Clinical value of the 20% logistic EuroSCORE cut-off for selecting TAVI candidates: a single-centre cohort study analysis.

Background: A logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (logEuroSCORE) ≥20% is frequently recognised as a finite criteria for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) reimbursement, despite guideline modifications to reflect the appropriacy of TAVI in selected lower-risk patients. The aim was to evaluate the clinical value of this threshold cut-off in TAVI patients and to identify factors associated with mortality in those below this threshold. Methods: We analysed data from a single-centre, German, observational, TAVI-patient registry, gathered between 2008 and 2016. Patients were stratified by logEuroSCORE (≥ or <20%) for comparisons. Logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of mortality at 1 year, with this analysis used to generate a calculated ('real') risk value for each patient. Results: 1679 patients (logEuroSCORE <20%: n=789; logEuroSCORE ≥20%: n=890) were included. LogEuroSCORE <20% patients were significantly younger (80.1 vs 81.6 years; p<0.001) and less comorbid than logEuroSCORE ≥20% patients, with a higher rate of transfemoral TAVI (35.6% vs 26.1%; p<0.001) and predilation (70.0% vs 63.3%; p=0.004). Patients with a logEuroSCORE <20% experienced more vascular complications (3.4% vs 1.5%; p=0.010). One-year survival was 88.3% in the logEuroSCORE <20% and 81.8% in the logEuroSCORE ≥20% group (p=0.005), with the calculated mortality risk falling within 2% of the logEuroSCORE in just 12.9% of patients. In the logEuroSCORE <20% group, only coronary artery disease was significantly predictive of 1-year mortality (OR 2.408; 95% CI 1.361 to 4.262; p=0.003). Conclusions: At our institution, patients with a logEuroSCORE <20% selected for TAVI have excellent outcomes. The decision not to reimburse TAVI in such patients may be viewed as inappropriate.

Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with a low ejection fraction.

OBJECTIVES: It may be expected that patients with left ventricular dysfunction may be at greater risk of complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) via transapical (TA) access compared with via transfemoral (TF) access. There is a lack of data comparing the outcomes of TAVI using TA and TF access in patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (EF). METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of data from a high-volume heart centre in Germany. TAVI access route assignment was based on a 'best for TF' approach, where only patients who met a strict set of criteria underwent TF-TAVI, with the remainder receiving TA-TAVI. For this analysis, patients were included if they had a pre-TAVI EF of ≤ 40%. Early mortality and late (1-year) mortality were compared through multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 342 patients in the registry had an EF of ≤ 40%, of which 74.9% underwent TA-TAVI and 25.1% underwent TF-TAVI. Higher proportions of the TA group presented with certain comorbidities, and their logistic EuroSCORE and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk scores were higher than in the TF group. At 1 year, TA access was associated with greater mortality in the univariate analysis (odd ratio 2.43; 95% confidence interval 1.04-5.69). However, after multivariate adjustment, no significant differences were found in either 30-day or 1-year mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that, for patients with a reduced EF, TA-TAVI is not associated with a poorer outcome compared with TF-TAVI. Therefore, TA access should not be discounted based on the presence of left ventricular dysfunction alone.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation at a high-volume center: the Bad Rothenfelde experience.

INTRODUCTION: The "transfemoral (TF) first" approach to access route selection in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is popular; however, the risk of major vascular complications is substantial. The "best for TF" approach identifies only the patients with ideal anatomy for TF-TAVI, potentially minimizing complications. AIM: To characterize the outcomes of patients undergoing TAVI at a large-volume site that employs this approach. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients who underwent TAVI at the Bad Rothenfelde Heart Centre between 2008 and 2016 were consecutively enrolled. Findings were compared to those from large, multicenter registries. RESULTS: Of the 1,644 patients enrolled, 1,140 underwent TA- and 504 TF-TAVI. Comorbidities were more frequent in TA patients, who also had higher risk scores (EuroSCORE: 25.5% vs. 21.2%; STS score: 11.0% vs. 7.5%; p < 0.001 for both). Rates of conversion to open surgery, major vascular complications and intra-procedural mortality did not differ between groups. At 30 days, mortality rates were higher in the TA group (3.9% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.036). Stroke/transient ischemic attack and permanent pacemaker implantation rates did not differ significantly between groups (2.0% and 9.1% overall, respectively). Compared to multicenter registries, trends in mortality and complication rates were similar, though magnitudes were lower in the present study. In contrast with the present study, major vascular complication rates in multicenter registries are significantly higher for TF compared to TA patients. CONCLUSIONS: At this high-volume center, the use of a "best for TF" approach to TAVI resulted in low mortality and complication rates.

Benefits of "Best for Groin" Strategy Leading to a Transapical TAVI Dominance.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a recognized therapeutic option for high-risk and inoperable patients with aortic valve stenosis. The choice of access route is a matter of debate. We are presenting our 5-year experience of transapical TAVI dominance. PATIENTS: This single-center study includes 575 patients. Two groups were compared: transapical (TA) and transfemoral (TF) with 454 and 121 patients, respectively. Individual access route decision was made by our heart team following a clinical and computed tomography (CT) data based nonbiased strategy. The same team performed all procedures. The mean logistic EuroSCORE was significantly higher in the TA group, however, without difference in STS score. The number of patients with coronary artery disease, previous cardiac surgery, and low left ventricular ejection fraction was higher in the TA group. There were no significant differences in age and presence of other comorbidities. RESULTS: Procedural success in both TA and TF groups was high (97.9% and 97.6%). No patient died during the procedure. Patient survival (30 days: TF, 97.5% vs. TA, 95.7%; 1 year: TF, 94.6% vs. TA, 81.8%; 2 years: TF, 84.7% vs. TA, 76.7%; 3 years: TF, 59.9% vs. TA, 67.8%) and a low TF vascular complication rate (1.6%) are encouraging compared with other registry data. CONCLUSION: A "no competition" team approach strategy along with an experienced hybrid team leads to fewer vascular complications and better outcomes for both TA and TF TAVI patients.

Transapical angiography in a patient with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TA-TAVI) is the method of choice in patients with severe stenosis of the aortic valve, high operative risk, and an adverse peripheral vasculature. The procedure is generally guided by peripheral arterial access angiography. We report on a 71-year-old patient in whom, because of the absence of an alternative peripheral arterial access route, TA-TAVI was supported by the apical insertion of the angiography catheter. This approach was effective and safe, and proper valve deployment was feasible without unexpected procedural complications.

Reversal of flow in the mammary artery to treat subclavian steal syndrome in conjunction with coronary bypass surgery.

Occasionally patients with multi-vessel disease present with coronary stenoses and subclavian steal syndrome. A novel surgical approach for the treatment of these vascular problems is described. The in situ left internal mammary artery was used to create an aortosubclavian shunt, thus restoring antegrade vertebral flow and vein grafts were used for coronary revascularization.