Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes with new-onset left bundle branch block after SAPIEN-3 transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: New-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) can develop after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) resulting in worse outcomes. AIMS: Describe clinical and echocardiographic outcomes with new-onset LBBB after TAVR. METHODS: We included consecutive patients who underwent transfemoral-TAVR with SAPIEN-3 (S3) valve between April 2015 and December 2018. Exclusion criteria included pre-existing LBBB, right BBB, left anterior hemiblock, left posterior hemiblock, wide QRS ≥ 120ms, prior permanent pacemaker (PPM), and nontransfemoral access. RESULTS: Among 612 patients, 11.4% developed new-onset LBBB upon discharge. The length of stay was longer with new-onset LBBB compared with no LBBB [3 (2-5) days versus 2 (1-3) days; p < 0.001]. New-onset LBBB was associated with higher rates of 30-day PPM requirement (18.6% vs. 5.4%; p < 0.001) and 1-year heart failure hospitalizations (10.7% vs. 4.4%; p = 0.033). There was no difference in 3-year mortality between both groups (30.9% vs. 30.6%; p = 0.829). Further, new-onset LBBB was associated with lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at both 30 days (55.9 ± 11.4% vs. 59.3 ± 9%; p = 0.026) and 1 year (55 ± 12% vs. 60.1 ± 8.9%; p = 0.002). These changes were still present when we stratified patients according to baseline LVEF (≥50% or <50%). New-onset LBBBs were associated with a higher 1-year LV end-diastolic volume index (51.4 ± 18.6 vs. 46.4 ± 15.1 ml/m2 ; p = 0.036), and LV end-systolic volume index (23.2 ± 14.1 vs. 18.9 ± 9.7 ml/m2 ; p = 0.009). Compared with resolved new-onset LBBB, persistent new-onset LBBB was associated with worse LVEF and higher PPM at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: New-onset LBBB after S3 TAVR was associated with higher PPM requirement, worse LVEF, higher LV volumes, and increased heart failure hospitalizations, with no difference in mortality.

Central corneal thickness in a Jordanian population and its association with different types of Glaucoma: cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Central corneal thickness (CCT) has long been implicated to affect glaucoma predisposition. Several reports have identified that thinner CCT is a risk factor for open-angle glaucoma, and that CCT can be very variable between different ethnic groups. In this study, we aim to identify the relation between CCT and different glaucoma parameters in different types of glaucoma in an Arabian ethnicity. METHODS: We classified our participants into four main groups: primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG), primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG), pseudoexfoliative glaucoma (PXFG), and a control group. We obtained demographics, intraocular pressure (IOP), cup to disc ratio (CDR), visual field mean deviation (MD) and pattern standard deviation (PSD), CCT, and retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness for each participant. RESULTS: We included A total of 119 eyes with glaucoma, including POAG (54 eyes), PXFG (31 eyes) and PACG (34 eyes), we also included 57 control eyes. We found that PACG eyes have the thinnest CCT. Mean measurements of CCT for our groups were: 538.31 µm (SD = 36.30) in eyes with POAG, 544.45 µm (SD = 28.57) in eyes with PXFG, 506.91 µm (SD = 34.55) in eyes with PACG and 549.63 µm (SD = 42.9) in the control group. We found that CCT is significantly correlated with CDR (p = 0.012, r = - 0.231), MD (p < 0.001, r = 0.327),and RNFL thickness (p = .007, r = .283). CONCLUSION: In Arabian ethnicity, PACG patients have the thinnest CCT compared to other types of glaucoma, namely POAG and PXFG. We demonstrated that glaucomatous eyes with thinner corneas will probably have more advanced glaucomatous optic neuropathy. Our results emphasize the importance of taking ethnicity into account upon glaucoma management.

Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease: The Conjoined Twins.

Cancer and cardiovascular disease are the two most common causes of death worldwide. As the fields of cardiovascular medicine and oncology continue to expand, the area of overlap is becoming more prominent demanding dedicated attention and individualized patient care. We have come to realize that both fields are inextricably intertwined in several aspects, so much so that the mere presence of one, with its resultant downstream implications, has an impact on the other. Nonetheless, cardiovascular disease and cancer are generally approached independently. The focus that is granted to the predominant pathological entity (either cardiovascular disease or cancer), does not allow for optimal medical care for the other. As a result, ample opportunities for improvement in overall health care are being overlooked. Herein, we hope to shed light on the interconnected relationship between cardiovascular disease and cancer and uncover some of the unintentionally neglected intricacies of common cardiovascular therapeutics from an oncologic standpoint.

Ischemic or Coronary Evaluations in Patients With Monomorphic VT Electrical Storm Undergoing VT Ablation.

