Antonio Marzocchi

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.

Long-term safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents: two-year results of the REAL (REgistro AngiopLastiche dell'Emilia Romagna) multicenter registry.

Background— The long-term safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) have been questioned recently. Methods and Results— Between July 2002 and June 2005, 10 629 patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention with either DES (n=3064) or bare-metal stents (BMS, n=7565) were enrolled in a prospective registry comprising 13 hospitals. We assessed the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events (death, acute myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization) and angiographic stent thrombosis during 2-year follow-up. A propensity score analysis to adjust for different baseline clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics was performed. The 2-year unadjusted cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events was 17.8% in the DES group and 21.0% in the BMS group (P=0.003 by log-rank test). Angiographic stent thrombosis was 1.0% in the DES group and 0.6% in the BMS group (P=0.09). After adjustment, the 2-year cumulative incidence of death was 6.8% in the DES group and 7.4% in the BMS group (P=0.35), whereas the rates were 5.3% in DES and 5.8% in BMS for acute myocardial infarction (P=0.46), 9.1% in DES and 12.9% in BMS for target-vessel revascularization (P<0.00001), and 16.9% in DES and 21.8% in BMS for major adverse cardiac events (P<0.0001). Independent predictors of target-vessel revascularization in the DES group were diabetes mellitus (hazard ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 1.76), renal failure (hazard ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 2.69), and reference vessel diameter (hazard ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.93). Conclusions— In this large real-world population, the beneficial effect of DES in reducing the need for new revascularization compared with BMS extends to 2 years without evidence of a worse safety profile.

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.

Impact of Bifurcation Technique on 2-Year Clinical Outcomes in 773 Patients With Distal Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis Treated With Drug-Eluting Stents

Background—Distal unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis represents a technical challenge for interventional cardiologists. In this study, we compared 2-year clinical outcomes of different stenting strategies in patients with distal ULMCA stenosis treated with drug-eluting stents. Methods and Results—The survey promoted by the Italian Society of Invasive Cardiology on ULMCA stenosis was an observational study on patients with ULMCA stenosis treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. In this study, we selected patients with distal ULMCA stenosis treated with drug-eluting stents. Seven hundred seventy-three patients were eligible for this study: 456 were treated with 1 stent (group 1) and 317 with 2 stents (group 2). The primary end point of the study was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), defined as the occurrence of mortality, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. During a 2-year follow-up, risk-adjusted survival free from MACE was significantly higher in patients in group 1 than in patients in group 2. The propensity-adjusted hazard ratio for the risk of 2-year MACE in patients in group 1 versus group 2 was 0.53 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.76). The propensity-adjusted hazard ratio for the risk of 2-year cardiac mortality and myocardial infarction in patients in group 1 versus group 2 was 0.38 (95% CI, 0.17 to 0.85). Conclusions—Compared with the 2-stent technique, the 1-stent technique is associated with a better 2-year MACE-free survival. The stenting strategy is a prognostic factor that should be taken into account when deciding the optimal revascularization treatment.

Transradial Versus Transfemoral Intervention for Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Propensity Score-Adjusted and -Matched Analysis From the REAL (REgistro regionale AngiopLastiche dell'Emilia-Romagna) Multicenter Registry

OBJECTIVES This study sought to assess whether transradial intervention, by minimizing access-site bleeding and vascular events, improves outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction compared with the transfemoral approach. BACKGROUND Bleeding and consequent blood product transfusions have been causally associated with a higher mortality rate in patients with myocardial infarction undergoing coronary angioplasty. METHODS We identified all adults undergoing percutaneous intervention for acute myocardial infarction in Emilia-Romagna, a region in the north of Italy of 4 million residents, between January 1, 2003, and July 30, 2009, at 12 referral hospitals using a region-mandated database of percutaneous coronary intervention procedures. Differences in the risk of death at 2 years between patients undergoing transfemoral versus transradial intervention, assessed on an intention-to-treat basis, were determined from vital statistics records and compared based on propensity score adjustment and matching. RESULTS A total of 11,068 patients were treated for acute myocardial infarction (8,000 via transfemoral and 3,068 via transradial route). According to analysis of matched pairs, the 2-year, risk-adjusted mortality rates were lower for the transradial than for the transfemoral group (8.8% vs. 11.4%; p = 0.0250). The rate of vascular complications requiring surgery or need for blood transfusion were also significantly decreased in the transradial group (1.1% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.0052). CONCLUSIONS In patients undergoing angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction, transradial treatment is associated with decreased 2-year mortality rates and a reduction in the need for vascular surgery and/or blood transfusion compared with transfemoral intervention.

