Search

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Autonomic Cardiac Regulation During Spontaneous Nocturnal Hypoglycemia in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes," by M. L. Koivikko and colleagues, published in a 2012 issue of the journal.

Background : We aimed to compare the procedural efficacy and long-term clinical results of a totally contrast-free Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) procedure (i.e., contrast dye was not used for either the pre-procedural assessment or during the procedure) to those of standard practice in patients with severe renal dysfunction. Methods : All consecutive patients with a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) ≤ 35 mL/min and severe aortic stenosis who were treated with transfemoral TAVI at our Institution were included in the registry. The zero-contrast patients underwent carbon dioxide angiography and a non-contrast CT scan for assessment of vascular access suitability, and aortic annulus sizing was performed by a TEE, and the procedural guidance was fluoroscopic and echocardiographic. Procedural outcomes were evaluated, and clinical long-term follow-up was performed for all included patients. Results : A total of 44 patients (median age, 85 (IQR, 80.75-87.00)) were included in the zero-contrast group (TEE guidance and general anesthesia in 37 (84%) patients), while 63 patients were included in the standard practice arm (82 ± 78 mL of contrast dye used). Procedural success was obtained in 100% of cases. There were no differences in procedural outcomes, including final mean aortic gradients (5.5 (IQR, 5.0-10.0) mmHg in the zero-contrast group vs. 6.0 (IQR, 5.0-10.0) mmHg in the standard practice group) and rate of at least a moderate paravalvular leak (0% vs. 1.6% in the zero-contrast and standard practice groups, respectively; p = 0.31). No differences in AKI during the hospital stay were observed. Over a median follow-up of 3.3 years, there was a significantly lower rate of AKI (1.2% vs. 25.9%, p < 0.001) and rehospitalizations (1.6% vs. 35.5%, p < 0.00) in standard practice group. Conclusions : We showed for the first time the feasibility and efficacy of a totally contrast-free strategy compared to standard practice in TAVI patients with severe renal dysfunction. Besides achieving comparable procedural results, the zero-contrast strategy showed a better long-term clinical outcome in reducing hospital readmissions for kidney function deterioration.

Background: Carriers of cytochrome 2C19 (CYP2C19) loss of function (LoF) alleles treated with clopidogrel have impaired drug metabolism resulting in reduced active metabolite levels, high platelet reactivity (HPR), and an increased risk of thrombotic events. Several alternative antiplatelet therapies have been proposed to overcome HPR in these patients, but their comparative effects remain poorly explored., Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different oral antiplatelet therapies in carriers of CYP2C19 LoF alleles undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) were included. A frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted to estimate mean difference (MD) or odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The primary outcome was platelet reactivity assessed by VerifyNow and reported as P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU). The secondary outcome was the rate of HPR. Standard-dose of clopidogrel (75 mg daily) was used as reference treatment., Results: A total of 12 RCTs testing 6 alternative strategies (i.e., clopidogrel 150 mg, prasugrel 3.75 mg, 5 mg, and 10 mg, ticagrelor 90 mg bid, and adjunctive cilostazol 100 mg bid) were included in the network. Compared with standard-dose clopidogrel, the greatest reduction in PRU was observed with prasugrel 10 mg (MD -127.91; 95% CI -141.04; -114.78) and ticagrelor 90 mg bid (MD -124.91; 95% CI -161.78; -88.04), followed by prasugrel 5 mg (MD -76.33; 95% CI -98.01; -54.65) and prasugrel 3.75 mg (MD -73.00; 95% CI -100.28; -45.72). Among other strategies, adjunctive cilostazol (MD-42.64; 95% CI -64.72; -20.57) and high-dose clopidogrel (MD -32.11; 95% CI -51.33; -12.90) were associated with a modest reduction in PRU compared with standard-dose clopidogrel., Conclusion: Among carriers of CYP2C19 LoF alleles undergoing