Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

AIMS: The safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with contemporary balloon expandable transcatheter valves in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) remain largely unknown. In this study, the TAVRs performed for CS between June 2015 and September 2022 using SAPIEN 3 and SAPIEN 3 Ultra bioprosthesis from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry were analysed. METHODS AND RESULTS: CS was defined as: (i) coding of CS within 24 h on Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry form; and/or (ii) pre-procedural use of inotropes or mechanical circulatory support devices and/or (iii) cardiac arrest within 24 h prior to TAVR. The control group was comprised of all the other patients undergoing TAVR. Baseline characteristics, all-cause mortality, and major complications at 30-day and 1-year outcomes were reported. Landmark analysis was performed at 30 days post-TAVR. Cox-proportional multivariable analysis was performed to determine the predictors of all-cause mortality at 1 year. A total of 309 505 patients underwent TAVR with balloon-expandable valves during the study period. Of these, 5006 patients presented with CS prior to TAVR (1.6%). The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 10.76 ± 10.4. The valve was successfully implanted in 97.9% of patients. Technical success according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria was 94.5%. In a propensity-matched analysis, CS was associated with higher in-hospital (9.9% vs. 2.7%), 30-day (12.9% vs. 4.9%), and 1-year (29.7% vs. 22.6%) mortality compared to the patients undergoing TAVR without CS. In the landmark analysis after 30 days, the risk of 1-year mortality was similar between the two groups [hazard ratio (HR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95-1.21]. Patients who were alive at 1 year noted significant improvements in functional class (Class I/II 89%) and quality of life (ΔKCCQ score +50). In the multivariable analysis, older age (HR 1.02, 95% CI 1.02-1.03), peripheral artery disease (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06-1.47), prior implantation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.07-1.77), patients on dialysis (HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.69-2.53), immunocompromised status (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.05-1.69), New York Heart Association class III/IV symptoms (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.06-2.12), lower aortic valve mean gradient, lower albumin levels, lower haemoglobin levels, and lower Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores were independently associated with 1-year mortality. CONCLUSION: This large observational real-world study demonstrates that the TAVR is a safe and effective treatment for aortic stenosis patients presenting with CS. Patients who survived the first 30 days after TAVR had similar mortality rates to those who were not in CS

Impact of Antithrombotic Regimen on Mortality, Ischemic, and Bleeding Outcomes after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Introduction: Optimal antithrombotic therapy after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains unclear. We evaluated the association between antithrombotic regimens and outcomes in TAVR patients. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients who underwent TAVR at a single academic center from April 2009 to March 2014. Antithrombotic regimens were classified as single or dual antiplatelet therapy (AP), single antiplatelet plus anticoagulant (SAC), or triple therapy (TT). The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and major bleeding. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were obtained with best subset variable selection methods using bootstrap resampling. Results: Of 246 patients who underwent TAVR, 241 were eligible for analysis with 133, 88, and 20 patients in the AP, SAC, and TT groups, respectively. During a median 2.1-year follow-up, 53.5% had at least one endpoint—the most common was death (68%), followed by major bleeding (23%), stroke (6%), and MI (3%). At 2 years, the composite outcome occurred in 70% of TT, 42% of SAC, and 31% of AP patients. Compared to AP, adjusted HRs for the composite outcome were 2.88 [95% Confidence intervals (CI) (1.61–5.16); p = 0.0004] and 1.66 (95% CI [1.13-2.42]; p = 0.009) in the TT and SAC groups, respectively. Mortality rates at 2 years were 61% in the TT, 32% in the SAC, and 26% in the AP groups (p = 0.005). Conclusions: The risk of the composite outcome of death, MI, stroke, or major bleeding at 2-year follow-up was significantly higher in TAVR patients treated with TT or SAC versus AP, even after multivariate adjustment

Foregut microbiome in development of esophageal adenocarcinoma

Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA), the type of cancer linked to heartburn due to gastroesophageal reflux diseases (GERD), has increased six fold in the past 30 years. This cannot currently be explained by the usual environmental or by host genetic factors. EA is the end result of a sequence of GERD-related diseases, preceded by reflux esophagitis (RE) and Barrett’s esophagus (BE). Preliminary studies by Pei and colleagues at NYU on elderly male veterans identified two types of microbiotas in the esophagus. Patients who carry the type II microbiota are >15 fold likely to have esophagitis and BE than those harboring the type I microbiota. In a small scale study, we also found that 3 of 3 cases of EA harbored the type II biota. The findings have opened a new approach to understanding the recent surge in the incidence of EA. 

Our long-term goal is to identify the cause of GERD sequence. The hypothesis to be tested is that changes in the foregut microbiome are associated with EA and its precursors, RE and BE in GERD sequence. We will conduct a case control study to demonstrate the microbiome disease association in every stage of GERD sequence, as well as analyze the trend in changes in the microbiome along disease progression toward EA, by two specific aims. Aim 1 is to conduct a comprehensive population survey of the foregut microbiome and demonstrate its association with GERD sequence. Furthermore, spatial relationship between the esophageal microbiota and upstream (mouth) and downstream (stomach) foregut microbiotas as well as temporal stability of the microbiome-disease association will also be examined. Aim 2 is to define the distal esophageal metagenome and demonstrate its association with GERD sequence. Detailed analyses will include pathway-disease and gene-disease associations. Archaea, fungi and viruses, if identified, also will be correlated with the diseases. A significant association between the foregut microbiome and GERD sequence, if demonstrated, will be the first step for eventually testing whether an abnormal microbiome is required for the development of the sequence of phenotypic changes toward EA. If EA and its precursors represent a microecological disease, treating the cause of GERD might become possible, for example, by normalizing the microbiota through use of antibiotics, probiotics, or prebiotics. Causative therapy of GERD could prevent its progression and reverse the current trend of increasing incidence of EA

