Search

There is a worldwide expansion in percutaneous therapy for valvular heart disease. Rapidly evolving technology and the general increase in life expectancy will support the evolution of new treatment options dedicated to structural heart interventions. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for severe aortic valve stenosis and percutaneous mitral valve repair with the MitraClip system for severe mitral regurgitation have been demonstrated as a feasible, innovative alternative for surgical treatment. Despite the inequality in clinical experience, both procedures have encouraging results and now are a part of everyday clinical practice. More importantly, rapid development is expected in the next decades. However, the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic imposed redistribution of healthcare resources. Hospitals were obliged to modify their workflow and limit TAVI and MitraClip procedures to urgent or in highly symptomatic patients. Despite this encumbrance improvement in technology and experience supported by robust evidence from current studies might extend indications for both procedures. The future holds promise for this treatment modality to become the preferred procedure for all patients despite age or risk and reserving surgical treatment for a minority. Thus, we present state-of-the-art and current evidence for both methods assumed to change the paradigm of treatment of valvular heart failure in the future.

Sympathetic renal denervation (RDN) has been demonstrated as a potential treatment option for patients with resistant hypertension [1]. Despite discouraging results after the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial several techniques and catheters were introduced to the market and data confirming adequate and effective denervation are growing [1, 2]. In current guidelines invasive methods are not recommended as routine treatment of resistant hypertension [3, 4]. However, a highly selected group of patients not responding to aggressive medical treatment might benefit from this method [1–4].

Introduction: There are inconsistent data on the sex-related differences in clinical outcomes and quality of life (QoL) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Aim: We sought to investigate sex-related differences in procedural, clinical and QoL outcomes of TAVI. Material and methods : A total of 101 consecutive patients undergoing TAVI were enrolled. Patients were stratified by gender. Baseline characteristics, procedural and long-term clinical outcomes as well as frailty and QoL indices (EQ-5D-3L questionnaire) were compared between women and men. Results: Women represented 60.4% of the study population. Periprocedural risk measured with the Logistic EuroSCORE and STS scale was similar for women and men. There were no differences in 30-day or 12-month all-cause mortality between groups (women vs. men: 9.8% vs. 12.5%; age-adjusted odds ratio (OR) (95% CI): 1.38 (0.39–4.94); 13.1% vs. 25.0%; age-adjusted OR (95% CI): 2.51 (0.87–7.25)). Men were at higher risk of new onset atrial fibrillation at follow-up (1.6% vs. 17.5%; age-adjusted OR (95% CI): 14.61 (1.68–127.37)). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, a history of stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) (hazard ratio (HR)) (95% CI): 3.93 (1.39–11.07) and blood transfusion (HR (95% CI): 2.84 (1.06–7.63)) were identified as independent factors affecting 12-month mortality. No differences in QoL parameters were noted. Conclusions : The TAVI can be considered as an effective and safe treatment in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, regardless of gender.

Introduction: Pharmacological treatment combined with lifestyle modifications is an effective treatment for arterial hypertension. However, there are still patients who do not respond to standard treatments. Patients with pharmacologically resistant hypertension may benefit from renal denervation (RDN). Aim: To assess long-term quality of life (QoL) after RDN and effectiveness in reduction of blood pressure (BP) in patients with resistant hypertension. Material and methods: From 2011 to 2014, 12 patients with previously diagnosed resistant hypertension, treated by RDN, were included in this study. The QoL was assessed using a standardized Polish version of the Nottingham Health Profile questionnaire (NHP). Results : The median age was 54 (IQR: 51–57.5) years. Mean baseline ambulatory pre-procedural systolic/diastolic BP was 188/115 ±29.7/18 mm Hg. The mean values of systolic/diastolic BP measured perioperatively and 3, 6, 12 and 24 months postoperatively were 138/86, 138/85, 146/82, 152/86, and 157/91. All p-values for mean systolic and diastolic BP before versus successive time points after RDN were statistically significant; p-value for all comparisons < 0.05. Improvement of QoL was only observed in two sections of the NHP questionnaire: emotional reaction and sleep disturbance. The analysis of the NHP index of Distress (NHP-D) showed a lower distress level perioperatively and 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after RDN as compared to baseline. The RDN was not associated with any significant adverse events. Conclusions : Patients with pharmacologically resistant hypertension treated with RDN achieved significant reduction in BP during 24-month follow-up. Furthermore, a significant improvement in the QoL was observed in those patients.