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.

2-year results of CoreValve implantation through the subclavian access: a propensity-matched comparison with the femoral access.

OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to assess the procedural and 2-year results of the subclavian approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared with those of the femoral approach by using propensity-matched analysis. BACKGROUND The subclavian approach with the CoreValve prosthesis (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota) represents an interesting opportunity when the femoral access is unfeasible. METHODS All consecutive patients enrolled in the Italian CoreValve Registry who underwent TAVI with the subclavian approach were included. Propensity score analysis was used to identify a matching group of patients undergoing femoral TAVI. RESULTS Subclavian approach was used in 141 patients (61% men; median age 83 years; median logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score 23.7%). The femoral group of 141 patients was matched for baseline clinical characteristics, except for peripheral artery disease. The 2 groups showed similar procedural success (97.9% vs. 96.5%; p = 0.47), major vascular complications (5.0% vs. 7.8%; p = 0.33), life-threatening bleeding events (7.8% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.48), and combined safety endpoint (19.9% vs. 25.5%; p = 0.26). The subclavian group showed lower rates of acute kidney injury/stage 3 (4.3% vs. 9.9%; p = 0.02), of minor vascular complications at the 18-F sheath insertion site (2.1% vs. 11.3%; p = 0.003), and of all types of bleeding events related to vascular complications. Survival at 2 years was 74.0 ± 4.0% in the subclavian group compared with 73.7 ± 3.9% in the femoral group (p = 0.78). The 2-year freedom from cardiovascular death was 87.2 ± 3.1% versus 88.7 ± 2.8% in the subclavian versus femoral group, respectively (p = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS The subclavian approach for TAVI is safe and feasible, with procedural and medium-term results similar to the femoral approach. Subclavian access should be considered a valid option not only when the femoral approach is impossible but also when it is difficult, albeit feasible.

Acute kidney injury following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: incidence, predictors and clinical outcome

BACKGROUND Limited data exist on renal complications of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) within a comprehensive program using different valves with transfemoral, transapical, and trans-subclavian approach. METHODS Prospective single-center registry of 102 consecutive patients undergoing TAVI using both approved bioprostheses and different access routes. The main objective was to assess the incidence, predictors and the clinical impact of acute kidney injury (AKI). AKI was defined according to the valve academic research consortium (VARC) indications. RESULTS Mean age was 83.7 ± 5.3 years, logistic EuroSCORE 22.6 ± 12.4%, and STS score 8.2 ± 4.1%. Chronic kidney disease at baseline was present in 87.3%. Periprocedural AKI developed in 42 patients (41.7%): 32.4% stage 1, 4.9% stage 2 and 3.9% stage 3. The incidence of AKI was 66.7% in transapical, 30.3% in transfemoral, and 50% in trans-subclavian procedures. The only independent predictor of AKI was transapical access, with a hazard ratio (HR) between 4.57 and 5.18 based on the model used. Cumulative 1-year survival was 88.2%. At Cox regression analysis, the only independent predictor of 30-day mortality was diabetes mellitus (HR 7.05, 95% CI 1.07-46.32; p=0.042), whilst the independent predictors of 1-year death were baseline glomerular filtration rate<30 mL/min (HR 5.74, 95% CI 1.42-23.26; p=0.014) and post-procedural AKI 3 (HR 8.59, 95% CI 1.61-45.86, p=0.012). CONCLUSIONS TAVI is associated with a high incidence of AKI. Although in the majority of the cases AKI is of mild entity and reversible, AKI 3 holds a strong negative impact on 1-year survival. The incidence of AKI is higher with transapical access.