Impact of Coronary Artery Revascularization Completeness on Outcomes of Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Prognostic impact of coronary artery disease in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

The prognostic impact of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains unclear. We assessed the impact of CAD on TAVR procedural safety and long-term adverse outcomes by stratifying patients according to CAD burden.

METHODS

This single-centre, retrospective study stratified patients into low-, intermediate- and high-burden according to angiographic severity and location. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) and major adverse coronary events (MACE).

RESULTS

Of 1803 consecutive patients, low-, intermediate- and high-coronary burden was identified in 1281 (71 %), 382 (21 %) and 140 (8 %) patients, respectively. There were no differences in procedural outcomes or in-hospital mortality between groups. At a median follow-up of 4.8 (3.7-6.1) years, the incidence of all-cause mortality was 49 % vs 54 % vs 62 %, respectively. After adjusting for age and comorbidities, high-burden CAD was associated with all-cause mortality (HR: 1.35, 95 % CI 1.07-1.70, P = 0.011), CV-mortality (HR: 1.54, 95 % CI 1.07-2.17, P = 0.02) and MACE (adjusted HR 1.63, 95 % CI 1.23-2.15, P = 0.001), but not HHF (HR: 1.43, 95 % CI: 0.96-2.13, P = 0.082). Both intermediate- (HR 2.87, CI 1.83-4.50, P < 0.001) and high-burden groups (HR 2.69, 95 % CI 1.38-5.25, P = 0.004) were associated with MI.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing CAD burden does not impact TAVR procedural safety and therefore revascularization should not be a pre-requisite before TAVR. High CAD burden is associated with long-term adverse events. This group would benefit from future studies addressing CAD management in TAVR patients.

Aortic Stenosis and Coronary Artery Disease: Decision-Making Between Surgical and Transcatheter Management

Aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD) frequently coexist and share pathophysiological mechanisms. The proportion of patients with AS and CAD requiring revascularization varies widely because of uncertainty about best clinical practices. Although combined surgical aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting has been the standard of care, management options in patients with AS and CAD requiring revascularization have expanded with the advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Potential alternative treatment pathways include revascularization before TAVR, concomitant TAVR and percutaneous coronary intervention, percutaneous coronary intervention after TAVR and deferred percutaneous coronary intervention or hybrid procedures. Selection depends on underlying disease severity, antithrombotic treatment strategies, clinical presentation, and symptom evolution after TAVR. In patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement, the addition of coronary artery bypass grafting has been associated with improved long-term mortality, especially if CAD is complex. although it is associated with higher periprocedural risk. The therapeutic impact of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with TAVR is less well-established. The multitude of clinical permutations and remaining uncertainties do not support a uniform treatment strategy for patients with AS and CAD. Therefore, to provide the best possible care for each individual patient, heart teams need to be familiar with the available data on AS and CAD. Herein, we provide an in-depth review of the evidence supporting the decision-making process between transcatheter and surgical approaches and the key elements of treatment selection in patients with AS and CAD.

Coronary Artery Disease and Severe Aortic Stenosis: Contemporary Treatment Options for Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Approximately 50% of individuals eligible for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have coronary artery disease (CAD). The influence of CAD, both its prevalence and severity, on post-TAVI clinical results has yielded conflicting findings. Recent research has shown positive results for the use of computed tomography angiography and functional percutaneous evaluation of coronary lesions in the pre-TAVI assessment, besides the classic coronary angiography. As we anticipate the outcomes of current randomized studies, it has become common practice to perform invasive revascularization on TAVI patients with obstructive CAD. Furthermore, there is a lack of comprehensive data about the occurrence, features, and treatment of coronary incidents after TAVI. There is also growing concern about the possible difficulties in accessing the coronary arteries in patients who need coronary angiography with or without intervention after TAVI. This review presents a comprehensive analysis of the contemporary treatment options of CAD in patients undergoing TAVI. In this context, it examines the incidence of CAD in TAVI candidates; its clinical significance; the assessment and management of CAD before, concomitant, and after the procedure, including patients' unresolved concerns; and possible future aspects.

A randomized comparison of the treatment sequence of percutaneous coronary intervention and transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Rationale and design of the TAVI PCI trial

BACKGROUND

About half of patients with severe aortic stenosis present with concomitant coronary artery disease. The optimal timing of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with severe aortic stenosis and concomitant coronary artery disease remains unknown.

STUDY DESIGN

The TAVI PCI trial is a prospective, international, multicenter, randomized, 2-arm, open-label study planning to enroll a total of 986 patients. It is designed to investigate whether the strategy "angiography-guided complete revascularization after (within 1-45 days) TAVI" is noninferior to the strategy "angiography-guided complete revascularization before (within 1-45 days) TAVI" using the Edwards SAPIEN 3 or 3 Ultra Transcatheter Heart Valve in patients with severe aortic stenosis and concomitant coronary artery disease. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to one of the 2 treatment strategies. The primary end point is a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, rehospitalization (valve- or procedure-related including heart failure), or life-threatening/disabling or major bleeding at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

The TAVI PCI trial tests the hypothesis that the strategy "PCI after TAVI" is noninferior to the strategy "PCI before TAVI" in patients with severe aortic stenosis and concomitant coronary artery disease.

Aortic Stenosis With Coronary Artery Disease: SAVR or TAVR-When and How?

The growing number of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has increased the interest in the concomitant presence of coronary artery disease (CAD) and severe aortic stenosis (AS), prompting the need to define the appropriate revascularization strategy for each case. The reported prevalence of concurrent AS and CAD has varied over the years on the basis of the CAD definition and the population evaluated. Revascularization for treating CAD in patients with severe AS involves additional interventions that could impact outcomes. The addition of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has demonstrated favourable effects on long-term prognosis, while the impact of adding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to TAVR may depend on the CAD complexity and the feasibility of achieving complete or reasonably incomplete revascularization. Furthermore, the comparison between SAVR+CABG and TAVR+PCI in low-intermediate surgical risk and low-intermediate complex CAD patients did not reveal differences in all-cause mortality or stroke between the groups. However, there is some evidence showing a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events with the SAVR+CABG strategy for patients with complex CAD. Thus, SAVR+CABG seems to be the best option for patients with low-intermediate surgical risk and complex CAD, and TAVR+PCI for high surgical risk patients seeking complete and/or reasonable incomplete revascularization. After deciding between TAVR+PCI or SAVR+CABG, factors such as timing for PCI, low ejection fraction, coronary reaccess, and valve durability must be considered. Finally, alternative methods for assessing CAD severity are currently under evaluation to ascertain their real value for guiding revascularization in patients with severe AS with CAD.

