Search

Aims: In low‐risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), sutureless surgical aortic valve replacement (SU‐SAVR) may be an alternative to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The risk of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) in this population is incompletely characterized. This study aims to investigate the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of HFH in patients undergoing SU‐SAVR versus TAVI. Methods and results: Patients referred for AVR between 2013 and 2020 at two centres were consecutively included. The decision for SU‐SAVR or TAVI was determined by a multidisciplinary Heart Team. Cox regression and competing risk analysis were conducted to assess adverse events. Of 594 patients (mean age 77.5 ± 6.4, 59.8% male), 424 underwent SU‐SAVR, while 170 underwent TAVI. Following a mean follow‐up of 34.1 ± 23.1 months, HFH occurred in 112 (27.8%) SU‐SAVR patients and in 8 (4.8%) TAVI patients (P < 0.001). The SU‐SAVR cohort exhibited higher all‐cause mortality (138 [32.5%] patients compared with 30 [17.6%] in the TAVI cohort [P < 0.001]). These differences remained significant after sensitivity analyses with 1:1 propensity score matching for baseline variables. SU‐SAVR with HFH was associated with increased all‐cause mortality (61.6% vs. 23.1%, P < 0.001). Independent associates of HFH in SU‐SAVR patients included diabetes, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lower glomerular filtration rate and lower left ventricular ejection fraction. SU‐SAVR patients with HFH had a 12‐month LVEF of 59.4 ± 12.7. Conclusions: In low‐risk AS, SU‐SAVR is associated with a higher risk of HFH and all‐cause mortality compared to TAVI. In patients with severe AS candidate to SU‐SAVR or TAVI, TAVI may be the preferred intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) and the GLP-1 analog exenatide activate different cardioprotective pathways and may have additive effects on infarct size (IS). Here, we aimed to assess the efficacy of RIC as compared with sham procedure, and of exenatide, as compared with placebo, and the interaction between both, to reduce IS in humans. We designed a two-by-two factorial, randomized controlled, blinded, multicenter, clinical trial. Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction receiving primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) within 6 h of symptoms were randomized to RIC or sham procedure and exenatide or matching placebo. The primary outcome was IS measured by late gadolinium enhancement in cardiac magnetic resonance performed 3–7 days after PPCI. The secondary outcomes were myocardial salvage index, transmurality index, left ventricular ejection fraction and relative microvascular obstruction volume. A total of 378 patients were randomly allocated, and after applying exclusion criteria, 222 patients were available for analysis. There were no significant interactions between the two randomization factors on the primary or secondary outcomes. IS was similar between groups for the RIC (24 ± 11.8% in the RIC group vs 23.7 ± 10.9% in the sham group, P = 0.827) and the exenatide hypotheses (25.1 ± 11.5% in the exenatide group vs 22.5 ± 10.9% in the placebo group, P = 0.092). There were no effects with either RIC or exenatide on the secondary outcomes. Unexpected adverse events or side effects of RIC and exenatide were not observed. In conclusion, neither RIC nor exenatide, or its combination, were able to reduce IS in STEMI patients when administered as an adjunct to PPCI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]