Impact of balloon predilatation in patients with reduced versus preserved ejection fraction during transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: Although there is a trend toward direct transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), still balloon predilatation is necessary in some cases, especially in patients with severe calcification. However, predilatation including rapid ventricular pacing may have adverse outcomes, especially in patients with reduced ejection factor (EF). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of predilatation on in-hospital outcomes in patients with reduced versus preserved EF underwent TAVI. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study including 110 patients (72 patients with preserved EF (≥50%) and 38 patients with reduced EF (<50%)) who underwent TAVI. The two groups were compared regarding in-hospital outcomes. RESULTS: Predilatation was done routinely in all 110 patients. The mean age was significantly higher in patients with preserved EF (82.76 ± 5.74 vs. 80.13 ± 6.51 years; p = 0.03). The majority (51.4%) of patients with preserved EF were females but the majority (73.7%) of those with reduced EF were males (P < 0.001). Predilatation showed no statistical difference regarding in-hospital mortality (2.6% vs. 1.4%; p = 0.29), hemodynamic instability (5.3% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.11), stroke (0% vs. 1.4%; p = 0.67), conduction defects (13.2% vs. 19.4%; p = 0.29), permanent pacemaker implantation (7.9% vs. 5.5%; p = 0.45), paravalvular leakage (5.3% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.42), vascular complications (7.9% vs. 11.1%; p = 0.43), and acute kidney injury (7.9% vs. 7%; p = 0.4) in patients with reduced versus preserved EF, respectively. CONCLUSION: When balloon predilatation is inevitable during TAVI it is safe in patients with reduced as well as preserved EF with no added risk of hemodynamic instability or other outcomes.

A safe and simple technique for crossing stenotic aortic valves.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and to validate a new technique for crossing stenotic aortic valves (AV). BACKGROUND: Current techniques for crossing the AV may be time-consuming and hazardous. METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis treated by transfemoral TAVI were prospectively selected to have an initial attempt of 5 min to cross the AV with a novel pigtail/J-wire technique before switching to the conventional Amplatz®/straight wire approach. For the pigtail/J-wire technique, the catheter is placed 3-4 cm above the AV and turned anteriorly in the 30° RAO view. A J-wire pushed out of the pigtail-catheter will reach the anterior wall of the ascending aorta, forming a u-shaped curve above the AV. The height of the pigtail catheter determines the width of the curve, rotation will help to find an orientation, where the vertex of the curved J-wire easily passes the AV. We analyzed the primary success rate within 5 min and the mean crossing time required. RESULTS: Patients were 83.5 ± 5.5 years of age and predominantly male (62%). Primary success rate was 86%, AV crossing took 48.2 ± 34.6 s without complications. Fourteen failed cases were successfully managed with AL1- (6) and both, AL1- and AL2-catheters (8), respectively CONCLUSIONS: The pigtail/J-wire technique for AV crossing is safe, simple and fast. Primary placement of a pigtail catheter into the left ventricle at a success rate of 86% facilitates TAVI procedures.

Off-pump Revascularization with Bilateral versus Single Mammary Arteries-A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting is the first-line therapy for severe multivessel coronary artery disease. We aimed to investigate the clinical outcome in patients undergoing isolated off-pump surgery with the single or bilateral internal mammary artery (SIMA or BIMA) approach. METHODS: We performed a propensity score-matched analysis in 1,852 consecutive patients, aged 50 to 70 years, who underwent myocardial revascularization at our institution between July 2009 and August 2016. Primary end point was the probability of survival. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 36.3 (range: 0.1-89.6) months. The probability of survival in the SIMA and BIMA groups was 98.6 and 99.0% at year 1, 92.0 and 92.5% at year 5, and 85.6 and 81.6% at year 7, respectively, with a hazard ratio (HR) of mortality for the BIMA group versus the SIMA group of 0.98 (95% confidence interval[CI]: 0.64-1.52; p = 0.94). There was evidence for interaction between diabetes and study group on mortality risk (HR = 2.59, 95% CI: 1.07-6.23; p = 0.034). Freedom from mediastinitis/wound infection was higher in the SIMA group than in the BIMA group (99.5 and 96.9%, respectively; HR of an event = 6.39, 95% CI: 2.88-14.18; p < 0.001). The corresponding values in the subgroups of diabetic patients were 98.6 and 90.9%, respectively (HR = 6.45, 95% CI: 2.24-18.58; p = 0.001). Mediastinitis/wound infection was associated with increased mortality risk (HR = 2.96, 95% CI: 1.29-6.78; p = 0.010). CONCLUSION: Overall, our data indicate similar probability of survival up to a maximum follow-up of 7 years by off-pump surgery with the SIMA or BIMA approach. However, in diabetic patients, the clinical outcome indicates caution regarding the use of the BIMA approach.