Identification of reference genes for quantitative RT-PCR in ascending aortic aneurysms.

Hypertension and congenital aortic valve malformations are frequent causes of ascending aortic aneurysms. The molecular mechanisms of aneurysm formation under these circumstances are not well understood. Reference genes for gene activity studies in aortic tissue that are not influenced by aortic valve morphology and its hemodynamic consequences, aortic dilatation, hypertension, or antihypertensive medication are not available so far. This study determines genes in ascending aortic tissue that are independent of these parameters. Tissue specimens from dilated and undilated ascending aortas were obtained from 60 patients (age ≤70 years) with different morphologies of the aortic valve (tricuspid undilated n = 24, dilated n = 11; bicuspid undilated n = 6, dilated n = 15; unicuspid dilated n = 4). Of the studied individuals, 36 had hypertension, and 31 received ACE inhibitors or AT1 receptor antagonists. The specimens were obtained intraoperatively from the wall of the ascending aorta. We analyzed the expression levels of 32 candidate reference genes by quantitative RT-PCR (RT-qPCR). Differential expression levels were assessed by parametric statistics. The expression analysis of these 32 genes by RT-qPCR showed that EIF2B1, ELF1, and PPIA remained constant in their expression levels in the different specimen groups, thus being insensitive to aortic valve morphology, aortic dilatation, hypertension, and medication with ACE inhibitors or AT1 receptor antagonists. Unlike many other commonly used reference genes, the genes EIF2B1, ELF1, and PPIA are neither confounded by aortic comorbidities nor by antihypertensive medication and therefore are most suitable for gene expression analysis of ascending aortic tissue.

Misdeployment of Edwards Sapien Valve in Transfemoral Aortic Valve Implantation Due to Iatrogenic Endarterectomy

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is an expanding procedure thus far restricted to a target population of old and high-comorbidity patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. The need for bulky devices (up to 24F) combined with the high prevalence of peripheral vascular disease in these patients explains the increased risk of vascular complications in transfemoral Edwards Sapien (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, Calif) transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedures, with a rate of 20% for the transfemoral arm of either the Placement of AoRTic traNscathetER valves in the European Union (PARTNER EU) trial or the SOURCE Registry.1,2

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: Results from the global valve-in-valve registry.

BACKGROUND Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation is an emerging therapeutic alternative for patients with a failed surgical bioprosthesis and may obviate the need for reoperation. We evaluated the clinical results of this technique using a large, worldwide registry. METHODS AND RESULTS The Global Valve-in-Valve Registry included 202 patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves (aged 77.7±10.4 years; 52.5% men) from 38 cardiac centers. Bioprosthesis mode of failure was stenosis (n=85; 42%), regurgitation (n=68; 34%), or combined stenosis and regurgitation (n=49; 24%). Implanted devices included CoreValve (n=124) and Edwards SAPIEN (n=78). Procedural success was achieved in 93.1% of cases. Adverse procedural outcomes included initial device malposition in 15.3% of cases and ostial coronary obstruction in 3.5%. After the procedure, valve maximum/mean gradients were 28.4±14.1/15.9±8.6 mm Hg, and 95% of patients had ≤+1 degree of aortic regurgitation. At 30-day follow-up, all-cause mortality was 8.4%, and 84.1% of patients were at New York Heart Association functional class I/II. One-year follow-up was obtained in 87 patients, with 85.8% survival of treated patients. CONCLUSIONS The valve-in-valve procedure is clinically effective in the vast majority of patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves. Safety and efficacy concerns include device malposition, ostial coronary obstruction, and high gradients after the procedure.

Permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: impact on late clinical outcomes and left ventricular function.

BACKGROUND Very few data exist on the clinical impact of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of PPI after transcatheter aortic valve implantation on late outcomes in a large cohort of patients. METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 1556 consecutive patients without prior PPI undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation were included. Of them, 239 patients (15.4%) required a PPI within the first 30 days after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. At a mean follow-up of 22±17 months, no association was observed between the need for 30-day PPI and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.30; P=0.871), cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.17; P=0.270), and all-cause mortality or rehospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.30; P=0.980). A lower rate of unexpected (sudden or unknown) death was observed in patients with PPI (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.85; P=0.023). Patients with new PPI showed a poorer evolution of left ventricular ejection fraction over time (P=0.017), and new PPI was an independent predictor of left ventricular ejection fraction decrease at the 6- to 12-month follow-up (estimated coefficient, -2.26; 95% confidence interval, -4.07 to -0.44; P=0.013; R(2)=0.121). CONCLUSIONS The need for PPI was a frequent complication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation, but it was not associated with any increase in overall or cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for heart failure after a mean follow-up of ≈2 years. Indeed, 30-day PPI was a protective factor for the occurrence of unexpected (sudden or unknown) death. However, new PPI did have a negative effect on left ventricular function over time.

