Search

Background and Objectives: Glycemic control has been suggested to improve prognosis in diabetic patients, but recent trials failed to show benefits from intensive glycemic control. Hypoglycaemic episodes or large variability in glucose blood levels causing a sympatho-vagal imbalance of cardiac autonomic function (CAF) might play a role in this result. In our study we assessed whether blood glucose fluctuation may be related to variations in CAF during daily life in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Materials and Methods: Twelve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with CAD (65±4 years, 2 women) underwent simultaneous 48-hour ECG Holter monitoring and continuous interstitial glucose measurements. The highest and lowest glucose levels for each 3-hour segments of the day were identified and heart rate variability (HRV) parameters were measured on Holter recordings on 5-minute intervals centred on these times. Results: Overall, 294 glucose levels were available for analysis. In the whole population several HRV indices were significantly lower in correspondence of the lowest glucose blood levels and this difference was much more evident in patients who were not taking beta-blockers, than in patients who were taking beta-blockers. A significant, although mild, correlation was found between glucose blood levels and several time-and frequency domain HRV variables in patients not taking beta-blockers, but not in these on beta-blockers therapy. Discussion: Our data suggest that, in type 2 diabetic patients with CAD, hypoglycaemic episodes are associated with depressed HRV and that betablocking agents are able to contrast this relation. These interesting results merit to be investigated in a larger population of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Post-operative myocardial infarction is a possible complication following cardiac surgery. Data on the incidence, predictors and prognosis of urgent coronary angiography (UCA) after cardiac surgery are scarce., Aims (objectives): This study aims to report in hospital and 1-year follow-up outcomes of a recent large cohort of patients undergoing UCA after cardiac surgery., Methods: This study provides a retrospective analysis of an high volume cardiac center (Maria Cecilia Hospital, Italy), from 2016 to 2021 regarding patients treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), valve, or aortic root surgery, focusing on those who required UCA within the same hospitalization., Results: Out of 6505 cardiac surgeries, 119 patients (1.83%) underwent UCA, with a median age of 69 years. The study found that UCA was more frequent post-CABG (2.62%) than non-CABG interventions (1.35%, p < 0.001). A graft failure was detected in 31.1% of the cases, while a native vessel complication in 36.1%. The leading reasons for UCA included ST/T abnormalities, ventricular arrhythmias, and hemodynamic instability, with 92% of UCAs performed within a week post-surgery. The in-hospital mortality rate was 32%, with no significant difference between CABG and non-CABG patients. Predictive factors for in-hospital mortality included Euroscore II, hemodynamic instability and late UCA. One-year follow-up showed a low mortality rate (2.5%) among discharged patients., Conclusion: UCA resulted to have a pivotal role in detecting coronary complications after cardiac surgery, guiding subsequent treatment decisions. Despite the high in-hospital mortality rate, survival showed an overall low mortality at the 1-year mark., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

