Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty as Bridge-to-Decision in High Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis

Background. A sizable group of patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) can undergo neither surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) nor transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) because of clinical contraindications. The aim of this study was to assess the potential role of balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) as a “bridge-to-decision” in selected patients with severe AS and potentially reversible contraindications to definitive treatment. Methods. We retrospectively enrolled 645 patients who underwent first BAV at our Institution between July 2007 and December 2012. Of these, the 202 patients (31.2%) who underwent BAV as bridge-to-decision (BTD) requiring clinical re-evaluation represented our study population. BTD patients were further subdivided in 5 groups: low left ventricular ejection fraction; mitral regurgitation grade ≥3; frailty; hemodynamic instability; comorbidity. The main objective of the study was to evaluate how BAV influenced the final treatment strategy in the whole BTD group and in its single specific subgroups. Results. Mean logistic EuroSCORE was 23.5±15.3%, mean age was 81±7 years. Mean transaortic gradient decreased from 47±17 mmHg to 33±14 mmHg. Of the 193 patients with BTD-BAV who received a second heart team evaluation, 72.5% were finally deemed eligible for definitive treatment (25.4%for AVR; 47.2% for TAVI): respectively, 96.7% of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction recovery; 70.5% of patients with mitral regurgitation reduction; 75.7% of patients who underwent BAV in clinical hemodynamic instability; 69.2% of frail patients and 68% of patients who presented relevant comorbidities. 27.5% of the study population was deemed ineligible for definitive treatment and treated with standard therapy/repeated BAV. In-hospital mortality was 4.5%, cerebrovascular accident occurred in 1% and overall vascular complications were 4% (0.5% major; 3.5% minor). Conclusions. Balloon aortic valvuloplasty should be considered as bridge-to-decision in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis who cannot be immediate candidates for definitive percutaneous or surgical treatment.

Non invasive assessment of right ventricle in patients with operated tetralogy of Fallot

The objective of this study was to evaluate right ventricular function in patients with right ventricular volume overload in patients with (tetralogy of Fallot, and pulmonary atresia + VSD ) underwent corrective surgery; with echocardiography measure that can be easily applied; and to study the relationship between ProBNP and the contractile function of the right ventricle, dilated right atrium, and the consequences of pulmonary insufficiency . Methods: The study included 50 patients (50% males, mean age 30.64 ± 13.30 years) with prior cardiac surgical intervention of TDF (90%) or pulmonary atresia + VSD (10%). (49 pz) have performed a cardiac MRI and clinical evaluation, (47 pz) echocardiogram, (48 pz) ECG, (34 pz) a cardiopulmonary exercise testing, (29 pz) a dosage of ProBNP. Results: The S-wave velocity (p <0.0001), the TAPSE (p <0.0001) correlated significantly with RVEF estimated by cardiac MRI. The VO2 max was 27.93 ± 12.91 ml / kg / min, 15% of patients had VE/VCO2 The peak> 35. ProBNP correlated positively and significantly with the area of the right atrium (p = 0.0001), and negative and significant with VO2 max (p = 0.04). Those who have increased pulmonary insufficiency (PVR fraction> 30%) have a significantly increased RVED volume (p = 0.01), reduced VO2 max (p = 0.04), and lower ejection fraction of LV (p = 0.02) than the group of patients with PVR ≤ 30. Conclusion: The TAPSE and S-wave velocity are fundamental and may become the technique of choice for routine assessment of RV systolic function in adult patients with TOF. The monitoring of the Pro BNP is probably a choice, given the simplicity and their information that correlate with the test cardiopulmonary. In view of the ventricular-ventricular interaction, so measures to maintain or restore the functioning of the pulmonary valve could preserve biventricular function.

Trattamento della stenosi valvolare aortica: nuovi scenari dalla biologia molecolare alle nuove tecnologie

La stenosi valvolare aortica è la più frequente patologia valvolare cardiaca nei paesi sviluppati come diretta conseguenza dell’aumentata aspettativa di vita. In Europa si stima che il numero di soggetti sintomatici per stenosi valvolare aortica aumenterà da 1.3 milioni nel 2025 a 2.1 milioni in 2050. Di conseguenza la stenosi aortica ha e avrà un forte impatto sulla salute pubblica e sui costi che ne determina, poiché spesso associata a un declino funzionale dei pazienti ed aumentata incidenza di ospedalizzazione. D’altra parte è noto che la stenosi valvolare aortica severa non trattata si associa a prognosi infausta con una sopravvivenza del 50% a 2 anni dall’insorgenza dei sintomi e del 20% a 5 anni. Ad oggi non esiste una terapia medica efficace per la stenosi valvolare aortica in quanto andando a costituire un’ostruzione meccanica, resta di competenza del cardiochirurgo o del cardiologo interventista. La sostituzione valvolare aortica, sia essa chirurgica o percutanea, resta pertanto il solo trattamento definitivo per la stenosi valvolare aortica. Nel tempo il rischio operatorio è estremamente diminuito e i vantaggi in termini di miglioramento della qualità di vita sono evidenti. Questo progetto di ricerca prevede pertanto un’analisi delle più recenti tecnologie per il trattamento chirurgico della stenosi valvolare aortica a partire dalla tipologia di approccio chirurgico, se mini-invasivo o tradizionale, fino all’utilizzo delle più recenti protesi biologiche sutureless studiandone i vantaggi, svantaggi e risultati. Prima ancora, tuttavia, saranno analizzati i meccanismi di biologia molecolare alla base dell’eziologia della stenosi aortica al fine di poter identificare precocemente i pazienti, di prevedere l’andamento della patologia e forse, in futuro, anche di ipotizzare una terapia farmacologica mirata.

