Trend, predictors, and outcomes of combined mitral valve replacement and coronary artery bypass graft in patients with concomitant mitral valve and coronary artery disease: a National Inpatient Sample database analysis.

Aims: Combined mitral valve replacement (MVR) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) procedures have been the norm for patients with concomitant mitral valve disease (MVD) and coronary artery disease (CAD) with no large-scale data on their safety and efficacy. Methods and results: The National Inpatient Sample database (2002-18) was queried to identify patients undergoing MVR and CABG. The major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and its components were compared using a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis to calculate adjusted odds ratios (OR). A total of 6 145 694 patients (CABG only 3 971 045, MVR only 1 933 459, MVR + CABG 241 190) were included in crude analysis, while a matched cohort of 724 237 (CABG only 241 436, MVR only 241 611 vs. MVR + CABG 241 190) was selected in PSM analysis. The combined MVR + CABG procedure had significantly higher adjusted odds of MACE [OR 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-1.14 and OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.93-1.99] and in-hospital mortality (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.27-1.31 and OR 2.1, 95% CI 2.05-2.14) compared with CABG alone and MVR alone, respectively. Similarly, the risk of post-procedure bleeding, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, cardiogenic shock, sepsis, need for intra-aortic balloon pump, mean length of stay, and total charges per hospitalization were significantly higher for patients undergoing the combined procedure. These findings remained consistent on yearly trend analysis favouring the isolated CABG and MVR groups. Conclusion: Combined procedure (MVR + CABG) in patients with MVD and CAD appears to be associated with worse in-hospital outcomes, increased mortality, and higher resource utilization compared with isolated CABG and MVR procedures. Randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the relative safety of these procedures in the full spectrum of baseline valvular and angiographic characteristics.

Meta-analysis comparing valve-in-valve TAVR and redo-SAVR in patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valve.

INTRODUCTION: The comparative efficacy and safety of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) and redo-surgical AVR (redo-SAVR) in patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves remain unknown. METHOD: Digital databases were searched to identify relevant articles. Unadjusted odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes were calculated using a random effect model. A total of 11 studies comprising 8326 patients (ViV-TAVR = 4083 and redo-SAVR = 4243) were included. RESULTS: The mean age of patients undergoing ViV-TAVR was older, 76 years compared to 73 years for those undergoing SAVR. The baseline characteristics for patients in ViV-TAVR vs. redo-SAVR groups were comparable. At 30-days, the odds of all-cause mortality (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.30-0.68, p = .0002), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.26-0.73, p = .001) and major bleeding (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.15-0.54, p = .0001) were significantly lower in patients undergoing ViV-TAVR compared to redo-SAVR. There were no significant differences in the odds of cerebrovascular accidents (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.52-1.58, p = .74), myocardial infarction (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.44-1.92, p = .83) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPM) (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.27-1.07, p = .08) between the two groups. During mid to long-term follow up (6-months to 5-years), there were no significant differences between ViV-TAVR and redo-SAVR for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and stroke. ViV-TAVR was, however, associated with higher risk of prosthesis-patient mismatch and greater transvalvular pressure gradient post-implantation. CONCLUSION: ViV-TAVR compared to redo-SAVR appears to be associated with significant improvement in short term mortality and major bleeding. For mid to long-term follow up, the outcomes were similar for both groups.

Transradial versus transfemoral access for cardiac catheterization: a nationwide pilot study of training preferences and expertise in The United States.

BACKGROUND: The objective was to assess current training preferences, expertise, and comfort with transfemoral access (TFA) and transradial access (TRA) amongst cardiovascular training fellows and teaching faculty in the United States. As TRA continues to dominate the field of interventional cardiology, there is a concern that trainees may become less proficient with the femoral approach. METHODS: A detailed questionnaire was sent out to academic General Cardiovascular and Interventional Cardiology training programs in the United States. Responses were sought from fellows-in-training and faculty regarding preferences and practice of TFA and TRA. Answers were analyzed for significant differences between trainees and trainers. RESULTS: A total of 125 respondents (75 fellows-in-training and 50 faculty) completed and returned the survey. The average grade of comfort for TFA, on a scale of 0 to 10 (10 being most comfortable), was reported to be 6 by fellows-in-training and 10 by teaching faculty (p < 0.001). TRA was the first preference in 95% of the fellows-in-training compared to 69% of teaching faculty (p 0.001). While 62% of fellows believed that they would receive the same level of training as their trainers by the time they graduate, only 35% of their trainers believed so (p 0.004). CONCLUSION: The shift from TFA to radial first has resulted in significant concern among cardiovascular fellows-in training and the faculty regarding training in TFA. Cardiovascular training programs must be cognizant of this issue and should devise methods to assure optimal training of fellows in gaining TFA and managing femoral access-related complications.

