Search

Patients with normal-flow low-gradient (NFLG) severe aortic stenosis present both diagnostic and management challenges, with debate about the whether this represents true severe stenosis and the need for valve replacement. Studies exploring the natural history without intervention have shown similar outcomes of patients with NFLG severe aortic stenosis to those with moderate aortic stenosis and better outcomes after valve replacement than those with low-flow low-gradient severe aortic stenosis. Most studies (all observational) have shown that aortic valve replacement was associated with a survival benefit vs surveillance. Based on available data, the European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery guidelines and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging/American Society of Echocardiography suggest that these patients are more likely to have moderate aortic stenosis. This clinical entity is not mentioned in the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. Here we review the definition of NFLG severe aortic stenosis, potential diagnostic algorithms and points of error, the data supporting different management strategies, and the differing guidelines and outline the unanswered questions in the diagnosis and management of these challenging patients., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This study was self-funded. Dr Huded has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific; and has received grants from Abbott. Dr Saad has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific. Dr Chhatriwalla has been a proctor with Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic; has been on the Speakers Bureau with Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and has received grants from Boston Scientific. Dr Abbott has received grants from Boston Scientific and Microport; and has received consulting fees from Philips, Medtronic, Abbott, Penumbra, Shockwave, and Recor. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (M-TEER) for selected patients with severe mitral regurgitation. However, the generalizability of trial results to real-world patients remains uncertain., Objectives: The authors aimed to compare baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes among trial participants with nonparticipants undergoing M-TEER., Methods: Using the National Inpatient Sample database years 2016-2020, M-TEER admissions were identified and categorized into trial participants vs none. We also identified a cohort of trial noneligible patients based on clinical exclusion criteria from pivotal trials. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to compare in-hospital outcomes. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes included in-hospital complications, length of stay, and hospitalization cost., Results: Among 38,770 M-TEER admissions from 2016 to 2020, 11,450 (29.5%) were trial participants, 22,975 (59.3%) were eligible nonparticipants, and 2,960 (7.6%) were noneligible. Baseline characteristics and comorbidity profiles were mostly similar between trial participants vs eligible nonparticipants. In-hospital mortality (adjusted OR [aOR]: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.60-1.62), cardiogenic shock (aOR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.80-1.42), mechanical circulatory support (aOR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.58-1.41), mechanical ventilation (aOR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.74-1.42), and conversion to mitral valve surgery (aOR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.57-2.03) were not different between both groups. Conversely, M-TEER for noneligible patients was associated with higher rates of mortality (aOR: 6.27; 95% CI: 3.75-10.45) and complications., Conclusions: The majority of real-world M-TEER patients would have been eligible for clinical trial participation and had comparable clinical profiles and in-hospital outcomes to trial participants. However, noneligible patients had worse in-hospital outcomes compared with trial participants., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Saad has been a consultant for Boston Scientific. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Patients with persistent severe mitral regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may benefit from mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (M-TEER). Using the Nationwide Readmission Database, we identified patients who had M-TEER within 6 months after TAVR and compared their outcomes with patients who had M-TEER without previous recent TAVR during the same calendar year between 2014 and 2020. Because Nationwide Readmission Database data do not cross years, analysis was restricted to the last half of each calendar year. End points included in-hospital mortality and 30-day and 90-day postdischarge rehospitalization rates. In 23,885 M-TEER patients, 396 (1.7%) had a previous recent TAVR. The