Explore the vast range of titles available.

Gender differences exist in outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery but have yet to be fully explored after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. We aimed to investigate gender differences after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in the UK National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research registry. A retrospective analysis was performed of Medtronic CoreValve and Edwards SAPIEN implantation in 1,627 patients (756 women) from January 2007 to December 2010. Men had more risk factors: poor left ventricular systolic function (11.9% vs 5.5%, p <0.001), 3-vessel disease (19.4% vs 9.2%, p <0.001), previous myocardial infarction (29.5% vs 13.0%, p <0.001), peripheral vascular disease (32.4% vs 23.3%, p <0.001), and higher logistic EuroSCORE (21.8 ± 14.2% vs 21.0 ± 13.4%, p = 0.046). Thirty-day mortality was 6.3% (confidence interval 4.3% to 7.9%) in women and 7.4% (5.6% to 9.2%) in men and at 1 year, 21.9% (18.7% to 25.1%) and 22.4% (19.4% to 25.4%), respectively. There was no mortality difference: p = 0.331 by log-rank test; hazard ratio for women 0.91 (0.75 to 1.10). Procedural success (96.6% in women vs 96.4% in men, p = 0.889) and 30-day cerebrovascular event rates (3.8% vs 3.7%, p = 0.962) did not differ. Women had more major vascular complications (7.5% vs 4.2%, p = 0.004) and less moderate or severe postprocedural aortic regurgitation (7.5% vs 12.5%, p = 0.001). In conclusion, despite a higher risk profile in men, there was no gender-related mortality difference; however, women had more major vascular complications and less postprocedural moderate or severe aortic regurgitation.

Background: Lower socioeconomic status (SES) has been associated with increased mortality from coronary heart disease. This excess risk, relative to affluent patients, may be due to a combination of more adverse cardiovascular-risk factors, inequalities in access to cardiac investigations, longer waiting times for cardiac revascularisation and lower use of secondary prevention drugs. We sought to investigate whether socio-economic status influenced long-term all-cause mortality after PCI in a large metropolitan city (London), which serves a population of 11 million people with a mixed social background over a 10-year period. Methods: We conducted an observational cohort study of 123,780 consecutive PCI procedures from the Pan-London (United Kingdom) PCI registry. This data set is collected prospectively and includes all patients treated between January 2005 and December 2015. The database includes PCI performed for stable angina and ACS (ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), and unstable angina). Patient socio-economic status was defined by the English Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) score, according to residential postcode. Patients were analysed by quintile of IMD score (Q1, least deprived; Q5, most deprived). Median follow-up was 3.7 (IQR: 2.0–5.1) years and the primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Results: The mean age of the patients was 64.3 ± 12.1 years and 25.2% were female. A total of 22.4% of patients were diabetic and 27.3% had a history of previous myocardial infarction. The rates of long-term all-cause mortality increased progressively across quintiles of IMD score, with patients in Q5 showing significantly higher long-term mortality rates compared with patients in Q1 (p = 0.0044). This persisted following the inclusion of a propensity score in the proportional hazard model as a covariate (HR for Q5 compared to Q1: 1.15 [95% CI: 1.10–1.42]). Conclusions: This study has demonstrated that low SES is an independent predictor of adverse clinical outcomes following PCI in the large, diverse metropolitan city of London. There clearly are inequalities in cardio-vascular risk factors, time to access to medical treatment/PCI, access to complex imaging and devices during PCI, access to secondary prevention after PCI, and even race differences. Hence, attention to reducing the burden of cardiovascular risk factors and improving primary prevention, particularly in patients with lower SES, is required.

