Feasibility of Non-Invasive Coronary Artery Disease Screening with Coronary CT Angiography before Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Coronary artery disease (CAD) screening is usually performed before transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) by invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Computed coronary tomography angiography (CCTA) has shown good diagnostic performance for CAD screening in patients with a low probability of CAD and is systematically performed before TAVI. CCTA could be an efficient alternative to ICA for CAD screening before TAVI. We sought to investigate the diagnostic performance of CCTA in a population of unselected patients without known CAD who were candidates for TAVI. All consecutive patients referred to our center for TAVI without known CAD were enrolled. All patients underwent CCTA and ICA, which were considered the gold standard. A statistical analysis of the diagnostic performance per patient and per artery was performed. 307 consecutive patients were enrolled. CCTA was non-analyzable in 25 patients (8.9%). In the per-patient analysis, CCTA had a sensitivity of 89.6%, a specificity of 90.2%, a positive predictive value of 65.15%, and a negative predictive value of 97.7%. Only five patients were classified as false negatives on the CCTA. Despite some limitations of the study, CCTA seems reliable for CAD screening in patients without known CAD who are candidates for TAVI. By using CCTA, ICA could be avoided in patients with a CAD-RADS score ≤ 2, which represents 74.8% of patients.

Reintervention of Residual Aortic Dissection after Type A Aortic Repair: Results of a Prospective Follow-Up at 5 Years.

Background After a type A aortic dissection repair, a patent false lumen in the descending aorta is the most common situation encountered, and is a well-known risk factor for aortic growth, reinterventions and mortality. The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term results of residual aortic dissection (RAD) at a high-volume aortic center with prospective follow-up. Methods In this prospective single-center study, all patients operated for type A aortic dissection between January 2017 and December 2022 were included. Patients without postoperative computed tomography scans or during follow-up at our center, and patients without RAD were excluded. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality during follow-up for patients with RAD. The secondary endpoints were perioperative mortality, rate of distal aneurysmal evolution, location of distal aneurysmal evolution, rate of distal reinterventions, outcomes of distal reinterventions, and aortic-related death during follow-up. Results In total, 200 survivors of RAD comprised the study group. After a mean follow-up of 27.2 months (1-66), eight patients (4.0%) died and 107 (53.5%) had an aneurysmal progression. The rate of distal reintervention was 19.5% (39/200), for malperfusion syndrome in seven cases (3.5%) and aneurysmal evolution in 32 cases (16.0%). Most reinterventions occurred during the first 2 years (82.1%). Twenty-seven patients were treated for an aneurysmal evolution of RAD including aortic arch with hybrid repair in 21 cases and branched aortic arch endoprosthesis in six cases. In the hybrid repair group, there was no death, and the rate of morbidity was 28.6% (6/21) (one minor stroke, one pulmonary complication, one recurrent paralysis with complete recovery and three major bleeding events). In the branched endograft group, there was no death, no stroke, and no paraplegia. There was one case (16.7%) of carotid dissection. Complete aortic remodeling or complete FL thrombosis on the thoracic aorta was found in 18 cases (85.7%) and in five cases (83.3%) in the hybrid and branched endograft groups, respectively. Conclusions: Despite a critical course in most cases of RAD, with a high rate of aneurysmal evolution and reintervention, the long-term mortality rate remains low with a close follow-up and a multidisciplinary management in an expert center.

