Left axis deviation in brugada syndrome: Vectorcardiographic evaluation during ajmaline provocation testing reveals additional depolarization abnormalities

Patients with Brugada syndrome (BrS) can show a leftward deviation of the frontal QRS-axis upon provocation with sodium channel blockers. The cause of this axis change is unclear. In this study, we aimed to determine (1) the prevalence of this left axis deviation and (2) to evaluate its cause, using the insights that could be derived from vectorcardiograms. Hence, from a large cohort of patients who underwent ajmaline provocation testing (n = 1430), we selected patients in whom a type-1 BrS-ECG was evoked (n = 345). Depolarization and repolarization parameters were analyzed for reconstructed vectorcardiograms and were compared between patients with and without a >30◦ leftward axis shift. We found (1) that the prevalence of a left axis deviation during provocation testing was 18% and (2) that this left axis deviation was not explained by terminal conduction slowing in the right ventricular outflow tract (4th QRS-loop quartile: +17 ± 14 ms versus +13 ± 15 ms, nonsignificant) but was associated with a more proximal conduction slowing (1st QRS-loop quartile: +12[8;18] ms versus +8[4;12] ms, p < 0.001 and 3rd QRS-loop quartile: +12 ± 10 ms versus +5 ± 7 ms, p < 0.001). There was no important heterogeneity of the action potential morphology (no difference in the ventricular gradient), but a left axis deviation did result in a dis

Cerebral protection devices during transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with aortic valve stenosis is associated with an improvement of clinical outcomes, quality of life, and self-sufficiency. The most feared TAVI-related complication is the occurrence of stroke. In order to reduce peri-procedural cerebral embolizations, diverse cerebral protection devices have been developed. These devices work though deflection or filtering of emboli, and are in different stages of testing. Silent cerebral infarctions identified by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) are used as surrogate primary outcomes, but the clinical significance is still unclear. This review provides a synopsis of the diverse cerebral protection devices and summarizes the current evidence on their efficacy during TAV

Comparison of Outcomes of Transfemoral Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients <90 With Those >90 Years of Age

In patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), postoperative mortality risk is commonly assessed with risk scores such as the Society of Thoracic Surgeons—Postoperative Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) and EuroSCORE II, in which age plays a dominant role. However, we reason that in the naturally selected oldest-old patients (nonagenarians), this may not be completely justified and that therefore age should play a minor role in decision-making. The objective of this study was to compare procedural outcome and mid-term mortality of transfemoral (TF)-TAVI patients aged ≥90 years with patients aged <90 years. In this single-center analysis of 599 prospectively acquired consecutive TF-TAVI patients between 2009 and 2017, we compared patients aged ≥90 (i.e., nonagenarians, n = 47) with patients aged <90 years (n = 552), using Kaplan-Meyer analysis and multivariate logistic regression. In the nonagenarians, we found more aortic regurgitation, moderate to severe paravalvular leakage, strokes and vascular complications, and less device success and bleeding complications compared with patients <90 years. Both groups showed similar symptomatic improvement. The predicted (STS-PROM) and actual procedural mortality were 8.033% and 2.1% (3.8×) and 4.868% and 1.8% (2.7×) for the nonagenarians and controls, respectively. Survival was not statistically different at the 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year mark. In conclusion, nonagenarians had similar symptomatic improvement and acceptable procedural outcome and mid-term survival to TF-TAVI patients aged <90 years. Thus, age is not a risk factor in predicting postoperative outcome and mortality and therefore should not be a reason to deny the oldest-old patient transfemoral TAVI

Corrigendum to ‘Comparison of Outcomes of Transfemoral Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients <90 to Those >90 Years of Age [American Journal of Cardiology (2018) 1581–1586](***–***)(10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.02.056)

The authors regret that Table 1 was incorrect. Regarding the baseline table (Table 1); most of the baseline differences between the groups are incorrect (% men, previous stroke, eGFR 90 year old). In our opinion, these changes leading to less differences between the groups, makes the groups (i.e. >90 and <90 years) more comparable and thus this strengthens our finding that the higher predicted postoperative mortality scores in the oldest patients are most likely predominantly influenced by their advanced age. Furthermore, regarding the outcome table (Table 2), significant differences (valve types used, amount of AR and % device success, as well as post-procedural stroke and major vascular complications) are not statistically significant, as opposed to the p-values we reported. This, in our opinion, equals the outcomes of the oldest patients and the rest of the cohort, strengthening our conclusion that whether or not to perform TAVI should not be based on age, based on the very similar outcomes in both groups. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused

A Randomized Comparison of Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent for the Treatment of Any In-Stent Restenosis The DARE Trial

Item does not contain fulltex

Paclitaxel-eluting balloon versus everolimus-eluting stent in patients with diabetes mellitus and in-stent restenosis: Insights from the randomized DARE trial

Item does not contain fulltex

Long-Term Effects of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation on Coronary Hemodynamics in Patients With Concomitant Coronary Artery Disease and Severe Aortic Stenosis