number of post-TAVR M-TEER procedures increased progressively over time from 16 in 2014 to 92 in 2020. Patients who had M-TEER after a recent TAVR versus those without previous TAVR had similar in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.12 to 1.23, p = 0.11), but higher rates of 30-day all-cause hospitalization and heart failure hospitalization (adjusted odds ratios 1.34, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.79, p = 0.04 and 1.63, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.36, p = 0.009, respectively). Nonetheless, in patients who underwent M-TEER post-TAVR, the cumulative 90-day all-cause hospitalization and heart failure hospitalization rates were less after M-TEER compared with before M-TEER (from 45.7% to 31.5%, p = 0.007, and from 29.0% to 16.6%, respectively, both p = 0.005). In conclusion, M-TEER procedures after TAVR in the United States are increasing. Patients with M-TEER after TAVR had similar in-hospital mortality as those who underwent M-TEER without recent TAVR, but higher 30-day hospitalization rates. Nonetheless, 90-day hospitalization rates were decreased after M-TEER in patients with previous TAVR., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Stone has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Pulnovo, Infraredx, Abiomed, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim; has served as a consultant to Abbott, Daiichi Sankyo, Ablative Solutions, CorFlow, Apollo Therapeutics, Cardiomech, Gore, Robocath, Miracor, Vectorious, Abiomed, Valfix, TherOx, HeartFlow, Neovasc, Ancora, Elucid Bio, Occlutech, Impulse Dynamics, Adona Medical, Millennia Biopharma, Oxitope, Cardiac Success, HighLife; and has equity/options from Ancora, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, Valfix, Xenter. Dr. Stone's employer, Mount Sinai Hospital, receives research grants from Abbott, Abiomed, Bioventrix, Cardiovascular Systems Inc., Phillips, Biosense-Webster, Shockwave, Vascular Dynamics, Pulnovo, and V-wave. Family disclosure: Dr. Stone's daughter is an employee at IQVIA. Dr. Abbott is Consulting – Abbott, Medtronic, Penumbra, Rapid AI, and Research – Boston Scientific, Microport, Med Alliance, Shockwave. The remaining authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is a paucity of data regarding the comparative efficacy and safety of Mitral valve transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (MTEER) using the PASCAL or MitraClip systems for patients with mitral regurgitation (MR)., Methods: An electronic search was conducted for MEDLINE, COCHRANE, and EMBASE, through February 2023, for studies comparing the clinical outcomes of MTEER using PASCAL versus MitraClip systems among patients with severe MR. The primary study outcome was residual MR ≤ 2 at discharge. Data were pooled using a random-effects model., Results: The final analysis included six studies with a total of 1581 patients, with a weighted follow-up period of 3.5 months. Two studies only included patients with degenerative MR, while the remaining studies included both degenerative and functional MR. There was no significant difference in procedure duration between MTEER with the PASCAL or MitraClip systems. There was no difference in residual MR ≤ 2 at discharge (94.7% vs. 91.9%; odds ratio [OR]: 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-2.27) or residual MR ≤ 2 at the mid-term follow-up (94.6% vs. 91.0%, p = 0.05) among the PASCAL versus MitraClip systems. There was no difference between both groups in residual MR ≤ 1 at discharge (73.1% vs. 63.8%, p = 0.12), while there was greater incidence of residual MR ≤ 1 at midterm follow-up with the PASCAL system (71.3% vs. 56.2%, p < 0.001). There was no difference between the PASCAL and MitraClip MTEER systems in technical success (97.0% vs. 97.9%, p = 0.15), procedural success (89.1% vs. 87.1%, p = 0.78), single leaflet detachment (1.8% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.55), or all-cause mortality (3.6% vs. 4.6%, p = 0.71)., Conclusion: In this meta-analysis, we demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety between the PASCAL and MitraClip MTEER systems at short- and mid-term assessments. Randomized trials are warranted to evaluate the comparative long-term outcomes between both MTEER systems., (© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Patients with pure native aortic regurgitation (AR) have been excluded from transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) trials. We sought to examine midterm outcomes with TAVR in AR compared with surgical AVR (SAVR) in a contemporary cohort., Methods: Medicare beneficiaries who underwent elective TAVR or SAVR for pure AR from 2016 to 2019 were identified. Patients with concomitant aortic stenosis and who underwent a valve-in-valve intervention or concomitant mitral valve or ascending aorta operation were excluded. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality in the longest follow-up. Secondary outcomes included stroke, endocarditis, and redo AVR. Overlap propensity score weighting was used to adjust for confounders., Results: During the study period, 11,027 patients with pure AR underwent elective AVR (TAVR, n = 1147; SAVR, n = 9880). SAVR patients were younger, with fewer comorbidities and less frailty compared with TAVR patients. TAVR was associated with adjusted 30-day mortality comparable to SAVR. After a median follow-up of 31 months (interquartile range, 18-44 months), TAVR was associated with higher adjusted risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 1.03-1.93; P = .02) and need for redo-AVR (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.05-4.34; P = .03) compared with SAVR. The risk of stroke (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.95-2.87; P = .07) and endocarditis (HR, 2.60; 95% CI, 0.92-7.36; P = .07) was numerically higher with TAVR., Conclusions: In Medicare patients with pure native AR, TAVR with the current commercially available transcatheter valves has comparable short-term outcomes. Although long-term outcomes were inferior to SAVR, the possibility of residual confounding, biasing long-term outcomes, given older and frailer TAVR patients, cannot be excluded., (Copyright © 2023 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To examine the trends in utilization and outcomes of tricuspid valve (TV) transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER)., Background: Surgery for isolated tricuspid regurgitation is associated with high morbidity and mortality and is rarely performed. TV TEER is an attractive alternative., Methods: The Nationwide Readmissions Database was queried using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, procedure code for TV TEER for years 2016-2019. The main outcomes were trends in utilization and in-hospital all-cause mortality., Results: We identified 918 hospitalizations for TV TEER. There was an uptrend in its utilization from 13 cases in the first quarter of 2016 to 122 cases in the last quarter of 2019 (p trend < 0.001). Concomitant mitral valve (MV) TEER was performed in 42.1% of admissions. The overall in-hospital mortality was 2.1%. Surgical TV replacement was needed in 1.1% of admissions; none of them died during the index hospitalization. Unplanned rehospitalizations were common at 30 days (15.7%); 38.2% of those were due to heart failure. There was no difference in in-hospital mortality between isolated TV TEER and combined MV and TV TEER (1.7% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.359). However, admissions receiving combined procedure had lower length of stay and urgent readmission rate., Conclusion: The current study showed that there was an increase in the utilization of TV TEER over 2016-2019 in the United States. TV TEER was associated with low rates of in-hospital mortality; however, the rate of urgent readmission remains high, mainly due to heart failure., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: There is a paucity of data regarding the sex-related differences in the trends and outcomes of trans-septal transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TS-TMVR)., Methods: The Nationwide Readmissions Database (2015-2018) was queried for admissions for TS-TMVR. Propensity matched analysis was conducted to compare outcomes with hospitalizations for TS-TMVR among women versus men. The main study outcome was in-hospital mortality., Results: Our final analysis included 2063 hospitalizations for TS-TMVR; of whom, 58.1% were women. The proportion of women among those undergoing TS-TMVR increased from 50% in 2015 to 60.2% in 2018 (P trend  = 0.04). Compared with men, women undergoing TS-TMVR were slightly younger, and had a distinct profile of comorbidities. After matching, there was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality among women versus men undergoing TS-TMVR (7.8% vs. 6.1%, OR = 1.30; 95% CI: 0.79-2.13). Subgroup analyzes showed an interaction toward higher mortality with women versus men among patients with CKD (P interaction  = 0.07). There were no significant differences between women and men in in-hospital complications or length of stay after TS-TMVR. Compared with men, women undergoing TS-TMVR were more likely to be discharged to a nursing facility (17.7% vs. 11.5%, p = 0.01) and had higher rates of 30-day readmissions (22.4% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.01)., Conclusion: This nationwide analysis showed an increase in the proportion of women among patients undergoing TS-TMVR during the study years. There were no differences in in-hospital mortality, in-hospital complications, or length of stay between both sexes following TS-TMVR. Women were more likely to be discharged to nursing facilities and had higher rates of readmission at 30 days even after propensity matching., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Patients with rheumatic aortic stenosis (AS) were