Background-The presence of focal fibrillation waves during atrial fibrillation (AF) can, besides ectopic activity, also be explained by asynchronous activation of the atrial endo-and epicardial layer and transmurally propagating fibrillation waves. To provide direct proof of endo-epicardial asynchrony, we performed simultaneous high-resolution mapping of the right atrial endo-and epicardial wall during AF in humans. Method and Results-Intraoperative mapping of the endo-and epicardial right atrial wall was performed during (induced) AF in 10 patients with AF (paroxysmal: n=3; persistent: n=4; and longstanding persistent: n=3) and 4 patients without a history of AF. A clamp made of 2 rectangular 8×16 electrode arrays (interelectrode distance 2 mm) was inserted into the incision in the right atrial appendage. Recordings of 10 seconds of AF were analyzed to determine the incidence of asynchronous endo-epicardial activation times (≥15 ms) of opposite electrodes. Asynchronous endo-epicardial activation ranged between 0.9 and 55.9% without preference for either side. Focal waves appeared equally frequent at endocardium and epicardium (11% versus 13%; P=0.18). Using strict criteria for breakthrough (presence of an opposite wave within 4 mm and ≤14 ms before the origin of the focal wave), the majority (65%) of all focal fibrillation waves could be attributed to endo-epicardial excitation. Conclusions-We provided the first evidence for asynchronous activation of the endo-epicardial wall during AF in humans.Endo-epicardial asynchrony may play a major role in the pathophysiology of AF and may offer an explanation why in some patients therapy fails. (Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2016;9:e003648.

ImportanceIn patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding supra-annular valve was noninferior to surgery for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Comparisons of longer-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in these patients are limited.ObjectiveTo report prespecified secondary 5-year outcomes from the Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement (SURTAVI) randomized clinical trial.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsSURTAVI is a prospective randomized, unblinded clinical trial. Randomization was stratified by investigational site and need for revascularization determined by the local heart teams. Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis deemed to be at intermediate risk of 30-day surgical mortality were enrolled at 87 centers from June 19, 2012, to June 30, 2016, in Europe and North America. Analysis took place between August and October 2021.InterventionPatients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular transcatheter or a surgical bioprosthesis.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe prespecified secondary end points of death or disabling stroke and other adverse events and hemodynamic findings at 5 years. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated all serious adverse events and an independent echocardiographic core laboratory evaluated all echocardiograms at 5 years.ResultsA total of 1660 individuals underwent an attempted TAVR (n = 864) or surgical (n = 796) procedure. The mean (SD) age was 79.8 (6.2) years, 724 (43.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgery Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 4.5% (1.6%). At 5 years, the rates of death or disabling stroke were similar (TAVR, 31.3% vs surgery, 30.8%; hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.85-1.22]; P = .85). Transprosthetic gradients remained lower (mean [SD], 8.6 [5.5] mm Hg vs 11.2 [6.0] mm Hg; P < .001) and aortic valve areas were higher (mean [SD], 2.2 [0.7] cm2 vs 1.8 [0.6] cm2; P < .001) with TAVR vs surgery. More patients had moderate/severe paravalvular leak with TAVR than surgery (11 [3.0%] vs 2 [0.7%]; risk difference, 2.37% [95% CI, 0.17%- 4.85%]; P = .05). New pacemaker implantation rates were higher for TAVR than surgery at 5 years (289 [39.1%] vs 94 [15.1%]; hazard ratio, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.61-4.17]; log-rank P < .001), as were valve reintervention rates (27 [3.5%] vs 11 [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.10-4.45]; log-rank P = .02), although between 2 and 5 years only 6 patients who underwent TAVR and 7 who underwent surgery required a reintervention.Conclusions and RelevanceAmong intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, major clinical outcomes at 5 years were similar for TAVR and surgery. TAVR was associated with superior hemodynamic valve performance but also with more paravalvular leak and valve reinterventions.

Homografts are a durable valve alternative for RVOT reconstruction; in particular, adults show extensive freedom from valve replacement and report QoL comparable with healthy subjects. An online interactive application form created by our institution can be used to assess patient outcome after RVOT reconstruction with a homograft for different patient profiles.

No abstract

Aims To support decision-making in children undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR), by providing a comprehensive overview of published outcomes after paediatric AVR, and microsimulation-based age-specific estimates of outcome with different valve substitutes. Methods and results A systematic review of published literature reporting clinical outcome after paediatric AVR (mean age <18 years) published between 1/1/1990 and 11/08/2021 was conducted. Publications reporting outcome after paediatric Ross procedure, mechanical AVR (mAVR), homograft AVR (hAVR), and/or bioprosthetic AVR were considered for inclusion. Early risks (<30d), late event rates (>30d) and time-to-event data were pooled and entered into a microsimulation model. Sixty-eight studies, of which one prospective and 67 retrospective cohort studies, were included, encompassing a total of 5259 patients (37 435 patient-years; median follow-up: 5.9 years; range 1–21 years). Pooled mean age for the Ross procedure, mAVR, and hAVR was 9.2 ± 5.6, 13.0 ± 3.4, and 8.4 ± 5.4 years, respectively. Pooled early mortality for the Ross procedure, mAVR, and hAVR was 3.7% (95% CI, 3.0%–4.7%), 7.0% (5.1%–9.6%), and 10.6% (6.6%–17.0%), respectively, and late mortality rate was 0.5%/year (0.4%–0.7%/year), 1.0%/year (0.6%–1.5%/year), and 1.4%/year (0.8%–2.5%/year), respectively. Microsimulation-based mean life-expectancy in the first 20 years was 18.9 years (18.6–19.1 years) after Ross (relative life-expectancy: 94.8%) and 17.0 years (16.5–17.6 years) after mAVR (relative life-expectancy: 86.3%). Microsimulation-based 20-year risk of aortic valve reintervention was 42.0% (95% CI: 39.6%–44.6%) after Ross and 17.8% (95% CI: 17.0%–19.4%) after mAVR. Conclusion Results of paediatric AVR are currently suboptimal with substantial mortality especially in the very young with considerable reintervention hazards for all valve substitutes, but the Ross procedure provides a survival benefit over mAVR. Pros and cons of substitutes should be carefully weighed during paediatric valve selection.