Long-Term Prognosis Value of Paravalvular Leak and Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Insight from the France-TAVI Registry.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the preferred treatment for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) in a majority of patients across all surgical risks. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Paravalvular leak (PVL) and patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) are two frequent complications of TAVI. Therefore, based on the large France-TAVI registry, we planned to report the incidence of both complications following TAVI, evaluate their respective risk factors, and study their respective impacts on long-term clinical outcomes, including mortality. RESULTS: We identified 47,494 patients in the database who underwent a TAVI in France between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2019. Within this population, 17,742 patients had information regarding PPM status (5138 with moderate-to-severe PPM, 29.0%) and 20,878 had information regarding PVL (4056 with PVL ≥ 2, 19.4%). After adjustment, the risk factors for PVL ≥ 2 were a lower body mass index (BMI), a high baseline mean aortic gradient, a higher body surface area, a lower ejection fraction, a smaller diameter of TAVI, and a self-expandable TAVI device, while for moderate-to-severe PPM we identified a younger age, a lower BMI, a larger body surface area, a low aortic annulus area, a low ejection fraction, and a smaller diameter TAVI device (OR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83-0.86) as predictors. At 6.5 years, PVL ≥ 2 was an independent predictor of mortality and was associated with higher mortality risk. PPM was not associated with increased risk of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis from the France-TAVI registry showed that both moderate-to-severe PPM and PVL ≥ 2 continue to be frequently observed after the TAVI procedure. Different risk factors, mostly related to the patient's anatomy and TAVI device selection, for both complications have been identified. Only PVL ≥ 2 was associated with higher mortality during follow-up.

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch in Small Aortic Annuli: Self-Expandable vs. Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Prosthesis−patient mismatch (PPM) is associated with worse outcomes following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). PPM has been identified in a significant proportion of TAVR, particularly in patients with small aortic annuli. Our objective was to evaluate the hemodynamic performances of balloon-expandable (BE) (Sapiens 3TM) versus two different self-expandable (SE) (Evolut ProTM, Accurate NeoTM) TAVR devices in patients with small aortic annulus defined by a computed tomography aortic annulus area (AAA) between 330 and 440 mm2. We enrolled 131 consecutive patients corresponding to 76 Sapiens 3 23 mm (58.0%), 26 Evolut Pro (19.9%) and 29 Accurate Neo (22.1%). Mean age was 82.5 ± 7.06 years, 22.9% of patients were male and mean Euroscore was 4.0%. Mean AAA was 374 ± 27 mm2 for Sapiens 3, 383 ± 29 mm2 for Corevalve Evolut Pro and 389 ± 25 mm2 for Accurate Neo. BE devices were associated with significantly higher rates of PPM (39.5%) as compared to SE devices (15.4% for Corevalve Evolut Pro and 6.9% for Accurate Neo) (p < 0.0001). Paravalvular leaks ≥ 2/4 were more often observed in SE devices (15.4% for Corevalve Evolut Pro and 17.2% for Accurate Neo) than in BE devices (2.6%) (p = 0.007). In conclusion, SE TAVR devices did achieve better hemodynamic results despite higher rates of paravalvular leaks. Therefore, SE TAVI devices could be considered as first choice in small aortic anatomy.

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome-related refractory cardiogenic shock in adults after coronavirus disease 2019 infection: a case series.

Background: A novel multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) temporally associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection has been reported, arising weeks after the peak incidence of COVID-19 infection in adults. Patients with MIS-C have been reported to have cardiac involvement and clinical features overlapping with other acute inflammatory syndromes such as Kawasaki disease, toxic shock syndrome, and macrophage activation syndrome. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children may follow COVID-19 infection, most of the time after its asymptomatic form, even though it can lead to serious and life-threatening illness. Case summary: In this case series, we discuss two cases of young adults with no former medical history who fit with the criteria defined in MIS-C. They both developed a refractory cardiogenic shock and required intensive care treatment including mechanical circulatory support, specifically the use of venous-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. They were both treated early with intravenous immune globulin and adjunctive high-dose steroids. They recovered ad integrum in less than 2 weeks. Discussion: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children occurs 2-4 weeks after infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Patients with MIS-C should ideally be managed in an intensive care environment since rapid clinical deterioration may occur. It would be preferable to have a multidisciplinary care to improve outcomes. Patients should be monitored for shock. Elucidating the mechanism of this new entity may have importance for understanding COVID-19 far beyond the patients who have had MIS-C to date. The pathogenesis seems to involve post-infectious immune dysregulation so early administration intravenous immune globulin associated with corticosteroids appears appropriate. It implies early recognition of the syndrome even in young adults.