Severe radial artery spasm causing entrapment of the Terumo radial to peripheral destination slender sheath: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Radial access for lower-extremity peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs) has been limited due to inadequate equipment lengths. The Terumo R2P Destination Slender sheath is a relatively new sheath designed for these interventions. However, complications related to this sheath or access strategy for lower-extremity PVI have not been reported. CASE SUMMARY: A 69-year-old woman presented with purple discolouration of her 1st and 5th toes of the left foot for approximately 1 month. Lower-extremity arterial duplex ultrasound showed mid left superficial femoral artery (SFA) greater than 90% stenosis. Peripheral angiogram was performed via the left radial artery and this confirmed the presence of severe left SFA stenosis. Intra-arterial vasodilators including verapamil and nitroglycerine were administered to prevent radial artery spasm. Next, we attempted to deliver the Terumo 6-Fr R2P Destination Slender 119 cm sheath for the interventional procedure. However, the sheath became stuck at the level of mid axillary artery due to severe radial artery spasm. Despite use of intra-arterial vasodilators, deep sedation with propofol, and gentle retraction, the sheath could not be removed and eventually broke requiring surgical removal. DISCUSSION: This case demonstrates severe radial artery spasm causing sheath entrapment that required emergency surgery for sheath removal. Unfortunately, the sheath could not be removed despite typical manoeuvres for severe spasm including intra-arterial vasodilators and deep sedation with propofol. Physicians performing PVIs via radial access need to be aware of this potentially serious complication.

Safety and Long-Term Patency of Endovascular Therapy for Infrarenal Aortic Disease: Single-Center Experience and Review of the Literature.

OBJECTIVES: Endovascular therapy (EVT) has emerged as an alternative to surgery for the treatment of symptomatic infrarenal aortic stenosis (IAS). However, long-term outcomes with EVT are unknown. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients with IAS treated with the endovascular approach at the University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, Ohio. We compared our single-center study (SCS) with a review of published studies (ROS) regarding complications, patency rate (PR), and repeat intervention rate (RIR). Pearson's Chi-square or Fisher's exact test, and the Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney U-test, were used for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. For the ROS data, we used a pooled mean of means. RESULTS: A total of 25 patients from the SCS were compared with 698 patients from the ROS data. Mean age was 63 years vs 58 years, females comprised 48% vs 54%, Rutherford class 3 comprised 68% vs 69%, and mean follow-up duration was 67 months vs 44 months in SCS vs ROS, respectively. PR at 12 months was 96% vs 90%, while PR at maximum time-period was 92% vs 76% in SCS vs ROS, respectively. RIR in SCS was 4% at 12 months and 8% at the maximum time period (20.2 years). RIR in ROS was 24% at the maximum time period (10 years). The mortality rate was 0% in the SCS arm vs 3.4% in the ROS arm. CONCLUSION: EVT is highly effective and safe, and was associated with excellent patency rates at long-term follow-up.

