MRONJ in breast cancer patients under bone modifying agents for cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL): a multi-hospital-based case series

BackgroundCancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) is the most common adverse event experienced by patients affected by breast cancer (BC) patients, without bone metastases. Bone modifying agents (BMAs) therapy is prescribed for the prevention of CTIBL, but it exposes patients to the risk of MRONJ.MethodsThis multicentre hospital-based retrospective study included consecutive non-metastatic BC patients affected by MRONJ related to exposure to low-dose BMAs for CTIBL prevention. Patients' data were retrospectively collected from the clinical charts of seven recruiting Italian centres.ResultsMRONJ lesions were found in fifteen females (mean age 67.5 years), mainly in the mandible (73.3%). The mean duration of BMAs therapy at MRONJ presentation was 34.9 months. The more frequent BMAs was denosumab (53.3%). Ten patients (66.7%) showed the following local risk factors associated to MRONJ development: periodontal disease (PD) in three cases (20%) and the remaining six (40%) have undergone PD-related tooth extractions. One patient presented an implant presence-triggered MRONJ (6.7%). In five patients (33.3%) no local risk factors were observed.ConclusionsThis is the first case series that investigated BC patients under BMAs for CTIBL prevention suffering from MRONJ. These patients seem to have similar probabilities of developing MRONJ as osteo-metabolic ones. Breast cancer patients under BMAs for CTIBL prevention need a regular prevention program for MRONJ, since they may develop bone metastases and be treated with higher doses of BMAs, potentially leading to a high-risk of MRONJ

Early and mid-term outcome of patients with low-flow-low-gradient aortic stenosis treated with newer-generation transcatheter aortic valves

Patients with non-paradoxical low-flow-low-gradient (LFLG) aortic stenosis (AS) are at increased surgical risk, and thus, they may particularly benefit from transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, data on this issue are still limited and based on the results with older-generation transcatheter heart valves (THVs). The aim of this study was to investigate early and mid-term outcome of TAVR with newer-generation THVs in the setting of LFLG AS. Data for the present analysis were gathered from the OBSERVANT II dataset, a national Italian observational, prospective, multicenter cohort study that enrolled 2,989 consecutive AS patients who underwent TAVR at 30 Italian centers between December 2016 and September 2018, using newer-generation THVs. Overall, 420 patients with LVEF <= 50% and mean aortic gradient <40 mmHg were included in this analysis. The primary outcomes were 1-year all-cause mortality and a combined endpoint including all-cause mortality and hospital readmission due to congestive heart failure (CHF) at 1 year. A risk-adjusted analysis was performed to compare the outcome of LFLG AS patients treated with TAVR (n = 389) with those who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR, n = 401) from the OBSERVANT I study. Patients with LFLG AS undergoing TAVR were old (mean age, 80.8 +/- 6.7 years) and with increased operative risk (mean EuroSCORE II, 11.5 +/- 10.2%). VARC-3 device success was 83.3% with 7.6% of moderate/severe paravalvular leak. Thirty-day mortality was 3.1%. One-year all-cause mortality was 17.4%, and the composite endpoint was 34.8%. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR 1.78) and EuroSCORE II (HR 1.02) were independent predictors of 1-year mortality, while diabetes (HR 1.53) and class NYHA IV (HR 2.38) were independent predictors of 1-year mortality or CHF. Compared with LFLG AS treated with SAVR, TAVR patients had a higher rate of major vascular complications and permanent pacemaker, while SAVR patients underwent more frequently to blood transfusion, cardiogenic shock, AKI, and MI. However, 30-day and 1-year outcomes were similar between groups. Patients with non-paradoxical LFLG AS treated by TAVR were older and with higher surgical risk compared with SAVR patients. Notwithstanding, TAVR was safe and effective with a similar outcome to SAVR at both early and mid-term

Comparison of Early and Long-Term Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients with New York Heart Association Functional Class IV to those in Class III and Less

