Alessandro Sticchi

Comparison of incidence and predictors of left bundle branch block after transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the CoreValve versus the Edwards valve.

Conduction disorders and permanent pacemaker implantation are common complications in patients who undergo transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and clinical significance of new bundle branch block in patients who underwent TAVI with the Medtronic CoreValve Revalving System (MCRS) or the Edwards SAPIEN valve (ESV). Data from 238 patients with no previous pacemaker implantation, left bundle branch block (LBBB) or right bundle branch block at baseline electrocardiography who underwent TAVI with either MCRS (n = 87) or ESV (n = 151) bioprostheses from 2007 to 2011 were analyzed. New-onset LBBB occurred in 26.5% patients (n = 63): 13.5% with the ESV (n = 20) and 50.0% with the MCRS (n = 43) (p = 0.001). Permanent pacemaker implantation was required in 12.7% of patients (n = 8) because of complete atrioventricular block (ESV n = 2, MCRS n = 4), LBBB and first degree atrioventricular block (MCRS n = 1) and new-onset LBBB associated with sinus bradycardia (MCRS n = 1). At discharge, LBBB persisted in 8.6% of ESV patients (n = 13) and 32.2% of MCRS patients (n = 28) (p = 0.001). On multivariate analysis, the only predictor of LBBB was MCRS use (odds ratio 7.2, 95% confidence interval 2.9 to 17.4, p <0.001). Persistent new-onset LBBB at discharge was not associated with overall (log-rank p = 0.42) or cardiovascular (log-rank p = 0.46) mortality. New-onset right bundle branch block was documented in 4.6% of patients (n = 11), with no statistically significant differences between the ESV and MCRS. In conclusion, new-onset LBBB is a frequent intraventricular conduction disturbance after TAVI with a higher incidence with the MCRS compared with the ESV. LBBB persists in most patients, but in this cohort, it was not a predictor of overall or cardiovascular mortality or permanent pacemaker implantation.

Comparison of Results of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Severely Stenotic Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid or Nonbicuspid Valves

Data on transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis and how this compares to that for tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis are limited. Twenty-one consecutive patients with BAV were treated with the Edwards or CoreValve bioprosthesis from November 2007 to December 2012 at San Raffaele Scientific Institute and Clinical Institute S. Ambrogio, Milan, Italy. Results were compared with a cohort of patients with TAV (n=447) treated with the same bioprostheses over the same period. Procedural 1- and 12-month outcomes were examined as defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria. Patients with BAV were younger (76.7±7.1 vs 79.8±7.4 years, p=0.06) and with a larger aortic annulus (25.0±1.8 vs 23.6±2.1 mm, p=0.01). Device success (85.7% vs 94.4%, p=0.10) was lower in patients with BAV. Although the 30-day composite safety end point (23.8% vs 21.0%, p=0.76) was similar between the 2 groups, mortality rate at 30 days was higher (14.2% vs 3.6%, p=0.02) in the BAV group. Cardiovascular mortality at 1 year did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (10.5% vs 7.4%, p=0.62). In conclusion, transcatheter aortic valve implantation in high surgical risk patients with severe BAV stenosis appears to be feasible with mid-term cardiovascular mortality similar to that for patients with TAV. Early survival and device success, however, were lower for patients with BAV demonstrating that further studies are required to identify which subset of patients with BAV is best suited for transcatheter treatment.

Comparison of early clinical outcomes between ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold and everolimus-eluting stent implantation in a real-world population.

To compare the early clinical outcomes between ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) and cobalt chromium everolimus‐eluting stents in real‐world patients with mostly complex disease.

Surgical treatment of paravalvular leak: Long-term results in a single-center experience (up to 14 years)

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study is to report the long-term outcomes (median follow-up time, 7 years; range, 1 month to 14 years) of patients who underwent surgery for paravalvular leak in our single-center experience. METHODS From October 2000 to November 2007, 122 consecutive patients underwent surgery for symptomatic paravalvular leak (40 patients with aortic paravalvular leak; 82 with mitral paravalvular leak). In 7 patients (5.7%, all mitral), surgery was performed on the beating heart through a right thoracotomy. In 35% of patients, multiple paravalvular leaks were present. RESULTS The mean age of patients was 62 ± 11 years, and European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II was 7.2% ± 6%. Most of the patients were in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV (60%). Symptomatic hemolysis was present in 31% of the patients, and 41% of the patients had more than 1 previous cardiac operation. Paravalvular leak repair was feasible in 79 patients (65%), whereas in 43 patients (35%) prosthesis re-replacement was required. Thirty-day mortality was 10.7% (13/122 patients; 5% for aortic paravalvular leak and 13% for mitral paravalvular leak; P = .1); 2 patients (1.6%) with residual severe mitral paravalvular leak underwent successful redo surgery before discharge. Median length of stay was 7 days. Overall actuarial survival was 39% ± 6% at 12 years; freedom from cardiac death was 54% ± 7% at 12 years. Only 1 patient underwent redo surgery during follow-up. Multivariable analysis identified preoperative chronic renal failure (hazard ratio, 2.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-4.9; P = .03) and more than 1 previous cardiac reoperation (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-4; P = .03) as independent predictors of death at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS The operative mortality of surgical treatment of paravalvular leak is still high. Long-term outcomes remain suboptimal in these challenging patients, especially in the presence of multiple previous cardiac operations and associated co-pathologies. These results support the importance of alternative therapeutic options.