BACKGROUND: Monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) electrical storm (ES) in patients with coronary artery disease is dependent on scarred myocardium. The role of routine ischemic or coronary evaluations before ablation in patients presenting with monomorphic VT storm, without acute coronary syndrome (ACS), remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the impact of ischemic or coronary evaluations on procedural outcomes and post-ablation mortality in monomorphic VT storm patients. METHODS: All patients undergoing VT ablation at the Cleveland Clinic from 2014 to 2020 after presenting with monomorphic VT storm were enrolled in a prospectively maintained registry. The associations among ischemic or coronary evaluations and short-term procedural efficacy, acute outcomes, and mortality during follow-up were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 97 consecutive patients with monomorphic VT storm in the absence of ACS underwent VT ablations. This cohort was characterized by severe LV systolic dysfunction (mean left ventricular ejection fraction 30.3%, 67% with known ischemic cardiomyopathy) with moderately severe heart failure (median NYHA functional class II); 45% of patients underwent ischemic or coronary evaluations via coronary angiography (10%), noninvasive myocardial perfusion (26%), or both (9%). The yield of these evaluations was low: No acute coronary occlusions were identified. There was no association between ischemic evaluation and acute ablation outcomes or mortality during follow-up. Similarly, in a secondary analysis, the yield of ischemic or coronary evaluations in patients with monomorphic VT storm and known coronary disease (regardless of ablation status) was found to be low. CONCLUSIONS: Ischemic evaluations in patients with monomorphic VT storm without ACS may not improve procedural outcomes or mortality after ablation.

Pacing-Related Differences After SAPIEN-3 TAVI: Clinical and Echocardiographic Correlates.

Data regarding the impact of pacing on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is evolving especially with regards to pre-existing permanent pacemaker (PPM). We examined the impact of new and previous PPM on the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes after SAPIEN-3 TAVI. We included all consecutive patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI using SAPIEN-3 valve from 2015 to 2018 at our institution. Among 1,028 patients, 10.2% required a new PPM within 30 days, whereas 14% had a pre-existing PPM. The presence of either previous or new PPM had no impact on the 3-year mortality (log-rank p = 0.6) or 1-year major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (log-rank p = 0.65). New PPM was associated with lower left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) at both 30 days (54.4 ± 11.3% vs 58.4 ± 10.1%, p = 0.001) and 1 year (54.2 ± 12% vs 59.1 ± 9.9%, p = 0.009) than no PPM. Similarly, previous PPM was associated with worse LVEF at 30 days (53.6 ± 12.3%, p <0.001) and 1 year (55.5 ± 12.1%, p = 0.006) than no PPM. Interestingly, new PPM was associated with lower 1-year mean gradient (11.4 ± 3.8 vs 12.6 ± 5.6 mm Hg, p = 0.04) and peak gradient (21.3 ± 6.5 vs 24.1 ± 10.4 mm Hg, p = 0.01), despite no baseline differences. Previous PPM was also associated with lower 1-year mean gradient (10.3 ± 4.4 mm Hg, p = 0.001) and peak gradient (19.4 ± 8 mm Hg, p <0.001) and higher Doppler velocity index (0.51 ± 0.12 vs 0.47 ± 0.13, p = 0.039). Moreover, 1-year LV end-systolic volume index was higher with new (23.2 ± 16.1 vs 20 ± 10.8 ml/m2, p = 0.038) and previous PPM (24.5 ± 19.7, p = 0.038) than no PPM. Previous PPM was associated with higher moderate-to-severe tricuspid regurgitation (35.3% vs 17.7%, p <0.001). There were no differences regarding the rest of the studied echocardiographic outcomes at 1 year. In conclusion, new and previous PPM did not affect 3-year mortality or 1-year major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events; however, they were associated with worse LVEF, higher 1-year LV end-systolic volume index, and lower mean and peak gradients on follow-up than no PPM.

Comparison of Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Versus Without Mitral Annular Calcium.

There are limited data regarding the impact of mitral annular calcium (MAC) on the outcomes of patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent TAVI in 2018 and divided them into 2 groups based on the presence or absence of MAC, using a validated MAC computed tomography-based scoring system. Among 468 patients who underwent TAVI in 2018, 271 patients (58%) had MAC present compared with 197 patients (42%) without MAC. Compared with patients without MAC, patients in the MAC group were older (81 vs 79, p = 0.012), had a higher body mass index (29.30 vs 28.05, p = 0.031), lower left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (4.47 vs 4.80, p <0.001), higher mitral valve mean gradient (4.54 vs 3.01, p = 0.031), and a higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score (5.69 vs 4.91, p = 0.127). There was no significant difference in the with versus without MAC groups in the all-cause mortality (at 1 year: 9% vs 6%, p = 0.8; at 2 years: 15% vs 13%, p = 0.47), incidence of myocardial infarction (1% vs 2%, p = 0.417), stroke (1% vs 3%, p = 0.4), and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (17% vs 19%, p = 0.53) at 1 year. Although the rate of new-onset left bundle branch block was higher in patients with MAC, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the rates of complete atrioventricular block (5% vs 3%, p = 0.483) or the need for pacemaker implantation (6% vs 3%, p = 0.168). The post-TAVI peak aortic valve gradient was comparable between the groups with and without MAC (22.52 vs 22.60, p = 0.931). In conclusion, TAVI is a safe alternative for patients with severe aortic stenosis and concomitant MAC, with comparable outcomes to patients without MAC.