Luca Testa

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Failed Bioprosthetic Surgical Valves

IMPORTANCE Owing to a considerable shift toward bioprosthesis implantation rather than mechanical valves, it is expected that patients will increasingly present with degenerated bioprostheses in the next few years. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation is a less invasive approach for patients with structural valve deterioration; however, a comprehensive evaluation of survival after the procedure has not yet been performed. OBJECTIVE To determine the survival of patients after transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation inside failed surgical bioprosthetic valves. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Correlates for survival were evaluated using a multinational valve-in-valve registry that included 459 patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves undergoing valve-in-valve implantation between 2007 and May 2013 in 55 centers (mean age, 77.6 [SD, 9.8] years; 56% men; median Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality prediction score, 9.8% [interquartile range, 7.7%-16%]). Surgical valves were classified as small (≤21 mm; 29.7%), intermediate (>21 and <25 mm; 39.3%), and large (≥25 mm; 31%). Implanted devices included both balloon- and self-expandable valves. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Survival, stroke, and New York Heart Association functional class. RESULTS Modes of bioprosthesis failure were stenosis (n = 181 [39.4%]), regurgitation (n = 139 [30.3%]), and combined (n = 139 [30.3%]). The stenosis group had a higher percentage of small valves (37% vs 20.9% and 26.6% in the regurgitation and combined groups, respectively; P = .005). Within 1 month following valve-in-valve implantation, 35 (7.6%) patients died, 8 (1.7%) had major stroke, and 313 (92.6%) of surviving patients had good functional status (New York Heart Association class I/II). The overall 1-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 83.2% (95% CI, 80.8%-84.7%; 62 death events; 228 survivors). Patients in the stenosis group had worse 1-year survival (76.6%; 95% CI, 68.9%-83.1%; 34 deaths; 86 survivors) in comparison with the regurgitation group (91.2%; 95% CI, 85.7%-96.7%; 10 deaths; 76 survivors) and the combined group (83.9%; 95% CI, 76.8%-91%; 18 deaths; 66 survivors) (P = .01). Similarly, patients with small valves had worse 1-year survival (74.8% [95% CI, 66.2%-83.4%]; 27 deaths; 57 survivors) vs with intermediate-sized valves (81.8%; 95% CI, 75.3%-88.3%; 26 deaths; 92 survivors) and with large valves (93.3%; 95% CI, 85.7%-96.7%; 7 deaths; 73 survivors) (P = .001). Factors associated with mortality within 1 year included having small surgical bioprosthesis (≤21 mm; hazard ratio, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.14-3.67; P = .02) and baseline stenosis (vs regurgitation; hazard ratio, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.33-7.08; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this registry of patients who underwent transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves, overall 1-year survival was 83.2%. Survival was lower among patients with small bioprostheses and those with predominant surgical valve stenosis.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Degenerative Bioprosthetic Surgical Valves: Results from the Global Valve-in-Valve Registry

Background— Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation is an emerging therapeutic alternative for patients with a failed surgical bioprosthesis and may obviate the need for reoperation. We evaluated the clinical results of this technique using a large, worldwide registry. Methods and Results— The Global Valve-in-Valve Registry included 202 patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves (aged 77.7±10.4 years; 52.5% men) from 38 cardiac centers. Bioprosthesis mode of failure was stenosis (n=85; 42%), regurgitation (n=68; 34%), or combined stenosis and regurgitation (n=49; 24%). Implanted devices included CoreValve (n=124) and Edwards SAPIEN (n=78). Procedural success was achieved in 93.1% of cases. Adverse procedural outcomes included initial device malposition in 15.3% of cases and ostial coronary obstruction in 3.5%. After the procedure, valve maximum/mean gradients were 28.4±14.1/15.9±8.6 mm Hg, and 95% of patients had ≤+1 degree of aortic regurgitation. At 30-day follow-up, all-cause mortality was 8.4%, and 84.1% of patients were at New York Heart Association functional class I/II. One-year follow-up was obtained in 87 patients, with 85.8% survival of treated patients. Conclusions— The valve-in-valve procedure is clinically effective in the vast majority of patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves. Safety and efficacy concerns include device malposition, ostial coronary obstruction, and high gradients after the procedure. # Clinical Perspective {#article-title-38}Background— Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation is an emerging therapeutic alternative for patients with a failed surgical bioprosthesis and may obviate the need for reoperation. We evaluated the clinical results of this technique using a large, worldwide registry. Methods and Results— The Global Valve-in-Valve Registry included 202 patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves (aged 77.7±10.4 years; 52.5% men) from 38 cardiac centers. Bioprosthesis mode of failure was stenosis (n=85; 42%), regurgitation (n=68; 34%), or combined stenosis and regurgitation (n=49; 24%). Implanted devices included CoreValve (n=124) and Edwards SAPIEN (n=78). Procedural success was achieved in 93.1% of cases. Adverse procedural outcomes included initial device malposition in 15.3% of cases and ostial coronary obstruction in 3.5%. After the procedure, valve maximum/mean gradients were 28.4±14.1/15.9±8.6 mm Hg, and 95% of patients had ⩽+1 degree of aortic regurgitation. At 30-day follow-up, all-cause mortality was 8.4%, and 84.1% of patients were at New York Heart Association functional class I/II. One-year follow-up was obtained in 87 patients, with 85.8% survival of treated patients. Conclusions— The valve-in-valve procedure is clinically effective in the vast majority of patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves. Safety and efficacy concerns include device malposition, ostial coronary obstruction, and high gradients after the procedure.

A collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis on 1278 patients undergoing percutaneous drug-eluting stenting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease ☆

BACKGROUND Cardiac surgery is the standard treatment for unprotected left main disease (ULM). Drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation has been recently reported in patients with ULM but with unclear results. We systematically reviewed outcomes of percutaneous DES implantation in ULM. METHODS Several databases were searched for clinical studies reporting on > or = 20 patients and > or = 6-month follow-up. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs; ie, death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization [TVR]) at the longest follow-up. Incidence and adjusted risk estimates were pooled with generic inverse variance random-effect methods (95% CIs). RESULTS From 823 initial citations, 16 studies were included (1278 patients, median follow-up 10 months). Eight were uncontrolled registries, 5 nonrandomized comparisons between DES and bare-metal stents and 3 nonrandomized comparisons between DES and CABG, with no properly randomized trial. Meta-analysis for DES-based PCI showed, at the longest follow-up, rates of 16.5% (11.7%-21.3%) MACE, 5.5% (3.4%-7.7%) death, and 6.5% (3.7%-9.2%) TVR. Comparison of DES versus bare-metal stent disclosed adjusted odds ratios for MACE of 0.34 (0.16-0.71), and DES versus CABG showed adjusted odds ratios for MACE plus stroke of 0.46 (0.24-0.90). Meta-regression showed that disease location predicted MACE (P = .001) and TVR (P = .020), whereas high-risk features predicted death (P = .027). CONCLUSIONS Clinical studies report apparently favorable early and midterm results in selected patients with ULM. However, given their limitations in validity and the inherent risk for DES thrombosis, results from randomized trials are still needed to definitely establish the role of DES implantation instead of the reference treatment, surgery.

Myocardial infarction after percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of troponin elevation applying the new universal definition

AIM Elevation of Troponin after scheduled percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a recognized consequence. We sought to evaluate the prognostic significance and impact of the newly published definition of PCI-related myocardial infarction (MI) according to which any troponin elevation >3 times the upper reference limit identify a peri-procedural MI. METHODS Search of BioMedCentral, CENTRAL, mRCT and PubMed (updated May 2008). Outcomes of interest were: MACE [the composite of all cause death, MI, repeat target vessel PCI (re-PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)]; single end points were also assessed. RESULTS Fifteen studies have been included totalling 7578 patients. Troponin elevation occurred in 28.7% of the procedures. The incidence of PCI-related MI according to the new definition was 14.5%. During the hospitalization, any level of raised troponin was associated with an increased risk of MACE [OR 11.29 (3.00-42.48), Number needed to harm (NNH) 5], death [OR 7.16 (1.95-26.27), NNH = 100], MI [OR 30.85 (6.05-157.38), NNH = 4] and re-PCI [OR 4.13 (1.23-13.88), NNH = 50]. Patients with PCI-related MI had an increased risk of death [OR 17.25 (2.71-109.96), NNH = 100] and re-PCI [OR 10.86 (3.2-36.94), NNH = 25]. At follow up of 18 months any troponin elevation was associated with an increased risk of MACE [OR 1.48 (1.12-1.96), NNH = 20], death [OR 2.19 (1.59-3.00), NNH = 50], MI [OR 3.29 (2.71-6.31), NNH = 33] and re-PCI [OR 1.47 (1.06-2.03), NNH = 25]. In patients with PCI-related MI the risk of MACE was further increased: OR 2.25 (1.26-4.00), NNH = 3. An increase of the troponin level below the cut-off was not associated with MACE. CONCLUSION A diagnosis of MI according to the new guidelines applies to 15% of patients undergoing PCI and these patients are at high risk of further adverse events both during the hospital stay and at 18 months.

Adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis of prasugrel versus ticagrelor for patients with acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND Clopidogrel is beneficial after ACS. Recent data suggest the superiority of prasugrel or ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel. However, there is no comparison of prasugrel vs. ticagrelor. We performed an adjusted indirect meta-analysis comparing prasugrel vs. ticagrelor for acute coronary syndromes (ACSs). METHODS Randomized trials were searched in PubMed. The primary end-point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke. Odds ratios (OR) were computed (95% confidence intervals). RESULTS Three trial (32,893) patients were included. Overall, either prasugrel or ticagrelor appeared significantly superior to clopidogrel for the 12-month risk of death, MI or stroke (OR=0.83 [0.77-0.89], p<0.001), death (OR=0.83 [0.74-0.93], p=0.001), MI (OR=0.79 [0.73-0.86], p<0.001), and stent thrombosis (OR=0.61 [0.51-0.74], p<0.001), without any significant difference in stroke or major bleeding (both p>0.05), despite more frequent drug discontinuation (OR=1.12 [1.05-1.19], p<0.001). Head-to-head comparison of prasugrel vs. ticagrelor showed no significant differences in overall death, MI, stroke, or their composite (all p>0.05). Prasugrel was associated with a significantly lower risk of stent thrombosis (OR=0.64 [0.43-0.93], p=0.020). Ticagrelor was associated with a significantly lower risk of any major bleeding (OR=1.43 [1.10-1.85], p=0.007), and major bleeding associated with bypass grafting (OR=4.30 [1.73-10.6], p=0.002). However, the more clinically relevant risk of major bleeding not related to bypass surgery was similar with either prasugrel or ticagrelor (OR=1.06 [0.77-1.45], p=0.34). CONCLUSIONS Prasugrel and ticagrelor are superior to clopidogrel for ACS. Head-to-head comparison suggests similar efficacy and safety of prasugrel and ticagrelor, but prasugrel appears more protective from stent thrombosis, while causing more bleedings.

The Syntax score predicts peri-procedural myocardial necrosis during percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND Peri-procedural myocardial injury (PPI) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is common and associated with a poor outcome. No reliable angiographic or clinical predictors of PPI exist. We evaluated the ability of the SYNTAX score (SXscore), Gensini score, American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) classifications to predict PPI. METHODS Consecutive patients were included from two existing databases of PCI. Patients with coronary bypass grafts or instent restenosis were excluded. PPI was defined as troponin I elevation (>1.0 microg/L) at 6-24 h post-PCI. Delayed enhancement magnetic resonance imaging distinguished PPI territory in patients undergoing multi-vessel PCI. Quantitative coronary angiography was performed blinded to PPI. In total, 100 patients underwent PCI to 122 vessels. PPI occurred in 20/100 (20.0%) patients. RESULTS Mean patient SXscore was higher in patients with PPI (20.6 vs. 12.4, p = 0.0001), however Gensini score was not significantly different (34.2 vs. 27.3, p = 0.15). Mean vessel SXscore was higher in vessels associated with PPI (12.1 vs. 7.6, p = 0.002), but not different for vessel Gensini score (16.2 vs. 13.6, p = 0.42). No vessels with AHA type A or B1 lesions were associated with PPI. Higher AHA scores (B2 and C) were associated with PPI (chi2 for trend 11.6, p = 0.0007). SCAI scores were not predictive of PPI (chi2 for trend 3.6, p = 0.06). By ROC analysis, a patient SXscore of > or = 17 predicted PPI with a sensitivity of 75.0% and specificity of 70.0%. CONCLUSION Higher SXscores are predictive of myocardial injury, whilst AHA type A and B1 lesions have a high negative predictive value for PPI.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials appraising the impact of cilostazol after percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND Drug-eluting stents reduce the risk of restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) but may pose a risk of thrombosis. Cilostazol, an oral antiplatelet agent with pleiotropic effects including inhibition of neointimal hyperplasia, could hold the promise of preventing both restenosis and thrombosis. We systematically reviewed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the angiographic and clinical impact of cilostazol after PCI. METHODS We searched RCT in BioMedCentral, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, EMBASE, and PubMed (November 2007). Coprimary end points were binary angiographic restenosis and repeat revascularization, abstracted and pooled by means of random-effect relative risks (RRs). Small study/publication bias was appraised with multiple methods. RESULTS A total of 23 RCTs were included (5428 patients), with median follow-up of 6 months. Pooled analysis showed that cilostazol was associated with statistically significant reductions in binary angiographic restenosis (RR = 0.60 [0.49-0.73], P < .001) and repeat revascularization (RR = 0.69 [0.55-0.86], P = .001). Cilostazol appeared also safe, with no significant increase in the risk of stent thrombosis (RR = 1.35 [0.71-2.57], P = .36) or bleeding (RR = 0.71 [0.43-1.16], P = .17). However, small study bias was evident for both binary restenosis (P < .001) and repeat revascularization (P < .001), suggesting that at least part of the apparent benefits of cilostazol could be due to this type of confounding effect. CONCLUSIONS Cilostazol appears effective and safe in reducing the risk of restenosis and repeat revascularization after PCI, but available evidence is limited by small study effects. Awaiting larger RCTs, this inexpensive treatment can be envisaged in selected patients in which drug-eluting stents are contraindicated or when there is a need for neointimal hyperplasia inhibition.

