Angelo Ramondo

Incidence and Predictors of Early and Late Mortality After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in 663 Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis

Background— There is a lack of information on the incidence and predictors of early mortality at 30 days and late mortality between 30 days and 1 year after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the self-expanding CoreValve Revalving prosthesis. Methods and Results— A total of 663 consecutive patients (mean age 81.0±7.3 years) underwent TAVI with the third generation 18-Fr CoreValve device in 14 centers. Procedural success and intraprocedural mortality were 98% and 0.9%, respectively. The cumulative incidences of mortality were 5.4% at 30 days, 12.2% at 6 months, and 15.0% at 1 year. The incidence density of mortality was 12.3 per 100 person-year of observation. Clinical and hemodynamic benefits observed acutely after TAVI were sustained at 1 year. Paravalvular leakages were trace to mild in the majority of cases. Conversion to open heart surgery (odds ratio [OR] 38.68), cardiac tamponade (OR 10.97), major access site complications (OR 8.47), left ventricular ejection fraction <40% (OR 3.51), prior balloon valvuloplasty (OR 2.87), and diabetes mellitus (OR 2.66) were independent predictors of mortality at 30 days, whereas prior stroke (hazard ratio [HR] 5.47), postprocedural paravalvular leak ≥2+ (HR 3.79), prior acute pulmonary edema (HR 2.70), and chronic kidney disease (HR 2.53) were independent predictors of mortality between 30 days and 1 year. Conclusions— Benefit of TAVI with the CoreValve Revalving System is maintained over time up to 1 year, with acceptable mortality rates at various time points. Although procedural complications are strongly associated with early mortality at 30 days, comorbidities and postprocedural paravalvular aortic regurgitation ≥2+ mainly impact late outcomes between 30 days and 1 year.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 3-year outcomes of self-expanding CoreValve prosthesis

AIMS The paucity of evidences about the long-term durability of currently available transcatheter prostheses is one of the main issues of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We sought to assess 3-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients undergoing TAVI with the third generation CoreValve prosthesis (Medtronic Incorporation, MN, USA). METHODS AND RESULTS From the Italian CoreValve registry, 181 who underwent TAVI from June 2007 to August 2008 and eligible for 3-year follow-up were analysed. All outcomes were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium. All-cause mortality at 1, 2, and 3 years was 23.6, 30.3, and 34.8%, respectively. Cardiovascular death at 1, 2, and 3 years was 11.2, 12.1, and 13.5%, respectively. The actuarial survival free from a composite of death, major stroke, myocardial infarction, and life-threatening bleeding was 69.6% at 1 year, 63.5% at 2 years, and 59.7% at 3 years. Patients with renal insufficiency had a higher mortality at 3-year follow-up (49.0 vs. 29.2%, P = 0.007); moreover, patients experiencing post-procedural major or life-threatening bleeding had a higher rate of mortality already seen at 30 days (21.6 vs. 2.8%; P < 0.001) and this result was sustained at 3-year follow-up (62.2 vs. 27.7%; P < 0.001). Mean pressure gradients decreased from 52.2 ± 18.1 mmHg (pre-TAVI) to 10.3 ± 3.1 mmHg (1-year post-TAVI) (P < 0.001); aortic valve area increased from 0.6 ± 0.2 cm(2) (pre-TAVI) to 1.8 ± 0.4 cm(2) (1-year post-TAVI); these results remained stable over the 3 years of follow-up. Paravalvular leak was observed in the majority of patients. There were no cases of progression to moderate or severe regurgitation. No cases of structural valve deterioration were observed. CONCLUSION This multicentre study demonstrates that TAVI with the 18-Fr CoreValve ReValving System is associated with sustained clinical and functional cardiovascular benefits in high-risk patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis up to 3-year follow-up. Non-cardiac causes accounted for the majority of deaths at follow-up.

