Windecker, Stephan

Abstract Aims Artificial intelligence electrocardiography (AI-ECG) algorithms are emerging tools for identifying individuals at risk of atrial fibrillation (AF). We evaluated the predictive performance of a validated AI-ECG algorithm for incident AF in UK Biobank participants with AF risk factors, irrespective of prevalent cardiovascular disease, and its incremental value when added to clinical predictors. Methods and results The AI-ECG tool was applied to sinus rhythm ECGs from UK-Biobank participants with risk factors for AF but no AF. Model performance was evaluated using time-dependent ROC-AUC and Harrell’s C-index. Multivariable Cox regression was used to identify clinical risk factors associated with incident AF and to quantify the contribution of AI-ECG. A total of 21 842 participants (56% male) were included. The median follow-up time was 3.7 years (IQR 0.5–5.4) The ECG-AI tool achieved a ROC-AUC of 0.73 (95% CI 0.68–0.78) at 1 and 0.69 (95% CI 0.66–0.72) at 3 years. A multivariable Cox regression model using clinical parameters achieved a ROC-AUC of 0.71 (95% CI 0.66–0.75) at 1 and 0.71 (95% CI 0.68–0.74) at 3 years. By adding ECG-AI to the clinical Cox regression model, the ROC-AUC increased to 0.75 (95%CI 0.71–0.80) at 1 and 0.74 (95% CI 0.71–0.77) at 3 years. AI-ECG showed a hazard ratio of 1.23 per decile increase (95% CI 1.18–1.27). Conclusion An AI-ECG algorithm improved the prediction of incident AF when added to a clinical parameter-based model over a median follow-up time of 3.7 years among individuals with comorbidities predisposing to AF who may benefit from targeted screening and preventive strategies.

Abstract Aims Heart failure (HF) with preserved (HFpEF) and mildly reduced (HFmrEF) ejection fraction are prevalent, yet frequently underdiagnosed syndromes associated with high morbidity and mortality, impaired quality of life, and escalating healthcare expenditures. Although guideline-directed medications like SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to reduce the risk of hospitalization and cardiovascular death, their use remains limited and substantial residual risk persists. This trial aims to evaluate the safety and performance of a novel left-atrium-to-coronary-sinus shunt (Edwards APTURE transcatheter shunt system) in HFpEF and HFmrEF patients. Methods ALT-FLOW II is a prospective multi-centre, randomized, sham-controlled, double-blinded (patient and assessor) trial. Approximately 100 symptomatic HF patients aged ≥18 years with left ventricular ejection fraction >40% and exercise pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) ≥25 mm Hg with a PCWP to right atrial pressure gradient ≥8 mm Hg will be randomized 1:1 to the APTURE shunt vs sham control. Key exclusion criteria include severe HF, significant valvular disease, and more than mild right ventricular dysfunction. The primary endpoints are the safety of the APTURE device at 30 days and change in workload-corrected PCWP normalized to bodyweight at 6 months. Secondary endpoints include changes in patient-reported outcomes, and hemodynamic and echocardiographic parameters through 5 years. The trial will also explore the impact of the device on short-term cardiac remodelling and intra-cardiac flow patterns using multi-modality imaging. Conclusions The ALT-FLOW II trial will evaluate the safety and performance of the APTURE system in symptomatic HFpEF and HFmrEF patients with elevated left atrial pressure.

Abstract Aims Recently, deep learning artificial intelligence (AI) models have been trained to detect cardiovascular conditions, including hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), from the 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG). In this external validation study, we sought to assess the performance of an AI-ECG algorithm for detecting HCM in diverse international cohorts. Methods and results A convolutional neural network-based AI-ECG algorithm was developed previously in a single-centre North American HCM cohort (Mayo Clinic). This algorithm was applied to the raw 12-lead ECG data of patients with HCM and non-HCM controls from three external cohorts (Bern, Switzerland; Oxford, UK; and Seoul, South Korea). The algorithm’s ability to distinguish HCM vs. non-HCM status from the ECG alone was examined. A total of 773 patients with HCM and 3867 non-HCM controls were included across three sites in the merged external validation cohort. The HCM study sample comprised 54.6% East Asian, 43.2% White, and 2.2% Black patients. Median AI-ECG probabilities of HCM were 85% for patients with HCM and 0.3% for controls (P < 0.001). Overall, the AI-ECG algorithm had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.922 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.910–0.934], with diagnostic accuracy 86.9%, sensitivity 82.8%, and specificity 87.7% for HCM detection. In age- and sex-matched analysis (case–control ratio 1:2), the AUC was 0.921 (95% CI 0.909–0.934) with accuracy 88.5%, sensitivity 82.8%, and specificity 90.4%. Conclusion The AI-ECG algorithm determined HCM status from the 12-lead ECG with high accuracy in diverse international cohorts, providing evidence for external validity. The value of this algorithm in improving HCM detection in clinical practice and screening settings requires prospective evaluation.

