A Scoping Review of Definitions of Success in Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair.

INTRODUCTION: The present standard of care to treat aortic arch pathologies is open surgical repair with cardiopulmonary bypass and deep hypothermic arrest. With approaches for total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid arch repair becoming more diverse, understanding what is considered a successful operation is prerequisite for a rigorous comparison of techniques. This review describes the specific outcomes reported, the rates of success, and the definitions of technical and clinical success in total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid aortic arch repair. METHODS: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed. Studies with patients undergoing total endovascular or hybrid extra-anatomic cervical debranching repair of the aortic arch were included. Any publications including only patients with Ishimaru zone 2 or distal repairs were excluded from this review. Studies with less than 5 patients were excluded. Data extraction was performed by one author. Data items included were study design, procedure type, procedural details, underlying pathology, type of cervical debranching, type of endograft repair, surgical outcomes, definition of cerebrovascular events, technical success, and the definition of technical success. RESULTS: Of 1754 studies screened for review, 85 studies with 5521 patients were included. By frequency, the included studies examined the following interventions: fenestrated devices, branched devices, parallel grafting. Most studies were retrospective single-institution studies. There were no randomized controlled trials. Short-term mortality and cerebrovascular events were nearly universally reported, present in 99% and 95% of studies reviewed, respectively. Only 27% of studies provided an explicit definition for cerebrovascular events. While 75% of studies reported a technical success rate, only 45% of those studies provided explicit criteria. Clinical success rates were infrequently reported, present in only 5.9% of studies reviewed. CONCLUSION: The definitions of technical success that were provided fell short of analogous defined reporting standards in nearly all studies, inflating technical success rates. Definitions of cerebrovascular events and technical success require stringent criteria to uniformly compare various methods of endovascular aortic arch repair. A societal consensus document for reporting standards of endovascular aortic arch repair would allow for higher-quality outcomes research. CLINICAL IMPACT: Total endovascular and extra-anatomic cervical debranching hybrid operations are being increasingly utilized for complex aortic arch repair. These techniques, however, can be associated with serious complications. Currently, there is no accepted metric to define technical or report clinical outcomes. Due to the paucity of high-quality data, use of these approaches may be limited in clinical practice. This study emphasizes the need for the development of standards for reporting outcomes in endovascular aortic arch repair. Future studies can then utilize these benchmarks, whcih will allow for improved efficacy and safety in these techniques.

Transcatheter heart valve explant with infective endocarditis-associated prosthesis failure and outcomes: the EXPLANT-TAVR international registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Surgical explantation of transcatheter heart valves (THVs) is rapidly increasing, but there are limited data on patients with THV-associated infective endocarditis (IE). This study aims to assess the outcomes of patients undergoing THV explant for IE. METHODS: All patients who underwent THV explant between 2011 and 2022 from 44 sites in the EXPLANT-TAVR registry were identified. Patients with IE as the reason for THV explant were compared to those with other mechanisms of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD). RESULTS: A total of 372 patients from the EXPLANT-TAVR registry were included. Among them, 184 (49.5%) patients underwent THV explant due to IE and 188 (50.5%) patients due to BVD. At the index transcatheter aortic valve replacement, patients undergoing THV explant for IE were older (74.3 ± 8.6 vs. 71 ± 10.6 years) and had a lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score [2.6% (1.8-5.0) vs. 3.3% (2.1-5.6), P = .029] compared to patients with BVD. Compared to BVD, IE patients had longer intensive care unit and hospital stays (P < .05) and higher stroke rates at 30 days (8.6% vs. 2.9%, P = .032) and 1 year (16.2% vs. 5.2%, P = .010). Adjusted in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year mortality was 12.1%, 16.1%, and 33.8%, respectively, for the entire cohort, with no significant differences between groups. Although mortality was numerically higher in IE patients 3 years postsurgery (29.6% for BVD vs. 43.9% for IE), Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant differences between groups (P = .16). CONCLUSIONS: In the EXPLANT-TAVR registry, patients undergoing THV explant for IE had higher 30-day and 1-year stroke rates and longer intensive care unit and hospital stays. Moreover, patients undergoing THV explant for IE had a higher 3-year mortality rate, which did not reach statistical significance given the relatively small sample size of this unique cohort and the reduced number of events.

Effects of RBT-1 on preconditioning response biomarkers in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft or heart valve surgery: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial.