Conventional surgery and transcatheter closure via surgical transapical approach for paravalvular leak repair in high-risk patients: results from a single-centre experience.

OBJECTIVES Paravalvular leaks (PVL) occur in up to 17% of all surgically implanted prosthetic valves. Re-operation is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Transcatheter closure via a surgical transapical approach (TAp) is an emerging alternative for selected high-risk patients with PVL. The aim of this study was to compare the in-hospital outcomes of patients who underwent surgery and TA-closure for PVL in our single-centre experience. METHODS From October 2000 to June 2013, 139 patients with PVL were treated in our Institution. All the TA procedures were performed under general anaesthesia in a hybrid operative room: in all but one case an Amplatzer Vascular Plug III device was utilized. RESULTS Hundred and thirty-nine patients with PVL were treated: 122 patients (87.3%) underwent surgical treatment (68% mitral PVL; 32% aortic PVL) and 17 patients (12.2%) underwent a transcatheter closure via a surgical TAp approach (all the patients had mitral PVL; one case had combined mitral and aortic PVLs); in 35% of surgical patients and in 47% of TAp patients, multiple PVLs were present. The mean age was 62.5 ± 11 years; the Logistic EuroScore was 15.4 ± 3. Most of the patients were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III-IV (57%). Symptomatic haemolysis was present in 35% of the patients, and it was particularly frequent in the TAp (70%). Many patients had >1 previous cardiac operation (46% overall and 82% of TAp patients were at their second of re-operation). Acute procedural success was 98%. In-hospital mortality was 9.3%; no in-hospital deaths occurred in patients treated through a TAp approach. All the patients had less than moderate residual valve regurgitation after the procedure. Surgical treatment was identified as a risk factor for in-hospital death at univariate analysis (OR: 8, 95% CI: 1.8-13; P = 0.05). Overall actuarial survival at follow-up was 39.8 ± 7% at 12 years and it was reduced in patients who had >1 cardiac re-operation (42 ± 8 vs. 63 ± 6% at 9 years; P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS A transcatheter closure via a surgical TAp approach appears to be a safe and effective therapeutic option in selected high-risk patients with PVL and is associated with a lower hospital mortality than surgical treatment, in spite of higher predicted risk. Long-term survival remains suboptimal in these challenging patients.

Impact of Strut Width in Periprocedural Myocardial Infarction: A Propensity-Matched Comparison Between Bioresorbable Scaffolds and the First-Generation Sirolimus-Eluting Stent

OBJECTIVES This study aimed to assess the clinical impact of strut width (evaluated by abluminal strut surface area [ASSA]) on periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI) and clinical outcomes in patients treated with bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) versus first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). BACKGROUND To date, there are no reports on the impact of ASSA on PMI and clinical outcomes. METHODS We compared the impact of ASSA on outcomes and PMI in propensity-matched patients treated with BRS and SES. The primary outcome was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the combination of all-cause mortality, follow-up myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, at 30-days and 1-year follow-ups. The secondary endpoint was the incidence of PMI. RESULTS After propensity-matched analysis, 499 patients (147 BRS patients vs. 352 SES patients) were evaluated. Mean ASSA was higher in patients treated with BRS versus SES (BRS: 132.3 ± 76.7 mm(2) vs. SES: 67.6 ± 48.4 mm(2), p < 0.001). MACE was not significantly different between groups (30-days MACE: BRS: 0% vs. SES: 1.4%, p = 0.16, and 1-year MACE: BRS: 15.7% vs. SES: 11.4%, p = 0.67). The incidence of PMI was significantly higher in the BRS group (BRS: 13.1% vs. SES: 7.5%, p = 0.05). Multivariable analyses indicated that treatment of left anterior descending artery and ASSA were independent predictors of PMI. CONCLUSIONS BRS implantation, compared with SES implantation, was associated with a higher incidence of PMI. MACE at 30 days and 1 year were not significantly different. Left anterior descending artery percutaneous coronary intervention and ASSA were independent predictors of PMI.

Procedural outcomes of patients with calcified lesions treated with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds.