Impact of Chronic Coronary Artery Disease and Revascularization Strategy in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis Who Underwent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

The prognostic impact of coronary artery disease (CAD) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is controversial. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of CAD and different revascularization strategies on clinical outcomes in patients who underwent TAVI with third generation devices. Patients enrolled in the national observational Observational Study of Effectiveness of SAVR-TAVI Procedures for Severe Aortic Stenosis Treatment II study were stratified according to the presence of CAD (CAD+, n = 1,130) versus no CAD (CAD-, n = 1,505), and compared using a propensity matched analysis. CAD+ group was further stratified according to the revascularization strategy: no revascularization (n = 331), revascularization performed >90 days before index-TAVI (n = 417) and coronary revascularization performed <90 days before index-TAVI or during TAVI (n = 382). In-hospital, 30-day and 1-year clinical outcomes were estimated. The mean age of the overall population was 81.8 years; 54.9% of patients were female. Propensity score matching yielded 813 pairs and their 30-day all-cause mortality was comparable (p = 0.480). Major periprocedural adverse events were also similar between the groups. At 1-year follow-up, the rate of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) and all-cause mortality were similar between the groups (p = 0.732 and p = 0.633, respectively). Conversely, patients with CAD experienced more often myocardial infarction and need for percutaneous coronary intervention at 1 year (p = 0.007 and p = 0.001, respectively). Neither CAD nor revascularization strategy were independent predictors of 1-year MACCE. About 40% of patients presenting with severe AS and who underwent TAVI had concomitant CAD. The presence of CAD had no impact on all-cause mortality and MACCE 1-year after TAVR. However, CAD carries a higher risk for acute myocardial infarction and need of percutaneous coronary intervention during follow-up.

Efficacy and risks of drug-coated balloon treatment for coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis

Introduction

Coronary artery disease (CAD) often leads to myocardial ischemia and impaired cardiac function, significantly impacting the well-being and quality of life (QOL) of individuals. The use of drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment has become a widespread approach in CAD management. However, currently, there is limited evidence available for the meta-analysis of DCB treatment in CAD.

Materials and methods

A systematic search was conducted across databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and VIP Database, covering data from the inception of each database up to April 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding DCB treatment were meticulously chosen based on independent assessment of eligibility and scope by three researchers. Literature screening and data extraction were independently performed by two researchers, while methodological quality of the enrolled studies was assessed using the risk of bias (ROB) tool developed by the Cochrane Collaboration. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3.

Results

Following the screening process, seven studies were included. Four studies demonstrated an odds ratio (OR) of 0.66 for target lesion revascularization (TLR), five reported an OR of 0.41 for postoperative myocardial infarction (MI), four indicated a mean difference (MD) of 6.03 in the degree of stenosis (DOS), five exhibited an MD of 0.13 for late lumen loss (LLL), five reported an OR of 0.33 for cardiac death, and two presented an OR of 1.01 for binary restenosis (BR).

Conclusion

DCB demonstrated a comparable efficacy to drug-eluting stents (DES) in treating CAD, with relatively lower associated risks.

Clinical impact of the extent of jeopardized myocardium in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve intervention

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is found in 30%-50% of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing treatment. The best management of CAD in AS patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is still unclear. We investigated the clinical impact of the extent of jeopardized myocardium in patients with concomitant CAD and severe AS treated by TAVI.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent TAVI procedures at our hospital were identified. In the presence of CAD, the myocardium jeopardized before TAVI was graded using the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) jeopardy score (JS). The study population was divided in 3 groups: patients without concomitant CAD (no-CAD), patients with CAD and BCIS-JS ≤ 4 (CAD BCIS-JS ≤ 4) and patients with concomitant CAD and BCIS-JS> 4 (CAD BCIS-JS> 4). The primary study endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE).

RESULTS

A total of 403 patients entered the study: 223 no-CAD, 94 CAD BCIS-JS ≤ 4 and 86 CAD BCIS-JS> 4. At> 3 months of follow-up [range 104-3296 days], patients without CAD and CAD patients with BCIS-JS ≤ 4 had better survival free from MACCE compared with those with less extensive revascularization (BCIS-JS> 4) (P=.049). This result was driven by a significant reduction in death (P=.031). On multivariate analysis, residual BCIS-JS ≤ 4 and NYHA class III-IV independently predicted MACCE.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with concomitant CAD and severe AS, the extent of jeopardized myocardium before TAVI impacts on clinical outcomes.

Management of coronary artery disease in patients with aortic stenosis

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular heart disorder in the elderly population. As a result of the shared pathophysiological processes, AS frequently coexists with coronary artery disease (CAD). These patients have traditionally been managed through surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and coronary artery bypass grafting. However, increasing body of evidence supports transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) as an alternative treatment for severe AS across the spectrum of operative risk. This has created the potential for treating AS and concurrent CAD completely percutaneously. In this review we consider the evidence guiding the optimal management of patients with severe AS and CAD. While invasive coronary angiography plays a central role in detecting CAD in patients with AS undergoing surgery or TAVI, the benefits of complementary functional assessment of coronary stenosis in the context of AS have not been fully established. Although the indications for revascularisation of significant proximal CAD in SAVR patients have not recently changed, routine revascularisation of all significant CAD before TAVI in patients with minimal angina is not supported by the latest evidence. Several ongoing trials will provide new insights into physiology-guided revascularisation in TAVI recipients. The role of the heart team remains essential in this complex patient group, and if revascularisation is being considered careful evaluation of clinical, anatomical and procedural factors is essential for individualised decision-making.

