Search

Objectives: To study the safety and feasibility of a restrictive temporary-RV-pacemaker use and to evaluate the need for temporary pacemaker insertion for failed left ventricular (LV) pacing ability (no ventricular capture) or occurrence of high-degree AV-blocks mandating continuous pacing. Background: Ventricular pacing remains an essential part of contemporary transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). A temporary-right-ventricle (RV)-pacemaker lead is the standard approach for transient pacing during TAVI but requires central venous access. Methods: An observational registry including 672 patients who underwent TAVI between June 2018 and December 2020. Patients received pacing on the wire when necessary, unless there was a high-anticipated risk for conduction disturbances post-TAVI, based on the baseline-ECG. The follow-up period was 30 days. Results: A temporary-RV-pacemaker lead (RVP-cohort) was inserted in 45 patients, pacing on the wire (LVP-cohort) in 488 patients, and no pacing (NoP-cohort) in 139 patients. A bailout temporary pacemaker was implanted in 14 patients (10.1%) in the NoP-cohort and in 24 patients (4.9%) in the LVP-cohort. One patient in the LVP-cohort needed an RV-pacemaker for incomplete ventricular capture. Procedure time was significantly longer in the RVP-cohort (68 min [IQR 52–88.] vs. 55 min [IQR 44–72] in NoP-cohort and 55 min [IQR 43–71] in the LVP-cohort [p < 0.005]). Procedural high-degree AV-block occurred most often in the RVP-cohort (45% vs. 14% in the LVP and 16% in the NoP-cohort [p ≤ 0.001]). Need for new PPI occurred in 47% in the RVP-cohort, versus 20% in the NoP-cohort and 11% in the LVP-cohort (p ≤ 0.001). Conclusion: A restricted RV-pacemaker strategy is safe and shortens procedure time. The majority of TAVI-procedures do not require a temporary-RV-pacemaker.

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate patient-centered metrics in intermediate-surgical-risk aortic stenosis patients enrolled in the SURTAVI (Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial treated with self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgery. Background: Studies have shown TAVR to be an alternative to surgery in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis but have focused on “hard endpoints,” including all-cause mortality and stroke, rather than on comparative patient-centered metrics, such as functional status and symptom burden. Methods: The study analyzed functional status (6-minute walk test [6MWT]) and symptom burden (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire) in 1,492 patients from the SURTAVI trial at baseline, 30 days, 1 year, and 2 years. Patients were categorized by baseline functional status into tertiles of slow, medium, and fast walkers. Results: Patients with lowest capacity baseline functional status were commonly women, had higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores, and had more New York Heart Association functional class III or IV symptoms; reduced baseline functional status was associated with higher aortic valve– and heart failure–related hospitalization at 2 years. There was greater improvement in 6MWT distance in TAVR compared with surgery patients at 30 days (P < 0.001) and 1 year (P = 0.012), but at 2 years, both groups had similar improvement (P = 0.091). The percentage of patients with large improvement in 6MWT was greatest in patients categorized as slow walkers and lowest in fast walkers. Symptom burden improved after TAVR at 30 days and after both procedures at 1 and 2 years. Conclusions: In this substudy of patients from the SURTAVI trial, patients receiving TAVR demonstrated a more rapid improvement in functional status and symptom burden compared with patients undergoing surgery; however, both groups had similar improvements in long-term follow-up.

Introduction: We aimed to compare conduction dynamics and need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after CoreValve, Evolut R and PRO (transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)). Methods: Patients were stratified based on conduction at baseline; Cohort A had normal conduction, Cohort B had conduction abnormalities including atrioventricular (AV)-block, fascicular block or complete bundle branch block. Three different dynamic QRS-patterns were defined: stable QRS-duration, transient QRS-prolongation and persistent QRS-prolongation. We performed multivariable regression analysis to estimate the effect of the three separate transcatheter heart valves (THV's) on need for PPI at 30 days. Results: TAVR was performed with CoreValve (N = 113), Evolut R (N = 157) or Evolut PRO (N = 92). Conduction dynamics were similar between the different THVs. Overall, Evolut R and PRO showed a tendency towards less PPI compared to CoreValve (17% vs. 19% vs. 27%, P = 0.08), which was driven by a lower PPI rate in Cohort A (6% vs. 11% vs. 25%, P = 0.002). Need for PPI was restricted to patients with persistent QRS-prolongation in Cohort A (26/106) but did not correlate with conduction dynamics in Cohort B. In multivariable logistic regression analysis the use of Evolut R (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19–0.78, P = 0.008) and PRO (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19–0.91, P-value = 0.028) were independently associated with less need for PPI. Conclusion: The newer generations Evolut R and PRO were associated with less PPI compared to CoreValve. Acquired persistent conduction abnormalities predicted PPI after TAVR only in patients with normal conduction at baseline. Our findings may help identify eligible patients for early discharge after Evolut R/PRO TAVR.

