Search

Sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (sCJD), the most common human prion disease, is thought to occur when the cellular prion protein (PrPC) spontaneously misfolds and assembles into prion fibrils, culminating in fatal neurodegeneration. In a genome-wide association study of sCJD, we recently identified risk variants in and around the gene STX6, with evidence to suggest a causal increase of STX6 expression in disease-relevant brain regions. STX6 encodes syntaxin-6, a SNARE protein primarily involved in early endosome to trans-Golgi network retrograde transport. Here we developed and characterised a mouse model with genetic depletion of Stx6 and investigated a causal role of Stx6 expression in mouse prion disease through a classical prion transmission study, assessing the impact of homozygous and heterozygous syntaxin-6 knockout on disease incubation periods and prion-related neuropathology. Following inoculation with RML prions, incubation periods in Stx6−/− and Stx6+/− mice differed by 12 days relative to wildtype. Similarly, in Stx6−/− mice, disease incubation periods following inoculation with ME7 prions also differed by 12 days. Histopathological analysis revealed a modest increase in astrogliosis in ME7-inoculated Stx6−/− animals and a variable effect of Stx6 expression on microglia activation, however no differences in neuronal loss, spongiform change or PrP deposition were observed at endpoint. Importantly, Stx6−/− mice are viable and fertile with no gross impairments on a range of neurological, biochemical, histological and skeletal structure tests. Our results provide some support for a pathological role of Stx6 expression in prion disease, which warrants further investigation in the context of prion disease but also other neurodegenerative diseases considering syntaxin-6 appears to have pleiotropic risk effects in progressive supranuclear palsy and Alzheimer's disease.

This paper examines risk factors influencing food insecurity during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in a state in the U.S. heavily impacted by it and offers recommendations for multi-sector intervention.The U.S. Census Bureau Household Pulse Survey was analyzed to evaluate the impacts of COVID-19 on food security in Massachusetts from April 2020 through March 2021 using a study sample of 57,678 participants. Food security was defined as a categorical variable (food security, marginal food security, low food security, very low food security) and binary variable (food security and food insecurity). Known or suspected factors that contribute to it, such as childcare, education, employment, housing, and transportation were examined in multivariate logistic regression models. Data imputation methods accounted for missing data.Sociodemographic characteristics, including lower education level and living in a household with children, were determinants of food insecurity. Another factor that influenced food insecurity was economic hardships, such as unemployment, being laid off due to COVID-19, not working due to concerns about contracting or spreading COVID-19, or not having enough money to buy food. A third factor influencing food insecurity was food environment, such as lack of geographic access to healthy foods. Some of these factors have been exacerbated by the pandemic and will continue to impact food security. These should be addressed through a comprehensive approach with public health efforts considering all levels of the social ecological model and the context created by the pandemic.

Summary: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/frontotemporal dementia (ALS/FTD) is a fatal neurodegenerative disorder, and continued innovation is needed for improved understanding and for developing therapeutics. We have created next-generation genomically humanized knockin mouse models, by replacing the mouse genomic region of Sod1, Tardbp (TDP-43), and Fus, with their human orthologs, preserving human protein biochemistry and splicing with exons and introns intact. We establish a new standard of large knockin allele quality control, demonstrating the utility of indirect capture for enrichment of a genomic region of interest followed by Oxford Nanopore sequencing. Extensive analysis shows that homozygous humanized animals only express human protein at endogenous levels. Characterization of humanized FUS animals showed that they are phenotypically normal throughout their lifespan. These humanized strains are vital for preclinical assessment of interventions and serve as templates for the addition of coding or non-coding human ALS/FTD mutations to dissect disease pathomechanisms, in a physiological context.

La tecnología aplicada al manejo de la diabetes ha experimentado notables avances dentro de la última década. Hoy contamos con dispositivos de infusión de insulina subcutánea continua o bombas de insulina, que intentan imitar la secreción fisiológica del páncreas, y con el monitoreo continuo de glucosa que entrega información de la glicemia intersticial durante las 24 horas del día. Los modelos más modernos incorporan ambas tecnologías en un mismo dispositivo, teniendo incluso la capacidad de detener la infusión de insulina frente a una hipoglicemia. En esta revisión se abordará el funcionamiento de la bomba de insulina y monitor continuo de glucosa, así como las indicaciones de su uso, selección de pacientes, ventajas y desventajas de ambas tecnologías.

