2015 SCAI/ACC/HFSA/STS Clinical Expert Consensus Statement on the Use of Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiovascular Care: Endorsed by the American Heart Assocation, the Cardiological Society of India, and Sociedad Latino Americana de Cardiologia Intervencion; Affirmation of Value by the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology-Association Canadienne de Cardiologie d\u27intervention.

Although historically the intra-aortic balloon pump has been the only mechanical circulatory support device available to clinicians, a number of new devices have become commercially available and have entered clinical practice. These include axial flow pumps, such as Impella(®); left atrial to femoral artery bypass pumps, specifically the TandemHeart; and new devices for institution of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. These devices differ significantly in their hemodynamic effects, insertion, monitoring, and clinical applicability. This document reviews the physiologic impact on the circulation of these devices and their use in specific clinical situations. These situations include patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention, those presenting with cardiogenic shock, and acute decompensated heart failure. Specialized uses for right-sided support and in pediatric populations are discussed and the clinical utility of mechanical circulatory support devices is reviewed, as are the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association clinical practice guidelines

2015 SCAI/ACC/HFSA/STS Clinical Expert Consensus Statement on the Use of Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiovascular Care: Endorsed by the American Heart Assocation, the Cardiological Society of India, and Sociedad Latino Americana de Cardiologia Intervencion; Affirmation of Value by the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology-Association Canadienne de Cardiologie d\u27intervention.

Although historically the intra-aortic balloon pump has been the only mechanical circulatory support device available to clinicians, a number of new devices have become commercially available and have entered clinical practice. These include axial flow pumps, such as Impella(®); left atrial to femoral artery bypass pumps, specifically the TandemHeart; and new devices for institution of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. These devices differ significantly in their hemodynamic effects, insertion, monitoring, and clinical applicability. This document reviews the physiologic impact on the circulation of these devices and their use in specific clinical situations. These situations include patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention, those presenting with cardiogenic shock, and acute decompensated heart failure. Specialized uses for right-sided support and in pediatric populations are discussed and the clinical utility of mechanical circulatory support devices is reviewed, as are the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association clinical practice guidelines

TCT-117 Quality of Life Outcomes Among High-Risk Patients Undergoing TAVR via the Transapical Approach: A PARTNER Continued Access Substudy

El fin de este artículo es realizar una comparación entre dos técnicas empleadas para la Resolución de Ambigüedades basándose en su expresión matemática más simple y en su aplicación a las medidas geodésicas

Evaluation of flow after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with low-flow aortic stenosis : a secondary analysis of the PARTNER randomized clinical trial

Importance: Low-flow (LF) severe aortic stenosis (AS) is an independent predictor of mortality in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR). Little is known about improvement in flow after AVR and its effects on survival. Objective: To determine whether higher flow (left-ventricular stroke volume index [LVSVI]) after transcatheter AVR (TAVR) would indicate better clinical outcomes in this at-risk population. Design, Setting, and Participants: A substudy analysis of data from the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) randomized clinical trial and continued-access registry was conducted. A total of 984 participants with evaluable echocardiograms and baseline LF AS (LVSVI =35 mL/m2) were included. The trial was conducted at 26 sites in the United States and Canada. Patients were stratified after TAVR into tertiles by discharge LVSVI status (severe low flow [SLF], moderate low flow [MLF], and normal flow [(NF]). The present study was conducted from May 11, 2007, to January 9, 2012, with data analysis performed from April 25, 2014, to January 21, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was all-cause mortality at 1 year. Results: Baseline characteristics of 984 patients with LF AS included mean (SD) age, 84 (7) years; 582 (59.1%) men; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score, 11.4% (4.0%); and mean LVSVI, 27.6 (5.0) mL/m2. The discharge LVSVI values by group were SLF, 23.1 (3.5) mL/m2; MLF, 31.7 (2.2) mL/m2; and NF, 43.1 (7.0). All-cause mortality at 1 year was SLF, 26.5%; MLF, 20.1%; and NF, 19.6% (P¿=¿.045). Mean LVSVI normalized by 6 months in the MLF (35.9 [9.3] mL/m2) and NF (38.8 [11.1] mL/m2) groups, but remained low in the SLF group at 6 months and 1 year (31.4 [8.4] and 33.0 [8.3] mL/m2], respectively) (P¿<¿.001 for all groups). Reported as multivariate hazard ratio, mortality at 1 year was higher in the SLF group compared with the other groups (1.61; 95% CI, 1.17-2.23; P¿=¿.004). In addition to SLF, sex (1.59; 95% CI, 1.18-2.13; P¿=¿.002), presence of atrial fibrillation (1.41; 95% CI, 1.06-1.87; P¿=¿.02), STS score (1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06; P¿=¿.02), presence of moderate or severe mitral regurgitation at discharge (1.65; 95% CI, 1.21-2.26; P¿=¿.001), pre-TAVR mean transvalvular gradient (0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; P¿=¿.004), and effective orifice area index (1.87; 95% CI, 1.09-3.19; P¿=¿.02) were independent predictors of 1-year mortality.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Severe LF at discharge is associated with an increased risk of mortality following TAVR in patients with severe AS and preexisting LF. The identification of remedial causes of persistent LF after TAVR may represent an opportunity to improve the outcome of these patients

Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial showed that among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, the 1-year survival rates are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical replacement. However, longer-term follow-up is necessary to determine whether TAVR has prolonged benefits. METHODS: At 25 centers, we randomly assigned 699 high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis to undergo either surgical aortic-valve replacement or TAVR. All patients were followed for at least 2 years, with assessment of clinical outcomes and echocardiographic evaluation. RESULTS: The rates of death from any cause were similar in the TAVR and surgery groups (hazard ratio with TAVR, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.15; P=0.41) and at 2 years (Kaplan-Meier analysis) were 33.9% in the TAVR group and 35.0% in the surgery group (P=0.78). The frequency of all strokes during follow-up did not differ significantly between the two groups (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.23; P=0.52). At 30 days, strokes were more frequent with TAVR than with surgical replacement (4.6% vs. 2.4%, P=0.12); subsequently, there were 8 additional strokes in the TAVR group and 12 in the surgery group. Improvement in valve areas was similar with TAVR and surgical replacement and was maintained for 2 years. Paravalvular regurgitation was more frequent after TAVR (P<0.001), and even mild paravalvular regurgitation was associated with increased late mortality (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A 2-year follow-up of patients in the PARTNER trial supports TAVR as an alternative to surgery in high-risk patients. The two treatments were similar with respect to mortality, reduction in symptoms, and improved valve hemodynamics, but paravalvular regurgitation was more frequent after TAVR and was associated with increased late mortality. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00530894.)

Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients

BACKGROUND: Previous trials have shown that among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, survival rates are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aorticvalve replacement. We evaluated the two procedures in a randomized trial involving intermediate-risk patients. METHODS: We randomly assigned 2032 intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, at 57 centers, to undergo either TAVR or surgical replacement. The primary end point was death from any cause or disabling stroke at 2 years. The primary hypothesis was that TAVR would not be inferior to surgical replacement. Before randomization, patients were entered into one of two cohorts on the basis of clinical and imaging findings; 76.3% of the patients were included in the transfemoral-access cohort and 23.7% in the transthoracic-access cohort. RESULTS: The rate of death from any cause or disabling stroke was similar in the TAVR group and the surgery group (P=0.001 for noninferiority). At 2 years, the Kaplan–Meier event rates were 19.3% in the TAVR group and 21.1% in the surgery group (hazard ratio in the TAVR group, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.09; P=0.25). In the transfemoralaccess cohort, TAVR resulted in a lower rate of death or disabling stroke than surgery (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.00; P=0.05), whereas in the transthoracic-access cohort, outcomes were similar in the two groups. TAVR resulted in larger aortic-valve areas than did surgery and also resulted in lower rates of acute kidney injury, severe bleeding, and new-onset atrial fibrillation; surgery resulted in fewer major vascular complications and less paravalvular aortic regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: In intermediate-risk patients, TAVR was similar to surgical aortic-valve replacement with respect to the primary end point of death or disabling stroke. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01314313

Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Balloon-Expandable Valve in Low-Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with aortic stenosis who are at intermediate or high risk for death with surgery, major outcomes are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic-valve replacement. There is insufficient evidence regarding the comparison of the two procedures in patients who are at low risk. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either TAVR with transfemoral placement of a balloon-expandable valve or surgery. The primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year. Both noninferiority testing (with a prespecified margin of 6 percentage points) and superiority testing were performed in the as-treated population. RESULTS: At 71 centers, 1000 patients underwent randomization. The mean age of the patients was 73 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was 1.9% (with scores ranging from 0 to 100% and higher scores indicating a greater risk of death within 30 days after the procedure). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of the primary composite end point at 1 year was significantly lower in the TAVR group than in the surgery group (8.5% vs. 15.1%; absolute difference, -6.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -10.8 to -2.5; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.79; P = 0.001 for superiority). At 30 days, TAVR resulted in a lower rate of stroke than surgery (P = 0.02) and in lower rates of death or stroke (P = 0.01) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (P<0.001). TAVR also resulted in a shorter index hospitalization than surgery (P<0.001) and in a lower risk of a poor treatment outcome (death or a low Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score) at 30 days (P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in major vascular complications, new permanent pacemaker insertions, or moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, the rate of the composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year was significantly lower with TAVR than with surgery. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02675114.)

Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma

A catalogue of molecular aberrations that cause ovarian cancer is critical for developing and deploying therapies that will improve patients’ lives. The Cancer Genome Atlas project has analysed messenger RNA expression, microRNA expression, promoter methylation and DNA copy number in 489 high-grade serous ovarian adenocarcinomas and the DNA sequences of exons from coding genes in 316 of these tumours. Here we report that high-grade serous ovarian cancer is characterized by TP53 mutations in almost all tumours (96%); low prevalence but statistically recurrent somatic mutations in nine further genes including NF1, BRCA1, BRCA2, RB1 and CDK12; 113 significant focal DNA copy number aberrations; and promoter methylation events involving 168 genes. Analyses delineated four ovarian cancer transcriptional subtypes, three microRNA subtypes, four promoter methylation subtypes and a transcriptional signature associated with survival duration, and shed new light on the impact that tumours with BRCA1/2 (BRCA1 or BRCA2) and CCNE1 aberrations have on survival. Pathway analyses suggested that homologous recombination is defective in about half of the tumours analysed, and that NOTCH and FOXM1 signalling are involved in serous ovarian cancer pathophysiology.National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant U54HG003067)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant U54HG003273)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant U54HG003079)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant U24CA126543)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant U24CA126544)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant U24CA126546)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant U24CA126551)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant U24CA126554)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant U24CA126561)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant U24CA126563)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant U24CA143882)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant U24CA143731)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant U24CA143835)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant U24CA143845)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant U24CA143858)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant U24CA144025)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant U24CA143866)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant U24CA143867)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant U24CA143848)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant U24CA143843)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant R21CA135877