excluded from transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) trials., Objectives: The authors sought to examine outcomes with TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with rheumatic AS, and versus TAVR in nonrheumatic AS., Methods: The authors identified Medicare beneficiaries who underwent TAVR or SAVR from October 2015 to December 2017, and then identified patients with rheumatic AS using prior validated International Classification of Diseases, Version 10 codes. Overlap propensity score weighting analysis was used to adjust for measured confounders. The primary study outcome was all-cause mortality. Multiple secondary outcomes were also examined., Results: The final study cohort included 1,159 patients with rheumatic AS who underwent aortic valve replacement (SAVR, n = 554; TAVR, n = 605), and 88,554 patients with nonrheumatic AS who underwent TAVR. Patients in the SAVR group were younger and with lower prevalence of most comorbidities and frailty scores. After median follow-up of 19 months (interquartile range: 13 to 26 months), there was no difference in all-cause mortality with TAVR versus SAVR (11.2 vs. 7.0 per 100 person-year; adjusted hazard ratio: 1.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.84 to 2.79; p = 0.2). Compared with TAVR in nonrheumatic AS, TAVR for rheumatic AS was associated with similar mortality (15.2 vs. 17.7 deaths per 100 person-years (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.87; 95% confidence interval: 0.68 to 1.09; p = 0.2) after median follow-up of 17 months (interquartile range: 11 to 24 months). None of the rheumatic TAVR patients, <11 SAVR patients, and 242 nonrheumatic TAVR patients underwent repeat aortic valve replacement (124 redo-TAVR and 118 SAVR) at follow-up., Conclusions: Compared with SAVR, TAVR could represent a viable and possibly durable option for patients with rheumatic AS., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr. Mentias received support from National Institute of Health NRSA institutional grant (T32 HL007121) to the Abboud Cardiovascular Research Center. Dr. Sarrazin is supported by funding from the National Institute on Aging (NIA R01AG055663-01), and by the Health Services Research and Development Service (HSR&D) of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Horwitz has received grant support from Edwards Lifesciences and Boston Scientific. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis (ESRD-HD) and aortic stenosis have poor prognosis. The role of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in this high-risk population is debated., Methods: We compared the outcomes among ESRD-HD Medicare beneficiaries who were managed with TAVR, surgical AVR (SAVR), or conservative management for aortic stenosis between 2015 and 2017, using overlap propensity score weighting analysis to control for differences in treatment assignment. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and was compared between treatment groups as well as to age-sex matched mortality for ESRD-HD in the US population. Secondary outcomes included trend of heart failure hospitalizations., Results: A total of 8107 ESRD-HD patients with aortic stenosis were included, 4130 (50%) underwent TAVR, 2565 (31.6%) underwent SAVR, and 1412 (17.4%) were managed conservatively. TAVR patients had more comorbidities and higher frailty compared with the other 2 groups. Thirty-day mortality was lower with TAVR compared with SAVR (4.6% versus 12.8%, P <0.01). After a median follow-up of 465 days (interquartile range, 261-759), on overlap propensity score weighting analysis, there was no difference in mortality between TAVR and SAVR (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.91-1.15], P =0.7), and mortality was lower with TAVR compared with conservative management (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.47-0.60], P <0.001). Standardized mortality ratios with TAVR, SAVR, and conservative management compared with age-sex matched ESRD-HD US population were 1.24, 1.27, and 1.83, respectively. The rate of heart failure admissions declined after TAVR (incidence rate ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.48-0.62], P <0.001) and SAVR (incidence rate ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.65-0.88], P <0.001)., Conclusions: In ESRD-HD patients with aortic stenosis, mortality was lower in the short-term with TAVR compared with SAVR but comparable in the mid-term. AVR is associated with an improvement in survival and reduction in heart failure hospitalizations compared with conservative management.