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 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 a 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 : 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: 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: Coronary obstruction (CO) is a potentially life-threatening complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Chimney stenting or leaflet laceration with transcatheter electrosurgery (Bioprosthetic or Native Aortic Scallop Intentional Laceration to Prevent Iatrogenic Coronary Artery Obstruction [BASILICA]) are 2 techniques developed to prevent CO., Objectives: The aim of the present study was to compare periprocedural and 1-year outcomes of chimney and BASILICA in TAVR patients at high risk of CO., Methods: This multicenter observational registry enrolled consecutive TAVR patients at high risk of CO, undergoing either preventive chimney stenting or BASILICA. Clinical success was defined as successful performance of the chimney or BASILICA technique without clinically relevant ostial CO. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events, a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned target lesion coronary revascularization at 1 year., Results: A total of 168 patients were included: 71 (42.3%) received chimney stenting, and 97 (57.7%) underwent BASILICA. Patients undergoing BASILICA had higher preprocedural risk of CO, as indicated by lower sinotubular junction height (18.2 ± 4.8 mm vs 14.8 ± 3.4 mm; P < 0.001) and diameter (28.2 ± 4.5 vs 26.8 ± 3.4; P = 0.029). Rates of periprocedural complications were similar between the 2 groups. Clinical success was 97.2% and 96.9% in chimney and BASILICA, respectively (P = 0.92). At 1-year follow-up, the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was 18.7% (95% CI: 11%-30.6%) in the chimney group and 19.9% (95% CI: 12.1%-31.5%) in the BASILICA group (log-rank P = 0.848), whereas chimney was associated with a numerically higher cardiovascular mortality than BASILICA (6.7% vs 1.3%; log-rank P = 0.168)., Conclusions: Chimney stenting and BASILICA effectively prevent TAVR-induced acute CO. Both techniques seem to have comparable acceptable periprocedural and 1-year outcomes., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Mangieri serves as a proctor for Kardia; has received speaker fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received institutional grants from Boston Scientific and Abbott Vascular. Dr Montorfano has received consultant fees from Abbott, Boston, Kardia, and Medtronic. Dr Latib is a consultant and serves on advisory boards for Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott, and Philips. Dr Van Mieghem has received research grants from Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and Pie Medical; and has received advisory board/consultancy fees from Anteris, JenaValve, Amgen, Materialise, Siemens, Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Daiichi-Sankyo. Prof Abdel-Wahab declares that his hospital receives speaker honoraria and/or consultancy fees on his behalf from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Abbott. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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: To describe through emblematic images rare but clinically relevant carotid artery stenting complications that occurred at two high-volume centres for carotid artery stenting (CAS)., Background: CAS is an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the treatment of carotid artery stenosis in patients judged to be at high risk for CEA. CAS complications range between 1 and 9% and are higher in older patients complaining of neurological symptoms at the time of presentation. Besides periprocedural or early-after-procedure stroke, which remains the true Achilles' heel of CAS, other dramatic complications might compromise the clinical outcomes of this procedure., Methods: Five infrequent complications, out of more than 1000 CAS performed in the years 2016-2021, have been described., Results: Among CAS complications, acute carotid stent thrombosis, rescue retrieval of a disconnected distal cerebral embolic protection device, plaque prolapse after carotid stenting, cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome (CHS), and radial artery long sheath entrapment requiring surgical intervention were found to account for 0.3% of the total number of procedures performed by operators with high CAS volume., Conclusions: Unusual CAS complications may infrequently occur, even in hands of expert operators. To know how to deal with such complications might help interventionalists to improve CAS performance.

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.)

Introduction: Bivalirudin, a bivalent direct thrombin inhibitor, has been developed to reduce bleeding without any trade-off in thrombotic events in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Areas Covered: Despite showing a superior safety profile compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH), bivalirudin is not considered the anticoagulant of choice in ACS patients undergoing PCI, mainly because of an increased rate of acute stent thrombosis (ST) shown by several randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in addition to limited availability in certain countries and increased costs. However, RCTs on bivalirudin have been characterized by several confounding factors hindering the interpretation of its safety and efficacy compared with UFH among the spectrum of ACS patients. Furthermore, a significant body of evidence has demonstrated that the risk of acute ST can be mitigated by a full-dose infusion regimen following PCI, without compromising the favorable safety profile compared to UFH., Expert Opinion: In light of the increased understanding of the prognostic relevance of bleeding events and the excellent safety profile of bivalirudin, recent trial evidence may allow for this anticoagulant agent to reemerge and have a more prominent role in the management of ACS patients undergoing PCI.