Symptomatic relief is the primary goal of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in stable angina and is commonly observed clinically. However, there is no evidence from blinded, placebo-controlled randomised trials to show its efficacy. ORBITA is a blinded, multicentre randomised trial of PCI versus a placebo procedure for angina relief that was done at five study sites in the UK. We enrolled patients with severe (≥70%) single-vessel stenoses. After enrolment, patients received 6 weeks of medication optimisation. Patients then had pre-randomisation assessments with cardiopulmonary exercise testing, symptom questionnaires, and dobutamine stress echocardiography. Patients were randomised 1:1 to undergo PCI or a placebo procedure by use of an automated online randomisation tool. After 6 weeks of follow-up, the assessments done before randomisation were repeated at the final assessment. The primary endpoint was difference in exercise time increment between groups. All analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle and the study population contained all participants who underwent randomisation. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02062593. ORBITA enrolled 230 patients with ischaemic symptoms. After the medication optimisation phase and between Jan 6, 2014, and Aug 11, 2017, 200 patients underwent randomisation, with 105 patients assigned PCI and 95 assigned the placebo procedure. Lesions had mean area stenosis of 84·4% (SD 10·2), fractional flow reserve of 0·69 (0·16), and instantaneous wave-free ratio of 0·76 (0·22). There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of exercise time increment between groups (PCI minus placebo 16·6 s, 95% CI −8·9 to 42·0, p=0·200). There were no deaths. Serious adverse events included four pressure-wire related complications in the placebo group, which required PCI, and five major bleeding events, including two in the PCI group and three in the placebo group. In patients with medically treated angina and severe coronary stenosis, PCI did not increase exercise time by more than the effect of a placebo procedure. The efficacy of invasive procedures can be assessed with a placebo control, as is standard for pharmacotherapy. NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Foundation for Circulatory Health, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, Philips Volcano, NIHR Barts Biomedical Research Centre.

Aims: To assess left ventricular (LV) function before and after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using conventional echocardiographic parameters and global longitudinal LV strain (GLS) and compare outcomes between Edwards S3 and Evolut R valves. Methods and results: Data were collected for consecutive patients undergoing TAVI at Hammersmith hospital between 2015 and 2018. Of the 303 patients, those with coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation were excluded leading to a total of 85 patients, which constituted our study group. The mean follow-up was 49 ± 39 days. In total, 60% of patients were treated with Edwards S3 and 40% Evolut R. TAVI resulted in an early improvement of GLS (−13.96 to −15.25%, P = 0.01) but not ejection fraction (EF) (47.6 to 50.1%, P = 0.09). LV mass also improved, especially in patients with marked baseline LV hypertrophy (P < 0.001). There were no appreciable differences of LV function improvement and overall LV remodelling after TAVI between the two types of valves used (P = 0.14). Conclusions: TAVI results in reverse remodelling and improvement of GLS, especially in patients with impaired baseline LV function. There were no differences in the extent of LV function improvement between Edwards S3 and Evolut R valves but there was a greater incidence of aortic regurgitation with Evolut R.

In a randomized trial, the routine use of cerebral embolic protection during TAVI did not reduce the incidence of stroke within 72 hours or before discharge from the hospital (if discharge occurred sooner).

Background. Infective endocarditis (IE) is challenging to manage in the COVID-19 lockdown period, in part given its reliance on echocardiography for diagnosis and management and the associated virus transmission risks to patients and healthcare workers. This study assesses utilisation of the endocarditis team (ET) in limiting routine echocardiography, especially transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE), in patients with suspected IE, and explores the effect on clinical outcomes. Methods. All patients discussed at the ET meeting at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust during the first lockdown in the UK (23 March to 8 July 2020) were prospectively included and analysed in this observational study. Results. In total, 38 patients were referred for ET review (71% male, median age 54 [interquartile range 48, 65.5] years). At the time of ET discussion, 21% had no echo imaging, 16% had point-of-care ultrasound only, and 63% had formal TTE. In total, only 16% underwent TOE. The ability of echocardiography, in those where it was performed, to affect IE diagnosis according to the Modified Duke Criteria was significant (p=0.0099); however, sensitivity was not affected. All-cause mortality was 17% at 30 days and 25% at 12 months from ET discussion in those with confirmed IE. Conclusion. Limiting echocardiography in patients with a low pretest probability (not probable or definite IE according to the Modified Duke Criteria) did not affect the diagnostic ability of the Modified Duke Criteria to rule out IE in this small study. Moreover, restricting nonessential echocardiography, and importantly TOE, in patients with suspected IE through use of the ET did not impact all-cause mortality.

