Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with morbid obesity: a multicentre propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Morbidly obese (MO) patients are increasingly undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the best therapeutic strategy for these patients remains a matter for debate. AIMS: Our aim was to compare the periprocedural and mid-term outcomes in MO patients undergoing TAVR versus SAVR. METHODS: A multicentre retrospective study including consecutive MO patients (body mass index ≥40 kg/m2, or ≥35 kg/m2 with obesity-related comorbidities) from 18 centres undergoing either TAVR (n=860) or biological SAVR (n=696) for severe AS was performed. Propensity score matching resulted in 362 pairs. RESULTS: After matching, periprocedural complications, including blood transfusion (14.1% versus 48.1%; p<0.001), stage 2-3 acute kidney injury (3.99% versus 10.1%; p=0.002), hospital-acquired pneumonia (1.7% versus 5.8%; p=0.005) and access site infection (1.5% versus 5.5%; p=0.013), were more common in the SAVR group, as was moderate to severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM; 9.9% versus 39.4%; p<0.001). TAVR patients more frequently required permanent pacemaker implantation (14.4% versus 5.6%; p<0.001) and had higher rates of ≥moderate residual aortic regurgitation (3.3% versus 0%; p=0.001). SAVR was an independent predictor of moderate to severe PPM (hazard ratio [HR] 1.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25-2.59; p=0.002), while TAVR was not. In-hospital mortality was not different between groups (3.9% for TAVR versus 6.1% for SAVR; p=0.171). Two-year outcomes (including all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and readmissions) were similar in both groups (log-rank p>0.05 for all comparisons). Predictors of all-cause 2-year mortality differed between the groups; moderate to severe PPM was a predictor following SAVR (HR 1.78, 95% CI: 1.10-2.88; p=0.018) but not following TAVR (p=0.737). CONCLUSIONS: SAVR and TAVR offer similar mid-term outcomes in MO patients with severe AS, however, TAVR offers some advantages in terms of periprocedural morbidity.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in obese patients: procedural vascular complications with the trans-femoral and trans-carotid access routes.

OBJECTIVES: Obesity may increase the risk of vascular complications in transfemoral (TF) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures. The transcarotid (TC) approach has recently emerged as an alternative access in TAVR. We sought to compare vascular complications and early clinical outcomes in obese patients undergoing TAVR either by TF or TC vascular access. METHODS: Multicentre registry including obese patients undergoing TF- or TC-TAVR in 15 tertiary centres. All patients received newer-generation transcatheter heart valves. For patients exhibiting unfavourable ileo-femoral anatomic characteristics, the TC approach was favoured in 3 centres with experience with it. A propensity score analysis was performed for overcoming unbalanced baseline covariates. The primary end point was the occurrence of in-hospital vascular complications (Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria). RESULTS: A total of 539 patients were included, 454 (84.2%) and 85 (15.8%) had a TF and TC access, respectively. In the propensity-adjusted cohort (TF: 442 patients; TC: 85 patients), both baseline and procedural valve-related characteristics were well-balanced between groups. A significant decrease in vascular complications was observed in the TC group (3.5% vs 12% in the TF group, odds ratio: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.07-0.95, P = 0.037). There were no statistically significant differences between groups regarding in-hospital mortality (TC: 2.8%, TF: 1.5%), stroke (TC: 1.2%, TF: 0.4%) and life-threatening/major bleeding events (TC: 2.8%, TF: 3.8%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with obesity undergoing TAVR with newer-generation devices, the TC access was associated with a lower rate of vascular complications. Larger randomized studies are warranted to further assess the better approach for TAVR in obese patients.

Epidemiology, evaluation, and management of conduction disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Aortic stenosis is the most common valvulopathy requiring replacement by means of the surgical or transcatheter approach. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has quickly become a viable and often preferred treatment strategy compared to surgical aortic valve replacement. However, transcatheter heart valve system deployment not infrequently injures the specialized electrical system of the heart, leading to new conduction disorders including high-grade atrioventricular block and complete heart block (CHB) necessitating permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), which may lead to deleterious effects on cardiac function and patient outcomes. Additional conduction disturbances (e.g., new-onset persistent left bundle branch block, PR/QRS prolongation, and transient CHB) currently lack clearly defined management algorithms leading to variable strategies among institutions. This article outlines the current understanding of the pathophysiology, patient and procedural risk factors, means for further risk stratification and monitoring of patients without a clear indication for PPI, our institutional approach, and future directions in the management and evaluation of post-TAVR conduction disturbances.