PCI, standard-dose prasugrel or ticagrelor are most effective in reducing platelet reactivity, while double-dose clopidogrel and additional cilostazol showed modest effects. Reduced-dose of prasugrel may represent a balanced strategy to overcome HPR without a significant increase in bleeding. The clinical implications of these pharmacodynamic findings warrant further investigation., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Technological and surgical approaches to carotid artery stenting (CAS) have evolved. Modern randomised controlled trials comparing CAS and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are limited, and information about updated post-intervention outcomes are mostly from retrospective, small studies., Aims: This study aims to compare the 30-day outcomes of stroke, transient ischaemic attack (TIA), acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and death with propensity-matched groups of CEA and CAS in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients over a recent study period of new CAS technologies and approaches., Methods: A retrospective, observational, multicentre analysis was conducted including consecutive symptomatic and asymptomatic patients treated with either primary CEA or CAS for internal carotid artery stenosis, between 2015 and 2022. Patients were propensity score-matched based on comorbidities and assessed according to symptom status. Primary endpoints include composite ipsilateral stroke, TIA, AMI and death within 30 days. Secondary endpoints include technical success and length of hospital stay., Results: From a cohort of 1,110 patients, propensity matching produced 269 distinct treatment pairs (n=538). Most patients were asymptomatic (n=456, 85%). All 6 strokes were minor (CEA=2; CAS=4) and registered among asymptomatic patients. One AMI (CEA) and 1 patient death (CAS) were reported among symptomatic patients. Composite stroke/AMI/death were not significantly different between both types of symptom status and both revascularisation techniques (p=0.44 and p=1, respectively). Technical success was 100%. The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in asymptomatic patients treated with CAS compared to those treated with CEA (p=0.05), but no difference was registered among symptomatic patients (p=0.32)., Conclusions: Propensity-matched analysis suggests that CAS has similar postprocedural outcomes for stroke, AMI and death at 30 days compared to CEA.

Background: There is a lack of comparative data on transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in degenerated surgical prostheses (valve-in-valve [ViV])., Aims: We sought to compare outcomes of using two self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (THV) systems for ViV., Methods: In this retrospective multicentre registry, we included consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral ViV using either the ACURATE neo/neo2 (ACURATE group) or the Evolut R/PRO/PRO+ (EVOLUT group). The primary outcome measure was technical success according to Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3. Secondary outcomes were 30-day all-cause mortality, device success (VARC-3), coronary obstruction (CO) requiring intervention, rates of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), and aortic regurgitation (AR) ≥moderate. Comparisons were made after 1:1 propensity score matching., Results: The study cohort comprised 835 patients from 20 centres (ACURATE n=251; EVOLUT n=584). In the matched cohort (n=468), technical success (ACURATE 92.7% vs EVOLUT 88.9%; p=0.20) and device success (69.7% vs 73.9%; p=0.36) as well as 30-day mortality (2.8% vs 1.6%; p=0.392) were similar between the two groups. The mean gradients and rates of severe PPM, AR ≥moderate, or CO did not differ between the groups. Technical and device success were higher for the ACURATE platform among patients with a true inner diameter (ID) >19 mm, whereas a true ID ≤19 mm was associated with higher device success - but not technical success - among Evolut recipients., Conclusions: ViV TAVI using either ACURATE or Evolut THVs showed similar procedural outcomes. However, a true ID >19 mm was associated with higher device success among ACURATE recipients, whereas in patients with a true ID ≤19 mm, device success was higher when using Evolut.

