P219 IS DISPROPORTIONALITY ENOUGH TO IDENTIFY CANDIDATES FOR PERCUTANEOUS MITRAL VALVE REPAIR? A CLINICAL CASE

Functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) is defined as regurgitation with structurally normal leaflets secondary to the distortion of the LV in the context of dilated cardiopathy. The conflicting results emerged from the MITRA–FR and COAPT trials have raised a new interest in the individuation of “primary–like” components of MR. In this scenario, a binary classification in proportionate and disproportionate FMR has been proposed by Garland et al. When the MR is completely due to LV remodeling, they observed a linear relationship between ERO and LVEDV, defining a proportionate FMR; on the other side, when the ERO is superior to the expected one, the FMR is considered as disproportionate, and it may benefit from TEER on top of GMDT. However, the Garland’s model may not explain the full complexity of MV apparatus and FMR. We present the case of a 75–years–old woman diagnosed with dilated cardiopathy of ischemic origin, known since 2008. In 2021 she started receiving multiple hospitalizations for acute decompensation of HF with dyspnoea and symptoms of hypoperfusion, such as AKI on top of CKD and hypotension. The TOE showed a severe LV dysfunction and a moderate dilation of the left ventricle (EF 19%, LVEDVi 90 ml/m2), with a severe FMR secondary to annular dilation and retraction with tethering of the posterior leaflet (MR ERO 0,27 cm2, VC 0,67 cm, RV 45 ml). In order to improve symptoms she underwent TEER with implantation of one Edwards Pascal device at the level of A2–P2, with good results and a mild residual MR. Basing on the Garland’s model our patient would have been classified as proportionate FMR, with no benefit from TEER. However, removing MR component from the heart disease, she improved her stroke volume and her systolic function, allowing a better peripheral perfusion, as showed by an increase in renal function and in arterial pressure during follow–up, which allowed an introduction ad up–titration of Sacubitril/Valsartan, impossible before TEER. At the same time TEER decreased pulmonary pressures improving dyspnoea and functional status (she was NYHA II–III at the 6 month follow–up). In conclusion, the binary model of proportionality has the strength of being easy–to–use and of easily recognizing a primary–like MR that can benefit from TEER; however, proportionate FMR probably includes different pathophysiological mechanisms of disease, requiring an ultra stratification to better identify cases where TEER may increase survival.

Predictors of mortality in patients undergoing percutaneous aortic valve implantation

AIM

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) became an attractive alternative to surgery for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high operative risk. The first multicenter randomized trial, conducted in such high risk cohort, showed 20% reduction in mortality in the group treated with TAVI compared to those treated with medical therapy (30.7% vs. 50.7% P=0.001) and a non-inferiority of TAVI compared to traditional valve surgical replacement for all-cause mortality at 1 year with, similar improvement of symptoms and physical performance. However, mortality rate of TAVI remains high (20-30% at one year). The purpose of this prospective single center study was to identify predictors of mortality and adverse events in patients undergoing TAVI in order to be able to select the ones who benefit most from the procedure.

METHODS

Between June 2009 and June of 2011, 118 patients with severe aortic stenosis treated with TAVI at IRCCS Humanitas Clinical Institute were included in a prospective registry. Pre procedural clinical and ecocardiographic evaluations, surgical risk estimation, and procedural complications, defined by VASC criteria, were recorded. Clinical and echocardiographic evaluations were performed at 1, 6 and 12 months after the implants. To investigate the predictors of mortality, clinical and anatomical characteristics of alive patients were compared with those of death ones at one month and one year follow-up.

RESULTS

The procedural success occurred in 92.4% of procedures; vascular complications (33%), bleeding complications (22%), postimplant paravalvolar grade ≥2 AR (20.4%) a new permanent pacemaker implant (19.7%), were the most common complications. Survival for the whole cohort at 30 days was 6.8%, survival at one year was 82.2%. In the logistic regression test, one month mortality was significantly adversely affected by the renal functional status (odd ratio 0.9356), by a previous history of coronary artery bypass grafting (odd ratio 39) and by the mean aortic annular diameter (odd ratio 0.512) (P=0.0005). One year mortality was influenced by high EuroSCORE (odd ratio 1.0399) and the presence of hemodynamically significant prosthetic regurgitation (odd ratio 3.8438).

CONCLUSION

TAVI procedure, in high risk patients with critical aortic stenosis, can be accomplished with low procedural mortality. The worst outcome affects particularly patients with renal insufficiency and previous coronary bypass. However, the long-term mortality remains high due to the poor baseline conditions, mainly related to co-morbidity and to the presence of residual post-procedural aortic insufficiency.

