INTRODUCTION: Data on patients with small aortic annuli (SAA) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are limited. We aim to describe the impact of aortic annular size, particularly SAA and TAVI valve type on valve haemodynamics, durability and clinical outcomes. METHOD: All patients in National Heart Centre Singapore who underwent transfemoral TAVI for severe symptomatic native aortic stenosis from July 2012 to December 2019 were included. Outcome measures include valve haemodynamics, prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), structural valve degeneration (SVD) and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 244 patients were included. The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 6.22±6.08, with 52.5% patients with small aortic annulus (<23mm), 33.2% patients with medium aortic annulus (23-26mm) and 14.3% patients with large aortic annulus (>26mm). There were more patients with self-expanding valve (SEV) (65.2%) versus balloon-expandable valve (BEV) (34.8%). There were no significant differences in indexed aortic valve area (iAVA), mean pressure gradient (MPG), PPM, SVD or mortality across all aortic annular sizes. However, specific to the SAA group, patients with SEV had larger iAVA (SEV 1.19±0.35cm2/m2 vs BEV 0.88±0.15cm2/m2, P<0.01) and lower MPG (SEV 9.25±4.88 mmHg vs BEV 14.17±4.75 mmHg, P<0.01) at 1 year, without differences in PPM or mortality. Aortic annular size, TAVI valve type and PPM did not predict overall mortality up to 7 years. There was no significant difference in SVD between aortic annular sizes up to 5 years. CONCLUSION Valve haemodynamics and durability were similar across the different aortic annular sizes. In the SAA group, SEV had better haemodynamics than BEV at 1 year, but no differences in PPM or mortality. There were no significant differences in mortality between aortic annular sizes, TAVI valve types or PPM.
Humans ; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ; Heart Valve Prosthesis ; Aortic Valve Stenosis/surgery* ; Aortic Valve/surgery* ; Prosthesis Design ; Postoperative Complications/surgery* ; Treatment Outcome ; Hemodynamics

INTRODUCTION: There are concerns that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may worsen the outcomes of patients with COVID-19. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to study the in-hospital mortality among COVID-19 patients who were on ACEIs/ARBs as compared to those not on ACEIs/ARBs. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, clinicaltrials.gov and Google Scholar between 1 January 2020 and 30 May 2020 to identify all studies that evaluated the use of ACEIs/ARBs and reported the in-hospital mortality outcomes of COVID-19 patients. Nine non-randomised studies were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. The primary outcome studied was the in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients who were on ACEIs/ARBs compared with those not on ACEIs/ARBs. RESULTS: Of the 8,313 patients in the nine studies, 7,622 (91.7%) were from studies with all-comers, while 691 (8.3%) were from studies involving only patients with hypertension. 577 (14.6%) in-hospital deaths were observed out of a total of 3,949 patients with an outcome in the nine studies. Overall, no significant difference was observed in the in-hospital mortality between patients on ACEIs/ARBs and those not on ACEIs/ARBs (odds ratio [OR] 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-1.50; p = 0.73). Further sensitivity analysis in the hypertension group and the all-comers group showed similar results (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.58-1.32; p = 0.53 and OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.00-3.43; p = 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSION We observed that ACEIs/ARBs had no significant impact on the in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients and can be used safely in patients with indications.
Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use* ; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use* ; COVID-19 ; Hospital Mortality ; Humans ; Hypertension/drug therapy* ; SARS-CoV-2