Safety and Efficacy of the Subclavian Approach for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With the CoreValve Revalving System

Background—Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a new option for patients with severe aortic stenosis at high surgical risk. The standard retrograde approach through the femoral artery is contraindicated in case of unfavorable iliofemoral anatomy or extensive disease. In these patients, a trans-subclavian approach may be feasible. Methods and Results—Between June 2007 and July 2009, TAVI with the CoreValve bioprosthesis (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn) was performed in 514 consecutive patients at 13 Italian hospitals, using the subclavian approach in 54 cases. The median logistic EuroSCORE was significantly higher in the subclavian (19.4; interquartile range, 12.5 to 29.8) versus femoral group (25.3; interquartile range, 15.1 to 36.6) (P=0.03), as well as the rate of comorbidities. Procedural success was obtained in 100% versus 98.4% of the subclavian versus femoral groups, respectively (P=0.62), with intraprocedural mortality of 0% versus 0.9% (P=1.00). The most common in-hospital complications were a new left bundle-branch block (22.4%) and the need for pacemaker (16.3%). No specific complications for the subclavian access (vessel rupture, vertebral or internal mammary ischemia) were reported. The learning curve for the subclavian approach led to a wider use of local anesthesia. Thirty-day mortality was 0% versus 6.1% in the subclavian versus femoral groups, respectively (P=0.13). Six-month mortality rate was 9.4% versus 15.8% (P=0.44), whereas valve-related adverse events were 13.6% versus 13.9% (P=0.79). Conclusions—TAVI through the subclavian approach appeared feasible and safe, with excellent procedural success and low in-hospital complication rates. This new technique allows patients with contraindications to the femoral approach to be treated with TAVI.

Three-Dimensional Electroanatomic Voltage Mapping Increases Accuracy of Diagnosing Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy/Dysplasia

Background—Three-dimensional electroanatomic voltage mapping offers the potential to identify low-voltage areas that correspond to regions of right ventricular (RV) myocardial loss and fibrofatty replacement in patients with arrhythmogenic RV cardiomyopathy/dysplasia (ARVC/D). Methods and Results—Thirty-one consecutive patients (22 men and 9 women; mean age, 30.8±7 years) who fulfilled the criteria of the Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and International Society and Federation of Cardiology (ESC/ISFC) for ARVC/D diagnosis after noninvasive clinical evaluation underwent further invasive study including RV electroanatomic voltage mapping and endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) to validate the diagnosis. Multiple RV endocardial, bipolar electrograms (175±23) were sampled during sinus rhythm. Twenty patients (group A; 65%) had an abnormal RV electroanatomic voltage mapping showing ≥1 area (mean 2.25±0.7) with low-voltage values (bipolar electrogram amplitude <0.5 mV), surrounded by a border zone (0.5 to 1.5 mV) that transitioned into normal myocardium (>1.5 mV). Low-voltage electrograms appeared fractionated with significantly prolonged duration and delayed activation. In 11 patients (group B; 35%), electroanatomic voltage mapping was normal, with preserved electrogram voltage (4.4±0.7 mV) and duration (37.2±0.9 ms) throughout the RV. Low-voltage areas in patients from group A corresponded to echocardiographic/angiographic RV wall motion abnormalities and were significantly associated with myocyte loss and fibrofatty replacement at EMB (P<0.0001) and familial ARVC/D (P<0.0001). Patients from group B had sporadic disease and histopathological evidence of inflammatory cardiomyopathy (P<0.0001). During the time interval from onset of symptoms to the invasive study, 11 patients (55%) with electroanatomic low-voltage regions received an implantable cardioverter/defibrillator because of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, whereas all but 1 patient with a normal voltage map remained stable on antiarrhythmic drug therapy (P=0.02). Conclusions—Three-dimensional electroanatomic voltage mapping enhanced accuracy for diagnosing ARVC/D (1) by demonstrating low-voltage areas that were associated with fibrofatty myocardial replacement and (2) by identifying a subset of patients who fulfilled ESC/ISFC Task Force diagnostic criteria but showed a preserved electrogram voltage, an inflammatory cardiomyopathy mimicking ARVC/D, and a better arrhythmic outcome.

PLAATO (Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Transcatheter Occlusion) for prevention of cardioembolic stroke in non-anticoagulation eligible atrial fibrillation patients: results from the European PLAATO study

The European PLAATO (Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Transcatheter Occlusion) study was performed to determine the safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage occlusion by catheter technique. Embolic stroke due to atrial fibrillation is a common observation, especially in the elderly. Most thrombi in atrial fibrillation form in the left atrial appendage (LAA), its occlusion may therefore reduce the incidence of stroke in these patients.

