Claudio Grossi

A Simple Risk Tool (the OBSERVANT Score) for Prediction of 30-Day Mortality After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Risk stratification tools used in patients with severe aortic stenosis have been mostly derived from surgical series. Although specific predictors of early mortality with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been identified, the prognostic impact of their combination is unexplored. We sought to develop a simple score, using preprocedural variables, for prediction of 30-day mortality after TAVR. A total of 1,878 patients from a national multicenter registry who underwent TAVR were randomly assigned in a 2:1 manner to development and validation data sets. Baseline characteristics of the 1,256 patients in the development data set were considered as candidate univariate predictors of 30-day mortality. A bootstrap multivariate logistic regression process was used to select correlates of 30-day mortality that were subsequently weighted and integrated into a scoring system. Seven variables were weighted proportionally to their respective odds ratios for 30-day mortality (glomerular filtration rate <45 ml/min [6 points], critical preoperative state [5 points], New York Heart Association class IV [4 points], pulmonary hypertension [4 points], diabetes mellitus [4 points], previous balloon aortic valvuloplasty [3 points], and left ventricular ejection fraction <40% [3 points]). The model showed good discrimination in both the development and validation data sets (C statistics 0.73 and 0.71, respectively). Compared with the logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation in the validation data set, the model showed better discrimination (C statistic 0.71 vs 0.66), goodness of fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow p value 0.81 vs 0.00), and global accuracy (Brier score 0.054 vs 0.073). In conclusion, the risk of 30-day mortality after TAVR may be estimated by combining 7 baseline clinical variables into a simple risk scoring system.

Immediate and Intermediate Outcome After Transapical Versus Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

A few studies recently reported controversial results with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) versus transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TA-TAVR), often without adequate adjusted analysis for baseline differences. Data on patients who underwent TF-TAVR and TA-TAVR from the Observational Study of Effectiveness of avR-tavI procedures for severe Aortic stenosis Treatment study were analyzed with propensity score 1-to-1 matching. From a cohort of 1,654 patients (1,419 patients underwent TF-TAVR and 235 patients underwent TA-TAVR), propensity score matching resulted in 199 pairs of patients with similar operative risk (EuroSCORE II: TF-TAVR 8.1 ± 7.1% vs TA-TAVR, 8.4 ± 7.3%, p = 0.713). Thirty-day mortality was 8.0% after TA-TAVR and 4.0% after TF-TAVR (p = 0.102). Postoperative rates of stroke (TA-TAVR, 2.0% vs TF-TAVR 1.0%, p = 0.414), cardiac tamponade (TA-TAVR, 4.1% vs TF-TAVR 1.5%, p = 0.131), permanent pacemaker implantation (TA-TAVR, 8.7% vs TF-TAVR 13.3%, p = 0.414), and infection (TA-TAVR, 6.7% vs TF-TAVR 3.6%, p = 0.180) were similar in the study groups but with an overall trend in favor of TF-TAVR. Higher rates of major vascular damage (7.2% vs 1.0%, p = 0.003) and moderate-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation (7.8% vs 5.2%, p = 0.008) were observed after TF-TAVR. On the contrary, TA-TAVR was associated with higher rates of red blood cell transfusion (50.0% vs 30.4%, p = 0.0002) and acute kidney injury (stages 1 to 3: 44.4% vs 21.9%, p <0.0001) compared with TF-TAVR. Three-year survival rate was 69.1% after TF-TAVR and 57.0% after TA-TAVR (p = 0.006), whereas freedom from major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events was 61.9% after TF-TAVR and 50.4% after TA-TAVR (p = 0.011). In conclusion, TF-TAVR seems to be associated with significantly higher early and intermediate survival compared with TA-TAVR. The transfemoral approach, whenever feasible, should be considered the route of choice for TAVR.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Compared With Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients

Background—The proven efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in high-risk patients is leading to the expansion of its indications toward lower-risk patients. However, this shift is not supported by meaningful evidence of its benefit over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). This analysis aims to describe outcomes of TAVI versus SAVR in low-risk patients. Methods and Results—We compared the outcome after TAVI and SAVR of low-risk patients (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II [EuroSCORE II] <4%) included in the Observational Study of Effectiveness of SAVR–TAVI Procedures for Severe Aortic Stenosis Treatment (OBSERVANT) study. The primary outcome was 3-year survival. Secondary outcomes were early events and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 3 years. Propensity score matching resulted in 355 pairs of patients with similar baseline characteristics. Thirty-day survival was 97.1% after SAVR and 97.4% after TAVI (P=0.82). Cardiac tamponade, permanent pacemaker implantation, major vascular damage, and moderate-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation were significantly more frequent after TAVI compared with SAVR. Stroke rates were equal in the study groups. SAVR was associated with higher risk of cardiogenic shock, severe bleeding, and acute kidney injury. At 3 years, survival was 83.4% after SAVR and 72.0% after TAVI (P=0.0015), whereas freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events was 80.9% after SAVR and 67.3% after TAVI (P<0.001). Conclusions—In patients with low operative risk, significantly better 3-year survival and freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were observed after SAVR compared with TAVI. Further studies on new-generation valve prostheses are necessary before expanding indications of TAVI toward lower-risk patients.

