Francisca Saraiva

Epicardial adipose tissue volume assessed by computed tomography and coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the crude and adjusted associations between epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) volume determined by computed tomography (CT) and coronary artery disease (CAD). MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were screened for all observational studies assessing the association between EAT volume and CAD. We calculated pooled odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association per 10u2009cm3 variation of EAT by five different definitions of CAD: obstructive or significant coronary stenosis (luminal narrowing ≥50% and ≥70%, respectively), presence of coronary artery calcification (CAC), myocardial ischaemia, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models. Seventy studies were identified comprising 41xa0534 subjects, mainly derived from community-based or hospital-based low-to-intermediate pretest probability of CAD populations. Participants with any outcome of CAD had a higher mean volume of EAT than those without. Accordingly, the analysis of crude associations showed that EAT volume was associated with obstructive stenosis, significant stenosis, any CAC, and MACE. Based on the analysis of adjusted associations, although attenuated, EAT volume remained associated with obstructive stenosis (OR 1.055, 95% CI 1.033-1.078; I2u2009=u200963.5%), significant stenosis (OR 1.514, 95% CI 1.262-1.815; I2u2009=u200951.8%), myocardial ischaemia (OR 1.062, 95% CI 1.006-1.122; I2u2009=u200986.9%), and MACE (HR 1.040, 95% CI 1.024-1.056; I2u2009=u200964.7%) but was only borderline significant with CAC (OR 1.007, 95% CI 1.000-1.011; I2u2009=u200975.8%). In low-to-intermediate cardiovascular risk subjects, EAT volume was independently associated with coronary artery stenosis, myocardial ischaemia, and MACE.

Freedom Solo® versus Trifecta® bioprostheses: clinical and haemodynamic evaluation after propensity score matching†

OBJECTIVESnThe goal of this study was to compare the stentless Freedom Solo® (FS) and the stented Trifecta® (TF) aortic bioprostheses with regard to haemodynamic profile, left ventricular mass regression and early and late postoperative outcomes and survival.nnnMETHODSnA longitudinal cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (2009-16) with either the FS or TF at 1 centre was performed. Local databases and national records were queried. Prosthesis haemodynamics and left ventricular dimensions were obtained from postoperative echocardiograms. After propensity score matching (21 covariates), the Kaplan-Meier and competing risk analyses were performed for survival and the combined outcome of structural valve deterioration and endocarditis, respectively. Haemodynamics and mass regression were assessed by a mixed-effects model including propensity score as a covariate.nnnRESULTSnFrom a total sample of 397 patients with the FS and 525 TF bioprostheses with a median follow-up time of 4.0 (2.2-6.0) and 2.4 (1.4-3.7) years, respectively, a matched sample of 329 pairs was obtained. Matched groups showed no differences in survival (hazard ratiou2009=u20091.04, 95% confidence intervalu2009=u20090.69-1.56) or cumulative hazards of combined outcome (subdistribution hazard ratiou2009=u20090.54, 95% confidence intervalu2009=u20090.21-1.39). Although the TF showed an improved haemodynamic profile, no difference was found in mass regression. Patients with TF bioprostheses had higher rates of prolonged mechanical ventilation, whereas patients with the FS bioprosthesis showed higher rates of thrombocytopenia.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThe TF showed an improved haemodynamic profile compared to the FS, but this did not translate into further reverse remodelling. Postoperative outcomes and survival rates were comparable for both bioprostheses. Long-term follow-up is needed for comparisons with classical bioprosthesis models.

Hemodynamic and clinical performance of Solo stentless bioprosthetic aortic valves

