Severe tricuspid regurgitation remains a challenging heart-valve disease to effectively treat with high morbidity and mortality at mid-term. Currently guideline-directed medical treatment is limited to escalating dose of diuretics, and the rationale and timing of open-heart surgery remains controversial. Emerging percutaneous therapies for severe tricuspid regurgitation continue to show promising results in early feasibility studies. However, randomized trial data is lacking. Additionally, many patients are deemed unsuitable for these emerging therapies due to anatomical or imaging constraints. Given the technical simplicity of the bicaval valve implantation (CAVI) technique compared to other transcatheter devices, CAVI is postulated as a suitable alternative for a wide variety of patients affected with severe+ tricuspid regurgitation. In this review we illustrate the current evidence and ongoing uncertainties of CAVI, focusing on the novel CAVI-specific devices.

Background: Sutureless-surgical aortic valve replacement (SU-SAVR) has been proposed as a surgical alternative for treating aortic stenosis, which facilitates a minimally invasive approach. While some studies have compared the early outcomes of SU-SAVR versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), most data were obtained in high-risk patients and/or limited to in-hospital outcomes. This study aimed to compare in-hospital and midterm clinical outcomes following SU-SAVR and TAVR in low-risk patients with aortic stenosis. Methods: A total of 806 consecutive low-risk (EuroSCORE II <4%) patients underwent TAVR or SU-SAVR between 2011 and 2020 in 2 centers. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed and identified 171 pairs with similar characteristics that were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics, in-hospital and follow-up events (defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2) were collected. Results: Baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups, with a median EuroSCORE II of 1.9% (1.3%–2.5%) in both SU-SAVR and TAVR groups ( P =0.85). There were no statistically significant differences regarding in-hospital mortality (SU-SAVR: 4.1%, TAVR: 1.8%, P =0.199) and stroke (SU-SAVR: 2.3%, TAVR: 2.9%, P =0.736), but SU-SAVR recipients exhibited higher rates of bleeding and new-onset atrial fibrillation, higher residual transvalvular gradients ( P <0.001), and a lower rate of pacemaker implantation ( P =0.011). After a median follow-up of 2 (1–3) years, there were no differences between groups in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.52–1.82], P =0.936) and stroke (hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.32–2.15], P =0.708), but SU-SAVR was associated with a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio, 5.38 [95% CI, 1.88–15.38], P =0.002). Conclusions: In low-risk patients with aortic stenosis, TAVR was associated with improved in-hospital outcomes (except for conduction disturbances) and valve hemodynamics, compared with SU-SAVR. Although similar mortality and stroke rates were observed at 2-year follow-up, the risk of heart failure hospitalization was higher among SU-SAVR patients. These results may contribute to reinforce TAVR over SU-SAVR for the majority of such patients. Graphic A graphic abstract is available for this article.

Collateral growth in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is highly heterogeneous. Although multiple factors are thought to play a role in collateral development, the contribution of genetic factors to coronary collateral circulation (CCC) is largely unknown. The goal of this study was to assess whether functional single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes involved in vascular growth are associated with CCC. 677 consecutive CAD patients were enrolled in the study and their CCC was assessed by the Rentrop method. 22 SNPs corresponding to 10 genes involved in postischemic neovascularization were genotyped and multivariate logistic regression models were adjusted using clinically relevant variables to estimate odds ratios and used to examine associations of allelic variants, genotypes and haplotypes with CCC. Statistical analysis showed that the HIF1A rs11549465 and rs2057482; VEGFA rs2010963, rs1570360, rs699947, rs3025039 and rs833061; KDR rs1870377, rs2305948 and rs2071559; CCL2 rs1024611, rs1024610, rs2857657 and rs2857654; NOS3 rs1799983; ICAM1 rs5498 and rs3093030; TGFB1 rs1800469; CD53 rs6679497; POSTN rs3829365 and rs1028728; and LGALS2 rs7291467 polymorphisms, as well as their haplotype combinations, were not associated with CCC (p < 0.05). We could not validate in our cohort the association of the NOS3 rs1799983, HIF1A rs11549465, VEGFA rs2010963 and rs699947, and LGALS2 rs7291467 variants with CCC reported by other authors. A validated SNP-based genome-wide association study is required to identify polymorphisms influencing CCC.