A simplified (modified) Duke Activity Status Index (M-DASI) to characterise functional capacity: A secondary analysis of the Measurement of Exercise Tolerance before Surgery (METS) study

Background Accurate assessment of functional capacity, a predictor of postoperative morbidity and mortality, is essential to improving surgical planning and outcomes. We assessed if all 12 items of the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) were equally important in reflecting exercise capacity. Methods In this secondary cross-sectional analysis of the international, multicentre Measurement of Exercise Tolerance before Surgery (METS) study, we assessed cardiopulmonary exercise testing and DASI data from 1455 participants. Multivariable regression analyses were used to revise the DASI model in predicting an anaerobic threshold (AT) >11 ml kg −1 min −1 and peak oxygen consumption (VO 2 peak) >16 ml kg −1 min −1, cut-points that represent a reduced risk of postoperative complications. Results Five questions were identified to have dominance in predicting AT>11 ml kg −1 min −1 and VO 2 peak>16 ml.kg −1min −1. These items were included in the M-DASI-5Q and retained utility in predicting AT>11 ml.kg −1.min −1 (area under the receiver-operating-characteristic [AUROC]-AT: M-DASI-5Q=0.67 vs original 12-question DASI=0.66) and VO 2 peak (AUROC-VO2 peak: M-DASI-5Q 0.73 vs original 12-question DASI 0.71). Conversely, in a sensitivity analysis we removed one potentially sensitive question related to the ability to have sexual relations, and the ability of the remaining four questions (M-DASI-4Q) to predict an adequate functional threshold remained no worse than the original 12-question DASI model. Adding a dynamic component to the M-DASI-4Q by assessing the chronotropic response to exercise improved its ability to discriminate between those with VO 2 peak>16 ml.kg −1.min −1 and VO 2 peak<16 ml.kg −1.min −1. Conclusions The M-DASI provides a simple screening tool for further preoperative evaluation, including with cardiopulmonary exercise testing, to guide perioperative management

Association between transcatheter aortic valve replacement and subsequent infective endocarditis and in-hospital death

Importance Limited data exist on clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients who had infective endocarditis after undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Objective To determine the associated factors, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients who had infective endocarditis after TAVR. Design, Setting, and Participants The Infectious Endocarditis after TAVR International Registry included patients with definite infective endocarditis after TAVR from 47 centers from Europe, North America, and South America between June 2005 and October 2015. EXPOSURE Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for incidence of infective endocarditis and infective endocarditis for in-hospital mortality. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Infective endocarditis and in-hospital mortality after infective endocarditis. Results A total of 250 cases of infective endocarditis occurred in 20 006 patients after TAVR (incidence, 1.1% per person-year; 95% CI, 1.1%-1.4%; median age, 80 years; 64% men). Median time from TAVR to infective endocarditis was 5.3 months (interquartile range [IQR], 1.5-13.4 months). The characteristics associated with higher risk of progressing to infective endocarditis after TAVR was younger age (78.9 years vs 81.8 years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.97 per year; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99), male sex (62.0% vs 49.7%; HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13-2.52), diabetes mellitus (41.7% vs 30.0%; HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.29), and moderate to severe aortic regurgitation (22.4% vs 14.7%; HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.28-3.28). Health care?associated infective endocarditis was present in 52.8% (95% CI, 46.6%-59.0%) of patients. Enterococci species and Staphylococcus aureus were the most frequently isolated microorganisms (24.6%; 95% CI, 19.1%-30.1% and 23.3%; 95% CI, 17.9%-28.7%, respectively). The in-hospital mortality rate was 36% (95% CI, 30.0%-41.9%; 90 deaths; 160 survivors), and surgery was performed in 14.8% (95% CI, 10.4%-19.2%) of patients during the infective endocarditis episode. In-hospital mortality was associated with a higher logistic EuroSCORE (23.1% vs 18.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.03 per 1% increase; 95% CI, 1.00-1.05), heart failure (59.3% vs 23.7%; OR, 3.36; 95% CI, 1.74-6.45), and acute kidney injury (67.4% vs 31.6%; OR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.42-5.11). The 2-year mortality rate was 66.7% (95% CI, 59.0%-74.2%; 132 deaths; 115 survivors). Conclusions and Relevance Among patients undergoing TAVR, younger age, male sex, history of diabetes mellitus, and moderate to severe residual aortic regurgitation were significantly associated with an increased risk of infective endocarditis. Patients who developed endocarditis had high rates of in-hospital mortality and 2-year mortality

Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement for Degenerated Bioprosthetic Valves and Failed Annuloplasty Rings

Cardiolog

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Pure Native Aortic Valve Regurgitation

Cardiolog

Standardized Definitions for Bioprosthetic Valve Dysfunction Following Aortic or Mitral Valve Replacement

Bioprosthetic 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. (C) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation

Outcomes Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Degenerative Stentless Versus Stented Bioprostheses

OBJECTIVES A large comprehensive analysis of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was performed for failed stentless bioprostheses.BACKGROUND Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to redo surgery for patients with a failing aortic bioprosthesis.METHODS Unadjusted outcome data were collected from the VIVID (Valve-in-Valve International Data) registry between 2007 and 2016 from a total of 1,598 aortic ViV procedures (291 stentless, 1,307 stented bioprostheses).RESULTS Bioprosthetic failure was secondary to aortic regurgitation in 56% of stentless and 20% stented devices (p < 0.001). ViV-TAVR access was transfemoral in 71.1% stentless and 74.2% stented ViV-TAVR. Self-expanding devices were more frequently used in stentless ViV-TAVR (56.0% vs. 39.9%; p = 0.05), but there was no difference between balloon-expanding and self-expanding TAVR devices for stented ViV-TAVR (48.6% vs. 45.1%). The degree of oversizing for all mechanisms of bioprosthesis failure was 9 +/- 10% for stentless ViV-TAVR vs. 6 +/- 9% for stented ViV-TAVR (and 8 +/- 10% for stentless ViV-TAVR vs. 3 +/- 9% for stented ViV-TAVR in patients with predominant aortic regurgitation; both p < 0.001). Initial device malposition (10.3% vs. 6.2%; p = 0.014), second transcatheter device (7.9% vs. 3.4%), coronary obstruction (6.0% vs. 1.5%), and paravalvular leak occurred more frequently in stentless ViV-TAVR (all p < 0.001). Hospital stay duration (median 7 days) was no different, and 30-day (6.6% vs. 4.4%; p = 0.12) and 1-year mortality year (15.8% vs. 12.6%; p = 0.15) were numerically higher, but not statistically different, after stentless ViV-TAVR.CONCLUSIONS Stentless ViV-TAVR is associated with greater periprocedural complications (initial device malposition, second transcatheter device, coronary obstruction, paravalvular leak), but no difference in 30-day and 1-year outcome. (C) 2019 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.Thoracic Surger

Matched Comparison of Self-Expanding Transcatheter Heart Valves for the Treatment of Failed Aortic Surgical Bioprosthesis : Insights From the Valve-in-Valve International Data Registry (VIVID)

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation is an established therapy for high-risk patients with failed surgical aortic bioprosthesis. There are limited data comparing outcomes of valve-in-valve implantation using different transcatheter heart valves (THV). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients included in the Valve-in-Valve International Data registry (VIVID) and treated with self-expanding THV devices were analyzed using centralized core laboratory blinded to clinical events. St. Jude Medical Portico versus Medtronic CoreValve were compared in a 1:2 fashion after propensity score matching. A total of 162 patients, Portico- (n=54) and CoreValve- (n=108) based valve-in-valve procedures comprised the study population with no significant difference in baseline characteristics (age, 79\ub18.2 years; 60% women; mean STS [Society of Thoracic Surgery] score 8.1\ub15.5%). Postimplantation, CoreValve was associated with a larger effective orifice area (1.67 versus 1.31 cm2; P=0.001), lower mean gradient (14\ub17.5 versus 17\ub17.5 mm Hg; P=0.02), and lower core laboratory-adjudicated moderate-to-severe aortic insufficiency (4.2% versus 13.7%; P=0.04), compared with Portico. Procedural complications including THV malpositioning, second THV requirement, or coronary obstruction were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Survival and stroke rates at 30 days were similar, but overall mortality at 1 year was higher among patients treated with Portico compared with CoreValve (22.6% versus 9.1%; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In this first matched comparison of THVs for valve-in-valve implantations, Portico and CoreValve demonstrated differences in postprocedural hemodynamics and long-term clinical outcomes. Although this could be related to THV design characteristics, the impact of other procedural factors cannot be excluded and require further evaluation