Search

Objectives This study aimed to compare differences in patient characteristics and clinical outcomes of nonagenarians undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus patients younger than 90 years of age and to test the predictive accuracy of the logistic EuroSCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation), the EuroSCORE II, and the STS-PROM (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality) for mortality after TAVR in nonagenarians. Background The prevalence of severe aortic valve stenosis is increasing due to the rising life expectancy. However, there are limited data evaluating outcomes in patients older than 90 years of age. Moreover, the predictive accuracy of risk scores for mortality has not been evaluated in nonagenarian patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR. Methods The CENTER (Cerebrovascular EveNts in Patients Undergoing TranscathetER Aortic Valve Implantation) collaboration (N = 12,381) is an international collaboration consisting of 3 national registries, 6 local or multicenter registries, and 1 prospective clinical study, selected through a systematic online search. The primary endpoint of this study was the difference in 30-day all-cause mortality and stroke after TAVR in nonagenarians versus patients younger than 90 years of age. Secondary endpoints included differences in baseline characteristics, in-hospital outcomes, and the differences in predictive accuracy of the logistic EuroSCORE, the EuroSCORE II, and STS-PROM. Results A total of 882 nonagenarians and 11,499 patients younger than 90 years of age undergoing transfemoral TAVR between 2007 and 2018 were included. Nonagenarians had considerably fewer comorbidities than their counterparts. Nevertheless, rates of 30-day mortality (9.9% vs. 5.4%; relative risk [RR]: 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4 to 2.3; p = 0.001), in-hospital stroke (3.0% vs. 1.9%; RR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.0 to 2.3; p = 0.04), major or life-threatening bleeding (8.1% vs. 5.5%; RR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.1 to 2.2; p = 0.004), and new-onset atrial fibrillation (7.9% vs. 5.2%; RR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.1 to 2.2; p = 0.01) were higher in nonagenarians. The STS-PROM adequately estimated mortality in nonagenarians, with an observed-expected mortality ratio of 1.0. Conclusions In this large, global, patient-level analysis, mortality after transfemoral TAVR was 2-fold higher in nonagenarians compared with patients younger than 90 years of age, despite the lower prevalence of baseline comorbidities. Moreover, nonagenarians had a higher risk of in-hospital stroke, major or life-threatening bleeding, and new-onset atrial fibrillation. The STS-PROM was the only surgical risk score that accurately predicted the risk of mortality in nonagenarians.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe aortic stenosis (AS) is the first area of interventional cardiology where women are treated as often as men. In this analysis of the gender specific results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TAVI with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) we aimed to determine whether gender affects the survival comparison between TAVI and SAVR. We identified all RCTs comparing TAVI versus SAVR for severe AS and reporting 1 and/or 2year survival. Summary odds ratios (ORs) were obtained using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q statistic and I 2 . Four RCTs met the criteria, totalling 3758 patients, 1706 women and 2052 men. Amongst females, TAVI recipients had a significantly lower mortality than SAVR recipients, at 1year (OR 0.68; 95%CI 0.50 to 0.94) and at 2years (OR 0.74; 95%CI 0.58 to 0.95). Amongst males there was no difference in mortality between TAVI and SAVR, at 1year (OR 1.09; 95%CI 0.86 to 1.39) or 2years (OR 1.05; 95%CI 0.85 to 1.3). The difference in treatment effect between genders was significant at both 1year (p interaction =0.02) and 2years (p interaction =0.04). In women TAVI has a 26 to 31% lower mortality odds than SAVR. In men, there is no difference in mortality between TAVI and SAVR.

