Guerrero, Mayra

Abstract Worldwide, valvular heart disease (VHD) is a common cause of hospitalization for acute heart failure. In acute heart failure caused by VHD, symptoms result from rapid haemodynamic changes and subsequent decline in cardiac function, and if left untreated, leads to acute decompensation and cardiogenic shock. Current evidence remains scarce and recommendations regarding the management of acute heart failure caused by VHD are lacking in most recent international guidelines. Herein, we review the management of acute heart failure caused by VHD with a focus on transcatheter therapies and describe currently available evidence based on a systematic literature search on the following valve pathologies: (i) aortic stenosis, (ii) aortic regurgitation, (iii) mitral regurgitation, and (iv) mitral stenosis. Articles reporting outcomes following urgent or emergent valve intervention in the setting of cardiogenic shock or acute heart failure were considered. After screening a total of 2234 articles, 76 published between 1994 and 2023 were included in subsequent analysis. Based on available evidence, proposed treatment algorithms to guide optimal management of acute heart failure caused by VHD were created. As the number of patients presenting with acute heart failure caused by VHD continues to rise and outcomes following transcatheter valve interventions continue to improve, it is inevitable that minimally invasive options will play an increasingly important role in the acute setting, especially given these patients are at an increased operative risk. This review aims to present an organized approach to the complex management and interventional treatment of patients with acute heart failure caused by VHD.

Abstract Aims Patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and cardiogenic shock (CS) are an extremely high-risk population with a poor prognosis in the absence of definitive therapy. We aimed to compare the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with those of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with AS–CS. Methods and results We queried the Nationwide Readmission Database (2016–21) to identify patients hospitalized for AS–CS who underwent isolated TAVR or SAVR. In-hospital outcomes of TAVR vs. SAVR were compared using multivariable regression and propensity-matching analyses. Ninety-day readmissions were compared using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. A total of 16 161 patients were hospitalized for AS–CS, of whom 6470 (40.0%) underwent isolated TAVR and 9691 (60.0%) underwent isolated SAVR. From 2016 through 2021, the proportion of TAVR increased from 29.5 to 46.5% and the proportion of SAVR correspondingly decreased in AS–CS (Ptrend < 0.01). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, TAVR was associated with lower odds of stroke [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47–0.84], acute kidney injury (aOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69–0.93), and major bleeding (aOR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40–0.71) and higher odds of vascular complications (aOR 1.56, 95% CI 1.23–1.97) compared with SAVR. In-hospital mortality, myocardial infarction, permanent pacemaker placement, and 90-day all-cause and heart failure readmissions showed similar rates between TAVR and SAVR. However, hospital length of stay was shorter and total costs and non-home discharges were lower with TAVR than with SAVR. Conclusion This nationwide observational analysis showed that TAVR is increasingly performed in patients with AS–CS and is associated with similar rates of in-hospital mortality and 90-day readmissions but lower rates of in-hospital complications and resource utilization compared with SAVR.