Thomas Pilgrim

Predictors of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Undergoing TAVR

BACKGROUND Atrioventricular (AV) conduction disturbances requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation may complicate transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Available evidence on predictors of PPM is sparse and derived from small studies. OBJECTIVES The objective of this study was to provide summary effect estimates for clinically useful predictors of PPM implantation after TAVR. METHODS We performed a systematic search for studies that reported the incidence of PPM implantation after TAVR and that provided raw data for the predictors of interest. Data on study, patient, and procedural characteristics were abstracted. Crude risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals for each predictor were calculated by use of random effects models. Stratified analyses by type of implanted valve were performed. RESULTS We obtained data from 41 studies that included 11,210 TAVR patients, of whom 17% required PPM implantation after intervention. The rate of PPM ranged from 2% to 51% in individual studies (with a median of 28% for the Medtronic CoreValve Revalving System [MCRS] and 6% for the Edwards SAPIEN valve [ESV]). The summary estimates indicated increased risk of PPM after TAVR for men (RR: 1.23; p < 0.01); for patients with first-degree AV block (RR: 1.52; p < 0.01), left anterior hemiblock (RR: 1.62; p < 0.01), or right bundle branch block (RR: 2.89; p < 0.01) at baseline; and for patients with intraprocedural AV block (RR: 3.49; p < 0.01). These variables remained significant predictors when only patients treated with the MCRS bioprosthesis were considered. The data for ESV were limited. Unadjusted estimates indicated a 2.5-fold higher risk for PPM implantation for patients who received the MCRS than for those who received the ESV. CONCLUSIONS Male sex, baseline conduction disturbances, and intraprocedural AV block emerged as predictors of PPM implantation after TAVR. This study provides useful tools to identify high-risk patients and to guide clinical decision making before and after intervention.

Impact of permanent pacemaker implantation on clinical outcome among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

OBJECTIVES This study sought to assess the impact of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation on clinical outcomes among patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). BACKGROUND TAVI is associated with atrioventricular-conduction abnormalities requiring PPM implantation in up to 40% among patients treated with self-expanding prostheses. METHODS Between 2007 and 2010, 353 consecutive patients (mean age: 82.6 ± 6.1 years, log EuroSCORE: 25.0 ± 15.0%) with severe aortic stenosis underwent transfemoral TAVI at 2 institutions. Clinical outcomes were compared among 3 groups: (1) patients requiring PPM implantation after TAVI (PPM after TAVI), (2) patients without PPM before or after TAVI (no PPM), and (3) patients with PPM before TAVI (PPM before TAVI). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 12 months, and an age-, sex-, and origin-matched standardized population served as controls. RESULTS Of 353 patients, 98 patients (27.8%) belonged to the PPM after TAVI group, 48 patients (13.6%) belonged to the PPM before TAVI group, and 207 patients (58.6%) belonged to the no PPM group. The PPM before TAVI patients had a significantly higher baseline risk compared with the PPM after TAVI and no PPM patients (coronary artery disease: 77.1% vs. 52.7% and 58.2%, respectively, p = 0.009; atrial fibrillation: 43.8% vs. 22.7% and 20.4%, respectively, p = 0.005). At 12 months of follow-up, all-cause mortality was similar in all 3 groups (PPM after TAVI group: 19.4%, PPM before TAVI group: 22.9%, no PPM group: 18.0%) in unadjusted analyses (p = 0.77) and adjusted analyses (p = 0.90). Compared with the standardized population, adjusted hazard ratios for death were 2.37 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.51 to 3.72) for the PPM after TAVI group, 2.75 (95% CI: 1.52 to 4.97) for the PPM before TAVI group, and 2.24 (95% CI: 1.62 to 3.09) for the no PPM group. CONCLUSIONS Although prognosis remains impaired compared with an age-, sex-, and origin-matched standardized population, periprocedural PPM implantation does not seem to affect clinical outcomes adversely among patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI.