Expanding the eligibility for transcatheter aortic valve implantation the trans-subclavian retrograde approach using: the III generation CoreValve revalving system.

OBJECTIVES Our aim was to assess the safety and feasibility of the retrograde trans-subclavian approach to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in selected high-risk patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and severe peripheral vasculopathy. BACKGROUND TAVI is an emerging therapeutic option to treat inoperable/high-risk patients affected by symptomatic AS. However, these patients are also often affected by severe iliac-femoral arteriopathy, rendering the transfemoral approach unemployable for percutaneous revalving procedure. METHODS From among those patients in our department between May 2007 and December 2008, who were refused surgical aortic valve replacement because of high surgical risk and were ineligible for transfemoral percutaneous aortic valve replacement, we scheduled 3 for TAVI by the subclavian approach. Procedures were performed by a combined team of cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, and anesthetists in the catheterization laboratory. The III generation CoreValve Revalving System (CoreValve Inc., Irvine, California) with an 18-F delivery system was introduced in all cases by the left subclavian artery. RESULTS Prosthetic valves were successfully implanted in all 3 cases, leading to a fall in transvalvular gradient without significant paravalvular regurgitation. No intraprocedural or periprocedural complications occurred. Two patients developed an atrioventricular block requiring the implantation of a permanent pacemaker. All patients were discharged in asymptomatic status, with good prosthesis performance. No adverse events occurred within the 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS TAVI by subclavian retrograde approach seems safe and feasible in inoperable/high-risk patients with AS and peripheral vasculopathy, who are neither eligible for surgical valve replacement nor transfemoral percutaneous aortic valve implantation. Further studies are needed to evaluate the long-term efficacy of this new therapy.

Immune and Nonimmune Predictors of Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy Onset and Severity: Multivariate Risk Factor Analysis and Role of Immunosuppression

We studied 361 patients, to evaluate risk factors for cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) onset and severity/diffusion in heart transplantation (HT). Rejection scores (RS) on endomyocardial biopsy were calculated (first year and whole follow‐up). CAV onset was defined as any lesion seen at yearly angiography. A CAV severity/diffusion index was calculated for each patient summing up the scores of all lesions. Cox multivariate analysis included: donor age, sex, and weight; recipient sex, age, pre‐HT diagnosis, hypertension, diabetes and hyperlipidemia post‐HT; number of treated rejections and RS; and immunosuppressive dosage at 3, 6, and 12 months. CAV frequency was 2% at 1 year, 22% at 5 and 39% at 10 years. Risk factors for CAV onset were older donor age [p < 0.0001, relative risk (RR) = 9.9], male donor (p < 0.001, RR = 3.2), high RS for severe (≥ 3A) grades (p < 0.02, RR = 2.01), high cyclosporine at 3 months (p < 0.02, RR = 1.9). Risk factors for CAV severity/diffusion were higher donor weight (p < 0.01, RR = 7.5), high prednisone dosage at 1 year (p < 0.0001, RR = 21.1), and coronary disease pre‐HT (p < 0.002, RR = 9.7). High RS was an independent predictor for CAV onset, not severity/diffusion. This suggests an immune basis for CAV onset and nonimmune modulation for progression. High RS for severe grades may provide a predictor for patients at risk.

Ostial and midshaft lesions vs. bifurcation lesions in 1111 patients with unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis treated with drug-eluting stents: results of the survey from the Italian Society of Invasive Cardiology

AIMS In this study, we compared the cumulative risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) of patients with distal unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis with those of patients with ostial and midshaft lesions treated with drug-eluting stent (DES). METHODS AND RESULTS The survey promoted by the Italian Society of Invasive Cardiology on ULMCA stenosis was an observational study involving 19 high-volume Italian centres. We enrolled 1111 patients with ULMCA stenosis treated with DES. Major adverse cardiac events were defined as death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Three hundred and thirty-four patients had ostial or midshaft lesions (group 1) and 777 bifurcations (group 2). The adjusted hazards ratio of the risk of 2 year MACE of patients in group 2 vs. patients in group 1 was 1.50 (P = 0.024). However, we observed that there was a significant difference between patients with bifurcations treated with two stents and those in group 1 (P = 0.001), but not between patients with bifurcations treated with one stent and those in group 1 (P = 0.38). CONCLUSION Patients with bifurcations have a worse outcome than patients with ostial and midshaft lesions. However, the technique used to treat bifurcations has a significant impact on clinical outcomes.