AIMS To compare the feasibility, procedural and clinical outcomes after implantation of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) in patients with calcified lesions. METHODS AND RESULTS We assessed the feasibility of BVS implantation and procedural outcomes in patients with and without calcific lesions. The primary outcome was angiographic and procedural success. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Of 163 patients, 62 (38%) had calcified lesions. Patients with calcific lesions had a higher prevalence of diabetes (35.5% vs. 22.8%, p=0.078) and chronic kidney disease (31.1% vs. 13.9%, p=0.008), and higher SYNTAX scores (18.9±9.7 vs. 15.1±9.0, p=0.017). Calcific lesions required longer procedures (126.4±39.8 vs. 106.9±37.1 min, p=0.015), more frequent use of dedicated devices and IVUS. Acute gain (1.83±0.6 vs. 1.86±0.6, p=0.732) and angiographic success were similar (98% non-calcific vs. 95.2% calcific, p=0.369), whereas procedural success was reduced in patients with calcific lesions (94.1% vs. 83.9%, p=0.034) due to higher rates of periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) (5% vs. 13.1%, p=0.067). During the median follow-up time of 14 months MACE rates (10.9% non-calcific vs. 12.9% calcific, plog-rank=0.546) were similar. CONCLUSIONS Treating calcific lesions with BVS is feasible with high angiographic success rates, at the expense of longer procedure times, aggressive lesion preparation and increased rates of periprocedural MI.

Clinical outcomes following bioresorbable scaffold implantation for bifurcation lesions: Overall outcomes and comparison between provisional and planned double stenting strategy

The aim of this study was to investigate clinical outcomes of patients treated with a provisional stenting (PS) versus a double stenting (DS) strategy for coronary bifurcation lesions with bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS). There are limited data available with regards to outcomes following BRS implantation for bifurcation lesions. A total of 132 bifurcation lesions treated with BRS between 2012 and 2014 were analyzed. Of the total of 132 bifurcation lesions, 10 lesions were treated without crossover stenting. 99 lesions (81%) were treated with a PS strategy and 23 lesions (19%) with a DS strategy. The DS group consisted of patients with a greater number of true bifurcation lesions (PS 52.0% vs. DS 91.3%: P < 0.001). In the PS group, seven lesions (7.1%) were crossed‐over to T‐stenting. In the DS group, 13 lesions (57%) were treated with BRS to the side branch (SB). A hybrid stenting technique [BRS to the main branch, and metallic drug‐eluting stent (DES) to the SB] was utilized in 10 (43%) lesions. Target lesion revascularization (TLR) rates were 5.5% for PS and 11.2% for DS (P = 0.49) at 1‐year follow‐up. Definite scaffold thrombosis did not occur at the site of any bifurcation lesion. These findings suggest that BRS implantation for bifurcation lesions is technically feasible. The rates of TLR tended to be higher in the DS group compared to when a PS strategy was employed. Larger studies are eagerly awaited to determine longer‐term follow‐up of this treatment strategy.

Extended follow‐up following “full‐metal jacket” percutaneous coronary interventions with drug‐eluting stents

To report very long‐term follow‐up of “Full‐Metal Jacket” (FMJ) percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in long‐diffuse coronary lesions with drug‐eluting stents (DES).

Causes and timing of death during long-term follow-up after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an effective therapeutic option for patients with severe aortic stenosis at high risk for surgery. Identification of causes of death after TAVR may help improve patient selection and outcome. METHODS We enrolled 874 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR at 3 centers using all approved bioprostheses and different access routes. Clinical outcomes during follow-up were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 definitions. Causes of deaths were carefully investigated. RESULTS Mean logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation was 23.5% ± 15.3%; Society of Thoracic Surgery score, 9.0% ± 8.2%. The Corevalve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) was used in 41.3%; the Edwards Sapien (Edwards Lifesciences Inc., Irvine, CA) in 57.3%. Vascular access was transfemoral in 75.7%. In-hospital mortality was 5.0%. Cumulative mortality rates at 1 to 3 years were 12.4%, 23.4%, and 31.5%, respectively. Landmark analysis showed a significantly higher incidence of cardiovascular (CV) death in the first 6 months of follow-up and a significantly higher incidence of non-CV death thereafter. At Cox regression analysis, the independent predictors of in-hospital mortality were acute kidney injury grades 2 to 3 (hazard ratio [HR] 3.41) life-threatening bleeding (HR 4.26), major bleeding (HR 4.61), and myocardial infarction (HR 3.89). The independent predictors of postdischarge mortality were chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR 1.48), left ventricular ejection fraction at discharge (HR 0.98), and glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) (HR 1.64). CONCLUSIONS Around a third of patients treated with TAVR in daily practice die within the first 3 years of follow-up. Early mortality is predominantly CV, whereas late mortality is mainly non-CV, and it is often due to preexisting comorbidity.