Background: During the past decade, the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was extended beyond treatment‐naïve patients and implemented for treatment of degenerated surgical bioprosthetic valves. Selection criteria for either valve‐in‐valve (viv) TAVR or redo surgical aortic valve replacement are not well established, and decision making on the operative approach still remains challenging for the interdisciplinary heart team. Methods and Results: This review was intended to analyze all studies on viv‐TAVR focusing on short‐ and mid‐term stroke and mortality rates compared with redo surgical aortic valve replacement or native TAVR procedures. A structured literature search and review process led to 1667 potentially relevant studies on July 1, 2020. Finally, 23 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for qualitative analysis. All references were case series either with or without propensity score matching and registry analyses. Quantitative synthesis of data from 8509 patients revealed that viv‐TAVR is associated with mean 30‐day stroke and mortality rates of 2.2% and 4.2%, respectively. Pooled data analysis showed no significant differences in 30‐day stroke rate, 30‐day mortality, and 1‐year mortality between viv‐TAVR and comparator treatment (native TAVR [n=11 804 patients] or redo surgical aortic valve replacement [n=498 patients]). Conclusions: This review is the first one comparing the risk for stroke and mortality rates in viv‐TAVR procedures with native TAVR approach and contributes substantial data for the clinical routine. Moreover, this systematic review is the most comprehensive analysis on ischemic cerebrovascular events and early mortality in patients undergoing viv‐TAVR. In this era with increasing numbers of bioprosthetic valves used in younger patients, viv‐TAVR is a suitable option for the treatment of degenerated bioprostheses.

Background and Objectives: The incidence of distant metastases in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) is approximately 10%. Pulmonary metastases are the most frequent distant location, with an incidence of 70–85%. The standard treatment options are chemo-, immuno- and radiotherapy. Despite a benefit for long-term survival for patients with isolated pulmonary metastases, pulmonary metastasectomy (PM) is not the treatment of choice. Furthermore, many otorhinolaryngologists are not sufficiently familiar with the concept of PM. This work reviews the recent studies of pulmonary metastatic HNC and the results after pulmonary metastasectomy. Materials and Methods: PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library were checked for the case series’ of patients undergoing metastasectomy with pulmonary metastases published since 1 January 2000. Results: We included the data of 15 studies of patients undergoing PM. The 5-year survival rates varied from 21% to 59%, with median survival from 10 to 77 months after PM. We could not identify one specific prognostic factor for long-term survival after surgery. However, at least most studies stated that PM should be planned if a complete (R0) resection is possible. Conclusions: PM showed reliable results and is supposedly the treatment of choice for patients with isolated pulmonary metastases. Patients not suitable for surgery may benefit from other non-surgical therapy. Every HNC patient with pulmonary metastases should be discussed in the multidisciplinary tumor board to optimize the therapy and the outcome.

Background: The exact incidence and predictors of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) after percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) are unknown. Objective: We sought to find post-procedural AF incidence rates and differences due to different screening strategies and devices. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in Cochrane, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Controlled trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included into this meta-analysis. The incidence of new-onset AF was the primary outcome. Further parameters were surveillance strategy, device type, AF treatment and neurological events. New AF was determined as early onset within one month after implantation and late thereafter. Results: 8 controlled trials and 16 cohort studies were eligible for quantitative analysis. 7643 patients received percutaneous PFO closure after cryptogenic stroke or transient ischaemic attack, 117 with other indications, whereas 1792 patients formed the control group. Meta-analysis of controlled trials showed an AF incidence of 5.1% in the interventional and 1.6% in the conservative arm, respectively (OR 3.17, 95% CI 1.46–6.86, P = 0.03, I² = 55%). 4.7% received high-quality surveillance strategy with Holter-ECG or Loop recorder whereby AF incidence was overall higher compared to the low-quality group with 12-lead ECG only (3.3–15% vs. 0.2–4.3%). Heterogeneous results on time of AF onset were found, limited by different follow-up strategies. CardioSEAL and Starflex seemed to have higher AF incidences in early and late onset with 4.5% and 4.2%, respectively. Conclusion: Percutaneous PFO closure led to higher AF post-procedural incidence compared to the conservative strategy. Heterogeneity in surveillance and follow-up strategy limited the generalizability. Trial Registration: Registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022359945). Graphical

