Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter versus surgical management of structural heart disease

Chest radiography of contemporary trans-catheter cardiovascular devices: a pictorial essay

There is a plethora of cardiovascular devices used for therapy and monitoring, and newer devices are being introduced constantly. As a result of advancement of medical technology and rapid development of such technology to address unmet needs across cardiovascular care, multiple conditions which were previously treated surgically or with medications now benefit from trans-catheter device-based evaluation and management. Moreover, innovation to existing technology has transformed the structural design of many traditional cardiovascular devices, making them safer and enabling easier deployment within the chest (catheter-based versus surgical). A post-procedure chest radiography (CXR) is often the first routine imaging test ordered in these patients. A CXR is a relatively inexpensive and noninvasive imaging tool, which can be obtained at the patient's bedside if needed. Commonly implanted cardiovascular devices can be quite easily checked for appropriate positioning on routine CXRs. Potential complications associated with mal-positioning of such devices may be life-threatening. Such complications often manifest early on CXRs and may not be readily apparent on clinical examination. Prompt recognition of such abnormal radiographic appearances is critical for timely diagnosis and effective management. Clinicians need to be familiar with new devices in order to assess proper placement and identify complications related to mal-positioning. This pictorial essay aims to describe the radiologic appearances of contemporary cardiovascular devices, review indications for their usage and potential complications, and discuss magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compatibility.

Trans-Catheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes in Patients with Dialysis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Dialysis is associated with higher rate of aortic valve calcification and higher cardiovascular mortality. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established alternative for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with higher and intermediate co-morbidities including dialysis.

METHODS

Two independent investigators systematically searched Medline, Cochrane, and Web of Science. The ROBINS-I tool was used to analyze and assess the bias from the selected studies.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 4 observational studies with a total of 966 patients. TAVR in dialysis patients was associated with no significant difference in in-hospital mortality [8.1% vs 10.3%; OR (95% CI) 0.74 (0.35, 1.60), I2 = 50%, P = 0.45], risk-of-strokes at 30 days [2% vs 4.4%; OR (95% CI) 0.49 (0.22, 1.09), I2 = 0%, P = 0.08], vascular complications [12.7% vs 13.2%; OR (95% CI) 0.96 (0.55, 1.67), I2 = 0%, P = 0.89], need of blood transfusion [43.1% vs 66.4%; OR (95% CI) 0.27 (0.05, 1.39), I2 = 89%, P = 0.12], or bleeding risk [5.6% vs 6.8%; OR (95% CI) 0.91 (0.18, 4.64), I2 = 5%, P = 0.91] when compared to SAVR. TAVR was associated with significantly shorter length of stay [8.5 days vs 14.2 days; mean difference (95% CI) -5.89 (-9.13, -2.64), I2 = 76%, P < 0.0001] and higher pacemaker implantation [11.4% vs 6.8%; OR (95% CI) 1.74 (1.07, 2.81), I2 = 5%, P = 0.02].

CONCLUSION

TAVR outcomes were comparable to SAVR but had a significantly shorter length of stay and a higher pacemaker implantation rate in dialysis patients.

Interventional Echocardiography: Field of Advanced Imaging to Support Structural Heart Interventions

Multimodality imaging, particularly echocardiography, is paramount in planning and guiding structural heart disease interventions. Transesophageal echocardiography remains unique in its ability to provide real-time 2D and 3D imaging of valvular heart disease and anatomic cardiac defects, which directly impacts the strategy and outcome of these procedures. This review summarizes the role of transesophageal echocardiography in patients undergoing the most common structural heart disease interventions.

Transcatheter vs surgical aortic-valve replacement in low- to intermediate-surgical-risk candidates: A meta-analysis and systematic review

The American and European expert documents recommend transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for inoperable or high-surgical-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. In comparison, efficacy of TAVR is relatively less studied in low- to intermediate-surgical-risk patients. We sought to discover whether TAVR can be as effective as surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low- to intermediate-surgical-risk candidates. Four randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 8 prospective matched studies were selected using PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library (inception: March 2017). Results were reported as random-effects odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Among 9851 patients, analyses of RCTs showed that all-cause mortality was comparable between TAVR and SAVR (short term, OR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.86-1.64, P = 0.30; mid-term, OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.75-1.26, P = 0.84; and long term, OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.81-1.16, P = 0.76). The analysis restricted to matched studies showed similar outcomes. In the analysis stratified by study design, no significant differences were noted in the RCTs for stroke, whereas TAVR was better than SAVR in matched studies at short term only (OR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.33-0.65, P < 0.001). TAVR is associated with reduced risk of acute kidney injury and new-onset atrial fibrillation (P < 0.05). However, increased incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation and paravalvular leaks was observed with TAVR. TAVR can provide similar mortality outcome compared with SAVR in low- to intermediate-surgical-risk patients with critical aortic stenosis. However, both procedures are associated with their own array of adverse events.