Background: An increased degree of aortic angulation (AA) represents a challenging feature for bioprosthesis positioning. Whether AA has an impact on procedural outcomes of contemporary self-expanding valves remains unsettled. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of AA on procedural outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with contemporary self-expanding valves. Methods: The HORSE (Horizontal Aorta in Transcatheter Self-Expanding Valves) is an international, retrospective registry including 3862 consecutive patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement with either Evolut R/PRO (n=1959) or ACURATE neo (n=1903) devices. Patients undergoing Evolut R 34 mm implantation were excluded as no comparable prosthesis size for ACURATE neo is available. AA was evaluated with preprocedural computed tomography, and its impact on device success was evaluated. Results: In the overall population, AA did not have any impact upon device success, also when adjusting for in-study outcome predictors (odds ratio for 1° increment, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.98–1.01], P =0.306). However, increased AA was associated with lower device success with use of the Evolut R/PRO valves (odds ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.95–0.99]; P =0.004), but not the ACURATE neo valves (odds ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.98–1.03], P =0.304). The best AA cutoff value predicting device success was 49° (47% of the study cohort). Among patients with AA≥49°, Evolut R/PRO valves were associated with lower device success as compared to the ACURATE neo valve (inverse probability weighting odds ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.46–0.83]; P =0.002). Conclusions: Horizontal aorta, as defined by an AA ≥49°, is a common feature among transcatheter aortic valve replacement candidates and predicts device failure of the Evolut R/PRO valves, but not of the ACURATE neo valve. AA may be an effect modifier of the association between self-expanding valve type and device success.

Background: The management of cardiogenic shock (CS) after ACS has evolved over time, and the development of a multidisciplinary team-based approach has been shown to improve outcomes, although mortality remains high. Methods: All consecutive patients with ACS-CS admitted at our CICU from March 2012 to July 2021 were included in this single-center retrospective study. In 2019, we established a “shock team” consisting of a cardiac intensivist, an interventional cardiologist, an anesthetist, and a cardiac surgeon. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Results: We included 167 patients [males 67%; age 71 (61–80) years] with ischemic CS. The proportion of SCAI shock stages from A to E were 3.6%, 6.6%, 69.4%, 9.6%, and 10.8%, respectively, with a mean baseline serum lactate of 5.2 (3.1–8.8) mmol/L. Sixty-six percent of patients had severe LV dysfunction, and 76.1% needed ≥ 1 inotropic drug. Mechanical cardiac support (MCS) was pursued in 91.1% [65% IABP, 23% Impella CP, 4% VA-ECMO]. From March 2012 to July 2021, we observed a significative temporal trend in mortality reduction from 57% to 29% (OR = 0.90, p = 0.0015). Over time, CS management has changed, with a significant increase in Impella catheter use (p = 0.0005) and a greater use of dobutamine and levosimendan (p = 0.015 and p = 0.0001) as inotropic support. In-hospital mortality varied across SCAI shock stages, and the SCAI E profile was associated with a poor prognosis regardless of patient age (OR 28.50, p = 0.039). Conclusions: The temporal trend mortality reduction in CS patients is multifactorial, and it could be explained by the multidisciplinary care developed over the years.

(1) Background: Percutaneous left ventricle assist devices (pLVADs) demonstrated an improvement in mid-term clinical outcomes in selected patients with severely depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. However, the prognostic impact of in-hospital LVEF recovery is unclear. Accordingly, the present sub-analysis aims to evaluate the impact of LVEF recovery in both cardiogenic shock (CS) and high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR PCI) supported with pLVADs in the IMP-IT registry. (2) Methods: A total of 279 patients (116 patients in CS and 163 patients in HR PCI) treated with Impella 2.5 or CP in the IMP-IT registry were included in this analysis, after excluding those who died while in the hospital or with missing data on LVEF recovery. The primary study objective was a composite of all-cause death, rehospitalisation for heart failure, left ventricle assist device (LVAD) implantation, or heart transplantation (HT), overall referred to as the major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year. The study aimed to evaluate the impact of in-hospital LVEF recovery on the primary study objective in patients treated with Impella for HR PCI and CS, respectively. (3) Results: The mean in-hospital change in LVEF was 10 ± 1% (p < 0.001) in the CS cohort and 3 ± 7% (p < 0.001) in the HR PCI group, achieved by 44% and 40% of patients, respectively. In the CS group, patients with less than 10% in-hospital LVEF recovery experienced higher rates of MACE at 1 year of follow-up (FU) (51% vs. 21%, HR 3.8, CI 1.7–8.4, p < 0.01). After multivariate analysis, LVEF recovery was the main independent protective factor for MACE at FU (HR 0.23, CI 0.08–0.64, p = 0.02). In the HR PCI group, LVEF recovery (>3%) was not associated with lower MACE at multivariable analysis (HR 0.73, CI 0.31–1.72, p = 0.17). Conversely, the completeness of revascularisation was found to be a protective factor for MACE (HR 0.11, CI 0.02–0.62, p = 0.02) (4) Conclusions: Significant LVEF recovery was associated with improved outcomes in CS patients treated with PCI during mechanical circulatory support with Impella, whereas complete revascularisation showed a significant clinical relevance in HR PCI.

