Patrizia Presbitero

ESC Guidelines on the management of cardiovascular diseases during pregnancy: the Task Force on the Management of Cardiovascular Diseases during Pregnancy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)

Table 1. Classes of recommendation Table 2. Levels of evidence Table 3. Estimated fetal and maternal effective doses for various diagnostic and interventional radiology procedures Table 4. Predictors of maternal cardiovascular events and risk score from the CARPREG study Table 5. Predictors of maternal cardiovascular events identified in congential heart diseases in the ZAHARA and Khairy study Table 6. Modified WHO classification of maternal cardiovascular risk: principles Table 7. Modified WHO classification of maternal cardiovascular risk: application Table 8. Maternal predictors of neonatal events in women with heart disease Table 9. General recommendations Table 10. Recommendations for the management of congenital heart disease Table 11. Recommendations for the management of aortic disease Table 12. Recommendations for the management of valvular heart disease Table 13. Recommendations for the management of coronary artery disease Table 14. Recommendations for the management of cardiomyopathies and heart failure Table 15. Recommendations for the management of arrhythmias Table 16. Recommendations for the management of hypertension Table 17. Check list for risk factors for venous thrombo-embolism Table 18. Prevalence of congenital thrombophilia and the associated risk of venous thrombo-embolism during pregnancy Table 19. Risk groups according to risk factors: definition and preventive measures Table 20. Recommendations for the prevention and management of venous thrombo-embolism in pregnancy and puerperium Table 21. Recommendations for drug use ABPM : ambulatory blood pressure monitoring ACC : American College of Cardiology ACE : angiotensin-converting enzyme ACS : acute coronary syndrome AF : atrial fibrillation AHA : American Heart Association aPTT : activated partial thromboplastin time ARB : angiotensin receptor blocker AS : aortic stenosis ASD : atrial septal defect AV : atrioventricular AVSD : atrioventricular septal defect BMI : body mass index BNP : B-type natriuretic peptide BP : blood pressure CDC : Centers for Disease Control CHADS : congestive heart failure, hypertension, age (>75 years), diabetes, stroke CI : confidence interval CO : cardiac output CoA : coarction of the aorta CT : computed tomography CVD : cardiovascular disease DBP : diastolic blood pressure DCM : dilated cardiomyopathy DVT : deep venous thrombosis ECG : electrocardiogram EF : ejection fraction ESC : European Society of Cardiology ESH : European Society of Hypertension ESICM : European Society of Intensive Care Medicine FDA : Food and Drug Administration HCM : hypertrophic cardiomyopathy ICD : implantable cardioverter-defibrillator INR : international normalized ratio i.v. : intravenous LMWH : low molecular weight heparin LV : left ventricular LVEF : left ventricular ejection fraction LVOTO : left ventricular outflow tract obstruction MRI : magnetic resonance imaging MS : mitral stenosis NT-proBNP : N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide NYHA : New York Heart Association OAC : oral anticoagulant PAH : pulmonary arterial hypertension PAP : pulmonary artery pressure PCI : percutaneous coronary intervention PPCM : peripartum cardiomyopathy PS : pulmonary valve stenosis RV : right ventricular SBP : systolic blood pressure SVT : supraventricular tachycardia TGA : complete transposition of the great arteries TR : tricuspid regurgitation UFH : unfractionated heparin VSD : ventricular septal defect VT : ventricular tachycardia VTE : venous thrombo-embolism WHO : World Health Organization Guidelines summarize and evaluate all available evidence, at the time of the writing process, on a particular issue with the aim of assisting physicians in selecting the best management strategies for an individual patient, with a given condition, taking into account the impact on outcome, as well as the risk–benefit ratio of particular diagnostic or therapeutic means. Guidelines are no substitutes but are complements for textbooks and cover the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Core Curriculum topics. Guidelines and recommendations should help the …

Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial

BACKGROUND It is unclear whether radial compared with femoral access improves outcomes in unselected patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management. METHODS We did a randomised, multicentre, superiority trial comparing transradial against transfemoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who were about to undergo coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to radial or femoral access with a web-based system. The randomisation sequence was computer generated, blocked, and stratified by use of ticagrelor or prasugrel, type of acute coronary syndrome (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, troponin positive or negative, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome), and anticipated use of immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events, defined as major adverse cardiovascular events or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The analysis was by intention to treat. The two-sided α was prespecified at 0·025. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01433627. FINDINGS We randomly assigned 8404 patients with acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation, to radial (4197) or femoral (4207) access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. 369 (8·8%) patients with radial access had major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with 429 (10·3%) patients with femoral access (rate ratio [RR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·74-0·99; p=0·0307), non-significant at α of 0·025. 410 (9·8%) patients with radial access had net adverse clinical events compared with 486 (11·7%) patients with femoral access (0·83, 95% CI 0·73-0·96; p=0·0092). The difference was driven by BARC major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (1·6% vs 2·3%, RR 0·67, 95% CI 0·49-0·92; p=0·013) and all-cause mortality (1·6% vs 2·2%, RR 0·72, 95% CI 0·53-0·99; p=0·045). INTERPRETATION In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management, radial as compared with femoral access reduces net adverse clinical events, through a reduction in major bleeding and all-cause mortality. FUNDING The Medicines Company and Terumo.

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.

Pregnancy in cyanotic congenital heart disease. Outcome of mother and fetus.

In a series of 416 women with congenital heart disease seen in the Royal Brompton National Heart and Lung Hospital, London, and the Hospital Giovanni Bosco, Torino, Italy, there were 822 pregnancies. The outcomes of 96 pregnancies in 44 patients with cyanotic congenital heart disease were studied. Patients with the Eisenmenger reaction were excluded. Patients were divided arbitrarily into groups according to the type of maternal congenital cardiac anomaly, and factors influencing maternal and fetal outcome were evaluated. The incidence of maternal cardiovascular complications was high (32%), with one death from endocarditis 2 months after delivery. Forty-one (43%) of 96 pregnancies resulted in a live birth; 15 (37%) were premature. Mean weight of full-term infants was 2575 g. Univariate analysis suggested that maternal disease, Ability Index, hemoglobin, and arterial oxygen saturation before the pregnancy were factors that discriminated between successful and unsuccessful fetal outcome, with hemoglobin and arterial oxygen saturation being the most important predictors. Women with cyanotic congenital heart disease can go through pregnancy with a low risk to themselves, with frequent treatable complications, but there is a high incidence of miscarriage, premature births, and low birth weights. An incidence of congenital heart disease in the fetus of 4.9% (2 of 41 live births) is higher than that found in the normal population.

Bivalirudin or Unfractionated Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes

BACKGROUND Conflicting evidence exists on the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin administered as part of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with an acute coronary syndrome. METHODS We randomly assigned 7213 patients with an acute coronary syndrome for whom PCI was anticipated to receive either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin. Patients in the bivalirudin group were subsequently randomly assigned to receive or not to receive a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion. Primary outcomes for the comparison between bivalirudin and heparin were the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and net adverse clinical events (a composite of major bleeding or a major adverse cardiovascular event). The primary outcome for the comparison of a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion with no post-PCI infusion was a composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events. RESULTS The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with heparin (10.3% and 10.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.09; P=0.44), nor was the rate of net adverse clinical events (11.2% and 12.4%, respectively; relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.03; P=0.12). Post-PCI bivalirudin infusion, as compared with no infusion, did not significantly decrease the rate of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events (11.0% and 11.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.11; P=0.34). CONCLUSIONS In patients with an acute coronary syndrome, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and net adverse clinical events were not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with unfractionated heparin. The rate of the composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events was not significantly lower with a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion than with no post-PCI infusion. (Funded by the Medicines Company and Terumo Medical; MATRIX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01433627.).