In-hospital outcomes following percutaneous versus surgical intervention in the treatment of aortic stenosis and concomitant coronary artery disease

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) is prevalent among aortic stenosis patients; however the optimal therapeutic strategy remains debated. We investigated periprocedural outcomes among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with percutaneous coronary intervention (TAVI/PCI) vs surgical aortic valve replacement with coronary artery bypass grafting (SAVR/CABG) for aortic stenosis with CAD.

METHODS

Using discharge data from the Spanish National Health System, we identified 6194 patients (5217 SAVR/CABG and 977 TAVI/PCI) between 2016 and 2019. Propensity score matching was adjusted for baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital complications and 30-day cardiovascular readmission.

RESULTS

Matching resulted in 774 pairs. In-hospital all-cause mortality was more common in the SAVR/CABG group (3.4% vs 9.4%, P <.001) as was periprocedural stroke (0.9% vs 2.2%; P=.004), acute kidney injury (4.3% vs 16.0%, P <.001), blood transfusion (9.6% vs 21.1%, P <.001), and hospital-acquired pneumonia (0.1% vs 1.7%, P=.001). Permanent pacemaker implantation was higher for matched TAVI/PCI (12.0% vs 5.7%, P <.001). Lower volume centers (< 130 procedures/y) had higher in-hospital all-cause mortality for both procedures: TAVI/PCI (3.6% vs 2.9%, P <.001) and SAVR/CABG (8.3 vs 6.8%, P <.001). Thirty-day cardiovascular readmission did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large contemporary nationwide study, percutaneous management of aortic stenosis and CAD with TAVI/PCI had lower in-hospital mortality and morbidity than surgical intervention. Higher volume centers had less in-hospital mortality in both groups. Dedicated national high-volume heart centers warrant further investigation.

Management of Myocardial Revascularization in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

BACKGROUND

The best management of stable coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is still unclear due to the marked inconsistency of the available evidence.

METHODS

The REVASC-TAVI registry (Management of Myocardial Revascularization in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Coronary Artery Disease) collected data from 30 centers worldwide on patients undergoing TAVI who had significant, stable CAD at preprocedural work-up. For the purposes of this analysis, patients with either complete or incomplete myocardial revascularization were compared in a propensity score matched analysis, to take into account of baseline confounders. The primary and co-primary outcomes were all-cause death and the composite of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and rehospitalization for heart failure, respectively, at 2 years.

RESULTS

Among 2407 patients enrolled, 675 pairs of patients achieving complete or incomplete myocardial revascularization were matched. The primary (21.6% versus 18.2%, hazard ratio' 0.88 [95% CI, 0.66-1.18]; P=0.38) and co-primary composite (29.0% versus 27.1%, hazard ratio' 0.97 [95% CI, 0.76-1.24]; P=0.83) outcome did not differ between patients achieving complete or incomplete myocardial revascularization, respectively. These results were consistent across different prespecified subgroups of patients (< or >75 years of age, Society of Thoracic Surgeons score > or <4%, angina at baseline, diabetes, left ventricular ejection fraction > or <40%, New York Heart Association class I/II or III/IV, renal failure, proximal CAD, multivessel CAD, and left main/proximal anterior descending artery CAD; all P values for interaction >0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

The present analysis of the REVASC-TAVI registry showed that, among TAVI patients with significant stable CAD found during the TAVI work-up, completeness of myocardial revascularization achieved either staged or concomitantly with TAVI was similar to a strategy of incomplete revascularization in reducing the risk of all cause death, as well as the risk of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and rehospitalization for heart failure at 2 years, regardless of the clinical and anatomical situations.

Impact of extent of coronary artery disease and percutaneous revascularization assessed by the SYNTAX score on outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to analyze the impact of concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) assessed by the SYNTAX score (SS) and periprocedural percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

BACKGROUND

Due to controversial data regarding the effect of CAD on outcomes after TAVR, proper revascularization strategies remain a matter of debate.

METHODS

553 patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR were included in this study. SS was calculated for each patient at baseline and after PCI. Primary outcome was one-year all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

60.2% of patients (N = 333) exhibited CAD with a mean SS of 10.8 ± 8.8. Of those, 120 patients (36.0%) received periprocedural PCI. In the treatment group, mean SS was decreased from 14.9 ± 9.1 to 6.3 ± 6.7. Patients with concomitant CAD suffered more frequently from myocardial infarction (MI) post TAVR compared to those without CAD (2.1% vs. 0.0%; P < 0.01). In the CAD cohort, MI rates were comparable between patients with and without PCI (2.2% vs. 2.5%; P = 0.71). Regarding SS, patients with a residual SS < 8 showed significant lower rates of one-year mortality (9.0% vs. 18.2%; P = 0.016) and MACCE (16.5% vs. 32.2%; P = 0.001). Besides left bundle brunch, predictors for an increased one-year mortality were a residual SS ≥ 8 in the CAD group (OR = 3.17; P = 0.011) and a EuroSCORE ≥ 4% in the entire study population (OR = 2.18; P = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that a residual SS-guided revascularization strategy may improve prognosis after TAVR in patients with concomitant CAD. PCI aiming for a residual SS < 8 was associated with improved one-year clinical outcomes.

Diagnostic Work-Up of the Aortic Patient: An Integrated Approach toward the Best Therapeutic Option

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular heart disease. In the last decade, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the standard of care for symptomatic patients at high surgical risk. Recently, indications to TAVI have also been extended to the low surgical risk and intermediate surgical risk populations. Consequently, in this setting, some aspects acquire greater relevance: surgical risk evaluation, clinical assessment, multimodality imaging of the valve, and management of coronary artery disease. Moreover, future issues such as coronary artery re-access and valve-in-valve interventions should be considered in the valve selection process. This review aims to summarize the principal aspects of a multidimensional (multidisciplinary) and comprehensive preprocedural work-up. The Heart Team is at the center of the decision-making process of the management of aortic valve disease and bears responsibility for offering each patient a tailored approach based on an individual evaluation of technical aspects together with the risks and benefits of each modality. Considering the progressive expansion in TAVI indication and technological progress, the role of a work-up and multidisciplinary Heart Team will be even more relevant.

