Background
The Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) have recently proposed a new classification of cardiogenic shock (CS) dividing patients into five subgroups.
Objective
Aim of this study was to apply the SCAI classification to a cohort of patients presenting with CS and to evaluate its ability to predict 30‐day survival.
Methods
SCAI CS subgroups were interpreted based on the recent consensus statement and then applied to N = 1,007 consecutive patients presenting with CS or large myocardial infarction (MI) between October 2009 and October 2017. The association between SCAI classification and 30‐day all‐cause mortality was assessed by logistic regression analysis.
Results
Mean age in the study cohort was 67 (±15) years, 72% were male. Mean lactate at baseline was 6.05 (±5.13) mmol/l and 51% of the patients had prior cardiac arrest. Overall survival probability was 50.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 47.5–54.0%). In view of the SCAI classification, the survival probability was 96.4% (95% CI 93.7–99.0%) in class A, 66.1% (95% CI 50.2–87.1%) in class B, 46.1% (95% CI 40.6–52.4%) in class C, 33.1% (95% CI 26.6–41.1%) in class D, and 22.6% (95% CI 17.1–30.0%) in class E. Higher SCAI classification was significantly associated with lower 30‐day survival (p < .01).
Conclusion
In this large clinical cohort, the SCAI classification was significantly associated with 30‐day survival. This finding supports the rationale of the SCAI CS classification and calls for a validation in a prospective trial.
Aims
Due to bioprosthetic valve degeneration, aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) procedures are increasingly performed. There are no data on long-term outcomes after aortic ViV. Our aim was to perform a large-scale assessment of long-term survival and reintervention after aortic ViV.
Methods and results
A total of 1006 aortic ViV procedures performed more than 5 years ago [mean age 77.7 ± 9.7 years; 58.8% male; median STS-PROM score 7.3% (4.2–12.0)] were included in the analysis. Patients were treated with Medtronic self-expandable valves (CoreValve/Evolut, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) (n = 523, 52.0%), Edwards balloon-expandable valves (EBEV, SAPIEN/SAPIEN XT/SAPIEN 3, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) (n = 435, 43.2%), and other devices (n = 48, 4.8%). Survival was lower at 8 years in patients with small-failed bioprostheses [internal diameter (ID) ≤ 20 mm] compared with those with large-failed bioprostheses (ID > 20 mm) (33.2% vs. 40.5%, P = 0.01). Independent correlates for mortality included smaller-failed bioprosthetic valves [hazard ratio (HR) 1.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02–1.13)], age [HR 1.21 (95% CI 1.01–1.45)], and non-transfemoral access [HR 1.43 (95% CI 1.11–1.84)]. There were 40 reinterventions after ViV. Independent correlates for all-cause reintervention included pre-existing severe prosthesis–patient mismatch [subhazard ratio (SHR) 4.34 (95% CI 1.31–14.39)], device malposition [SHR 3.75 (95% CI 1.36–10.35)], EBEV [SHR 3.34 (95% CI 1.26–8.85)], and age [SHR 0.59 (95% CI 0.44–0.78)].
Conclusions
The size of the original failed valve may influence long-term mortality, and the type of the transcatheter valve may influence the need for reintervention after aortic ViV.
With acceptable results in a high-risk population, transapical mitral valve-in-valve implantation can be considered as a complementary approach to reoperative mitral valve surgery in select patients.
TAVR for pure NAVR remains a challenging condition, with old-generation THVs being associated with THV embolization and migration and significant paravalvular regurgitation. Newer generation THVs show more promising outcomes. For those patients with severe AR due to failing SHVs, TAVR is a valuable therapeutic option.
Pre-existing RBBB and elevated LCC calcification were identified as independent predictors for PPI. These two risk factors enabled us to distinguish between patients according to their risk for PPI after TAVI. Ex vivo simulations suggested an off-centreline shift of the balloon as a possible explanation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.