Our aim was to investigate the impact of a baseline New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV on clinical outcomes of a large real-world population who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The primary end points were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and re-hospitalization, evaluated at the longest available follow-up and by means of a 3-month landmark analysis. The secondary end points were: change in NYHA class, left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary pressure and mitral regurgitation. Out of 2,467 patients, 271 (11%) had a NYHA functional class IV at the admission. The latter had higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score (9.2% vs 5.5%; p < 0.001) compared to NYHA ≤ III patients, owing to more comorbidities (prior myocardial infarction, severe long-term kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, left ventricular dysfunction, significant mitral regurgitation, pulmonary hypertension). Device success was similar between the two groups (93.7% vs 94.5%; p = 0.583). At a median follow-up of 15 months (interquartile range 4 to 36 months) a lower freedom from primary end points was observed among NYHA IV versus NYHA ≤ III group (survival from all-cause death: 52% vs 58.4%; p = 0.002; survival from cardiovascular death: 72.5% vs 76.5%; p = 0.091; freedom from re-hospitalization: 81.5% vs 85.4%; p = 0.038). However, after adjustment for baseline imbalance, NYHA IV did not influence the relative risk of long-term primary end points. A 3-month landmark analysis showed that NYHA IV independently predicted 3-month all-cause and cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio: 1.77; 95% CI [1.10 to 2.83]; p = 0.018 and hazard ratio: 1.64; 95% CI [1.03 to 2.59]; p = 0.036, respectively). Instead, after 3-month follow-up NYHA IV did not affect the risk of primary end points. A significant improvement of the secondary end points was noted in both NYHA IV and NYHA ≤≤ III groups. In conclusion, the presence of NYHA class IV in TAVI candidates was associated to a significant increased risk of mortality within 3 months. Patients with baseline NYHA IV who survived at 3 months had a long-term outcome comparable to that of other subjects. Left ventricular systolic function, pulmonary pressure, and mitral insufficiency significantly improved after TAVI regardless of baseline NYHA class IV

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

One-Year Outcomes after Surgical versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with Newer Generation Devices

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

Стан та перспективи конкурентоспроможності галузі національного господарства в умовах глобалізації

Метою дослідження є узагальнення нових теоретичних положень розвитку галузей економіки в умовах глобалізації, визначення загальних конкурентних переваг хімічної галузі України та практичних напрямів сучасного розвитку економіки країни

TCT-709 Early and Mid-term Outcomes Of 1904 Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Balloon-Expandable Valve Implantation: results the ITER Registry

n/

TCT-695 Clinical Impact and Evolution Of Mitral Regurgitation Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-Analysis

n/

Treatment of aortic stenosis with a self-expanding transcatheter valve: the International Multi-centre ADVANCE Study

Aim Transcatheter aortic valve implantation has become an alternative to surgery in higher risk patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. The aim of the ADVANCE study was to evaluate outcomes following implantation of a self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve system in a fully monitored, multi-centre ‘real-world' patient population in highly experienced centres. Methods and results Patients with severe aortic stenosis at a higher surgical risk in whom implantation of the CoreValve System was decided by the Heart Team were included. Endpoints were a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, or reintervention) and mortality at 30 days and 1 year. Endpoint-related events were independently adjudicated based on Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions. A total of 1015 patients [mean logistic EuroSCORE 19.4 ± 12.3% [median (Q1,Q3), 16.0% (10.3, 25.3%)], age 81 ± 6 years] were enrolled. Implantation of the CoreValve System led to a significant improvement in haemodynamics and an increase in the effective aortic valve orifice area. At 30 days, the MACCE rate was 8.0% (95% CI: 6.3-9.7%), all-cause mortality was 4.5% (3.2-5.8%), cardiovascular mortality was 3.4% (2.3-4.6%), and the rate of stroke was 3.0% (2.0-4.1%). The life-threatening or disabling bleeding rate was 4.0% (2.8-6.3%). The 12-month rates of MACCE, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke were 21.2% (18.4-24.1%), 17.9% (15.2-20.5%), 11.7% (9.4-14.1%), and 4.5% (2.9-6.1%), respectively. The 12-month rates of all-cause mortality were 11.1, 16.5, and 23.6% among patients with a logistic EuroSCORE ≤10%, EuroSCORE 10-20%, and EuroSCORE >20% (P< 0.05), respectively. Conclusion The ADVANCE study demonstrates the safety and effectiveness of the CoreValve System with low mortality and stroke rates in higher risk real-world patients with severe aortic stenosi

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients at High Risk of Coronary Obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Coronary obstruction following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a life-threatening complication. For patients at elevated risk, it is not known how valve choice is influenced by clinical and anatomic factors and how outcomes differ between valve platforms. For patients at high risk of coronary obstruction, we sought to describe the anatomical and clinical characteristics of patients treated with both balloon-expandable (BE) and self-expanding (SE) valves. METHODS: This was a multicenter international registry of patients undergoing TAVR who are considered to be at high risk of coronary obstruction and receiving pre-emptive coronary protection. RESULTS: A total of 236 patients were included. Patients receiving SE valves were more likely to undergo valve-in-valve procedures and also had smaller sinuses of Valsalva and valve-to-coronary distance. Three-year cardiac mortality was 21.6% with SE vs 3.7% with BE valves. This was primarily driven by increased rates of definite or probable coronary occlusion, which occurred in 12.1% of patients with SE valves vs 2.1% in patients with BE valves. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TAVR with coronary protection, those treated with SE valves had increased rates of clinical and anatomic features that increase the risk of coronary obstruction. These include an increased frequency of valve-in-valve procedures, smaller sinuses of Valsalva, and smaller valve-to-coronary distances. These patients were observed to have increased cardiac mortality compared with patients treated with BE valves, but this is likely due to their higher risk clinical and anatomic phenotypes rather than as a function of the valve type itself