The ALSTER-TAVI All-Comers Registry: Procedural and 1-Year Clinical Outcomes of Balloon-Expandable vs Self-Expanding Contemporary TAVI Valves.

OBJECTIVES: Both balloon-expandable and self-expanding transcatheter aortic valves are used for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We compared procedural and clinical outcome variables of Sapien 3 and Evolut R/Pro in an all-comers collective. METHODS: In this single-center registry, patients were consecutively treated with the Sapien 3 from November 2014 to March 2017 (n = 129) and from April 2017 to December 2018 mainly (>95%) with the Evolut R/Pro (n = 124), due to a switch in the main TAVI supplier driven by hospital management. Data were retrospectively analyzed before and after the switch. RESULTS: One-year follow-up data were available for 122 (94%) of the Sapien and 112 (90%) of the Evolut patients. Baseline characteristics were comparable (EuroSCORE: Sapien 21.8 ± 0.9% vs Evolut 22.5 ± 0.8%; P=.20). Evolut implantation was associated with a higher radiation dose (Sapien 35770 ± 2345 mGy•cm² vs Evolut 85072 ± 8202 mGy•cm²; P<.001), more postimplantation balloon dilations (Sapien 17.1% vs Evolut 37.1%; P<.001), but similar procedure time (Sapien 75.2 ± 3.8 min vs Evolut 74.6 ± 3 min; P=.30). In-hospital mortality (Sapien 3.1% vs Evolut 4.0%; P=.70), all-cause mortality (Sapien 13.2% vs Evolut 15.3%; P=.70), all-stroke rate (Sapien 1.5% vs Evolut 6.5%; P=.05), and pacemaker implantation rate (Sapien 13.2% vs Evolut 18.5%; P=.30) were similar at 1 year. Permanent pacemaker rate was numerically higher in the first 6 months with Evolut (<6 months 26.7% vs >6 months 16%; P=.62); furthermore, radiation dose and balloon dilations also suggest a learning curve with Evolut. CONCLUSIONS: Switching from Sapien 3 to Evolut R/Pro was not associated with a difference regarding periprocedural or 1-year clinical outcomes.

Investigating patients´ views on screening for depression in cardiac practice: A qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVE: Recommendations on screening for depression in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) are highly debated. While recent research has prioritized efficacy studies, little is known about what is potentially required for screening to be efficacious. Expanding our knowledge of how patients with CHD view screening is likely to pose a first step towards addressing this gap. We aimed to investigate patients ́ views on routine screening for depression in cardiac practice. METHODS: This exploratory, qualitative study was conducted among 12 patients with CHD, who completed semi-structured interviews. We used a purposive sampling strategy to include patients within a range of ages, gender and self-reported depression. Thematic analysis was carried out. RESULTS: We identified four main themes: Acceptance, utility, barriers and expectations. Patients in this sample appeared to be in favor of standardized routine screening for depression in cardiac practice, if the rationale was disclosed. Patients reported that standardized screening addresses holistic care demands, promotes validation of individual symptom burden and legitimizes the display of psychological distress in cardiac practice. Yet, skepticism towards the validity of screening instruments and perceived stigmatization could pose a main barrier to screening efficacy. Patients expected to receive feedback on results and consecutive recommendations. CONCLUSION: We found that depression screening is endorsed by patients with CHD in this study sample. Standardized routine screening procedures could serve as a useful tool to combat stigmatization, and encourage patients to display symptoms of depression towards cardiologists. The efficacy of depression screening could potentially be enhanced by tailoring the screening process towards patients´ needs.