Search

Objectives: To study the safety and feasibility of a restrictive temporary-RV-pacemaker use and to evaluate the need for temporary pacemaker insertion for failed left ventricular (LV) pacing ability (no ventricular capture) or occurrence of high-degree AV-blocks mandating continuous pacing. Background: Ventricular pacing remains an essential part of contemporary transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). A temporary-right-ventricle (RV)-pacemaker lead is the standard approach for transient pacing during TAVI but requires central venous access. Methods: An observational registry including 672 patients who underwent TAVI between June 2018 and December 2020. Patients received pacing on the wire when necessary, unless there was a high-anticipated risk for conduction disturbances post-TAVI, based on the baseline-ECG. The follow-up period was 30 days. Results: A temporary-RV-pacemaker lead (RVP-cohort) was inserted in 45 patients, pacing on the wire (LVP-cohort) in 488 patients, and no pacing (NoP-cohort) in 139 patients. A bailout temporary pacemaker was implanted in 14 patients (10.1%) in the NoP-cohort and in 24 patients (4.9%) in the LVP-cohort. One patient in the LVP-cohort needed an RV-pacemaker for incomplete ventricular capture. Procedure time was significantly longer in the RVP-cohort (68 min [IQR 52–88.] vs. 55 min [IQR 44–72] in NoP-cohort and 55 min [IQR 43–71] in the LVP-cohort [p < 0.005]). Procedural high-degree AV-block occurred most often in the RVP-cohort (45% vs. 14% in the LVP and 16% in the NoP-cohort [p ≤ 0.001]). Need for new PPI occurred in 47% in the RVP-cohort, versus 20% in the NoP-cohort and 11% in the LVP-cohort (p ≤ 0.001). Conclusion: A restricted RV-pacemaker strategy is safe and shortens procedure time. The majority of TAVI-procedures do not require a temporary-RV-pacemaker.

Introduction: We aimed to compare conduction dynamics and need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after CoreValve, Evolut R and PRO (transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)). Methods: Patients were stratified based on conduction at baseline; Cohort A had normal conduction, Cohort B had conduction abnormalities including atrioventricular (AV)-block, fascicular block or complete bundle branch block. Three different dynamic QRS-patterns were defined: stable QRS-duration, transient QRS-prolongation and persistent QRS-prolongation. We performed multivariable regression analysis to estimate the effect of the three separate transcatheter heart valves (THV's) on need for PPI at 30 days. Results: TAVR was performed with CoreValve (N = 113), Evolut R (N = 157) or Evolut PRO (N = 92). Conduction dynamics were similar between the different THVs. Overall, Evolut R and PRO showed a tendency towards less PPI compared to CoreValve (17% vs. 19% vs. 27%, P = 0.08), which was driven by a lower PPI rate in Cohort A (6% vs. 11% vs. 25%, P = 0.002). Need for PPI was restricted to patients with persistent QRS-prolongation in Cohort A (26/106) but did not correlate with conduction dynamics in Cohort B. In multivariable logistic regression analysis the use of Evolut R (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19–0.78, P = 0.008) and PRO (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19–0.91, P-value = 0.028) were independently associated with less need for PPI. Conclusion: The newer generations Evolut R and PRO were associated with less PPI compared to CoreValve. Acquired persistent conduction abnormalities predicted PPI after TAVR only in patients with normal conduction at baseline. Our findings may help identify eligible patients for early discharge after Evolut R/PRO TAVR.

The medical field has seen a rapid increase in the development of artificial intelligence (AI)-based prediction models. With the introduction of such AI-based prediction model tools and software in cardiovascular patient care, the cardiovascular researcher and healthcare professional are challenged to understand the opportunities as well as the limitations of the AI-based predictions. In this article, we present 12 critical questions for cardiovascular health professionals to ask when confronted with an AI-based prediction model. We aim to support medical professionals to distinguish the AI-based prediction models that can add value to patient care from the AI that does not.