Aims: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing bleeding reduction strategies using antiplatelet treatment regimens (BRATs) in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have shown promising results, but the generalizability of these findings may be significantly influenced by the ethnicity of the patients enrolled, given that East Asian (EA) patients show different ischaemic-bleeding risk profile compared to non-EA patients., Methods and Results: RCTs comparing a BRAT vs. standard 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were selected. The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) as defined in each trial and the primary safety endpoint was minor or major bleeding. Twenty-six RCTs testing seven different BRATs were included. The only strategy associated with a trade-off in MACE was 'upfront unguided de-escalation' in the subgroup of non-EAs (risk ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.09-1.24). All but aspirin monotherapy-based strategies (i.e. 'short and very short DAPT followed by aspirin') were associated with reduced bleeding compared with standard DAPT in both EA and non-EA patients. There were no significant differences between subgroups, but the lack of RCTs in some of the included strategies and the difference in the certainty of evidence between EA and non-EA patients revealed that the evidence in support of different BRATs in ACS undergoing PCI is influenced by ethnicity. Moreover, absolute risk reduction estimation revealed that some BRATs might be more effective than others in reducing bleeding according to ethnicity., Conclusion: The majority of BRATs are associated with reduced bleeding without any trade-off in hard ischaemic endpoints regardless of ethnicity. However, the supporting evidence and relative safety profiles of different BRATs might be significantly affected by ethnicity, which should be taken into account in clinical practice., Study Registration: This study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023416710)., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: There are no data comparing sirolimus-coated balloons (SCBs [MagicTouch, Concept Medical]) to paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs [SeQuent Please Neo, B. Braun]) for the treatment of de novo small vessel disease (SVD)., Objectives: This study sought to compare quantitative coronary angiographic outcomes at 6 months after treatment of de novo SVD with a PCB or SCB., Methods: This prospective, multicenter, noninferiority trial randomized 121 patients (129 SVD lesions) to treatment with an SCB or PCB, with balloon sizing determined using optical coherence tomography. The primary endpoint was noninferiority for the 6-month angiographic net lumen gain., Results: Angiographic follow-up was completed in 109 (90.1%) patients in the per-protocol analysis. The mean ± SD angiographic net gains were 0.25 ± 0.40 mm with SCBs vs 0.48 ± 0.37 mm with PCBs, resulting in SCBs failing to meet the 0.30 mm criterion for noninferiority (P noninferiority  = 0.173), with an absolute difference of -0.23 mm (95% CI: -0.37 to -0.09) secondary to a smaller late loss (0.00 ± 0.32 mm vs 0.32 ± 0.47 mm; P < 0.001) and more frequent late lumen enlargement (53.7% vs 30.0%; OR: 2.60; 95% CI: 1.22-5.67; P = 0.014) with PCBs. Binary restenosis rates were 32.8% and 12.5% following treatment with SCBs and PCBs, respectively (OR: 3.41; 95% CI: 1.36-9.44; P = 0.012). The mean angiography-derived fractional flow ratio at follow-up was 0.86 ± 0.15 following treatment with SCBs and 0.91 ± 0.09 following PCBs (P = 0.026); a fractional flow ratio ≤0.80 occurred in 13 and 5 vessels after treatment with SCBs and PCBs, respectively., Conclusions: The SCB MagicTouch failed to demonstrate noninferiority for angiographic net lumen gain at 6 months compared to the PCB SeQuent Please Neo., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Serruys has reported consultancy for Merillife, Novartis, SMT (Sahajanand Medical technological), Philips/Volcano, and Xeltis, outside the submitted work. 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: Horizontal aorta (HA), defined by an aortic angulation (AA) ≥48°, is associated with worse outcomes particularly after self-expanding (SE) trans-catheter heart valve (THV) implantation. Although the SE ACURATE Neo THV demonstrated favorable procedural success rates in patients with HA, it remains associated with a non-negligible rate of moderate or greater paravalvular leak (PVL)., Objectives: Aim of the study was to assess the performance of ACURATE Neo2 in the setting of HA., Methods: We performed a multicenter cohort analysis on patients with severe aortic valve stenosis and HA undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the Neo or Neo2 THV enrolled in the ITAL-neo registry. The primary endpoint was a composite of early safety and clinical efficacy at 30 days according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 (VARC-3). Secondary endpoints included the occurrence of moderate or severe PVL and 90-day clinical outcomes., Results: Among 900 patients included in the ITAL-neo registry, 407 exhibited HA; of these, 300 received a Neo THV and 107 a Neo2 THV. HA, irrespective of the THV implanted, emerged as an independent risk factor for developing ≥ moderate PVL. Technical and device success at 30-day follow-up was comparable between groups. However, Neo2 was associated with a significantly lower rate of ≥moderate PVL vs. Neo: (5% vs. 15%; p < 0.001), which was confirmed also at 90-day follow-up. Additionally, no correlation was found between ≥moderate PVL and AA in the Neo2 group, while PVL degree increased proportionally to the AA in the Neo cohort., Conclusion: In patients with HA, the new generation Acurate Neo2 THV was associated with a comparable device success rate and a significantly lower rate of ≥moderate PVL, when compared with its predecessor., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. 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.)