Background: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a leading cause of death in the elderly population. Data regarding percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) in nonagenarians are scarce, and differences in long term outcomes between generations remain unclear. We aimed to study the pattern and temporal trends of nonagenarians treated with PCI., Materials and Methods: A total of 14,695 patients underwent PCI between 2009-2020. We identified 2,034 (13.8%) octogenarians (age 80-89), and 222 (1.5%) nonagenarians (age 90-99). Endpoints included mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year., Materials and Methods: A total of 14,695 patients underwent PCI between 2009-2020. We identified 2,034 (13.8%) octogenarians (age 80-89), and 222 (1.5%) nonagenarians (age 90-99). Endpoints included mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year., Results: The number of nonagenarians undergoing PCI has increased substantially during the study time period, from 89 patients in the earlier time period (2009-2014) to 133 patients in the later time period (2015-2020). At 1-year, nonagenarians had significantly higher rates of both death (24.3% vs. 14.9%, p<0.01), and MACE (30.6% vs. 22.0%, p<0.01), as compared to octogenarians. The cumulative survival rate was higher among octogenarians both in the early and late time period (p<0.01 and p=0.039, respectively). A significant reduction in nonagenarian MACE rates were observed during the study time period, resulting in a non-significant difference in MACE rates in the later time period between both groups., Conclusion: The number of nonagenarians who undergo PCI is on the rise. While their clinical outcomes are inferior as compared to younger age groups, improvement was noted in the late time period., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Southern Society for Clinical Investigation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The use of drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) remains clinically relevant in the contemporary era of drug-eluting stent percutaneous coronary interventions (DES-PCI), especially in the setting of in-stent restenosis (ISR). Our goal was to assess the outcomes of ISR patients in a large prospective registry., Methods: A total of 2329 consecutive patients with ISR-PCI (675 using DEB and 1654 with DES) were treated in our medical centre from 2010 to 2021. Clinical end points included mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year. Clinical outcomes were adjusted for multiple confounders., Results: Mean ages (65.9 ± 11.0 vs 66.1 ± 10.5; P = 0.73) and percentages of female patients (16.6% vs 18.2%; P = 0.353) were similar between both ISR groups. Patients treated with DEB for ISR suffered more from diabetes, hypertension, and previous myocardial infarction (P < 0.01 for all) and presented more frequently with acute coronary syndrome (40.0% vs 34.4%; P = 0.01) compared with patients treated with DES for ISR. One-year MACE was significantly higher in the DEB ISR-PCI group (23.4% vs 19.6%; P = 0.002) compared to the DES ISR-PCI group, but no significant differences in mortality were observed at 1 year between the groups. After adjustment for multiple confounders, DEB ISR-PCI was not associated with increased MACE at 1 year (P = 0.55)., Conclusions: In our large experience, patients treated with DEB for ISR-PCI have higher baseline risk and sustained increased MACE rates compared with DES ISR-PCI patients. After adjustment for confounding variables, clinical outcomes are similar between the groups at 1 year after PCI., (Copyright © 2024 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Acute ischemic stroke remains a serious complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPD) were developed to mitigate the risk of acute ischemic stroke complicating TAVR (AISCT). However, the existing body of evidence does not clearly support CEPD efficacy in AISCT prevention., Objectives: In a cohort of patients with AISCT, we aimed to compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients who have had unprotected TAVR (CEPD-) vs CEPD-protected TAVR (CEPD+)., Methods: Data were derived from an international multicenter registry focusing on AISCT. We included all patients who experienced ischemic stroke within 72 hours of TAVR. Stroke severity was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). Primary outcomes were neurologic disability status according to the modified Rankin Score at 30 days, and 6-month all-cause death. Propensity score matched analysis was used to control for differences between groups., Results: In 18,725 TAVR procedures, 416 AISCT (2.2%) within 72 hours were documented, of which 376 were in the CEPD- TAVR group and 40 in the CEPD+ TAVR group. Although the middle cerebral artery stroke rate was similar in both groups (29.7% CEPD- vs 33.3% CEPD+; P = 0.71), AISCT in the CEPD+ group was characterized by a lower rate of internal carotid artery occlusion (0% vs 4.7%) and higher rate of vertebrobasilar system strokes (15.4% vs 5.7%; P = 0.04). AISCT was severe (NIHSS ≥15) in 21.6% CEPD- and 23.3% CEPD+ AISCT (P = 0.20). Disabling stroke rates (modified Rankin Score >1 at 30 days) were 47.3% vs 42.5% (P = 0.62), and 6-month mortality was 31.3% vs 23.3% (P = 0.61), in the CEPD- and CEPD+ groups, respectively. In the propensity score matched cohort, disabling stroke rates were 56.5% vs 41.6% (P = 0.16), and 6-month mortality was 33% vs 19.5% (P = 0.35), in the CEPD- and CEPD+ groups, respectively., Conclusions: In a large cohort of patients with AISCT, the use of CEPD had little effect on stroke distribution, severity, and outcomes., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Seiffert has received speaker or advisory fees from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Inari Medical, Medtronic, Pfizer, Shockwave Medical, and Siemens Healthineers; and a research grant from Boston Scientific—all unrelated to the submitted work. Dr Pilgrim has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Biotronik; and personal fees from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Abbott, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Van Mieghem has received research grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Daiichi-Sankyo, and AstraZeneca, and advisory/consultancy/speaker fees from JenaValve, Anteris, Siemens, Pie Medical, Materialise, Amgen, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Daiichi-Sankyo, Teleflex, and PulseCath BV. Dr Perl is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr De Backer has received research grants and consultant fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr Wagener has received educational support from Medtronic. Dr Webb has been a consultant to, and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Dr Akodad has received research funding from Medtronic, Biotronik, MUSE Explore, and Federation Française de Cardiologie; and is a consultant for Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Mangieri has received an institutional research grant from Boston Scientific; and has served on a medical advisory board for Boston Scientific. Dr Latib has served on advisory boards for Medtronic and Abbott; and has been a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Søndergaard is chief medical officer at Abbott Structural Heart; and has received consultant fees and/or institutional research funding from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and SMT. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