Introduction: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has matured to the treatment of choice for most patients with aortic stenosis (AS). We sought to identify trends in patient and procedural characteristics, and clinical outcomes in all patients who underwent TAVI between 2005 and 2020. Methods: A single-centre analysis was performed on 1500 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI, divided into three tertiles (T) of 500 patients treated between November 2005 and December 2014 (T1), January 2015 and May 2018 (T2) and June 2018 and April 2020 (T3). Results: Over time, mean age and gender did not change (T1 to T3: 80, 80 and 79 years and 53%, 55% and 52% men, respectively), while the Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score declined (T1: 4.5% to T3: 2.7%, p < 0.001). Use of general anaesthesia also declined over time (100%, 24% and 1% from T1 to T3) and transfemoral TAVI remained the default approach (87%, 94% and 92%). Median procedure time and contrast volume decreased significantly (186, 114 and 56 min and 120, 100 and 80 ml, respectively). Thirty-day mortality (7%, 4% and 2%), stroke (7%, 3% and 3%), need for a pacemaker (19%, 22% and 8%) and delirium (17%, 12% and 8%) improved significantly, while major bleeding/vascular complications did not change (both approximately 9%, 6% and 6%). One-year survival was 80%, 88% and 92%, respectively. Conclusion: Over our 15 years’ experience, patient age remained unchanged but the patient risk profile became more favourable. Simplification of the TAVI procedure occurred in parallel with major improvement in outcomes and survival. Bleeding/vascular complications and the need for pacemaker implantation remain the Achilles’ heel of TAVI.

Background: The integration of computed tomography (CT)-derived left ventricular outflow tract area into the echocardiography-derived continuity equation results in the reclassification of a significant proportion of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) into moderate AS based on aortic valve area indexed to body surface area determined by fusion imaging (fusion AVA i). The aim of this study was to evaluate AS severity by a fusion imaging technique in patients with low-gradient AS and to compare the clinical impact of reclassified moderate AS versus severe AS. Methods: We included 359 consecutive patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation for low-gradient, severe AS at two academic institutions and created a joint database. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and rehospitalisations for heart failure at 1 year. Results: Overall, 35% of the population (n = 126) were reclassified to moderate AS [median fusion AVAi 0.70 (interquartile range, IQR 0.65–0.80) cm 2/m 2] and severe AS was retained as the classification in 65% [median fusion AVAi 0.49 (IQR 0.43–0.54) cm 2/m 2]. Lower body mass index, higher logistic EuroSCORE and larger aortic dimensions characterised patients reclassified to moderate AS. Overall, 57% of patients had a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50%. Clinical outcome was similar in patients with reclassified moderate or severe AS. Among patients reclassified to moderate AS, non-cardiac mortality was higher in those with LVEF <50% than in those with LVEF ≥50% (log-rank p = 0.029). Conclusions: The integration of CT and transthoracic echocardiography to obtain fusion AVAi led to the reclassification of one third of patients with low-gradient AS to moderate AS. Reclassification did not affect clinical outcome, although patients reclassified to moderate AS with a LVEF <50% had worse outcomes owing to excess non-cardiac mortality.

Objective: To compare early clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with three consecutive generations of self-expanding valves (SEVs). Methods: Clinical endpoints of consecutive patients who underwent TAVI with CoreValve, Evolut R or Evolut PRO were included in a prospective database. Results: TAVI was performed with CoreValve (n = 116), Evolut R (n = 160) or Evolut PRO (n = 92). Evolut R and Evolut PRO showed a tendency towards lower permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rates compared to CoreValve (CoreValve 27% vs Evolut R 16% vs Evolut PRO 18%, p = 0.091). By multivariable regression analysis CoreValve had a significantly higher risk for PPI (odds ratio (OR) 2.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31–5.94, p = 0.008) compared to Evolut R, while Evolut R and PRO were similar. Severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) occurred only with CoreValve, but no significant difference was observed in moderate PVL (10% vs 8% vs 6%, p = 0.49). CoreValve had a tendency towards a higher risk for more-than-mild PVL as compared with the Evolut platform (R + PRO) (OR 2.46, 95% CI 0.98–6.16, p = 0.055). No significant differences in all-cause mortality (7% vs 4% vs 1%, p = 0.10), stroke (6% vs 3% vs 2%, p = 0.21) or major vascular complications (10% vs 12% vs 4%, p = 0.14) were observed. Conclusions: TAVI with self-expanding valves was safe, and device iterations may result in a lower need for PPI. More-than-mild PVL seemed to occur less often with repositionable technology.