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.

Pexelizumab in ischemic heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis on 15,196 patients

OBJECT Pexelizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody inhibiting C5 complement. It has been postulated to improve outcomes in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery and urgent reperfusion therapy for ST elevation myocardial infarction. We aimed at evaluating the risk/benefit profile of pexelizumab (bolus + infusion) versus placebo on top of current approaches in the management of patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction or undergoing coronary artery bypass. METHODS We conducted a search of BioMedCentral, CENTRAL, mRCT, and PubMed without language restrictions (updated October 2007) for randomized controlled trials. Outcomes of interest were the risk of major adverse events (the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and thromboembolic stroke), the risk of single end points, and heart failure. RESULTS Seven trials were included (15,196 patients: 7019 patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction and 8177 undergoing coronary bypass surgery). No benefit of adding pexelizumab was found in the overall analysis for major adverse events (OR 0.91 [0.76-1.09]; P = .29], death (OR 0.79 [0.61-1.03], P = .11], myocardial infarction (OR 1.04 [0.89-1.22]; P = .14), stroke (OR 0.95 [0.66-1.38]; P = .8), heart failure (OR1.0 [0.82-1.22]; P = .99), nor in the settings of patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction treated with mechanical or pharmacologic reperfusion therapy. Pexelizumab was associated with a 26% reduction of the risk of death in the setting of coronary artery bypass (OR 0.74 [0.58-0.94]; P = .01). The number needed to treat was 100. CONCLUSION Our data ruled out the hypothesis of any benefit of adding pexelizumab on top of currently available therapies for ST elevation myocardial infarction. However, pexelizumab reduces the risk of death in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.

Safety of a conservative strategy of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic CoreValve implantation

BACKGROUND Conduction abnormalities are frequent after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the CoreValve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) and are often treated with liberal permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. Our aim was to assess the 1-year outcome of a conservative approach to pacing and to identify its predictors. METHODS We analyzed 275 consecutive patients without a PPM before transcatheter aortic valve implantation who underwent successful CoreValve implantation at our 3 centers, sharing a conservative approach to pacing. RESULTS Of the 47 patients (17.1%) who developed postprocedural complete atrioventricular block, 14 recovered spontaneous atrioventricular conduction <72 hours and did not receive a PPM. Sixty-six patients (24.0%) received a PPM before discharge, and 74 more patients (26.9%) developed a new left bundle-branch block (LBBB). Independent predictors of PPM implantation were as follows: lower CoreValve implantation below the aortic annulus (odds ratio [OR] 1.16/mm, 95% CI 1.03-1.30, P = .01), right bundle-branch block (OR 3.72, 95% CI 1.5-9.2, P = .004), left anterior hemiblock (OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.1-5.1, P = .03), and longer PR interval (OR 1.02/ms, 95% CI 1.00-1.04, P = .03). One-year survival was similar between patients who received a PPM and patients who did not receive a PPM (P = .90), with no case of sudden death in the latter group, and between patients with a new LBBB not receiving a PPM and patients without postprocedural LBBB (P = .37). CONCLUSION A high CoreValve implantation level and avoidance of prophylactic pacing in patients with new LBBB without persistent bradyarrhythmias allowed for a relatively low rate of PPM implantation. This conservative approach spared unwarranted pacing and did not affect 1-year survival.