Coronary Revascularization in Patients Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis

Aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD) frequently coexist, with up to two thirds of patients with AS having significant CAD. Given the challenges when both disease states are present, these patients require a tailored approach diagnostically and therapeutically. In this review the authors address the impact of AS and aortic valve replacement (AVR) on coronary hemodynamic status and discuss the assessment of CAD and the role of revascularization in patients with concomitant AS and CAD. Remodeling in AS increases the susceptibility of myocardial ischemia, which can be compounded by concomitant CAD. AVR can improve coronary hemodynamic status and reduce ischemia. Assessment of the significance of coexisting CAD can be done using noninvasive and invasive metrics. Revascularization in patients undergoing AVR can benefit certain patients in whom CAD is either prognostically or symptomatically important. Identifying this cohort of patients is challenging and as yet incomplete. Patients with dual pathology present a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge; both AS and CAD affect coronary hemodynamic status, they provoke similar symptoms, and their respective treatments can have an impact on both diseases. Decisions regarding coronary revascularization should be based on understanding this complex relationship, using appropriate coronary assessment and consensus within a multidisciplinary team.

Revascularization in the Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Population

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a standard treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis. Management of concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) in these patients remains controversial with no randomized clinical trials to guide decision making in this cohort. The role of CAD in TAVR has been difficult to evaluate given the current heterogeneity in defining CAD, and the used methods to assess CAD. Subsequently, the role of coronary revascularization remains individualized and assessed on a case-by-case basis by the heart team. In this article, the authors discuss the rationale and prognostic role of CAD in patients undergoing TAVR.

Aortic Stenosis and Coronary Artery Disease: Cost of Transcatheter versus Surgical Management

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve replacement with coronary artery bypass grafting (SAVR+CABG) is the recommended treatment for aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD), however percutaneous coronary intervention at the time of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR+PCI) is used with increasing frequency.

METHODS

Using the National Inpatient Sample, we identified all adult admissions with a diagnosis of AS. Sub-groups of SAVR+CABG and TAVR+PCI formed the study group. Outcomes of interest included total hospitalization charges, temporal trends, in-hospital mortality, and complications.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2017, a total of 97,955 (95.9%) admissions received SAVR+CABG, and 4240 (4.1%) received TAVR+PCI; the proportion of TAVR+PCI increased from 1.0% in 2012 to 9.2% in 2017 (p<0.001). Compared to those receiving TAVR+PCI, admissions receiving SAVR+CABG were younger, more likely to be male, and had lower comorbidity (all p<0.001). Adjusted in-hospital mortality was comparable in both groups (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79-1.11, p=0.45). Higher rates of pacemaker implantation, cardiac arrest, and vascular complications were seen in the TAVR+PCI group, while SAVR+CABG was associated with a greater requirement of prolonged ventilation. Admissions receiving TAVR+PCI had shorter lengths of hospital stay and were more likely to be discharged home. Nevertheless, TAVR+PCI had higher hospitalization charges compared to SAVR+CABG group (all p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There has been a steady increase in the utilization of percutaneous strategies for AS and CAD management. In-hospital mortality was comparable in SAVR+CABG and TAVR+PCI groups, but despite shorter in-hospital stays, TAVR+PCI was associated with higher cardiac and vascular complication rates and hospitalization charges.

Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Outside Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Recent randomized trials including low-risk patients showed positive results for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), but patients with non-tricuspid aortic valve (NTAV), severe coronary artery disease (SevCAD), and those requiring concomitant mitral/tricuspid valve (CMTV) or concomitant ascending aorta replacement (CAAR) interventions were excluded.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to evaluate the presence and impact of the main clinical variables not evaluated in TAVR versus SAVR trials (NTAV, SevCAD, and CMTV or CAAR intervention) in a large series of consecutive low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (SAS) undergoing SAVR.

METHODS

Single-center study including consecutive patients with SAS and low surgical risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of <4%) undergoing SAVR. Baseline, procedural characteristics, and 30-day outcomes were prospectively collected.

RESULTS

Of 6,772 patients with SAS who underwent SAVR between 2000 and 2019, 5,310 (78.4%) exhibited a low surgical risk (mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score: 1.94 ± 0.87%). Of these, 2,165 patients (40.8%) had at least 1 of the following: NTAV (n = 1,468, 27.6%), SevCAD (n = 307, 5.8%), CMTV (n = 306, 5.8%), and CAAR (n = 560, 10.5%). The 30-day mortality and stroke rates for the overall low-risk SAS cohort were 1.9% and 2.4%, respectively. The mortality rate was similar in the SevCAD (2.6%) and CAAR (2.1%) groups versus the rest of the cohort (odds ratio [OR]: 1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85 to 3.75, and OR: 1.64; 95% CI: 0.88 to 3.05, respectively), lower in the NTAV group (0.9%; OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.81), and higher in the CMTV group (5.9%; OR: 2.61; 95% CI: 1.51 to 4.5).

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world setting, close to one-half of the low-risk patients with SAS undergoing SAVR exhibited at least 1 major criterion not evaluated in TAVR versus SAVR randomized trials. Clinical outcomes were better than or similar to those predicted by surgical scores in all groups but those patients requiring CMTV intervention. These results may help determine the impact of implementing the results of TAVR-SAVR trials in real practice and may inform future trials in specific groups.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in low-risk patients: A case of rational over exuberance. The time is not now

BACKGROUND

Review of evidence and concerns, relating to extension of transcatheter aortic valve implantation usage to low-risk patients.

METHODS

Comprehensive literature review was conducted identifying articles relating to transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

RESULTS

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is effective in patients with aortic stenosis. Currently, long-term durability and cost-effectiveness are unproven, anticoagulation requirement undefined, permanent pacemaker implantation and paravalvular leak rates higher than following surgical aortic valve replacement.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence supporting transcatheter aortic valve implantation usage in low-risk patients is insufficient. Extending use now, to this large young patient population is premature, and should be delayed.