Introduction: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has matured to the treatment of choice for most patients with aortic stenosis (AS). We sought to identify trends in patient and procedural characteristics, and clinical outcomes in all patients who underwent TAVI between 2005 and 2020. Methods: A single-centre analysis was performed on 1500 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI, divided into three tertiles (T) of 500 patients treated between November 2005 and December 2014 (T1), January 2015 and May 2018 (T2) and June 2018 and April 2020 (T3). Results: Over time, mean age and gender did not change (T1 to T3: 80, 80 and 79 years and 53%, 55% and 52% men, respectively), while the Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score declined (T1: 4.5% to T3: 2.7%, p < 0.001). Use of general anaesthesia also declined over time (100%, 24% and 1% from T1 to T3) and transfemoral TAVI remained the default approach (87%, 94% and 92%). Median procedure time and contrast volume decreased significantly (186, 114 and 56 min and 120, 100 and 80 ml, respectively). Thirty-day mortality (7%, 4% and 2%), stroke (7%, 3% and 3%), need for a pacemaker (19%, 22% and 8%) and delirium (17%, 12% and 8%) improved significantly, while major bleeding/vascular complications did not change (both approximately 9%, 6% and 6%). One-year survival was 80%, 88% and 92%, respectively. Conclusion: Over our 15 years’ experience, patient age remained unchanged but the patient risk profile became more favourable. Simplification of the TAVI procedure occurred in parallel with major improvement in outcomes and survival. Bleeding/vascular complications and the need for pacemaker implantation remain the Achilles’ heel of TAVI.

Although there is robust evidence that revascularisation of non-culprit vessels should be pursued in patients presenting with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD), the optimal timing of complete revascularisation remains disputed. In this systematic review and meta-analysis our results suggest that outcomes are comparable for immediate and staged complete revascularisation in patients with ACS and MVD. However, evidence from randomised controlled trials remains scarce and cautious interpretation of these results is recommended. More non-biased evidence is necessary to aid future decision making on the optimal timing of complete revascularisation.

Introduction: The aim of the present study was to assess the safety and efficacy of renal sympathetic denervation (RDN) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods: We randomly assigned 50 patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% and NYHA class ≥ II, in a 1:1 ratio, to either RDN and optimal medical therapy (OMT) or OMT alone. The primary safety endpoint was the occurrence of a combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, rehospitalisation for heart failure, and acute kidney injury at 6 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in iodine-123 meta-iodobenzylguanidine (123I‑MIBG) heart-to-mediastinum ratio (HMR) at 6 months. Results: Mean age was 60 ± 9 years, 86% was male and mean LVEF was 33 ± 8%. At 6 months, the primary safety endpoint occurred in 8.3% vs 8.0% in the RDN and OMT groups, respectively (p = 0.97). At 6 months, the mean change in late HMR was −0.02 (95% CI: −0.08 to 0.12) in the RDN group, versus −0.02 (95% CI: −0.09 to 0.12) in the OMT group (p = 0.95) whereas the mean change in washout rate was 2.34 (95% CI: −6.35 to 1.67) in the RDN group versus −2.59 (95% CI: −1.61 to 6.79) in the OMT group (p-value 0.09). Conclusion: RDN with the Vessix system in patients with HFrEF was safe, but did not result in significant changes in cardiac sympathetic nerve activity at 6 months as measured using 123I‑MIBG.

Introduction: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put tremendous pressure on healthcare systems. Most transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) centres have adopted different triage systems and procedural strategies to serve highest-risk patients first and to minimise the burden on hospital logistics and personnel. We therefore assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient selection, type of anaesthesia and outcomes after TAVI. Methods: We used data from the Netherlands Heart Registration to examine all patients who underwent TAVI between March 2020 and July 2020 (COVID cohort), and between March 2019 and July 2019 (pre-COVID cohort). We compared patient characteristics, procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes. Results: We examined 2131 patients who underwent TAVI (1020 patients in COVID cohort, 1111 patients in pre-COVID cohort). EuroSCORE II was comparable between cohorts (COVID 4.5 ± 4.0 vs pre-COVID 4.6 ± 4.2, p = 0.356). The number of TAVI procedures under general anaesthesia was lower in the COVID cohort (35.2% vs 46.5%, p < 0.001). Incidences of stroke (COVID 2.7% vs pre-COVID 1.7%, p = 0.134), major vascular complications (2.3% vs 3.4%, p = 0.170) and permanent pacemaker implantation (10.0% vs 9.4%, p = 0.634) did not differ between cohorts. Thirty-day and 150-day mortality were comparable (2.8% vs 2.2%, p = 0.359 and 5.2% vs 5.2%, p = 0.993, respectively). Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, patient characteristics and outcomes after TAVI were not different than before the pandemic. This highlights the fact that TAVI procedures can be safely performed during the COVID-19 pandemic, without an increased risk of complications or mortality.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has determined a paradigm shift in the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis. However, the durability of bioprostheses is still a matter of concern, and little is known about the management of degenerated TAV. We sought to evaluate the outcomes of patients with a degenerated TAV treated by means of a second TAVR. Methods: The TRANSIT is an international registry that included cases of degenerated TAVR from 28 centers. Among around 40 000 patients treated with TAVR in the participating centers, 172 underwent a second TAVR: 57 (33%) for a mainly stenotic degenerated TAV, 97 (56%) for a mainly regurgitant TAV, and 18 (11%) for a combined degeneration. Overall, the rate of New York Heart Association class III/IV at presentation was 73.5%. Results: Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 device success rate was 79%, as a consequence of residual gradient (14%) or regurgitation (7%). At 1 month, the overall mortality rate was 2.9%, while rates of new hospitalization and New York Heart Association class III/IV were 3.6% and 7%, respectively, without significant difference across the groups. At 1 year, the overall mortality rate was 10%, while rates of new hospitalization and New York Heart Association class III/IV were 7.6% and 5.8%, respectively, without significant difference across the groups. No cases of valve thrombosis were recorded. Conclusions: Selected patients with a degenerated TAV may be safely and successfully treated by means of a second TAVR. This finding is of crucial importance for the adoption of the TAVR technology in a lower risk and younger population.