Prospective registry of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis in octogenarians: a need for intervention.

OBJECTIVE To study the factors associated with choice of therapy and prognosis in octogenarians with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). STUDY DESIGN Prospective, observational, multicenter registry. Centralized follow-up included survival status and, if possible, mode of death and Katz index. SETTING Transnational registry in Spain. SUBJECTS We included 928 patients aged ≥80 years with severe symptomatic AS. INTERVENTIONS Aortic-valve replacement (AVR), transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) or conservative therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES All-cause death. RESULTS Mean age was 84.2 ± 3.5 years, and only 49.0% were independent (Katz index A). The most frequent planned management was conservative therapy in 423 (46%) patients, followed by TAVI in 261 (28%) and AVR in 244 (26%). The main reason against recommending AVR in 684 patients was high surgical risk [322 (47.1%)], other medical motives [193 (28.2%)], patient refusal [134 (19.6%)] and family refusal in the case of incompetent patients [35 (5.1%)]. The mean time from treatment decision to AVR was 4.8 ± 4.6 months and to TAVI 2.1 ± 3.2 months, P < 0.001. During follow-up (11.2-38.9 months), 357 patients (38.5%) died. Survival rates at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months were 81.8%, 72.6%, 64.1% and 57.3%, respectively. Planned intervention, adjusted for multiple propensity score, was associated with lower mortality when compared with planned conservative treatment: TAVI Hazard ratio (HR) 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.93; P = 0.016) and AVR HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.39-0.8; P = 0.002). CONCLUSION Octogenarians with symptomatic severe AS are frequently managed conservatively. Planned conservative management is associated with a poor prognosis.

Prospective registry of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis in octogenarians: a need for intervention.

OBJECTIVE To study the factors associated with choice of therapy and prognosis in octogenarians with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). STUDY DESIGN Prospective, observational, multicenter registry. Centralized follow-up included survival status and, if possible, mode of death and Katz index. SETTING Transnational registry in Spain. SUBJECTS We included 928 patients aged ≥80 years with severe symptomatic AS. INTERVENTIONS Aortic-valve replacement (AVR), transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) or conservative therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES All-cause death. RESULTS Mean age was 84.2 ± 3.5 years, and only 49.0% were independent (Katz index A). The most frequent planned management was conservative therapy in 423 (46%) patients, followed by TAVI in 261 (28%) and AVR in 244 (26%). The main reason against recommending AVR in 684 patients was high surgical risk [322 (47.1%)], other medical motives [193 (28.2%)], patient refusal [134 (19.6%)] and family refusal in the case of incompetent patients [35 (5.1%)]. The mean time from treatment decision to AVR was 4.8 ± 4.6 months and to TAVI 2.1 ± 3.2 months, P < 0.001. During follow-up (11.2-38.9 months), 357 patients (38.5%) died. Survival rates at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months were 81.8%, 72.6%, 64.1% and 57.3%, respectively. Planned intervention, adjusted for multiple propensity score, was associated with lower mortality when compared with planned conservative treatment: TAVI Hazard ratio (HR) 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.93; P = 0.016) and AVR HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.39-0.8; P = 0.002). CONCLUSION Octogenarians with symptomatic severe AS are frequently managed conservatively. Planned conservative management is associated with a poor prognosis.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in very elderly patients: immediate results and medium term follow-up.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate immediate transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) results and medium-term follow-up in very elderly patients with severe and symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS This multicenter, observational and prospective study was carried out in three hospitals. We included consecutive very elderly (> 85 years) patients with severe AS treated by TAVI. The primary endpoint was to evaluate death rates from any cause at two years. RESULTS The study included 160 consecutive patients with a mean age of 87 ± 2.1 years (range from 85 to 94 years) and a mean logistic EuroSCORE of 18.8% ± 11.2% with 57 (35.6%) patients scoring ≥ 20%. Procedural success rate was 97.5%, with 25 (15.6%) patients experiencing acute complications with major bleeding (the most frequent). Global mortality rate during hospitalization was 8.8% (n = 14) and 30-day mortality rate was 10% (n = 16). Median follow up period was 252.24 ± 232.17 days. During the follow-up period, 28 (17.5%) patients died (17 of them due to cardiac causes). The estimated two year overall and cardiac survival rates using the Kaplan-Meier method were 71% and 86.4%, respectively. Cox proportional hazard regression showed that the variable EuroSCORE ≥ 20 was the unique variable associated with overall mortality. CONCLUSIONS TAVI is safe and effective in a selected population of very elderly patients. Our findings support the adoption of this new procedure in this complex group of patients.