Search

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has proven to be a safe, effective, and less invasive approach to aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis. In patients who underwent prior aortic valve replacement, transcatheter and surgical bioprosthetic valve dysfunction may occur as a result of structural deterioration or nonstructural causes such as prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM) and paravalvular regurgitation. Valve-in-Valve (ViV) TAVR is a procedure that is being increasingly utilized for the replacement of failed transcatheter or surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves. Data regarding long-term outcomes are limited due to the recency of the procedure's approval, but available data regarding the short- and long-term outcomes of ViV TAVR are promising. Studies have shown a reduction in perioperative and 30-day mortality with ViV TAVR procedures compared to redo surgical repair of failed bioprosthetic aortic valves, but 1-year and 5-year mortality rates are more controversial and lack sufficient data. Despite the reduction in 30-day mortality, PPM and rates of coronary obstruction are higher in ViV TAVR as compared to both redo surgical valve repair and native TAVR procedures. New transcatheter heart valve designs and new procedural techniques have been developed to reduce the risk of PPM and coronary obstruction. Newer generation valves, new procedural techniques, and increased operator experience with ViV TAVR may improve patient outcomes; however, further studies are needed to better understand the safety, efficacy, and durability of ViV TAVR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies evaluating the role of midodrine as an adjunctive therapy to liberate patients with shock from intravenous (IV) vasopressors have yielded mixed results. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of midodrine as an adjunctive therapy to liberate patients with shock from IV vasopressors. Methods: Electronic searches of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases through April 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the use of midodrine versus control in patients with shock and a low dose of IV vasopressors. The primary outcome was total IV vasopressor time, while the secondary outcomes included time-to-IV vasopressor discontinuation, IV vasopressor restart, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and incidence of bradycardia. Results: The final analysis included four RCTs with a total of 314 patients: 158 in the midodrine group and 156 in the control group, with a weighted mean age of 64 years (54.2% men). There was no significant difference in the total IV vasopressor time between the midodrine and control groups (standardized mean difference [SMD] − 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI] − 1.38 to 0.32, p = 0.22; I2 = 92%). Also, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the time-to-IV vasopressor discontinuation (SMD − 0.05; 95% CI − 0.57 to 0.47, p = 0.09), IV vasopressor restart (19.3 vs. 28.3%; risk ratio [RR] 0.74; 95% 0.25–2.20, p = 0.59), ICU LOS (SMD − 0.49; 95% CI − 1.30 to 0.33, p = 0.24), and hospital LOS (SMD 0.01; 95% CI − 0.27 to 0.29, p = 0.92). However, compared with the control group, the midodrine group had a higher risk of bradycardia (15.3 vs. 2.1% RR 5.56; 95% CI 1.54–20.05, p = 0.01). Conclusions: Among patients with vasopressor-dependent shock, midodrine was not associated with early liberation of vasopressor support or shorter ICU or hospital length of stay. Adding midodrine increased the risk of bradycardia. Further large RCTs are needed to better evaluate the efficacy and safety of midodrine in liberating patients from IV vasopressors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since its food and drug administration (FDA) approval in 2011, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the highly prevalent disease of aortic stenosis. In this review, we present a comprehensive overview of the data and considerations for utilization of TAVR in special populations who were either excluded from or not adequately represented in the seminal TAVR trials, due to high-risk valvular and/or systemic factors. These include nonagenarians, patients with renal dysfunction, chronic thrombocytopenia, bicuspid aortic valve, rheumatic valve disease, patients with failed aortic valve bioprosthesis requiring valve-in-valve intervention and patients with mixed aortic valve disease. In short, TAVR is a feasible therapeutic strategy in high-risk and special populations with mortality benefit and improvement in quality of life. Randomized controlled trials in high-risk populations are recommended to confirm results from observational studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of mitral valve (M-TEER) is reasonable consideration in symptomatic patients