Background: The predictive performance of the models FRANCE-2 and ACC-TAVI for early-mortality after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) can decline over time and can be enhanced by updating them on new populations. We aim to update and internally and temporally validate these models using a recent TAVI-cohort from the Netherlands Heart Registration (NHR). Methods: We used data of TAVI-patients treated in 2013–2017. For each original-model, the best update-method (model-intercept, model-recalibration, or model-revision) was selected by a closed-testing procedure. We internally validated both updated models with 1000 bootstrap samples. We also updated the models on the 2013–2016 dataset and temporally validated them on the 2017-dataset. Performance measures were the Area-Under ROC-curve (AU-ROC), Brier-score, and calibration graphs. Results: We included 6177 TAVI-patients, with 4.5% observed early-mortality. The selected update-method for FRANCE-2 was model-intercept-update. Internal validation showed an AU-ROC of 0.63 (95%CI 0.62–0.66) and Brier-score of 0.04 (0.04–0.05). Calibration graphs show that it overestimates early-mortality. In temporal-validation, the AU-ROC was 0.61 (0.53–0.67). The selected update-method for ACC-TAVI was model-revision. In internal-validation, the AU-ROC was 0.63 (0.63–0.66) and Brier-score was 0.04 (0.04–0.05). The updated ACC-TAVI calibrates well up to a probability of 20%, and subsequently underestimates early-mortality. In temporal-validation the AU-ROC was 0.65 (0.58–0.72). Conclusion: Internal-validation of the updated models FRANCE-2 and ACC-TAVI with data from the NHR demonstrated improved performance, which was better than in external-validation studies and comparable to the original studies. In temporal-validation, ACC-TAVI outperformed FRANCE-2 because it suffered less from changes over time.

Background: The predictive performance of the models FRANCE-2 and ACC-TAVI for early-mortality after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) can decline over time and can be enhanced by updating them on new populations. We aim to update and internally and temporally validate these models using a recent TAVI-cohort from the Netherlands Heart Registration (NHR). Methods: We used data of TAVI-patients treated in 2013–2017. For each original-model, the best update-method (model-intercept, model-recalibration, or model-revision) was selected by a closed-testing procedure. We internally validated both updated models with 1000 bootstrap samples. We also updated the models on the 2013–2016 dataset and temporally validated them on the 2017-dataset. Performance measures were the Area-Under ROC-curve (AU-ROC), Brier-score, and calibration graphs. Results: We included 6177 TAVI-patients, with 4.5% observed early-mortality. The selected update-method for FRANCE-2 was model-intercept-update. Internal validation showed an AU-ROC of 0.63 (95%CI 0.62–0.66) and Brier-score of 0.04 (0.04–0.05). Calibration graphs show that it overestimates early-mortality. In temporal-validation, the AU-ROC was 0.61 (0.53–0.67). The selected update-method for ACC-TAVI was model-revision. In internal-validation, the AU-ROC was 0.63 (0.63–0.66) and Brier-score was 0.04 (0.04–0.05). The updated ACC-TAVI calibrates well up to a probability of 20%, and subsequently underestimates early-mortality. In temporal-validation the AU-ROC was 0.65 (0.58–0.72). Conclusion: Internal-validation of the updated models FRANCE-2 and ACC-TAVI with data from the NHR demonstrated improved performance, which was better than in external-validation studies and comparable to the original studies. In temporal-validation, ACC-TAVI outperformed FRANCE-2 because it suffered less from changes over time.

