Search

Since its conception, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has undergone important improvements both in the implantation technique and in transcatheter devices, allowing an enthusiastic adoption of this therapeutic approach in a wide population of patients previously without a surgical option and managed conservatively. Nowadays, patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis are typically managed with TAVI, regardless of their risk to surgery, improving the prognosis of patients and thus achieving an exponential global expansion of its use. However, thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications remain a latent concern in TAVI recipients. Both complications can appear simultaneously in the periprocedural period or during the follow-up, and when minor, they resolved without apparent sequelae, but in a relevant percentage of cases, they are devastating, overshadowing the benefit achieved with TAVI. Our review outlines the etiology and incidence of thromboembolic complications associated with TAVI, the main current strategies for their prevention, and the implications of its pharmacological management at the follow-up in a TAVI population, mostly frail and predisposed to bleeding complications.

PREGUNTA: ¿Qué evidencias relevantes podrían avalar hoy día el recambio valvular aórtico en un caso de auténtica estenosis aórtica grave asintomática? ¿Hay estudios para las dos técnicas, cirugía e implante percutáneo? RESPUESTA: Desde que Ross y Braunwald1 describieron la evolución de los pacientes con estenosis aórtica (EA) grave sintomática hace casi 60 años, la indicación del tratamiento quirúrgico para esta enfermedad se asentó y sigue en la actualidad como forma inicial de tratamiento, aunque comparte indicación con el implante percutáneo de válvula aórtica (TAVI). En la época en que el único tratamiento era la cirugía, que tenía unas cifras de mortalidad en torno al 3-4%, no se contemplaba tratar a un paciente asintomático que presentaba un riesgo de muerte súbita en torno al 1%. Los estudios posteriores confirmaron estos hallazgos y el tratamiento de la EA asintomática permaneció sin evidencias hasta la primera década del siglo XXI. A partir de entonces comienzan a publicarse estudios observacionales con pequeñas series de pacientes con EA grave (Vmax ≥ 4 m/s y gradiente medio ≥ 40 mmHg) asintomática, y en todos ellos el resultado es favorable al tratamiento quirúrgico precoz. El estudio de Kang et al.2, que incluyó 197 pacientes y valoró como objetivo...

QUESTION: What relevant evidence could support aortic valve replacement today in cases of true severe asymptomatic aortic stenosis? Are there any studies on both techniques, surgery and transcatheter implantation? ANSWER: Ross and Braunwald’s1 description of the outcomes of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) almost 60 years ago laid the foundations for the indication for surgery—the first-line therapy to date—to treat this disease, although transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is also indicated. At a time when surgery was the only therapeutic option available, with mortality rates close to 3% to 4%, nobody thought of treating asymptomatic patients, who had a risk of sudden death of nearly 1%. These findings were confirmed by later studies, and the treatment of asymptomatic AS continued to lack evidence until the first decade of the 21st century when observational studies with small series of patients with severe asymptomatic AS (Vmax ≥ 4 m/s and mean gradient ≥ 40 mmHg) began to be published. In all of them, the results favored early surgical treatment. In the study of 197 patients by Kang et al.,2 the primary endpoint was a composite of operative and follow-up mortality. The 6-year cardiac and all-cause mortality rates were 0% and 2...

ABSTRACT Introduction and objectives: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the treatment of choice for the management of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. As it happens with all procedures, the safety and effectiveness of TAVI must be monitored. To this end, we assessed the data available from the Spanish National Health Service from 2014 through 2017. Methods: The study included patients aged > 50 years treated with TAVI and registered in the Activity Registry of Specialized Health Care from 2014 through 2017 from public and private hospitals in compliance with the National Health System. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with mortality and complications, and negative binomial models for the mean hospital length of stay (LoS). Standardized rates were used to discriminate both the effectiveness and safety among regions with higher and lower levels of implementation of the technique using the national median as the threshold, (37 implants x 105 habitants) in the 4-year period. Results: A total of 5454 TAVIs were analyzed. The in-hospital mortality rate dropped from 4.89% in 2014 to 2.7% in 2017. The LoS decreased from 13.1 days in 2014 to 11.3 days in 2017. No differences in mortality were observed among the regions. However, the LoS of regions with a high volume of implants was significantly lower (OR, 0.88; 95%CI, 0.86-0.91; P < .01), as well as the risk of infections (OR, 0.54; 95%CI, 0.32-0.9; P = .02), and pacemaker implantation (OR, 0.77; 95%CI, 0.65-0.91; P < .01). Conclusions: The use of TAVI in Spain is safe and has grown progressively with improved outcomes regarding morbidity and mortality. Differences among regions have been highlighted regarding patient access to TAVI. This heterogeneity was not associated with mortality but with differences in the morbidity rates.