Background: Mitral valve-in-valve (ViV) is associated with suboptimal hemodynamics and rare left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction., Objectives: This study aimed to determine whether device position and asymmetry are associated with these outcomes., Methods: Patients undergoing SAPIEN 3 (Edwards Lifesciences) mitral ViV included in the VIVID (Valve-in-Valve International Data) Registry were studied. Clinical endpoints are reported according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions. Residual mitral valve stenosis was defined as mean gradient ≥5 mm Hg. Depth of implantation (percentage of transcatheter heart valve [THV] atrial to the bioprosthesis ring) and asymmetry (ratio of 2 measures of THV height) were evaluated., Results: A total of 222 patients meeting the criteria for optimal core lab evaluation were studied (age 74 ± 11.6 years; 61.9% female; STS score = 8.3 ± 7.1). Mean asymmetry was 6.2% ± 4.4%. Mean depth of implantation was 19.0% ± 10.3% atrial. Residual stenosis was common (50%; mean gradient 5.0 ± 2.6 mm Hg). LVOT obstruction occurred in 7 cases (3.2%). Implantation depth was not a predictor of residual stenosis (OR: 1.19 [95% CI: 0.92-1.55]; P = 0.184), but more atrial implantation was protective against LVOT obstruction (0.7% vs 7.1%; P = 0.009; per 10% atrial, OR: 0.48 [95% CI: 0.24-0.98]; P = 0.044). Asymmetry was found to be an independent predictor of residual stenosis (per 10% increase, OR: 2.30 [95% CI: 1.10-4.82]; P = 0.027)., Conclusions: Valve stenosis is common after mitral ViV. Asymmetry was associated with residual stenosis. Depth of implantation on its own was not associated with residual stenosis but was associated with LVOT obstruction. Technical considerations to reduce postdeployment THV asymmetry should be considered., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Whisenant is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Unbehaun is a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Erlebach has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic and Abbott; and is a proctor for Abbott. Dr Guerrero has received institutional research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Bruschi is a consultant for Abbott. Dr Rudolph has received speaker honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences; and is a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Andreas is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Zoll, and AbbVie; and has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and LSI. Dr Dvir is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)-related coronary artery obstruction prediction remains unsatisfactory despite high mortality and novel preventive therapies., Objectives: This study sought to develop a predictive model for TAVR-related coronary obstruction in native aortic stenosis., Methods: Preprocedure computed tomography and fluoroscopy images of patients in whom TAVR caused coronary artery obstruction were collected. Central laboratories made measurements, which were compared with unobstructed patients from a single-center database. A multivariate model was developed and validated against a 1:1 propensity-matched subselection of the unobstructed cohort., Results: Sixty patients with angiographically confirmed coronary obstruction and 1,381 without obstruction were included. In-hospital death was higher in the obstruction cohort (26.7% vs 0.7%; P < 0.001). Annular area and perimeter, coronary height, sinus width, and sinotubular junction height and width were all significantly smaller in the obstructed cohort. Obstruction was most common on the left side (78.3%) and at the level of the coronary artery ostium (92.1%). Coronary artery height and sinus width, but not annulus area, were significant risk factors for obstruction by logistic regression but performed poorly in predicting obstruction. The new multivariate model (coronary obstruction IF cusp height > coronary height, AND virtual valve-to-coronary distance ≤4 mm OR culprit leaflet calcium volume >600 mm 3 ) performed well, with an area under the curve of 0.93 (sensitivity = 0.93, specificity = 0.84) for the left coronary artery and 0.94 (sensitivity = 0.92, specificity = 0.96) for the right., Conclusions: A novel computed tomography-based multivariate prediction model that can be implemented routinely in real-world practice predicted coronary artery obstruction from TAVR in native aortic stenosis., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This work was supported by a research grant from Medtronic to MedStar Cardiovascular Research Network and MedStar Health. Dr Kamioka has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Ludwig has received grant support from the German Heart Foundation; and received travel compensation from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Sinning has received speaker honoraria and research grants from Abbott, Abiomed, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences; and served as a proctor for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr Fuku has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Iyer has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Dr Rodriguez has served as a speaker for Medtronic, Abbott, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Montorfano has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Abbott. Dr Ancona has received consulting fees from Abbott and Abiomed. Dr Ahmad has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Ruggiero has served as a proctor for Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences; served as a consultant for Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and RegenX-Bio; and received research support from Ancora Heart and Bard. Dr Weissman has served as the director of an academic cardiac computed tomography core lab with institutional contracts with Ancora Heart and LivaNova. Dr Waksman has served on the advisory board for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Philips IGT, and Pi-Cardia Ltd; has served as a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cordis, Medtronic, Philips IGT, Pi-Cardia Ltd, Swiss Interventional Systems/SIS Medical AG, Transmural Systems Inc, and Venous MedTech; has received institutional grant support from Amgen, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Chiesi, Medtronic, and Philips IGT; and is an investor in MedAlliance and Transmural Systems Inc. Dr Rogers has served as a proctor and consultant for Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; has served on the advisory board for Medtronic; and holds equity interest in Transmural Systems Inc. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