Randomized evaluation of polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent in saphenous vein grafts: the Randomized Evaluation of polytetrafluoroethylene COVERed stent in Saphenous vein grafts (RECOVERS) Trial.

Background Treatment of lesions located in saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) is associated with increased procedural risk and a high rate of restenosis. Methods and Results We conducted a randomized, multicenter trial to evaluate the usefulness of a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)‐covered stent compared with a bare stainless steel (SS) stent for prevention of restenosis and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients undergoing SVG treatment. The primary end point was angiographic restenosis at 6 months. Secondary end points were 30‐day and 6‐month MACE rates, defined as the cumulative of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization. Between September 1999 and January 2002, 301 patients with SVG lesions were randomized to either the PTFE‐covered JoStent coronary stent graft (PTFE group, n=156) or the SS JoFlex stent (control group, n=145). Angiographic and procedural success rates were similar between the 2 groups (97.4% versus 97.9% and 87.3% versus 93.8%, respectively). The incidence of 30‐day MACE was higher in the PTFE group (10.9% versus 4.1%, P=0.047) and was mainly attributed to MI (10.3% versus 3.4%, P=0.037). The primary end point, the restenosis rate at 6‐month follow‐up, was similar between the 2 groups (24.2% versus 24.8%, P=0.237). Although the 6‐month non‐Q‐wave MI rate was higher in the PTFE group (12.8% versus 4.1%, P=0.013), the cumulative MACE rate was not different (23.1% versus 15.9%, P=0.153). Conclusions The study did not demonstrate a difference in restenosis rate and 6‐month clinical outcome between the PTFE‐covered stent and the SS stent for treatment of SVG lesions. However, a higher incidence of nonfatal myocardial infarctions was found in patients treated with the PTFE‐covered stent. (Circulation. 2003;108:37‐42.)

A Randomized Multicenter Study Comparing a Paclitaxel Drug-Eluting Balloon With a Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent in Small Coronary Vessels: The BELLO (Balloon Elution and Late Loss Optimization) Study

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) for the reduction of restenosis in small vessels. BACKGROUND DEB have been shown to be effective in the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis, but data are limited regarding their efficacy in de novo disease. METHODS BELLO (Balloon Elution and Late Loss Optimization) is a prospective, multicenter trial that randomized 182 patients with lesions located in small vessels (reference diameter <2.8 mm) to treatment with paclitaxel DEB and provisional bare-metal stenting (n = 90) or PES implantation (n = 92). The primary endpoint was noninferiority of angiographic in-stent (in-balloon) late loss with a delta of 0.25 mm. Secondary endpoints were angiographic restenosis, target lesion revascularization, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE; death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization) at 6 months. RESULTS Baseline characteristics were well matched, except for a smaller vessel size in the DEB group (2.15 ± 0.27 mm vs. 2.25 ± 0.24 mm; p = 0.003). The majority (89%) of lesions involved vessels with a diameter <2.5 mm. Bailout stenting was required in 20% of lesions in the DEB group. The primary endpoint of in-stent (in-balloon) late loss was significantly less with DEB compared with PES (0.08 ± 0.38 mm vs. 0.29 ± 0.44 mm; difference -0.21; 95% CI: -0.34 to -0.09; p(noninferiority) < 0.001; p(superiority) = 0.001). At 6 months, DEB and PES were associated with similar rates of angiographic restenosis (10% vs. 14.6%; p = 0.35), [corrected] target lesion revascularization (4.4% vs. 7.6%; p = 0.37), and MACE (10% vs. 16.3%; p = 0.21). [corrected]. CONCLUSIONS Treatment of small-vessel disease with a paclitaxel DEB was associated with less angiographic late loss and similar rates of restenosis and revascularization as a PES. (Balloon Elution and Late Loss Optimization [BELLO]; Study NCT01086579).