RESUMEN Introducción y objetivos: El implante percutáneo de válvula aórtica (TAVI) se ha consolidado como tratamiento de la estenosis aórtica grave. Como toda intervención, su seguridad y su efectividad deben monitorizarse en condiciones de práctica real. Para ello, se han analizado los datos del Sistema Nacional de Salud disponibles entre los años 2014 y 2017. Métodos: Se evaluaron todos los pacientes mayores de 50 años con TAVI por vía transfemoral incluidos en el Registro de Actividad de Atención Especializada entre 2014 y 2017 procedentes de centros públicos o concertados. Se hicieron análisis de regresión logísticos para evaluar los factores asociados con la mortalidad y las complicaciones, y modelos binomiales negativos para la estancia media hospitalaria. Se usaron tasas estandarizadas para ajustar diferencias en las variables de efectividad y seguridad entre las diferentes comunidades autónomas, de acuerdo con el alto y bajo volumen de implantación de la técnica, considerando como referencia la mediana nacional (37 implantes por 105 habitantes) durante el periodo de tiempo analizado. Resultados: En total se analizaron 5.454 casos de TAVI. La mortalidad intrahospitalaria pasó del 4,89% en 2014 al 2,7% en 2017. La estancia media hospitalaria descendió de 13,1 días en 2014 a 11,3 en 2017. A pesar de no observar diferencias en la mortalidad entre comunidades autónomas, aquellas con mayor volumen de implantes tuvieron una menor estancia media hospitalaria (OR = 0,88; IC95%, 0,86-0,91; p < 0,01), menor riesgo de infecciones (OR = 0,54; IC95%, 0,32-0,9; p = 0,02) y menor necesidad de marcapasos permanente (OR = 0,77; IC95%, 0,65-0,91; p < 0,01). Conclusiones: El uso de TAVI crece progresivamente en España con resultados cada vez mejores respecto al éxito del implante y la morbimortalidad perioperatoria. La variabilidad interregional en las tasas de implante no se relaciona con la mortalidad observada, pero sí con la morbilidad y la estancia hospitalaria.

¿CÓMO LO HARÍA? Los autores nos presentan un caso en el que no ha sido posible cruzar de forma retrógrada la válvula aórtica para realizar un implante percutáneo de válvula aórtica (TAVI); esto sucede con el introductor de la válvula en la arteria femoral y el resto de los accesos canalizados, por lo que se impone buscar una solución al implante al faltar uno de los pasos fundamentales. Hay 3 situaciones en las que cruzar una válvula aórtica estenótica puede ser especialmente difícil, incluso para un operador con experiencia: una es en las prótesis aórticas quirúrgicas estenóticas, en las que la aorta ascendente está un poco dilatada respecto a la válvula artificial y la construcción de esta no permite alinear bien los catéteres; otra es en la estenosis aórtica crítica por el escaso orificio de apertura, y la última son las válvulas bicúspides, como en el presente caso, bien porque la aorta ascendente suele estar dilatada, bien porque el plano valvular está demasiado vertical y es difícil de orientar los catéteres, y también porque la apertura bicúspide, al ser excéntrica, en muchas ocasiones, dificulta dirigir las guías y los catéteres al orificio valvular. Si se agotan las posibilidades de cruce retrógrado con diferentes...

HOW WOULD I APPROACH IT? The authors present a case of retrogradely uncrossable aortic valve for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). This happens with the valve introducer sheath in the femoral artery, and the remaining catheterized accesses. Therefore, a solution to implantation is needed since 1 of the basic steps is missing. There are 3 situations when crossing a stenosed aortic valve can become especially difficult even for an experienced operator: one is stenosed surgical aortic valves where the ascending aorta is poorly dilated compared to the artificial valve. In this situation, building the latter prevents proper catheter alignment.Another situation is critical aortic stenosis due to small opening orifice. The third situation is bicuspid valves, as it is the case here, with an often dilated ascending aorta or a too vertical valvular plane that complicate maneuvers with the guide catheter. Also, because the bicuspid opening being eccentric often complicates steering the guidewires and the catheters through the valvular orifice. If we exhaust all retrograde crossing possibilities with different catheters and guidewires, the only option left is antegrade access from the left ventricle (LV) through transseptal catheterization. The use of antegrade access for implantation purposes has already been described in the history of structural...