Evaluation and Management of Aortic Stenosis in Chronic Kidney Disease: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Aortic stenosis with concomitant chronic kidney disease (CKD) represents a clinical challenge. Aortic stenosis is more prevalent and progresses more rapidly and unpredictably in CKD, and the presence of CKD is associated with worse short-term and long-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement. Because patients with advanced CKD and end-stage kidney disease have been excluded from randomized trials, clinicians need to make complex management decisions in this population that are based on retrospective and observational evidence. This statement summarizes the epidemiological and pathophysiological characteristics of aortic stenosis in the context of CKD, evaluates the nuances and prognostic information provided by noninvasive cardiovascular imaging with echocardiography and advanced imaging techniques, and outlines the special risks in this population. Furthermore, this statement provides a critical review of the existing literature pertaining to clinical outcomes of surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in this high-risk population to help guide clinical decision making in the choice of aortic valve replacement and specific prosthesis. Finally, this statement provides an approach to the perioperative management of these patients, with special attention to a multidisciplinary heart-kidney collaborative team-based approach.

Antithrombotic therapy after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: current perspective

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has expanded as a treatment option for severe aortic stenosis throughout the surgical risk spectrum. Decreasing procedural risk and inclusion of lower risk population has shifted the focus to optimization of postprocedural management and balancing the thrombotic and bleeding complications. In this review, we outline various patient and procedure related factors affecting choice of antithrombotic therapy post TAVR and provide an update of recent development in this area.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple studies have confirmed the high incidence of both ischemic and bleeding complications in the early to midterm post-TAVR. In addition, new data has emerged for the role of high resolution computed tomography to detect decreased leaflet mobility and leaflet micro thrombi associated with implications for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and cerebrovascular events post TAVR. Randomized clinical trials have reported increased bleeding with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and oral anticoagulation (OAC) plus antiplatelet therapy. These findings suggest that aspirin monotherapy or OAC monotherapy likely provides the appropriate balance for antithrombotic protection and risk of bleeding.

SUMMARY

Majority of patients undergoing TAVR have multiple comorbidities and are at increased risk of ischemic and bleeding complications. In the absence of robust clinical evidence, there is significant variability among guideline recommendations and antithrombotic therapy post TAVR across institutions. The available evidence confirms a high rate of bleeding with more potent and prolonged antithrombotic regimens without a documented benefit for clinical endpoints. The authors favor a conservative anti thrombotic approach and suggest monotherapy with aspirin or systemic anticoagulation based upon an individual's risk of thromboembolic complications. DAPT is reserved for patients with recent stenting and OAC plus aspirin is prescribed for patients with established CAD in the post TAVR setting.

Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis and Diastolic Dysfunction

OBJECTIVES

Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with poor outcomes; however, the effect of its severity is controversial. We sought to assess the impact of diastolic dysfunction on hospital outcomes and survival after TAVR and identify prognostic factors.

METHODS

We included patients who underwent TAVR for severe aortic stenosis with preexisting LVDD from 2009 to 2018 (n = 325). Patients with prior mitral valve surgery (n = 4), atrial fibrillation (n = 39), missing or poor baseline diastolic dysfunction assessment (n = 36) were excluded. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. 246 patients were included in the study.

RESULTS

The median age was 80 years (25th and 75th percentiles:75-86.7), 154 (62.6%) were males and the median EuroSCORE II was 4.3 (2.2-8). Patients with severe LVDD had significantly higher EuroSCORE, and lower ejection fraction (p < 0.001). There was no difference in post-TAVR new atrial fibrillation (p = 0.912), pacemaker insertion (p = 0.528), stroke (p = 0.76), or hospital mortality (p = 0.95). Patients with severe LVDD had longer hospital stay (p = 0.036). The grade of LVDD did not affect survival (log-rank = 0.145) nor major adverse cardiovascular events (log-rank = 0.97). Predictors of mortality were; low BMI (HR: 0.95 (0.91-0.99); p = 0.019), low sodium (0.93 (0.82-2.5); p = 0.021), previous PCI (HR: 1.6 (1.022-2.66); p = 0.04), E-peak (HR: 1.01 (1.002-1.019); p = 0.014) and implantation of more than one device (HR: 3.55 (1.22-10.31); p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is feasible in patients with diastolic dysfunction, and the degree of diastolic dysfunction did not negatively affect the outcome. Long-term outcomes in those patients were affected by the preoperative clinical state and procedure-related factors.

Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Patients with Concomitant Severe Aortic Stenosis and Coronary Artery Disease: A Closer Look to the Unresolved Perplexity

Degenerative aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD) are the most prevalent cardiovascular diseases in developed countries, and they coexist in up to 50% of patients. The pathophysiological rationale behind concomitant AS and CAD is discussed in detail in this review, together with prognostic implications. Detecting CAD in patients with AS may be challenging, as AS may mask the existence and symptoms of CAD. The safety and reliability of invasive and non-invasive physiological assessment for epicardial coronary disease are also a matter of debate. Finally, the selection and timing of optimal treatment of CAD in patients with severe AS are still unclear. Given the aging of the population, the increase in the prevalence of AS, and the ongoing paradigm shift in its treatment, controversies in the diagnosis and treatment of CAD in the setting of AS are deemed to grow in importance. In this paper, we present contemporary issues in the diagnosis and management of CAD in patients with severe AS who are transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) candidates and provide perspective on the treatment approach.

Aortic Valve Disease and Associated Complex CAD: The Interventional Approach

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is highly prevalent in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). The management of CAD is a central aspect of the work-up of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), but few data are available on this field and the best percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) practice is yet to be determined. A major challenge is the ability to elucidate the severity of bystander coronary stenosis independently of the severity of aortic valve stenosis and subsequent impact on blood flow. The prognostic role of CAD in patients undergoing TAVI is being still debated and the benefits and the best timing of PCI in this context are currently under evaluation. Additionally, PCI in the setting of advanced AS poses some technical challenges, due to the complex anatomy, risk of hemodynamic instability, and the increased risk of bleeding complications. This review aims to provide a comprehensive synthesis of the available literature on myocardial revascularization in patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI. This work can assist the Heart Team in individualizing decisions about myocardial revascularization, taking into account available diagnostic tools as well as the risks and benefits.