Clinical impact of persistent left bundle-branch block after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with CoreValve revalving system

Background— Conduction disturbances are relatively common after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Previous data demonstrated an adverse impact of persistent left bundle-branch block (LBBB) after surgical aortic valve replacement. It is unclear whether new-onset LBBB may also impact the prognosis of patients after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Methods and Results— Among 1060 patients treated with a CoreValve Revalving System transcatheter aortic valve implantation between October 2007 and April 2011 in high-volume centers in Italy, we analyzed those without LBBB or pacemaker at admission (879 patients [82.9%]). We further excluded those who underwent permanent pacemaker implantation within 48 hours after the procedure (61 patients [7%]), for a final study population of 818 patients. Among them, 224 patients (group A; 27.4%) developed a persistent LBBB and the remaining 594 (group B; 72.6%) did not. Clinical characteristics were similar between groups. A low implantation was significantly more frequent in group A (15% versus 9.8%, P=0.02). No patients were censored before 1 year (median follow-up period 438 days, interquartile range 174–798 days). Survival analyses and inherent log-rank tests showed that LBBB was not associated with higher all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, or hospitalization for heart failure at 30 days or 1 year. At 30 days, but not at 1 year, group A had a significantly higher rate of pacemaker implantation. Conclusions— In this registry of high-volume centers, persistent LBBB after CoreValve Revalving System transcatheter aortic valve implantation showed no effect on hard end points. On the other hand, LBBB was associated with a higher short-term rate of pacemaker implantation.

The Valve-in-Valve Technique for Treatment of Aortic Bioprosthesis Malposition: An Analysis of Incidence and 1-Year Clinical Outcomes From the Italian CoreValve Registry

OBJECTIVES We appraised the incidence and clinical outcomes of patients who were treated with the valve-in-valve (ViV) technique for hemodynamically destabilizing paraprosthetic leak (PPL). BACKGROUND Device malpositioning causing severe PPL after transcatheter aortic valve implantation is not an uncommon finding. It occurs after release of the prosthesis, leading to hemodynamic compromise. It can be managed successfully in selected cases with implantation of a second device inside the malpositioned primary prosthesis (ViV technique). METHODS Consecutive patients (n = 663) who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the 18-F CoreValve ReValving System (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota) at 14 centers across Italy were included in this prospective web-based registry. We identified patients treated with the ViV technique for severe PPL and analyzed their clinical and echocardiographic outcomes. Primary end points were major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiac events and prosthesis performance at the 30-day and midterm follow-up. RESULTS Overall procedural success was obtained in 650 patients (98.0%). The ViV technique was used in 24 (3.6%) of 663 patients. The 30-day major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiac event rates were 7.0% and 0% in patients undergoing the standard procedure and ViV technique, respectively (p = 0.185); the mortality rates were 5.6% versus 0% in patients undergoing the standard procedure and ViV technique, respectively (p = 0.238). There was an improvement in the mean transaortic gradient in all patients without significant difference between the 2 groups (from 52.1 ± 17.1 mm Hg and 45.4 ± 14.8 mm Hg [p = 0.060] to 10.1 ± 4.2 mm Hg and 10.5 ± 5.2 mm Hg, respectively [p = 0.838]). At 12 months, the major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiac event rates in the standard procedure and ViV technique groups were 4.5% and 14.1%, respectively (p = 0.158), and the mortality rates were 4.5% versus 13.7%, respectively (p = 0.230). CONCLUSIONS This large, multicenter registry provides important information about the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of the ViV technique with the third-generation CoreValve ReValving System. The clinical and echocardiographic end points compare favorably with those of patients undergoing the standard procedure. The ViV technique offers a viable therapeutic option in patients with acute significant PPL without recourse to emergent surgery.