Search

The differential outcomes between pure/predominant aortic stenosis (AS) and mixed aortic valve disease (MAVD) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are still debated.To evaluate the comparative clinical outcomes of patients with MAVD and AS undergoing TAVI using data from the RISPEVA registry.A total of 3263 patients were included. Of the 3263 patients, 656 with concomitant moderate/severe aortic regurgitation constituted the MAVD group and 2607 constituted the AS cohort. Primary endpoints were 30-day mortality and 1-year survival. Postprocedural paravalvular regurgitation (PPVR), cerebrovascular events, bleeding, and vascular complications were assessed at 30 days.In the overall population, 30-day mortality in the MAVD group was higher than in AS patients (4.3% vs 2.6%;P=.02); however, no differences were detected after propensity-score matching (4.1% vs 3.5%; P=.62). One-year survival was comparable between MAVD and AS patients in both unmatched and matched cohorts. Left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary artery systolic pressure, and PPVR, but not baseline MAVD, were predictors of 30-day mortality. The incidence of PPVR was higher in the MAVD group vs the AS group; this difference was not confirmed in patients implanted with a balloon-expandable device.MAVD per se did not negatively affect patients' prognoses, but appears to identify a more complex cohort of patients with a worse clinical and functional status, probably referred to TAVI in a later stage of the disease. Patients with MAVD had a greater propensity to develop PPVR, which is a known predictor of worse outcome; this tendency seems to be mitigated by the implantation of balloon-expandable valves.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a state of critical end-organ hypoperfusion primarily due to cardiac dysfunction. This condition is the most common cause of death in patients affected by acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Despite early revascularization, prompt optimal medical therapy, and up-to-date mechanical circulatory supports, mortality of patients with CS remains high.The objective of this review is to summarize epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment options of CS in light of the new European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommendations. The latest European guidelines on myocardial revascularization have reviewed the previous guidelines with respect to early multivessel revascularization and routine use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in patients with AMI-related CS.Most of the current evidences come partly from randomized trials, but mostly from observational registries because of the difficulty to test different treatments in this life-threatening clinical setting.Some of the latest studies highlight the potential crucial benefit of newly introduced mechanical circulatory support devices, although evidences are not sufficient to definitely assess the benefit/risk ratio of the different systems.Many questions remain unanswered in this field, and further trials are advocated to better elucidate the best medical, reperfusion, and circulatory support approaches aimed to improve the poor prognosis of patients with CS after AMI.

The next iteration of drug-eluting stents (DESs) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has focused on bioresorbable polymers and thin struts. The Alex Plus DES is a new-generation sirolimus-eluting device with 70-μm cobalt chromium struts, a 5-μm bioresorbable polymer and a very small profile. Despite such favorable features, limited data are available to estimate the risk-benefit profile of Alex Plus. We aimed at comparing the effectiveness of Alex Plus in real-world practice.Retrospective clinical data on patients treated with Alex Plus at our institutions were collected and clinical outcome data over follow-up were obtained, comparing them with those of subjects receiving Xience, a leading DES with permanent polymer.A total of 100 patients (126 lesions) treated with Alex Plus and 753 subjects (1020 lesions) receiving Xience were included. Baseline and procedural features were largely similar in the 2 groups, with the notable exception of age, sex, and left circumflex coronary artery as the target vessel. Clinical follow-up showed that patients with Alex Plus had a significantly higher risk of major adverse clinical event (MACE), mainly driven by an excess in repeat PCI (hazard ratio, 4.81; 95% confidence interval, 2.83-8.20; P.001). Even after propensity-score matching, Alex Plus was associated with an increased risk of MACE (P.001).Our clinical experience to date with Alex Plus has been disappointing, despite the favorable promises. Further improvements are likely needed in the Alex Plus DES, most likely in drug delivery, before this device is considered for routine clinical use in complex patients or lesions.