Background: The optimal access route in patients with severe peripheral artery disease (PAD) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains undetermined., Objectives: This study sought to compare clinical outcomes with transfemoral access (TFA), transthoracic access (TTA), and nonthoracic transalternative access (TAA) in TAVR patients with severe PAD., Methods: Patients with PAD and hostile femoral access (TFA impossible, or possible only after percutaneous treatment) undergoing TAVR at 28 international centers were included in this registry. The primary endpoint was the propensity-adjusted risk of 30-day major adverse events (MAE) defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), or main access site-related Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 major vascular complications. Outcomes were also stratified according to the severity of PAD using a novel risk score (Hostile score)., Results: Among the 1,707 patients included in the registry, 518 (30.3%) underwent TAVR with TFA after percutaneous treatment, 642 (37.6%) with TTA, and 547 (32.0%) with TAA (mostly transaxillary). Compared with TTA, both TFA (adjusted HR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.45-0.75) and TAA (adjusted HR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.47-0.78) were associated with lower 30-day rates of MAE, driven by fewer access site-related complications. Composite risks at 1 year were also lower with TFA and TAA compared with TTA. TFA compared with TAA was associated with lower 1-year risk of stroke/TIA (adjusted HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.24-0.98), a finding confined to patients with low Hostile scores (P interaction  = 0.049)., Conclusions: Among patients with PAD undergoing TAVR, both TFA and TAA were associated with lower 30-day and 1-year rates of MAE compared with TTA, but 1-year stroke/TIA rates were higher with TAA compared with TFA., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Palmerini has received speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Saia has received consulting and lecture fees from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Kim has received personal fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Merill Life Sciences, and Shockwave Medical. Dr Søndergaard has received consulting fees and/or institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Sahajanand Medical Technologies. Dr Burzotta has received speaker fees from Abiomed, Abbott, Medtronic, and Terumo. Dr Romagnoli has received speaker fees by Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, and Medtronic. Dr Van Mieghem has received research grant support from Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Abiomed, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr Pilgrim has received research grants to his institution from Boston Scientific, Biotronik, and Edwards Lifesciences; and honoraria from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Abbott, and HighLife SAS. Dr Adam has received personal and proctoring fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, JenaValve, and Medtronic (during the conduct of the study). Dr Di Mario has received research grants to his institution from Abbott, Amgen, Boston Scientific, Chiesi, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, and Volcano Philips. Dr Toggweiler has served as a proctor/consultant for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, and Abbott Vascular; has served consultant for Medira, AtHeart Medical, Veosource, Shockwave, Teleflex, and Polares Medical; has received institutional research grants from Biosensors, Boston Scientific, and Fumedica; and holds equity in Hi-D Imaging. Dr Testa has received consulting fees from and served as a proctor Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Merrill. Dr Berti has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Boston Scientific. Dr Ancona has received consultant fees from Abbott. Dr Montorfano has received proctor fees from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific. Dr Castriota has received proctoring fees from Abbott and Medtronic. Dr Petronio has received consultant and research funds from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott. Dr Barbanti has served as a consultant for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific. Dr Tamburino has received speaker honoraria from Abbott and Medtronic. Dr Nickenig has received lecture or advisory board honoraria from Abbott, Amarin, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Berlin Chemie, Biosensus, Biotronik, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, CardioValve, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; owns stock options with Beren, Cardiovalve; has served in clinical trials with Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Berlin Chemie, Biosensus, Biotronik, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, CardioValve, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and has received research funding from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Bundeministerium für Bildung und Forschun, the European Union, Abbott, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr Stefanini has received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Pfizer/Bristol Myers Squibb; research grants to his institution from Boston Scientific. Dr Latib has served as a consultant for Abbott, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, Neovasc, Shifamed, and Philips. Dr Porto has received consulting or speaker fees from Biotronik, Abiomed, Medtronic, Terumo, Philips, Sanofi, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and Bayer, not related to this work. Dr Grube has served on the Speakers Bureau/Scientific Advisory Board for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, JenaValve, and High Life; and owns equity interest in Millipede, Pi-Cardia, Ancora, Laminar, ReNiva Medical, and Shockwave. Dr Stone has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Pulnovo, and Infraredx; has served as a consultant for Valfix, TherOx, Robocath, HeartFlow, Ablative Solutions, Vectorious, Miracor, Neovasc, Abiomed, Ancora, Elucid Bio, Occlutech, CorFlow, Apollo Therapeutics, Impulse Dynamics, Cardiomech, Gore, Amgen, and Adona Medical; owns equity/options in Ancora, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, the Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, Valfix, and Xenter; has a daughter who is an employee at Medtronic; and his employer (Mount Sinai Hospital) has received research support from Abbott, Abiomed, Bioventrix, Cardiovascular Systems, Philips, Biosense Webster, Shockwave, Vascular Dynamics, and V-wave. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite advances in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), periprocedural acute ischemic stroke remains a concern., Objectives: The aims of this study were to investigate acute ischemic stroke complicating TAVR (AISCT) and to describe the indications and outcomes of interventions to treat AISCT., Methods: An international multicenter registry was established focusing on AISCT within 30 days of TAVR. Stroke severity was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale. Primary outcomes were 1-year all-cause death and neurologic disability status at 90 days according to modified Rankin scale score., Results: Of 16,615 TAVR procedures, 387 patients with AISCT were included (2.3%). Rates of 1-year death were 28.9%, 35.9%, and 77.5% in patients with mild, moderate, and severe stroke, respectively (P < 0.001). Although 348 patients were managed conservatively, 39 patients (10.1%) underwent neurointervention (NI) with either mechanical thrombectomy (n = 26) or thrombolytic therapy (n = 13). In a subanalysis excluding patients with mild stroke, there was no clear 1-year survival benefit for NI compared with conservative management (47.6% vs 41.1%, respectively; P = 0.78). In a logistic regression model controlling for stroke severity, NI was associated with 2.9-fold odds (95% CI: 1.2-7.0; P = 0.016) of independent survival at 90 days., Conclusions: AISCT carries significant morbidity and mortality, which is correlated with stroke severity. The present findings suggest that neurologic disability for patients with moderate or worse stroke could potentially be improved by timely intervention and highlight the importance of collaboration between cardiologists and neurologists to optimize AISCT outcomes., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Pilgrim has received research grants to the institution from Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Biotronik; has received personal fees from Biotronik and Boston Scientific; has received other compensation from HighLife SAS and Medira; and is a proctor for Medtronic. Dr De Backer has received research grants and consulting fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr Søndergaard has received consulting fees and institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Van Mieghem has received research grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi Sankyo; and has received advisory fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Ancora, Medtronic, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr Webb has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Dr Cockburn is a proctor for Boston Scientific. Dr Seiffert has served as a consultant for JenaValve and Boston Scientific; has received travel compensation from Edwards Lifesciences, JenaValve, Boston Scientific, and Biotronik; and has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic. Dr Mangieri has received a research grant (to the institution) from Boston Scientific; and has served on a medical advisory board for Boston Scientific. Dr Latib has served on advisory boards for Medtronic and Abbott; and has been a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Akodad has received research funding from Medtronic, Biotronik, MUSE Explore, and Federation Française de Cardiologie. Dr Perl is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Data on outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using balloon-expandable valves (BEVs) or self-expandable valves (SEVs) as well as the impact of center valve preference on these outcomes are limited., Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of TAVR procedures using third-generation BEVs and SEVs stratified by center valve preference., Methods: In a multicenter registry (n = 17), 13 centers exhibited valve preference (66.6%-90% of volume) and were included. Outcomes were compared between BEVs and SEVs stratified by center valve preference., Results: In total, 7,528 TAVR procedures (3,854 with SEVs and 3,674 with BEVs) were included. The mean age was 81 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 5.2. Baseline characteristics were similar between BEVs and SEVs. Need for pacemaker implantation was higher with SEVs at BEV- and SEV-dominant centers (17.8% vs 9.3% [P < 0.001] and 12.7% vs 10.0% [P = 0.036], respectively; HR: 1.51; P for interaction = 0.021), risk for cerebrovascular accident was higher with SEVs at BEV-dominant but not SEV-dominant centers (3.6% vs 1.1% [P < 0.001] and 2.2% vs 1.4% [P = 0.162]; HR: 2.08; P for interaction < 0.01). Aortic regurgitation greater than mild was more frequent with SEVs at BEV-dominant centers and similar with BEVs regardless of center dominance (5.2% vs 2.8% [P < 0.001] and 3.4% vs 3.7% [P = 0.504], respectively). Two-year mortality was higher with SEVs at BEV-dominant centers but not at SEV-dominant centers (21.9% vs 16.9% [P = 0.021] and 16.8% vs 16.5% [P = 0.642], respectively; HR: 1.20; P for interaction = 0.032)., Conclusions: Periprocedural outcomes, aortic regurgitation greater than mild, and 2-year mortality are worse when TAVR is performed using SEVs at BEV-dominant centers. Outcomes are similar regardless of valve type at SEV-dominant centers. The present results stress the need to account for this factor when comparing BEV and SEV outcomes. (The Aortic+Mitral Transcatheter [AMTRAC] Valve Registry; NCT04031274)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Van Miegham has received research grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi-Sankyo; and has received advisory fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Ancora, Medtronic, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi-Sankyo. Dr Barbanti has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Grasso is a proctor for Abbott Vascular. Dr De Backer has received research grants and consulting fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr Andreas is a proctor for Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received advisory board fees from Medtronic. Dr Estévez-Loureiro is a consultant for Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific. Dr Nombela-Franco has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences; and is a proctor for Abbott. Dr Søndergaard has received consulting fees and/or institutional research support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and SMT. Dr Amat-Santos is a proctor for Boston Scientific. Dr Finkelstein is a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; and has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Distinct anatomical features predispose bicuspid AS patients to conduction disturbances after TAVR. This study sought to evaluate whether the incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI) and left bundle branch block (LBBB) in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is related to an anatomical association between bicuspid AS and short membranous septal (MS) length., Methods: Sixty-seven consecutive patients with bicuspid AS from a Bicuspid AS TAVR multicenter registry and 67 propensity-matched patients with tricuspid AS underwent computed tomography before TAVR., Results: