Electrophysiological evaluation following development of new and persistent left bundle branch block after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A single center pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: New and persistent left bundle branch block (NP-LBBB) following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) is an ongoing concern with incidence ranging from as low as 4% to up to 65% (varying for different types of valves). Such patients are at risk of developing high-grade atrioventricular block (HAVB) warranting permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. However, currently, there are no consensus guidelines or large prospective studies to risk stratify these patients for safer discharge after TAVR. OBJECTIVES: To provide insight from a single center study on using modified electrophysiology (EP) study to risk stratify post-TAVR patients to outpatient monitoring for low-risk versus pacemaker implantation for high-risk patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between June 2020 and March 2023, all patients who underwent a TAVR procedure (324 patients) at our institution were screened for development of NP-LBBB post-operatively. Out of 26 patients who developed NP-LBBB, after a pre-specified period of observation, 18 patients were deemed eligible for a modified EP study to assess His-Ventricular (HV) interval. 11 out of 18 patients (61.1%) had normal HV interval (HV < 55 ms). Three out of 18 patients (16.7%) had HV prolongation (55 ms < HV < 70 ms) without significant HV prolongation (defined as an increase in HV interval > 30%) with intra-procedural procainamide challenge. Four out of 18 patients (22.2%) had significant HV prolongation (HV > 70 ms) warranting PPM implantation based on a multidisciplinary approach and shared decision-making with the patients. Total of 50% of patients discharged with PPM (two out of four patients) were noted to be pacemaker dependent based on serial device interrogations. All patients who did not receive PPM were discharged with ambulatory monitoring with 30-day event monitor and did not develop HAVB on serial follow-up. CONCLUSION: Normal HV interval up to 55 ms on modified EP study after TAVR and development of NP-LBBB can be utilized as a threshold for risk stratification to facilitate safe discharge. The optimal upper limit of HV interval threshold remains unclear in determining appropriate candidacy for PPM.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: The year in review 2017.

This article is a continuation of our previously published annual reviews of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). In 2017, TAVR further established a foothold in the management of intermediate risk patients with the publication of SURTAVI trial. Randomized trials also addressed the use of cerebral protection during TAVR and single versus dual antiplatelet therapy after TAVR. Newer generation valve systems continued to be studied for their efficacy and safety. This paper summarizes the major studies published in 2017.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: The year in review 2016.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) continued to make major strides in 2016, simultaneously expanding its application to lower risk patients as well as more technically challenging subsets of patients with aortic stenosis (AS). The two major accomplishments this year were the establishment of TAVR as the preferred treatment strategy over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in intermediate risk patients, and initial signals that TAVR and SAVR may be clinically equivalent in low-risk populations. Meanwhile, there is continued expansion of TAVR to challenging clinical subsets (bicuspid aortic valve [BAV], patients with concomitant advanced coronary artery disease [CAD], and failed surgical bioprostheses), and encouraging initial experiences with newer transcatheter heart valve systems. This paper summarizes the major research studies published on TAVR in 2016.

Left atrial appendage occlusion: 2016 in review.

A significant body of data has emerged in the area of Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion (LAAO). In this article, we present an overview of the most notable publications along with a review of the most important publications on LAAO in 2016. We also present important historical data such as landmark clinical studies, review of most utilized occlusion devices, and important clinical studies that are underway.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: game-changing innovation for patients with aortic stenosis.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an emerging technology for the management of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). First reported in 2002, TAVR has made remarkable progress in the past decade with completion of major randomized clinical trials, multiple observational registries, and evolution of several new devices. This article is a brief introductory overview of the TAVR procedure, devices, trials and registries, and newer developments in the field.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: 2015 in Review.

In order to keep the interventional community up-to-date with the overwhelming amount of new data, we have selected where we believe to be the most important publications in percutaneous coronary intervention from January 1, 2015 to mid-November 2015. We hope that this will serve as an important overview of 2015, and ongoing reference for future years.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: 2015 in Review.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as an attractive option for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) who are either at high risk or extreme risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). This article summarizes the major advances in TAVR that were published or reported in 2015.

Aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease: what do we know? What don't we know? A comprehensive review of the literature with proposed treatment algorithms.