Background: RBT-1 is a combination drug of stannic protoporfin (SnPP) and iron sucrose (FeS) that elicits a preconditioning response through activation of antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and iron-scavenging pathways, as measured by heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1), interleukin-10 (IL-10), and ferritin, respectively. Our primary aim was to determine whether RBT-1 administered before surgery would safely and effectively elicit a preconditioning response in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Methods: This phase 2, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, adaptive trial, conducted in 19 centres across the USA, Canada, and Australia, enrolled patients scheduled to undergo non-emergent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and/or heart valve surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Patients were randomised (1:1:1) to receive either a single intravenous infusion of high-dose RBT-1 (90 mg SnPP/240 mg FeS), low-dose RBT-1 (45 mg SnPP/240 mg FeS), or placebo within 24-48 h before surgery. The primary outcome was a preoperative preconditioning response, measured by a composite of plasma HO-1, IL-10, and ferritin. Safety was assessed by adverse events and laboratory parameters. Prespecified adaptive criteria permitted early stopping and enrichment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04564833. Findings: Between Aug 4, 2021, and Nov 9, 2022, of 135 patients who were enrolled and randomly allocated to a study group (46 high-dose, 45 low-dose, 44 placebo), 132 (98%) were included in the primary analysis (46 high-dose, 42 low-dose, 44 placebo). At interim, the trial proceeded to full enrollment without enrichment. RBT-1 led to a greater preconditioning response than did placebo at high-dose (geometric least squares mean [GLSM] ratio, 3.58; 95% CI, 2.91-4.41; p < 0.0001) and low-dose (GLSM ratio, 2.62; 95% CI, 2.11-3.24; p < 0.0001). RBT-1 was generally well tolerated by patients. The primary drug-related adverse event was dose-dependent photosensitivity, observed in 12 (26%) of 46 patients treated with high-dose RBT-1 and in six (13%) of 45 patients treated with low-dose RBT-1 (safety population). Interpretation: RBT-1 demonstrated a statistically significant cytoprotective preconditioning response and a manageable safety profile. Further research is needed. A phase 3 trial is planned. Funding: Renibus Therapeutics, Inc.

Atrial fibrillation symptom reduction and improved quality of life following the hybrid convergent procedure: a CONVERGE trial subanalysis.

Background: CONVERGE was a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial that evaluated the safety of Hybrid Atrial Fibrillation Convergent (HC) and compared its effectiveness to endocardial catheter ablation (CA) for the treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation (PersAF) and longstanding PersAF (LSPAF). In 2020, we reported that CONVERGE met its primary safety and effectiveness endpoints. The primary objective of the present study is to report CONVERGE trial results for quality of life (QOL) and Class I/III anti-arrhythmic drug (AAD) utilization following HC. Methods: Eligible patients had drug-refractory symptomatic PersAF or LSPAF and a left atrium diameter ≤6.0 cm. Enrolled patients were randomized 2:1 to receive HC or CA. Atrial Fibrillation Severity Scale (AFSS) and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) were assessed at baseline and 12 months; statistical comparison was performed using paired t-tests. AAD utilization at baseline through 12 and 18 months post-procedure was evaluated; statistical comparison was performed using McNemar's tests. Results: A total of 153 patients were treated with either HC (n=102) or CA (n=51). Of the 102 HC patients, 38 had LSPAF. AFSS and SF-36 Mental and Physical Component scores were significantly improved at 12 months versus baseline with HC overall and for the subset of LSPAF patients treated with either HC or CA. The proportion of HC patients (n=102) who used Class I /III AADs at 12 and 18 months was significantly less (33.3% and 36.3%, respectively) than baseline (84.3%; P<0.001). In LSPAF patients who underwent HC (n=38), AADs use was 29.0% through 18 months follow-up versus 71.1% at baseline (P<0.001). Conclusions: HC reduced AF symptoms, significantly improved QOL, and reduced AAD use in patients with PersAF and LSPAF. ClinicalTrialsgov Identifier: NCT01984346.

Self-expanding and balloon-expandable valves in low risk TAVR patients.

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized studies have broadened the indication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to also include low-surgical-risk patients. However, the data on self-expanding (SE) and balloon-expandable (BE) valves in low-risk patients remain sparse. METHODS: The current study is a post hoc analysis of combined data from both LRT 1.0 and 2.0 trials comparing BE and SE transcatheter heart valves. RESULTS: A total of 294 patients received a BE valve, and 102 patients received an SE valve. The 30-day clinical outcomes were similar across both groups except for stroke (4.9% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.014) and permanent pacemaker implantation (17.8% vs. 5.8%, p < 0.001), which were higher in the SE cohort than the BE cohort. No difference was observed in terms of paravalvular leak (≥moderate) between the groups (0% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.577). SE patients had higher aortic valve area (1.92 ± 0.43 mm2 vs. 1.69 ± 0.45 mm2, p < 0.001) and lower mean gradient (8.93 ± 3.53 mmHg vs. 13.41 ± 4.73 mmHg, p < 0.001) than BE patients. In addition, the rate of subclinical leaflet thrombosis was significantly lower in SE patients (5.6% vs. 13.8%, p = 0.038). CONCLUSION: In this non-randomized study assessing SE and BE valves in low-risk TAVR patients, SE valves are associated with better hemodynamics and lesser leaflet thrombosis, with increased rates of stroke and permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days; however, this could be due to certain patient-dependent factors not fully evaluated in this study. The long-term implications of these outcomes on structural valve durability remain to be further investigated. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: LRT 1.0: NCT02628899 LRT 2.0: NCT03557242.