Background Despite the well-known impact of female sex on outcome after surgical aortic valve replacement (sAVR), few studies investigated its role after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Methods After propensity-matching for age, baseline comorbidities, previous interventions, priority, frailty score, New York Heart Association class, left ventricular function and associated cardiac diseases, hospital mortality, and procedure-related morbidities of 388 women (194 TAVR versus 194 sAVR)—of 5,231 patients enrolled in 70 centers participating in this prospective multicenter national registry—were analyzed at a central management unit of the Italian National Institute of Health. Results Although hospital mortality was comparable (4.1% TAVR versus 3.1% sAVR; p = 0.177), women undergoing sAVR showed a higher rate of transfusion (63.9% versus 37.1% TAVR; p = 0.0001); higher number of transfusions per patient (3.6 ± 0.4 versus 2.3 ± 0.3 TAVR; p = 0.049); a higher incidence of low cardiac output state (5.7% versus 3.6% TAVR; p = 0.017) and acute renal failure (8.8% versus 4.1% TAVR; p = 0.01); and higher mean transprosthetic gradients (15.7 ± 12.6 mm Hg versus 11.9 ± 10.7 mm Hg TAVR; p = 0.004). In contrast, women undergoing TAVR experienced significant postprocedural aortic regurgitation (mild, 37.6% versus 7.7% sAVR; moderate-to-severe, 7.1% versus 1.5% sAVR; p = 0.0001) and a higher rate of stroke (7.7% versus 2.5% sAVR; p = 0.037), major vascular complications (9.3% versus 0.5% sAVR; p = 0.0001), pacemaker implantation (12.4% versus 6.2% sAVR; p = 0.004), need for emergent percutaneous coronary intervention (1.0% versus 0% sAVR; p = 0.007), and longer intermediate care unit length of stay (2.5 ± 4.4 days versus 1.4 ± 2.6 days sAVR; p = 0.008). Perioperative myocardial infarction and lengths of intensive care unit stay and hospitalization were comparable (not significant). Conclusions Women undergoing sAVR and TAVR experienced different periprocedural morbidities. These data strongly suggest the need to strictly individualize the indications.

The debate on the advantages and limitations of off-pump (OP) vs on pump (ON) CABG has not still arrived to a conclusion and concerns still exist on graft patency. Aim of this study was to compare the impact of OPCABG and ONCABG on mortality and morbidity, with a specific focus on mid-term need for

We read with interest the comments by Dr. Spadaccio and colleagues regarding the results of the OBSERVANT (Italian Observational Multicenter Registry) study, and we thank them for giving us the opportunity to clarify some of the issues raised in their letter. First, we would like to emphasize that

Aortic stenosis (AS) is common in patients with end-stage renal disease and the rate of progression is faster than in patients without end-stage renal disease. While aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the gold-standard approach for patients with symptomatic severe AS, surgical AVR (SAVR) carries

Objectives The debate regarding the advantages and limitations of off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has yet to be resolved. This study was designed to compare the impact of surgical technique on long-term mortality and subsequent revascularization. Methods The Predicting Long-Term Outcomes After Isolated Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery (PRIORITY) project was designed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of 2 large, prospective multicenter cohort studies on CABG conducted in Italy between 2002 and 2004 and in 2007 and 2008. Clinical data on isolated CABG were compiled from 2 administrative databases. Results The study population consisted of 11,021 patients who underwent isolated CABG (27.2% off-pump CABG). Surgical strategy did not affect in-hospital mortality. Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that on-pump CABG was the only factor that protected from in-hospital percutaneous coronary intervention after surgery (odds ratio, 0.61). Although unadjusted long-term survival was significantly worse for off-pump CABG, adjustment did not confirm off-pump CABG as a risk factor for mortality (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.06). The on-pump CABG group had a significantly lower hospitalization for subsequent percutaneous coronary intervention, a finding confirmed even with adjustment for confounding factors (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.80; P Conclusions This study demonstrated that off-pump OPCAB did not affect short- and long-term mortality, but it was a significant risk factor for rehospitalization for percutaneous coronary intervention.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has being increasingly offered in low and intermediate surgical risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), although the effectiveness of TAVR in this particular population has not been demonstrated yet. This analysis aims to describe 1-year clinical