Aortic valve stenosis is the most common form of valvular heart disease in the elderly population and occurs frequently in conjunction with coronary artery disease. The standard treatment option for patients with these two conditions has been surgical aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting. The arrival of transcatheter aortic valve replacement has considerably shifted the treatment paradigms. Nevertheless, a lot of questions remain unanswered regarding the management of coronary artery disease in the setting of the transcatheter options for severe aortic stenosis. This article includes a comprehensive review of the literature and seeks to describe the actual knowledge on the topic of aortic stenosis and concomitant coronary artery disease.

Short-term outcomes of balloon angioplasty versus stent placement for patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: Implications for patients requiring early coronary artery bypass surgery.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) needing early coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, it is unknown whether primary percutaneous balloon angioplasty (PTCA)-without stent implantation-allows safe transition to subsequent CABG. METHODS: We examined acute STEMI patients enrolled in the Stent-PAMI and CADILLAC trials to study the differences in the early clinical events between those treated with primary PTCA (n = 1494) or primary stenting (n = 1488). RESULTS: Baseline clinical and pre- and post-procedural angiographic features including post-intervention TIMI 3 flow rates were similar in the 2 groups with the exception of higher median infarct-artery residual stenosis in the PTCA group (26% [IQR 19%-34%] vs. 18% [IQR 11-25%], P < .001]. Provisional stenting was required in 16% of patients in PTCA group, while stents could not be implanted in 2% of the stent group. Sixty-percent of PTCA patients had stent-like balloon result. The rate of 30-day ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization was higher in the PTCA group (4.3% vs. 2.0%, P < .001 [4.6% vs 2.3%, P < .001 among patients with multivessel disease and 3.4% vs. 2.0%, P = .044 in patients with stent-like balloon results]) while 30-day major adverse cardiac events (6.2% vs 4.9%), death (1.8% versus 2.8%), and reinfarction (0.9% vs. 0.7%) were similar in the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with primary stenting, primary PTCA of infarct artery in STEMI patients was associated with significant increase in ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (ITVR) rate, yet with no increased risk of major adverse cardiac events, reinfarction or death. Thus, provided close surveillance is maintained and prompt treatment initiated for early ischemic events, PTCA (particularly in those with stent-like balloon result) may be a reasonable and safe option in STEMI patients needing early CABG.

Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in patients with decreased GFR: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is a strong predictor of both mortality and subsequent cardiac events after percutaneous coronary intervention. The safety and efficacy of drug-eluting (DESs) versus bare-metal stents (BMSs) in this population have not been evaluated adequately. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING & POPULATION: Studies involving the comparison of clinical outcomes between DESs and BMSs in patients with eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2). Studies exclusively involving patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were excluded. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: MEDLINE (on Ovid), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases from 2002-2013 were searched for studies comparing DESs with BMSs in patients with eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2). INTERVENTION: DES versus BMS implantation. OUTCOMES: Mortality, repeat revascularization, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis. RESULTS: Data from 26 comparative studies with 66,840 patients were included. Compared with BMSs, DESs were associated with significant reductions in repeat revascularization (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50-0.74; P < 0.001) and myocardial infarction (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92; P < 0.001), with no detectable difference in stent thrombosis (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.46-1.12; P = 0.1). The superiority of DESs over BMSs in decreasing mortality also was documented (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65-0.90; P = 0.01). This survival benefit of DESs over BMSs was attenuated in randomized controlled trials or adjusted observational studies versus unadjusted observational studies. LIMITATIONS: Most studies were observational studies. Meta-analysis was not performed on individual patient data. CONCLUSIONS: DES use in patients with eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) is associated with a reduced rate of repeat revascularization and myocardial infarction without increased risk of stent thrombosis. The true effect of DESs versus BMSs on mortality needs to be confirmed by randomized controlled trials.

Variability in maximal suggested door-in-door-out time for hospitals transferring patients for primary angioplasty in STEMI.