Myocardial Revascularization Strategies in ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Without Urgent Revascularization: Insight From a Nationwide Study.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the outcomes of patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) without early (<48 hours) revascularization, according to percutaneous versus surgical revascularization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Based on the French administrative hospital discharge database, the study collected information for all consecutive patients seen for a STEMI in France between January 1, 2010, to June 31, 2019, who underwent either a first percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or a first coronary artery bypass graft between 48 hours and 90 days after the index hospitalization. Propensity score matching was used for the analysis of outcomes. RESULTS: Of 71,365 patients with STEMI in the analysis, 59,340 patients underwent PCI and 12,025 patients underwent coronary artery bypass graft. In a matched analysis of 12,012 patients by arm, surgical revascularization was associated with lower rates of all cause (5.1% vs 7.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.75) and cardiovascular (2.6% vs 3.1%; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.91) death. Rehospitalization for heart failure was less often reported after surgery (5.5% vs 7.5%; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.81) whereas stroke incidence was not statistically different between the two arms (2.1% vs 2.3%; HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.00). Major bleeding was less often reported in the PCI arm (4.6% vs 6.1%; HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.22 to 1.41). CONCLUSION: In patients with STEMI who did not undergo urgent revascularization (ie, within 48 hours after presentation), surgical revascularization was associated with better outcomes and should be individually considered as an alternative to PCI.

Outcomes Following Aortic Stenosis Treatment (Transcatheter vs Surgical Replacement) in Women vs Men (From a Nationwide Analysis).

Gender-differences in survival following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) have been suggested. The objective of this study was to analyze outcomes following TAVR according to gender and to compare outcomes between TAVR and SAVR in women, at a nationwide level. Based on the French administrative hospital-discharge database, the study collected information for all consecutive patients treated with TAVR and SAVR between 2010 and 2019. Outcomes were analyzed according to gender and propensity score matching was used for the analysis of outcomes. In total 71,794 patients were identified in the database. After matching on baseline characteristics, we analyzed 12,336 women and 12,336 men treated with TAVR. In a second matched analysis, we compared 9,297 women treated with TAVR and 9,297 women treated with SAVR. Long term follow-up showed lower risk of all-cause death (12.7% vs 14.8%, hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90) in women than men. Although the difference in cardiovascular death remained non-significant (5.8% vs 6.0%, HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05), non-cardiovascular death was less frequent in women than in men following TAVR (6.9% vs 8.8% HR 0.78, 95%CI 0.72 to 0.84).When TAVR was compared with SAVR in women, long-term follow-up with TAVR showed higher rates of all-cause death (11.2% vs 6.5%, HR 1.91, 95%CI 1.78 to 2.05), cardiovascular death (5.0% vs 3.2%, HR 1.44, 95%CI 1.30 to 1.59), and non-cardiovascular death (6.2% vs 3.3%, HR 2.48, 95% CI 2.25 to 2.72). In conclusion, we observed that women undergoing TAVR have lower long-term all-cause mortality as compared with TAVR in men, driven by non-cardiovascular mortality. SAVR was associated with lower rates of long-term cardiovascular adverse events in women as compared with TAVR.