Impact of Morbid Obesity and Obesity Phenotype on Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Background There is a paucity of outcome data on patients who are morbidly obese (MO) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. We aimed to determine their periprocedural and midterm outcomes and investigate the impact of obesity phenotype. Methods and Results Consecutive patients who are MO (body mass index, ≥40 kg/m2, or ≥35 kg/m2 with obesity-related comorbidities; n=910) with severe aortic stenosis who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement in 18 tertiary hospitals were compared with a nonobese cohort (body mass index, 18.5-29.9 kg/m2, n=2264). Propensity-score matching resulted in 770 pairs. Pre-transcatheter aortic valve replacement computed tomography scans were centrally analyzed to assess adipose tissue distribution; epicardial, abdominal visceral and subcutaneous fat. Major vascular complications were more common (6.6% versus 4.3%; P=0.043) and device success was less frequent (84.4% versus 88.1%; P=0.038) in the MO group. Freedom from all-cause and cardiovascular mortality were similar at 2 years (79.4 versus 80.6%, P=0.731; and 88.7 versus 87.4%, P=0.699; MO and nonobese, respectively). Multivariable analysis identified baseline glomerular filtration rate and nontransfemoral access as independent predictors of 2-year mortality in the MO group. An adverse MO phenotype with an abdominal visceral adipose tissue:subcutaneous adipose tissue ratio ≥1 (VAT:SAT) was associated with increased 2-year all-cause (hazard ratio [HR], 3.06; 95% CI, 1.20-7.77; P=0.019) and cardiovascular (hazard ratio, 4.11; 95% CI, 1.06-15.90; P=0.041) mortality, and readmissions (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.07-3.07; P=0.027). After multivariable analysis, a (VAT:SAT) ratio ≥1 remained a strong predictor of 2-year mortality (hazard ratio, 2.78; P=0.035). Conclusions Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients who are MO has similar short- and midterm outcomes to nonobese patients, despite higher major vascular complications and lower device success. An abdominal VAT:SAT ratio ≥1 identifies an obesity phenotype at higher risk of adverse clinical outcomes.

Impact of Preinfection Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction on Outcomes in COVID-19 Infection.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has high infectivity and causes extensive morbidity and mortality. Cardiovascular disease is a risk factor for adverse outcomes in COVID-19, but baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in particular has not been evaluated thoroughly in this context. We analyzed patients in our state's largest health system who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 20 and May 15, 2020. Inclusion required an available echocardiogram within 1 year prior to diagnosis. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. LVEF was analyzed both as a continuous variable and using a cutoff of 40%. Among 396 patients (67 ± 16 years, 191 [48%] male, 235 [59%] Black, 59 [15%] LVEF ≤40%), 289 (73%) required hospital admission, and 116 (29%) died during 85 ± 63 days of follow-up. Echocardiograms, performed a median of 57 (IQR 11-122) days prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, showed a similar distribution of LVEF between survivors and decedents (P = 0.84). Receiver operator characteristic analysis revealed no predictive ability of LVEF for mortality, and there was no difference in survival among those with LVEF ≤40% versus >40% (P = 0.49). Multivariable analysis did not change these relationships. Similarly, there was no difference in LVEF based on whether the patient required hospital admission (56 ± 13 vs 55 ± 13, P = 0.38), and patients with a depressed LVEF did not require admission more frequently than their preserved-LVEF peers (P = 0.87). A premorbid history of dyspnea consistent with symptomatic heart failure was not associated with mortality (P = 0.74). Among patients diagnosed with COVID-19, pre-COVID-19 LVEF was not a risk factor for death or hospitalization.

Renal Artery Stenosis in the Patient with Hypertension: Prevalence, Impact and Management.

Atherosclerosis is the primary cause of renal artery stenosis. Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (ARAS) is associated with three clinical problems: renovascular hypertension, ischemic nephropathy and cardiac destabilization syndrome which pose huge healthcare implications. There is a significant rate of natural disease progression with worsening severity of renal artery stenosis when renal revascularization is not pursued in a timely manner. Selective sub-groups of individuals with ARAS have had good outcomes after percutaneous renal artery stenting (PTRAS). For example, individuals that underwent PTRAS and had improved renal function were reported to have a 45% survival advantage compared to those without improvement in their renal function. Advances in the imaging tools have allowed for better anatomic and physiologic measurements of ARAS. Measuring translesional hemodynamic gradients has allowed for accurate assessment of ARAS severity. Renal revascularization with PTRAS provides a survival advantage in individuals with significant hemodynamic renal artery stenosis lesions. It is important that we screen, diagnosis, intervene with invasive and medical treatments appropriately in these high-risk patients.