Clinical impact of baseline chronic kidney disease in patients undergoing transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement

ObjectivesTo assess the treatment effect of TAVR versus SAVR on clinical outcomes to 3 years in patients stratified by chronic kidney disease (CKD) by retrospectively studying patients randomized to TAVR or SAVR.BackgroundThe impact of CKD on mid‐term outcomes of patients undergoing TAVR versus SAVR is unclear.MethodsPatients randomized to TAVR or SAVR in the CoreValve US Pivotal High Risk Trial were retrospectively stratified by eGFR: none/mild or moderate/severe CKD. To evaluate the impact of baseline CKD in TAVR patients only, all patients undergoing an attempted TAVR implant in the US Pivotal Trial and CAS were stratified by baseline eGFR into none/mild, moderate, and severe CKD. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular and renal events (MACRE), a composite of all‐cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke/TIA, and new requirement of dialysis.ResultsModerate/severe CKD was present in 62.7% and 60.7% of high‐risk patients randomized to TAVR or SAVR, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar between TAVR and SAVR patients in both CKD subgroups, except for higher rates of diabetes and higher serum creatinine in SAVR patients. Among high‐risk patients with moderate/severe CKD, TAVR provided a lower 3‐year MACRE rate compared with SAVR: 42.1% vs. 51.0, P = .04. Of 3,733 extreme‐ and high‐risk TAVR patients, 39.9% had none/mild, 53.8% moderate, and 6.4% severe CKD. Worsening baseline CKD was associated with increased 3‐year MACRE rates [none/mild 51.5%, moderate 54.5%, severe 63.1%, P = .001].ConclusionsTAVR results in lower 3‐year MACRE versus SAVR in high‐risk patients with moderate/severe CKD. In patients undergoing TAVR, worsening CKD increases mid‐term mortality and MACRE. Randomized trials of TAVR vs. SAVR in patients with moderate‐severe CKD would help elucidate the best treatment for these complex patients.Trial RegistrationCoreValve US Pivotal Trial: NCT01240902.CoreValve Continued Access Study: NCT01531374.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/148361/1/ccd27928_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/148361/2/ccd27928.pd

Shock-wave thrombus ablation, a new method for noninvasive mechanical thrombolysis

Successful experimental and clinical experience with thrombus ablation has been attained with high-power acoustic energy delivered in a catheter. The goal of this study was to investigate the feasibility of noninvasive thrombus ablation by focused high-power acoustic energy. The source for high-power acoustic energy was a shock-wave generator in a water tank equipped with an acoustic lens with a fixed focal point at 22.5 cm. Thrombus was prepared in vitro, weighed (0.24 +/- 0.08 g), and inserted in excised human femoral artery segments. The arterial segments were ligated, positioned at the focal point and then randomized into either test (n = 8) or control (n = 7). An x-ray system verified the 3-dimensional positioning of the arterial segment at the focal point. A 5 MHz ultrasound imaging system continuously visualized the arterial segment at the focal point before, during and after each experiment. The test segments were exposed to shock waves (1,000 shocks/24 kv). The arterial segment content was then flushed and the residual thrombus weighed. The arterial segment and thrombus were fixed and submitted to histologic examination. The test group achieved a significant ablation of thrombus mass (0.25 +/- 0.15 vs 0.07 +/- 0.003 g; P = 0.0001) after application of shock waves. Arterial segments showed no gross or microscopic damage. Ultrasound imaging revealed a localized (1.9 +/- 0.5 cm2), transient (744 +/- 733 ms), cavitation field at the focal point at the time of application of focused shock waves. Thus, focused high-power acoustic energy can effect noninvasive thrombus ablation without apparent damage to the arterial wall. The mechanism underlying shock-wave thrombus ablation may be associated with the cavitation effect.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/29728/1/0000064.pd

The initial U.S. experience with the Tempo active fixation temporary pacing lead in structural heart interventions