with severe degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR) who are at high or prohibitive risk of surgical repair or replacement. In symptomatic patients on maximally tolerated medical therapy with severe secondary MR from left ventricular systolic dysfunction, M-TEER is reasonable therapeutic option. Methods: In this review, we present a comprehensive overview of the most recent literature and considerations for M-TEER in patients excluded from key trials. These include patients with cardiogenic shock, acute ischemic MR, atrial functional MR, failed surgical mitral valve prosthesis and pulmonary hypertension. Conclusions: M-TEER is feasible and a reasonable alternative option for these patient populations with a significant clinical benefit. However, randomized clinical trials are needed to ascertain findings from these observational studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose of Review: The COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges globally, with significant strain on the healthcare system in the United States and worldwide. In this article, we review the impact of COVID-19 on percutaneous coronary interventions and structural heart disease practices, as well as the impact of the pandemic on related clinical research and trials. We also discuss the consensus recommendations from the scientific societies and suggest potential solutions and strategies to overcome some of these challenges. Findings: With the limited resources and significant burden on the healthcare system during the pandemic, changes have evolved in practice to provide care to the highest risk patients while minimizing unnecessary exposure during elective surgical or transcatheter procedures. Summary: The COVID-19 crisis has significantly impacted the management of patients with acute coronary syndromes, chronic coronary syndromes, and structural heart disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nationwide Inpatient Sample data between 2008 and 2019 showing the trends (A) and predictors (B) of patients transferred with acute pulmonary embolism (PE).The odds ratio (OR) for age is for every 1-year increase. Keywords: mortality; pulmonary embolism (PE); hosptial transfer EN mortality pulmonary embolism (PE) hosptial transfer 587 589 3 12/12/22 20221201 NES 221201 Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality.[1] Timely management of acute decompensated PE improves pulmonary artery pressure and right ventricular function for patients with intermediate- and high-risk PE,[2],[3] although not all hospitals offer comprehensive PE care services.[4] Despite the potential role for a multidisciplinary PE rapid response team in facilitating the transfer process for this high-risk population,[5] systematic transfer protocols for PE care have not been widely developed or endorsed by societal guidelines.[4],[5] We aimed to examine trends, outcomes, and predictors of patients transferred with PE. [Extracted from the article]

Introduction: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic's impact on vascular procedural volumes and outcomes has not been fully characterized. Methods: Volume and outcome data before (1/2019 – 2/2020), during (3/2020 – 4/2020), and following (5/2020 – 6/2020) the initial pandemic surge were obtained from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). Volume changes were determined using interrupted Poisson time series regression. Adjusted mortality was estimated using multivariable logistic regression. Results: The final cohort comprised 57,181 patients from 147 US and Canadian sites. Overall procedure volumes fell 35.2% (95% CI 31.9%, 38.4%, p < 0.001) during and 19.8% (95% CI 16.8%, 22.9%, p < 0.001) following the surge, compared with presurge months. Procedure volumes fell 71.1% for claudication (95% CI 55.6%, 86.4%, p < 0.001) and 15.9% for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) (95% CI 11.9%, 19.8%, p < 0.001) but remained unchanged for acute limb ischemia (ALI) when comparing surge to presurge months. Adjusted mortality was significantly higher among those with claudication (0.5% vs 0.1%; OR 4.38 [95% CI 1.42, 13.5], p = 0.01) and ALI (6.4% vs 4.4%; OR 2.63 [95% CI 1.39, 4.98], p = 0.003) when comparing postsurge with presurge periods. Conclusion: The first North American COVID-19 pandemic surge was associated with a significant and sustained decline in both elective and nonelective lower-extremity vascular procedural volumes. When compared with presurge patients, in-hospital mortality increased for those with claudication and ALI following the surge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: There has been limited research on patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and COVID-19.Objective: To compare characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of patients with STEMI with vs without COVID-19 infection.Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients admitted between January 2019 and December 2020 (end of follow-up in January 2021) with out-of-hospital or in-hospital STEMI at 509 US centers in the Vizient Clinical Database (N = 80 449).Exposures: Active COVID-19 infection present during the same encounter.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Patients were propensity matched on the likelihood of COVID-19 diagnosis. In the main analysis, patients with COVID-19 were compared with those without COVID-19 during the previous calendar year.Results: The out-of-hospital STEMI group included 76 434 patients (551 with COVID-19 vs 2755 without COVID-19 after matching) from 370 centers (64.1% aged 51-74 years; 70.3% men). The in-hospital STEMI group included 4015 patients (252 with COVID-19 vs 756 without COVID-19 after matching) from 353 centers (58.3% aged 51-74 years; 60.7% men). In patients with out-of-hospital STEMI, there was no significant difference in the likelihood of undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention by COVID-19 status; patients with in-hospital STEMI and COVID-19 were significantly less likely to undergo invasive diagnostic or therapeutic coronary procedures than those without COVID-19. Among patients with out-of-hospital STEMI and COVID-19 vs out-of-hospital STEMI without COVID-19, the rates of in-hospital mortality were 15.2% vs 11.2% (absolute difference, 4.1% [95% CI, 1.1%-7.0%]; P = .007). Among patients with in-hospital STEMI and COVID-19 vs in-hospital STEMI without COVID-19, the rates of in-hospital mortality were 78.5% vs 46.1% (absolute difference, 32.4% [95% CI, 29.0%-35.9%]; P < .001).Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with out-of-hospital or in-hospital STEMI, a concomitant diagnosis of COVID-19 was significantly associated with higher rates of in-hospital mortality compared with patients without a diagnosis of COVID-19 from the past year. Further research is required to understand the potential mechanisms underlying this association. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of all published studies comparing the outcomes of DCBs vs. stenting in AMI patients. Four studies with 497 patients (534 lesions) were included (three randomized controlled trials and one observational study). During a mean follow-up of 9 months (range 6–12 months), DCBs were associated with similar risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (5% vs. 4.4%; OR 1.24, 95% CI: [0.34, 4.51], p = 0.74, I2 = 35%), all-cause mortality (0.02% vs. 0.04%; OR 077, 95% CI: [0.15, 3.91], p = 0.75, I2 = 25%), cardiac death (0.01% vs. 0.02%; OR 0.64, 95% CI: [0.16, 2.64], p = 0.54), myocardial infarction (0% vs. 1.4%; OR 0.18, 95% CI: [0.01, 3.56], p = 0.26), and target lesion revascularization (3.7% vs. 2%; OR 1.74, 95% CI: [0.42, 7.13], p = 0.44, I2 = 17%) compared with stenting. During a mean follow-up of 7 months (range 6–9 months), DCBs had similar late lumen loss compared with stenting (mean difference 0.04 mm, 95% CI [– 0.21–0.28], p = 0.77, I2 = 92%). In patients with AMI, there was no statistical difference in the incidence of clinical and angiographic outcomes between AMI patients treated with DCB and DES. Larger studies with longer-term follow-up are needed to assess the clinical utility of DCBs in this setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Heart failure (HF) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and the burden of HF continues to rise. There has been an interest in sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for their role in reducing HF hospitalizations in pivotal trials. Since these agents were approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the management of diabetes mellitus, multiple small trials and analyses have tried to explain the underlying beneficial mechanisms in HF. In this review, we discuss different mechanisms by which SGLT2 inhibitors play hemodynamic, metabolic, and cellular roles in different HF phenotypes. We also address issues pertaining to the safety of these relatively newer agents. SGLT2 inhibitors are associated with a reduction in HF hospitalizations in both diabetics and non-diabetics. The beneficial role of SGLT2 inhibitors in reducing HF hospitalization is observed among participants with established cardiovascular disease/HF and at-risk population. SGLT2 inhibitors pose an important role in renal protection, another mechanism by which these medications can be helpful in HF patients [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The role of losartan in preventing aortic root dilatation in Marfan syndrome has been evaluated in many clinical trials; however, the results are conflicting. Methods: We performed a computerized search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases through February 2019 for randomized clinical trials evaluating the effect