Background: In recent years, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) techniques and technology have continuously improved. Data regarding the impact of these advancements on outcomes in large real-world settings are still limited. The aim of this study was to investigate temporal trends and assess contemporary outcomes after TAVR with Evolut PRO/PRO+ supra-annular self-expanding valves. Methods: This study included patients enrolled in the multicenter NEOPRO (A Multicenter Comparison of Acurate NEO Versus Evolut PRO Transcatheter Heart Valves) and NEOPRO-2 (A Multicenter Comparison of ACURATE NEO2 Versus Evolut PRO/PRO+ Transcatheter Heart Valves 2) registries who underwent transfemoral TAVR with Evolut PRO/PRO+. Procedural dates (August 2017 through November 2021) were stratified in quartiles (Q) and used to investigate temporal trends in TAVR outcomes. Predischarge, 30-day Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 defined, and 1-year outcomes were evaluated. Results: In total, 1616 patients from 28 centers were included. Over time, patients had lower Society of Thoracic Surgeon-Predicted Risk of Mortality score (Q1–4, 4.1% [2.8–6.3%], 3.7% [2.6–5.3%], 3.3% [2.4–4.9%], 2.9% [2.2–4.3%]; P <0.001) and more moderate or heavy valve calcification (Q1–4, 80%, 80%, 82%, 88%; P =0.038). Overall Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 technical success was 94.1%, with 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality of 2.4% and 10%, respectively. Throughout the study period, procedures were associated with higher rates of 30-day device success (Q1–4, 81.2%, 82.2%, 82.0%, 88.0%; Cochran-Armitage P =0.023) and early safety (Q1–4, 66.8%, 67.5%, 74.0%, 77.6%; Cochran-Armitage P <0.001), with fewer permanent pacemaker implantations (Q1–4: 15.3%, 20.0%, 12.1%, 11.6%; Cochran-Armitage P =0.023) and residual mild or greater paravalvular leaks (Q1–4, 50.4%, 42.1%, 36.5%, 35.8%; Cochran-Armitage P <0.001). Conclusions: TAVR with Evolut PRO/PRO+ self-expanding valve is safe and effective. Despite the treatment of heavier calcified anatomies, procedural outcomes are improving over time with less need for pacemaker implantation and less significant paravalvular leaks.

Achieving guideline-recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets remains a significant challenge in clinical practice. This review assesses the barriers to reaching LDL-C goals and explores the potential solutions to these issues. When aiming for the recommended LDL-C goal, strategies like “lower is better” and “strike early and strong” should be used. The evidence supports the safety and efficacy of intensive lipid-lowering therapy post-acute coronary syndrome (ACS), leading to improved long-term cardiovascular health and atherosclerotic plaque stabilization. Despite the availability of effective lipid-lowering therapies, such as high-intensity statins, ezetimibe, the combination of both, bempedoic acid, and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, a substantial proportion of patients do not meet their LDL-C targets. Contributing factors include systemic healthcare barriers, healthcare provider inertia, patient non-adherence, and statin intolerance. Statin intolerance, often rather statin reluctance, is a notable obstacle due to perceived or expected side effects, which can lead to discontinuation of therapy. In conclusion, while there are obstacles to achieving optimal LDL-C levels post-ACS, these can be overcome with a combination of patient-centric approaches, clinical vigilance, and the judicious use of available therapies. The safety and necessity of reaching lower LDL-C goals to improve outcomes in patients post-ACS are well-supported by current evidence.