Trattamento transcatetere e chirurgico della stenosi valvolare aortica severa in Hesperia Hospital Modena nella seconda decade del ventunesimo secolo

Scopo Confrontare il trattamento transcatetere (TAVI) balloon-expandable con il trattamento chirurgico di sostituzione valvolare aortica (AVR) della stenosi valvolare aortica severa (SVAS) nella pratica clinica real world. Materiali e metodi Nel decennio 2010-2020, 1486 pazienti con SVAS isolata sono stati sottoposti a AVR (n=1049) o TAVI balloon-expandable (n=437) presso Hesperia Hospital Modena. Sono stati analizzati la Mortality nell’intera popolazione e gli episodi di ricovero cardiovascolare nei 5 anni precedenti e durante il follow-up nella popolazione residente in Emilia Romagna (n=1196) al momento della procedura (AVR n=879, TAVI balloon-expandable n=317). Risultati La popolazione TAVI è risultata mediamente più anziana di quella AVR (età media 82.2 vs. 72.7 anni) e maggiormente gravata da comorbidità. L’In-hospital mortality è stata del 1.4% nella AVR e 2.1% nella TAVI (pNS). La sopravvivenza a 5 anni è stata del 85.74% nella AVR e del 59.45% nella TAVI, con la TAVI come fattore predittivo di All-cause mortality (HR 1.44 95%CI 1.14-1.82). La riospedalizzazione per Heart Failure a 5 anni è stata del 20.6% per AVR e 51.3% per TAVI, con dialisi preoperatoria (HR 5.67 95%CI 3.06-10.49) come principale fattore predittivo. Il tasso di All Stroke a 5 anni è stato del 3.7% nella AVR e del 7.5% nella TAVI, con fibrillazione atriale preoperatoria come principale fattore predittivo (HR 1.91 95%CI 1.06-3.45). Il tasso di angioplastica coronarica percutanea (PCI) a 5 anni è stato del 3.1% sia nella AVR che nella TAVI, con previous PCI come principale fattore predittivo (HR 4.86 95%CI 2.57-9.21). L’impianto di pacemaker a 30 giorni è stato del 2.9% nella AVR e 3.4% nella TAVI (pNS). Conclusioni Nella pratica clinica real-world 2010-2020 di un centro cardiochirurgico a medio volume, la TAVI balloon-expandable ha mostrato una eccellente performance a 30 giorni in confronto con la AVR, che invece ha evidenziato una migliore performance durante follow-up.

What are the components that contribute to variability in echocardiographic measurements in aortic stenosis?

INTRODUCTION Echocardiography is the standard clinical approach for quantification of the severity of aortic stenosis (AS). A comprehensive examination of its overall reproducibility and the simultaneous estimation of its variance components by multiple operators, readers, probe applications, and beats have not been undertaken. METHOD AND RESULTS Twenty-seven subjects with AS were scanned over 7 months in the echo-department by a median of 3 different operators. From each patient and each operator multiple runs of beats from multiple probe positions were stored for later analysis by multiple readers. The coefficient of variation was 13.3%, 15.9%, 17.6%, and 20.2% for the aortic peak velocity (Vmax), and velocity time integral (VTI), and left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) Vmax and VTI respectively. The largest individual contributors to the overall variability were the beat-to-beat variability (9.0%, 9.3%, 9.5%, 9.4% respectively) and that of inability of an individual operator to precisely apply the probe to the same position twice (8.3%, 9.4%, 12.9%, 10.7% respectively). The tracing (inter-reader) and reader (inter-reader), and operator (inter-operator) contribution were less important. CONCLUSIONS Reproducibility of measurements in AS is poorer than often reported in the literature. The source of this variability does not appear, as traditionally believed, to result from a lack of training or operator and reader specific factors. Rather the unavoidable beat-to-beat biological variability, and the inherent impossibility of applying the ultrasound probe in exactly the same position each time are the largest contributors. Consequently, guidelines suggesting greater standardisation of procedures and further training for sonographers are unlikely to result in an improvement in precision. Clinicians themselves should be wary of relying on even three-beat averages as their expected coefficient of variance is 10.3% for the peak velocity at the aortic valve.