AimsVery few data exist on the occurrence of acute kidney injury (AKI) associated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The objectives of the present study were (i) to determine the incidence, predictive factors, and prognostic value of AKI following TAVI, and (ii) to compare the occurrence of AKI in TAVI vs. surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with pre-procedural chronic kidney disease (CKD).Methods and resultsA total of 213 patients (mean age 82 ± 8 years) undergoing TAVI for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis were included in the study. Acute kidney injury was defined as a reduction of >25% in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) within 48 h following the procedure or the need for haemodialysis during index hospitalization. Those patients with pre-procedural CKD (eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, n = 119) were compared with 104 contemporary patients with CKD who underwent isolated SAVR. The incidence of AKI following TAVI was 11.7%, with 1.4% of the patients requiring haemodialysis. Predictive factors of AKI were hypertension (OR: 4.66; 95% CI: 1.04–20.87), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR: 2.64, 95% CI: 1.10–6.36), and peri-operative blood transfusion (OR: 3.47, 95% CI: 1.30–9.29). Twenty-one patients (9.8%) died during index hospitalization, and the logistic EuroSCORE (OR: 1.03 for each increase of 1%; 95% CI: 1.01–1.06) and occurrence of AKI (OR: 4.14, 95% CI: 1.42–12.13) were identified as independent predictors of postoperative mortality. Patients with CKD who underwent TAVI were older, had a higher logistic EuroSCORE and lower pre-procedural eGFR values compared with those who underwent SAVR (P < 0.0001 for all). The incidence of AKI was lower (P = 0.001; P = 0.014 after propensity score adjustment) in CKD patients who underwent TAVI (9.2%, need for haemodialysis: 2.5%) compared with those who underwent SAVR (25.9%, need for haemodialysis: 8.7%).ConclusionAcute kidney injury occurred in 11.7% of the patients following TAVI and was associated with a greater than four-fold increase in the risk of postoperative mortality. Hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and blood transfusion were predictive factors of AKI. In those patients with pre-procedural CKD, TAVI was associated with a significant reduction of AKI compared with SAVR.

TAVI is associated with a high rate of silent cerebral ischemic lesions as evaluated by DW-MRI, with no differences between the TF and TA approaches. These results provide important novel insight into the mechanisms of CE associated with TAVI and support the need for further research to both reduce the incidence of CE during these procedures and better determine their clinical relevance.

Background-Patients with severe aortic stenosis and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) have a poor prognosis with conservative therapy but a high operative mortality when treated surgically. Recently, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients considered at high or prohibitive operative risk. The objective of this study was to compare TAVI and SAVR with respect to postoperative recovery of LVEF in patients with severe aortic stenosis and reduced LV systolic function. Methods and Results-Echocardiographic data were prospectively collected before and after the procedure in 200 patients undergoing SAVR and 83 patients undergoing TAVI for severe aortic stenosis (aortic valve area Յ1 cm

TAVI was systematically associated with some degree of myocardial injury, with TA approach and baseline renal dysfunction determining a higher increase in biomarkers of myocardial injury. A greater degree of myocardial injury was associated with less improvement in LVEF and a higher cardiac mortality at follow-up.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation was associated with a higher rate of complete AVB and PPI compared with SAVR in elderly patients with severe AS and similar baseline ECG findings. The presence of baseline right bundle branch block correlated with the need for PPI in the TAVI group.

A simple approach of four telephone calls to patients after DES implantation significantly improved 1-year drug adherence to near-perfect scores. Persistence of DAT was also significantly improved by the intervention.

BackgroundRecent recommendations suggest that in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation and coexistent significant coronary artery disease, the latter should be treated before the index procedure; however, the evidence basis for such an approach remains limited. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to study the clinical outcomes of patients with coronary artery disease who did or did not undergo revascularization prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation.Methods and ResultsWe conducted a search of Medline and Embase to identify studies evaluating patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation with or without percutaneous coronary intervention. Random‐effects meta‐analyses with the inverse variance method were used to estimate the rate and risk of adverse outcomes. Nine studies involving 3858 participants were included in the meta‐analysis. Patients who underwent revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention had a higher rate of major vascular complications (odd ratio [OR]: 1.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33–2.60; P=0.0003) and higher 30‐day mortality (OR: 1.42; 95% CI, 1.08–1.87; P=0.01). There were no differences in effect estimates for 30‐day cardiovascular mortality (OR: 1.03; 95% CI, 0.35–2.99), myocardial infarction (OR: 0.86; 95% CI, 0.14–5.28), acute kidney injury (OR: 0.89; 95% CI, 0.42–1.88), stroke (OR: 1.07; 95% CI, 0.38–2.97), or 1‐year mortality (OR: 1.05; 95% CI, 0.71–1.56). The timing of percutaneous coronary intervention (same setting versus a priori) did not negatively influence outcomes.ConclusionsOur analysis suggests that revascularization before transcatheter aortic valve implantation confers no clinical advantage with respect to several patient‐important clinical outcomes and may be associated with an increased risk of major vascular complications and 30‐day mortality. In the absence of definitive evidence, careful evaluation of patients on an individual basis is of paramount importance to identify patients who might benefit from elective revascularization.

Objective To determine the frequency of survival, stroke, atrial fibrillation, structural valve deterioration, and length of hospital stay after surgical replacement of an aortic valve (SAVR) with a bioprosthetic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.Data sources Medline, Embase, PubMed (non-Medline records only), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane CENTRAL from 2002 to June 2016.Study selection Eligible observational studies followed patients after SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve for at least two years.Methods Reviewers, independently and in duplicate, evaluated study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias for patient important outcomes. We used the GRADE system to quantify absolute effects and quality of evidence. Published survival curves provided data for survival and freedom from structural valve deterioration, and random effect models provided the framework for estimates of pooled incidence rates of stroke, atrial fibrillation, and length of hospital stay.Results In patients undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve, median survival was 16 years in those aged 65 or less, 12 years in those aged 65 to 75, seven years in those aged 75 to 85, and six years in those aged more than 85. The incidence rate of stroke was 0.25 per 100 patient years (95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.54) and atrial fibrillation 2.90 per 100 patient years (1.78 to 4.79). Post-SAVR, freedom from structural valve deterioration was 94.0% at 10 years, 81.7% at 15 years, and 52% at 20 years, and mean length of hospital stay was 12 days (95% confidence interval 9 to 15).Conclusion Patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve can expect only slightly lower survival than those without aortic stenosis, and a low incidence of stroke and, up to 10 years, of structural valve deterioration. The rate of deterioration increases rapidly after 10 years, and particularly after 15 years.