Balloon aortic valvuloplasty for severe aortic stenosis before urgent non-cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) has been proposed as a therapeutic option in patients suffering from severe aortic stenosis (SAS) who need urgent non-cardiac surgery (NCS). Whether this strategy is better than medical therapy in this very specific population is unknown. AIMS: We aimed to evaluate the clinical benefit of an invasive strategy (IS) with preoperative BAV in patients with SAS requiring urgent NCS. METHODS: From 2011 to 2019, a registry conducted in two centres included 133 patients with SAS undergoing urgent NCS, of whom 93 underwent preoperative BAV (IS) and 40 a conservative strategy (CS) without BAV. All analyses were adjusted for confounding using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) (10 clinical and anatomical variables). RESULTS: The primary outcome was MACE at one-month follow-up after NCS including mortality, heart failure, and other cardiovascular outcomes. In patients managed conservatively, occurrence of MACE was 20.0% (n=8) and death was 10.0% (n=4) at 1 month. In patients undergoing BAV, the occurrence of MACE was 20.4% (n=19) and death was 5.4% (n=5) at 1 month. Among patients undergoing conservative management, all events were observed after NCS while, in patients undergoing BAV, 12.9% (n=12) had events between BAV and NCS including 3 deaths, and 7.5% (n=7) had events after NCS including 2 deaths. In IPTW propensity analyses, the incidence of the primary outcome (20.4% vs 20.0%; OR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.38-2.29) and three-month survival (89.2% vs 90.0%; IPTW-adjusted HR 0.90, 95% CI: 0.31-2.60) were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with SAS managed conservatively before urgent NCS are at high risk of events. A systematic invasive strategy using BAV does not provide a significant improvement in clinical outcome.

Myocardial Infarction incidence during national lockdown in two French provinces unevenly affected by COVID-19 outbreak: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: A reduction of admission for MI has been reported in most countries affected by COVID-19. No clear explanation has been provided. METHODS: To report the incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) admission during COVID-19 pandemic and in particular during national lockdown in two unequally affected French provinces (10-million inhabitants) with a different media strategy, and to describe the magnitude of MI incidence changes relative to the incidence of COVID-19-related deaths. A longitudinal study to collect all MIs from January 1 until May 17, 2020 (study period) and from the identical time period in 2019 (control period) was conducted in all centers with PCI-facilities in northern "Hauts-de-France" province and western "Pays-de-la-Loire" Province. The incidence of COVID-19 fatalities was also collected. FINDINGS: In "Hauts-de-France", during lockdown (March 18-May 10), 1500 COVID-19-related deaths were observed. A 23% decrease in MI-IR (IRR=0.77;95%CI:0.71-0.84, p<0.001) was observed for a loss of 272 MIs (95%CI:-363,-181), representing 18% of COVID-19-related deaths. In "Pays-de-la-Loire", 382 COVID-19-related deaths were observed. A 19% decrease in MI-IR (IRR=0.81; 95%CI=0.73-0.90, p<0.001) was observed for a loss of 138 MIs (95%CI:-210,-66), representing 36% of COVID-19-related deaths. While in "Hauts-de-France" the MI decline started before lockdown and recovered 3 weeks before its end, in "Pays-de-la-Loire", it started after lockdown and recovered only by its end. In-hospital mortality of MI patients was increased during lockdown in both provinces (5.0% vs 3.4%, p=0.02). INTERPRETATION: It highlights one of the potential collateral damages of COVID-19 outbreak on cardiovascular health with a dramatic reduction of MI incidence. It advocates for a careful and weighted communication strategy in pandemic crises. FUNDING: The study was conducted without external funding.

Feasibility and safety of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation performed with a percutaneous coronary intervention-like approach.

BACKGROUND: Transfemoral percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) is a safe, reproducible and established procedure, mainly performed under local anaesthesia, which is mostly administered and monitored by a dedicated anaesthesia team (regular approach). Our centre has developed a standardized pathway of care, and eligible patients are selected for a minimalist TF-TAVI, entirely managed by operators without the presence of the anaesthesia team in the operating room, like most interventional coronary procedures ("percutaneous coronary intervention-like" approach [PCI approach]). AIM: To compare the safety and efficacy of TF-TAVI performed with the PCI approach versus the regular approach. METHODS: The analysis population comprised all patients who underwent TF-TAVI with the PCI or regular approach in our institution from November 2016 to July 2019. The two co-primary endpoints were early safety composite and early efficacy composite at 30days as defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2. The PCI (n=137) and Regular (n=221) approaches were compared using the propensity score based method of inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: No differences were observed after comparison of TAVI performed with the PCI or regular approach regarding the composite safety endpoint (7.3% vs. 11.3%; odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 1.07; P=0.086) or the composite efficacy endpoint (4.4% vs. 6.3%; odds ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.41 to 1.49; P=0.45). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the efficacy and safety of TF-TAVI entirely managed by a PCI approach for selected patients are not different to those when TF-TAVI is performed with the attendance of a full anaesthesia care team. The PCI approach appears to be a safe and efficient clinical pathway, providing an appropriate and rational utilization of anaesthesiology resources, and could be used for the majority of TF-TAVI procedures.