Rapid deployment versus trans-catheter aortic valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: A propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are insufficient studies comparing rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) and trans-aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). AIMS: We compared 2-year outcomes between RDAVR with INTUITY and TAVR with SAPIEN 3 in intermediate-risk patients with AS. METHODS: Inclusion criteria were patients with severe AS at a EuroSCORE II ≥ 4%, who received RDAVR or TAVR implantation and clinical evaluation by the Heart Team. Regression adjustment for the propensity score was used to compare RDAVR and TAVR. Primary outcome was the composite criterion of death, disabling stroke, or rehospitalization. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: major bleeding complications postoperation, paravalvular regurgitation ≥ 2, patient-prosthesis mismatch, and pacemaker implantation. RESULTS: A total of 152 patients were included from 2012 to 2018: 48 in the RDAVR group and 104 in the TAVR group. The mean age was 82.7 ± 6.0,51.3% patients were female, the mean EuroSCORE II was 6.03 ± 1.6%, mean baseline LVEF was 56 ± 13%, mean indexed effective orifice area was 0.41 ± 0.1 cm/m2 , and the mean gradient was 51.7 ± 14.7 mmHg. RDAVR patients were younger (79.5 ± 6 years vs. 82.6 ± 6 years; p = .01), and at higher risk (EuroSCORE II, 6.61 ± 1.8% vs. 5.63 ± 1.5%; p = .005), Twenty-two patients (45.99%) in the RDAVR group and 32 (66.67%) in the TAVR group met the composite criterion. Through the 1:1 propensity score matching analysis, there was a significant difference between the groups, favoring RDAVR (HR = 0.58 [95% CI: 0.34-1.00]; p = .04). No differences were observed in terms of patient-prosthesis mismatch (0.83 [0.35-1.94]; p = .67), major bleeding events (1.33 [0.47-3.93]; p = .59), paravalvular regurgitation ≥ 2 (0.33[0-6.28]; p = .46), or pacemaker implantation (0.84 [0.25-2.84]; p = .77) CONCLUSION: RDAVR was associated with better 2-year outcomes than TAVR in intermediate-risk patients with severe symptomatic AS.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch is an independent predictor of congestive heart failure after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. We reported previously an increased risk of PPM with the SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve (S3-THV). AIMS: To investigate the association of PPM with 1-year outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) implanted with S3-THV. METHODS: Moderate PPM was defined by an indexed effective orifice area (iEOA)≤0.85cm2/m2, and severe PPM by an iEOA<0.65cm2/m2. Inclusion criteria were severe symptomatic AS and implantation with S3-THV. The primary endpoint was hospitalization for congestive heart failure (CHF) at 1 year; the secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A total of 208 consecutive patients were included between 2016 and 2018. Male sex was prevalent (53.8%), mean age was 81.9±6.2 years, mean EuroSCORE II was 4.35±3.37, mean LVEF was 57.9±13%. Moderate and severe PPM were observed in 69 (33.2%) and 10 (4.8%) patients. Patients with PPM were younger (80.4±7 vs 82.8±5.41 years; P=0.006), had a larger BSA (1.84±0.19 vs 1.77±0.19 m2; P=0.01), a lower iEOA (0.73±0.08 vs 1.11±0.22 cm2/m2; P<0.001) and a higher mean gradient (14±4.6 vs 11.9±3.9mmHg; P<0.001). CHF occurred in 16.5% vs 7% (P=0.03). By multivariable analysis, PPM was independently associated with CHF (hazard ratio [HR] 3.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17 to 8.55; P=0.032), especially in patients with mitral regurgitation≥2/4 (HR>100, 95%CI>100 to>1000; P<0.01). PPM did not correlate with all-cause mortality (HR 0.90, 95%CI 0.22 to 3.03; P=0.86). CONCLUSIONS: PPM after S3-THV implantation is strongly associated with CHF at 1 year, but is not correlated with overall mortality.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation after failed surgically implanted aortic bioprosthesis versus native transcatheter aortic valve implantation for aortic stenosis: Data from a nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a treatment for aortic bioprosthesis failure in case of prohibitive risk for redo surgery. However, clinical evaluation of valve-in-valve TAVI remains limited by the number of patients analysed. AIM: To evaluate outcomes of valve-in-valve TAVI compared with native aortic valve TAVI at a nationwide level in France. METHODS: Based on the French administrative hospital discharge database, the study collected information for all consecutive patients treated with TAVI for aortic stenosis or with isolated valve-in-valve TAVI for aortic bioprosthesis failure between 2010 and 2019. Propensity score matching was used for the analysis of outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 44,218 patients were found in the database. After matching on baseline characteristics, 2749 patients were analysed in each arm. At 30 days, no significant differences were observed regarding the occurrence of major clinical events (composite of cardiovascular mortality, all-cause stroke, myocardial infarction, major or life-threatening bleeding and conversion to open heart surgery) (odds ratio [OR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-1.01; P=0.32). During follow-up (mean 516 days), the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, all-cause stroke or rehospitalization for heart failure was not different between the valve-in-valve TAVI and native TAVI groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94-1.13; P=1.00). CONCLUSION: We observed that valve-in-valve TAVI was associated with good short- and long-term outcomes. No significant differences were observed compared with native valve TAVI regarding clinical follow-up.

