Comparison of carotid endarterectomy and stenting in real world practice using a regional quality improvement registry

OBJECTIVE: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) vs endarterectomy (CEA) remains controversial and has been the topic of recent randomized controlled trials. The purpose of this study was to compare the practice and outcomes of CAS and CEA in a real world setting. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of 7649 CEA and 430 CAS performed at 17 centers from 2003 to 2010 within the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE). The primary outcome measures were (1) any in-hospital stroke or death and (2) any stroke, death, or myocardial infarction (MI). Patients undergoing CEA in conjunction with cardiac surgery were excluded. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of stroke or death in patients undergoing CAS. RESULTS: CEA was performed in 17 centers by 111 surgeons, while CAS was performed in 6 centers by 30 surgeons and 8 interventionalists. Patient characteristics varied by procedure. Patients undergoing CAS had a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes, and prior ipsilateral CEA. Embolic protection was used in 97% of CAS. Shunts were used in 48% and patches in 86% of CEA. The overall in-hospital stroke or death rate was higher among patients undergoing CAS (2.3% vs 1.1%; P = .03). Overall stroke, death, or MI (2.8% CAS vs 2.1% CEA; P = .32) were not different. Asymptomatic patients had similar rates of stroke or death (CAS 0.73% vs CEA 0.89%; P = .78) and stroke, death, or MI (CAS 1.1% vs CEA 1.8%; P = .40). Symptomatic patients undergoing CAS had higher rates of stroke or death (5.1% vs 1.6%; P = .001), and stroke, death, or MI (5.8% vs 2.7%; P = .02). By multivariate analysis, major stroke (odds ratio, 4.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-10.8), minor stroke (2.7; CI, 1.5-4.8), prior ipsilateral CEA (3.2, CI, 1.7-6.1), age \u3e80 (2.1; CI, 1.3-3.4), hypertension (2.6; CI, 1.0-6.3), and a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (1.6; CI, 1.0-2.4) were predictors of stroke or death in patients undergoing carotid revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: In our regional vascular surgical practices, the overall outcomes of CAS and CEA are similar for asymptomatic patients. However, symptomatic patients treated with CAS are at a higher risk for stroke or death. rights reserved

Recovery of Kidney Dysfunction After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (from the Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group).

Acute Kidney Recovery (AKR) is a potential benefit of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We determined the incidence and predictors of AKR in a multicenter prospective registry of TAVI. After excluding patients on dialysis or who died within 48 hours postprocedure, we reviewed 1,502 consecutive patients underwent TAVI in Northern New England from 2012 to 2017. Patients were categorized into 3 groups based on the change in postprocedure estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR): Acute Kidney Injury (AKI, decrease in eGFR \u3e25%), AKR (increase in eGFR \u3e25%) or no change in kidney function on discharge creatinine following TAVI. We then focused in patients with baseline chronic kidney disease (CKD defined as eGFR ≤60 ml/min; n = 755) and developed multivariate predictor models to determine the clinical and procedural variables associated with AKR. For the TAVI cohort (n = 1,502), the overall incidence of AKR was 17.8%. AKR was threefold higher in patients with eGFR ≤60 ml/min as compared to those with eGFR \u3e60 ml/min (26.6% vs 8.9%, p \u3c 0.001). In the CKD population, hospital complications were similar among patients with no change in renal function and AKR; patients with AKI had a higher rate of hospital mortality, pacemaker implantation, length of hospitalization, and transfusions. Using multivariable logistic regression, moderate to severe lung disease, eGFR \u3c 50 ml/min and previous aortic valve surgery were found to be independent predictors of AKR. Patients with diabetes mellitus, baseline anemia, and Society of thoracic surgeons score \u3e6.1 were less likely to develop AKR. In conclusion, AKR occurred in 1 of 4 of all TAVI patients with baseline CKD and was a more frequent phenomena than AKI. Patients with decreased lung function, previous aortic valve surgery and worse baseline renal function were more likely to demonstrate AKR, whereas patients with diabetes mellitus, baseline anemia, and higher Society of thoracic risk scores were less likely to see improvements in renal function after TAVI

Acute Kidney Recovery in Patients Who Underwent Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (from the Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group).