Triage Considerations for Patients Referred for Structural Heart Disease Intervention During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic: An ACC /SCAI Consensus Statement

The COVID-19 pandemic has strained health care resources around the world causing many institutions to curtail or stop elective procedures. This has resulted in the inability to care for patients valvular and structural heart disease (SHD) in a timely fashion potentially placing these patients at increased risk for adverse cardiovascular complications including congestive heart failure and death. The effective triage of these patients has become challenging in the current environment as clinicians have had to weigh the risk of bringing susceptible patients into the hospital environment during the COVID-19 pandemic versus the risk of delaying a needed procedure. In this document, we suggest guidelines as to how to triage patients in need of SHD interventions and provide a framework of how to decide when it may be appropriate to proceed with intervention despite the ongoing pandemic. In particular, we address the triage of patients in need of trans-catheter aortic valve replacement and percutaneous mitral valve repair. We also address procedural issues and considerations for the function of structural heart disease teams during the COVID-19 pandemic

Triage Considerations for Patients Referred for Structural Heart Disease Intervention During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An ACC/SCAI Position Statement

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has strained health care resources around the world, causing many institutions to curtail or stop elective procedures. This has resulted in an inability to care for patients with valvular and structural heart disease in a timely fashion, potentially placing these patients at increased risk for adverse cardiovascular complications, including CHF and death. The effective triage of these patients has become challenging in the current environment as clinicians have had to weigh the risk of bringing susceptible patients into the hospital environment during the COVID-19 pandemic against the risk of delaying a needed procedure. In this document, the authors suggest guidelines for how to triage patients in need of structural heart disease interventions and provide a framework for how to decide when it may be appropriate to proceed with intervention despite the ongoing pandemic. In particular, the authors address the triage of patients in need of transcatheter aortic valve replacement and percutaneous mitral valve repair. The authors also address procedural issues and considerations for the function of structural heart disease teams during the COVID-19 pandemic

Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients Excluded From Clinical Trials

Background: The use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with aortic valve disease excluded from clinical trials has increased with no large-scale data on its safety. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the trend of utilization and adjusted outcomes of TAVI in clinical trials excluded (CTE) vs clinical trials included TAVI (CTI-TAVI) patients. Methods: We used the National Readmission Database (2015-2019) to identify 15 CTE-TAVI conditions. A propensity score-matched analysis was used to calculate the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of net adverse clinical events (composite of mortality, stroke, and major bleeding) in patients undergoing CTE-TAVI vs CTI-TAVI. Results: Among the 223,238 patients undergoing TAVI, CTE-TAVI was used in 41,408 patients (18.5%). The yearly trend showed a steep increase in CTE-TAVI utilization (P = 0.026). At index admission, the adjusted odds of net adverse clinical events (aOR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.73-1.95) and its components, including mortality (aOR: 2.94, 95% CI: 2.66-3.24), stroke (aOR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.07-1.34), and major bleeding (aOR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.36-1.63) were significantly higher in CTE-TAVI compared with CTI-TAVI. Among the individual contraindications to clinical trial enrollment in the CTE-TAVI, patients with bicuspid aortic valve, leukopenia, and peptic ulcer disease appeared to have similar outcomes compared with CTI-TAVI, while patients with end-stage renal disease, bioprosthetic aortic valves, and coagulopathy had a higher readmission rate at 30 and 180 days. Conclusions: CTE-TAVI utilization has increased significantly over the 4-year study period. Patients undergoing CTE-TAVI have a higher likelihood of mortality, stroke, and bleeding than those undergoing CTI-TAVI

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement after Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement

<p><b>Background:</b> Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) in deteriorated prostheses, rings or mitral annular calcification are being performed more frequently. Inadvertently, we are starting to see patients who develop severe aortic stenosis following TMVR. Simultaneous transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)/TMVR has been previously reported, but almost all are performed in the order of TAVR first then followed by TMVR.</p> <p><b>Methods:</b> We included three patients who underwent TAVR following TMVR. The patients subsequently presented with symptomatic aortic stenosis or insufficiency. All procedures were performed from September 2015 to July 2017.</p> <p><b>Results:</b> All cases underwent successful TAVR after TMVR. There were several technical points. First, a balloon expandable valve was used for the initial case, but because of the interaction between the balloon and TMVR valve, we elected to use self-expandable valves for the subsequent cases. Secondly, it is critical to confirm that the wire is not traversing a cell of TMVR valve frame. This can be confirmed by fluoroscopy steered to steep left anterior oblique (LAO)/Cranial view to show that the wire is outside of any cells. Thirdly, when the space between the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) and the TMVR frame is narrow, there can be an interaction between the self-expanding valve nose-cone and TMVR valve which can bias the transcatheter valve towards the aorta.</p> <p><b>Conclusion:</b> TAVR following TMVR poses several technical challenges. We highlight some of the obstacles encountered during the procedure, and offer potential solutions based on our experience. TAVR following previous TMVR can be safely performed with careful attention to wire position and proper valve selection.</p