Impact of Direct Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Without Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty on Procedural and Clinical Outcomes: Insights From the FRANCE TAVI Registry.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to describe the current practices and compare outcomes according to the use of balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) or not during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: Since its development, aortic valve pre-dilatation has been an essential step of TAVR procedures. However, the feasibility of TAVR without systematic BAV has been described. METHODS: TAVR performed in 48 centers across France between January 2013 and December 2015 were prospectively included in the FRANCE TAVI (Registry of Aortic Valve Bioprostheses Established by Catheter) registry. We compared outcomes according to BAV during the TAVR procedure. RESULTS: A total of 5,784 patients have been included in our analysis, corresponding to 2,579 (44.6%) with BAV avoidance and 3,205 (55.4%) patients with BAV performed. We observed a progressive decline in the use of BAV over time (78% of procedures in 2013 and 49% in the last trimester of 2015). Avoidance of BAV was associated with similar device implantation success (97.3% vs. 97.6%; p = 0.40). TAVR procedures without BAV were quicker (fluoroscopy 17.2 ± 9.1 vs. 18.5 ± 8.8 min; p < 0.01) and used lower amounts of contrast (131.5 ± 61.6 vs. 141.6 ± 61.5; p < 0.01) and radiation (608.9 ± 576.3 vs. 667.0 ± 631.3; p < 0.01). The rates of moderate to severe aortic regurgitation were lower with avoidance of BAV (8.3% vs. 12.2%; p < 0.01) and tamponade rates (1.5% vs. 2.3%; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed that TAVR without BAV is frequently performed in France with good procedural results. This procedure is associated with procedural simplification and lower rates of residual aortic regurgitation.

Open-heart transcatheter aortic valve replacement in complex aortic valve reoperation: about a case series.

INTRODUCTION: Aortic homograft and stentless aortic root are helpful in acute infective endocarditis of the aortic valve as biological conduit when total root replacement is required. Reoperation for failure of aortic homograft and stentless aortic root remains challenging for the surgeon as the entire root can be heavily calcified. CASE PRESENTATION: Here, are reported, three cases of patients successfully treated with open-heart transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) whereas no other prosthesis was implantable due to a massively calcified homograft or stentless prosthesis. DISCUSSION: Open-heart TAVR avoided the risk of complete root replacement which is higher than redo aortic valve replacement (AVR). This rescue technique facilitated risky surgical procedure by combining the strengths of both TAVR and conventional AVR.

Patient-prosthesis mismatch in new generation trans-catheter heart valves: a propensity score analysis.

Aims: When compared with the former Sapien XT (XT-THV), the Sapien 3 trans-catheter heart valve (S3-THV) embeds an outer annular sealing cuff to prevent para-valvular regurgitation (PVR). The consequences of this new feature on valve haemodynamics have never been evaluated. We aimed to compare both types of prostheses regarding patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM). Methods and results: Patients who underwent a TAVR for aortic stenosis were retrospectively included. Regression adjustment for the propensity score was used to compare 50 XT-THV patients with 71 S3-THV. At the 1-month follow-up, the mean indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) was 1.12 ± 0.34 cm2/m2 with XT-THV and 0.96 ± 0.27 cm2/m2 with S3-THV. The mean gradient was 11 ± 5 mmHg and 13 ± 5 mmHg, respectively. Nine patients had moderate PPM, and two exhibited severe PPM with XT-THV. Nineteen patients had moderate PPM, and seven demonstrated severe PPM with S3-THV. There was a five-fold increased risk of PPM with S3-THV (OR = 4.98; [1.38-20.94], P = 0.019). S3-THV decreased the iEOA by 0.21 cm2/m2 [-0.21; (-0.38 to - 0.05); P = 0.012] and increased the mean gradient by 4.95 mmHg [4.95; (2.27-7.64); P < 0.001]. The risk of PPM was increased 15.24-fold with 23 mm S3-THV [15.24; (2.92-101.52); P = 0.002] in comparison with the 23 mm XT-THV. PVR were reduced by 98% with S3-THV. Conclusion: There is an increased risk of PPM with 23mm S3-THV in comparison with 23 mm XT-THV. This may be attributable to the additional sub-annular cuff that avoids the risk of PVR. Regarding the increased vulnerability of younger patients to PPM, we provide essential information on the extension of TAVR indication to the younger population.

Rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis: 1-year outcomes in 150 patients.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) for severe aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS: All consecutive patients with severe AS who underwent RDAVR with the EDWARDS INTUITY bioprosthesis were prospectively included in a single-centre, cohort study between July 2012 and April 2015. Clinical examination and transthoracic echocardiography were performed preoperatively and at 1-month and 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: We included 150 patients: mean age 76.8 ± 6.2 years, 68.7% male and mean EuroSCORE II 3.4 ± 3.7%. Implantation was successful in all: 103 (68.7%) had isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) and 47 (31.3%) had concomitant procedures. For isolated AVR, mean cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 37.6 ± 13.3 and 59.9 ± 20.4 min, respectively. Overall, the 1-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 97.1% (95% confidence interval 92.4-98.9%). At 1 year, stroke occurred in 5 patients (3.34%), myocardial infarction in 1 (0.69%), endocarditis in 1 (0.69%), early explantation in 1 (0.67%), pacemaker implantation in 8 (5.6%) and Grade 2 periprosthetic regurgitation in 4 (3.2%; no grade 3 of 4). There were significant decreases from baseline ( P < 0.001) in the proportion at New York Heart Association Class III/V (35.3-4.1%), mean gradient (54.9 ± 17.3 mmHg to 11.3 ± 4.8 mmHg) and mean left ventricular mass index (160.3 ± 44.8 g/m 2 to 118.5 ± 39.4 g/m 2 ). Mean indexed effective orifice area at 1 year was 1.02 ± 0.37 cm 2 /m 2 . Ten patients (6.6%) had severe patient-prosthesis mismatch. CONCLUSIONS: RDAVR for severe AS provided favourable outcomes over 1 year.

Severe right ventricular dysfunction is an independent predictor of pre- and post-transplant mortality among candidates for heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Heart transplantation is the gold-standard treatment for end-stage heart failure. However, the shortage of grafts has led to longer waiting times and increased mortality for candidates without priority. AIMS: To study waiting-list and post-transplant mortality, and their risk factors among patients registered for heart transplantation without initial high emergency procedure. METHODS: All patients registered on the heart transplantation waiting list (2004-2015) without initial high emergency procedure were included. Clinical, biological, echocardiographic and haemodynamic data were collected. Waiting list and 1-year post-transplant survival were analysed with a Kaplan-Meier model. RESULTS: Of 221 patients enrolled, 168 (76.0%) were men. Mean age was 50.0±12.0 years. Forty-seven patients died on the waiting list, resulting in mortality rates of 11.2±2.7% at 1 year, 31.9±5.4% at 2 years and 49.4±7.1% at 3 years. Median survival was 36.0±4.6 months. In the multivariable analysis, left ventricular ejection fraction<30% (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.38-10.24; P=0.010) and severe right ventricular systolic dysfunction (HR: 2.89, 95% CI: 1.41-5.92; P=0.004) were associated with increased waiting-list mortality. The post-transplant survival rate was 73.1±4.4% at 1 year. Pretransplant severe right ventricular dysfunction and age>50 years were strong predictors of death after transplantation (HR: 5.38, 95% CI: 1.38-10.24 [P=0.020] and HR: 6.16, 95% CI: 1.62-9.32 [P=0.0130], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality among candidates for heart transplantation remains high. Patients at highest risk of waiting-list mortality have to be promoted, but without compromising post-transplant outcomes. For this reason, candidates with severe right ventricular dysfunction are of concern, because, for them, transplantation is hazardous.