Search

Background: Patients with severe aortic stenosis and left ventricular systolic dysfunction have a poor prognosis, and this may result in inferior survival also after aortic valve replacement. The outcomes of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement were investigated in this comparative analysis. Methods: The retrospective nationwide FinnValve registry included data on patients who underwent transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthesis for severe aortic stenosis. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust the outcomes for baseline covariates of patients with reduced (≤ 50%) left ventricular ejection fraction. Results: Within the unselected, consecutive 6463 patients included in the registry, the prevalence of reduced ejection fraction was 20.8% (876 patients) in the surgical cohort and 27.7% (452 patients) in the transcatheter cohort. Reduced left ventricular ejection fraction was associated with decreased survival (adjusted hazards ratio 1.215, 95%CI 1.067–1.385) after a mean follow-up of 3.6 years. Among 255 propensity score matched pairs, 30-day mortality was 3.1% after transcatheter and 7.8% after surgical intervention (p = 0.038). One-year and 4-year survival were 87.5% and 65.9% after transcatheter intervention and 83.9% and 69.6% after surgical intervention (restricted mean survival time ratio, 1.002, 95%CI 0.929–1.080, p = 0.964), respectively. Conclusions: Reduced left ventricular ejection fraction was associated with increased morbidity and mortality after surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Thirty-day mortality was higher after surgery, but intermediate-term survival was comparable to transcatheter intervention. Trial registration: The FinnValve registry ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03385915.

The superiority of transcatheter (TAVR) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic stenosis (AS) has not been fully demonstrated in a real-world setting. This prospective study included 5706 AS patients who underwent SAVR from 2010 to 2012 and 2989 AS patients who underwent TAVR from 2017 to 2018 from the prospective multicenter observational studies OBSERVANT I and II. Early adverse events as well as all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), and hospital readmission due to heart failure at 1-year were investigated. Among 1008 propensity score matched pairs, TAVR was associated with significantly lower 30-day mortality (1.8 vs. 3.5%, p = 0.020), stroke (0.8 vs. 2.3%, p = 0.005), and acute kidney injury (0.6 vs. 8.2%, p < 0.001) compared to SAVR. Moderate-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation (5.9 vs. 2.0%, p < 0.001) and permanent pacemaker implantation (13.8 vs. 3.3%, p < 0.001) were more frequent after TAVR. At 1-year, TAVR was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (7.9 vs. 11.5%, p = 0.006), MACCE (12.0 vs. 15.8%, p = 0.011), readmission due to heart failure (10.8 vs. 15.9%, p < 0.001), and stroke (3.2 vs. 5.1%, p = 0.033) compared to SAVR. TAVR reduced 1-year mortality in the subgroups of patients aged 80 years or older (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.33–0.71), in females (HR 0.57, 0.38–0.85), and among patients with EuroSCORE II ≥ 4.0% (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32–0.71). In a real-world setting, TAVR using new-generation devices was associated with lower rates of adverse events up to 1-year follow-up compared to SAVR.

Introduction: Data on the early and late outcome following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in obese patients are limited. We investigated whether TAVI may be superior to SAVR in obese patients. Material and methods: Obese patients (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m²) who underwent either SAVR or TAVI were identified from the nationwide OBSERVANT registry, and their in-hospital and long-term outcomes were analysed. Propensity score matching was employed to identify two cohorts with similar baseline characteristics. Results: The propensity score matching provided 142 pairs balanced in terms of baseline risk factors. In-hospital and 30-day mortality did not differ between SAVR and TAVI obese patients (4.6% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.56, and 5.2% vs. 3.2%, p = 0.41, respectively). Obese SAVR patients experienced a higher rate of renal failure (12.4% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.0105) and blood transfusion requirement (60.3% vs. 25.7%, p < 0.0001) in comparison with TAVI patients. A higher rate of permanent pacemaker implantation (14.4% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.0018), and major vascular injuries (7.4% vs. 0%, p = 0.0044) occurred in the TAVI group. Five-year survival was higher in the SAVR group compared to the TAVI patient cohort (p = 0.0046), with survival estimates at 1, 3 and 5 years of 88.0%, 80.3%, 71.8% for patients undergoing SAVR, and 85.2%, 69.0%, 52.8% for those subjected to TAVI procedures. Conclusions: In obese patients, both SAVR and TAVI are valid treatment options, although in the long term SAVR exhibited higher survival rates.