OBJECTIVES: We derived a formula for maximal suggested door-in-door-out time (DIDO) for hospitals that do not perform primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). BACKGROUND: Efforts to minimize DIDO at non-PCI hospitals can improve door-to-balloon time (D2B). Targeting a maximal suggested DIDO for a transferring hospital can influence reperfusion strategy. METHODS: We examined time to treatment intervals for 193 STEMI patients who underwent primary PCI at our hospital. D2B in transferred patients (D2BT ) was divided into 3 intervals: transferring hospital DIDO, inter-hospital transport time, and interventional time. We defined maximal suggested DIDO as the maximum DIDO that would allow PCI with D2BT ≤ 120 minutes. RESULTS: D2B was higher in transfer compared to on-site patients (147 ± 52 vs. 75 ± 44 minutes, P < 0.0001). In transfer patients, treatment time intervals were: DIDO 80 ± 42 minutes, transport time 37 ± 18 minutes, interventional time 35 ± 16 minutes. The greatest variability in D2BT was related to DIDO. We estimated that maximal suggested DIDO = [120 - (transport time plus interventional time)]. Using a fixed interventional time of 40 minutes, we simplified this as: maximal DIDO = 80 - transport time. Maximal suggested DIDO for 4 transferring hospitals in our network ranged from 1 to 65 minutes. DIDO under the hospital-specific threshold was the strongest predictor of achieving D2BT <120 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Transferring hospitals' maximal suggested DIDO is variable, and can be calculated from inter-hospital transport time. Instead of a universal target DIDO (e.g., <30 minutes), maximal suggested DIDO can be calculated individually for each non-PCI hospital within a STEMI network.

Everolimus-eluting stents versus sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stents: two-year results from the Guthrie Health Off-Label Stent (GHOST) registry.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the safety and effectiveness of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus first generation drug-eluting stents (FG-DES; sirolimus-eluting stent [SES] or paclitaxel-eluting stent [PES]). METHODS: In 2,126 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), we compared the 2-year incidence of stent thrombosis (ST) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) between the EES versus FG-DES groups. Secondary end-points included all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), death or MI, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, including death, MI, ST, or TVR). Further, we evaluated these end-points in 2 propensity-matched subgroups: EES versus SES; EES versus PES. RESULTS: Complete 2-year follow-up was available in 1,911 (90%) patients. Compared to FG-DES, implantation of EES was associated with trends towards lower ST (0.9% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.068) and TVR (3.8% vs. 7.2%, P = 0.052), which persisted after adjustment for baseline differences (for ST, adjusted hazard ratio, HR 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI 0.10-1.02, P = 0.053; for TVR, HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.22-0.75, P = 0.004). Compared to SES, EES implantation was associated with lower TVR and a trend towards lower ST. Compared to PES, EES implantation was associated with less ST and TVR and trends towards lower death/MI and MACE. In the EES group, no ST was seen after the first 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: The use of EES compared to FG-DES appears to be associated with reductions in ST and TVR at 2-year follow-up. Improved outcomes with EES are observed in comparison with SES as well as PES.

Biventricular Noncompaction Cardiomyopathy in a Patient Presenting With a New Cerebrovascular Event.

Noncompaction (NC) cardiomyopathy (NCCM) is a rare, genetically heterogeneous cardiomyopathy (CM) caused by failure to compact the intertrabecular recesses of the myocardium. This condition usually affects the apical segment of the left ventricle, yet there are noted basal segment, biventricular, and right ventricular predominant cases. NCCM is largely diagnosed in the pediatric population; however, there is increasing recognition in older patients with heart failure and stroke and patients with arrhythmias. Treatment focuses on symptomatic management of heart failure, anticoagulation, and implantable cardiac defibrillators.

Elevated Cardiac Troponin Is Most Often Associated With Type 2 Myocardial Infarction in Trauma Patients.

