Impact of lead position on tricuspid regurgitation, ventricular function, and heart failure exacerbation and mortality after cardiac implantable electronic device implantation. Preliminary results from the PACE-RVTR Registry.

BACKGROUND: The most frequent mechanism of lead-related tricuspid regurgitation (LRTR), which occurs in 7.2% to 44.7% of patients implanted with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED), is leaflet impingement or the restriction of its movement by a ventricular lead. It is unclear if the position of the lead tip - in the right ventricular apex (RVA) or other location (non-RVA) - has any influence on the development of LRTR. The study aimed to determine the impact of the CIED lead tip position on the development or progression of tricuspid regurgitation (TR) and its potential impact on heart failure exacerbation and mortality. METHODS: One hundred and two consecutive patients who received CIEDs between March 2020 and October 2021 were included in the prospective registry (PACE-RVTR). Patients were assigned to two groups depending on the lead position - the RVA group and the non-RVA group. All patients underwent echocardiographic evaluation before implantation and one year later. RESULTS: In terms of baseline clinical characteristics, the two groups did not differ. Before CIED implantation, patients in the non-RVA group had better left ventricular systolic function (P = 0.004). Pacemakers were implanted more often in the non-RVA group (P = 0.001) while implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in the RVA group (P = 0.008). Progression to severe or massive TR was more common in the non-RVA group (P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Severe and massive TR occurred more often in patients with the non-RVA position of the lead. The right ventricular lead position did not impact heart failure progression or all-cause mortality at two-year follow-up.

Tricuspid Regurgitation (TR) after Implantation of a Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device (CIED)-One-Year Observation of Patients with or without Left Ventricular Dysfunction.

The frequency of tricuspid regurgitation (TR) progression after cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) implantation varies from 7.2% to 44.7%. TR is associated with increased mortality and hospitalizations due to heart failure (HF) decompensation. The aim of this study was to assess the rate of early TR progression after CIED implantation and the frequency of HF decompensation and mortality. The 101 patients, who received a CIED between March 2020 and October 2021, before the procedure were divided into two groups-one with left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 40% (n = 60) and one with LVEF < 40% (n = 41). Lead-related tricuspid regurgitation (LRTR) was defined as an increase of TR by at least one grade. The follow-up period was similar between both groups and was on average 13 (12-16) months. In the whole study group, TR progression by one grade was 34.6% and by two or more grades 15.8%. The significant changes in the dynamic of TR degree were as follows before and after implantation: none/trivial TR in group 1 (61.7% vs. 28.3%, p = 0.01) and severe/massive TR in group 2 (0.0% vs. 14.6%, p = 0.03). The groups did not differ from each other in terms of survival from decompensation of HF (18.3% vs. 36.6%, p = 0.70) and survival from death (1.7% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.16). At the one-year follow-up, the baseline LVEF did not affect the survival rate from death or HF decompensation among patients with a progression of TR after CIED implantation. In this study, a progression by one grade was more common in group 1, but the occurrence of severe/massive TR after implantation was more specific for group 2.

Double protection in patients with a massive thrombus in the infarct-related artery - a single-center retrospective study.

Introduction: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is associated with thrombus formation on a ruptured or ulcerated atherosclerotic plaque. The consequences of a massive thrombus (MT) may include lack of reperfusion, extensive myocardial infarction (MI) and its complications. Although there are various treatment options for patients with coronary thrombi, double protection (DP) - manual thrombectomy (MTH) with a distal protection device (DPD) - has not been tested yet. Aim: To present DP outcomes in the treatment of patients with STEMI and MT patients. Material and methods: Fourteen patients with STEMI and MT were included in the study. Those patients underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) with DP. Results: Inferior MI was found in 12 (85.8%) patients. Stents were implanted in 13 (92.8%) patients. Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Thrombus Grade 5 was present in 11 (78.6%) patients and Grade 4 in 3 (21.4%) patients. The median thrombus length was 39.1 mm. Complete reperfusion (TIMI flow 3) was observed in 11 (78.6%) patients and TIMI flow 2 in 3 (21.4%) patients. Myocardial Blush Grade (MBG) was used in patients with TIMI flow 3 and Grade 3 was found in 5 (35.7%) patients. Resolution in ST-segment elevation > 50% was obtained in 13 (92.8%) patients. No myocardial rupture, stroke, or death occurred during hospitalization. Conclusions: DP in MT patients is a safe and feasible procedure. However, further observations and studies are needed to assess the efficacy of this method.