Background. The main cause of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is coronary artery obstruction due to atherosclerotic plaque growth or thrombus formation secondary to plaque rupture or erosion. However, there is a subgroup of patients with signs and symptoms suggestive of ACS but without relevant coronary artery obstruction on coronary angiography. This population is defined as myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA). The present study analyzes the clinical features and outcomes of very young patients with a diagnosis of MINOCA. Method. Nested case-control study of ≤40-year-old patients referred for coronary angiography due to clinical suspicion of ACS. Patients were divided into three groups: patients with obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), patients diagnosed with MINOCA, and controls with non-coronary artery disease. Results. Of 19,321 coronary angiographies performed in our center in a period of 10 years, 408 (2.1%) were in patients ≤40 years old, and MINOCA was identified in 32 (21%) patients. The cardiovascular risk factors for obstructive CAD and MINOCA were very similar. The incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at follow-up was significantly higher in the MINOCA (HR 4.13 (95%CI 1.22–13.89) and obstructive CAD (HR 4.59 (95%CI 1.90–10.99) patients compared to controls. Cocaine use HR 14.58 (95%CI 3.08–69.02), family history of CAD HR 6.20 (95%CI 1.40–27.43), and depression HR 5.16 (95%CI 1.06–25.24) were associated with a poor outcome in the MINOCA population. Conclusion. Very young patients with MINOCA had a poor prognosis at long-term follow-up, similar to patients with obstructive CAD. Focusing efforts on secondary prevention is essential in this population.

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a common chronic condition in the elderly. However, the earlier CAD begins, the stronger its impact on lifestyle and costs of health and social care. The present study analyzes clinical and angiographic features and the outcome of very young patients undergoing coronary angiography due to suspected CAD, including a nested case-control study of ≤40-year-old patients referred for coronary angiography. Patients were divided into two groups: cases with significant angiographic stenosis, and controls with non-significant stenosis. Of the 19,321 coronary angiographies performed in our center in a period of 10 years, 504 (2.6%) were in patients ≤40 years. The most common cardiovascular risk factors for significant CAD were smoking (OR 2.96; 95% CI 1.65–5.37), dyslipidemia (OR 2.18; 95% CI 1.27–3.82), and family history of CAD (OR 1.95; 95% CI 1.05–3.75). The incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at follow-up was significantly higher in the cases compared to controls (HR 2.71; 95% CI 1.44–5.11). Three conventional coronary risk factors were directly related to the early signs of CAD. MACE in the long-term follow-up is associated to dyslipidaemia and hypertriglyceridemia. Focusing efforts for the adequate control of CAD in young patients is a priority given the high socio-medical cost that this disease entails to society.

Coronary artery disease is a chronic disease with an increased expression in the elderly. However, different studies have shown an increased incidence in young subjects over the last decades. The prediction of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in very young patients has a significant impact on medical decision-making following coronary angiography and the selection of treatment. Different approaches have been developed to identify patients at a higher risk of adverse outcomes after their coronary anatomy is known. This is a prognostic study of combined data from patients ≤40 years old undergoing coronary angiography (n = 492). We evaluated whether different machine learning (ML) approaches could predict MACE more effectively than traditional statistical methods using logistic regression (LR). Our most effective model for long-term follow-up (60 ± 27 months) was random forest (RF), obtaining an area under the curve (AUC) = 0.79 (95%CI 0.69–0.88), in contrast with LR, obtaining AUC = 0.66 (95%CI 0.53–0.78, p = 0.021). At 1-year follow-up, the RF test found AUC 0.80 (95%CI 0.71–0.89) vs. LR 0.50 (95%CI 0.33–0.66, p < 0.001). The results of our study support the hypothesis that ML methods can improve both the identification of MACE risk patients and the prediction vs. traditional statistical techniques even in a small sample size. The application of ML techniques to focus the efforts on the detection of MACE in very young patients after coronary angiography could help tailor upfront follow-up strategies in such young patients according to their risk of MACE and to be used for proper assignment of health resources.

Introduction: Beta-blocker doses that have been shown to be effective in randomized clinical trials are not commonly used in daily clinical practice. The aim of this study was to analyze whether there is a prognostic benefit of high rather than low doses of beta-blockers after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, 2092 ACS patients discharged from hospital between June 2013 and January 2016 were classified according to the beta-blocker dose prescribed: high dose (≥50% of the target dose tested in clinical trials) and low dose (