Introduction Cardiac troponin (cTn) forms an essential part of the diagnostic criteria for myocardial infarction (MI). Type 1 MI is a primary coronary arterial event, whereas type 2 MI is due to coronary oxygen supply/demand mismatch, which is common in trauma patients. In addition, cTn may be elevated for many reasons other than MI. cTn elevations in trauma may not be specific for MI amenable to revascularization. The aim of this study is to determine which subset of trauma patients benefits from measuring cTn, and which patients with elevated cTn benefit from ischemic workup. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study. All patients on the trauma service of a level 1 trauma center with cTn elevated above the upper reference value of 0.032 ng/ml from July 2017 through December 2020 were selected. Baseline characteristics were recorded. The main outcomes were cardiology determination of the etiology of elevated cTn and patient survival. Logistic regression was used for multivariate analysis. Results One hundred forty-seven (147; 1.1%) of 13746 trauma patients had maximum cTn over the 99th percentile. Forty-one (27.5%) of the 147 had ischemic changes on electrocardiogram (ECG). Sixty-four (43.0%) had chest pain. In 81 (55.1%) cases, cTn was ordered without a clearly justified indication. One hundred thirty-seven patients (93.3%) received a cardiology consult. Two (1.5%) of 137 patients had a type 1 MI, which was diagnosed by ECG and clinical symptoms before cTn results were available. One hundred thirty-five patients were evaluated for cardiac ischemia based on elevated cTn. In 91 (66.4%) cases, the elevated cTn was attributed to a cardiac oxygen supply/demand mismatch. The etiology was cardiac contusion for 26 (19.0%), with the rest attributed to various other trauma-related causes. The cardiology consult changed management for 90 (65.7%) patients, mainly consisting of further evaluation by echocardiogram for 78 (57.0%) patients. Elevated cTn was a significant independent predictor of death with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.6 (p=0.002). Conclusion Isolated cTn values in trauma are most often due to type 2 MI resulting from trauma-related issues, such as tachycardia and anemia, which affect myocardial oxygen supply and demand. Changes in management generally consisted of further workup and interventions such as monitoring and pharmacologic treatment. Elevated cTn in this cohort never led to revascularization but was valuable to identify patients who required more intensive monitoring, longer-term follow-up, and supportive cardiac care. More selective ordering of cTn would improve specificity for patients requiring specialized cardiac care.

Sex-Based Outcomes in Patients Undergoing WATCHMAN Device Implantation.

Sex-based disparities in outcomes are reported for various cardiovascular procedures. This study aimed to assess the difference in outcomes in patients who underwent WATCHMAN device implant based on sex. Patients who underwent WATCHMAN device placement, from 2016 to 2018, were identified from the National Inpatient Sample database. The primary outcome was inpatient mortality, and the secondary outcomes were the length of stay (LOS), hospitalization cost (HOC), and periprocedural complications. A logistic regression model was built to perform an adjusted analysis for the outcomes. A total of 12,327 patients underwent WATCHMAN device placement. Female patients were older and more likely to have hypertension (p <0.01) and less likely to have peripheral arterial disease (5.6 vs 7.2, p <0.01), chronic kidney disease (21% vs 26%, p <0.01), and diabetes (18% vs 20%, p = 0.03) and were also at a higher risk for certain periprocedural complications, including pericardiocentesis and anemia requiring blood transfusion (p <0.01 for all). In the unadjusted analysis, the female sex was associated with longer LOS (1.5 vs 1.3 days, p <0.01) and inpatient mortality (0.23 vs 0.10, p = 0.05). The HOC was numerically higher in women but statistically nonsignificant ($120,791 vs $118,554, p = 0.1). In the stepwise, backward, multivariate regression analysis, the female sex  was an independent risk factor for higher LOS (1.5 vs 1.3 days, p <0.01, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 1.4) after adjusting for potential confounders. The inpatient mortality and HOC were similar between 2 groups after adjusting for potential cofounders in the multivariate regression analysis. Our study suggests that the female sex is an independent risk factor for longer LOS among patients hospitalized for WATCHMAN device placement.

Long-term safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents following successful PCI in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: findings from the Guthrie Health Off-Label StenT (GHOST) Registry.

