVR remains a safe and effective procedure not associated with an increased risk of complications and mortality. SEV implantation may likely result in superior survival outcomes in patients with advanced cardiac dysfunction.

Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection: A Review of Epidemiology, Pathophysiology and Principles of Management.

Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is a sudden rupture of coronary artery wall leading to false lumen and intramural hematoma formation. It commonly occurs in young and middle-aged women lacking typical cardiovascular risk factors. Fibromuscular dysplasia and pregnancy are strongly associated with SCAD. To date, the "inside-out" and "outside-in" are the 2 proposed hypothesis for the pathogenesis of SCAD. Coronary angiography is the gold standard and first line diagnostic test. Three types of SCAD have been described according to coronary angiogram. Intracoronary imaging modalities are reserved for patients with ambiguous diagnosis or to guide percutaneous coronary intervention view the increased risk of secondary iatrogenic dissection. The management of SCAD includes conservative approach, coronary revascularization strategies accounting for percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft, and long-term follow-up. The overall prognosis of patients with SCAD is favorable marked by a spontaneous healing in a large proportion of cases.

Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Nonagenarians Compared to Younger than 90 Year Old Patients.

BACKGROUND: Given that life expectancy has improved, nonagenarians have become a significant proportion of world population. As aortic stenosis is primarily a disease of the elderly, the need for invasive cardiac approaches is expected to increase in people of extreme age. Herein, we compare the in-hospital adverse clinical outcomes and mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedures in nonagenarians to younger than 90 year old patients. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on 1336 patients who underwent TAVI between January 2016 and March 2020 at Toulouse University Hospital, Rangueil, France. Post-TAVI adverse clinical outcomes were defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 Criteria. The studied population was divided into 2 groups according to age. RESULTS: Out of 1336 patients, 250 (18.7%) were nonagenarians with a mean age of 91.8 ± 1.9 years. Pacemaker implantation (12.4% vs 12.1%), stroke (2% vs 1.8%), and major vascular complications (9.2% vs 6.7%) were more common in nonagenarians, whereas acute kidney injury (1.2% vs 2.7%) and major bleeding events (3.2% vs 3.4%) were more common in the <90-year-old group. Nonagenarians are more likely to develop major vascular complications (odds ratio [OR] = 1.76 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-3, P = .03). The prevalence of in-hospital mortality in nonagenarians and <90-year-old patients were 5.2% and 2%, respectively. Survival analysis showed a significant difference in mortality during hospitalization period only ( P = .04). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of TAVI procedural success is remarkably high in nonagenarians and comparable to that of younger patients. However, the in-hospital mortality rate was 2-fold more than that of <90-year-old patients.

Impact of Coronary Artery Disease and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD) detected in preoperative work-up for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is high. Instead, the management of a concomitant CAD remains unclear. We evaluate the impact of CAD and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on TAVI procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on 1336 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI in Toulouse University Hospital, Rangueil, France. The studied population was divided into 2 groups: CAD-TAVI group and No CAD-TAVI group. Then, the CAD-TAVI group was segregated into 2 subgroups: PCI-TAVI group and No PCI-TAVI group. In-hospital adverse clinical outcomes were assessed in each group. RESULTS: Pre-TAVI work-up revealed significant CAD in 36% of 1030 patients eligible for inclusion in the study. The overall prevalence of in-hospital death, stroke, major or life-threatening bleeding, minor bleeding, major vascular complications, minor vascular complications, pacemaker implantation, and acute kidney injury was 2.7%, 2.4%, 2.8%, 3.6%, 3.9%, 7.5%, 12.5%, and 2.7%, respectively. Among the studied population, 55% were admitted to the cardiac care unit. No significant statistical difference was observed between groups. Discussion. CAD-TAVI population was not more likely to develop in-hospital adverse clinical outcomes post-TAVI procedure compared to others. Also, no significant difference regarding in-hospital death was observed. In parallel, performing PCI prior to TAVI did not increase the risk of in-hospital death and complications. The difference in terms of the distribution of antithrombotic regimen may explain the higher prevalence of bleeding events in the PCI-TAVI group. CONCLUSION: This study provides direct clinical relevance useful in daily practice. No negative impact has been attributed to the presence of a concomitant CAD and/or preoperative PCI on the TAVI hospitalization period.