Incidence and Predictors of Atrioventricular Conduction Impairment After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Atrioventricular (AV) conduction impairment is well described after surgical aortic valve replacement, but little is known in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We assessed AV conduction and need for a permanent pacemaker in patients undergoing TAVI with the Medtronic CoreValve Revalving System (MCRS) or the Edwards Sapien Valve (ESV). Sixty-seven patients without pre-existing permanent pacemaker were included in the study. Forty-one patients (61%) and 26 patients (39%) underwent successful TAVI with the MCRS and ESV, respectively. Complete AV block occurred in 15 patients (22%), second-degree AV block in 4 (6%), and new left bundle branch block in 15 (22%), respectively. A permanent pacemaker was implanted in 23 patients (34%). Overall PR interval and QRS width increased significantly after the procedure (p <0.001 for the 2 comparisons). Implantation of the MCRS compared to the ESV resulted in a trend toward a higher rate of new left bundle branch block and complete AV block (29% vs 12%, p = 0.09 for the 2 comparisons). During follow-up, complete AV block resolved in 64% of patients. In multivariable regression analysis pre-existing right bundle branch block was the only independent predictor of complete AV block after TAVI (relative risk 7.3, 95% confidence interval 2.4 to 22.2). In conclusion, TAVI is associated with impairment of AV conduction in a considerable portion of patients, patients with pre-existing right bundle branch block are at increased risk of complete AV block, and complete AV block resolves over time in most patients.

Clinical outcome and predictors for adverse events after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the use of different devices and access routes.

BACKGROUND Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a treatment option for high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. Previous reports focused on a single device or access site, whereas little is known of the combined use of different devices and access sites as selected by the heart team. The purpose of this study is to investigate clinical outcomes of TAVI using different devices and access sites. METHODS A consecutive cohort of 200 patients underwent TAVI with the Medtronic CoreValve Revalving system (Medtronic Core Valve LLC, Irvine, CA; n = 130) or the Edwards SAPIEN valve (Edwards Lifesciences LLC, Irvine, CA; n = 70) implanted by either the transfemoral or transapical access route. RESULTS Device success and procedure success were 99% and 95%, respectively, without differences between devices and access site. All-cause mortality was 7.5% at 30 days, with no differences between valve types or access sites. Using multivariable analysis, low body mass index (<20 kg/m(2)) (odds ratio [OR] 6.6, 95% CI 1.5-29.5) and previous stroke (OR 4.4, 95% CI 1.2-16.8) were independent risk factors for short-term mortality. The VARC-defined combined safety end point occurred in 18% of patients and was driven by major access site complications (8.0%), life-threatening bleeding (8.5%) or severe renal failure (4.5%). Transapical access emerged as independent predictor of adverse outcome for the Valve Academic Research Consortium-combined safety end point (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.5-7.1). CONCLUSION A heart team-based selection of devices and access site among patients undergoing TAVI resulted in high device and procedural success. Low body mass index and history of previous stroke were independent predictors of mortality. Transapical access emerged as a risk factor for the Valve Academic Research Consortium-combined safety end point.

Clinical outcomes of patients with estimated low or intermediate surgical risk undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

AIMS Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an established treatment alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk and inoperable patients and outcomes among patients with estimated low or intermediate risk remain to be determined. The aim of this study was to assess clinical outcomes among patients with estimated low or intermediate surgical risk undergoing TAVI. METHODS AND RESULTS Between August 2007 and October 2011, 389 consecutive patients underwent TAVI and were categorized according to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score into low (STS < 3%; n = 41, 10.5%), intermediate (STS ≥3% and ≤8%, n = 254, 65.3%), and high-risk (STS > 8%; n = 94, 24.2%) groups for the purpose of this study. Significant differences were found between the groups (low risk vs. intermediate risk vs. high risk) for age (78.2 ± 6.7 vs. 82.7 ± 5.7 vs. 83.7 ± 4.9, P < 0.001), body mass index (28.1 ± 6.1 vs. 26.5 ± 4.9 vs. 24.4 ± 4.6, P < 0.001), chronic renal failure (34 vs. 67 vs. 90%, P < 0.001), all-cause mortality at 30 days (2.4 vs. 3.9 vs. 14.9%, P = 0.001), and all-cause mortality at 1 year (10.1 vs. 16.1 vs. 34.5%, P = 0.0003). No differences were observed with regards to cerebrovascular accidents and myocardial infarction during 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSION In contemporary practice, TAVI is not limited to inoperable or STS-defined high-risk patients and should be guided by the decision of an interdisciplinary Heart Team. Compared with patients at calculated high risk, well-selected patients with STS-defined intermediate or low risk appear to have favourable clinical outcomes.

Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable stent vs. durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results of the randomized ABSORB ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-TROFI II trial.

Abstract Aims Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) feature thrombus-rich lesions with large necrotic core, which are usually associated with delayed arterial healing and impaired stent-related outcomes. The use of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (Absorb) has the potential to overcome these limitations owing to restoration of native vessel lumen and physiology at long term. The purpose of this randomized trial was to compare the arterial healing response at short term, as a surrogate for safety and efficacy, between the Absorb and the metallic everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in patients with STEMI. Methods and results ABSORB-STEMI TROFI II was a multicentre, single-blind, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial. Patients with STEMI who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly allocated 1:1 to treatment with the Absorb or EES. The primary endpoint was the 6-month optical frequency domain imaging healing score (HS) based on the presence of uncovered and/or malapposed stent struts and intraluminal filling defects. Main secondary endpoint included the device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) according to the Academic Research Consortium definition. Between 06 January 2014 and 21 September 2014, 191 patients (Absorb [n = 95] or EES [n = 96]; mean age 58.6 years old; 17.8% females) were enrolled at eight centres. At 6 months, HS was lower in the Absorb arm when compared with EES arm [1.74 (2.39) vs. 2.80 (4.44); difference (90% CI) −1.06 (−1.96, −0.16); Pnon-inferiority <0.001]. Device-oriented composite endpoint was also comparably low between groups (1.1% Absorb vs. 0% EES). One case of definite subacute stent thrombosis occurred in the Absorb arm (1.1% vs. 0% EES; P = ns). Conclusion Stenting of culprit lesions with Absorb in the setting of STEMI resulted in a nearly complete arterial healing which was comparable with that of metallic EES at 6 months. These findings provide the basis for further exploration in clinically oriented outcome trials.

Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis at Increased Surgical Risk According to Treatment Modality

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to assess the role of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared with medical treatment (MT) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at increased surgical risk. BACKGROUND Elderly patients with comorbidities are at considerable risk for SAVR. METHODS Since July 2007, 442 patients with severe AS (age: 81.7 ± 6.0 years, mean logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation: 22.3 ± 14.6%) underwent treatment allocation to MT (n = 78), SAVR (n = 107), or TAVI (n = 257) on the basis of a comprehensive evaluation protocol as part of a prospective registry. RESULTS Baseline clinical characteristics were similar among patients allocated to MT and TAVI, whereas patients allocated to SAVR were younger (p < 0.001) and had a lower predicted peri-operative risk (p < 0.001). Unadjusted rates of all-cause mortality at 30 months were lower for SAVR (22.4%) and TAVI (22.6%) compared with MT (61.5%, p < 0.001). Adjusted hazard ratios for death were 0.51 (95% confidence interval: 0.30 to 0.87) for SAVR compared with MT and 0.38 (95% confidence interval: 0.25 to 0.58) for TAVI compared with MT. Medical treatment (<0.001), older age (>80 years, p = 0.01), peripheral vascular disease (<0.001), and atrial fibrillation (p = 0.04) were significantly associated with all-cause mortality at 30 months in the multivariate analysis. At 1 year, more patients undergoing SAVR (92.3%) or TAVI (93.2%) had New York Heart Association functional class I/II as compared with patients with MT (70.8%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with severe AS with increased surgical risk, SAVR and TAVI improve survival and symptoms compared with MT. Clinical outcomes of TAVI and SAVR seem similar among carefully selected patients with severe symptomatic AS at increased risk.

