Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) adversely impacts both quality of life and long-term survival, which generates interest in therapeutic approaches to mitigate these effects. Historically, therapeutic options for TR were limited to surgical approaches, which are often complicated by significant morbidity and mortality in elderly patients with multiple comorbidities. This gap in therapeutic options led to the rapid evolution of transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention (TTVI), with a wide variety of approaches pursued and early results suggesting that TTVI improves clinical outcomes. Numerous strategies, including edge-to-edge repair, annular reduction, spacers, caval valve implantation, and transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement form the basis of TTVI today. In this review, the authors discuss the current state of each approach.
The association between mean arterial pressure and outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock: insights from the DOREMI trial
AbstractAimsCardiogenic shock (CS) is a state of low cardiac output resulting in end-organ hypoperfusion. Despite high in-hospital mortality rates, little evidence exists regarding the optimal mean arterial pressure (MAP) target in CS. We therefore evaluated the relationship between achieved MAP and clinical outcomes in patients with CS.Methods and resultsWe performed a post hoc analysis of the CAPITAL DOREMI trial: a randomized, double-blind trial comparing dobutamine to milrinone in patients with CS. We divided patients into a high MAP group (average MAP ≥ 70 mmHg over the 36 h following randomization), and a low MAP group (average MAP < 70 mmHg). Our primary outcome included in-hospital all-cause mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, need for cardiac transplantation or mechanical circulatory support, non-fatal myocardial infarction, transient ischaemic attack or stroke, or initiation of renal replacement therapy. In total, 71 (37.0%) patients achieved an average MAP < 70 mmHg, and 121 (63.0%) achieved an average MAP ≥ 70 mmHg. The primary outcome occurred in 48 (67.6%) patients in the low MAP group and 51 (42.2%) patients in the high MAP group [adjusted relative risk (aRR) 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53–0.92; P = 0.01]. All-cause mortality occurred in 41 (57.8%) and 35 (28.9%) patients in the low and high MAP groups, respectively (aRR 0.56; 95% CI 0.40–0.79; P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in any secondary outcomes between each group.ConclusionsIn patients with CS treated with inotrope therapy, low MAP is associated with worse clinical outcomes. Randomized data evaluating optimal MAP targets in CS is needed to guide medical therapy.
Predictors of Use and Outcomes of Mechanical Valve Replacement in the United States (2008–2017)
Background Contemporary nationwide data on the use, predictors, and outcomes of mechanical valve replacement in patients less than 70 years of age are limited. Methods and Results We identified hospitalizations for aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2017. The study's end points included predictors of mechanical valve replacement and risk‐adjusted in‐hospital mortality. Among 253 100 hospitalizations for AVR, the use rate of mechanical prosthesis decreased from 45.3% in 2008 to 17.0% in 2017. Among 284 962 hospitalizations for MVR, mechanical prosthesis use decreased from 59.5% in 2008 to 29.2% in 2017 ( P for trend<0.001). In multilogistic regression analyses, female sex, prior sternotomy, prior defibrillator, and South/West geographic location were predictive of mechanical valve use. The presence of bicuspid valve was a negative predictor of mechanical AVR (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.66–0.69; P <0.001), whereas mitral stenosis was associated with higher mechanical MVR (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.22–1.33; P <0.001). Unadjusted in‐hospital mortality decreased over time with AVR but not with MVR, regardless of prosthesis choice. Using years 2008 and 2009 as a reference, risk‐adjusted mortality also decreased over time with AVR but did not decrease after MVR. Conclusions There is a substantial decline in the use of mechanical valve replacement among patients aged ≤70 years in the United States. Long‐term durability data on bioprosthetic valve replacement are needed to better define the future role of mechanical valves in this age group.
Sex‐specific in‐hospital outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with third generation transcatheter heart valves
AbstractBackgroundSex‐based differences in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) outcomes have been previously documented. However, whether these differences persist with contemporary third generation transcatheter heart valves (THVs) is unknown.MethodsWe utilized Vizient's clinical database/resource manager (CDB/RM™) to identify patients who underwent TAVR between January 1, 2018 and March 31, 2020 to compare in‐hospital outcomes between males and females. The primary endpoint was in‐hospital mortality. Secondary endpoints included key in‐hospital complications, length of stay, discharge disposition, and cost. Unadjusted, propensity‐score matched and risk‐adjusted analyses of outcomes were performed.ResultsDuring the study period, 44,280 patients (24,842 males, 19,438 females) underwent TAVR. The primary endpoint of in‐hospital mortality was higher in females than in males (1.6 vs. 1.1% p < .001) in unadjusted analysis and persisted following propensity matching (1.6 vs. 0.9%, p < .001) and multivariable logistic regression with various risk‐adjustment models. In the most comprehensive model adjusting for age, race, and clinical comorbidities, female sex was associated with 34% greater odds of in‐hospital death (95% CI 20–50%, p < .001). Unadjusted and risk‐adjusted rates of post‐TAVR stroke, vascular complication, and blood transfusion were higher in females. Moreover, females demonstrated longer hospitalizations, higher costs and reduced rates of independent discharge home.ConclusionSex‐based differences in TAVR in‐hospital outcomes persist in contemporary practice with third generation transcatheter heart valves. Further research is needed to assess the reasons for these observed disparities and to identify effective mitigation strategies.
Performance of Plasma Adenosine as a Biomarker for Predicting Cardiovascular Risk
Adenosine boasts promising preclinical and clinical data supporting a vital role in modulating vascular homeostasis. Its widespread use as a diagnostic and therapeutic agent have been limited by its short half‐life and complex biology, though adenosine‐modulators have shown promise in improving vascular healing. Moreover, circulating adenosine has shown promise in predicting cardiovascular (CV) events. We sought to delineate whether circulating plasma adenosine levels predict CV events in patients undergoing invasive assessment for coronary artery disease. Patients undergoing invasive angiography had clinical data prospectively recorded in the Cardiovascular and Percutaneous ClInical TriALs (CAPITAL) revascularization registry and blood samples collected in the CAPITAL Biobank from which adenosine levels were quantified. Tertile‐based analysis was used to assess prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; composite of death, myocardial infarction, unplanned revascularization, and cerebrovascular accident). Secondary analyses included MACE subgroups, clinical subgroups and adenosine levels. There were 1,815 patients undergoing angiography who had blood collected with adenosine quantified in 1,323. Of those quantified, 51.0% were revascularized and 7.3% experienced MACE in 12 months of follow‐up. Tertile‐based analysis failed to demonstrate any stratification of MACE rates (log rank, P = 0.83), when comparing low‐to‐middle (hazard ratio (HR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68–1.78, P = 0.70) or low‐to‐high adenosine tertiles (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.56–1.57, P = 0.84). In adjusted analysis, adenosine similarly failed to predict MACE. Finally, adenosine did not predict outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome nor in those revascularized or treated medically. Plasma adenosine levels do not predict subsequent CV outcomes or aid in patient risk stratification.