YP10-03 Cross-cultural psychiatry, liaison psychiatry and other major challenges for modern psychiatrists

Beyond the awareness that psychiatry and contemporary medicine have undergone a dramatic change in recent years, walking the first steps as recently-qualified consultants in psychiatry is a major challenge. As a consequence of changes in society, technological progress and restricted funding availability, modern psychiatrists have to face problems that are new, and difficult to be faced, but also representing an opportunity to grow and contribute massively to medicine.This is particularly true in two specific fields, cross-cultural psychiatry and consultation-liaison psychiatry. The former is defined as psychiatry of disorders influenced by the cultural background; the latter is defined as the care of psychiatric disturbances in the medically ill. Though generic, these definitions highlight what is challenging in these branches of psychiatry: the disposition towards an inter-disciplinary approach to human illnesses. Both deepen their roots in the bio-psycho-social paradigm of George Engel and were in fact frequently mentioned in Engel's writings as the future of psychiatry. Training and clinical experience in cross-cultural and consultation-liaison psychiatry are to be major components of the curriculum of psychiatric trainees.Therefore, the role of psychiatrists and psychiatrists-to-be in the contemporary scientific community and society must be a strong one: on the side of scientific knowledge, by marking the complex, systemic nature of physiopathology and therapy; on the side of epistemology, by marking the paradoxes of bio-medicine; on the side of organization of health care, by promoting the need for a person-oriented approach to illness; and finally on the side of culture, society and ethics

Transcathether aortic valve implantation with the new repositionable self-expandable Evolut R versus CoreValve system: A case-matched comparison

Background: Despite promising results following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), several relevant challenges still remain. To overcome these issues, new generation devices have been developed. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether TAVI with the new self-expanding repositionable Evolut R offers potential benefits compared to the preceding CoreValve, using propensity matching. Methods: Between June 2007 and November 2015, 2148 consecutive patients undergoing TAVI either CoreValve (n = 1846) or Evolut R (n = 302) were prospectively included in the Italian TAVI ClinicalService® project. For the purpose of our analysis 211 patients treated with the Evolut R were matched to 211 patients treated with the CoreValve. An independent core laboratory reviewed all angiographic procedural data and an independent clinical events committee adjudicated all events. Results: Patients treated with Evolut R experienced higher 1-year overall survival (log rank test p = 0.045) and a significantly lower incidence of major vascular access complications, bleeding events and acute kidney injury compared to patients treated with the CoreValve. Recapture manoeuvres to optimize valve deployment were performed 44 times, allowing a less implantation depth for the Evolut R. As a consequence, the rate of more than mild paravalvular leak and new permanent pacemaker was lower in patients receiving the Evolut R. Conclusion: In this matched comparison of high surgical risk patients undergoing TAVI, the use of Evolut R was associated with a significant survival benefit at 1. year compared with the CoreValve. This was driven by lower incidence of periprocedural complications and higher rates of correct anatomic positioning

Prespecified Risk Criteria Facilitate Adequate Discharge and Long‐Term Outcomes After Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Background Despite the availability of guidelines for the performance of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), current treatment pathways vary between countries and institutions, which impact on the mean duration of postprocedure hospitalization. Methods and Results This was a prospective, multicenter registry of 502 patients to validate the appropriateness of discharge timing after transfemoral TAVI, using prespecified risk criteria from FAST‐TAVI (Feasibility and Safety of Early Discharge After Transfemoral [TF] Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation), based on hospital events within 1‐year after discharge. The end point—a composite of all‐cause mortality, vascular access–related complications, permanent pacemaker implantation, stroke, cardiac rehospitalization, kidney failure, and major bleeding—was reached in 27.0% of patients (95% CI, 23.3–31.2) within 1 year after intervention; 7.5% (95% CI, 5.5–10.2) had in‐hospital complications before discharge and 19.6% (95% CI, 16.3–23.4) within 1 year after discharge. Overall mortality within 1 year after discharge was 7.3% and rates of cardiac rehospitalization 13.5%, permanent pacemaker implantation 4.2%, any stroke 1.8%, vascular‐access–related complications 0.7%, life‐threatening bleeding 0.7%, and kidney failure 0.4%. Composite events within 1 year after discharge were observed in 18.8% and 24.3% of patients with low risk of complications/early (≤3 days) discharge and high risk and discharged late (>3 days) (concordant discharge), respectively. Event rate in patients with discordant discharge was 14.3% with low risk but discharged late and increased to 50.0% in patients with high risk but discharged in ≤3 days. Conclusions The FAST‐TAVI risk assessment provides a tool for appropriate, risk‐based discharge that was validated with the 1‐year event rate after transfemoral TAVI. Registration URL: https://www.ClinicalTrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02404467

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves.

