Tajdini, Masih

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 research on the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with balloon-expandable valves (BEV) and self-expanding valves (SEV) are limited. Hypothesis: This study aims to compare the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of BEV and SEV at short-term (30 days), mid-term (1 year), and long-term (>1 year) endpoints. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to April 25, 2024, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Random-effect model (DerSimonian–Laird method) was used to pool the risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively. Results: A total of 11 RCTs comprising 4,325 patients (2,295 BEV, 2,030 SEV) were included. At short-term, the risk of 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. However, no differences were noted between the two treatment modalities in longer follow-ups despite the lower risk of moderate to severe paravalvular leak (PVL) among BEV patients. The risk of stroke was comparable between two groups across all three follow-up endpoints, albeit a limited number of studies suggesting the BEV group showed a greater risk of clinical valve thrombosis in mid-term and long-term assessments. The need for permanent pacemaker implantation was lower in BEV arm in short-term (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.37-0.87) and mid-term (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.64-0.94). Yet, this difference was not observed in long-term follow-ups. Conversely, the SEV group had a larger effective orifice area with lower mean transvalvular pressure gradient from short-term (MD: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.07-0.26 and MD: 3.71, 95% CI: 2.64-4.78, respectively) to long-term (MD: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.17-0.32 and MD: 3.73, 95% CI: 3.19-4.27, respectively) periods. Conclusions: BEV is associated with reduced risk of clinical outcomes at short-term; however, most differences diminish in longer evaluations, except for moderate to severe PVL. Conversely, SEV is linked to better hemodynamic outcomes and a lower risk of clinical valve thrombosis across all follow-up durations.

Abstract Background The standard modifiable cardiovascular risk factors (SMuRFs: hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, and cigarette smoking) are known to play a major role in the pathogenesis of coronary heart disease (CHD). Despite endeavors aiming at primary and secondary prevention of these risk factors, CHD has remained a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. A considerable proportion of patients admitted with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have no SMuRFs, the outcomes of whom following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are debated. Further, sex differences within this population have yet to be established. Purpose The present study aimed to evaluate the association between SMuRF-less status and post-PCI outcomes among patients with ACS. Further, we sought to determine possible sex differences in the post-PCI outcomes related to the SMuRF-less status. Methods This retrospective cohort study included 7847 patients with ACS who underwent PCI. The study outcomes were all-cause mortality and major adverse cardio-cerebrovascular events (MACCE). The association between the absence of SMuRFs (SMuRF-less status) and outcomes among all the patients and each sex was assessed using logistic and Cox proportional hazard regressions. A separate landmark analysis with the landmark (cutoff) set at 30 days after the index procedure was performed as well. Models were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cerebrovascular accident, previous myocardial infarction, estimated glomerular filtration rate, ejection fraction, and left main disease. Results Approximately 11% of the study population had none of the SMuRFs. The SMuRF-less and SMuRF+ groups aged 63.10 ±8.91 (85.1% males) and 62.53 ± 10.91 years (74.9% males), respectively. During 12.13 [11.99-12.36] months of follow-up, the followings were respective event numbers in the SMuRF-less and SMuRF+ groups: all-cause mortality: 35 (4.1%) and 273 (3.9%); MACCE: 99 (11.6%) and 898 (12.8%). All-cause mortality (adjusted-hazard ratio (HR): 1.01, 95%CI: 0.88-1.46, P: 0.731), and MACCE (adjusted-HR: 0.93, 95%CI:0.81-1.12, P: 0.412) did not differ between patients with and without SMuRFs (Figure 1). Sex-stratified analyses recapitulated similar outcomes between SMuRF+ and SMuRF-less men. In contrast, SMuRF-less women had significantly higher all-cause mortality (adjusted-HR:1.41, 95%CI: 1.02-3.21, P: 0.008) than SMuRF+ women (Figure 1). Notably, following landmark analyses, this significant association among women disappeared (adjusted-HR: 0.99, 95%CI: 0.41-2.59, P:0.991), implying that its significance stemmed, to some extent, from higher 30-day mortality (Figure 1,2). Conclusions Almost one in 10 patients with ACS who underwent PCI had no SMuRFs. The absence of SMuRFs did not confer any benefit in terms of in-hospital mortality, one-year mortality, and MACCE. Even worse, SMuRF-less women paradoxically had an excessive risk of one-year mortality.

AbstractBackgroundThe prevalence of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) among young adults (premature ACS) has dramatically increased in recent years, especially in developing countries. Yet, the data on these patients' attributed risk factors and outcomes are inconsistent. In this study, we aimed to investigate these data in a cohort of premature ACS cases who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to older patients.HypothesisWe hypothesize that premature ACS patients undergoing PCI will exhibit different risk factor profiles and outcomes compared to non‐premature patients. specifically, we anticipate that premature patients do not necessarily have better outcomes than non‐premature.MethodsOverall, 3142 and 10 399 patients were included in premature and non‐premature groups, respectively. Patients' pre‐operative, post‐operative, and follow‐up data were retrieved retrospectively from the Tehran Heart Center PCI databank.ResultsThe mean age of premature and non‐premature cohorts was 48.39 and 67 years, respectively. Patients were predominantly male in both groups. Family history of coronary artery disease (CAD), dyslipidemia, smoking, and opium addiction were more prevalent among the younger cohort. After adjustment, in‐hospital mortality in younger patients was considerably higher, with all‐cause mortality and major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) exhibiting no noticeable difference among the two groups.ConclusionsRisk factor profile is different in young patients, and traditional cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and diabetes mellitus, are more prevalent among older adults. Younger age is not equivalent to a better prognosis; hence, similar or even more caution should be taken into consideration regarding secondary prevention for these patients.