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of simultaneous grasping of the 3 leaflets during TriClip (Abbott Cardiovascular) implantation. The final valve configuration with a triple orifice resembled the result of the clover surgical technique. This technique should be considered in selected cases of challenging grasping.

Robotic percutaneous coronary intervention (R-PCI) is an emerging technology designed to improve operator safety and procedural precision. The interventional cardiologist is able to manipulate guidewires, catheters and devices from a specific cockpit. A number of studies evaluating R-PCI have shown high procedural success rates with low complications. R-PCI advantages include the possibility to perform an accurate stent positioning, to reduce the operator radiation exposure and orthopedic injuries. However, there is a limited experience regarding R-PCI in complex anatomies, that may still require manual assistance. Moreover, the technique is limited by current incompatibility with specific materials, the lack of tactile feedback and the possibility to robotically manage only one wire/device at the same time. Globally, R-PCI is a novel approach with future interesting implications, but further investigations are necessary to overcome current limitations.

Background: Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) remains one of the main drawbacks of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), but scarce data exist on PPI after valve-in-valve (ViV) TAVR, particularly with the use of newer-generation transcatheter heart valves (THVs)., Objectives: The goal of this study was to determine the incidence, factors associated with, and clinical impact of PPI in a large series of ViV-TAVR procedures., Methods: Data were obtained from the multicenter VIVID Registry and included the main baseline and procedural characteristics, in-hospital and late (median follow-up: 13 months [interquartile range: 3 to 41 months]) outcomes analyzed according to the need of periprocedural PPI. All THVs except CoreValve, Cribier-Edwards, Sapien, and Sapien XT were considered to be new-generation THVs., Results: A total of 1,987 patients without prior PPI undergoing ViV-TAVR from 2007 to 2020 were included. Of these, 128 patients (6.4%) had PPI after TAVR, with a significant decrease in the incidence of PPI with the use of new-generation THVs (4.7% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.017), mainly related to a reduced PPI rate with the Evolut R/Pro versus CoreValve (3.7% vs. 9.0%; p = 0.002). There were no significant differences in PPI rates between newer-generation balloon- and self-expanding THVs (6.1% vs. 3.9%; p = 0.18). In the multivariable analysis, older age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.05 for each increase of 1 year; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02 to 1.07; p = 0.001), larger THV size (OR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.20; p = 0.02), and previous right bundle branch block (OR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.00 to 4.17; p = 0.05) were associated with an increased risk of PPI. There were no differences in 30-day mortality between the PPI (4.7%) and no-PPI (2.7%) groups (p = 0.19), but PPI patients exhibited a trend toward higher mortality risk at follow-up (hazard ratio: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.91; p = 0.04; p = 0.08 after adjusting for age differences between groups)., Conclusions: In a contemporary large series of ViV-TAVR patients, the rate of periprocedural PPI was relatively low, and its incidence decreased with the use of new-generation THV systems. PPI following ViV-TAVR was associated with a trend toward increased mortality at follow-up., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr. Alperi was supported by a grant from the Fundación Alfonso Martin Escudero (Madrid, Spain). Dr. Rodés-Cabau holds the Research Chair “Fondation Famille Jacques Larivière” for the Development of Structural Heart Disease Interventions, and has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr. Montorfano is a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Boston Scientific. Dr. Adam has received personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Boston Scientific; and has received grants and personal fees from Medtronic during the conduct of the study. Dr. Noble has received institutional research grants from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and is a proctor for Medtronic. Dr. Erlebach has received fees from Medtronic. Dr. Kempfert has received fees from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott. Dr. Pilgrim has received institutional research grants from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences; has received speaker fees from Biotronik and Boston Scientific; has received consultancy fees from HighLife SAS (CEC); and has performed proctoring for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr. Kim has received personal fees from, performed proctoring for, and has served on advisory boards for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Meril, Medtronic, and Shockwave Med. Dr. Hildick-Smith has served as a proctor and advisor for Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Dvir has provided consulting for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott. 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.)