of losartan in patients with Marfan syndrome. The main outcome was the change in the aortic root diameter in the losartan versus control groups. Results: Our final analysis included seven randomized trials with a total of 1352 patients and average weighted follow-up of 37.8 months. Change in aortic root diameter was significantly smaller with losartan compared with control [weighted means: 0.44 vs. 0.58 mm, mean difference (MD) = −0.13; 95% CI −0.24 to −0.02; p = 0.02]. Subgroup analysis according to the control group showed no significant subgroup interaction when comparing losartan with beta-blockers versus with standard therapy (pinteraction= 0.27). The composite outcome of aortic surgery, dissection or mortality did not differ between the losartan and control groups (risk ratio = 1.03; 95% CI 0.72–1.49, p = 0.86). Conclusion: In this meta-analysis including seven randomized trials, the use of losartan was associated with a significantly smaller change in aortic root diameter in patients with Marfan syndrome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) worsens cardiovascular (CV) outcomes of heart failure (HF) and vice versa. The impact of rate or rhythm control strategies on HF progression and survival remains unclear.Methods: We examined the risk of HF progression in AF patients (pts) with a prior HF event and minimal or no HF burden (NYHA class 0 or 1). They were stratified into HF with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (≥ 40%, pEF) or reduced EF (< 40%, rEF). HF subgroups from the Rate and Rhythm arm were compared for the primary outcome of worsening HF or death (WHFD), total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular hospitalizations.Results: Four hundred ninety-two AF pts (HFpEF = 349, HFrEF = 143) were analyzed. Baseline characteristics were generally comparable in the Rate and Rhythm arms of the two subgroups. Over a median follow-up of 4 years, HF recurred and worsened in 66.6% and 41.2% of pts by ≥ 1 and ≥ 2 NYHA classes, respectively. HF progression by even 1 NYHA class increased the mortality risk in HFpEF (hazard ratio (HR) 2.06; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.25-3.4; p = 0.004) and HFrEF (HR 1.9; 95% CI 0.99-3.66; p = 0.054). Cardiovascular hospitalization (CVH) increased in HFpEF (HR 3.67; 95% CI 2.56, 5.25; p < 0.0001) and HFrEF (HR 2.8; 95% CI 1.53-5.14; p = 0.0009). HF progression by 2 or more NYHA classes or death was significantly worse in pts with HFrEF with the Rate control strategy compared with the Rhythm control (HR 1.62; 95% CI 1.03-2.53; p = 0.036) but similar in pts with HFpEF (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.64-1.21; p = 0.440).The time to first AF recurrence was longer in the Rhythm arms of both HF subgroups as compared with Rate (Figure, p < 0.05).Conclusions: (1) HF progression in AF pts with a prior HF event confers significant mortality and CVH risk in both HFrEF and HFpEF populations. (2) HF progression is more pronounced with a Rate control strategy in AF pts with HFrEF, but is comparable to Rhythm control in AF pts with HFpEF. (3) A Rhythm control strategy may be desirable to reduce HF progression in pts with HFrEF and AF. Prospective clinical trials appear warranted to examine HF progression by treatment strategy in HFpEF and HFrEF populations with AF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of cilostazol after endovascular therapy (EVT) of peripheral artery disease (PAD) remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis for all studies reporting the outcomes of cilostazol after EVT of PAD from January 2000 through November 2018 with the outcomes of interest including primary patency, major adverse limb events (MALE), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and major amputation. We included eight studies (three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five observational studies) with a total of 3846 patients (4713 lesions). During a mean follow-up duration of 12.5 ± 5 months, the use of cilostazol was associated with higher primary patency (OR 2.28, 95% CI (1.77, 2.94), p < 0.001, I2 = 24%), lower risk of TLR (OR 0.37, 95% CI (0.26, 0.52), p < 0.001, I2 = 0%), and lower risk of major amputation (OR 0.15, 95% CI (0.04, 0.62), p = 0.008, I2 = 0%). The use of cilostazol in RCTs was associated with significantly higher odds of primary patency compared with observational studies (OR 3.37 vs 2.28, p -interaction = 0.03). After further subgroup analysis, cilostazol remained associated with higher primary patency regardless of the use of anticoagulants (warfarin) (p -interaction = 0.49). We conclude that the use of cilostazol after EVT of femoropopliteal and iliac lesions is associated with improved primary patency and lower risk of major amputation and TLR. The favorable impact of cilostazol is independent of the use of warfarin. PROSPERO identifier: CRD42018092715. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) is a device therapy for systolic heart failure (HF) in patients with narrow QRS. We aimed to perform an updated meta-analysis of the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to assess the efficacy and safety of CCM therapy. Methods. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) between January 2001 and June 2018. Outcomes of interest were peak oxygen consumption (peak VO2), 6-Minute Walk Distance (6MWD), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), HF hospitalizations, cardiac arrhythmias, pacemaker/ICD malfunctioning, all-cause hospitalizations, and mortality. Data were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) or odds ratio (OR). Results. Four RCTs including 801 patients (CCM n = 394) were available for analysis. The mean age was 59.63 ± 0.84 years, mean ejection fraction was 29.14 ± 1.22%, and mean QRS duration was 106.23 ± 1.65 msec. Mean follow-up duration was six months. CCM was associated with improved MLWHFQ (SMD -0.69, p = 0.0008). There were no differences in HF hospitalizations (OR 0.76, p = 0.12), 6MWD (SMD 0.67, p = 0.10), arrhythmias (OR 1.40, p = 0.14), pacemaker/ICD malfunction/sensing defect (OR 2.23, p = 0.06), all-cause hospitalizations (OR 0.73, p = 0.33), or all-cause mortality (OR 1.04, p = 0.92) between the CCM and non-CCM groups. Conclusions. Short-term treatment with CCM may improve MLFHQ without significant difference in 6MWD, arrhythmic events, HF hospitalizations, all-cause hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality. There is a trend towards increased pacemaker/ICD device malfunction. Larger RCTs might be needed to determine if the CCM therapy will be beneficial with longer follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The role of percutaneous patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure for prevention of migraine is controversial. Methods: We performed a computerised search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases through December 2017 for randomised trials evaluating PFO closure versus control in patients with migraine headaches (with or without aura). The main study outcome was the reduction in monthly migraine attacks after PFO closure compared with the control group. Results: The final analysis included three randomised trials with a total of 484 patients. Reduction in monthly migraine attacks was higher in PFO closure compared with the control group (standardised mean difference-SMD = 0.25; 95% CI: 0.06–0.43; p =.01). There was higher reduction of monthly migraine days in PFO closure group compared with control group (SMD = 0.30; 95% CI: 0.08–0.53; p =.01). There was no statistically significant difference in complete resolution of migraine attacks (OR: 3.67; 95% CI: 0.66–20.41; p =.14) and in responders' rate (OR: 1.92; 95% CI: 0.76–4.85; p =.17) between PFO closure and control groups. In patients whose majority of migraine attacks are with aura, there was an observed reduction in migraine attacks in PFO closure compared with control groups (SMD = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.07–1.65; p =.03). Conclusion: PFO closure might be beneficial in migraine patients by reducing migraine attacks and migraine days, especially in patients whose majority of migraine attacks are with aura. However, those benefits were not associated with an improvement in responders' rate or complete resolution of migraine; raising concerns on the magnitude of clinical benefit of PFO closure in migraine prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We examined the long-term (≥ 5 years) outcomes of dual-site atrial pacing (DAP) when added to background antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) and/or ablation in patients with refractory atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF).Methods: Seventy-three patients with HF (mean NYHA HF class of 2.5) and AF refractory to AADs and/or ablation were implanted with DAP systems to achieve biatrial electrical and mechanical resynchronization (ART) and rhythm control (RC).Results: Thirty-eight patients with refractory AF and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and 35 with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) were enrolled. HFpEF patients had higher left ventricular ejection fraction compared to HFrEF (53 ± 5 vs. 31 ± 10% p < 0.001). Median follow-up for survival was 9.3 years (mean 9.0 years, SE 0.63) and was similar across subgroups (p = 0.127). After DAP, 87% maintained RC with improvement in NYHA HF class (mean 1.8) at 3 years. RC was similar in HFpEF compared with HFrEF patients (89 vs. 85% respectively, p = NS) and in paroxysmal versus persistent AF (90 vs. 85% respectively, p = NS). Total survival was superior in HFpEF compared HFrEF patients (75% in HFpEF vs. 45% in HFrEF at 5 years, and 60% in HFpEF vs. 34% in HFrEF at 10 