Objective Left atrial appendage (LAA) thrombus has heretofore been considered a contraindication to percutaneous LAA closure (LAAC). Data regarding its management are very limited. The aim of this study was to analyse the medical and invasive treatment of patients referred for LAAC in the presence of LAA thrombus. Methods This multicentre observational registry included 126 consecutive patients referred for LAAC with LAA thrombus on preprocedural imaging. Treatment strategies included intensification of antithrombotic therapy (IAT) or direct LAAC. The primary and secondary endpoints were a composite of bleeding, stroke and death at 18 months, and procedural success, respectively. Results IAT was the preferred strategy in 57.9% of patients, with total thrombus resolution observed in 60.3% and 75.3% after initial and subsequent IAT, respectively. Bleeding complications and stroke during IAT occurred in 9.6% and 2.9%, respectively, compared with 3.8% bleeding and no embolic events in the direct LAAC group before the procedure. Procedural success was 90.5% (96.2% vs 86.3% in direct LAAC and IAT group, respectively, p=0.072), without cases of in-hospital thromboembolic complications. The primary endpoint occurred in 29.3% and device-related thrombosis was found in 12.8%, without significant difference according to treatment strategy. Bleeding complications at 18 months occurred in 22.5% vs 10.5% in the IAT and direct LAAC group, respectively (p=0.102). Conclusion In the presence of LAA thrombus, IAT was the initial management strategy in half of our cohort, with initial thrombus resolution in 60% of these, but with a relatively high bleeding rate (~10%). Direct LAAC was feasible, with high procedural success and absence of periprocedural embolic complications. However, a high rate of device-related thrombosis was detected during follow-up.

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.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established treatment for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. In recent years, an emphasis has been placed on simplification of the procedure. Balloon predilation was initially considered a mandatory step to cross and prepare the stenotic aortic valve, but several studies demonstrated the feasibility of performing TAVR without balloon valvuloplasty. Balloon postdilation of the implanted valve is sometimes required to optimise results, although many patients do not require this step. Contemporary consensus advocates an individualised approach to TAVR procedures and so balloon pre- and post-dilation are performed selectively. This review aims to outline the advantages and disadvantages of balloon pre- and post-dilation and to identify the scenarios in which they are required during TAVR procedures.

Mitral valve disease, and in particular mitral regurgitation, is a common clinical entity. Until recently, surgical repair and replacement were the only therapeutic options available, leaving many patients untreated mostly due to excessive surgical risk. Over the last number of years, huge strides have been made regarding percutaneous, catheter-based solutions for mitral valve disease. Transcatheter repair procedures have most commonly been used, and in recent years there has been exponential growth in the number of devices available for transcatheter mitral valve replacement. Furthermore, the evolution of these devices has resulted in both smaller delivery systems and a shift towards transeptal access, negating the need for surgical incisions. In line with these advancements, and clinical trials demonstrating promising outcomes in carefully selected cases, recent guidelines have strengthened their recommendations for these devices. It is appropriate, therefore, to now review the current transcatheter repair and replacement devices available and the evidence for their use.

Purpose: Patients with coronary ectasia (CAE) have an increased risk of major cardiovascular events (MACE). Current preventive treatments are uncertain, with oral anticoagulants often prescribed based on limited retrospective studies. Our aim is to help address the question: what is the most appropriate treatment? Methods: Using a retrospective cohort of patients with an ACS and CAE in a single center in Mexico City, two groups were observed based on the treatment at discharge: dual antiplatelet therapy (group 1) and anticoagulation with either a VKA or a DOAC, regardless of antiplatelet therapy (group 2). The main outcome was MACE, which was a composite of all-cause mortality, reinfarction, and ischemic stroke at 4.5 years follow-up. Results: A total of 354 patients admitted for ACS and CAE were included. 228 (64.4%) patients were classified in the DAPT group and 126 (35.5%) in the anticoagulants group. The DAPT group had higher type 2 diabetes rates, NSTEMI presentation, and lower-grade ectasia. The anticoagulation group had higher STEMI presentation and higher-grade ectasia. The DAPT group had 33 (14.5%) events of MACE, whereas the anticoagulation group had 16 (13.1%) events. Anticoagulants were not associated with a risk reduction of the primary endpoint (HR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.47–1.54; p =  0.59), nor any of the individual components. Conclusion: This retrospective cohort study showed similar effectiveness between DAPT and anticoagulation in patients with ACS and CAE for preventing MACE, and lower bleeding risk. Further research is needed to identify optimal candidates for each antithrombotic regime. Graphical DAPT: double antiplatelet therapy, HR: hazard ratio

: Significant mitral regurgitation (MR) frequently coexists in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). These patients have worse c...