Early and Midterm Outcome of Propensity-Matched Intermediate-Risk Patients Aged ≥80 Years With Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (from the Italian Multicenter OBSERVANT Study)

The aim of this study was to analyze procedural and postprocedural outcomes of patients aged ≥80 years treated by transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) as enrolled in the OBservational Study of Effectiveness of SAVR-TAVR procedures for severe Aortic steNosis Treatment (OBSERVANT) Study. TAVI is offered to patients with aortic stenosis judged inoperable or at high surgical risk. Nevertheless, it is common clinical practice to treat elderly (≥80 years) patients by TAVI regardless of surgical risk for traditional SAVR. OBSERVANT is a multicenter, observational, prospective cohort study that enrolled patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who underwent SAVR or TAVI from December 2010 to June 2012 in 93 Italian participating hospitals. Information on demographic characteristics, health status before intervention, therapeutic approach, and intraprocedural and 30-day outcomes was collected. An administrative follow-up was set up to collect data on midterm to long-term outcomes. We reviewed baseline and procedural data of patients aged ≥80 years, looking for different early and late outcome after TAVI or SAVR. Patients treated by TAVI were sicker than SAVR because of higher rate of co-morbidities, advanced illness, frailty, and Logistic EuroSCORE. After propensity matching, early and midterm mortality were comparable between the 2 groups. However, patients treated by TAVI had higher rate of vascular complications (6.0% vs 0.5%; p <0.0001), permanent pacemaker implantation (13.4% vs 3.7%; p <0.0001), and paravalvular leak (8.9% vs 2.4%; p <0.0001). Patients who underwent SAVR had more frequent bleedings needing transfusion (63.2% vs 34.5%; p <0.0001) and acute kidney injury (9.6% vs 3.9%; p = 0.0010). In conclusion, patients aged ≥80 years treated by TAVI or SAVR had similar early and midterm mortality.

Outcome After General Anesthesia Versus Monitored Anesthesia Care in Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

OBJECTIVE To evaluate outcomes of monitored anesthesia care (MAC) compared with general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). DESIGN Secondary analysis from the observational and prospective OBSERVANT (OBservational Study of Effectiveness of avR-taVi procedures for severe Aortic steNosis Treatment) study. SETTING Multicenter study, including Italian hospitals performing TAVR interventions. PARTICIPANTS One thousand four hundred ninety-four patients with severe and symptomatic aortic stenosis. INTERVENTIONS Transfemoral TAVR under general or local anesthesia. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS A propensity score procedure was applied, and 310 pairs were matched with similar baseline characteristics (EuroSCORE II: local anesthesia 6.6±5.9% v general anesthesia 7.0±7.7%, p = 0.430). MAC was associated with similar 30-day mortality compared with GA (3.9% v 4.8%, p = 0.564). TAVR was performed under MAC without any increased risk of other adverse events. The risk of paravalvular regurgitation≥mild was similar between the study groups (MAC 49.5% v general anesthesia 57.0%, p = 0.858). Two patients receiving on MAC had severe paravalvular regurgitation, whereas this complication was not observed after GA. Permanent pacemaker implantation was 19.1% in the MAC group v 14.8% in the GA group (p = 0.168). Mean intensive care unit stay was 3.5 days for the GA group v 2.9 days for the MAC group (p = 0.086). A similar 3-year survival rate was observed (MAC 69.4% v GA 69.9%, p = 0.966). CONCLUSIONS Transfemoral TAVR can be performed under MAC with similar immediate and late outcomes as compared with GA. A possible risk of severe paravalvular regurgitation and pacemaker implantation with TAVR under MAC requires further investigation.

Effect of severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction on hospital outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation or surgical aortic valve replacement: Results from a propensity-matched population of the Italian OBSERVANT multicenter study

OBJECTIVE Despite demonstration of the superior outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus optimal medical therapy for severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction, studies comparing TAVI and surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in this high-risk group have been lacking. METHODS We performed propensity matching for age, gender, baseline comorbidities, previous interventions, priority at hospital admission, frailty score, New York Heart Association class, EuroSCORE, and associated cardiac diseases. Next, the 30-day mortality and procedure-related morbidity of 162 patients (81 TAVI vs 81 AVR) with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction ≤ 35%) were analyzed at the Italian National Institute of Health. RESULTS The 30-day mortality was comparable (P = .37) between the 2 groups. The incidence of periprocedural acute myocardial infarction (P = .55), low output state (P = .27), stroke (P = .36), and renal dysfunction (peak creatinine level, P = .57) was also similar between the 2 groups. TAVI resulted in significantly greater postprocedural permanent pacemaker implantation (P = .01) and AVR in more periprocedural transfusions (P < .01) despite a similar transfusion rate per patient (2.8 ± 3.7 for TAVI vs 4.4 ± 3.8 for AVR; P = .08). The postprocedural intensive care unit stay (median, 2 days after TAVI vs 3 days after AVR; P = .34), intermediate care unit stay (median, 0 days after both TAVI and AVR; P = .94), and hospitalization (median, 11 days after TAVI vs 14 days after AVR; P = .51) were comparable. CONCLUSIONS In patients with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction, both TAVI and AVR are valid treatment options, with comparable hospital mortality and periprocedural morbidity. Comparisons of the mid- to long-term outcomes are mandatory.