BACKGROUND: The long-term safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) beyond 2 years after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown. METHODS: We studied 674 NSTEMI patients who underwent successful PCI with DES (n = 323) or BMS (n = 351). The primary study end-points were time to occurrence of death or nonfatal recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), and stent thrombosis (ST). Secondary end-points included time to occurrence of target vessel revascularization (TVR) and any major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE, defined as the composite of death, MI, ST, TVR). RESULTS: The DES and BMS groups were well matched except that DES patients received dual antiplatelet therapy for a longer duration and had smaller final vessel diameter. In survival analysis, at a mean follow-up of 1333 ± 659 days after PCI, the DES group had similar incidence of death/myocardial infarction (24% vs. 27%, log rank p = 0.23) and ST (4.0% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.18) as the BMS group. The DES patients had lower incidence of TVR (8.1% vs. 17%, p = 0.0018) but similar MACE (26% vs. 37%, p = 0.31). In multivariable analysis, DES vs. BMS implantation showed no significant impact on death/myocardial infarction [adjusted hazards ratio (HR) 1.0, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.7-1.4], ST (HR 1.7; CI 0.7 - 4.0), or MACE (HR 0.8; CI 0.6 - 1.1). However, TVR was lower in the DES group (HR 0.4; CI 0.3 - 0.7). CONCLUSION: In patients presenting with NSTEMI, DES implantation appears to be as safe as BMS implantation at long-term follow-up. In addition, DES are effective in reducing TVR compared to BMS.

Glycosylated hemoglobin and outcomes in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction after successful revascularization with stent placement: findings from the guthrie health off-label stent (GHOST) investigators.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the influence of glycemic control on cardiovascular outcomes in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent placement. BACKGROUND: In patients presenting with AMI, diabetic status confers adverse cardiovascular outcomes after PCI. However, the influence of glycemic control on outcomes after successful PCI is less well studied. METHODS: We examined 231 consecutive diabetes mellitus (DM) patients with AMI who underwent successful primary PCI and had evaluation of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from 30 days before to 90 days after AMI. Patients were categorized in 2 groups, controlled DM with HbA1c ≤ 7.0 (N = 83, 36%) and uncontrolled DM with HbA1c > 7.0 (N = 148, 64%). We assessed 12-month cardiovascular outcomes in study groups. RESULTS: Uncontrolled diabetics were younger, tended to be less hypertensive, and had higher baseline glomerular filtration rate and final vessel diameter compared to controlled diabetics. Uncontrolled DM patients had similar major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; composite of all-cause death, MI, target vessel revascularization [TVR], and stent thrombosis [ST]; 20% vs. 30%, log-rank P = 0.54), death (8.8% vs. 12%, P = 0.40), MI (8.8% vs. 9.6%, P = 0.76), TVR (9.5% vs. 8.4%, P = 0.95), and ST (3.4% vs. 4.8%, P = 0.54) as the controlled diabetics. In Cox regression analysis, after adjustment for baseline differences, glycemic control had no independent influence on study outcomes. CONCLUSION: Glycemic control, determined by HbA1c, does not seem to influence cardiovascular outcomes in diabetic patients with AMI after successful stent placement.

Long-term safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents in ST elevation myocardial infarction: findings from the Guthrie Health Off-label Stent (GHOST) Registry.

BACKGROUND: Multiple randomized trials and observational studies have shown drug-eluting stents (DES) to be safe and effective at 3-year follow-up in stent thrombosis (ST)-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, outcomes data beyond 3-4 years after DES implantation are sparse. METHODS: We studied 554 STEMI patients who underwent successful PCI with either DES or bare metal stent (BMS). Primary study end-points were time to occurrence of ST and the composite of death or myocardial infarction (MI). Secondary end-points were time to occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and discrete events that comprise MACE (death, MI, and target vessel revascularization [TVR]). Outcomes of the DES and BMS groups were assessed by survival analysis and multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: There were 205 (37%) patients who received DES and 349 (63%) patients who received BMS. At a median follow-up of 41.4 months after PCI, there were no differences in the unadjusted incidence of ST (ST, 3.4 vs. 4.3%, log-rank P = 0.61) and MI (6.8% vs. 8%, P = 0.61) between DES versus BMS groups, respectively. However, DES implantation was associated with lower unadjusted incidence of death or MI (11% vs. 23.5%, P = 0.0002), MACE (16% vs. 34%, P < 0.0001), death (6.3% vs. 17%, P = 0.0004), and TVR (9.8% vs. 18%, P = 0.008) than BMS implantation. In multivariable analyses, DES implantation was associated with significantly lower incidence of MACE (adjusted HR = 0.47 [95% CI: 0.31-0.76], P = 0.0007) than BMS implantation. CONCLUSION: In our study of STEMI patients, DES implantation was safer than BMS implantation and was associated with lower MACE at long-term follow-up.