MS length was significantly shorter in bicuspid AS compared with tricuspid AS (6.2 ± 2.5 mm vs. 8.4 ± 2.7 mm, respectively; p < 0.001). In patients with bicuspid AS, MS length and aortic valve calcification were the most powerful pre-procedural independent predictors of PPMI or LBBB (odds ratio [OR]: 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15 to 1.55, p = 0.003 and OR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.1 to 3.34, p = 0.022, respectively). When taking into account pre- and post-procedural parameters, aortic valve calcification and the difference between MS length and implantation depth were the most powerful independent predictors of PPMI or LBBB in patients with bicuspid AS (OR: 1.82, 95%: 1.1 to 3.1, p = 0.027; OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.38, p = 0.003)., Conclusion: MS length, which was significantly shorter in bicuspid AS compared with tricuspid AS, aortic valve calcification, and device implantation deeper than MS length predict PPMI or LBBB in bicuspid AS after TAVR., (Copyright © 2020 Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of residual mitral regurgitation (MR) on mortality in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Background: MR is common in patients undergoing TAVR. Data on optimal management of patients with significant MR after TAVR are limited., Methods: The registry consisted of 16 TAVR centers (n = 7,303). Outcomes of patients with ≥ moderate versus lesser grade MR after TAVR were compared., Results: In 1,983 (27.2%) patients, baseline MR grade was ≥ moderate. MR regressed in 874 (44.1%) patients and persisted in 1,109 (55.9%) after TAVR. Four-year mortality was higher for those with MR persistence, but not for those with MR regression after TAVR, compared with nonsignificant baseline MR (43.8% vs. 35.1% vs. 32.4%; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.38; p = 0.008; HR: 1.02; p = 0.383, respectively). New York Heart Association functional class III to IV after TAVR was more common in those with MR persistence vs. regression (14.4% vs. 3.9%; p < 0.001). In a propensity score-matched cohort (91 patients' pairs), with significant residual MR after TAVR who did or did not undergo staged mitral intervention, staged intervention was associated with a better functional class through 1 year of follow-up (82.4% vs. 33.3% New York Heart Association functional class I or II; p < 0.001), and a numerically lower 4-year mortality, which was not statistically significant (64.6% vs. 37.5%; HR: 1.66; p = 0.097)., Conclusions: Risk stratification based on improvement in MR and symptoms after TAVR can identify patients at increased mortality risk after TAVR. These patients may benefit from a staged transcatheter mitral intervention, but this requires further proof from future studies. (Transcatheter Treatment for Combined Aortic and Mitral Valve Disease. The Aortic+Mitral TRAnsCatheter [AMTRAC] Valve Registry [AMTRAC]; NCT04031274)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr. Barbanti has received consultant fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Grasso has served as a proctor for Abbott Vascular. Dr. De Backer has received research grants and consultant fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr. Andreas has served as a proctor for Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received advisory board fees from Medtronic. Dr. Estévez-Loureiro has served as a consultant for Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific. Dr. Amat-Santos has served as a proctor for Boston Scientific. Dr. Nombela-Franco has received consultant fees from Edwards Lifesciences; and has served as a proctor for Abbott. Dr. Søndergaard has received consultant fees and institutional research from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Van Mieghem has received research grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi-Sankyo; and has received advisory fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Ancora, Medtronic, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi-Sankyo. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe baseline characteristics, and periprocedural and mid-term outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter mitral valve interventions post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and examine their clinical benefit., Background: The optimal management of residual mitral regurgitation (MR) post-TAVR is challenging., Methods: This was an international registry of 23 TAVR centers., Results: In total, 106 of 24,178 patients (0.43%) underwent mitral interventions post-TAVR (100 staged, 6 concomitant), most commonly percutaneous edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (PMVR). The median interval post-TAVR was 164 days. Mean age was 79.5 ± 7.2 years, MR was >moderate in 97.2%, technical success was 99.1%, and 30-day device success rate was 88.7%. There were 18 periprocedural complications (16.9%) including 4 deaths. During a median follow-up of 464 days, the cumulative risk for 3-year mortality was 29.0%. MR grade and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class improved dramatically; at 1 year, MR was moderate or less in 90.9% of patients (mild or less in 69.1%), and 85.9% of patients were in NYHA functional class I/II. Staged PMVR was associated with lower mortality versus medical treatment (57.5% vs. 30.8%) in a propensity-matched cohort (n = 156), but this was not statistically significant (hazard ratio: 1.75; p = 0.05)., Conclusions: For patients who continue to have significant MR, remain symptomatic post-TAVR, and are anatomically suitable for transcatheter interventions, these interventions are feasible, safe, and associated with significant improvement in MR grade and NYHA functional class. These results apply mainly to PMVR. A staged PMVR strategy was associated with markedly lower mortality, but this was not statistically significant. (Transcatheter Treatment for Combined Aortic and Mitral Valve Disease. The Aortic+Mitral TRAnsCatheter Valve Registry [AMTRAC]; NCT04031274)., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Dr. Barbanti has received consultant fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. De Backer has received research grants and consultant fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr. Sievert has received institutional honoraria, travel expenses, and consulting fees from 4tech Cardio, Abbott, Ablative Solutions, Ancora Heart, Append Medical, Bavaria Medizin Technologie GmbH, Bioventrix, Boston Scientific, Carag, CardiacDimensions, Cardimed, Celonova, Comed B.V., Contego, CVRx, Dinova, Edwards Lifesciences, Endologix, Hemoteq, Hangzhou Nuomao Medtech, Holistick Medical, Lifetech, Maquet Getinge Group, Medtronic, Mokita, Occlutech, Recor, RenalGuard, Terumo, Vascular Dynamics, Vectorious Medtech, Venus, Venock, and Vivasure Medical. Dr. Grasso has been a proctor for Abbott Vascular. Dr. Andreas has been a proctor for Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received advisory board fees from Medtronic. Dr. Guerrero has received research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Van Mieghem has received research grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi-Sankyo; and advisory fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Ancora, Medtronic, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi-Sankyo. