Search

The role of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED)-related tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is increasingly recognized as an independent clinical entity. Hence, interventional TR treatment options continuously evolve, surgical risk assessment and peri-operative care improve the management of CIED-related TR, and the role of lead extraction is of high interest. Furthermore, novel surgical and interventional tricuspid valve treatment options are increasingly applied to patients suffering from TR associated with or related to CIEDs. This multidisciplinary review article developed with electrophysiologists, interventional cardiologists, imaging specialists, and cardiac surgeons aims to give an overview of the mechanisms of disease, diagnostics, and proposes treatment algorithms of patients suffering from TR associated with CIED lead(s) or leadless pacemakers.

Interest in the pathophysiology, etiology, management, and outcomes of patients with tricuspid regurgitation (TR) has grown in the wake of multiple natural history studies showing progressively worse outcomes associated with increasing TR severity, even after adjusting for multiple comorbidities. Historically, isolated tricuspid valve surgery has been associated with high in-hospital mortality rates, leading to the development of transcatheter treatment options. The aim of this first Tricuspid Valve Academic Research Consortium document is to standardize definitions of disease etiology and severity, as well as endpoints for trials that aim to address the gaps in our knowledge related to identification and management of patients with TR. Standardizing endpoints for trials should provide consistency and enable meaningful comparisons between clinical trials. A second Tricuspid Valve Academic Research Consortium document will focus on further defining trial endpoints and will discuss trial design options.

Background: Surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are now both used to treat aortic stenosis in patients in whom life expectancy may exceed valve durability. The choice of initial bioprosthesis should therefore consider the relative safety and efficacy of potential subsequent interventions. Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare TAVR in failed transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) versus surgical aortic valves (SAVs). Methods: Data were collected on 434 TAV-in-TAV and 624 TAV-in-SAV consecutive procedures performed at centers participating in the Redo-TAVR international registry. Propensity score matching was applied, and 330 matched (165:165) patients were analyzed. Principal endpoints were procedural success, procedural safety, and mortality at 30 days and 1 year. Results: For TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV, procedural success was observed in 120 (72.7%) versus 103 (62.4%) patients (p = 0.045), driven by a numerically lower frequency of residual high valve gradient (p = 0.095), ectopic valve deployment (p = 0.081), coronary obstruction (p = 0.091), and conversion to open heart surgery (p = 0.082). Procedural safety was achieved in 116 (70.3%) versus 119 (72.1%) patients (p = 0.715). Mortality at 30 days was 5 (3%) after TAV-in-TAV and 7 (4.4%) after TAV-in-SAV (p = 0.570). At 1 year, mortality was 12 (11.9%) and 10 (10.2%), respectively (p = 0.633). Aortic valve area was larger (1.55 ± 0.5 cm2 vs. 1.37 ± 0.5 cm2; p = 0.040), and the mean residual gradient was lower (12.6 ± 5.2 mm Hg vs. 14.9 ± 5.2 mm Hg; p = 0.011) after TAV-in-TAV. The rate of moderate or greater residual aortic regurgitation was similar, but mild aortic regurgitation was more frequent after TAV-in-TAV (p = 0.003). Conclusions: In propensity score–matched cohorts of TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV patients, TAV-in-TAV was associated with higher procedural success and similar procedural safety or mortality.

Background Elevated systolic blood pressure (SBP) after mechanical thrombectomy (MT) correlates with worse outcome. However, the association between SBP reduction (SBPr) and outcome after successful reperfusion with MT is not well established. Objective To investigate the association between SBPr in the first 24 hours after successful reperfusion and the functional and safety outcomes of MT. Methods A multicenter retrospective study, which included 10 comprehensive stroke centers, was carried out. Patients with acute ischemic stroke and anterior circulation large vessel occlusions who achieved successful reperfusion via MT were included. SBPr was calculated using the formula 100×([admission SBP-mean SBP]/admission SBP). Poor outcome was defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 3-6 at 90 days. Safety endpoints included symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, mortality, and requirement for hemicraniectomy during admission. A generalized mixed linear model was used to study the association between SBPr and outcomes. Results A total of 1361 patients were included in the final analysis. SBPr as a continuous variable was inversely associated with poor outcome (OR=0.97; 95% CI 0.95 to 0.98; p<0.001) but not with the safety outcomes. Subanalysis based on reperfusion status showed that SBPr was associated with lower odds of poor outcome only in patients with complete reperfusion (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI 3)) but not in patients with incomplete reperfusion (mTICI 2b). When SBPr was divided into categories (<1%, 1%-10%, 11%-20%, >20%), the rate of poor outcome was highest in the first group. Conclusion SBPr in the first 24 hours after successful reperfusion was inversely associated with poor outcome. No association between SBPr and safety outcome was found. © 2020 BioMed Central Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Objective: Elevated systolic blood pressure (SBP) after successful revascularization (SR) via endovascular therapy (EVT) is a known predictor of poor outcome. However, the optimal SBP goal following EVT is still unknown. Our objective was to compare functional and safety outcomes between different SBP goals after EVT with SR. Methods: This international multicenter study included 8 comprehensive stroke centers and patients with anterior circulation large vessel occlusion who were treated with EVT and achieved SR. SR was defined as modified thrombolysis in cerebral ischemia 2b to 3. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on SBP goal in the first 24 hours after EVT. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) propensity analysis was used to assess the effect of different SBP goals on clinical outcomes. Results: A total of 1,019 patients were included. On IPTW analysis, the SBP goal of <140mmHg was associated with a higher likelihood of good functional outcome and lower odds of hemicraniectomy compared to SBP goal of <180mmHg. Similarly, SBP goal of <160mmHg was associated with lower odds of mortality compared to SBP goal of <180mmHg. In subgroup analysis including only patients with pre-EVT SBP of ≥140mmHg, an SBP of <140mmHg was associated with a higher likelihood of good functional outcome, lower odds of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and lower odds of requirement for hemicraniectomy compared to SBP goal of <180mmHg. Interpretation: SBP goals of <140 and < 160mmHg following SR with EVT appear to be associated with better clinical outcomes than SBP of <180mmHg. ANN NEUROL 2020;87:830–839. © 2020 American Neurological Association

Objectives: The aim of the current Valvular Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 initiative was to revisit the selection and definitions of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)- clinical endpoints to make them more suitable to the present and future needs of clinical trials. In addition, this document is intended to expand understanding of patient risk stratification and case selection. Background: A recent study confirmed that VARC definitions have already been incorporated into clinical and research practice and represent a new standard for consistency in reporting clinical outcomes of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI. However, as the clinical experience with this technology has matured and expanded, certain definitions have become unsuitable or ambiguous. Methods and results: Two in-person meetings (held in September 2011 in Washington, DC, USA, and in February 2012 in Rotterdam, The Netherlands) involving VARC study group members, independent experts (including surgeons, interventional and non-interventional cardiologists, imaging specialists, neurologists, geriatric specialists, and clinical trialists), the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives, provided much of the substantive discussion from which this VARC-2 consensus manuscript was derived. This document also provides an overview of risk assessment and patient stratification that needed to be considered for accurate patient inclusion in studies. Working groups were assigned to define the following clinical endpoints: mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, conduction disturbances & arrhythmias, and a miscellaneous category including relevant complications not previously categorized. Furthermore, comprehensive echocardiographic recommendations are provided for evaluation of prosthetic valve (dys)function. Definitions for quality of life assessments are also reporte