OBJECTIVEnTo report the hemodynamic profile and short- and medium-term outcomes of Freedom Solo and Solo Smart stentless aortic valves implanted at our center.nnnMETHODSnBetween 2009 and 2015, all patients undergoing aortic valve replacement using Solo stentless valves at our center were enrolled. Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up was carried out six months postoperatively. Survival and major events, including structural valve deterioration and non-structural valve dysfunction, endocarditis, reoperation and stroke, were assessed through medical records or telephone interview with the referring cardiologist up to November 2015 (mean and maximum follow-up 39±22 and 78 months, respectively).nnnRESULTSnPatients (n=345) mean age was 72±8 years, 52% were female and median euroSCORE II was 2.7 (1.5-4.7). There was no intraoperative mortality and in-hospital mortality was 2.6%. Postoperatively, mean transvalvular gradient was 11.9±4.5 mmHg and effective orifice area was 1.9±0.5 cm2. Patient-prosthesis mismatch occurred in 14% but was severe in only one patient. Cumulative survival at six years was 72%. Six patients were reoperated: three due to endocarditis, two for structural prosthesis deterioration and one because of periprosthetic fistula. Five patients suffered stroke, three had medically-treated endocarditis and one had structural valve deterioration but was not considered suitable for reoperation. None of the remainder had structural valve deterioration or non-structural valve dysfunction.nnnCONCLUSIONSnSolo stentless aortic valves are safe to implant, with promising clinical outcomes in short- and medium-term assessment. Moreover, they show an excellent hemodynamic performance: low transvalvular gradients, large effective orifice areas and low incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch.

Early and mid-term haemodynamic performance and clinical outcomes of St. Jude Medical Trifecta™ valve

BackgroundnNew models of aortic bioprostheses have proven excellent early haemodynamic profile, but their mid and long-term performance warrants further systematic assessment. The aim of this study is to report clinical and haemodynamic performance of St. Jude Medical Trifecta bioprosthesis during 5 years of implantation.nnnMethodsnWe performed a single centre, retrospective, observational and descriptive study including all 556 individuals who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with the Trifecta bioprosthesis (between July of 2011 and June of 2016). Survival and re-intervention were censored in February 2017. Postoperative ambulatory echocardiographic data was available for 490 patients. A complete clinical follow-up was available in 463 individuals (mean follow-up time, 27±17 months).nnnResultsnIn our sample the mean age was 73±9 years, 57.6% were male and median European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II was 2.9 (interquartile range, 1.6-5.8). There were 301 (54.1%) combined procedures, mostly coronary artery bypass grafting in 170 (30.6%). Overall 30-days mortality was 5.4% (n=30) and cumulative survival at 5-years was 72.3%. There were 23 (4.3%) permanent pacemaker implantations. During follow-up, 5 (0.9%) patients presented non-structural valve dysfunction (NSVD) and 4 (0.8%) underwent reoperation due to prosthesis endocarditis. At the first ambulatory evaluation transvalvular mean gradient and effective orifice area (EOA) were 10.9±4.1 mmHg and 2.0±0.5 cm2, respectively. Severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) was observed in 5 (1.1%) individuals and moderate in 52 (11.3%).nnnConclusionsnIn a real-world clinical setting, our findings support the good overall mid-term haemodynamic and safety profile of the Trifecta bioprosthesis.

Survival after bilateral internal mammary artery in coronary artery bypass grafting: Are women at risk?

BACKGROUNDnMost observational studies support long-term survival benefit after bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) compared with single internal mammary artery (SIMA) coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) but data on females is scarce. We compared survival and safety of BIMA versus SIMA CABG between males and females at our tertiary care center.nnnMETHODSnSingle-center retrospective cohort including consecutive patients with at least 2 left-coronary system (LCS) vessel disease who underwent isolated CABG with at least 1 IMA conduit and a minimum of 2 conduits targeting the LCS in 2004-2013. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome, secondary outcomes were early mortality and reoperation due to sternal wound complications (SWC). Kaplan-Meier analysis after inverse probability weighting using propensity score (IPW) was used to compare BIMA and SIMA CABG amongst genders. Results were confirmed in subgroup analysis.nnnRESULTSnBIMA CABG was performed in 39% out of 2424 eligible procedures and in 27% of 460 females. No differences were found in survival after BIMA and SIMA CABG (median and maximum follow-up of 5.5 and 12u202fyears, respectively) but a statistical interaction was observed with gender (Pu202f<u202f0.001). Females who underwent BIMA CABG showed higher mortality (weighted HR in females subset: 3.16; 95% CI: 1.56-6.29, Pu202f=u202f0.001). BIMA CABG showed a higher incidence of reoperation due to SWC (IPW adjusted model OR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.16-2.60) that was mostly ascribable to males (weighted OR in males: 3.10; 95% CI: 1.74-5.51, Pu202f<u202f0.001).nnnCONCLUSIONSnFemales may experience higher mortality after BIMA CABG which should be further explored.