ObjectivesThis multicenter retrospective study of the initial U.S. experience evaluated the safety and efficacy of temporary cardiac pacing with the Tempo® Temporary Pacing Lead.BackgroundDespite increasing use of temporary cardiac pacing with the rapid growth of structural heart procedures, temporary pacing leads have not significantly improved. The Tempo lead is a new temporary pacing lead with a soft tip intended to minimize the risk of perforation and a novel active fixation mechanism designed to enhance lead stability.MethodsData from 269 consecutive structural heart procedures were collected. Outcomes included device safety (absence of clinically significant cardiac perforation, new pericardial effusion, or sustained ventricular arrhythmia) and efficacy (clinically acceptable pacing thresholds with successful pace capture throughout the index procedure). Postprocedure practices and sustained lead performance were also analyzed.ResultsThe Tempo lead was successfully positioned in the right ventricle and achieved pacing in 264 of 269 patients (98.1%). Two patients (0.8%) experienced loss of pace capture. Procedural mean pace capture threshold (PCT) was 0.7 ± 0.8 mA. There were no clinically significant perforations, pericardial effusions, or sustained device‐related arrhythmias. The Tempo lead was left in place postprocedure in 189 patients (71.6%) for mean duration of 43.3 ± 0.7 hr (range 2.5–221.3 hr) with final PCT of 0.84 ± 1.04 mA (n = 80). Of these patients, 84.1% mobilized out of bed with no lead dislodgment.ConclusionThe Tempo lead is safe and effective for temporary cardiac pacing for structural heart procedures, provides stable peri and postprocedural pacing and allows mobilization of patients who require temporary pacing leads.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154941/1/ccd28476.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154941/2/ccd28476_am.pd

Incidence and Outcomes of Infective Endocarditis After Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.

Background Data comparing the frequency and outcomes of infective endocarditis (IE) after transcatheter (TAVR) to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are scarce. The objective of this study is to compare the incidence and outcomes of IE after TAVR using a supra-annular, self-expanding platform (CoreValve and Evolut) to SAVR. Methods and Results Data of 3 randomized clinical trials comparing TAVR to SAVR and a prospective continued TAVR access study were pooled. IE was defined on the basis of the modified Duke criteria. The cumulative incidence of IE was determined by modeling the cause-specific hazard. Estimates of all-cause mortality were calculated by means of the Kaplan-Meier method. Outcomes are reported for the valve-implant cohort. During a mean follow-up time of 2.17±1.51 years, 12 (0.5%) of 2249 patients undergoing TAVR and 21 (1.1%) of 1828 patients undergoing SAVR developed IE. Patients with IE more frequently had diabetes mellitus than those without (57.6% versus 34.2%; P=0.005). The cumulative incidence of IE was 1.01% (95% CI, 0.47%-1.96%) after TAVR and 1.58% (95% CI, 0.97%-2.46%) after SAVR (P=0.047) at 5 years. Among patients with IE, the rate of all-cause mortality was 27.3% (95% CI, 1.0%-53.6%) in the TAVR and 51.8% (95% CI, 28.2%-75.3%) in the SAVR group at 1 year (log-rank P=0.15). Conclusions Pooled prospectively collected data comparing TAVR with a supra-annular, self-expanding device to SAVR showed a low cumulative risk of IE irrespective of treatment modality, although the risk was lower in the TAVR implant group. Once IE occurred, mortality was high. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT01240902, NCT01586910, NCT02701283

Comparison of histopathologic coronary lesions obtained from directional atherectomy in stable angina versus acute coronary syndromes

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/31755/1/0000696.pd

Percutaneous left atrial appendage suture ligation using the lariat device in patients with atrial fibrillation

ObjectivesThe purpose of the study was to determine the efficacy and safety of left atrial appendage (LAA) closure via a percutaneous LAA ligation approach.BackgroundEmbolic stroke is the most devastating consequence of atrial fibrillation. Exclusion of the LAA is believed to decrease the risk of embolic stroke.MethodsEighty-nine patients with atrial fibrillation were enrolled to undergo percutaneous ligation of the LAA with the LARIAT device. The catheter-based LARIAT device consists of a snare with a pre-tied suture that is guided epicardially over the LAA. LAA closure was confirmed with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and contrast fluoroscopy immediately, then with TEE at 1 day, 30 days, 90 days, and 1 year post-LAA ligation.ResultsEighty-five (96%) of 89 patients underwent successful LAA ligation. Eighty-one of 85 patients had complete closure immediately. Three of 85 patients had a ≤2-mm residual LAA leak by TEE color Doppler evaluation. One of 85 patients had a ≤3-mm jet by TEE. There were no complications due to the device. There were 3 access-related complications (during pericardial access, n = 2; and transseptal catheterization, n = 1). Adverse events included severe pericarditis post-operatively (n = 2), late pericardial effusion (n = 1), unexplained sudden death (n = 2), and late strokes thought to be non-embolic (n = 2). At 1 month (81 of 85) and 3 months (77 of 81) post-ligation, 95% of the patients had complete LAA closure by TEE. Of the patients undergoing 1-year TEE (n = 65), there was 98% complete LAA closure, including the patients with previous leaks.ConclusionsLAA closure with the LARIAT device can be performed effectively with acceptably low access complications and periprocedural adverse events in this observational study