Aims We sought to perform a head-to-head comparison of contemporary 30-day outcomes and readmissions between valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) patients and a matched cohort of high-risk reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement (re-SAVR) patients using a large, multicentre, national database. Methods and results We utilized the nationally weighted 2012–16 National Readmission Database claims to identify all US adult patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves who underwent either VIV-TAVR (n = 3443) or isolated re-SAVR (n = 3372). Thirty-day outcomes were compared using multivariate analysis and propensity score matching (1:1). Unadjusted, VIV-TAVR patients had significantly lower 30-day mortality (2.7% vs. 5.0%), 30-day morbidity (66.4% vs. 79%), and rates of major bleeding (35.8% vs. 50%). On multivariable analysis, re-SAVR was a significant risk factor for both 30-day mortality [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of VIV-SAVR (vs. re-SAVR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28–0.81] and 30-day morbidity [aOR for VIV-TAVR (vs. re-SAVR) 0.54, 95% CI 0.43–0.68]. After matching (n = 2181 matched pairs), VIV-TAVR was associated with lower odds of 30-day mortality (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23–0.74), 30-day morbidity (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.43–0.72), and major bleeding (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51–0.85). Valve-in-valve TAVR was also associated with shorter length of stay (median savings of 2 days, 95% CI 1.3–2.7) and higher odds of routine home discharges (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.61–2.78) compared to re-SAVR. Conclusion In this large, nationwide study of matched high-risk patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves, VIV-TAVR appears to confer an advantage over re-SAVR in terms of 30-day mortality, morbidity, and bleeding complications. Further studies are warranted to benchmark in low- and intermediate-risk patients and to adequately assess longer-term efficacy.

Bioprosthetic mitral structural valve degeneration and failed mitral valve repair (MVr) have traditionally been treated with reoperative mitral valve surgery. Transcatheter mitral valve‐in‐valve (MVIV) and valve‐in‐ring (MVIR) replacement are now feasible, but data comparing these approaches are lacking. We sought to compare the outcomes of (1) reoperative mitral valve replacement (redo‐MVR) and MVIV for structural valve degeneration, and (2) reoperative mitral valve repair (redo‐MVr) or MVR and MVIR for failed MVr. A literature search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted up to July 31, 2020. Thirty‐two studies involving 25 832 patients were included. Redo‐MVR was required in ≈35% of patients after index surgery at 10 years, with 5% to 15% 30‐day mortality. MVIV resulted in >95% procedural success with 30‐day and 1‐year mortality of 0% to 8% and 11% to 16%, respectively. Recognized complications included left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (0%–6%), valve migration (0%–9%), and residual regurgitation (0%–6%). Comparisons of redo‐MVR and MVIV showed no statistically significant differences in mortality (11.3% versus 11.9% at 1 year, P =0.92), albeit higher rates of major bleeding and arrhythmias with redo‐MVR. MVIR resulted in 0% to 34% mortality at 1 year, whereas both redo‐MVr and MVR for failed repairs were performed with minimal mortality and durable long‐term results. MVIV is therefore a viable alternative to redo‐MVR for structural valve degeneration, whereas redo‐MVr or redo‐MVR is preferred for failed MVr given the suboptimal results with MVIR. However, not all patients will be candidates for MVIV/MVIR because anatomical restrictions may preclude transcatheter options from adequately addressing the underlying pathology.

No abstract

No abstract

With the recent success of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), transcatheter options for the management of mitral valve pathology have also gained considerable attention. Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) is one such technique that has emerged as a safe and effective therapeutic option for patients with degenerated mitral valve bioprostheses at high-risk for repeat surgical mitral valve replacement. Several access strategies, including trans-apical, transseptal, trans-jugular, and trans-atrial access have been described for ViV-TMVR. Initial experiences were performed primarily via a trans-apical approach through a left mini-thoracotomy because it offers direct access and coaxial device alignment. With the advancements in TMVR technology, such as the development of smaller delivery catheters with high flexure capabilities, the transseptal approach via the femoral vein has emerged as the preferred option. This technique offers the advantages of a totally percutaneous approach, avoids the need to enter the thoracic cavity or pericardial space, and provides superior outcomes compared to a trans-apical approach. In this review, we outline key aspects of patient selection, imaging, procedural techniques, and examine contemporary clinical outcomes of transseptal ViV-TMVR.

Background Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is a surgical emergency with an operative mortality of up to 30%, a rate which has not changed meaningfully in over two decades. A growing body of research has highlighted several comorbidities and presenting factors in which delay or permanent deferral of surgery may be considered; however, modern comprehensive summative reviews are lacking. The urgency and timing of this review are underscored by significant challenges in resource utilization posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. This review provides an update on the current understanding of risk assessment, surgical candidacy, and operative timing in patients with ATAAD. Methods A literature search was conducted through PubMed and Embase databases to identify relevant studies relating to risk assessment in ATAAD. Articles were selected via group consensus based on quality and relevance. Results Several patient factors have been identified which increase risk in ATAAD repair. In particular, frailty, advanced age, prior cardiac surgery, and use of novel anticoagulant medications have been studied. The understanding of malperfusion syndromes has also expanded significantly, including recommendations for surgical delay. Finally, approaches to triage have been significantly influenced by resource limitations related to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. While medical management remains a reasonable option in carefully selected patients at prohibitive risk for open surgery, endovascular therapies for treatment of ATAAD are rapidly evolving. Conclusions Early surgical repair remains the preferred treatment for most patients with ATAAD, however, improvements in risk stratification should guide appropriate delay or permanent deferral of surgery in select individuals.

The novel coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) pandemic has placed intense pressure on health care organizations around the world. Among other concerns, there has been an increasing recognition of common and deleterious cardiovascular effects of COVID-19 based on preliminary studies. Furthermore, patients with preexisting cardiac disease are likely to experience a more severe disease course with COVID-19. As case numbers continue to increase exponentially, a R ESUM ELa pand emie de maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) exerce des pressions intenses sur les organismes de soins de sant e de partout dans le monde. Entre autres pr eoccupations, des etudes pr eliminaires rapportent une augmentation de l'observation d'effets cardiovasculaires d el etères courants de la COVID-19. En outre, les patients pr esentant une cardiopathie pr eexistante sont susceptibles d'être plus durement touch es par la COVID-19. Alors que le nombre COVID-19 and Cardiovascular DiseaseSeveral reports have noted the incidence and types of adverse cardiovascular events associated with COVID-19. In

No abstract