Aortic valve replacement: reliability of EuroSCORE in predicting early outcomes.

EuroSCORE algorithms were developed to predict perioperative mortality in cardiac surgery. This study was designed to evaluate the reliability of EuroSCORE algorithms and to analyze the predicting role of the scoring systems factors on patients that undergo isolate AVR. 339 patients underwent aortic valve replacement. Data collection was prospective and the logistic and additive EuroSCORE algorithms were calculated according to published guidelines. The observed-over-expected mortality ratio was 0.096. In the ROC curve analysis, the asymptotic significance was greater than 0.05. On multivariate analysis, only critical preoperative state remained significant independent predictor of in-hospital mortality (Odds Ratio 1.6, CI 1.2-2.1). These outcomes suggest that EuroSCORE models may fail in predicting hospital mortality in subsets of cardiac surgery patients and dedicated risk models for isolate aortic valvular surgery may be useful to provide more precise estimates of hospital mortality.

The Impact of EuroSCORE II Risk Factors on Prediction of Long-Term Mortality

BACKGROUND The European System for Cardiac Operation Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II has not been tested yet for predicting long-term mortality. This study was undertaken to evaluate the relationship between EuroSCORE II and long-term mortality and to develop a new algorithm based on EuroSCORE II factors to predict long-term survival after cardiac surgery. METHODS Complete data on 10,033 patients who underwent major cardiac surgery during a 7-year period were retrieved from three prospective institutional databases and linked with the Italian Tax Register Information System. Mortality at follow-up was analyzed with time-to-event analysis. RESULTS The Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival at 1 and 5 were, respectively, 95.0% ± 0.2% and 84.7% ± 0.4%. Both discrimination and calibration of EuroSCORE II decreased in the prediction of 1-year and 5-year mortality. Nonetheless, EuroSCORE II was confirmed to be an independent predictor of long-term mortality with a nonlinear trend. Several EuroSCORE II variables were independent risk factors for long-term mortality in a regression model, most of all very low ejection fraction (less than 20%), salvage operation, and dialysis. In the final model, isolated mitral valve surgery and isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery were associated with improved long-term survival. CONCLUSIONS The EuroSCORE II cannot be considered a direct estimator of long-term risk of death, as its performance fades for mortality at follow-up longer than 30 days. Nonetheless, it is nonlinearly associated with long-term mortality, and most of its variables are risk factors for long-term mortality. Hence, they can be used in a different algorithm to stratify the risk of long-term mortality after surgery.

An unusual complication of transapical aortic valve implantation: a left ventricular pseudoaneurysm infiltrating the thoracic wall

An 88-year-old man was admitted to our department for the evaluation of an asymptomatic pulsating haematoma of the left thoracic wall. He had undergone uneventful transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with transapical access 5 months earlier. At 3-month follow-up the echocardiography did

Hemoglobin Trends in Isolated Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Performed Off‐Pump and With Standard and Mini Circuits

The comparison of hemodilution at the end of surgery is of limited use as it represents only a snapshot of a dynamic phenomenon. This study was undertaken to compare the perioperative hemoglobin curves of isolated coronary artery bypass grafting performed with minimized extracorporeal circulation, traditional cardiopulmonary bypass, and off-pump technique. The propensity score method was used to select three groups of patients, homogenous regarding preoperative and operative data, who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting. A generalized linear mixed model was used for estimating differences in perioperative hemoglobin trends among groups. The three groups were each composed of 50 patients with no differences in demographic data, preoperative risk profile, preoperative hemoglobin, or type of surgery. There was no significant difference in major postoperative complications. The pattern of the hemodilution curves was similar in patients operated with mini-circuit and off-pump technique (P > 005). Mini-circuit led to a 3.1 ± 11.9% hemoglobin reduction, which was similar to the off-pump group (1.6 ± 8.9%, P = 0.99 at ANOVA) and significantly different from the standard extracorporeal circuit group (16.0 ± 10.3%, P < 0.001 at ANOVA). The generalized linear mixed model determined that the standard circuit was the only independent predictor for increased hemodilution. Its effect on hemodilution was time-dependent and the slope of the hemoglobin curve was more pronounced between systemic heparinization and the end of surgery. Perioperative hemoglobin trends of patients who underwent myocardial revascularization with mini-circuit were similar to those of off-pump surgery and significantly less pronounced than those of standard extracorporeal circulation.