Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:inhibition prevents postprocedural thrombocytopenia is uncertain. METHODS: platelets/μL; n = 14), or without baseline platelet count (n = 4) were excluded. The primary outcome was proportion of patients who developed >20% decrease in platelet count from baseline to day 1 post-TAVR. RESULTS:inhibition developed thrombocytopenia on day 1 post-TAVR (25.5% vs. 36.4%, p = .1). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:inhibition prior to TAVR were less likely to demonstrate a decrease in platelet count after TAVR. Prospective studies to further understand the clinical implication of these findings are warranted.

Background: Traditionally, hostile peripheral access patients undergo TAVR via alternative access. We describe the "transfemoral-first" (TF-1) approach in patients with hostile peripheral access. Method(s): Clinical and procedural data were obtained for all TAVR cases performed from August 2016 to July 2017. Computed tomography was used to assess iliofemoral arteries. Patients were divided into three femoral access groups: routine, hostile, and prohibitive. We attempted TF access in all patients with routine and hostile access. Hostile access was defined as: (1) arterial segments with diameter <5.0 mm; or (2) <5.5 mm with severe calcification (270-360degree arc of calcification) or severe tortuosity; or (3) severe tortuosity along with severe calcification. Outcomes of the hostile access group patients who underwent TF-1 are described. The primary endpoint was successful completion of the procedure without major complications by the intended route. The secondary endpoints were procedural complications as defined by the VARC-2 criteria. Result(s): Of 377 consecutive patients, 99.5% underwent TF-1 TAVR; two patients (0.4%) had prohibitive access. Twenty-eight (7.4%) patients had hostile access with access side mean minimal lumen diameter of 4.7 mm (range 3.8-5.4 mm). Twenty-six (92.8%) were successfully treated with TF-1 strategy. Twelve (42.8%) of the 26 patients underwent preparatory endovascular treatment prior to TAVR during the same operating room visit. There was 1 (3.5%) major or life-threatening bleeding complication and 2 (7.1%) major vascular complications. There were no deaths or strokes. Conclusion(s): Using the safe and effective endovascular approach, TF-1 TAVR is feasible for all-comers-including those with hostile access-with low complication rate. Larger studies are warranted to validate this approach.

BACKGROUND:Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) who are at intermediate and high risk for surgery. Commercial use of TAVR has expanded to patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD). OBJECTIVES:Compare in-hospital outcomes of TAVR versus SAVR in ESRD patients requiring hemodialysis (HD). METHODS:ESRD patients on HD undergoing TAVR (n = 328) or SAVR (n = 697) between 2012 and 2014 were identified in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). Propensity-score matching method was used to minimize selection bias. Baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes were compared. RESULTS:TAVR patients were older (75.3 vs. 61.6 years, P < 0.001) and had more comorbidities, including congestive heart failure (16.2% vs. 7.5%), diabetes mellitus (28.4% vs. 22.5%), chronic lung disease (27.7% vs. 20.4%), and peripheral vascular disease (35.1% vs. 21.2%). Propensity-score matching yielded 175 pairs of patients matched on 30 baseline covariates. Overall in-hospital mortality was high (9.9%) and similar between TAVR and SAVR (8% vs. 10.3%, P = 0.58). TAVR was associated with shorter length of stay (LOS) (8 vs. 14 days, P < 0.001), lower hospitalization cost ($276,448 vs. $364,280, P = 0.01), lower in-hospital complications (60.6% vs. 76%, P = 0.003), and higher rate of home discharge (31.4% vs. 17.7%, P = 0.004) compared with SAVR. CONCLUSIONS:Regardless of treatment modality, patients with AS on HD have high in-hospital mortality. TAVR and SAVR have comparable in-hospital mortality in this population. However, TAVR is associated with shorter LOS, lower hospitalization costs, lower in-hospital complications, and higher rates of home discharge.

Platelets play a key role in the pathophysiology of coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndromes. Our understanding of platelet function in thrombus formation has increased considerably, resulting in the development of clinically effective treatment strategies and identification of new targets. An underappreciated platelet function is their contribution toward acute and chronic inflammatory processes including atherogenesis. In this review, we discuss the role of platelets in atherosclerosis and thrombosis, platelet function testing, and the pharmacology of currently available antiplatelet drugs.

Oral Antiplatelet Drugs (OAD) have a proven track record in the risk reduction of major cardiovascular events in patients with cardiovascular disease and normal kidney function. However, major gaps exist in our understanding of their effects on thrombosis and bleeding in chronic kidney disease (CKD). Clinical practice guidelines are ambiguous about use of such drugs in CKD patients, because patients with moderate to severe CKD were systematically excluded from clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of OAD. Paradoxically, CKD patients are at high risk of thrombosis and major bleeding events. Thus, choosing the right combination of OAD for cardiovascular protection in these patients is challenging. Patients with CKD exhibit high rates of OAD hyporesponsiveness. It is, therefore, imperative to explore the mechanisms responsible for poor response to OAD in CKD patients in order to use these drugs more safely and effectively. This review explores suggested mechanisms of platelet dysfucntion in CKD patients and the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of oral antiplatelet drugs in patients with renal dysfunction.

Although transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) are validated in quantitation of mitral regurgitation (MR), discrepancies may occur. This study assesses the agreement between TTE and CMR in MR and evaluates characteristics and clinical outcome of patients with discrepancy. From our institutional database, 70 subjects with MR underwent both TTE and CMR within 30 days (median 3 days). MR was evaluated semiquantitatively (n = 70) using a 4-grade scale and quantitatively (n = 60) with calculation of regurgitant volume (RVol) and regurgitant fraction (RF). Of the 70 subjects, qualitative assessment by TTE yielded 30 subjects with mild MR, 17 moderate, and 23 moderately severe or severe MR. Exact concordance in MR grade was seen in 50% and increased to 91% when considering concordance within one grade of severity (kappa = 0.44). A modest correlation was observed for RVol and RF between both methods (r = 0.59 and 0.54, respectively, p <0.0001). Ten patients had a significant discrepancy in quantitative MR (difference in RF >20%); the frequency of secondary MR was higher (100% vs 46%; p = 0.003) in patients with discrepancy. Although interobserver variability in RF was higher with TTE compared with CMR (-5.5 +/- 15% vs 0.1 +/- 7.3%), patients with discrepancy were equally distributed by severity and clinical outcome without an overestimation by either method. In conclusion, there is a modest agreement between TTE and CMR in assessing MR severity. In patients with discrepancy, there is a higher prevalence of functional MR, without a consistent overestimation of MR severity by either method.