Comparison between propafenone and digoxin administered intravenously to patients with acute atrial fibrillation. PAFIT-3 Investigators. The Propafenone in Atrial Fibrillation Italian Trial

In recent-onset atrial fibrillation, intravenous propafenone has been shown to effectively restore sinus rhythm, whereas the efficacy of intravenous digoxin has been questioned. We directly compared these 2 drugs and placebo in acute atrial fibrillation. One hundred twenty-three patients with atrial fibrillation lasting <72 hours were randomized to a 10-minute intravenous infusion of either propafenone (2 mg/kg, 41 patients) or digoxin (0.007 mg/kg, 40 patients) or placebo (42 patients). After 1 hour, nonconverted propafenone or digoxin patients were switched to the alternative drug, while nonconverted placebo patients were randomized to either propafenone or digoxin. The observation time ended 1 hour later. By 1 hour, conversion rates were 49% in the propafenone group, 32% in the digoxin group (p = 0.12), and 14% in placebo group (p <0.001 vs propafenone, p = 0.08 vs digoxin). After crossover, digoxin converted 5% of propafenone patients, while propafenone converted 48% of digoxin patients (p <0.05). In the 36 nonconverted placebo patients, sinus rhythm was obtained in 53% of cases with propafenone, and in 5% with digoxin (p < 0.05). Globally, among the 116 patients who received a drug as first treatment, 30 of 60 patients (50%) were converted by propafenone versus 14 of 56 (25%) by digoxin (p <0.01) (odds ratio 2.0, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 3.36). In nonconverters, the ventricular rate reduction was faster (15 vs 45 minutes) and more prominent (-24% vs -14%) with propafenone than with digoxin. In conclusion, intravenous propafenone terminates atrial fibrillation more effectively than either placebo or intravenous digoxin. In addition, in nonconverted patients, it obtains a more rapid and marked control of the ventricular rate.

Effects of oral propafenone administration before electrical cardioversion of chronic atrial fibrillation: a placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to evaluate the benefits and risks of administering propafenone before electrical defibrillation for chronic atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND

In this context, an antiarrhythmic drug-although potentially useful in preventing early recurrence of arrhythmia-could adversely affect the defibrillation threshold and reduce the cardioversion success rate.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 100 patients with chronic atrial fibrillation to oral treatment with either placebo (51 patients) or 750 mg/day of propafenone (49 patients) for 48 h before administration of direct current shock. After successful cardioversion, all patients received propafenone therapy and were followed up for 48 h.

RESULTS

Before defibrillation, three patients in the propafenone group (6.1%) had reversion to sinus rhythm and one had sustained ventricular tachycardia. Shock efficacy (82.4% vs. 84.4%) and the cumulative effective energy (395 +/- 258 vs. 421 +/- 236 J) were not different between the placebo and propafenone groups. In the propafenone group, 11 patients had their arrhythmia transformed into atrial flutter and required a lower energy level for arrhythmia conversion than did the other patients with continued atrial fibrillation (245 +/- 197 vs. 493 +/- 215 J, p < 0.01); the latter patients showed a trend (p < 0.10) toward higher energy requirements than that of patients who received placebo. The incidence of asymptomatic bradyarrhythmias was higher in the propafenone group (28.9% vs. 7.1%, p < 0.02), but more patients who received placebo had early recurrence of atrial fibrillation (16.7% vs. 0%, p < 0.02). Two days after cardioversion, more patients given propafenone (73.5% vs. 52.9%, p < 0.05) were discharged from the hospital with sinus rhythm. During the in-hospital stay, propafenone was withdrawn from six patients (6.6%) because of side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Propafenone, given before electrical cardioversion for chronic atrial fibrillation does not affect the mean defibrillation threshold or the rate of successful arrhythmia conversion. It decreases the recurrence of atrial fibrillation early after shock, thus allowing more patients to be discharged from the hospital with sinus rhythm.

Transthoracic DC shock may represent a serious hazard in pacemaker dependent patients

External defibrillation is widely used for the termination of various atrial and ventricular tachyarrhythmias, including pacemaker patients. Our study was intended to evaluate the effects of DC shocks in 36 patients with unipolar pacemakers implanted in the right pectoral region (25 DDD, 10 VVI, 3 AAI). The shocks were delivered with paddles on the anterior surface of the thorax, as far as possible away from the pacemaker. The pacing output was programmed at 0.5 msec and 5 V (25 patients), 4 V (1 patient), and 2.5 V (10 patients). Transient loss of capture occurred in 18 patients (50%). These patients, compared with those without capture failure, received higher peak and cumulative shock energies, respectively, 216 +/- 99 versus 123 +/- 50 joules (P < 0.002) and 352 +/- 62 versus 147 +/- 98 joules (P < 0.004) and had a lower pacemaker pulse amplitude (4.0 +/- 1.2 vs 4.6 +/- 1.0 V, P = 0.11). Failure to capture lasted from 5 seconds to 30 minutes (mean 157 sec). In 15 patients the ventricular stimulation threshold was measured before and serially after cardioversion. A six-fold threshold increase was observed 3 minutes after the shock (P < 0.004) with gradual recovery to nearly baseline values at 24 hours. Transient sensing failure occurred in 7 of the 17 patients in whom it could be evaluated (41%). Furthermore, three cases of shock induced pacemaker malfunctions were observed requiring replacement of the stimulator in two patients. In conclusion, the incidence of loss of capture in pacemaker patients subjected to electrical cardioversion/defibrillation is high.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)