Search

Abstract Aims There is a growing body of literature on long‐term outcomes post‐transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), but to our knowledge, few research have focused on patients with advanced cardiac dysfunction. This challenging category of patients was excluded from the Partner 3 clinical trial. There are no data to guide the choice of valve type in patients with severely depressed ejection fraction. This study evaluates the safety, efficacy, and outcomes of TAVR in patients with severe aortic stenosis and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35%. It compares post‐TAVR survival outcomes with self‐expanding (SEV) versus balloon‐expandable (BEV) valves in the context of cardiac dysfunction. Methods and results A retrospective cohort was conducted on 977 patients who underwent TAVR at Toulouse University Hospital between January 2016 and December 2020. The study population included two groups: LVEF ≤ 35% (N = 157) and LVEF ≥ 50% (N = 820). The group of LVEF ≤ 35% was divided into two subgroups according to the type of implanted device: self‐expanding (N = 66) versus balloon‐expandable (N = 91). The living status of each of study's participants was observed in December 2022. Patients with low ejection fraction were younger (82 vs. 84.6 years) and commonly males (71.3% vs. 45.6%). Procedural success was almost 98% in both study groups (97.5% vs. 97.9%). The prevalence of all in‐hospital post‐TAVR complications [acute kidney injury (3.8% vs. 2.2%), major bleeding events (2.5% vs. 3.2%), stroke (1.3% vs. 1.6%), pacemaker implantation (10.2% vs. 10.7%), major vascular complication (4.5% vs. 4.5%), new onset atrial fibrillation (3.2% vs. 3.4%), and in‐hospital death (3.2% vs. 2.8%)] were similar between groups (LVEF ≤ 35% vs. LVEF ≥ 50%). No difference in long‐term survival has been revealed over 3.4 years (P = 0.268). In patients with LVEF ≤ 35%, except for post‐TAVR mean aortic gradient (7.8 ± 4.2 vs. 10.2 ± 3.6), baseline and procedural characteristics were comparable between SEV versus BEV subgroups. An early improvement in LVEF (from 29.2 ± 5.5 to 37.4 ± 10.8) was observed. In patients with LVEF ≤ 35%, the all‐cause mortality rate was significantly higher in BEV than that in SEV subgroups, respectively (40.7% vs. 22.7%, P = 0.018). Kaplan–Meier curve showed better survival outcomes after SEV implantation (P = 0.032). A Cox regression identified BEV as independent predictor of mortality [HR = 3.276, 95% CI (1.520–7.060), P = 0.002]. Conclusions In the setting of low LVEF, TAVR remains a safe and effective procedure not associated with an increased risk of complications and mortality. SEV implantation may likely result in superior survival outcomes in patients with advanced cardiac dysfunction.

Abstract Aims Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a common cause of heart failure (HF). It remains unclear who, when and why to direct towards coronary revascularization. The outcomes of coronary revascularization in HF patients are still a matter of debate nowadays. This study aims to evaluate the effect of revascularization strategy on all‐cause of death in the context of ischaemic HF. Methods and results An observational cohort was conducted on 692 consecutive patients who underwent coronary angiography at the University Hospital of Toulouse between January 2018 and December 2021 for either a recent diagnosis of HF or a decompensated chronic HF, and in whom coronary angiograms showed at least 50% obstructive coronary lesion. The study population was divided into two groups according to the performance or not of a coronary revascularization procedure. The living status (alive or dead) of each of the study's participants was observed by April 2022. Seventy‐three per cent of the study population underwent coronary revascularization either by percutaneous coronary intervention (66.6%) or coronary artery bypass grafting (6.2%). Baseline characteristics including age, sex and cardiovascular risk factors did not differ between the invasive and conservative groups, respectively. Death occurred in 162 study participants resulting in an all‐cause mortality rate of 23.5%; 26.7% of observed deaths have occurred in the conservative group versus 22.2% in the invasive group (P = 0.208). No difference in survival outcomes has been observed over a mean follow‐up period of 2.5 years (P = 0.140) even after stratification by HF categories (P = 0.132) or revascularization modalities (P = 0.366). Conclusions Findings from the present study showed comparable all‐cause mortality rates between groups. Coronary revascularization does not modify short‐term survival outcomes in HF patients compared with optimal medical therapy alone outside the setting of acute coronary syndrome.

