Posterior pericardial drainage is safe and simple technique that significantly reduces not only the prevalence of early pericardial effusion and POAF but also late pericardial effusion and cardiac tamponade. These benefits, in turn, translate into improved survival after heart surgery.

The objective of this report was to directly compare, by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis, redo surgical aortic valve replacement (re-sAVR) with valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV TAVI) for patients with failed degenerated aortic bioprostheses. Multiple databases were screened for all available reports comparing ViV TAVI with re-sAVR in patients with failing degenerated aortic bioprostheses. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality determined from the longest available survival data. Five observational studies (n = 342) were included in the meta-analysis; patients in the ViV TAVI group were older and had a higher baseline risk compared to those in the re-sAVR group. Although there was no statistical difference in procedural mortality [risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18-2.97; P = 0.67], 30-day mortality (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.44-3.78; P = 0.64) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.30-2.70; P = 0.86) at a mean follow-up period of 18 months, cumulative survival analysis favoured surgery with borderline statistical significance (ViV TAVI versus re-sAVR: hazard ratio 1.91, 95% CI 1.03-3.57; P = 0.039). ViV TAVI was associated with a significantly lower rate of permanent pacemaker implantations (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.20-0.68; P = 0.002) and shorter intensive care unit (P < 0.001) and hospital stays (P = 0.020). In contrast, re-sAVR offered superior echocardiographic outcomes: lower incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (P = 0.008), fewer paravalvular leaks (P = 0.023) and lower mean postoperative aortic valve gradients in the prespecified analysis (P = 0.017). The ViV TAVI approach is a safe and feasible alternative to re-sAVR that may offer an effective, less invasive treatment for patients with failed surgical aortic valve bioprostheses who are inoperable or at high risk. Re-sAVR should remain the standard of care, particularly in the low-risk population, because it offers superior haemodynamic outcomes with low mortality rates.

Aims Because reported mortality on veno-arterial (V-A) extracorporeal life support (ECLS) substantially varies between centres, the aim of the current analysis was to assess the outcomes between units performing heart transplantation and/or implanting ventricular assist device (HTx/VAD) vs. non-HTx/VAD units in patients undergoing V-A ECLS for cardiogenic shock. Methods and results Systematic search according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE databases until 30 November 2019. Articles reporting in-hospital/ 30-day mortality and centre's HTx/VAD status were included. In-hospital outcomes and long-term survival were analysed in subgroup meta-analysis. A total of 174 studies enrolling n = 13 308 patients were included with 20 series performed in non-HTx/VAD centres (1016 patients, 7.8%). Majority of patients underwent V-A ECLS for post-cardiotomy shock (44.2%) and acute myocardial infarction (20.7%). Estimated overall in-hospital mortality was 57.2% (54.9-59.4%). Mortality rates were higher in non-HTx/VAD [65.5% (59.8-70.8%)] as compared with HTx/VAD centres [55.8% (53.3-58.2%)], P < 0.001. Estimated late survival was 61.8% (55.7-67.9%) without differences between non-HTx/VAD and HTx/VAD centres: 66.5% (30.3-1.02%) vs. 61.7% (55.5-67.8%), respectively (P = 0.797). No differences were seen with respect to ECLS duration, limb complications, and reoperations for bleeding, kidney injury, and sepsis. Yet, weaning rates were higher in HTx/VAD vs. non-HTx/VAD centres: 58.7% (56.2-61.1%) vs. 48.9% (42.0-55.9%), P = 0.010. Estimated rate of bridge to heart transplant was 6.6% (5.2-8.3%) with numerical, yet not statistically significant, difference between non-HTx/VAD [2.7% (0.8-8.3%)] as compared with HTx/VAD [6.7% (5.3-8.6%)] (P = 0.131). Conclusions Survival after V-A ECLS differed according to centre's HTx/VAD status. Potentially different risk profiles of patients must be taken account for before definite conclusions are drawn.

Background: Frequent occurrence of paravalvular leak (PVL) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was the main concern with early-generation devices and focused technological improvements.Current systematic review and meta-analysis sought to compare outcomes of TAVR for severe native valve stenosis with next-generation devices: Lotus and Sapien 3. Methods: Electronic databases were screened for studies comparing outcomes of TAVR with Lotus and Sapien 3. In a random-effects meta-analysis, the pooled incidence rates of procedural, clinical and functional outcomes according to VARC-2 definitions were assessed.Results: Eleven observational studies including 2,836 patients (Lotus N=862 vs. Sapien 3 N=1,974) met inclusion criteria. No differences were observed regarding composite endpoints-device success and early safety. Similarly, 30-day mortality, major vascular complications, acute kidney injury and serious bleeding events were similar with both devices. Lotus valve demonstrated 35% reduction of the risk for mild PVL: risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49-0.85, P=0.002; but there were no statistical differences with regard to moderate/severe PVL (RR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.18-1.77, P=0.320). Lotus valves produced significantly higher mean transaortic gradients: mean difference (MD) 0.88 mmHg, 95% CI, 0.24-1.53 mmHg, P=0.007; however, without translation into higher rate of prosthesis-patient mismatch (RR 1.10, 95% CI: 0.82-1.47, P=0.540). As compared to Sapien 3, Lotus device placement was associated with significantly higher rate of permanent pacemaker implantation (RR 2.30, 95% CI: 1.95-2.71, P<0.