Impact of coronary artery disease and percutaneous coronary intervention on outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

AIMS Coronary artery disease (CAD) is frequently present in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). While revascularisation affects peri-operative outcome in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement, the impact of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients undergoing TAVI is not well established. METHODS AND RESULTS Consecutive patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI were prospectively included into the Bern TAVI registry. In patients with CAD, myocardium at risk was assessed using the DUKE myocardial jeopardy score. Revascularisation was performed by means of PCI either staged or concomitant at the time of TAVI. Among 256 patients undergoing TAVI, 167 patients had CAD and 59 patients underwent either staged (n=23) or concomitant (n=36) PCI. Clinical outcome at 30 days was similar for patients undergoing isolated TAVI as compared with TAVI combined with PCI in terms of death (5.6% versus 10.2%, p=0.24), major stroke (4.1% versus 3.4%, p=1.00), and the VARC combined safety endpoint (31.0% versus 23.7%, p=0.33). A stratified analysis of outcomes according to presence of CAD or revascularisation showed no difference during long-term follow-up (log rank p=0.16). CONCLUSIONS CAD is frequent among patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI. Among carefully selected patients, revascularisation by means of PCI can be safely performed in addition to TAVI either as a staged or a concomitant intervention.

Comparison of drug-eluting stents with bare metal stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

AIMS To evaluate safety and effectiveness of early generation drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and to determine whether benefits and risks vary over time. METHODS AND RESULTS We performed a meta-analysis of 15 randomized controlled trials enrolling a total of 7867 patients comparing first-generation FDA-approved DES with BMS in patients with STEMI. Random effect models were used to assess differences in outcomes between DES and BMS among different time periods with regard to the pre-specified primary outcomes stent thrombosis (ST) and target vessel revascularization (TVR). The overall risk of definite ST was similar for DES and BMS [risk ratio (RR) = 1.08, 95% CI 0.82-1.43]. However, there were time-dependent effects, with a RR of 0.80 during the first year (95% CI 0.58-1.12) and 2.10 during subsequent years (95% CI 1.20-3.69), with a positive test for interaction between RR of ST and time (P for interaction = 0.009). Results were similar for definite or probable ST (P for interaction = 0.015). In the overall analysis, TVR was performed less frequently in patients with DES when compared with BMS (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.43-0.61), with a greater benefit in the first year (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.38-0.55) when compared with subsequent years (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59-0.94; P for interaction = 0.007). CONCLUSION An early benefit of early generation DES in primary PCI for STEMI with a reduction in TVR and a trend towards less definite ST is offset in subsequent years by an increased risk of very late ST.

Derivation and validation of the predicting bleeding complications in patients undergoing stent implantation and subsequent dual antiplatelet therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) score: a pooled analysis of individual-patient datasets from clinical trials

BACKGROUND Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor prevents ischaemic events after coronary stenting, but increases bleeding. Guidelines support weighting bleeding risk before the selection of treatment duration, but no standardised tool exists for this purpose. METHODS A total of 14 963 patients treated with DAPT after coronary stenting-largely consisting of aspirin and clopidogrel and without indication to oral anticoagulation-were pooled at a single-patient level from eight multicentre randomised clinical trials with independent adjudication of events. Using Cox proportional hazards regression, we identified predictors of out-of-hospital Thrombosis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major or minor bleeding stratified by trial, and developed a numerical bleeding risk score. The predictive performance of the novel score was assessed in the derivation cohort and validated in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention from the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial (n=8595) and BernPCI registry (n=6172). The novel score was assessed within patients randomised to different DAPT durations (n=10 081) to identify the effect on bleeding and ischaemia of a long (12-24 months) or short (3-6 months) treatment in relation to baseline bleeding risk. FINDINGS The PRECISE-DAPT score (age, creatinine clearance, haemoglobin, white-blood-cell count, and previous spontaneous bleeding) showed a c-index for out-of-hospital TIMI major or minor bleeding of 0·73 (95% CI 0·61-0·85) in the derivation cohort, and 0·70 (0·65-0·74) in the PLATO trial validation cohort and 0·66 (0·61-0·71) in the BernPCI registry validation cohort. A longer DAPT duration significantly increased bleeding in patients at high risk (score ≥25), but not in those with lower risk profiles (pinteraction=0·007), and exerted a significant ischaemic benefit only in this latter group. INTERPRETATION The PRECISE-DAPT score is a simple five-item risk score, which provides a standardised tool for the prediction of out-of-hospital bleeding during DAPT. In the context of a comprehensive clinical evaluation process, this tool can support clinical decision making for treatment duration. FUNDING None.