Insight Into the Optimal Timing of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Patients being considered for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are frequently diagnosed with coronary artery disease. In patients requiring revascularization, there is a paucity of data informing when to perform percutaneous coronary artery intervention (PCI). We evaluated the impact of PCI timing on clinical outcomes and readmissions after TAVR. From the National Readmissions Database 2016 to 2019, we stratified the duration between PCI and TAVR into 3 groups: same-day PCI and TAVR, TAVR ≤30 days after PCI, and TAVR >30 days after PCI. We then compared primary and secondary outcomes among them. A total of 5207 patients were included, 1413 (27.1%) of whom underwent PCI and TAVR on the same day, while 2161 (41.5%) underwent TAVR ≤30 days after PCI, and 1632 (31.3%) underwent TAVR >30 days after PCI. There was no significant difference for in-hospital mortality among the groups (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16-1.48, p = 0.203 for same-day versus ≤30 days; aOR 2.07, 95% CI 0.68-6.30, p = 0.199 for same-day versus >30 days). Patients who underwent TAVR ≤30 days after PCI had higher odds of acute kidney injury (aOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.05-2.10, p = 0.024), nonhome discharge (aOR 1.53, 95% CI 1.20-1.96, p = 0.001), and 90-day readmission (aOR 1.35, 95% CI 1.04-1.76, p = 0.026) compared with those who underwent same-day PCI and TAVR. Concomitant PCI and TAVR was associated with lower rates of 90-day readmissions and acute kidney injury compared with TAVR shortly after PCI (<30 days) and should be considered in select patients.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for patients with severe bicuspid aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (BAV) were excluded from all the trileaflet aortic valve stenosis (TAV) pivotal trials, and therefore, their outcomes are not clearly defined. The aim of the study was to evaluate the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with BAV and compared them with those of TAV. METHODS: We evaluated the outcomes following TAVR of patients with BAV at our institution between April 2011 and November 2016 and compared them with the outcomes of patients with TAV treated with TAVR. The χ2 and the Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare the groups, and a Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to estimate long-term survival. RESULTS: TAVR was performed in a total of 567 patients, from which 50 (8.8%) had BAV and 517 (91.2%) had TAV. Patients with BAV were younger and had higher prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lower prevalence of coronary artery disease, higher body mass index, and lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (STS PROM). Patients with BAV had a slightly higher mean aortic valve gradient postoperatively (median 12 mm Hg [10-15] vs 10 [7-13], P < .001), but paravalvular aortic regurgitation was not different between the groups (> mild 4.0% vs 3.5%, P = .541). Clinical outcomes were not different between the groups, including stroke (2.0% vs 1.5, P = .567) and the 30-day all-cause mortality (6.0% vs 1.5, P = .064). The 2-year survival (82.0% vs 83.4, P = .476) was similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: This initial experience suggests that TAVR can be safely performed in patients with BAV, achieving similar short-term procedural and clinical outcomes when compared with patients with TAV.

Review of alternative access in transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has surpassed surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) as the most common treatment strategy for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis over the past decade. As TAVR technology has continued to advance, it has been expanded from being an option only for extreme risk patients to now being the preferred option for the majority of patients with severe aortic stenosis. Recent trials have shown that TAVR is superior or non-inferior to SAVR even in patients at low surgical risk. One limitation of TAVR is the need for large bore vascular access. This has improved over time with smaller sheath sizes and improved delivery systems, but is still a significant issue in a patient population that often has many comorbidities including peripheral arterial disease. Early in the TAVR experience the only option for alternative access was transapical access, which has consistently been linked to increased procedural complications and worsened clinical outcomes. However, in recent years several centers have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of several alternative access strategies including transaxillary, transcarotid, transcaval, and direct aortic. There are no randomized data comparing these strategies, so access site approach is chosen by the multidisciplinary heart team based on patient anatomy and site expertise. We will review the current data in alternative access that in our view supports prioritizing a transaxillary or transcarotid strategy. In addition, we will describe our center's pre-procedural planning, peri-procedural approach, and propose an algorithm for alternative access.

Evaluation of a Standardized Cardiac Athletic Screening for National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Athletes.