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the temporal trends of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS), and to compare the outcomes between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in this population., Background: Randomized trials comparing TAVR to SAVR in AS with bicuspid valve are lacking., Methods: The study queried the National Inpatient Sample database (years 2012 to 2016) to identify hospitalizations for bicuspid AS who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement. A propensity-matched analysis was used to compare outcomes of hospitalizations for TAVR versus SAVR for bicuspid AS and TAVR for bicuspid AS versus tricuspid AS., Results: The analysis included 31,895 hospitalizations with bicuspid AS, of whom 1,055 (3.3%) underwent TAVR. TAVR was increasingly utilized during the study period for bicuspid AS (p trend  = 0.002). After matching, TAVR and SAVR had similar in-hospital mortality (3.1% vs. 3.1%; odds ratio: 1.00; 95% confidence interval: 0.60 to 1.67). There was no difference between TAVR and SAVR in the rates of cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, acute kidney injury, hemopericardium, cardiac tamponade, or acute stroke. TAVR was associated with lower rates of acute myocardial infarction, post-operative bleeding, vascular complications, and discharge to nursing facility as well as a shorter length of hospital stay. On the contrary, TAVR was associated with a higher incidence of complete heart block and permanent pacemaker insertion. TAVR for bicuspid AS was associated with similar in-hospital mortality compared with tricuspid AS., Conclusions: This nationwide analysis showed similar in-hospital mortality for TAVR and SAVR in patients with bicuspid AS. TAVR for bicuspid AS was also associated with similar in-hospital mortality compared with tricuspid AS. Further studies are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes of TAVR for bicuspid AS., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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: There is a paucity of data regarding outcomes with transfemoral (TF) versus transapical (TA) access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD).Methods: We queried the national inpatient sample database (NIS) (2012-2013) to identify patients with PAD who underwent TAVR. We conducted a propensity matching analysis using 25 clinical variables to compare TF-TAVR versus TA-TAVR. The main outcome was in-hospital mortality.Results: The analysis included 22,349 patients who underwent TAVR, among those 6692 (29.9%) had PAD. In the matched cohort, in-hospital mortality was similar between TF-TAVR and TA-TAVR groups (4.8% vs. 5.1%, OR 0.95; 95%CI 0.74-1.21). TF-TAVR was associated with lower rates of cardiogenic shock (OR 0.64; 95%CI 0.50-0.82), use of mechanical circulatory support (OR 0.56; 95%CI 0.42-0.75), acute kidney injury (OR 0.76; 95%CI 0.67-0.86), hemodialysis (OR 0.51; 95%CI 0.36-0.71), major bleeding (OR 0.72; 95%CI 0.64-0.80), blood transfusion (OR 0.65; 95%CI 0.58-0.73), discharge to a skilled nursing facility (OR 0.61; 95%CI 0.54-0.68) as well as shorter length of hospital stay (8.13 ± 6.76 vs. 10.11 ± 7.80 days) compared with TA-TAVR. However, TF-TAVR was associated with higher rate of vascular complications (11.7% vs. 3.7%, OR 3.40; 95%CI 2.63-4.38), complete heart block (OR 1.52; 95%CI 1.23-1.87), and pacemaker insertion (OR = 1.58; 95%CI: 1.28-1.94). There was no difference between both groups in the rate of cerebrovascular accidents (OR 1.26; 95%CI 0.93-1.72).Conclusion: In this observational analysis from a large national database, there was no difference in in-hospital mortality between TF-TAVR and TA-TAVR among patients with PAD. Further studies are encouraged to identify the optimal access for TAVR in patients with PAD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The impact of new-onset persistent left bundle branch block (LBBB) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) on all-cause mortality has been controversial.Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of eleven studies (7398 patients) comparing the short- and long- outcomes in patients who had new-onset LBBB after TAVR vs. those who did not.Results: During a mean follow-up of 20.5±14months, patients who had new-onset persistent LBBB after TAVR had a higher incidence of all-cause mortality (29.7% vs. 23.6%; OR 1.28 (1.04-1.58), p=0.02), rehospitalization for heart failure (HF) (19.5% vs. 17.3%; OR 1.4 (1.13-1.73), p=0.002), and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMi) (19.7% vs. 7.1%; OR 2.4 (1.64-3.52), p<0.001) compared with those who did not. Five studies (4180 patients) reported adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for all-cause mortality; new LBBB remained associated with a higher risk of mortality (adjusted HR 1.43 (1.08-1.9), p<0.01, I2=81%).Conclusion: Post-TAVR persistent LBBB is associated with higher PPMi, HF hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality. While efforts to identify patients who need post-procedural PPMi are warranted, more studies are required to evaluate the best follow-up and treatment strategies, including the type of pacing device if required, to improve long-term outcomes in these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]