BackgroundIn recent years, the number of patients with failed surgically implanted aortic bioprostheses and the number of candidates for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) have been increasing.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and long-term survival outcomes of VIV-TAVR compared with the benchmark native valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (NV-TAVR).MethodsA cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent TAVR in the department of cardiology at Toulouse University Hospital, Rangueil, France between January 2016 and January 2020. The study population was divided into two groups: NV-TAVR (N = 1589) and VIV-TAVR (N = 69). Baseline characteristics, procedural data, in-hospital outcomes, and long-term survival outcomes were observed.ResultsIn comparison with NV-TAVR, there are no differences in TAVR success rate (98.6 vs. 98.8%, p = 1), per-TAVR complications (p = 0.473), and length of hospital stay (7.5 ± 50.7 vs. 4.4 ± 2.8, p = 0.612). The prevalence of in-hospital adverse outcomes did not differ among study groups, including acute heart failure (1.4 vs. 1.1%), acute kidney injury (2.6, 1.4%), stroke (0 vs. 1.8%, p = 0.630), vascular complications (p = 0.307), bleeding events (0.617), and death (1.4 vs. 2.6%). VIV-TAVR was associated with a higher residual aortic gradient [OR = 1.139, 95%CI (1.097–1.182), p = 0.001] and a lower requirement for permanent pacemaker implantation [OR = 0.235 95%CI (0.056–0.990), p = 0.048]. Over a mean follow-up period of 3.44 ± 1.67 years, no significant difference in survival outcomes has been observed (p = 0.074).ConclusionVIV-TAVR shares the safety and efficacy profile of NV-TAVR. It also represents a better early outcome but a higher non-significant long-term mortality rate.

Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary artery disease (MINOCA) represents a significant proportion (up to 15%) of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) population. MINOCA is diagnosed in patients who fullfilled the fourth universal definition of AMI in the absence of significant obstructive coronary artery disease on coronary angiography. MINOCA is a group of heterogeneous diseases with different pathophysiological mechanisms requiring multimodality imaging. Left ventriculography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and intra-coronary imaging (IVUS, OCT) are useful tools playing a pivotal role in the diagnostic work-up. There are no standard guidelines on the management of MINOCA patients and the therapeutic approach is personalized, thereby detecting the underlying aetiology is fundamental to initiate an early appropriate cause-targeted therapy.

Objective: Left anterior descending Myocardial Bridge (LADMB) is considered a benign condition and actually becomes a forgotten cause of serious cardiac events. This study was conducted to estimate the prevalence of LADMB and its association to atherosclerosis. Methods: An observational retrospective study was conducted on patients referred for coronary angiography between June 2012 and June 2020. Coronary angiography database was revisedand studied population was divided into 2 groups: LADMB group versus Non-LADMB group. Results: LADMB was detected in 510 patients out of 35813 included in the study resulting in a prevalence at 1.42%. The mean age was 66.5 years. Male gender was more common than female (70vs30%). The prevalence of significant atherosclerotic LAD disease was more than two times higher in the non-LADMB group compared to the LADMB group. Statistical analysis revealed a significant negative association between LADMB and atherosclerosis (p