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of coronary protection by preventive coronary wiring and stenting across the coronary ostia in patients at high risk for coronary obstruction after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Background: Coronary obstruction following TAVR is a life-threatening complication with high procedural and short-term mortality., Methods: Data were collected retrospectively from a multicenter international registry between April 2011 and February 2019., Results: Among 236 patients undergoing coronary protection with preventive coronary wiring, 143 had eventually stents implanted across the coronary ostia after valve deployment. At 3-year follow-up, rates of cardiac death were 7.8% in patients receiving stents and 15.7% in those not receiving stents (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.42; 95% confidence interval: 0.14 to 1.28; p = 0.13). There were 2 definite stent thromboses (0.9%) in patients receiving stents, both occurring after TAVR in "valve-in-valve" procedures. In patients not receiving stents, there were 4 delayed coronary occlusions (DCOs) (4.3%), occurring from 5 min to 6 h after wire removal. Three cases occurred in valve-in-valve procedures and 1 in a native aortic valve procedure. Distance between the virtual transcatheter valve and the protected coronary ostia <4 mm was present in 75.0% of patients with DCO compared with 30.4% of patients without DCO (p = 0.19)., Conclusions: In patients undergoing TAVR at high risk for coronary obstruction, preventive stent implantation across the coronary ostia is associated with good mid-term survival rates and low rates of stent thrombosis. Patients undergoing coronary protection with wire only have a considerable risk for DCO., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The authors sought to collect data on contemporary practice and outcome of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in oncology patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS)., Background: Oncology patients with severe AS are often denied valve replacement. TAVR may be an emerging treatment option., Methods: A worldwide registry was designed to collect data on patients who undergo TAVR while having active malignancy. Data from 222 cancer patients from 18 TAVR centers were compared versus 2,522 "no-cancer" patients from 5 participating centers. Propensity-score matching was performed to further adjust for bias., Results: Cancer patients' age was 78.8 ± 7.5 years, STS score 4.9 ± 3.4%, 62% men. Most frequent cancers were gastrointestinal (22%), prostate (16%), breast (15%), hematologic (15%), and lung (11%). At the time of TAVR, 40% had stage 4 cancer. Periprocedural complications were comparable between the groups. Although 30-day mortality was similar, 1-year mortality was higher in cancer patients (15% vs. 9%; p < 0.001); one-half of the deaths were due to neoplasm. Among patients who survived 1 year after the TAVR, one-third were in remission/cured from cancer. Progressive malignancy (stage III to IV) was a strong mortality predictor (hazard ratio: 2.37; 95% confidence interval: 1.74 to 3.23; p < 0.001), whereas stage I to II cancer was not associated with higher mortality compared with no-cancer patients., Conclusions: TAVR in cancer patients is associated with similar short-term but worse long-term prognosis compared with patients without cancer. Among this cohort, mortality is largely driven by cancer, and progressive malignancy is a strong mortality predictor. Importantly, 85% of the patients were alive at 1 year, one-third were in remission/cured from cancer. (Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Oncology Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis [TOP-AS]; NCT03181997)., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) carries a risk of Vascular Complications (VCs) at the access site. The currently used measures for assessing the risk for VCs are not accurate enough, and sometimes fail to predict them. We therefore aimed to examine whether Iliofemoral artery lumen volume (IFV) assessment with 3-dimensional computed tomography (CT) predicts VCs after transfemoral TAVR., Methods: We identified 45/560 trans-femoral TAVR patients with VC, then performed nearest neighbor 1:1 matching for patients with no VC, matching for age, sex, TAVR year, valve size and type, closure-device, sheath size and peripheral vascular disease. IFV, minimal diameter, tortuosity, and calcification were measured, and their diagnostic performance assessed., Results: The final analysis included 45 patients with and 45 patients without VCs. The two groups were well balanced. For all patients, median IFV was 8.65 ml (IQR 6.5-11.95). IFV was lower in patients with VC compared to patients without VC: 7.10 ml (IQR 5.4-9.0) vs. 10.10 ml (IQR 8.3-13.3), p < 0.001. VC risk had marginal association with iliofemoral artery minimal diameter (p = 0.06) and no association with tortuosity or calcification. Compared with other measurements, IFV had the most favorable receiver operating curve for the prediction of VC, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.78., Conclusion: IFV measurement using 3-dimensional CT is significantly associated with VCs in transfemoral TAVR patients and might be superior to currently accepted parameters. IFV should be further studied among extended cohorts of TAVR treated patients as a novel tool for VC risk assessment prior to transfemoral TAVR., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) provides therapy for patients with severe aortic stenosis at extreme, high, or intermediate surgical risk. Transfemoral access has been the preferred access route; however, this approach is not suitable for many TAVR candidates. A suprasternal approach may allow for earlier ambulation and shorter hospital stay as compared with other, nontransfemoral approaches., Methods: A total of 11 patients with unsuitable transfemoral access underwent suprasternal TAVR. Propensity matching was used to compare suprasternal patients to patients undergoing transaortic, transapical, and trans-subclavian TAVR., Results: Groups were well matched for baseline characteristics. A self-expanding valve device was used in 6 (54.5%) and a balloon-expandable valve in 5 (45.5%) of the 11 patients treated by the suprasternal route. Suprasternal and trans-subclavian patients were able to ambulate earlier than patients treated by the transaortic route, a median 1.6 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.9 to 1.8), 1.6 days (IQR: 0.9 to 2.7), and 3.9 days (IQR: 1.9 to 4.5) after the procedure for suprasternal, trans-subclavian, and transaortic patients, respectively (p = 0.001). Length of hospitalization was shorter for patients treated by suprasternal or trans-subclavian access in comparison with patients treated by the transaortic or transapical approach: median 4 days (IQR: 3 to 8) and 4 days (IQR: 4 to 8) versus 8 days (IQR: 6 to 14) and 6 days (IQR: 7 to 11) for suprasternal and trans-subclavian versus transaortic and transapical, respectively (p = 0.01)., Conclusions: Suprasternal and trans-subclavian access are associated with earlier ambulation and shorter hospitalization than other nontransfemoral TAVR routes, without an increase in complications. Further study is required to determine if suprasternal is the alternative access of choice for TAVR patients with poor transfemoral vasculature., (Copyright © 2018 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of transcatheter heart valves (THV) for the treatment of noncalcific pure native aortic valve regurgitation (NAVR) and failing bioprosthetic surgical heart valves (SHVs) with pure severe aortic regurgitation (AR)., Background: Limited data are available about the "off-label" use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to treat pure severe AR., Methods: The study population consisted of patients with pure severe AR treated by TAVR at 18 different centers. Study endpoints were device success, early safety, and clinical efficacy at 30 days, as defined by Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 criteria., Results: A total of 146 patients were included, 78 patients in the NAVR group and 68 patients in the failing SHV group. In the NAVR group, device success, early safety, and clinical efficacy were 72%, 66%, and 61%, respectively. Device success and clinical efficacy were significantly better with newer generation THVs compared with old-generation THVs (85% vs. 54% and 75% vs. 46%, respectively, p < 0.05); this was mainly due to less second THV implantations and a lower rate of moderate to severe paravalvular regurgitation (10% vs. 24% and 3% vs. 27%, respectively). Independent predictors of 30-day mortality were body mass index <20 kg/m 2 , STS surgical risk score >8%, major vascular or access complication, and moderate to severe AR. In the failing SHV group, device success, early safety, and clinical efficacy were 71%, 90%, and 77%, respectively., Conclusions: TAVR for pure NAVR remains a challenging condition, with old-generation THVs being associated with THV embolization and migration and significant paravalvular regurgitation. Newer generation THVs show more promising outcomes. For those patients with severe AR due to failing SHVs, TAVR is a valuable therapeutic option., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is recommended for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) who are at prohibitive/high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Patients with severe AS may experience acute decompensated heart failure (HF) that is resistant to medical therapy. We report our TAVI experience in treating patients with unstable AS who require urgent intervention for their aortic valve disease., Methods: Patients were restrictively included in the urgent TAVI registry if they were admitted with acute refractory and persistent HF despite medical therapy and had TAVI performed during the same hospital stay. All others were included in the elective TAVI group., Results: Between November 2008 and April 2015, 410 consecutive patients underwent TAVI at our centre-27 (6.6%) urgently. Patients operated on urgently were more likely to be frail and carry higher SAVR mortality risk based on The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality/logistic EuroSCORE (LES) measures. Pulmonary edema was the most common clinical presentation. Preprocedural assessment used fewer imaging modalities, yet implantation success remained high and reached 96.3% using an additional valve (valve-within-valve) required in 3 patients, with no difference in periprocedural complications according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions. Although 30-day functional capacity was reduced, patients had similar 30-day mortality and major adverse cardiovascular event rates compared with patients who underwent elective TAVI., Conclusions: Short-term outcome after urgent TAVI appears to be reasonable. For patients with severe AS who experience acute decompensated HF that is recalcitrant to optimal medical therapy and who are at high risk with SAVR, urgent TAVI may be a viable treatment strategy. Larger prospective studies and data on long-term outcomes are needed., (Copyright © 2016 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: A protected block curriculum (PBC) with postcurriculum examinations for all surgical residents has been provided to assure coverage of core curricular topics. Biannual assessment of resident competency will soon be required by the Next Accreditation System., Objective: To identify opportunities for early medical knowledge assessment and interventions, we examined whether performance in postcurriculum multiple-choice examinations (PCEs) is predictive of performance in the American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination (ABSITE) and clinical service competency assessments., Design: Retrospective single-institutional education research study., Setting: Academic general surgery residency program., Participants: A total of 49 surgical residents., Intervention: Data for PGY1 and PGY2 residents participating in the 2008 to 2012 PBC are included. Each resident completed 6 PCEs during each year., Main Outcome Measures: The results of 6 examinations were correlated to percentage-correct ABSITE scores and clinical assessments based on the 6 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core competencies. Individual ABSITE performance was compared between PGY1 and PGY2. Statistical analysis included multivariate linear regression and bivariate Pearson correlations., Results: A total of 49 residents completed the PGY1 PBC and 36 completed the PGY2 curriculum. Linear regression analysis of percentage-correct ABSITE and PCE scores demonstrated a statistically significant correlation between the PGY1 PCE 1 score and the subsequent PGY1 ABSITE score (p = 0.037, β = 0.299). Similarly, the PGY2 PCE 1 score predicted performance in the PGY2 ABSITE (p = 0.015, β = 0.383). The ABSITE scores correlated between PGY1 and PGY2 with statistical significance, r = 0.675, p = 0.001. Performance on the 6 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core competencies correlated between PGY1 and PGY2, r = 0.729, p = 0.001, but did not correlate with PCE scores during either years., Conclusions and Relevance: Within a mature PBC, early performance in a PGY1 and PGY2 PCE is predictive of performance in the respective ABSITE. This information can be used for formative assessment and early remediation of residents who are predicted to be at risk for poor performance in the ABSITE., (Copyright © 2014 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. All rights reserved.)