Background: Surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are now both used to treat aortic stenosis in patients in whom life expectancy may exceed valve durability. The choice of initial bioprosthesis should therefore consider the relative safety and efficacy of potential subsequent interventions., Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare TAVR in failed transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) versus surgical aortic valves (SAVs)., Methods: Data were collected on 434 TAV-in-TAV and 624 TAV-in-SAV consecutive procedures performed at centers participating in the Redo-TAVR international registry. Propensity score matching was applied, and 330 matched (165:165) patients were analyzed. Principal endpoints were procedural success, procedural safety, and mortality at 30 days and 1 year., Results: For TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV, procedural success was observed in 120 (72.7%) versus 103 (62.4%) patients (p = 0.045), driven by a numerically lower frequency of residual high valve gradient (p = 0.095), ectopic valve deployment (p = 0.081), coronary obstruction (p = 0.091), and conversion to open heart surgery (p = 0.082). Procedural safety was achieved in 116 (70.3%) versus 119 (72.1%) patients (p = 0.715). Mortality at 30 days was 5 (3%) after TAV-in-TAV and 7 (4.4%) after TAV-in-SAV (p = 0.570). At 1 year, mortality was 12 (11.9%) and 10 (10.2%), respectively (p = 0.633). Aortic valve area was larger (1.55 ± 0.5 cm 2 vs. 1.37 ± 0.5 cm 2 ; p = 0.040), and the mean residual gradient was lower (12.6 ± 5.2 mm Hg vs. 14.9 ± 5.2 mm Hg; p = 0.011) after TAV-in-TAV. The rate of moderate or greater residual aortic regurgitation was similar, but mild aortic regurgitation was more frequent after TAV-in-TAV (p = 0.003)., Conclusions: In propensity score-matched cohorts of TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV patients, TAV-in-TAV was associated with higher procedural success and similar procedural safety or mortality., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Dr. Webb is a consultant to and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and ViVitro Labs. Dr. Kim has received proctor or speaker fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Barbanti is a consultant for Edwards; and is an Advisory Board member for Biotronik. Dr. Sondergaard has received consultant fees and institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Symetis. Dr. Redwood is a proctor for and has received lecture fees from Edwards. Dr. Hamm is an Advisory Board member for Medtronic. Dr. Sinning has received speaker honoraria and research grants from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Wood is a consultant to and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. Dr. Sathananthan is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Schofer has received speaker fees and travel compensation from Boston Scientific; and has received travel compensation from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott/St. Jude Medical. Dr. Leipsic is a consultant to Circle CVI and Edwards Lifesciences; and provides institutional core laboratory services to Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Neovasc. Dr. Andreas is a proctor for Edwards and Abbott; and is an Advisory Board member for Medtronic. Dr. Guerrero has received research grant support from Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Castriota is a proctor for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr. Kodali has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific; has received grants and personal fees from Abbott Vascular and JenaValve; has received personal fees from Meril Lifesciences; has received personal fees from and holds equity in Admedus; and holds equity in Supira, Microinterventional Devices, Dura Biotech, and Thubrikar Aortic Valve. Dr. Conradi is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Neovasc, and JenaValve. Dr. Nazif has received consulting fees or honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Biotrace, and Baylis Medical; and has received consulting fees from and holds equity in Venus Medtech. Dr. Pilgrim has received research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Biotronik; and has received speaker fees from Boston Scientific and Biotronik. Dr. Babaliaros is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences; and holds equity in Transmural Systems. Dr. Van Mieghem has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Daiichi-Sankyo, and PulseCath; and has received institutional research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Latib has received institutional research or grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received personal consulting honoraria from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Hildick-Smith is a proctor and adviser to Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences. 