Lead-related tricuspid regurgitation and ventricle dysfunction: Current management and future perspectives.

The implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) may result in or worsen previously existing tricuspid regurgitation (TR). The prevelence of lead-related tricuspid regurgitation (LRTR) in patients with CIEDs is between 7.2% and 44.7% when the degree of worsening TR is not reported, or from 9.8% and 38% when it is diagnosed as worsening of TR severity by at least 2 grades after a CIED has been implanted. It has been suggested that a CIED lead positioned over or pinning a leaflet may be the main cause of TR in this patient population. The septal and posterior leaflets of the tricuspid valve have been reported to be the most affected by CIED leads. Severe LRTR is related to the development of heart failure (HF) or worsening of previously existing dysfunction; it is also associated with elevated mortality. However, there are no definitive predictors of LRTR development or standardized methods of treatment. Some studies have suggested that imaging-guided lead placement can reduce the occurrence of LRTR. This review summarizes current knowledge concerning the development, evaluation, consequences, and management of LRTR.

Comparison of outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis treated with small and large Medtronic Evolut R and Evolut PRO self-expandable prosthetic valves.

Introduction: Indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) continue to expand. Very often TAVI must be done in large annuli. Implantation of the bigger prostheses is often associated with more procedural problems, which may affect the outcomes. Aim: To compare the outcomes of TAVI procedures using the self-expandable Medtronic Evolut R 34 with the smaller Evolut R or Evolut Pro 23, 26 or 29. Material and methods: We analysed 87 patients who received self-expandable Medtronic Evolut R and Pro valves. Group I consisted of 59 (67.81%) patients with Evolut 23, 26 or 29, and group II consisted of 28 (32.18%) patients who received an Evolut 34 valve. Results: EuroSCORE II was 5.59 in group I vs 7.87 in group II (p = 0.02). The oversizing rate was higher in group II: 24.1% vs. 18.5% (p < 0.001). The procedure and fluoroscopy times were longer in group II: 209 vs. 187 min (p = 0.03), 44 vs. 27 min (p = 0.01). Moderate paravalvular leak was found more frequently in group II: 5 v 1 (p = 0.04). There was less device success in group II: 22 (78.57%) vs. 57 (96.6%) (p = 0.05). Early safety criteria were similar in both groups: 52 (88.1%) and 24 (92.3%) (p = 0.56). 30-day mortality was similar: 4 (6.7%) vs. 0 in group I and II respectively (p = 0.16). Conclusions: TAVI procedures in patients requiring an Evolut R 34 prosthesis are more challenging than in those who need smaller valves. Paravalvular leaks are more frequently observed after TAVI with Evolut R 34, which results in lower device success.

Comparison of the results of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve.

INTRODUCTION: Indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are constantly expanding, including younger patients. Bicuspid aortic valves (BAV) often occur in this group. In order to achieve optimal treatment results in younger patients, it is necessary to develop an effective method for selecting the size of implanted valves. AIM: To compare the results of TAVI with use of a self-expanding prosthesis in patients with a BAV and a tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) with valve selection based on annular sizing. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The diagnosis of BAV and TAV and measurements (annular sizing) were based on multi-slice computed tomography scans. Eighty-three patients received a self-expanding CoreValve or Evolut R prosthesis. In group I (BAV) there were 21 (25.3%) patients and in group II (TAV) there were 62 (74.7%) patients. RESULTS: The groups did not differ in terms of baseline clinical characteristics. Device success was achieved in 16 (76.2%) and 55 (88.7%) (p = NS) in group I and II respectively. Composite endpoints: early safety occurred in 5 (23.8%) and 11 (17.7%) patients (p =NS) in group I and II respectively; clinical efficacy occurred in 10 (47.6%) and 28 (45.2%) patients (p = NS) in group I and II respectively. 30-day mortality was 4.8% vs 9.7%, 1-year mortality was 28.6% vs 17.7% (p = NS) in group I and II respectively. CONCLUSIONS: TAVI in patients with severe aortic stenosis and BAV is as effective as in patients with TAV using self-expanding prostheses if the valve selection is based on annular sizing.