Introduction: There are limited data on the comparison of bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) and drug-eluting stent (DES)/bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation in an unselected population of patients with coronary artery disease. Aim : To compare the periprocedural outcomes and patient profile of BVS and DES/BMS implantation in an all-comer population from the ORPKI Polish National Registry. Material and methods: A total of 141,324 consecutive patients from 151 invasive cardiology centers in Poland were included in this prospective registry between January 2014 and June 2015. Periprocedural data on patients with at least one BVS (Absorb, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA), DES or BMS (all available types) implantation in de novo lesions during index percutaneous coronary intervention for stable angina (SA) or acute coronary syndrome were collected. Results : Bioresorbable vascular scaffold was the most often used in patients with SA, in single-vessel disease and in younger male patients. Bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation was significantly more often associated with periprocedural administration of ticagrelor/prasugrel (6.8% vs. 3.6%; p = 0.001) and use of intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography in comparison with the DES/BMS group (2.8% vs. 0.6% and 1.8% vs. 0.1%, respectively; p = 0.001 for both). The incidence of periprocedural death was significantly lower in the BVS group than the DES/BMS group (0.04% vs. 0.32%; p = 0.02), but this difference was no longer significant after adjustment for covariates. On the other hand, coronary artery perforation occurred significantly more often during BVS delivery (0.31% vs. 0.12%; p = 0.01), and BVS implantation was identified as an independent predictor of coronary artery perforation in multivariate logistic regression analysis (OR = 6.728, 95% CI: 2.394–18.906; p = 0.001). Conclusions : Patients treated with BVS implantation presented an acceptable safety and efficacy profile in comparison with the DES/BMS group. However, lower risk patients were the most frequent candidates for BVS implantation.

Introduction : There are limited data describing bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation in complex lesions. Only short-term clinical outcomes are available for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Aim: To evaluate 12-month clinical outcome, safety and effectiveness of BVS implantation in complex lesions and in stable angina (SA) or ACS. Material and methods: Five hundred ninety-one patients with SA/ACS were enrolled between October 2012 and November 2013 in 30 invasive cardiology centres in Poland. At least one BVS implantation during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was the only inclusion criteria. The clinical endpoint was the occurrence of a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) (all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), clinically driven target lesion revascularisation (TLR) with urgent PCI or target vessel revascularisation (TVR) with urgent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)) and device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) (cardiac death, urgent target vessel revascularisation with PCI/CABG, target vessel MI) during 12-month follow-up. Results: After 12 months TLR with urgent PCI was significantly more often reported in patients with diagnosed UA (4.59%; p < 0.02) in comparison with other PCI indications. No significant differences were found in terms of composite MACE endpoint, cumulative MACE (p = 0.09), stent thrombosis (p = 0.2) or restenosis (p = 0.2). There were no significant differences in cumulative MACE and composite MACE endpoint between patients with no/mild versus moderate/severe tortuosity and no/mild versus moderate/severe calcification of the target vessel. No significant difference was found between groups of patients with or without bifurcation of the target vessel. Device-oriented composite endpoint was significantly more often reported in the ACS group (3.2% vs. 0.47%; p < 0.03), most frequently in patients with diagnosed UA (5.5%). Conclusions : Bioresorbable vascular scaffold can be successfully and safely used for ACS treatment and in lesions of higher complexity.