Background: There is limited information on the longer-term outcome after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with new-generation prostheses compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The aim of this study was to compare the mid-term outcomes after TAVR with Sapien 3 and SAVR with Perimount Magna Ease bioprostheses for severe aortic stenosis. Methods: In a retrospective study, we included patients who underwent transfemoral TAVR with Sapien 3 or SAVR with Perimount Magna Ease bioprosthesis between January 2008 and October 2017 from the nationwide FinnValve registry. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for differences in the baseline characteristics. The Kaplan-Meir method was used to estimate late mortality. Results: A total of 2000 patients were included (689 in the TAVR cohort and 1311 in the SAVR cohort). Propensity score matching resulted in 308 pairs (STS score, TAVR 3.5 ± 2.2% vs. SAVR 3.5 ± 2.8%, p = 0.918). In-hospital mortality was 3.6% after SAVR and 1.3% after TAVR (p = 0.092). Stroke, acute kidney injury, bleeding and atrial fibrillation were significantly more frequent after SAVR, but higher rate of vascular complications was observed after TAVR. The cumulative incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation at 4 years was 13.9% in the TAVR group and 6.9% in the SAVR group (p = 0.0004). At 4-years, all-cause mortality was 20.6% for SAVR and 25.9% for TAVR (p = 0.910). Four-year rates of coronary revascularization, prosthetic valve endocarditis and repeat aortic valve intervention were similar between matched cohorts. Conclusions: The Sapien 3 bioprosthesis achieves comparable midterm outcomes to a surgical bioprosthesis with proven durability such as the Perimount Magna Ease. However, the Sapien 3 bioprosthesis was associated with better early outcome.

The impact of thrombocytopenia on postoperative bleeding and other major adverse events after cardiac surgery is unclear. This issue was investigated in a series of patients who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) from the prospective, multicenter E-CABG registry. Preoperative thrombocytopenia was defined as preoperative platelet count <150 × 10⁹/L and it was considered moderate-severe when preoperative platelet count was <100 × 10⁹/L. Multilevel mixed-effects regression analysis was performed to adjust the effect of thrombocytopenia on outcomes for baseline and operative covariates as well as for interinstitutional differences in patient-blood management. Among 7189 patients included in this analysis, 599 (8.3%) had preoperative thrombocytopenia. Patient with preoperative thrombocytopenia had an increased chest drainage output at 12 h (mean, 519 vs. 456 mL, adjusted coeff. 39, 95%CI 18–60) and rates of severe-massive bleeding (Universal Definition of Perioperative Bleeding (UDPB) severity grades 3–4: 12.7% vs. 8.1%, adjusted OR 1.47, 95%CI 1.11–1.93; E-CABG bleeding severity grades 2–3: 10.4% vs. 6.1%, adjusted OR 1.78, 95%CI 1.30–2.43). Thrombocytopenia was associated with an increased risk of hospital/30-day death (3.2% vs. 1.9%, adjusted OR 2.02, 95%CI 1.20–3.42), 1-year death (5.7% vs. 3.4%, adjusted HR 1.68, 95%CI 1.16–2.44), deep sternal wound infection (3.5% vs. 2.4%, adjusted OR 1.65, 95%CI 1.02–2.66), acute kidney injury (28.1% vs. 22.2%, OR 1.45, 1.18–1.78), and prolonged stay in the intensive care unit (mean, 3.6 vs 2.8 days, adjusted coeff. 0.74, 95%CI 0.40–1.09). Similar results were observed in a subset of patients with moderate-severe thrombocytopenia (51 patients, 0.7%). In particular, these patients had a markedly higher rate of acute kidney injury (40%, adjusted OR, 1.94, 95%CI 1.05–3.57), resternotomy for bleeding (7.8%, adjusted OR 3.49, 95%CI 1.20–10.21), and severe-massive bleeding (UDPB severity grades 3–4

Importance: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown to be a valid alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients at high operative risk with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the evidence of the benefits and harms of TAVR in patients at low operative risk is still scarce. Objective: To compare the short-term and midterm outcomes after TAVR and SAVR in low-risk patients with AS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective comparative effectiveness cohort study used data from the Nationwide Finnish Registry of Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Valve Stenosis of patients at low operative risk who underwent TAVR or SAVR with a bioprosthesis for severe AS from January 1, 2008, to November 30, 2017. Low operative risk was defined as a Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score less than 3% without other comorbidities of clinical relevance. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline covariates between the TAVR and SAVR cohorts. Exposures: Primary TAVR or SAVR with a bioprosthesis for AS with or without associated coronary revascularization. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were 30-day and 3-year survival. Results: Overall, 2841 patients (mean [SD] age, 74.0 [6.2] years; 1560 [54.9%] men) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis; TAVR was performed in 325 patients and SAVR in 2516 patients. Propensity score matching produced 304 pairs with similar baseline characteristics. Third-generation devices were used in 263 patients (86.5%) who underwent TAVR. Among these matched pairs, 30-day mortality was 1.3% after TAVR and 3.6% after SAVR (P = .12). Three-year survival was similar in the study cohorts (TAVR, 85.7%; SAVR, 87.7%; P = .45). Interaction tests found no differences in terms of 3-year survival between the study cohorts in patients younger than vs older than 80 years or in patients who r

