No abstract

No abstract

Background Heyde syndrome (HS) is known as the association of severe aortic stenosis (AS) and recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) from angiodysplasia. Data on the prevalence of HS and results after TAVI remain scarce. Methods 2548 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI for the treatment of AS from 2008 to 2017 were evaluated for a history of GIB and the presence of HS. The diagnosis of HS was defined as a clinical triad of severe AS, a history of recurrent GIB, and an endoscopic diagnosis of angiodysplasia. These patients (Heyde) were followed to investigate clinical outcomes, bleeding complications and the recurrence of GIB and were compared to patients with GIB unrelated to HS (Non-Heyde). Results A history of GIB prior to TAVI was detected in 190 patients (7.5%). Among them, 47 patients were diagnosed with HS (1.8%). Heyde patients required blood transfusions more frequently compared to Non-Heyde patients during index hospitalization (50.0% vs. 31.9%, p = 0.03). Recurrent GIB was detected in 39.8% of Heyde compared to 21.2% of Non-Heyde patients one year after TAVI (p = 0.03). In patients diagnosed with HS and recurrent GIB after TAVI, the rate of residual ≥ mild paravalvular leakage (PVL) was higher compared to those without recurrent bleeding (73.3% vs. 38.1%, p = 0.05). Conclusion A relevant number of patients undergoing TAVI were diagnosed with HS. Recurrent GIB was detected in a significant number of Heyde patients during follow-up. A possible association with residual PVL requires further investigation to improve treatment options and outcomes in patients with HS. Graphic abstract

Aims The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic value of the H2FPEF score in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe aortic stenosis (AS) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (EF). Methods and results In this multicentre study, a total of 832 patients from two German high‐volume centres, who received TAVI for severe AS and preserved EF (≥50%), were identified for calculation of the H2FPEF score. Patients were dichotomized according to low (0–5 points; n = 570) and high (6–9 points; n = 262) H2FPEF scores. Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analyses were applied to assess the prognostic impact of the H2FPEF score. We observed a decrease in stroke volume index (−2.04 mL/m2/point) and mean transvalvular gradients (−1.14 mmHg/point) with increasing H2FPEF score translating into a higher prevalence of paradoxical low‐flow, low‐gradient AS among patients with high H2FPEF score. One year after TAVI, the rates of all‐cause (low vs. high H2FPEF score: 8.0% vs. 19.4%, P < 0.0001) and cardiovascular (CV) mortality (1.9% vs. 9.0%, P < 0.0001) as well as the rate of CV mortality or rehospitalization for congestive heart failure (6.4% vs. 23.2%, P < 0.0001) were higher in patients with high H2FPEF score compared with those with low H2FPEF score. After multivariable analysis, a high H2FPEF score remained independently predictive of all‐cause mortality [hazard ratio 1.59 (1.28–2.35), P = 0.018] and CV mortality or rehospitalization for congestive heart failure [hazard ratio 2.92 (1.65–5.15), P < 0.001]. Among the H2FPEF score variables, atrial fibrillation, pulmonary hypertension, and elevated left ventricular filling pressure were the strongest outcome predictors. Conclusions The H2FPEF score serves as an independent predictor of adverse CV and heart failure outcome among TAVI patients with preserved EF. A high H2FPEF score is associated with the presence of paradoxical low‐flow, low‐gradient AS, the HFpEF in patients with AS. By identifying patients in advanced stages of HFpEF, the H2FPEF score might be useful as a risk prediction tool in patients with preserved EF scheduled for TAVI.

No abstract