years, p = 0.036). Survival trended to be better in patients with RC than those without RC (75 vs. 54% respectively at 5 years, p = .13).Conclusions: ART using DAP as add on therapy improved HF and established long-term RC in many patients with HFrEF and HFpEF with refractory AF. Long-term survival rates were superior in HFpEF than HFrEF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To examine whether routine thrombus aspiration (TA) is associated with improved myocardial salvage in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) presenting ≥12 h after onset of symptoms.Background: TA is a recognized treatment option in patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) especially in the setting of heavy thrombus burden. However, data on the role of TA in STEMI patients presenting late after onset of symptoms are limited.Methods: In this single-center prospective randomized study, patients with subacute STEMI presenting ≥12 and ≤48 h after symptom onset were randomized to primary PCI with or without manual TA in a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was the myocardial salvage index assessed with Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) on admission and 4 days later.Results: A total of 60 patients underwent randomization. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. TA was associated with improved myocardial salvage index compared with control group (60.1 ± 11.1% vs 28.1 ± 21.3%; P = <0.001). Furthermore, TA was associated with improved post-procedural TIMI flow (2.9 ± 0.3 vs 2.5 ± 0.6; P = 0.003), myocardial blush grade (2.9 ± 0.3 vs 2.2 ± 0.8, P = <0.001), and reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic dimensions (50.4 ± 4.3 mm vs 54.4 ± 5.8 mm, P = 0.004) compared with the control group. Clinical outcomes at 30 days and 6 months were similar between both groups.Conclusions: TA might be associated with improved reperfusion and myocardial salvage especially in STEMI patients presenting after 12 h from symptom onset who are likely to have a heavy thrombus burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We sought to examine the impact of coronary chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on left ventricular (LV) function.Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published between January 1980 and November 2017 on the impact of successful CTO PCI on LV function.Results: A total of 34 observational studies including 2735 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Over a weighted mean follow-up of 7.9 months, successful CTO PCI was associated with an increase in LV ejection fraction by 3.8% (95%CI 3.0-4.7, P < 0.0001, I2  = 45%). In secondary analysis of 15 studies (1248 patients) that defined CTOs as occlusions of at least 3-month duration and reported follow-up of at least 3-months after the procedure, successful CTO PCI was associated with improvement in LV ejection fraction by 4.3% (95%CI [3.1, 5.6], P < 0.0001). In the 10 studies (502 patients) that reported LV end-systolic volume, successful CTO PCI was associated with a decrease in LV end-systolic volume by 4 mL, (95%CI -6.0 to -2.1, P < 0.0001, I2  = 0%). LV end-diastolic volume was reported in 9 studies with 403 patients and did not significantly change after successful CTO PCI (-2.3 mL, 95%CI -5.7 to 1.2 mL, P = 0.19, I2  = 0%).Conclusions: Successful CTO PCI is associated with a statistically significant improvement in LV ejection fraction and decrease in LV end-systolic volume, that may reflect a beneficial effect of CTO recanalization on LV remodeling. The clinical implications of these findings warrant further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To perform an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the long-term cardiovascular and cerebrovascular outcomes among migraineurs. Setting A meta-analysis of cohort studies performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data sources The MEDLINE, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for relevant articles. Participants A total of 16 cohort studies (18 study records) with 394 942 migraineurs and 757 465 nonmigraineurs were analysed. Primary and secondary outcome measures Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), stroke (ie, ischaemic, haemorrhagic or nonspecified), myocardial infarction (MI) and all-cause mortality. The outcomes were reported at the longest available follow-up. Data analysis Summary-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) were calculated by random-effects Der-Simonian and Liard model. The risk of bias was assessed by the Newcastle- Ottawa Scale. Results Migraine was associated with a higher risk of MACCE (adjusted HR 1.