Abstract Background and aims Benefit of tricuspid regurgitation (TR) correction and timing of intervention are unclear. This study aimed to compare survival rates after surgical or transcatheter intervention to conservative management according to a TR clinical stage as assessed using the TRI-SCORE. Methods A total of 2,413 patients with severe isolated functional TR were enrolled in TRIGISTRY (1217 conservatively managed, 551 isolated tricuspid valve surgery, and 645 transcatheter valve repair). The primary endpoint was survival at 2 years. Results The TRI-SCORE was low (≤3) in 32%, intermediate (4–5) in 33%, and high (≥6) in 35%. A successful correction was achieved in 97% and 65% of patients in the surgical and transcatheter groups, respectively. Survival rates decreased with the TRI-SCORE in the three treatment groups (all P < .0001). In the low TRI-SCORE category, survival rates were higher in the surgical and transcatheter groups than in the conservative management group (93%, 87%, and 79%, respectively, P = .0002). In the intermediate category, no significant difference between groups was observed overall (80%, 71%, and 71%, respectively, P = .13) but benefit of the intervention became significant when the analysis was restricted to patients with successful correction (80%, 81%, and 71%, respectively, P = .009). In the high TRI-SCORE category, survival was not different to conservative management in the surgical and successful repair group (61% and 68% vs 58%, P = .26 and P = .18 respectively). Conclusions Survival progressively decreased with the TRI-SCORE irrespective of treatment modality. Compared to conservative management, an early and successful surgical or transcatheter intervention improved 2-year survival in patients at low and, to a lower extent, intermediate TRI-SCORE, while no benefit was observed in the high TRI-SCORE category.

Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment to prevent thrombotic or ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and those treated medically for an acute coronary syndrome. The use of antiplatelet therapy comes at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding complications. Defining the optimal intensity of platelet inhibition according to the clinical presentation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and individual patient factors is a clinical challenge. Modulation of antiplatelet therapy is a medical action that is frequently performed to balance the risk of thrombotic or ischemic events and the risk of bleeding. This aim may be achieved by reducing (ie, de-escalation) or increasing (ie, escalation) the intensity of platelet inhibition by changing the type, dose, or number of antiplatelet drugs. Because de-escalation or escalation can be achieved in different ways, with a number of emerging approaches, confusion arises with terminologies that are often used interchangeably. To address this issue, this Academic Research Consortium collaboration provides an overview and definitions of different strategies of antiplatelet therapy modulation for patients with coronary artery disease, including but not limited to those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and consensus statements on standardized definitions.

Importance In patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding supra-annular valve was noninferior to surgery for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Comparisons of longer-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in these patients are limited. Objective To report prespecified secondary 5-year outcomes from the Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement (SURTAVI) randomized clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants SURTAVI is a prospective randomized, unblinded clinical trial. Randomization was stratified by investigational site and need for revascularization determined by the local heart teams. Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis deemed to be at intermediate risk of 30-day surgical mortality were enrolled at 87 centers from June 19, 2012, to June 30, 2016, in Europe and North America. Analysis took place between August and October 2021. Intervention Patients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular transcatheter or a surgical bioprosthesis. Main Outcomes and Measures The prespecified secondary end points of death or disabling stroke and other adverse events and hemodynamic findings at 5 years. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated all serious adverse events and an independent echocardiographic core laboratory evaluated all echocardiograms at 5 years. Results A total of 1660 individuals underwent an attempted TAVR (n = 864) or surgical (n = 796) procedure. The mean (SD) age was 79.8 (6.2) years, 724 (43.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgery Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 4.5% (1.6%). At 5 years, the rates of death or disabling stroke were similar (TAVR, 31.3% vs surgery, 30.8%; hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.85-1.22]; P = .85). Transprosthetic gradients remained lower (mean [SD], 8.6 [5.5] mm Hg vs 11.2 [6.0] mm Hg; P < .001) and aortic valve areas were higher (mean [SD], 2.2 [0.7] cm 2 vs 1.8 [0.6] cm 2 ; P < .001) with TAVR vs surgery. More patients had moderate/severe paravalvular leak with TAVR than surgery (11 [3.0%] vs 2 [0.7%]; risk difference, 2.37% [95% CI, 0.17%- 4.85%]; P = .05). New pacemaker implantation rates were higher for TAVR than surgery at 5 years (289 [39.1%] vs 94 [15.1%]; hazard ratio, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.61-4.17]; log-rank P < .001), as were valve reintervention rates (27 [3.5%] vs 11 [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.10-4.45]; log-rank P = .02), although between 2 and 5 years only 6 patients who underwent TAVR and 7 who underwent surgery required a reintervention. Conclusions and Relevance Among intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, major clinical outcomes at 5 years were similar for TAVR and surgery. TAVR was associated with superior hemodynamic valve performance but also with more paravalvular leak and valve reinterventions.

