Search

Over the last decades, bioprosthetic heart valves (BHV) have been increasingly implanted instead of mechanical valves in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Structural valve deterioration (SVD) is a common issue at follow-up and can justify the need for a reintervention. In the evolving landscape of interventional cardiology, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) has emerged as a remarkable innovation to address the complex challenges of patients previously treated with SAVR and has rapidly gained prominence as a feasible technique especially in patients at high surgical risk. On the other hand, the expanding indications for TAVR in progressively younger patients with severe aortic stenosis pose the crucial question on the long-term durability of transcatheter heart valves (THVs), as patients might outlive the bioprosthetic valve. In this review, we provide an overview on the role of ViV TAVR for failed surgical and transcatheter BHVs, with a specific focus on current clinical evidence, pre-procedural planning, procedural techniques, and possible complications. The combination of integrated Heart Team discussion with interventional growth curve makes it possible to achieve best ViV TAVR results and avoid complications or put oneself ahead of time from them.

Patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease experience several recurrent adverse events that lead to poor outcomes. Given the complexity of treating these patients, and the extremely high risk of long-term adverse events, the assessment of non-culprit lesions becomes crucial. Recently, two trials have shown a possible clinical benefit into treat non-culprit lesions using a fraction flow reserve (FFR)-guided approach, compared to culprit-lesion-only PCI. However, the most recent FLOW Evaluation to Guide Revascularization in Multivessel ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction (FLOWER-MI) trial did not show a benefit of the use of FFR-guided PCI compared to an angiography-guided approach. Otherwise, intracoronary imaging using optical coherence tomography (OCT), intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), or near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) could provide both quantitative and qualitative assessments of non-culprit lesions. Different studies have shown how the characterization of coronary lesions with intracoronary imaging could lead to clinical benefits in these peculiar group of patients. Moreover, non-invasive evaluations of NCLs have begun to take ground in this context, but more insights through adequately powered and designed studies are needed. The aim of this review is to outline the available techniques, both invasive and non-invasive, for the assessment of multivessel disease in patients with STEMI, and to provide a systematic guidance on the assessment and approach to these patients.

Sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) reduces mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) compared to enalapril. However, its effects on functional capacity remain uncertain; consequently, we sought to compare Sac/Val vs. standard medical therapy, in terms of effects on prognostically significant CPET parameters, in HFrEF patients during a long follow-up period. We conducted a single-center, observational study in an HF clinic; specifically, we retrospectively identified that 12 patients switched to Sac/Val and 13 patients that managed with standard, optimal medical therapy (control group). At each visit, baseline, and follow-up (median time: 16 months; IQ range: 11.5-22), we collected demographic information, medical history, vital signs, cardiopulmonary exercise testing, standard laboratory data, pharmacological treatment information, and echocardiographic parameters. The study's primary end-point was the change from baseline in peak VO 2 (adjusted to body weight). We did not observe significant differences between the two study groups at baseline. Similarly, we did not observe any significant differences during the follow-up in mean values of peak VO 2 corrected for body weight: Sac/Val baseline: 12.2 ± 4.6 and FU: 12.7 ± 3.3 vs. control group: 13.1 ± 4.2 and 13.0 ± 4.2 mL/kg/min; p = 0.49. No significant treatment differences were observed for changes in VE/VCO 2 slope: Sac/Val baseline: 35.4 ± 7.4 and FU: 37.2 ± 13.1 vs. control group: 34.6 ± 9.1 and 34.0 ± 7.3; p = 0.49. In conclusion, after a median follow-up period of 16 months, there was no significant benefit of Sac/Val on peak VO 2 and other measures of CPET compared with standard optimal therapy in patients with HFrEF.

Though the acute effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection have been extensively reported, the long-term effects are less well described. Specifically, while clinicians endure to battle COVID-19, we also need to develop broad strategies to manage post-COVID-19 symptoms and encourage those affected to seek suitable care. This review addresses the possible involvement of the lung, heart and brain in post-viral syndromes and describes suggested management of post-COVID-19 syndrome. Post-COVID-19 respiratory manifestations comprise coughing and shortness of breath. Furthermore, arrhythmias, palpitations, hypotension, increased heart rate, venous thromboembolic diseases, myocarditis and acute heart failure are usual cardiovascular events. Among neurological manifestations, headache, peripheral neuropathy symptoms, memory issues, lack of concentration and sleep disorders are most commonly observed with varying frequencies. Finally, mental health issues affecting mental abilities and mood fluctuations, namely anxiety and depression, are frequently seen. Finally, long COVID is a complex syndrome with protracted heterogeneous symptoms, and patients who experience post-COVID-19 sequelae require personalized treatment as well as ongoing support.