Objectives: The objective of this study is to investigate the use of cutting balloon (CB) inflated at high pressure compared with noncompliant balloon (NCB) for the treatment of calcified coronary lesions., Background: No data are available regarding the safety and efficacy of CB inflated at high pressure in coronary artery calcifications., Methods: Patients with calcified lesions (more than 100° of calcium demonstrated at baseline intravascular ultrasound) were randomized. Primary endpoint of the study was the final minimal stent area (MSA) and stent symmetry in the calcific segment. Secondary endpoints included rate of device failure and the 1-year rate of target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, and major adverse cardiovascular events., Results: From September 2019 to June 2021, a total of 100 patients were included and randomized; 13 patients were excluded for major protocol deviations. Lesions were complex (type B2/C n = 61 [71.2%]) with a mean arch of calcium of 266 ± 84°, a calcium length of 12 ± 6.6 mm. CB was inflated at comparable atmospheres when compared with NCB (18.3 ± 5 vs. 19 ± 4.5, p = 0.46). In the per-protocol population, the final MSA at the level of the calcium site was significantly higher in the CB group (8.1 ± 2 vs. 7.3 ± 2.1, p = 0.035) with a higher eccentricity index achieved in the CB group (0.84 ± 0.07 vs. 0.8 ± 0.08, p = 0.013). Three device failure occurred in the CB group. One-year follow-up outcomes were comparable., Conclusions: Treatment of calcified lesions with high-pressure CB has a good safety profile and is associated with a larger MSA and higher eccentricity of the stent at the level of the calcium site compared with NCB., (© 2023 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

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.

Clinically significant tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is common and associated with excess mortality. At the same time right ventricular (RV) failure is a complex clinical syndrome that results from many causes, but is often associated with long-term prognosis. Whilst results of isolated tricuspid valve (TV) surgery are often unsatisfactory and limited by the prohibitive risk of most patients, the recent development of percutaneous recovery techniques has opened new scenarios. In consideration of the complexity of the mechanisms that lead to right heart failure and RV dysfunction it is important to understand the real advantages that percutaneous TV treatment can offer, more specifically the effect of TR reduction on RV remodeling in the setting of functional tricuspid regurgitation (fTR)., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Albertini, Nerla, Castriota and Squeri.)