Abstract While existing remedies failed to fully address the consequences of heart failure, stem cell therapy has been introduced as a promising approach. The present review is a comprehensive appraisal of the impacts of using mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in clinical trials mainly conducted on ischemic cardiomyopathy. The benefits of MSC therapy for dysfunctional myocardium are likely attributed to numerous secreted paracrine factors and immunomodulatory effects. The positive outcomes associated with MSC therapy are scar size reduction, reverse remodeling, and angiogenesis. Also, a decreasing in the level of chronic inflammatory markers of heart failure progression like TNF-α is observed. The intense inflammatory reaction in the injured myocardial micro-environment predicts a poor response of scar tissue to MSC therapy. Subsequently, the interval delay between myocardial injury and MSC therapy is not yet determined. The optimal requested dose of cells ranges between 100 to 150 million cells. Allogenic MSCs have different advantages compared to autogenic cells and intra-myocardial injection is the preferred delivery route. The safety and efficacy of MSCs-based therapy have been confirmed in numerous studies, however several undefined parameters like route of administration, optimal timing, source of stem cells, and necessary dose are limiting the routine use of MSCs therapeutic approach in clinical practice. Lastly, pre-conditioning of MSCs and using of exosomes mediated MSCs or genetically modified MSCs may improve the overall therapeutic effect. Future prospective studies establishing a constant procedure for MSCs transplantation are required in order to apply MSC therapy in our daily clinical practice and subsequently improving the overall prognosis of ischemic heart failure patients.

AimsTo assess the effect of interventional specialized telemonitoring (ITM) compared to standard telemonitoring (STM) and standard of care (SC) on preventing all causes of death, cardiovascular mortality and unplanned hospitalization in heart failure (HF) patients.MethodsWe compared outcomes in three groups of HF patients followed by different modalities: SC, STM and ITM. The telemonitoring was performed by the specialized HF-cardiology staff at Toulouse University Hospital. All patients were followed with the same manner including daily weight monitoring using on-line scales, self-monitoring and reporting symptoms via a device. The difference between groups was in the management of the received alerts. In STM-group, patients were contacted by a member of telemedical center and the main responsibility for patient's therapy was taken by their primary care physicians while in the ITM-group, a cardiologist intervenes immediately in case of alerts for diuretic dose adjustment or escalation therapy or programmed hospitalization if necessary. Outcomes were compared between the three study groups and Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed.ResultsFour hundred fourteen HF-patients derived from two French cohorts (OSICAT and ETAPES) were included in this study and subsequently enrolled in the following three groups: ITM-group (n = 220), STM-group (n = 99), and SC-group (n = 95). During the mean follow-up period of 341 days, there were significantly fewer primary endpoints like unplanned hospitalization (13.6 vs. 34.3 vs. 36.8%, p < 0.05), all-causes of death (4.5 vs. 20.2 vs. 16.8%, p < 0.05) and cardiovascular mortality (3.2 vs. 15.2 vs. 8.4%, p < 0.05) in the ITM-group. The multivariable logistic regression revealed a significant negative association between the ITM and unplanned hospitalization [OR = 0.303 95% CI (0.165–0.555), p < 0.001) and all-causes of death [OR = 0.255 95% CI (0.103–0.628), p = 0.003], respectively. Kaplan Meier and log rank test showed significant difference in median event-free survival in favor of ITM-group.ConclusionsIn the ITM follow-up HF group, delivered by a cardiology team, the rate of unplanned hospitalization and all-causes of death are lower than SC or STM.

Introduction: Up to date, the management of coronary artery aneurysm (CAA) is not well defined and depends on local heart team decision. Data reported in literature are scarce and controversial. We aim to compare the long-term outcomes of different therapeutic strategies of CAA (medical vs percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs coronary artery bypass graft(CABG)). Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 100 consecutive patients who underwent coronary angiography at Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse France and fulfilled the diagnostic criteria of CAA. Coronary angiograms were reviewed, and all necessary data were collected. CAA was defined by a coronary dilation exceedingly at least 50% of reference coronary diameter. Results: We identified 100 patients with CAA with a mean age of 67.9 ± 12 years. The left anterior descending coronary artery was most affected (36%). CAA is associated with significant coronary artery disease in 78% of cases. The incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) was 13% during a median follow-up period of 46.2 ± 24 months. A 53% of patients underwent PCI or CABG. The rate of MACCE was lower in CABG group (9.1%) compared to PCI (14.3%) and medical (12.8%) groups, but without reaching statistically significant level. Longitudinal aneurysm diameter was positively linked to MACCE [OR = 1.109, 95% CI (1.014–1.214), p = 0.024]. No benefits have been attributed to anticoagulant regimen over antiplatelet therapy. Conclusions: In our retrospective observational study, there seems to be no significant differences in MACCE-free survival between all groups (Medical vs PCI vs CABG). Larger longitudinal aneurysm diameter was identified as a predictor of poor prognosis during follow-up.

