Search

Background: The diagnosis of acute rejection in cardiac transplant recipients requires invasive technique with endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) which has risks and limitations. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) with T2 and T1 mapping is a promising technique for characterizing myocardial tissue. The purpose of the study was to evaluate T2, T1 and extracellular volume fraction (ECV) quantification as novel tissue markers to diagnose acute rejection. Methods: CMR was prospectively performed in 20 heart transplant patients providing 31 comparisons EMB-CMR. CMR was performed close to EMB. Images were acquired on a 1.5 Tesla scanner including T2 mapping (T2 prepared balanced steady state free precession) and T1 mapping (modified Look-Locker inversion recovery sequences: MOLLI) at basal, mid and apical level in short axis view. Global and segmental T2 and T1 values were measured before and 15 min (for T1 mapping) after contrast administration. Results: Acute rejection was diagnosed in seven patients: six cellular rejections (4 grade IR, 2 grade 2R) and one antibody mediated rejection. Patients with acute rejection had significantly higher global T2 values at 3 levels: 58.5 ms [55.0–60.3] vs 51.3 ms [49.5–55.2] (p = 0.007) at basal; 55.7 ms [54.0–59.7] vs 51.8 ms [50.1–53.6] (p = 0.002) at median and 58.2 ms [54.0–63.7] vs 53.6 ms [50.8–57.4] (p = 0.026) at apical level. The area under the curve (AUC) for each level was 0.83, 0.79 and 0.78 respectively. Patients with acute rejection had significantly higher ECV at basal level: 34.2% [32.8–37.4] vs 27.4% [24.6–30.6] (p = 0.006). The AUC for basal level was 0.84. The sensitivity, specificity and diagnosis accuracy for basal T2 (cut off: 57.7 ms) were 71, 96 and 90% respectively; and for basal ECV: (cut off 32%) were 86, 85 and 85% respectively. Combining basal T2 and basal ECV allowed diagnosing all acute rejection and avoiding 63% of EMB. Conclusions: In heart transplant patients, a combined CMR approach using T2 mapping and ECV quantification provides a high diagnostic accuracy for acute rejection diagnosis and could potentially decrease the number of routine EMB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) represent the 2 treatments for aortic bioprosthesis failure. Clinical comparison of both therapies remains limited by the number of patients analyzed.Objectives: The purpose of this study was to analyze the outcomes of VIV TAVR versus redo SAVR at a nationwide level in France.Methods: Based on the French administrative hospital-discharge database, the study collected information for patients treated for aortic bioprosthesis failure with isolated VIV TAVR or redo SAVR between 2010 and 2019. Propensity score matching was used for the analysis of outcomes.Results: A total of 4,327 patients were found in the database. After matching on baseline characteristics, 717 patients were analyzed in each arm. At 30 days, VIV TAVR was associated with lower rates of the composite of all-cause mortality, all-cause stroke, myocardial infarction, and major or life-threatening bleeding (odds ratio: 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.44 to 0.88; p = 0.03). During follow-up (median 516 days), the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, all-cause stroke, myocardial infarction, or rehospitalization for heart failure was not different between the 2 groups (odds ratio: 1.18; 95% confidence interval: 0.99 to 1.41; p = 0.26). Rehospitalization for heart failure and pacemaker implantation were more frequently reported in the VIV TAVR group. A time-dependent interaction between all-cause and cardiovascular mortality following VIV TAVR was reported (p-interaction <0.05).Conclusions: VIV TAVR was observed to be associated with better short-term outcomes than redo SAVR. Major cardiovascular outcomes were not different between the 2 treatments during long-term follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Two competing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) technologies are currently available. Head-to-head comparisons of the relative performances of these 2 devices have been published. However, long-term clinical outcome evaluation remains limited by the number of patients analyzed, in particular, for recent-generation devices.Methods: Based on the French administrative hospital-discharge database, the study collected information for all consecutive patients treated with a TAVR device commercialized in France between 2014 and 2018. Propensity score matching was used for the analysis of outcomes during follow-up. The objective of this study was to analyze the outcomes of TAVR according to Sapien 3 balloon-expandable (BE) versus Evolut R self-expanding TAVR technology at a nationwide level in France.Results: A total of 31 113 patients treated with either Sapien 3 BE or Evolut R self-expanding TAVR were found in the database. After matching on baseline characteristics, 20 918 patients were analyzed (10 459 in each group with BE or self-expanding valves). During follow-up (mean [SD], 358 [384]; median [interquartile range], 232 [10-599] days), BE TAVR was associated with a lower yearly incidence of all-cause death (relative risk, 0.88; corrected P=0.005), cardiovascular death (relative risk, 0.82; corrected P=0.002), and rehospitalization for heart failure (relative risk, 0.84; corrected P<0.0001). BE TAVR was also associated with lower rates of pacemaker implantation after the procedure (relative risk, 0.72; corrected P<0.0001).Conclusions: On the basis of the largest cohort available, we observed that Sapien 3 BE valves were associated with lower rates of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, rehospitalization for heart failure, and pacemaker implantation after a TAVR procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]