Background: As transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) replacement is increasingly used in patients with longer life expectancy, a sizable proportion will require redo TAV replacement (TAVR). The unique configuration of balloon-expandable TAV (bTAV) vs a self-expanding TAV (sTAV) potentially affects TAV-in-TAV outcome., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to better inform prosthesis selection, TAV-in-TAV outcomes were assessed according to the type of initial and subsequent TAV., Methods: Patients from the Redo-TAVR registry were analyzed using propensity weighting according to their initial valve type (bTAV [n = 115] vs sTAV [n = 106]) and subsequent valve type (bTAV [n = 130] vs sTAV [n = 91])., Results: Patients with failed bTAVs presented later (vs sTAV) (4.9 ± 2.1 years vs 3.7 ± 2.3 years; P < 0.001), with smaller effective orifice area (1.0 ± 0.7 cm 2 vs 1.3 ± 0.8 cm 2 ; P = 0.018) and less frequent dominant regurgitation (16.2% vs 47.3%; P < 0.001). Mortality at 30 days was 2.3% (TAV-in-bTAV) vs 0% (TAV-in-sTAV) (P = 0.499) and 1.7% (bTAV-in-TAV) vs 1.0% (sTAV-in-TAV) (P = 0.612); procedural safety was 72.6% (TAV-in-bTAV) vs 71.2% (TAV-in-sTAV) (P = 0.817) and 73.2% (bTAV-in-TAV) vs 76.5% (sTAV-in-TAV) (P = 0.590). Device success was similar according to initial valve type but higher with subsequent sTAV vs bTAV (77.2% vs 64.3%; P = 0.045), primarily because of lower residual gradients (10.3 mm Hg [8.9-11.7 mm Hg] vs 15.2 mm Hg [13.2-17.1 mm Hg]; P < 0.001). Residual regurgitation (moderate or greater) was similar after bTAV-in-TAV and sTAV-in-TAV (5.7%) and nominally higher after TAV-in-bTAV (9.1%) vs TAV-in-sTAV (4.4%) (P = 0.176)., Conclusions: In selected patients, no association was observed between TAV type and redo TAVR safety or mortality, yet subsequent sTAV was associated with higher device success because of lower redo gradients. These findings are preliminary, and more data are needed to guide valve choice for redo TAVR., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Webb is a consultant to and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. Dr Kim is a proctor for and has received speaker fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Abdel-Wahab has received speaker honoraria and/or consultancy fees to the hospital on his behalf from Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr Barbanti is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences; and is an advisory board member for Biotronik. Dr Søndergaard has received consulting 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 Lifesciences. 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 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 Andreas is a proctor, consultant, and speaker for Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Medtronic; and has received institutional grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and LSI. Dr Guerrero has received research grant support from Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Castriota is a proctor for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr Nazif is a consultant for or has received honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Biotrace, and Baylis Medical; and is a consultant for 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 and 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 for 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 © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The first-generation ACURATE neo transcatheter heart valve (THV) (Boston Scientific) was associated with a non-negligible occurrence of moderate or greater paravalvular aortic regurgitation (AR) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. To overcome this issue, the ACURATE neo2 iteration, which incorporates a taller outer skirt aimed at reducing the occurrence of paravalvular AR, has recently been developed., Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of the ACURATE neo2 (Boston Scientific) THV in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis., Methods: ITAL-neo was an observational, retrospective, multicenter registry enrolling consecutive patients with severe aortic valve stenosis, treated with first- and second-generation ACURATE neo THVs, via transfemoral and trans-subclavian access, in 13 Italian centers. One-to-one propensity score matching was applied to account for baseline characteristics unbalance. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of moderate or greater paravalvular AR on predischarge echocardiographic assessment. Secondary endpoints included postprocedural technical success and 90-day device success and safety., Results: Among 900 patients included in the registry, 220 received the ACURATE neo2 THV, whereas 680 were treated with the first-generation device. A total of 410 patients were compared after 1:1 propensity score matching. The ACURATE neo2 THV was associated with a 3-fold lower frequency of postprocedural moderate or greater paravalvular AR (11.2% vs 3.5%; P < 0.001). No other hemodynamic differences were observed. Postprocedural technical success was similar between the 2 cohorts. Fewer adverse events were observed in patients treated with the ACURATE neo2 at 90 days., Conclusions: Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement using the ACURATE neo2 was associated with a significant lower frequency of moderate or greater paravalvular AR compared with the earlier generation ACURATE neo device, with encouraging short-term safety and efficacy., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Vascular complications (VC) are the most frequent drawback of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), affecting up to 20% of overall procedures. Data on the treatment and their long-term impact are scarce. The goal of this study was to report on the incidence, management and impact on the long-term outcomes of VC following TAVI., Methods: This was a multicentric retrospective analysis of consecutive patients undergoing TAVI. The primary endpoint was freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at long-term follow-up. Adverse events were evaluated according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria., Results: A total of 2145 patients were included: VC occurred in 188 (8.8%); of which 180 were limited to the access site. Two-thirds of the VC were minor; 8% required surgical treatment; the remaining were repaired percutaneously. The major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events-free survival at 2 years was 83.0% for patients with VC and 86.7% for those without (P = 0.143), but 71.9% for patients with major compared to 89.0% in those with minor VC (P = 0.022). Major VC and diabetes mellitus independently predicted worse outcomes at 2 years. The major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events-free survival rate and the occurrence of vascular adverse events in the long term among patients with VC at the access site treated by endovascular techniques (covered stent implantation or angioplasty) were similar to those without VC (84.2% vs 86.7%; P = 0.635)., Conclusions: Major but not minor VC impact long-term survival after TAVI. Covered stents implanted to manage VC at the access site have no impact on the long-term clinical outcome of TAVI., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

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.)