A prospective, randomized trial of intravascular-ultrasound guided compared to angiography guided stent implantation in complex coronary lesions: The AVIO trial

BACKGROUND No randomized studies have thus far evaluated intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance in the drug-eluting stent (DES) era. The aim was to evaluate if IVUS optimized DES implantation was superior to angiographic guidance alone in complex lesions. METHODS Randomized, multicentre, international, open label, investigator-driven study evaluating IVUS vs angiographically guided DES implantation in patients with complex lesions (defined as bifurcations, long lesions, chronic total occlusions or small vessels). Primary study endpoint was post-procedure in lesion minimal lumen diameter. Secondary end points were combined major adverse cardiac events (MACE), target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction (MI), and stent thrombosis at 1, 6, 9, 12, and 24 months. RESULTS The study included 284 patients. No significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics. The primary study end point showed a statistically significant difference in favor of the IVUS group (2.70 mm ± 0.46 mm vs. 2.51 ± 0.46 mm; P = .0002). During hospitalization, no patient died, had repeated revascularization, or a Q-wave MI. No difference was observed in the occurrence of non-Q wave MI (6.3% in IVUS vs. 7.0% in angio-guided group). At 24-months clinical follow-up, no differences were still observed in cumulative MACE (16.9%vs. 23.2 %), cardiac death (0%vs. 1.4%), MI (7.0%vs. 8.5%), target lesion revascularization (9.2% vs. 11.9%) or target vessel revascularization (9.8% vs. 15.5%), respectively in the IVUS vs. angio-guided groups. In total, only one definite subacute stent thrombosis occurred in the IVUS group. CONCLUSIONS A benefit of IVUS optimized DES implantation was observed in complex lesions in the post-procedure minimal lumen diameter. No statistically significant difference was found in MACE up to 24 months.

Effectiveness and Safety of Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in the Treatment of Restenosis After Coronary Stent Placement

Background—In-stent restenosis is notoriously difficult to treat by repeat catheter intervention because of its propensity for aggressive recurrent neointimal formation. This study sought to assess the effectiveness and safety of the sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of in-stent restenosis. Methods and Results—The study was designed as a prospective multicenter registry. We included 162 patients with in-stent restenosis of a native coronary artery who had a clinical indication for repeat intervention. Patients were scheduled for follow-up angiography at 6 months. The primary end point was in-lesion late loss. Follow-up angiography was performed in 155 patients. We obtained an in-lesion late loss of 0.08±0.49 mm and a binary restenosis rate of 9.7% (15/155), which prompted reintervention in 7.4% (12/162) at 9 months. The 9-month rate of death was 1.2% (2/162) and that of nonfatal myocardial infarction was 1.2% (2/162). Conclusions—Sirolimus-eluting stents were highly efficacious and safe in the treatment of in-stent restenosis. Our study provides rationale for the use of sirolimus-eluting stents in the treatment of in-stent restenosis.

Mid-term prognostic value of coronary artery disease in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a meta-analysis of adjusted observational results.

AIMS Coronary artery disease (CAD) negatively affects prognosis in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement, being currently evaluated in the most common used risk score. Our meta-analysis aims to clarify the prognostic role of CAD on mid-term survival in patients undergoing TAVI. METHODS AND RESULTS Studies reporting multivariate predictors of adverse outcomes in patients undergoing TAVI were systematically searched for and pooled, when appropriate, using a random-effect method. 960 citations were first screened and finally 7 studies (2472 patients) were included. Diagnosis of CAD was reported in 52%(42-65) of patients and 1169 Edwards SAPIEN and 1303 CoreValve prostheses were implanted. After a median follow up of 452 days (357-585) 24% of patients (19-33) died, and 23 (14-32) for cardiovascular death. At pooled analysis of multivariate approach, diagnosis of coronary artery disease did not increase risk of death (OR 1.0, 95% CI, confidence interval, 0.67-1.50 I(2) 0%). CONCLUSION CAD does not affect mid-term TAVI outcome: this finding should be weighted to accurately evaluate risk and strategies for patients with severe aortic stenosis.