Aims The purpose of the Euro Heart Survey Programme of the European Society of Cardiology is to evaluate to which extent clinical practice endorses existing guidelines as well as to identify differences in population profiles, patient management, and outcome across Europe. The current survey focuses on the invasive diagnosis and treatment of patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods and results Between November 2001 and March 2002, 7769 consecutive patients undergoing invasive evaluation at 130 hospitals (31 countries) were screened for the presence of one or more coronary stenosis >50% in diameter. Patient demographics and comorbidity, clinical presentation, invasive parameters, treatment options, and procedural techniques were prospectively entered in an electronic database (550 variables+29 per diseased coronary segment). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were evaluated at 30 days and 1 year. Out of 5619 patients with angiographically proven coronary stenosis (72% of screened population), 53% presented with stable angina while ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) was the indication for coronary angiography in 16% and non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction or unstable angina in 30%. Only medical therapy was continued in 21%, whereas mechanical revascularization was performed in the remainder [percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in 58% and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in 21%]. Patients referred for PCI were younger, were more active, had a lower risk profile, and had less comorbid conditions. CABG was performed mostly in patients with left main lesions (21%), two- (25%), or three-vessel disease (67%) with 4.1 diseased segments, on average. Single-vessel PCI was performed in 82% of patients with either single- (45%), two- (33%), or three-vessel disease (21%). Stents were used in 75% of attempted lesions, with a large variation between sites. Direct PCI for STEMI was performed in 410 cases, representing 7% of the

Aims The purpose of the Euro Heart Survey Programme of the European Society of Cardiology is to evaluate to which extent clinical practice endorses existing guidelines as well as to identify differences in population profiles, patient management, and outcome across Europe. The current survey focuses on the invasive diagnosis and treatment of patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods and results Between November 2001 and March 2002, 7769 consecutive patients undergoing invasive evaluation at 130 hospitals (31 countries) were screened for the presence of one or more coronary stenosis >50% in diameter. Patient demographics and comorbidity, clinical presentation, invasive parameters, treatment options, and procedural techniques were prospectively entered in an electronic database (550 variables+29 per diseased coronary segment). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were evaluated at 30 days and 1 year. Out of 5619 patients with angiographically proven coronary stenosis (72% of screened population), 53% presented with stable angina while ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) was the indication for coronary angiography in 16% and non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction or unstable angina in 30%. Only medical therapy was continued in 21%, whereas mechanical revascularization was performed in the remainder [percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in 58% and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in 21%]. Patients referred for PCI were younger, were more active, had a lower risk profile, and had less comorbid conditions. CABG was performed mostly in patients with left main lesions (21%), two- (25%), or three-vessel disease (67%) with 4.1 diseased segments, on average. Single-vessel PCI was performed in 82% of patients with either single- (45%), two- (33%), or three-vessel disease (21%). Stents were used in 75% of attempted lesions, with a large variation between sites. Direct PCI for STEMI was performed in 410 cases, representing 7% of the

Aims The purpose of the Euro Heart Survey Programme of the European Society of Cardiology is to evaluate to which extent clinical practice endorses existing guidelines as well as to identify differences in population profiles, patient management, and outcome across Europe. The current survey focuses on the invasive diagnosis and treatment of patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods and results Between November 2001 and March 2002, 7769 consecutive patients undergoing invasive evaluation at 130 hospitals (31 countries) were screened for the presence of one or more coronary stenosis >50% in diameter. Patient demographics and comorbidity, clinical presentation, invasive parameters, treatment options, and procedural techniques were prospectively entered in an electronic database (550 variables+29 per diseased coronary segment). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were evaluated at 30 days and 1 year. Out of 5619 patients with angiographically proven coronary stenosis (72% of screened population), 53% presented with stable angina while ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) was the indication for coronary angiography in 16% and non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction or unstable angina in 30%. Only medical therapy was continued in 21%, whereas mechanical revascularization was performed in the remainder [percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in 58% and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in 21%]. Patients referred for PCI were younger, were more active, had a lower risk profile, and had less comorbid conditions. CABG was performed mostly in patients with left main lesions (21%), two- (25%), or three-vessel disease (67%) with 4.1 diseased segments, on average. Single-vessel PCI was performed in 82% of patients with either single- (45%), two- (33%), or three-vessel disease (21%). Stents were used in 75% of attempted lesions, with a large variation between sites. Direct PCI for STEMI was performed in 410 cases, representing 7% of the