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is standard of care in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) suitable for interventional revascularization. Intracoronary imaging by optical coherence tomography (OCT) expanded treatment approaches adding diagnostic information and contributing to stent optimization. Objectives: This meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of OCT-guided vs. angiography-guided PCI in treatment of ACS. Methods: A structured literature search was performed. All controlled trials evaluating OCT-guided vs. angiography-guided PCI in patients with ACS were eligible. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Results: Eight studies enrolling 2612 patients with ACS were eligible. 1263 patients underwent OCT-guided and 1,349 patients angiography-guided PCI. OCT guidance was associated with a 30% lower likelihood of MACE (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53–0.93, p = 0.01, I² = 1%). OCT-guided PCI was also associated with significantly decreased cardiac mortality (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25–0.96, p = 0.04, I² = 0%). There was no detectable difference in all-cause mortality (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.51–2.31, p = 0.83, I² = 0). Patients in OCT-guided group less frequently required target lesion revascularization (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07–0.95, p = 0.04, I² = 0%). Analysis of myocardial infarction did not result in significant treatment differences. In subgroup or sensitivity analysis the observed advantages of OCT-guided PCI were not replicable. Conclusion: The evidence suggests that PCI guidance with OCT in ACS decreases MACE, cardiac death and target lesion revascularization compared to angiography. On individual study level, in subgroup or sensitivity analyses these advantages were not thoroughly replicable.

Background/Objectives: Chronic total occlusion (CTO) is a prevalent finding in patients with coronary artery disease and is associated with increased mortality. Prior reports on the efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to optimal medical therapy (OMT) were controversial. Following the emergence of recently published new evidence, a meta-analysis is warranted. The current meta-analysis assessed the effects of PCI compared to OMT in the treatment of CTO. Methods: A structured literature search was performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled studies of interventions were eligible. The primary outcome was an accumulated composite of cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction and target vessel/lesion revascularization events. Results: Thirty-two studies reporting on 11260 patients were included. Of these, 5712 (50.7%) were assigned to the PCI and 5548 (49.3%) were allocated to the OMT group. The primary outcome occurred in 14.6% of the PCI and 20.1% of the OMT group (12 trials, OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.88, p = 0.005, I² = 67%). Subgrouping demonstrated a consistent reduction in the primary outcome for the PCI group in RCTs (six trials, OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.99, p = 0.05). The primary outcome reduction was irrespective of the study design, and it was replicable in sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Advantages in other outcomes were rather related to statistical pooling effects and dominated by observational data. Conclusions: CTO-PCI was associated with improved patient-oriented primary outcome compared to OMT in a study-level meta-analysis. This composite outcome effect was mainly driven by target vessel treatment, but a significant reduction in mortality and myocardial infarction was observed, irrespectively. These findings have hypothesis-generating implications. Future RCTs with adequate statistical power are eagerly awaited.

Purpose: Access-related vascular complications in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) can be treated endovascularly or surgically. The aim of this study was to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of endovascular treatment compared with surgical repair for access-related vascular complications. Methods: This retrospective study was performed from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020. All transfemorally treated TAVI patients in whom a surgical or endovascular treatment for an access site complication was needed were included. The primary outcome was the need for any related vascular re-operation. Results: In total, 1219 transfemoral TAVI procedures were conducted during the study period. 19 patients suffered an access complication requiring endovascular treatment, while 54 patients required surgical repair. No differences were seen with regard to re-operations (endovascular 15.8% vs surgical 14.8%; p=0.919), wound infections (endovascular 0% vs surgical. 11.1%; p=0.129), and wound healing disorders (endovascular 15.8% vs surgical 29.6%; p=0.237). Patients undergoing endovascular treatment were discharged earlier (endovascular 11.2 vs surgical 14.9 days; p=0.028). After surgical repair, patients received significantly more blood transfusions than endovascularly treated patients (endovascular 1.00 vs surgical 3.1 red blood cell concentrate bags; p<0.001). No differences were found regarding the new onset of walking pain, rest pain, and ischemic ulcers during follow-up. Conclusion: In this retrospective cohort, endovascular treatment of access-related vascular complications of transfemoral TAVI procedures was safe and feasible. During the hospital stay, endovascularly treated patients received fewer blood transfusions and were discharged faster than surgically treated patients. No differences regarding clinical outcomes and re-intervention rates were seen during the follow-up. Clinical Impact: Given the in this retrospective study demonstrated safety and feasibility of endovascular treatment for major access-related vascular complications, along with the in-hospital benefits and absence of follow-up disadvantages compared to surgical treatment, endovascular treatment should be considered in cases of major access-related vascular complications in transfemoral TAVI patients.