Background: Cardiac power output (CPO), derived from the product of cardiac output and mean aortic pressure, is an important yet underexploited parameter for hemodynamic monitoring of critically ill patients in the intensive-care unit (ICU). The conductance catheter-derived pressure-volume loop area reflects left ventricular stroke work (LV SW). Dividing LV SW by time, a measure of LV SW min^− 1 is obtained sharing the same unit as CPO (W). We aimed to validate CPO as a marker of LV SW min^− 1 under various inotropic states. Methods: We retrospectively analysed data obtained from experimental studies of the hemodynamic impact of mild hypothermia and hyperthermia on acute heart failure. Fifty-nine anaesthetized and mechanically ventilated closed-chest Landrace pigs (68 ± 1 kg) were instrumented with Swan-Ganz and LV pressure-volume catheters. Data were obtained at body temperatures of 33.0 °C, 38.0 °C and 40.5 °C; before and after: resuscitation, myocardial infarction, endotoxemia, sevoflurane-induced myocardial depression and beta-adrenergic stimulation. We plotted LVSW min^− 1 against CPO by linear regression analysis, as well as against the following classical indices of LV function and work: LV ejection fraction (LV EF), rate-pressure product (RPP), triple product (TP), LV maximum pressure (LVP_max) and maximal rate of rise of LVP (LV dP/dt_max). Results: CPO showed the best correlation with LV SW min^− 1 (r² = 0.89; p < 0.05) while LV EF did not correlate at all (r² = 0.01; p = 0.259). Further parameters correlated moderately with LV SW min^− 1 (LVP_maxr² = 0.47, RPP r² = 0.67; and TP r² = 0.54). LV dP/dt_max correlated worst with LV SW min^− 1 (r² = 0.28). Conclusion: CPO reflects external cardiac work over a wide range of inotropic states. These data further support the use of CPO to monitor inotropic interventions in the ICU.

Background: Optimal antithrombotic therapy after left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion is still not clear. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of different antithrombotic regimens after the procedure. Methods and Results: We retrospectively analyzed data of 260 patients who underwent LAA occlusion and divided them into four groups according to therapy at discharge: dual antiplatelet therapy (group A, 71.5%); oral anticoagulants (group B, 19%); “minimal” antithrombotic therapy (single antiplatelet agent or without any antithrombotic therapy; group C, 4.5%) and other therapeutic regimens (such as a combination of antiplatelets and anticoagulants; group D, 4.5%). We analyzed baseline characteristics, procedural data, and clinical and transesophageal follow-up for each group. The incidence of adverse events was low in the whole population and had a similar distribution among groups. The majority of bleeding events was registered during the first 3 months after the procedure (34 out of 46, 70%). Ischemic events (2%), as well as silent left atrial thrombosis, were rare and not significantly higher in the population discharged with “minimal” antithrombotic therapy. Conclusion: Our experience seems to suggest that LAA occlusion was associated with a low incidence of adverse events, regardless of antithrombotic therapy. A “minimal” drug regimen may be feasible without losing efficacy on embolic prevention for patients with high bleeding risk.

Objective: Oral anticoagulation (OAC) is state-of-the-art therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common arrhythmia worldwide. However, little is known about the perception of patients with AF and how it correlates with risk scores used by their physicians. Therefore, we correlated patients’ estimates of their own stroke and bleeding risk with the objectively predicted individual risk using CHA ₂ DS ₂ -VASc and HAS-BLED scores. Design: Cross-sectional prevalence study using convenience sampling and telephone follow-up. Settings: Eight hospital departments and one general practitioner in Austria. Patients’ perception of stroke and bleeding risk was opposed to commonly used risk scoring. Participants: Patients with newly diagnosed AF and indication for anticoagulation. Main outcome measures: Comparison of subjective risk perception with CHA ₂ DS ₂ -VASc and HAS-BLED scores showing possible discrepancies between subjective and objective risk estimation. Patients’ judgement of their own knowledge on AF and education were also correlated with accuracy of subjective risk appraisal. Results: Ninety-one patients (age 73±11 years, 45% female) were included in this study. Subjective stroke and bleeding risk estimation did not correlate with risk scores (ρ=0.08 and ρ=0.17). The majority of patients (57%) underestimated the individual stroke risk. Patients feared stroke more than bleeding (67% vs 10%). There was no relationship between accurate perception of stroke and bleeding risks and education level. However, we found a correlation between the patients’ judgement of their own knowledge of AF and correct assessment of individual stroke risk (ρ=0.24, p=0.02). During follow-up, patients experienced the following events: death (n=5), stroke (n=2), bleeding (n=1). OAC discontinuation rate despite indication was 3%. Conclusions: In this cross-sectional analysis of OAC-naive patients with AF, we found major differences between patients’ perceptions and physicians’ assessments of risks and benefits of OAC. To ensure shared decision-making and informed consent, more attention should be given to evidence-based and useful communication strategies. Trial registration number: NCT03061123 .