Background As younger patients are being considered for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), the assessment and treatment of concomitant coronary artery disease is taking on increased importance. Methods and Results Thirteen contemporary lower-risk patients with TAVI with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and moderate-severe coronary lesions were included. Patients underwent assessment of coronary hemodynamics in the presence of severe AS (pre-TAVI), in the absence of severe AS (immediately post-TAVI), and at longer-term follow-up (6 months post-TAVI). Fractional flow reserve decreased from 0.85 (0.76-0.88) pre-TAVI to 0.79 (0.74-0.83) post-TAVI, and then to 0.71 (0.65-0.77) at 6-month follow-up (P<0.001 for all comparisons). Conversely, instantaneous wave-free ratio was not significantly different: 0.82 (0.80-0.90) pre-TAVI, 0.83 (0.77-0.88) post-TAVI, and 0.83 (0.73-0.89) at 6 months (P=0.735). These changes are explained by the underlying coronary flow. Hyperemic whole-cycle coronary flow (fractional flow reserve flow) increased from 26.36 cm/s (23.82-31.82 cm/s) pre-TAVI to 30.78 cm/s (29.70-34.68 cm/s) post-TAVI (P=0.012), to 40.20 cm/s (32.14-50.00 cm/s) at 6-month follow-up (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Resting flow during the wave-free period of diastole was not significantly different: 25.48 cm/s (21.12-33.65 cm/s) pre-TAVI, 24.54 cm/s (20.74-27.88 cm/s) post-TAVI, and 25.89 cm/s (22.57-28.96 cm/s) at 6 months (P=0.500). Conclusions TAVI acutely improves whole-cycle hyperemic coronary flow, with ongoing sustained improvements at longer-term follow-up. This enhanced response to hyperemic stimuli appears to make fractional flow reserve assessment less suitable for patients with severe AS. Conversely, resting diastolic flow is not significantly influenced by the presence of severe AS. Resting indices of coronary stenosis severity, therefore, appear to be more appropriate for this patient population, although large-scale prospective randomized trials will be required to determine the role of coronary physiology in patients with severe AS

Guideline-defined futility or patient-reported outcomes to assess treatment success after TAVI: What to use? Results from a prospective cohort study with long-term follow-up

Objective Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) provides a significant symptom relief and mortality reduction in most patients; however, a substantial group of patients does not experience the same beneficial results according to physician-determined outcomes. Methods Single-centre prospective design; the population comprises all consecutive patients undergoing TAVI in 2012-2017. TAVI futility was defined as the combined endpoint of either no symptomatic improvement or mortality at 1 year. We actively gathered telephone follow-up using a predefined questionnaire. Results Guideline defined TAVI futility was present in 212/741 patients. Multivariate regression showed lower albumin and non-transfemoral approach to be predictive for futility. In addition to these, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, atrial fibrillation, low-flow-low-gradient aortic stenosis and lower Body Mass Index were predictive for 1-year mortality. Patients who showed symptomatic benefit estimated the percentage in which their symptoms were remedied higher than patients who did not (80% vs 60%, p<0.001). Guideline-defined TAVI futility occurs frequently, contrasting with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The vast majority in both groups would again choose for TAVI treatment. Conclusion Lower albumin and non-transfemoral access route were predictors for guideline-defined TAVI futility, defined as mortality within 1 year or no objective symptomatic improvement in New York Heart Association class. Futility according to this definition occurred frequently in this study, contrasting with much more positive PROMs. The majority of patients would undergo a TAVI again, underlining the patients' experienced value of TAVI and putting the definition of TAVI futility further on debate. In the near future, less-strict criteria for TAVI futility, that is, using a shorter warranted life expectancy and incorporating patients' perceived outcomes, should be used

Procedural Outcome and Midterm Survival of Lower Risk Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Patients Treated With the SAPIEN XT or SAPIEN 3 Device

Over the years increasing experience and technical device improvements in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have led to treatment of patients with lower surgical risks. Specifically for this population, device performance and longer term outcome are of great importance. In this single center, we performed a retrospective analysis of 515 consecutive patients with low- to intermediate surgical risk (STS-PROM ≤8), who underwent transfemoral TAVI between January 2009 and February 2017 with the SXT and ES3 prostheses, and we assessed procedural outcome and procedural and 3-year survival. Mean age (82 years in both groups, p = 0.344) and STS-PROM risk score (3.862 vs 3.992, p = 0.154) did not differ between the ES3 and SXT group. ES3-treated patients showed favorable procedural outcomes, with significantly higher device success (90% vs 73%, p  <0.0001) and less paravalvular leakage (7% vs 13%, p  <0.0001). Procedural mortality (0.87% vs 1.45%, p = 0.245) and the very low rate of permanent pacemaker implantations (7.4% vs 6.1%, p = 0.234) did not differ significantly. Three-year survival was 87% in the ES3 vs 80% in the SXT group (log-rank p = 0.385). In conclusion, we showed excellent survival and procedural outcomes in patients receiving a transfemoral TAVI with either the SAPIEN 3 or the SAPIEN XT device. The newer SAPIEN 3 even outperforms the SAPIEN XT in terms of less major bleeding complications, substantially higher device success rates, and less paravalvular leakage, with the permanent pacemaker implantation rate being very low in both groups. Survival curves show a nonsignificant trend toward better midterm survival in the ES3 grou