No abstract

Frequent occurrence of paravalvular leak (PVL) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was the main concern with earlier-generation devices. Current meta-analysis compared outcomes of TAVR with next-generation devices: ACURATE neo and SAPIEN 3. In random-effects meta-analysis, the pooled incidence rates of procedural, clinical and functional outcomes according to VARC-2 definitions were assessed. One randomized controlled trial and five observational studies including 2818 patients (ACURATE neo n = 1256 vs. SAPIEN 3 n = 1562) met inclusion criteria. ACURATE neo was associated with a 3.7-fold increase of moderate-to-severe PVL (RR (risk ratio): 3.70 (2.04–6.70); P < 0.0001), which was indirectly related to higher observed 30-day mortality with ACURATE valve (RR: 1.77 (1.03–3.04); P = 0.04). Major vascular complications, acute kidney injury, periprocedural myocardial infarction, stroke and serious bleeding events were similar between devices. ACURATE neo demonstrated lower transvalvular pressure gradients both at discharge (P < 0.00001) and at 30 days (P < 0.00001), along with lower risk of patient–prosthesis mismatch (RR: 0.29 (0.10–0.87); P = 0.03) and pacemaker implantation (RR: 0.64 (0.50–0.81); P = 0.0002), but no differences were observed regarding composite endpoints early safety and device success. In conclusion, ACURATE neo, as compared with SAPIEN 3, was associated with higher rates of moderate-to-severe PVL, which were indirectly linked with increased observed 30-day all-cause mortality.

Web of Science) were screened until March 31, 2020. Randomized controlled trials or follow -up studies of RCTs comparing PCI -DES and CABG in LMD and / or MVD and reporting crude mortality data at follow -up equal to or longer than 5 years were considered eligible for further analysis. The study was approved by the local ethics committee. Patient informed consent to participate in the study was not required.Statistical analysis Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs of mortality at reported follow--up equal to or longer than 5 years were calculated using a random effects model with the Mantel-Haenszel method. Heterogeneity was assessed with the Cochran Q test and publication bias by using a funnel plot with logOR plotted against standard error. Results and discussionSix studies 1-6 enrolling 7312 patients and meeting inclusion criteria were included. Two studies 2,5 were excluded, as they recruited patients with previous PCI. Detailed study characteristics are presented in Supplementary material, Table S1. Three studies 1,4,6 were focused on LMD. Two studies 3,4 analyzed MVD only and defined MVD as significant stenosis in 2 or more major epicardial vessels

Aims To compare transcatheter aortic valve replacement TAVR with self-expandable first-generation Medtronic CoreValve with new-generation Evolut R devices in patients with aortic stenosis. Methods Multiple databases were screened for all available reports directly or indirectly comparing CoreValve vs Evolut R. Primary endpoint was device success. Procedural, functional and clinical outcomes were assessed as well. Results Ten retrospective series including 12 294 pts. were found. Overall device success rate was 95.5% and was statistically higher in the Evolut R treated patients as compared with CoreValve: 96.6 vs. 94.8%, respectively; RR (risk ratio) 95%CIs (confidence intervals): 1.02 (1.00-1.04); P = 0.01. There were no statistical differences with regard to postoperative mean aortic gradients 8.5 +/- 5.3 vs 7.9 +/- 4.6 with Evolut R and CoreValve. Evolut R valve demonstrated nearly 50% reduction of the risk for moderate-to-severe paravalvilar leak 0.55 (0.39-0.79); P = 0.001; 60% statistically significant lower risk of developing myocardial injury 0.40 (0.22-0.72); P = 0.002 and numerical reductions in the risk of acute kidney injury, vascular complications and bleeding. Together with significantly reduced risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (0.80 [0.67-0.96]; P = 0.02) the above benefits were associated with 40% reduction in the risk of 30-day all-cause mortality with Evolut R as compared to CoreValve: 0.60 (0.37-1.00); P = 0.05. Conclusions The use of new-generation Evolut R was associated with improved procedural, functional and clinical outcomes compared with the CoreValve device.