Systematic Review and Proportional Meta-Analysis of Endarterectomy and Endovascular Therapy with Routine or Selective Stenting for Common Femoral Artery Atherosclerotic Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Common femoral endarterectomy (CFE) has been the therapy of choice for common femoral artery atherosclerotic disease (CFA-ASD). In the past, there was inhibition to treat CFA-ASD endovascularly with stents due to fear of stent fracture and compromise of future vascular access site. However, recent advances and new evidence suggest that CFA may no longer be a 'stent-forbidden zone'. In the light of new evidence, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine the use of endovascular treatment for CFA-ASD and compare it with common femoral endarterectomy in the present era. METHODS: Using certain MeSH terms we searched multiple databases for studies done on endovascular and surgical treatment of CFA-ASD in the last two decades. Inclusion criteria were randomized control trials, observational, prospective, or retrospective studies evaluating an endovascular treatment or CFE for CFA-ASD. For comparison, studies were grouped based on the treatment strategy used for CFA-ASD: endovascular treatment with selective stenting (EVT-SS), endovascular treatment with routine stenting (EVT-RS), or common femoral endarterectomy (CFE). Primary patency (PP), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and complications were the outcomes studied. We did proportional meta-analysis using a random-effect model due to heterogeneity among the included studies. If confidence intervals of two results do not overlap, then statistical significance is determined. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies met inclusion criteria (7 for EVT-RS, 8 for EVT-SS, and 13 for CFE). Total limbs involved were 2914 (306 in EVT-RS, 678 in EVT-SS, and 1930 in CFE). The pooled PP at 1 year was 84% (95% CI 75-92%) for EVT-RS, 78% (95% CI 69-85%) for EVT-SS, and 93% (95% CI 90-96%) for CFE. PP at maximum follow-up in EVT-RS was 83.7% (95% CI 74-91%) and in CFE group was 88.3% (95% CI 81-94%). The pooled target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate at one year was 8% (95% CI 4-13%) for EVT-RS, 19% (95% CI 14-23%) for EVT-SS, and 4.5% (95% CI 1-9%) for CFE. The pooled rate of local complications for EVT-RS was 5% (95% CI 2-10%), for EVT-SS was 7% (95% CI 3 to 12%), and CFE was 22% (95% CI 14-32%). Mortality at maximum follow-up in CFE group was 23.1% (95% CI 14-33%) and EVT-RS was 5.3% (95% CI 1-11%). CONCLUSION: EVT-RS has comparable one-year PP and TLR as CFE. CFE showed an advantage over EVT-SS for one-year PP. The complication rate is lower in EVT RS and EVT SS compared to CFE. At maximum follow-up, CFE and EVT-RS have similar PP but CFE has a higher mortality. These findings support EVT-RS as a management alternative for CFA-ASD.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation to Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Surgical Risk Patients.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is recommended for inoperable and high risk surgical patients with severe aortic stenosis. It is noninferior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in intermediate risk candidates. TAVI is currently being assessed for low surgical risk individuals. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and matched observational studies between TAVI and SAVR in low surgical risk patients. The primary outcomes were short-term and mid-term mortality and neurologic events. Secondary outcomes were other periprocedure complications. A total of 8 studies (3 RCTs and 5 matched observational studies) totaling 6,686 patients were included. No difference was seen in short-term mortality and neurologic events (risk ratio [RR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 1.03, p 0.07 and RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.13, p 0.18) as well as mid-term mortality and neurologic events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.47, p 0.65 and RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.97, p 0.9) between the 2 groups. Reduced risk of new onset atrial fibrillation (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.25, p <0.00001), acute kidney injury (RR 0.43, 95 CI 0.23 to 0.82, p 0.01), and bleeding (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.69, p 0.0005) whereas increased risk of ≥ moderate aortic regurgitation (RR 6.53, 95% CI 3.48 to 12.24, p <0.00001), pacemaker or defibrillator implantation (RR 3.11, 95% CI 1.96 to 4.94, p <0.00001) and vascular complications (RR 5.29, 95% CI 1.58 to 17.70, p 0.007) was noted in TAVI arm. In conclusion, TAVI is comparable to SAVR in terms of short-term and mid-term mortality and neurologic events in low surgical risk patients. The risk of periprocedure events is variable.

Comparison of Outcomes and Cost of Endovascular Management Versus Surgical Bypass for the Management of Lower Extremities Peripheral Arterial Disease.

The management of lower extremities peripheral arterial disease (LE-PAD) has always been debatable. We sought to explore in-hospital outcomes in hospitalizations that underwent endovascular or bypass surgery for LE-PAD from nation's largest, publicly available database. The National Inpatient Sample from 2012 to 2014 was queried to identify adult hospitalizations underwent endovascular management and bypass surgery for LE-PAD. Appropriate International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnostic and procedural codes were utilized to identify hospitalizations. A total of 89,256 hospitalizations were identified having endovascular management or bypass surgery for LE-PAD. More hospitalizations underwent endovascular intervention as compared with bypass surgery. Overall, hospitalizations for endovascular management had higher baseline co-morbidities and older age. A propensity score matched analysis was performed to compare in-hospital outcomes. After matching, 28,791 hospitalizations were included in each group. In-hospital mortality was significantly lower with endovascular intervention procedure as compared with surgical bypass group (1.5% vs 2.5%, p ≤0.001). All other secondary outcomes were noted lower with endovascular management except stroke and postprocedural infection. Taken together, these may account for higher discharges to home, lower length of stay, and less cost of hospitalizations associated with endovascular management. In conclusion, endovascular management is associated with lower in-hospital morbidity, mortality, length of stay, and cost when compared with bypass surgery in this study.