IMPORTANCE: Owing to a considerable shift toward bioprosthesis implantation rather than mechanical valves, it is expected that patients will increasingly present with degenerated bioprostheses in the next few years. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation is a less invasive approach for patients with structural valve deterioration; however, a comprehensive evaluation of survival after the procedure has not yet been performed. OBJECTIVE: To determine the survival of patients after transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation inside failed surgical bioprosthetic valves. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Correlates for survival were evaluated using a multinational valve-in-valve registry that included 459 patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves undergoing valve-in-valve implantation between 2007 and May 2013 in 55 centers (mean age, 77.6 [SD, 9.8] years; 56% men; median Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality prediction score, 9.8% [interquartile range, 7.7%-16%]). Surgical valves were classified as small (≤21 mm; 29.7%), intermediate (>21 and <25 mm; 39.3%), and large (≥25 mm; 31%). Implanted devices included both balloon- and self-expandable valves. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Survival, stroke, and New York Heart Association functional class. RESULTS: Modes of bioprosthesis failure were stenosis (n = 181 [39.4%]), regurgitation (n = 139 [30.3%]), and combined (n = 139 [30.3%]). The stenosis group had a higher percentage of small valves (37% vs 20.9% and 26.6% in the regurgitation and combined groups, respectively; P = .005). Within 1 month following valve-in-valve implantation, 35 (7.6%) patients died, 8 (1.7%) had major stroke, and 313 (92.6%) of surviving patients had good functional status (New York Heart Association class I/II). The overall 1-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 83.2% (95% CI, 80.8%-84.7%; 62 death events; 228 survivors). Patients in the stenosis group had worse 1-year survival (76.6%; 95% CI, 68.9%-83.1%; 34 deaths; 86 survivors) in comparison with the regurgitation group (91.2%; 95% CI, 85.7%-96.7%; 10 deaths; 76 survivors) and the combined group (83.9%; 95% CI, 76.8%-91%; 18 deaths; 66 survivors) (P = .01). Similarly, patients with small valves had worse 1-year survival (74.8% [95% CI, 66.2%-83.4%]; 27 deaths; 57 survivors) vs with intermediate-sized valves (81.8%; 95% CI, 75.3%-88.3%; 26 deaths; 92 survivors) and with large valves (93.3%; 95% CI, 85.7%-96.7%; 7 deaths; 73 survivors) (P = .001). Factors associated with mortality within 1 year included having small surgical bioprosthesis (≤21 mm; hazard ratio, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.14-3.67; P = .02) and baseline stenosis (vs regurgitation; hazard ratio, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.33-7.08; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this registry of patients who underwent transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves, overall 1-year survival was 83.2%. Survival was lower among patients with small bioprostheses and those with predominant surgical valve stenosis

Outcomes in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis

Cardiolog

Standardized Definitions for Bioprosthetic Valve Dysfunction Following Aortic or Mitral Valve Replacement: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.

peer reviewedBioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) may be caused by structural or nonstructural valve dysfunction. Both surgical and transcatheter bioprosthetic valves have limited durability because of structural valve deterioration. The main objective of this summary of experts participating in a virtual workshop was to propose standardized definitions for nonstructural and structural BVD and BVF following aortic or mitral biological valve replacement with the goal of facilitating research reporting and implementation of these terms in clinical practice. Definitions of structural BVF, based on valve reintervention or death, underestimate the true incidence of BVF. However, definitions solely based on the presence of high transprosthetic gradient at a given echocardiogram during follow-up overestimate the incidence of structural BVD and BVF. Definitions of aortic or mitral structural BVD must therefore include the confirmation by imaging of permanent structural changes to the leaflets alongside evidence of deterioration in valve hemodynamic function at echocardiography follow-up

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Pure Native Aortic Valve Regurgitation

Cardiolog