Ahmad, Yousif

ABSTRACTBackgroundComparisons of outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement with balloon‐expandable (BEV) versus self‐expanding (SEV) valves are limited.HypothesisThis study aimed to compare clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of BEV and SEV at short‐term (30 days), midterm (1 year), and long‐term (> 1 year) endpoints.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched until July 2024 for randomized controlled trials. Random‐effect model (DerSimonian–Laird method) was used to pool the risk ratios (RR), mean differences, and 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsA total of 10 studies comprising 4325 patients (2295 BEV, 2030 SEV) were included. In short‐term, cardiovascular (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.36–0.87) and all‐cause mortality (RR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.35–0.81) were lower in the BEV group. Risk of moderate to severe paravalvular leak (PVL) was lower among BEV patients in short‐term (RR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.17–0.49) and long‐term (RR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.1–0.79). A limited number of studies showed a greater risk of clinical valve thrombosis on BEV in midterm and long‐term. The need for permanent pacemaker implantation was lower in BEV at both short‐term (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.37–0.87), and midterm (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.64–0.94). The SEV group had a larger effective orifice area with lower mean transvalvular pressure gradient at all endpoints.ConclusionsBEV is associated with reduced risk of clinical outcomes in short‐term; however, most differences diminish in longer evaluations, except for moderate to severe PVL, which remains elevated for SEV. SEVs had better hemodynamic results and lower risk of clinical valve thrombosis.

Background: The majority of randomized controlled trials of revascularization decision-making excludes left main coronary artery disease (LMD). Therefore, contemporary clinical outcomes of patients with stable coronary artery disease and LMD with proven ischemia remain poorly understood. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term clinical outcomes of physiologically significant LMD according to the treatment strategies of revascularization versus revascularization deferral. Methods: In this international multicenter registry of stable LMD interrogated with the instantaneous wave-free ratio, patients with physiologically significant ischemia (instantaneous wave-free ratio ≤0.89) were analyzed according to the coronary revascularization (n=151) versus revascularization deferral (n=74). Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline clinical characteristics. The primary end point was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization of left main stem. The secondary end points were as follows: cardiac death or spontaneous LMD-related myocardial infarction; and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization of left main stem. Results: At a median follow-up period of 2.8 years, the primary end point occurred in 11 patients (14.9%) in the revascularized group and 21 patients (28.4%) in the deferred group (hazard ratio, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.20–0.89]; P =0.023). For the secondary end points, cardiac death or LMD-related myocardial infarction occurred significantly less frequently in the revascularized group (0.0% versus 8.1%; P =0.004). The rate of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization of left main stem was also significantly lower in the revascularized group (5.4% versus 17.6%; hazard ratio, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.056–0.70]; P =0.012). Conclusions: In patients who underwent revascularization for stable coronary artery disease and physiologically significant LMD determined by instantaneous wave-free ratio, the long-term clinical outcomes were significantly improved as compared with those in whom revascularization was deferred.

Background: There is great degree of interobserver variability in the visual angiographic assessment of left main coronary disease (LMCD). Fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound are often used in this setting. The use of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) for evaluation of LMCD has not been well studied. The aim of this study is to evaluate the use of iFR in the assessment of angiographically intermediate LMCD. Methods: This is an international multicenter retrospective observational study of patients who underwent both iFR and intravascular ultrasound evaluation for angiographically intermediate LMCD. An independent core laboratory performed blinded off-line analysis of all intravascular ultrasound data. A minimum lumen area of 6 mm 2 was used as the cutoff for significant disease. Results: One hundred twenty-five patients (mean age, 68.4±9.5 years, 84.8% male) were included in this analysis. Receiver operating curve analysis showed that an iFR of ≤0.89 identified minimum lumen area <6 mm 2 with an area under the curve of 0.77 (77% sensitivity, 66% specificity; P <0.0001). Among the 69 patients without ostial left anterior descending artery or left circumflex artery disease, receiver operating curve analysis showed that an iFR of ≤0.89 identified minimum lumen area <6 mm 2 with an area under the curve of 0.84 (70% sensitivity, 84% specificity; P <0.0001). The correlation was not significantly different when the body surface area was considered. Conclusions: In this study, in patients with intermediate LMCD, iFR of ≤0.89 correlates with intravascular ultrasound minimum lumen area <6 mm 2 regardless of body surface area. The current study supports the use of iFR for the evaluation of intermediate LMCD.