Background/Objectives: Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most prevalent valvular heart disease in developed countries and imposes an increasing burden on aging populations. Although transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has transformed the treatment of severe AS, current guidelines do not differentiate management based on gender. This study aimed to investigate gender-based differences in procedural complications and one-year clinical outcomes in patients treated with next-generation self-expandable TAVI devices. Methods: This retrospective, multicenter international registry included 3862 consecutive patients who received either the ACURATE neo or Evolut R/Pro valve. Patients were stratified by gender; propensity score matching (PSM) adjusted for baseline differences. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality or stroke at one year. Secondary endpoints included major vascular complications, major or life-threatening bleeding and acute kidney injury (AKI). Results: Of 3353 patients included (64.5% female), women were older (82.3 ± 5.6 vs. 81.1 ± 6.2 years, p < 0.001) and had higher STS scores (5.2 ± 3.9 vs. 4.5 ± 3.4%, p < 0.001). In the unmatched population, major vascular complications occurred in 7.7% of females versus 4.1% of males (p < 0.001), life-threatening bleeding in 2.8% vs. 1.4% (p = 0.016) and AKI in 8.5% vs. 5.7% (p = 0.009). After PSM, the primary endpoint was more frequent in females (9.4% vs. 6.0%, p = 0.014), largely driven by stroke (2.8% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.024), while overall mortality was similar (11.3% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.264). Conclusions: Despite comparable long-term survival, female patients undergoing TAVI with self-expandable valves experience higher rates of procedural complications, notably stroke and major vascular events. These findings underscore the need for tailored procedural strategies to improve outcomes in female patients.

Background: Current European guidelines support transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in intermediate-to-low-risk patients ≥75 years-old, but its prognostic relevance is unknown. Methods: Intermediate-to-low-risk (The Society of Thoracic Surgeons score <8%) patients enrolled in the HORSE registry were included. We compared the populations aged under 75 with those over 75. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Results: A total of 2685 patients were included: 280 (8.6%) < 75 and 2405 ≥ 75 years. Through a mean follow-up of 437 ± 381 days, 198 (8.2%) and 23 (8.2%) patients died in the two arms without statistically significant differences (log-rank p = 0.925). At Cox regression analysis, age did not predict the occurrence of all-cause death, neither as a continuous variable (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99–1.04, p = 0.294) nor dichotomizing according to the prespecified cutoff of 75 years (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63–1.51, p = 0.924). Time-to-event ROC curves showed low accuracy of age to predict all-cause mortality (area under the curve of 0.54 for both 1-year and 2-year outcomes). Conclusions: TAVI has comparable benefits across age strata for intermediate-to-low-risk patients. The age cutoff suggested by the current guidelines is not predictive of the risk of adverse events during hospital stays or of all-cause mortality through a mid-term follow-up.

Background: Cardiogenic shock (CS) after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a life-threatening condition with an high rate of in-hospital mortality. Purpose: This study aims to 1) describe predictors of in-hospital mortality; 2) evaluate ten years mortality temporal trend in our Cardiac Intensive Care Unit (CICU); 3) assess the feasibility of CARDSHOCK risk score in our population; 4) elaborate a simpler version of CARDSHOCK risk score. Methods: All consecutive patients with CS after AMI admitted at our CICU from March 2012 to July 2021 were included in this single-centre retrospective study. Results: We included 167 patients [males 67%; age 71 (61–80) years] with ischemic CS. Patients had severe LV dysfunction in 66%. Baseline serum lactate was 5.2 (3.1–8.8) mmol/L. All patients required inotropes: 71% required dopamine [mean dose 5.6 (2.4–11,3) mcg/kg/min], 65% required noradrenaline [mean dose 0.10 (0.05–0.18) mcg/kg/min], 32% required dobutamine [mean dose 4.5 (2.2–15.9) mcg/kg/min]; 17.4% received levosimendan alone [mean dose 0.1 mcg/kg/min]. Mechanical cardiac support (MCS) was pursued in 91.1% [65% IABP, 23% Impella CP, 4% VA-ECMO]. From March 2012 to July 2021 we observed a significative temporal trend mortality reduction (OR=0.90, 95% CI: 0.84–0.96, p=0.0015), in particular in-hospital mortality has reduced from 57% of first time-quartile to 29% of the fourth quartile (Figure 1). In addition we also noted a significant increase in Impella catheter use (p=0.0005) with a consequent reduction of IABP (p=0.01), a reduction in dopamine administration (p=0.0007) and a greater use of dobutamine and levosimendan (p=0.015 and p=0.0001). In our population of AMI-CS patients CARDSHOCK risk score was a reliable in-hospital mortality predictor tool (OR 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06–1.17; p=0.00011). After the multivariate analysis only ejection fraction (EF) at baseline (OR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.98–0.99, p=0.009), lactate level at presentation (OR=1.03, 95% CI: 1.01–1.06, p=0.015) and presence of three-vessels coronary artery disease (OR=0.73, 95% CI: 0.59–0.90, p=0.0038) resulted to be in-hospital mortality predictors. For this reason, a prediction model composed by those three variables was created which exhibited better predictive performance for in-hospital mortality than Cardshock risk score (AUC of 0.94 vs AUC of 0.72 respectively, p=0.015) (Figure 2). Conclusions: In our retrospective single-centre study a significant reduction of mortality through the years is observed, probably due to more extensive use of micro axial pumps and better manipulation of inotropic drug therapies. The use of Cardshock risk score has been proven to be a feasible tool in prediction on in-hospital mortality also in our sample composed only of AMI-CS patients. In addition, a more simplified risk score made up of only three clinical variables demonstrates at least the same predictive performance. Future validation in a larger population could be advisable to validate the simplified score. Funding Acknowledgement: Type of funding sources: None.