Coronary Artery Disease in Patients with Aortic Stenosis and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Implications for Management

Aortic valve stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular heart disease among elderly patients. Since the pathophysiology of degenerative AS shares common pathways with atherosclerotic disease, the severity of AS in the elderly population is often concurrent to the presence of coronary artery disease (CAD). Although surgical aortic valve replacement has been the standard treatment for severe AS, the high operative morbidity and mortality in complex and fragile patients was the trigger to develop less invasive techniques. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been posed as the standard of care for elderly patients with severe AS with various risk profiles, which has meant that the concomitant management of CAD has become a crucial issue in such patients. Given the lack of randomised controlled trials evaluating the management of CAD in TAVI patients, most of the recommendations are based on retrospective cohort studies so that the Heart Team approach - together with an assessment of multiple parameters including symptoms and clinical characteristics, invasive and non-invasive ischaemic burden and anatomy - are crucial for the proper management of these patients. This article provides a review of current knowledge about assessment and therapeutic approaches for CAD and severe AS in patients undergoing TAVI.

Non-hyperaemic pressure ratios to guide percutaneous coronary intervention

The use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in guiding revascularisation improves patient outcomes and has been well-established in clinical guidelines. Despite this, the uptake of FFR has been limited, likely attributable to the perceived increase in procedural time and use of hyperaemic agents that can cause patient discomfort. This has led to the development of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), an alternative non-hyperaemic pressure ratio (NHPR). Since its inception, the use of iFR has been supported by an increasing body of evidence and is now guideline recommended. More recently, other commercially available NHPRs including diastolic hyperaemia-free ratio and resting full-cycle ratio have emerged. Studies have demonstrated that these indices, in addition to mean distal coronary artery pressure to mean aortic pressure ratio, are mathematically analogous (with specific nuances) to iFR. Additionally, there is increasing data demonstrating the equivalent diagnostic performance of alternative NHPRs in comparison with iFR and FFR. These NHPRs are now integral within most current pressure wire systems and are commonly available in the catheter laboratory. It is therefore key to understand the fundamental differences and evidence for NHPRs to guide appropriate clinical decision-making.

Adverse clinical outcomes in patients undergoing both PCI and TAVR: Analysis from a pooled multi-center registry

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data regarding the optimum timing of PCI in relation to TAVR.

OBJECTIVE

We compared the major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) rates among patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) before transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with those who received PCI with/after TAVR.

METHODS

In this multicenter study, we pooled all consecutive patients who underwent TAVR at three high volume centers.

RESULTS

Among 3,982 patients who underwent TAVR, 327 (8%) patients underwent PCI within 1 year before TAVR, 38 (1%) had PCI the same day as TAVR and 15 (0.5%) had PCI within 2 months after TAVR. Overall, among patients who received both PCI and TAVR (n = 380), history of previous CABG (HR:0.501; p = .001), higher BMI at TAVR (HR:0.970; p = .038), and statin therapy after TAVR (HR:0.660, p = .037) were independently associated with lower MACCE while warfarin therapy after TAVR was associated with a higher risk of MACCE (HR:1.779, p = .017). Patients who received PCI within 1 year before TAVR had similar baseline demographics, STS scores, clinical risk factors when compared to patients receiving PCI with/after TAVR. Both groups were similar in PCI (Syntax Score, ACC/AHA lesion class) and TAVR (valve types, access) related variables. There were no significant differences in terms of MACCE (log rank p = .550), all-cause mortality (log rank p = .433), strokes (log rank p = .153), and repeat PCI (log rank p = .054) in patients who underwent PCI with/after TAVR when compared to patients who received PCI before TAVR.

CONCLUSION

Among patients who underwent both PCI and TAVR, history of CABG, higher BMI, and statin therapy had lower, while those discharged on warfarin, had higher adverse event rates. Adverse events rates were similar regardless of timing of PCI.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement and percutaneous coronary intervention versus surgical aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with severe aortic stenosis and concomitant coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the early and midterm outcomes of patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) against patients who had transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

BACKGROUND

Contemporary guidelines suggest that surgical or percutaneous revascularization of significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) is a reasonable strategy.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of Medline and Embase to identify studies comparing a percutaneous transcatheter versus a surgical approach. Random effects meta-analyses using the Mantel-Haenszel method were performed to estimate the effect of percutaneous compared surgical strategies using aggregate data.

RESULTS

Six studies reporting on 1770 participants were included in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in effect estimates for early and midterm mortality (OR: 0.78; 95% CI, 0.50-1.20 and OR: 1.09; 95% CI, 0.80-1.49, respectively) or myocardial infarction (OR: 0.52; 95% CI, 0.20-1.33 and OR: 1.34; 95% CI, 0.67-2.65, respectively). No significant difference was shown for peri-procedural stroke (OR: 0.80; 95% CI, 0.35-1.87). A transcatheter approach had a higher rate of major vascular complications (OR: 14.44; 95% CI, 4.42-47.16), but a lower rate of acute kidney injury (OR: 0.41; 95% CI, 0.19-0.91).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis suggests that a percutaneous transcatheter approach confers similar outcomes compared to a surgical approach in patients with severe AS and CAD. However, our findings are based on low quality studies and should serve as hypothesis generating. In the absence of adequately powered studies yielding high level evidence, individualized decision making should be based on surgical risk assessment.

Assessment and management of coronary artery disease in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is commonly observed in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Significant variability exists across institutions for strategies used for CAD diagnosis and its management. The heart team often relies upon traditional practice patterns and the decision for revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is influenced by patient, angiographic, operator, and system-related factors.

RECENT FINDINGS

Contemporary coronary tomography angiography (CTA) shows significant promise for detection of clinically important CAD and preliminary data support CTA use for TAVR patients. The prognostic implications of CAD in a TAVR population remain unclear with studies showing conflicting data for the benefits of PCI. Recent trials show that medical management is an effective initial treatment strategy for stable CAD, a finding likely also applicable for asymptomatic and stable TAVR patients. In addition, PCI performed pre-TAVR, concomitant with TAVR or after TAVR has been shown to produce similar outcomes. Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is mandated after PCI but associated with increased risk of bleeding in TAVR population with accumulating evidence for single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) post-TAVR unless DAPT or anticoagulation is indicated for another reason.

