Impact of Baseline Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction on Mid-term Outcomes in Women Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Insight from the WIN TAVI Registry

Francesca Maria Di Muro,Birgit Vogel,Samantha Sartori,Didier Tchetche,Yihan Feng,Anna Sonia Petronio,Julinda Mehilli,Benjamin Bay,Mauro Gitto,Thierry Lefevre,Patrizia Presbitero,Piera Capranzano,Angelo Oliva,Alessandro Iadanza,Gennaro Sardella,Nicolas Van Mieghem,Emanuele Meliga,Pier Pasquale Leone,Nicolas Dumonteil,Chiara Fraccaro,Daniela Trabattoni,Ghada Mikhail,Maria-Cruz Ferrer-Gracia,Christoph Naber,Samin K. Sharma,Yusuke Watanabe,Marie-Claude Morice,George Dangas,Alaide Chieffo,Roxana Mehran
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.11.004
IF: 3.133
2024-11-10
The American Journal of Cardiology
Abstract:Limited evidence exists concerning the prognostic impact of baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on outcomes among women undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), which we aimed to investigate in the current analysis. Patients from the WIN-TAVI registry were categorized according to baseline LVEF into three groups: reduced (LVEF≤40%), mildly reduced (40%< LVEF<50%), and preserved (LVEF≥50%) LVEF. The primary Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 (VARC-2) efficacy endpoint was as a composite of mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), hospitalization for valve-related symptoms or heart failure, or valve-related dysfunction at 1-year. The primary (VARC-2) safety endpoint included all-cause mortality, stroke, major vascular complication, life-threatening bleeding, stage 2-3 acute kidney injury, coronary artery obstruction requiring intervention, or valve-related dysfunction requiring repeated procedures. A Cox regression model was performed using the preserved LVEF group as reference. Among the 944 patients included, 764 (80.9%) exhibited preserved, 80 (8.5%) had mildly reduced, and 100 (10.6%) had reduced LVEF. The 1-year incidence of VARC-2 efficacy endpoint was numerically higher in patients with reduced LVEF, albeit not resulting in a significant risk difference. Notably, reduced LVEF was associated with a higher risk of the 1-year VARC-2 safety endpoint, still significant after adjustment (28.0% vs 19.6%, HR: 1.78; 95% CI 1.12 – 2.82, p=0.014). These differences were primarily driven by trends toward increased rates of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and major vascular complications. Clinical outcomes were similar between patients with mildly reduced and preserved LVEF. In conclusion, when performed in women with reduced LVEF, TAVI was associated with a worse (VARC-2) safety profile at 1-year follow-up. In contrast, patients with mildly reduced LVEF appeared to align more closely with outcomes observed in the preserved LVEF group than with the reduced LVEF group.
cardiac & cardiovascular systems
What problem does this paper attempt to address?