Transplantation of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in the setting of cardiovascular disease, such as heart failure, cardiomyopathy and ischemic heart disease, has been associated with good clinical outcomes in several trials. A reduction in left ventricular remodeling, myocardial fibrosis and scar size, an improvement in endothelial dysfunction and prolonged cardiomyocytes survival were reported. The regenerative capacity, in addition to the pro-angiogenic, anti-apoptotic and anti-inflammatory effects represent the main target properties of these cells. Herein, we review the different preconditioning methods of MSCs (hypoxia, chemical and pharmacological agents) and the novel approaches (genetically modified MSCs, MSC-derived exosomes and engineered cardiac patches) suggested to optimize the efficacy of MSC therapy.

Introduction. The prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD) detected in preoperative work-up for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is high. Instead, the management of a concomitant CAD remains unclear. We evaluate the impact of CAD and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on TAVI procedures. Materials and Methods. A retrospective study was conducted on 1336 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI in Toulouse University Hospital, Rangueil, France. The studied population was divided into 2 groups: CAD-TAVI group and No CAD-TAVI group. Then, the CAD-TAVI group was segregated into 2 subgroups: PCI-TAVI group and No PCI-TAVI group. In-hospital adverse clinical outcomes were assessed in each group. Results. Pre-TAVI work-up revealed significant CAD in 36% of 1030 patients eligible for inclusion in the study. The overall prevalence of in-hospital death, stroke, major or life-threatening bleeding, minor bleeding, major vascular complications, minor vascular complications, pacemaker implantation, and acute kidney injury was 2.7%, 2.4%, 2.8%, 3.6%, 3.9%, 7.5%, 12.5%, and 2.7%, respectively. Among the studied population, 55% were admitted to the cardiac care unit. No significant statistical difference was observed between groups. Discussion. CAD-TAVI population was not more likely to develop in-hospital adverse clinical outcomes post-TAVI procedure compared to others. Also, no significant difference regarding in-hospital death was observed. In parallel, performing PCI prior to TAVI did not increase the risk of in-hospital death and complications. The difference in terms of the distribution of antithrombotic regimen may explain the higher prevalence of bleeding events in the PCI-TAVI group. Conclusion. This study provides direct clinical relevance useful in daily practice. No negative impact has been attributed to the presence of a concomitant CAD and/or preoperative PCI on the TAVI hospitalization period.

Background. Vascular complications (VCs) are commonly observed after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedures. Closure devices for the access site were developed to reduce their incidence. We aim to evaluate the prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of the occurrence of post-TAVI VCs. Materials and Methods. A retrospective study was conducted on 1336 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI at the University Hospital of Toulouse, France, between January 2016 and March 2020. All included procedures were performed through the common femoral artery, and ProGlide® was the used closure device. The studied population was divided into two groups depending on the occurrence of VCs defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. Results. The mean age of the studied population was 84.4 ± 6.9, and 48% were male. 90% of TAVI interventions were performed through the right femoral artery. The prevalence of VCs was 18.8%, and 3.7% were major. Prolonged procedure duration was an independent predictor of VCs. Using the right access site and smaller introducer size (14 Fr) were preventive factors. No significant difference in mortality rate was detected between the two groups. Conclusion. This study showed a low prevalence for post-TAVI VCs, especially for the major type. An increase in bleeding events and prolonged cardiac care unit stay were the common adverse outcomes.

Takotsubo cardiomyopathy (TTC) is a clinical condition of transient acute heart failure correlated to regional wall motion abnormalities extending beyond the distribution of a single epicardial coronary artery. It is classified into four major types: apical, basal, mid-ventricular and focal. Sympathetic nerve stimulation and catecholamine storm are the main players in the pathogenesis of TTC. The clinical course of disease is generally benign but it may end with life-threatening complications. Coronary angiography, left ventriculogram, transthoracic echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) are the main tools for making diagnosis. Except for critical cases with hemodynamic instability and/or complications, the overall management is limited to conventional heart failure therapy.