Aims and background Distributed Simulation is the concept of portable, high-fidelity immersive simulation. Here, it is used for the development of a simulation-based training programme for cardiovascular specialities. We present an evidence base for how accessible, portable and self-contained simulated environments can be effectively utilised for the modelling, development and testing of a complex training framework and assessment methodology. Iterative user feedback through mixed-methods evaluation techniques resulted in the implementation of the training programme. Approach Four phases were involved in the development of our immersive simulation-based training programme: ( 1) initial conceptual stage for mapping structural criteria and parameters of the simulation training framework and scenario development ( n  = 16), (2) training facility design using Distributed Simulation , (3) test cases with clinicians ( n  = 8) and collaborative design, where evaluation and user feedback involved a mixed-methods approach featuring (a) quantitative surveys to evaluate the realism and perceived educational relevance of the simulation format and framework for training and (b) qualitative semi-structured interviews to capture detailed feedback including changes and scope for development. Refinements were made iteratively to the simulation framework based on user feedback, resulting in (4) transition towards implementation of the simulation training framework, involving consistent quantitative evaluation techniques for clinicians ( n  = 62). For comparative purposes, clinicians’ initial quantitative mean evaluation scores for realism of the simulation training framework, realism of the training facility and relevance for training ( n  = 8) are presented longitudinally, alongside feedback throughout the development stages from concept to delivery, including the implementation stage ( n  = 62). Findings Initially, mean evaluation scores fluctuated from low to average, rising incrementally. This corresponded with the qualitative component, which augmented the quantitative findings; trainees’ user feedback was used to perform iterative refinements to the simulation design and components (collaborative design), resulting in higher mean evaluation scores leading up to the implementation phase. Conclusions Through application of innovative Distributed Simulation techniques, collaborative design, and consistent evaluation techniques from conceptual, development, and implementation stages, fully immersive simulation techniques for cardiovascular specialities are achievable and have the potential to be implemented more broadly.

[...]line therapy-If first line therapy is contraindicated or not well tolerated, consider long acting nitrates, nicorandil, ivabradine, or ranolazine instead. 5 Agents are chosen on the basis of heart rate, blood pressure, and tolerance (see figure and table 2 ).

The optimal antithrombotic therapy for patients undergoing TAVI with concomitant indication for oral anticoagulation remains unclear. In this high-risk population group, there is a paucity of data with regards to the use of DOACs. In the present study we compared long-term clinical outcomes of TAVI patients requiring anticoagulation, treated with warfarin versus DOACs. Consecutive patients, who underwent TAVI with indication for oral anticoagulation from the multicenter ATLAS registry were studied and divided in two groups depending on the chosen anticoagulation regimen, warfarin vs. DOACs. 30-day survival, as well as estimated 1 and 2-year all-cause mortality were compared between groups. The secondary endpoint included in-hospital major or life-threatening bleeding. The study group included 217 patients (102 treated with warfarin; 115 treated with DOACs). Kaplan–Meier estimated survival was found to be statistically similar in the warfarin and DOAC groups (90.6% vs. 93.7% for 1-year and 84.5% vs. 88.5%, for 2-year survival, respectively, Plog-rank = 0.984). Adjusted hazard ratio for all cause mortality was similar between the two groups (HRwarfarin vs. DOAC = 1.15; 95% CI 0.33 to 4.04, p = 0.829). Propensity matching revealed similar results. At 30-days, all-cause mortality was found to be comparable between the two groups. With regards to BARC defined bleeding complications, major and life-threatening complications did not differ between the two anticoagulation groups (6% vs. 8% for warfarin and DOACs respectively, p = 0.857). DOACs seem to demonstrate a similar safety and efficacy profile compared to warfarin in TAVI patients with a concomitant indication for oral anticoagulation.