Stefano Rosato

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis: Results from an intermediate risk propensity-matched population of the Italian OBSERVANT study

BACKGROUND Few studies have yielded information on comparative effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) procedures in a real-world setting. The aim of this analysis is to describe procedural and post-procedural outcomes in a TAVI/SAVR intermediate risk propensity-matched population. METHODS OBSERVANT is an observational prospective multicenter cohort study, enrolling AS patients undergoing SAVR or TAVI. Propensity score method was applied to analyze procedural and post-procedural outcomes. Pairs of patients with the same probability score were matched (caliper matching). RESULTS The unadjusted enrolled population (N=2108) comprises 1383 SAVR patients, 602 transarterial-TAVI patients and 123 transapical-TAVI patients. Matched population comprised a total of 266 patients (133 patients for each group). A relatively low risk population was selected (mean logistic EuroSCORE 9.4 ± 10.4% vs 8.9 ± 9.5%, SAVR vs TAVI; p=0.650). Thirty-day mortality was 3.8% for both SAVR and TAVI (p=1.000). The incidence of stroke (1.5% SAVR and 0.0% TAVI; p=0.156) and myocardial infarction (0.8% SAVR and 0.8% TAVI; p=1.000) was not statistically different between groups, whereas a higher requirement for blood transfusion was reported across the surgical cohort (49.6% vs 36.1%; p=0.026). A higher incidence of major vascular damage (5.3% vs. 0.0%; p=0.007) and pacemaker implantation(0.8% vs 12.0%; p=0.001) were reported in the TAVI group. CONCLUSIONS Patients undergoing transcatheter and surgical treatment of severe aortic stenosis are still extremely distinct populations. In the relatively low-risk propensity-matched population analyzed, despite similar procedural and 30-day mortality, SAVR was associated with a higher risk for blood transfusion, whereas TAVI showed a significantly increased rate of vascular damage, permanent AV block and residual aortic valve regurgitation.

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.

Prostate Cancer Gene 3 and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Can Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies: Decision Curve Analysis to Evaluate Predictive Models

OBJECTIVE To overcome the well-known prostate-specific antigen limits, several new biomarkers have been proposed. Since its introduction in clinical practice, the urinary prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) assay has shown promising results for prostate cancer (PC) detection. Furthermore, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mMRI) has the ability to better describe several aspects of PC. METHODS A prospective study of 171 patients with negative prostate biopsy findings and a persistent high prostate-specific antigen level was conducted to assess the role of mMRI and PCA3 in identifying PC. All patients underwent the PCA3 test and mMRI before a second transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. The accuracy and reliability of PCA3 (3 different cutoff points) and mMRI were evaluated. Four multivariate logistic regression models were analyzed, in terms of discrimination and the cost benefit, to assess the clinical role of PCA3 and mMRI in predicting the biopsy outcome. A decision curve analysis was also plotted. RESULTS Repeated transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy identified 68 new cases (41.7%) of PC. The sensitivity and specificity of the PCA3 test and mMRI was 68% and 49% and 74% and 90%, respectively. Evaluating the regression models, the best discrimination (area under the curve 0.808) was obtained using the full model (base clinical model plus mMRI and PCA3). The decision curve analysis, to evaluate the cost/benefit ratio, showed good performance in predicting PC with the model that included mMRI and PCA3. CONCLUSION mMRI increased the accuracy and sensitivity of the PCA3 test, and the use of the full model significantly improved the cost/benefit ratio, avoiding unnecessary biopsies.

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.