AbstractObjectivesThe Evolut R FORWARD study confirmed safety and effectivenesss of the Evolut R THV in routine clinical practice out to 1 year. Herein, we report the final 3‐year clinical follow up of the FORWARD study.BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a proven alternative to surgery in elderly patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Long‐term clinical outcome data with the Evolut R platform are scarce.MethodsFORWARD is a prospective multicenter observational study that evaluated the Evolut R system in routine clinical practice at 53 centres. Eligible patients had symptomatic native aortic valve stenosis or failed surgical aortic bioprosthesis and elevated operative risk per Heart‐Team assessment. TAVR was attempted in 1039 patients.ResultsMean age was 81.8 ± 6.2 years, 64.9% were women, STS score was 5.5 ± 4.5% and 34.2% were frail. Rates of all‐cause mortality and disabling stroke were 24.8% and 4.8% at 3 years. Early need for a new pacemaker implantation after TAVR (all‐cause mortality: with new PPI; 21.0% vs. without; 22.8%, p = 0.55) and the presence of > trace paravalvular regurgitation (all‐cause mortality: no or trace; 22.0% vs. ≥ mild; 25.5%, p = 0.29) did not affect survival. Between 1 and 3 years incidence rates of valve related intervention, endocarditis and clinically relevant valve thrombosis were low.ConclusionsThe Evolut R valve maintained a favorable safety profile through 3 years in routine clinical practice. Rates of transcatheter heart valve‐related adverse events were low.

Background: Mitral valve-in-valve (ViV) and valve-in-ring (ViR) are alternatives to surgical reoperation in patients with recurrent mitral valve failure after previous surgical valve repair or replacement. Our aim was to perform a large-scale analysis examining midterm outcomes after mitral ViV and ViR. Methods: Patients undergoing mitral ViV and ViR were enrolled in the Valve-in-Valve International Data Registry. Cases were performed between March 2006 and March 2020. Clinical endpoints are reported according to the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) definitions. Significant residual mitral stenosis (MS) was defined as mean gradient ≥10 mm Hg and significant residual mitral regurgitation (MR) as ≥ moderate. Results: A total of 1079 patients (857 ViV, 222 ViR; mean age 73.5±12.5 years; 40.8% male) from 90 centers were included. Median STS-PROM score 8.6%; median clinical follow-up 492 days (interquartile range, 76–996); median echocardiographic follow-up for patients that survived 1 year was 772.5 days (interquartile range, 510–1211.75). Four-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 62.5% in ViV versus 49.5% for ViR ( P <0.001). Mean gradient across the mitral valve postprocedure was 5.7±2.8 mm Hg (≥5 mm Hg; 61.4% of patients). Significant residual MS occurred in 8.2% of the ViV and 12.0% of the ViR patients ( P =0.09). Significant residual MR was more common in ViR patients (16.6% versus 3.1%; P <0.001) and was associated with lower survival at 4 years (35.1% versus 61.6%; P =0.02). The rates of Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium–defined device success were low for both procedures (39.4% total; 32.0% ViR versus 41.3% ViV; P =0.01), mostly related to having postprocedural mean gradient ≥5 mm Hg. Correlates for residual MS were smaller true internal diameter, younger age, and larger body mass index. The only correlate for residual MR was ViR. Significant residual MS (subhazard ratio, 4.67; 95% CI, 1.74–12.56; P =0.002) and significant residual MR (subhazard ratio, 7.88; 95% CI, 2.88–21.53; P <0.001) were both independently associated with repeat mitral valve replacement. Conclusions: Significant residual MS and/or MR were not infrequent after mitral ViV and ViR procedures and were both associated with a need for repeat valve replacement. Strategies to improve postprocedural hemodynamics in mitral ViV and ViR should be further explored.