Acute kidney recovery (AKR) is a recently described phenomenon observed after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and is more frequent than acute kidney injury (AKI). To determine the incidence and predictors of AKR between surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and TAVR, we examined patients with chronic kidney disease and severe aortic stenosis who underwent SAVR or TAVR procedure between 2007 and 2017; excluding age90, dialysis, endocarditis, non-aortic valve stenosis, or patients died within 48-hours postprocedure. AKR was defined as an increase of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) \u3e25% and AKI as decrease in eGFR \u3e25% at discharge. Stroke, mortality, major bleeding, transfusion, and length of stay were examined. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to examine predictors of AKR. There were 750 transcatheter and 1,062 surgical patients and 319 pairs after propensity matching. AKR was observed in 26% TAVR versus 23.2% SAVR, p = 0.062. Highest recovery was in patients with eGFR(33.7%) and SAVR (34.5%) patients. Independent predictors of AKR were ejection fractio

TAVR in Low-Risk Patients: 1-Year Results From the LRT Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate clinical outcomes and transcatheter heart valve hemodynamics at 1 year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low-risk patients. BACKGROUND: Early results from the LRT (Low Risk TAVR) trial demonstrated that TAVR is safe in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who are at low risk for surgical valve replacement. METHODS: The LRT trial was an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicenter study and was the first Food and Drug Administration-approved Investigational Device Exemption trial to evaluate feasibility of TAVR in low-risk patients. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 30 days. Secondary endpoints included clinical outcomes and valve hemodynamics at 1 year. RESULTS: The LRT trial enrolled 200 low-risk patients with symptomatic severe AS to undergo TAVR at 11 centers. Mean age was 73.6 years and 61.5% were men. At 30 days, there was zero mortality, zero disabling stroke, and low permanent pacemaker implantation rate (5.0%). At 1-year follow-up, mortality was 3.0%, stroke rate was 2.1%, and permanent pacemaker implantation rate was 7.3%. Two (1.0%) subjects underwent surgical reintervention for endocarditis. Of the 14% of TAVR subjects who had evidence of hypoattenuated leaflet thickening at 30 days, there was no impact on valve hemodynamics at 1 year, but the stroke rate was numerically higher (3.8% vs. 1.9%; p = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: TAVR in low-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis appears to be safe at 1 year. Hypoattenuated leaflet thickening, observed in a minority of TAVR patients at 30 days, did not have an impact on valve hemodynamics in the longer term

Feasibility of Coronary Access and Aortic Valve Reintervention in Low-Risk TAVR Patients.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of coronary access and aortic valve reintervention in low-risk patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve (THV). BACKGROUND: Younger, low-risk TAVR patients are more likely than older, higher risk patients to require coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention, or aortic valve reintervention, but their THVs may impede coronary access and cause coronary obstruction during TAVR-in-TAVR. METHODS: The LRT (Low Risk TAVR) trial (NCT02628899) enrolled 200 subjects with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis to undergo TAVR using commercially available THVs. Subjects who received balloon-expandable THVs and who had 30-day cardiac computed tomographic scans were included in this study. In a subgroup, the feasibility of intentional THV crimping on the delivery catheter to pre-determine commissural alignment was tested. RESULTS: In the LRT trial, 168 subjects received balloon-expandable THVs and had 30-day cardiac computed tomographic scans, of which 137 were of adequate image quality for analysis. The most challenging anatomy for coronary access (THV frame above and commissural suture post in front of a coronary ostium) was observed in 9% to 13% of subjects. Intentional THV crimping did not appear to meaningfully affect commissural alignment. The THV frame extended above the sinotubular junction in 21% of subjects, and in 13%, the distance between the THV and the sinotubular junction was \u3c2 \u3emm, signifying that TAVR-in-TAVR may not be feasible without causing coronary obstruction. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR may present challenges to future coronary access and aortic valve reintervention in a substantial number of low-risk patients

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now the standard of care for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who are extreme, high, or intermediate risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate TAVR in a prospective multicenter trial involving low-risk patients. METHODS: The Low Risk TAVR (Feasibility of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Symptomatic, Severe Aortic Stenosis) trial was the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved Investigational Device Exemption trial to enroll in the United States. This investigator-led trial was a prospective, multicenter, unblinded, comparison to historical controls from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) database. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 30 days. RESULTS: The authors enrolled 200 low-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis at 11 centers to undergo TAVR. The authors compared outcomes with an inverse probability weighting-adjusted control cohort of 719 patients who underwent SAVR at the same institutions using the STS database. At 30 days, there was zero all-cause mortality in the TAVR group versus 1.7% mortality in the SAVR group. There was zero in-hospital stroke rate in the TAVR group versus 0.6% stroke in the SAVR group. Permanent pacemaker implantation rates were similar between TAVR and SAVR (5.0% vs. 4.5%). The rates of new-onset atrial fibrillation (3.0%) and length of stay (2.0 ± 1.1 days) were low in the TAVR group. One patient (0.5%) in the TAVR group had \u3emild paravalvular leak at 30 days. Fourteen percent of TAVR patients had evidence of subclinical leaflet thrombosis at 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR is safe in low-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, with low procedural complication rates, short hospital length of stay, zero mortality, and zero disabling stroke at 30 days. Subclinical leaflet thrombosis was observed in a minority of TAVR patients at 30 days. (Feasibility of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Symptomatic, Severe Aortic Stenosis [Low Risk TAVR; NCT02628899)