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: This study sought to evaluate 1-year safety and efficacy of dual-layered mesh-covered carotid stent systems (DLS) for carotid artery stenting (CAS)., Background: Small clinical studies evaluating 1-year outcomes of CAS performed with 2 available DLS, Roadsaver (RS) (Terumo Corp., Tokyo, Japan) and CGuard (CG) (InspireMD, Boston, Massachusetts), have been published., Methods: The authors performed an individual patient-level meta-analysis including studies enrolling more than 100 CAS with DLS. The primary endpoint was the death and stroke rate; secondary endpoints were restenosis and in-stent thrombosis rates at 1 year., Results: Patients were divided into 2 groups according to DLS (RS n = 250; CG n = 306). At 1 year, 11 patients died (1.97%), 7 patients in the group RS (2.8%) and 4 patients in the CG one (1.31%); and 10 strokes occurred, 4 in the group RS (1.6%) and 6 in the CG one (1.96%). Overall death and stroke rate was 3.77% (n = 21), 11 events in the group RS group (4.4%) and 10 in the CG group (3.27%). Symptomatic status was the only predictor of death and or stroke. At 1 year, restenosis occurred in 12 patients (2.1%), 10 in the group RS (4%) and 2 in the CG one (0.65%) (p = 0.007). In-stent thrombosis occurred in 1 patient (0.18%) in the CG group (0.32%). RS use was the only independent predictor of restenosis., Conclusions: This study suggests that DLS use for CAS is associated with a low 1-year death and stroke rate, and the specific DLS stent used could affect the restenosis rate., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Drug-eluting stents (DES) represent nowadays the gold standard treatment for coronary artery disease. Despite the safety and efficacy, and favorable long-term clinical outcomes of new generation DES, their use is still associated with a not negligible risk of long-term events, related to the presence of a definitive prosthesis in the vessel wall. In addition, DES implantation is not always desirable in particular anatomic settings (small vessels, bifurcations) or in patients with higher bleeding risk. In recent years, drug-coated balloons (DCB) have been developed to overcome some of these limitations, offering a combined mechanical (balloon dilation) and biological therapy (drug-release). In the coronary setting, there is already a clear indication for the treatment of in-stent restenosis, but recent studies showed favorable results also when DCB are used for the treatment of de novo lesions.Regarding peripheral artery disease management, conventional transcatheter therapies with balloon angioplasty, atherectomy and stents are limited by high restenosis rates; in addition, stent implantation in lower limb vessels alter artery wall compliance, increasing stiffness, with a higher risk of restenosis and stent fracture. DCB represent a good alternative and have shown good safety and efficacy also in this setting.

Background: The optimal management of cardiogenic shock (CS) occurring in the presence of acute coronary syndromes, severe aortic stenosis, and poor left ventricular function has not been established. Recently, the availability of new assistance devices and techniques has provided novel management opportunities. In particular, when compared with surgical approaches, percutaneous procedures have the advantage of allowing "staged" interventions, in which different steps are planned according to the patient's evolving clinical conditions., Case Presentation: A woman was admitted with an acute coronary syndrome complicated by CS on a background of severe aortic stenosis, severe left ventricular dysfunction, and severe calcific peripheral artery disease. We successfully treated her with emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to left main stem followed by balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV). After BAV, acute aortic regurgitation developed with sudden hemodynamic collapse. In such a catastrophic setting, we successfully achieved immediate stabilization by implantation of an Impella CP device (Abiomed). After 1 day of Impella CP assistance, we successfully performed elective transfemoral aortic revalving through the same femoral access by facilitating device crossing and hemostasis with transradial balloon peripheral angioplasty and by practicing a novel technique we called "pump rewiring.", Conclusion: This case example demonstrates how a tailored step-by-step strategy including PCI, BAV, peripheral angioplasty, percutaneous ventricular assistance, and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) allowed the successful treatment of a critical patient with CS. Impella CP could be considered an effective bridge to TAVI in patients developing aortic regurgitation after BAV, since maintaining arterial access can be achieved using the pump-rewiring technique.