SUMMARY

Although coronary angiography remains the predominant modality for CAD assessment, CTA is increasingly being used in TAVR patients. There is limited evidence to guide CAD management in TAVR patients with significant variability in practice patterns. Medical therapy is recommended for asymptomatic and stable CAD patients with applicability for TAVR population. Despite prior concerns, recent studies suggest successful coronary access post-TAVR and similar outcomes for PCI offered pre-TAVR, concomitant with TAVR and post-TAVR settings. Safety of DAPT should be an important consideration for PCI in TAVR patients. Ongoing studies will determine the preferred testing for CAD diagnosis, benefit of revascularization, timing of PCI, and optimum antithrombotic therapy for TAVR populations.

Prognosis evaluation of universal acute coronary syndrome: the interplay between SYNTAX score and ApoB/ApoA1

Background

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is a group of clinical syndromes associated with substantial morbidity and mortality rate. SYNTAX and SYNTAX II score used to be a reference for surgical selection of coronary revascularization and prognosis evaluation in patients with 3-vessel or left main artery disease. In addition, apoB/apoA1 is an important predictor of ACS risk. This study aims to assess the prognosis value of different kinds of SYNTAX score together with apoB/apoA1 in universal ACS patients (Regardless of ACS type, lesion location and vessel numbers).

Method

Three hundred ninety-six patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI)and coronary stenting from 2013 to 2014 were chosen and recorded the major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and quality of life during the next 5 years. According to SYNTAX and SYNTAX II score, the patients were divided into low-risk, medium-risk and high-risk groups, and the clinical features, MACCE incidence and EQ-5D score at each time points were compared. And the predictive factors of MACCE incidence were analyzed.

Results

① Compared with SYNTAX low-risk group, MACCE incidence in 1 year significantly increased in medium/high risk group (p = 0.011). Compared with SYNTAX II low-risk group, MACCE incidence in 5 years significantly increased in medium and high-risk group (p = 0.032). ② Compared with SYNTAX II low-risk group, cardiovascular mortality in 3 and 5 years significantly elevated in high-risk group (p = 0.001, p<0.001 respectively). ③ Compared with SYNTAX II low and medium-risk group, EQ-5D score in 5 years significantly decreased in high-risk group (p = 0.019, p = 0.023 respectively). ④ ApoB/ApoA1 was more likely to be classified as high risk in SYNTAX/SYNTAX II medium and high-risk group (p = 0.023, p = 0.044 respectively). ⑤ Logistic regression analysis showed that apoB/apoA1 was an independent predictor of MACCE events in hospital and 5 years (p = 0.038, p = 0.016 respectively), SYNTAX score was an independent predictor of MACCE events in 1 year (medium-risk group: p = 0.02; high-risk group: p = 0.015) SYNTAX II score was an independent predictor of MACCE events in 5 yeasrs (p = 0.003).

Conclusions

① SYNTAX score has a high predictive value for short-term prognosis while SYNTAX II score is more predictive of long-term prognosis. ② SYNTAX II score is superior to SYNTAX score in predicting cardiovascular death. ③ The combination of apoB/apoA1 high-risk and SYNTAX II medium and high-risk group is the focus of clinical treatment and long-term follow-up observation.

Coronary Artery Disease and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

About one-half of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) candidates have coronary artery disease (CAD), and controversial results have been reported regarding the effect of the presence and severity of CAD on clinical outcomes post-TAVR. In addition to coronary angiography, promising data has been recently reported on both the use of computed tomography angiography and the functional invasive assessment of coronary lesions in the work-up pre-TAVR. While waiting for the results of ongoing randomized trials, percutaneous revascularization of significant coronary lesions has been the routine strategy in TAVR candidates with CAD. Also, scarce data exists on the incidence, characteristics, and management of coronary events post-TAVR, and increasing interest exist on potential coronary access challenges in patients requiring coronary angiography/intervention post-TAVR. This review provides an updated overview of the current landscape of CAD in TAVR recipients, focusing on its prevalence, clinical impact, pre- and post-procedural evaluation and management, unresolved issues and future perspectives.

Management of Coronary Artery Disease in the Setting of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease (CAD) frequently co-exist, as they share a common pathophysiology and risk factors. Due to lack of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and exclusion of significant CAD in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) trials, the optimal method of revascularisation of CAD in patients undergoing TAVR remains unknown. Observational studies and meta-analyses have shown varied results in outcomes for patients with CAD undergoing TAVR, and no significant difference in post-TAVR outcomes in patients who underwent revascularisation either prior to or during TAVR versus those who did not. However, some observational studies have shown that patients with lower residual SYNTAX score (rSS) post-revascularisation have better outcomes post-TAVR compared to those with higher rSS. RCTs are needed to clearly understand whether revascularisation is beneficial in these patients. Until then, management of CAD in patients undergoing TAVR must be individualised based on discussion with the heart team.

Current issues in transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease worldwide. With transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) being increasingly expanded to lower-risk populations, several challenging issues remain to be solved. The present review aims at discussing modern approaches to such issues as well as the current status of TAVR. TAVR has undergone several developments in the recent years: an increased use of transfemoral access, the development of prostheses in order to adapt to challenging anatomies, improved delivery systems with repositioning features, and outer skirts aiming at reducing paravalvular leak. The indication of TAVR is increasingly being expanded to patients with lower surgical risk. The main clinical trials supporting such expansion are reviewed and the latest data on low-risk patients are discussed. A number of challenges need still to be addressed and are also reviewed in this paper: the need for updated international guidelines including the latest evidence; a reduction of main complications such as permanent pacemaker implantation, paravalvular leak, and stroke (and its potential prevention by using anti-embolic protection devices); the appropriate role of TAVR in patients with concomitant cardiac ischemic disease; and durability of bio-prosthetic implanted valves. Finally, the future perspectives for TAVR use and next device developments are discussed.