INTRODUCTION: Sudden cardiac death is a rare cause of death in young athletes. Current screening techniques include history and physical exam (H and P), with or without an electrocardiogram (ECG). Adding point of care cardiac ultrasound has demonstrated benefits, but there is limited data about implementing this technology. We evaluated the feasibility of adding ultrasound to preparticipation screening for collegiate athletes. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 42 collegiate athletes randomly selected from several sports. All athletes were screened using a 14-point H and P based on 2014 American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines, ECG, and cardiac ultrasound. RESULTS: We screened 11 female and 31 male athletes. On ultrasound, male athletes demonstrated significantly larger interventricular septal wall thickness (p = 0.002), posterior wall thickness (p <0.001) and aortic root breadth (p = 0.002) compared to females. Based on H and P and ECGs alone and a combination of H and P with ECG, no athletes demonstrated a positive screening for cardiac abnormalities. However, with combined H and P, ECG, and cardiac ultrasound, one athlete demonstrated positive findings. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that adding point of care ultrasound to the preparticipation exam of college athletes is feasible. This workflow may provide a model for athletic departments' screening.

Comparison of Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Versus Without Diabetes Mellitus and With Versus Without Angina Pectoris (from the Duke Databank for Cardiovascular Disease).

Angina pectoris (AP) has different prognostic implications in various populations. Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) may experience neuropathy such that AP may not be perceived in the setting of coronary artery disease (CAD). The prognostic utility of AP in DM patients with CAD is not well known. We analyzed patients with CAD who underwent coronary angiography at Duke University from 2002 to 2011 and compared patients with and without AP within the previous 6 weeks stratified by DM status. We used multivariable Cox regression to assess the association between AP and the outcomes of cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization/revascularization, all-cause mortality/myocardial infarction/revascularization, and all-cause mortality. Of 17,211 patients with CAD, 5,284 (31%) had DM and AP was present in 69% of DM and 67% of non-DM. After risk adjustment, the risk of CV hospitalization/revascularization and all-cause mortality/myocardial infarction/revascularization in patients with and without AP was similar regardless of DM status (all p ≥0.05). In patients with or without DM, AP was associated with lower all-cause mortality compared with no AP (adjusted hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 0.97, p = 0.005 for DM patients). The relation between AP status and clinical outcomes was not dependent on DM status (all interaction p >0.10). In conclusion, in patients with CAD, AP was associated with similar risk for CV hospitalization and revascularization and lower all-cause mortality compared with patients without AP regardless of DM status. Future studies are needed to assess whether these findings are related to increased severity of disease in those without AP or whether AP leads to differential management that improves survival.

Response to Exercise Training and Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure and Diabetes Mellitus: Insights From the HF-ACTION Trial.

BACKGROUND: In HF-ACTION (Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training), exercise training improved functional capacity in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Previous studies have suggested that diabetes mellitus (DM) may be associated with an attenuated response to exercise. We explored whether DM attenuated the improvement in functional capacity with exercise. METHODS AND RESULTS: HF-ACTION randomized 2331 patients with HFrEF to medical therapy with or without exercise training over a median follow-up of 2.5 years. We examined the interaction between DM and exercise response measured by change in 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) and peak VO2. We also examined outcomes by DM status. In HF-ACTION, 748 (32%) patients had DM. DM patients had lower functional capacity at baseline and had lower exercise volumes at 3 months. There was a significant interaction between DM status and exercise training for change in peak VO2 (interaction P = .02), but not 6MWD. In the exercise arm, DM patients had a smaller mean increase in peak VO2 than non-DM patients (P = .03). There was no interaction between DM and exercise on clinical outcomes. After risk adjustment, DM was associated with increased all-cause mortality/hospitalization (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: In HF-ACTION, DM was associated with lower baseline functional capacity, an attenuated improvement in peak VO2, and increased hospitalizations.

Supervised vs unsupervised exercise for intermittent claudication: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Supervised exercise (SE) is widely accepted as an effective therapy for intermittent claudication (IC), but its use is limited by cost. Unsupervised exercise (UE) represents a less costly alternative. We assessed the comparative effectiveness of SE vs UE in patients with IC. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and identified 27 unique studies (24 randomized controlled trials, 4 observational studies) that evaluated the comparative effectiveness of SE vs UE in 2074 patients with IC. Compared with UE, SE was associated with a moderate improvement in maximal walking distance at 6 months (effect size 0.77, 95% CI 0.36-1.17, P < .001) and 12 months (effect size 0.56, 95% CI 0.34-0.77, P < .001). Supervised exercise also improved claudication distance to a moderate extent compared with UE at 6 months (effect size 0.63, 95% CI 0.40-0.85, P < .001) and 12 months (effect size 0.41, 95% CI 0.18-0.65, P = .001). There was no difference in the Short Form-36 quality of life at 6 months (effect size -0.05, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.41, P = .84) or walking impairment questionnaire distance (effect size 0.24, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.50, P = .08) or speed (effect size 0.26, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.59, P = .11). CONCLUSIONS: In claudication patients, SE is more effective than UE at improving maximal walking and claudication distances, yet there is no difference in general quality of life or patient-reported community-based walking. Further studies are needed to investigate the relationship between functional gain and disease-specific quality of life.