Jabri, Ahmad

Background: Indications for TAVR explant have been established, although limited data exist regarding pre-TAVR baseline characteristics that predict eventual explantation. Methods: The TriNetX network, a database comprising medical records from over 105 institutions, was used. Two cohorts were created: those who underwent TAVR without explant and those requiring subsequent TAVR explant and SAVR. Predictors of explantation were analyzed by multivariate models. Results: Among the 63,377 patients undergoing TAVR, 273 (0.4%) required explantation. Patients in the explant group were younger (69.1 ± 11.3 vs. 78.1 ± 8.8 years; p < 0.001), more likely to have a thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) (10.6% vs. 4.7%; p < 0.001) and had higher LDL levels (88.2 ± 41.3 vs. 80.7 ± 34.6 mg/dL; p = 0.011). They also had increased post-TAVR rates of acute kidney injury (9.2% vs. 5.2%; p = 0.004) and paravalvular leak (5.9% vs. 0.9%; p < 0.001). Age at TAVR (HR 1.04; CI 1.03–1.06), baseline TAA (HR 1.69; CI 1.09–2.63), history of infective endocarditis (HR 1.92; CI 1.10–3.35), and higher LDL (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00–1.03) were independent predictors for explantation. Conclusions: Younger age at TAVR, TAA, history of endocarditis, and elevated baseline LDL were notable predictors of explantation. These findings highlight the necessity of pre-procedural assessment and follow-up in high-risk patients to optimize TAVR durability.

Introduction: Remote monitoring using implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) can be used as an adjunctive diagnostic tool to traditional hospital and clinic visits to monitor the volume status of patients with heart failure (HF). Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov (inception through February 4th, 2021) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating ICDs/CRT-D remote monitoring versus standard of care in patients with HF. Of 642 articles retrieved after removing duplicate items, we included 11 RCTs encompassing 5,965 patients. Absolute risk difference (ARD) with 95% credible interval (CrI) was estimated. Pooled (posterior) risk difference was computed using Bayesian hierarchical methods, random effects model and weakly informative prior. Results: The ARD for mortality was centered at -0.01 (95%CrI: -0.03; 0.01, Tau: 0.02), with 82% probability of ARD of ICD/CRT-D remote monitoring with respect to control being less than 0. The ARD for cardiovascular mortality was centered at -0.03 (95%CrI: -0.11; 0.05, Tau: 0.10), with 84% probability of ARD of ICD/CRT-D remote monitoring with respect to control being less than 0. The ARD for HF admissions was centered at -0.00 (95%CrI: -0.07; 0.06, Tau: 0.08), with 57% probability of ARD of ICD/CRT-D remote monitoring with respect to control being less than 0 [Figure]. Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that ICD/CRT-D remote monitoring in patients with HF is associated with a higher probability of reduced all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality compared with standard care. However, ICD-CRT/D remote monitoring was associated with minimal probability of difference in HF hospitalizations.

Introduction: Influenza infection is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Many observational and clinical trials suggested that influenza vaccine can reduce cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: We searched EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library (inception through May 24th, 2022) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating influenza vaccine and its association with cardiovascular outcomes. We used Mantel-Haenszel method with Paule-Mandel estimator of tau2 and Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment (due to the small number of the included studies) to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Eight RCTs with a total of 14,420 patients were included in our analysis. Influenza vaccine as compared with control/placebo was associated with significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at follow-up [RR: 0.75; 95%CI: 0.57; 0.97; I2:56%] [Figure]. There was no significant difference between influenza vaccine and placebo/control in terms of all-cause mortality [RR: 0.84; 95%CI: 0.54; 1.33; I2:50%], cardiovascular mortality [RR: 0.77; 95%CI: 0.39; 1.50; I2:57%], or myocardial infarction [RR: 0.75; 95%CI: 0.52; 1.10; I2:0%]. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis suggests that influenza vaccine compared with control/placebo was associated with lower rates of MACE without a significant difference in the mortality or myocardial infarction rates.