Impact of Coronary Artery Severity and Revascularization Prior to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

The prevalence of coexisting coronary artery disease (CAD) is high in patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Our objective was to first determine if the severity of CAD before TAVI had an important impact on post-TAVI outcomes and second, if revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) before TAVI modified this relation. In this retrospective population-based study in Ontario, Canada, we identified all patients with obstructive CAD who underwent TAVI from April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2017. Our primary outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality within 30-day and 1-year post-TAVI procedure. Secondary outcomes included 30-day and 1-year all-cause readmissions. We developed multivariable Cox proportional hazard models, with a robust sandwich-type variance estimator to account for clustering within TAVI centers. These models included an interaction term between severity of CAD and PCI before TAVI. The study cohort included 888 of whom 444 (50%) patients underwent PCI before TAVI procedure. In the Cox models, we found that severity of CAD before TAVI was not significantly associated with post-TAVI outcomes. The only exception was 1 to 2 vessel/s disease which was a significant predictor of 1-year readmission. Pre-TAVI PCI was not significantly associated with outcomes, nor did it modify the relation between severity of CAD pre-TAVI and outcomes. In conclusion, we did not find a consistent relation between severity of CAD and revascularization with post-TAVI outcomes.

Residual Gensini Score Is Associated With Long-Term Cardiac Mortality in Patients With Heart Failure After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background: Coronary revascularization is important in heart failure (HF) with ischemic etiology. Coronary scoring systems are useful to evaluate coronary artery disease, but said systems for residual stenosis after revascularization are still poorly understood. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to clarify the prognostic impact of residual stenosis using a coronary scoring system, Gensini score, in HF patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods and Results: We analyzed consecutive hospitalized ischemic HF patients (n=199) who underwent PCI. We calculated residual Gensini score after PCI, and divided the patients into 2 groups based on median residual Gensini score. The patients with high scores (≥10, n=101) had a higher prevalence of anemia, lower prevalence of dyslipidemia, and lower left ventricular ejection fraction, compared with those with low scores (<10, n=98). During the median follow-up period of 1,581 days (range, 20–2,896 days), the high-score patients had a higher cardiac mortality than the low-score group (log rank, P=0.001).

Conclusions: In patients with HF after PCI, residual Gensini score was associated with long-term cardiac mortality. Residual Gensini score may be a useful index for risk stratification of HF after PCI.

Incidence, Clinical Characteristics, and Impact of Acute Coronary Syndrome Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to assess the incidence, predictors, management, and prognosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) following TAVR.

BACKGROUND

About one-half of the patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have concurrent coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the occurrence and clinical impact of coronary events following TAVR remain largely unknown.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing TAVR in our institution between May 2007 and November 2017 were included. Patients were followed at 1, 6, and 12 months, and yearly thereafter. ACS was diagnosed and classified according to the Third Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction.

RESULTS

A total of 779 patients (mean age 79 ± 9 years, 52% male, mean STS: 6.8 ± 5.1%) were included, 68% of which had a history of CAD. At a median follow-up of 25 (interquartile range: 10 to 44) months, 78 patients (10%) presented at least 1 episode of ACS, with one-half of the events occurring within the year following TAVR. Clinical presentation was type 2 non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (35.9%), unstable angina (34.6%), type 1 non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (28.2%), and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (1.3%). Male sex (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.36 to 3.54; p = 0.001), prior CAD (HR: 2.78; 95% CI: 1.50 to 5.18; p = 0.001), and nontransfemoral approach (HR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.04 to 2.75; p = 0.035) were independently associated with ACS. Coronary angiography was performed in 53 (67.9%) patients with ACS, and 30 of them (56.6%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. In-hospital death rate at the time of the ACS episode was 3.8%. At a median follow-up of 21 (interquartile range: 8 to 34) months post-ACS, all-cause and cardiovascular death rates were 37.3% and 25.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one-tenth of patients undergoing TAVR were readmitted for an ACS after a median follow-up of 25 months. Male sex, prior CAD, and nontransfemoral approach were independent predictors of ACS. ACS was associated with high midterm mortality.

Safety of Rotational Atherectomy Using the Radial Access in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis

Despite frequent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in calcified vessels of older patients, rotational atherectomy (RA) has not been endorsed in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) due to safety concerns and lack of data. We explored periprocedural safety and mortality in severe AS patients undergoing RA. Prospective anonymized clinical, echocardiographic, procedural and outcome data of patients undergoing RA PCI between January 2012 and July 2018 were retrospectively extracted from the institutional coronary database. Patients with severe AS undergoing RA PCI were 1:1 propensity matched with patients undergoing RA PCI in the absence of AS. Outcomes of interest were RA related periprocedural complications, 30-day and 1-year mortality. A prespecified subgroup analysis examined the influence of transcatheter aortic valve replacement on mortality following RA PCI. A total of 544 patients underwent RA PCI; 478 without AS and 66 with AS. Propensity matching yielded 35 matched pairs with improved balance in covariates of interest and no significant differences in baseline characteristics postmatching. In the matched cohort (n = 70) slow flow/no-reflow, coronary dissection, perforation, and hemodynamic instability were rare and not significantly different. Survival analyses revealed significantly higher 30-day (Log-Rank p = 0.02) and 1-year mortality (Log rank p = 0.02, HR 5.24 [95% CI 1.13 to 24.28]) in the severe AS group; driven by a fivefold increase in the hazard of death among patients who did not undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement HR 4.98 [95% CI 1.03 to 24.1]. In conclusion, our study of 70 patients undergoing radial RA PCI suggests that it can be safely performed in patients with severe AS. Long-term outcomes after RA in patients with severe AS are determined by the presence of the valve disease and other co-morbidities.

Future Directions. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for Low-risk Patients: Inevitable Evolution or a Step Too Far?

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has become the treatment of choice for inoperable and high-risk patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis, and is becoming more and more common as the first choice for intermediate-risk patients as well. The next step in this evolution would be the expansion of treatment indications to low-risk patients. Successful treatment of this patient population will require setting new standards in terms of clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness. In this review, we present the main challenges that need to be addressed before transcatheter aortic valve replacement can be applied as a standard treatment for low-risk patients.