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26 to 1.60, P<0.001, I²=40%) driven by a higher risk of stroke (adjusted HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.61, P<0.001, I²=72%) and MI (adjusted HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.43, P=0.006, I²=59%). There was no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.10, P=0.38, I²=91%), with a considerable degree of statistical heterogeneity between the studies. The presence of aura was an effect modifier for stroke (adjusted HR aura 1.56, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.87 vs adjusted HR no aura 1.11, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.31, Pinteraction=0.01) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR aura 1.20, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.30 vs adjusted HR no aura 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.07, Pinteraction<0.001). Conclusion Migraine headache was associated with an increased long-term risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. This effect was due to an increased risk of stroke (both ischaemic and haemorrhagic) and MI. There was a moderate to severe degree of heterogeneity for the outcomes, which was partly explained by the presence of aura. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The optimal interventional technique for addressing coronary bifurcation lesions is debatable. Long-term clinical outcomes with provisional stenting (PS) compared with a two-stent (TS) strategy for bifurcation lesions are scarce. We aim to perform the first meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to explore long-term outcomes comparing both strategies.Methods: An electronic search was performed for online databases until August 2016 for RCTs comparing PS with TS for bifurcation lesions reporting outcomes at 1 year of follow-up or more. Random effects model risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for outcomes of interest.Results: Eight RCTs with a total of 2778 patients reported long-term clinical outcomes. At mean follow-up of 3.0±1.6 years, PS was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR=0.66; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.98; p=0.04) compared with TS for bifurcation lesions. No difference was observed with PS compared with TS regarding major adverse cardiac events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularisation (TLR) or stent thrombosis (ST). In a sensitivity analysis limited to trials with follow-up duration ≥3 years, PS was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR=0.57; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.88; p=0.01), MACE (RR=0.71; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.97; p=0.03) and MI (RR=0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.96; p=0.04) compared with TS, at mean follow-up of 4.6±0.7 years. The risk of TLR and ST remained similar with both strategies (RR=0.81; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.15; p=0.24; and RR=0.75; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.84; p=0.67 respectively). Meta-regression analyses identified increased risk of MACE with PS in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (p=0.05).Conclusion: PS may be associated with a long-term mortality benefit compared with a TS strategy for coronary bifurcation lesions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Data regarding long-term clinical outcomes with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) versus second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) are scarce.Methods: We searched online databases until October 2016 for studies comparing BVS versus DES reporting outcomes at 2 years of follow-up. We performed a meta-analysis comparing BVS with DES across the spectrum of coronary artery disease (CAD). Random effects model OR was calculated for outcomes of interest including device-oriented composite events (DOCE; defined as composite of cardiac mortality, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (TLR)), all-cause mortality, definite stent thrombosis, TV-MI and TLR.Results: A total of 2360 patients enrolled in five studies met criteria for inclusion in this analysis. At 2 years, BVS was associated with higher rates of DOCE (6.9% vs 4.5%, OR=1.53; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.23; p=0.02), absolute risk increase (ARI) 2.4%, relative risk increase (RRI) 53%, TV-MI (4% vs 1.8%, OR=1.94; 95% CI 1.02 to 3.67; p=0.04), ARI 2.2%, RRI 122% and definite stent thrombosis (2.1% vs 0.6%, OR=3.39; 95% CI 1.46 to 7.88; p=0.005), ARI 1.5%, RRI 250% compared with DES. No differences in all-cause mortality (OR=0.86; 95% CI 0.26 to 2.81; p=0.80) and TLR (OR=1.44; 95% CI 0.81 to 2.54; p=0.21) were observed between both groups.Conclusions: BVS may be associated with worse long-term clinical outcomes compared with DES. Randomised clinical trials are encouraged to expeditiously report long-term safety and efficacy outcomes and identify predictors of adverse events with BVS compared with DES. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Although a large recent trial had shown improved cardiovascular outcomes of diabetic patients on sodium glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, the influence of gender differences on such outcomes is not known. Thus, we aimed to assess the impact of gender on such outcomes in the patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving SGLT-2 inhibitors. Methods: A search of electronic databases was conducted for all randomized trials comparing SGLT-2 inhibitors with placebo in patients with diabetes mellitus. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Random effects meta-regression was conducted using the percentage of women included in the SGLT-2 inhibitor arm of each trial with a P value of <0.1 for statistical significance. Results: A total of 22,256 patients from 26 trials were included. The overall odds ratio (OR) of all-cause mortality [OR = 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.86, P<0.001, I2 = 0%], and cardiovascular mortality (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.53-0.84, P = 0.001, I2 = 23%) were lower with SGLT-2 inhibitors. Meta-regression suggested a possible incremental increase in the OR for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality as the percentage of women in the SGLT-2 inhibitor arm increased (P = 0.07 and 0.08, respectively). Conclusion: Gender might influence the cardiovascular benefits observed with SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives The objective of this meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is to evaluate the role of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (NICM).Setting A meta-analysis of RCTs performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines.Data sources The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for relevant articles.Participants A total of 5 RCTs with 2573 patients with NICM were included.Intervention Primary prevention ICD, compared with medical therapy alone.Primary and secondary outcome measures All-cause mortality (primary outcome) and sudden cardiac death (SCD, secondary outcome).Data analysis Summary estimate HR were constructed using the random-effect DerSimonian and Laird’s model. Multiple study-level subgroup analyses were performed, and interaction was tested using random-effect analysis.Results Compared with medical therapy alone, ICD placement was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.93; p<0.001; I2=0%) at a mean follow-up of 4.2 years. The risk of SCD was also lower with ICD placement (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.73; p=0.001; I2=0%) compared with control. On subgroup analyses, there was a suggestion of possible effect modification by age, in which benefit was observed in age group <60 years (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.89), but not with age ≥60 years (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.03) (Pinteraction=0.058), but not with other study-level variables.Conclusions Compared with medical therapy alone, primary prevention ICD therapy in patients with NICM is associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality, especially in younger patients. Future dedicated studies are needed to investigate the role of primary prevention ICD in the elderly population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Large randomized trials have shown conflicting evidence regarding the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. Systematic reviews have been limited by incomplete data and inclusion of observational studies. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the cardiovascular safety of DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials that compared DPP-4 inhibitors versus placebo and reported cardiovascular outcomes. The main outcome assessed in this analysis was heart failure. Other outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. Summary odds ratios (ORs) were primarily constructed using Peto's model. Results: A total of 90 trials with 66,730 patients were included. Compared with placebo, DPP-4 inhibitors were associated with a non-significant increased risk of heart failure [OR 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.25, P = 0.07] at a mean of 108 weeks. The risk of all-cause mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94-1.12, P = 0.53), cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.14, P = 0.72), myocardial infarction (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88-1.09, P = 0.69), and ischemic stroke (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85-1.15, P = 0.92) was similar between both groups. Conclusion: In patients with type 2 diabetes, the safety profile of DPP-4 inhibitors is similar to placebo. As a class, there is only weak evidence for an increased risk of heart failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]