Background: Bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) grafting is increasingly used in elderly patients without evidence of its risks or benefits compared with single internal mammary artery (SIMA) grafting. Methods: In all, 2,899 patients aged 70 years or older (855 [29.5%] underwent BIMA grafting) operated on from January 2015 to December 2016 and included in the prospective multicenter Outcome After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (E-CABG) study were considered in this analysis. Results: One-to-one propensity matching resulted in 804 pairs with similar preoperative risk profile. Propensity score matched analysis showed that BIMA grafting was associated with a nonstatistically significant increased risk of inhospital death (2.7% versus 1.6%, p = 0.117). The BIMA grafting cohort had a significantly increased risk of any sternal wound infection (7.7% versus 5.1%, p = 0.031) as well as higher risk of deep sternal wound infection/mediastinitis (4.0% versus 2.2%, p = 0.048). The BIMA grafting cohort required more frequently extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (1.0% versus 0.1%, p = 0.02), and the intensive care unit stay (mean 3.6 versus 2.6 days, p < 0.001) and inhospital stay (mean 11.3 versus 10.0 days, p < 0.001) were significantly longer compared with the SIMA grafting cohort. Test for interaction showed that urgent operation in patients undergoing BIMA grafting was associated with higher risk of inhospital death (5.6% versus 1.3%, p = 0.009). Conclusions: Bilateral internal mammary artery grafting in elderly patients seems to be associated with a worse early outcome compared with SIMA grafting, particularly in patients undergoing urgent operation. Until more conclusive results are gathered, BIMA grafting should be reserved only for elderly patients with stable coronary artery disease, without significant baseline comorbidities and with long life expectancy.

Objectives: We compared the outcome of anaemic patients undergoing transcatheter (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic valve stenosis. Methods: Anaemic patients (haemoglobin <13.0 g/dL in men and <12.0 g/dL in women) undergoing TAVI and SAVR from the OBSERVANT study were the subjects of this analysis. Results: Preoperative anaemia was an independent predictor of 3-year mortality after either TAVI (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.12–1.68) and SAVR (HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.37–1.99). Propensity score matching resulted in 302 pairs with similar characteristics. Patients undergoing SAVR had similar 30-d mortality (3.6% versus 3.3%, p = .81) and stroke (1.3% versus 2.0%, p = .53) compared with TAVI. The rates of pacemaker implantation (18.6% versus 3.0%, p < .001), major vascular damage (5.7% versus 0.4%, p < .001) and mild-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation (47.4% versus 9.3%, p < .001) were higher after TAVI, whereas acute kidney injury (50.7% versus 27.9%, p < .001) and blood transfusion (70.0% versus 38.6%, p < .001) were more frequent after SAVR. At 3-year, survival was 74.0% after SAVR and 66.3% after TAVI, respectively (p = .065), and freedom from MACCE was 67.6% after SAVR and 58.7% after TAVI, respectively (p = .049). Conclusions: These results suggest that TAVI is not superior to SAVR in patients with anaemia.

Severe perioperative bleeding after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is associated with poor outcome. An additive score for prediction of severe bleeding was derived (n=2494) and validated (n=1250) in patients from the E-CABG registry. Severe bleeding was defined as E-CABG bleeding grades 2–3 (transfusion of >4 units of red blood cells or reoperation for bleeding). The overall incidence of severe bleeding was 6.4 %. Preoperative anaemia (3 points), female gender (2 points), eGFR <45 ml/min/1.73 m² (3 points), potent antiplatelet drugs discontinued less than five days (2 points), critical preoperative state (5 points), acute coronary syndrome (2 points), use of low-molecular-weight heparin/fondaparinux/unfractionated heparin (1 point) were independent predictors of severe bleeding. The WILL-BLEED score was associated with increasing rates of severe bleeding in both the derivation and validation cohorts (scores 0–3: 2.9 % vs 3.4 %; scores 4–6: 6.8 % vs 7.5 %; scores>6: 24.6 % vs 24.2 %, both p<0.0001). The WILL-BLEED score had a better discriminatory ability (AUC 0.725) for prediction of severe bleeding compared to the ACTION (AUC 0.671), CRUSADE (AUC 0.642), Papworth (AUC 0.605), TRUST (AUC 0.660) and TRACK (AUC 0.640) bleeding scores. The net reclassification index and integrated discrimination improvement using the WILL-BLEED score as opposed to the other bleeding scores were significant (p<0.0001). The decision curve analysis demonstrated a net benefit with the WILL-BLEED score compared to the other bleeding scores. In conclusion, the WILL-BLEED risk score is a simple risk stratification method which allows the identification of patients at high risk of severe bleeding after CABG.