Safety of Preoperative Use of Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin Compared With Aspirin Alone in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Importance The optimal timing of discontinuation of ticagrelor before cardiac surgery is controversial. Objective To evaluate the safety of preoperative use of ticagrelor with or without aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) compared with aspirin alone. Design, Setting, and Participants This prospective, multicenter clinical trial was performed at 15 European centers of cardiac surgery. Participants were patients with ACS undergoing isolated CABG from the European Multicenter Study on Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (E-CABG) registry between January and September 2015. Exposures Before surgery, patients received ticagrelor with or without aspirin or aspirin alone. Main Outcomes and Measures Severe bleeding as defined by the Universal Definition of Perioperative Bleeding (UDPB) and E-CABG bleeding classification criteria. A propensity score-matched analysis was performed to adjust for differences in baseline and operative covariates. Results Of 2482 patients from the E-CABG registry, the study cohort included 786 (31.7%) consecutive patients with ACS (mean [SD] age, 67.1 [9.3] years; range, 32-88 years), and 132 (16.8%) were female. One-to-one propensity score matching provided 215 pairs, whose baseline and operative covariates had a standardized difference of less than 10%. Preoperative use of ticagrelor was associated with a similar risk of bleeding according to the UDPB and E-CABG bleeding classifications, but the incidence of platelet transfusion was higher in the ticagrelor group (13.5% [29 of 215] vs 6.0% [13 of 215]). Compared with those receiving aspirin alone, continuing ticagrelor up to the time of surgery or discontinuing its use less than 2 days before surgery was associated with a higher risk of platelet transfusion (22.7% [5 of 22] vs 6.4% [12 of 187]) and E-CABG bleeding grades 2 and 3 (18.2% [4 of 22] vs 5.9% [11 of 187]) and tended to have an increased risk of UDPB grades 3 and 4 (22.7% [5 of 22] vs 9.6% [18 of 187]). Among patients in whom antiplatelet drug use was discontinued at least 2 days before surgery, the incidence of platelet transfusion was 12.4% (24 of 193) in the ticagrelor group and 3.6% (1 of 28) in the aspirin-alone group. Conclusions and Relevance In propensity score-matched analyses among patients with ACS undergoing CABG, the use of preoperative ticagrelor with or without aspirin compared with aspirin alone was associated with more platelet transfusion but similar degree of bleeding; in patients receiving ticagrelor 1 day before or up until surgery, there was an increased rate of severe bleeding.

Incidence of DAA failure and the clinical impact of retreatment in real-life patients treated in the advanced stage of liver disease: Interim evaluations from the PITER network

Background Few data are available on the virological and clinical outcomes of advanced liver disease patients retreated after first-line DAA failure. Aim To evaluate DAA failure incidence and the retreatment clinical impact in patients treated in the advanced liver disease stage. Methods Data on HCV genotype, liver disease severity, and first and second line DAA regimens were prospectively collected in consecutive patients who reached the 12-week post-treatment and retreatment evaluations from January 2015 to December 2016 in 23 of the PITER network centers. Results Among 3,830 patients with advanced fibrosis (F3) or cirrhosis, 139 (3.6%) failed to achieve SVR. Genotype 3, bilirubin levels >1.5mg/dl, platelet count <120,000/mm3 and the sofosbuvir+ribavirin regimen were independent predictors of failure by logistic regression analysis. The failure rate was 7.6% for patients treated with regimens that are no longer recommended or considered suboptimal (sofosbuvir+ribavirin or simeprevir+sofosbuvir±ribavirin), whereas 1.4% for regimens containing sofosbuvir combined with daclatasvir or ledipasvir or other DAAs. Of the patients who failed to achieve SVR, 72 (51.8%) were retreated with a second DAA regimen, specifically 38 (52.7%) with sofosbuvir+daclatasvir, 27 (37.5%) with sofosbuvir+ledipasvir, and 7 (9.7%) with other DAAs ±ribavirin. Among these, 69 (96%) patients achieved SVR12 and 3 (4%) failed. During a median time of 6 months (range: 5–14 months) between failure and the second DAA therapy, the Child-Pugh class worsened in 12 (16.7%) patients: from A to B in 10 patients (19.6%) and from B to C in 2 patients (10.5%), whereas it did not change in the remaining 60 patients. Following the retreatment SVR12 (median time of 6 months; range: 3–12 months), the Child-Pugh class improved in 17 (23.6%) patients: from B to A in 14 (19.4%) patients, from C to A in 1 patient (1.4%) and from C to B in 2 (2.9%) patients; it remained unchanged in 53 patients (73.6%) and worsened in 2 (2.8%) patients. Of patients who were retreated, 3 (4%) had undergone OLT before retreatment (all reached SVR12 following retreatment) and 2 (2.8%) underwent OLT after having achieved retreatment SVR12. Two (70%) of the 3 patients who failed to achieve SVR12 after retreatment, and 2 (2.8%) of the 69 patients who achieved retreatment SVR12 died from liver failure (Child-Pugh class deteriorated from B to C) or HCC complications. Conclusions Failure rate following the first DAA regimen in patients with advanced disease is similar to or lower than that reported in clinical trials, although the majority of patients were treated with suboptimal regimens. Interim findings showed that worsening of liver function after failure, in terms of Child Pugh class deterioration, was improved by successful retreatment in about one third of retreated patients within a short follow-up period; however, in some advanced liver disease patients, clinical outcomes (Child Pugh class, HCC development, liver failure and death) were independent of viral eradication.