Personne :
Guzzetti, Ezequiel

En cours de chargement...
Photo de profil
Adresse électronique
Date de naissance
Projets de recherche
Structures organisationnelles
Nom de famille
Université Laval
Identifiant Canadiana

Résultats de recherche

Voici les éléments 1 - 4 sur 4
  • Publication
    Accès libre
    Haemodynamic outcomes following aortic valve-in-valve procedure
    (BMJ Publishing Group, 2018-07-09) Dahou, Abdellaziz; Guzzetti, Ezequiel; Dumont, Éric; De Larochellière, Robert; Côté, Mélanie; Rodés-Cabau, Josep; Mohammadi, Siamak; Paradis, Jean-Michel; Doyle, Daniel; Zenses, Anne-Sophie; Pibarot, Philippe; Clavel, Marie-Annick; Ong, Géraldine; Chamandi, Chekrallah; Salaun, Erwan; Rodriguez-Gabella, Tania; Rieu, Régis
    Background and objectives: Transcatheter aortic valve- in-valve implantation (ViV) has emerged as a valuable technique to treat failed surgical bioprostheses (BPs) in patients with high risk for redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Small BP size (≤21 mm), stenotic pattern of degeneration and pre-existing prosthesis– patient mismatch (PPM) have been associated with worse clinical outcomes after ViV. However, no study has evaluated the actual haemodynamic benefit associated with ViV. This study aims to compare haemodynamic status observed at post-ViV, pre-ViV and early after initial SAVR and to determine the factors associated with worse haemodynamic outcomes following ViV, including the rates of high residual gradient and ‘haemodynamic futility’. Methods: Early post-SAVR, pre-ViV and post-ViV echocardiographic data of 79 consecutive patients who underwent aortic ViV at our institution were retrospectively analysed. The primary study endpoint was suboptimal valve haemodynamics (SVH) following ViV defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 as the presence of high residual aortic mean gradient (≥20 mm Hg) and/or at least moderate aortic regurgitation (AR). Haemodynamic futility of ViV was defined as <10 mm Hg decrease in mean aortic gradient and no improvement in AR compared with pre-ViV. Results: SVH was found in 61% of patients (57% high residual gradient, 4% moderate AR) after ViV versus 24% early after SAVR. Pre-existing PPM and BP mode of failure by stenosis were independently associated with the primary endpoint (OR: 2.87; 95% CI 1.08 to 7.65; p=0.035 and OR: 3.02; 95% CI 1.08 to 8.42; p=0.035, respectively) and with the presence of high residual gradient (OR: 4.38; 95% CI 1.55 to 12.37; p=0.005 and OR: 5.37; 95% CI 1.77 to 16.30; p=0.003, respectively) following ViV. Criteria of ViV haemodynamic futility were met in 7.6% overall and more frequently in patients with pre-existing PPM and stenotic BP (18.5%) compared with other patients (2.0%). ViV restored haemodynamic function to early post-SAVR level in only 34% of patients. Conclusion: Although ViV was associated with significant haemodynamic improvement compared with pre-ViV in >90% of patients, more than half harboured SVH outcome. Furthermore, only one-third of patients had a restoration of valve haemodynamic function to the early post-SAVR level. Pre-existing PPM and stenosis pattern of BP degeneration were the mian factors associated with SVH and haemodynamic futility following ViV. These findings provide strong support for the prevention of PPM at the time of initial SAVR and careful preprocedural patient screening.
  • Publication
    Paravalvular regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Is the problem solved?
    (Elsevier, 2018-10-01) Dahou, Abdellaziz; Guzzetti, Ezequiel; Annabi, Mohamed Salah; Pibarot, Philippe; Clavel, Marie-Annick; Toubal, Oumhani; Ong, Géraldine; Salaun, Erwan
    Paravalvular regurgitation is a frequent complication after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and its association with worse outcomes depends on the degree of its severity. Despite substantial improvement in transcatheter heart valve design, sizing and implantation technique, moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation still occurs in 2% to 7% of patients and is associated with a more than 2-fold increase in mortality. This review provides a state-of-the-art approach to (i) paravalvular regurgitation prevention by optimizing patient selection, valve sizing, and positioning and (ii) the detection, quantitation and management of paravalvular regurgitation during and after valve implantation.
  • Publication
    Accès libre
    Impact of metabolic syndrome and/or diabetes mellitus on left ventricular mass and remodeling in patients with aortic stenosis before and after aortic valve replacement
    (ScienceDirect, 2019-01-01) Guzzetti, Ezequiel; Shen, Mylène; Voisine, Pierre; Annabi, Mohamed Salah; Poirier, Paul; Piché, Marie-Eve; Zenses, Anne-Sophie; Pibarot, Philippe; Clavel, Marie-Annick; Ong, Géraldine; Dagenais, François.; Tastet, Lionel; Salaun, Erwan
    Background: In aortic stenosis (AS), metabolic syndrome (MetS) and diabetes mellitus (DM) are associated with more pronounced left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and more concentric remodeling. We aimed to assess the impact of MetS and DM on left ventricular (LV) mass, remodeling and LV mass regression after aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with severe AS. Method: We included 177 patients with severe AS and preserved LVEF (>50%). All patients had comprehensive echocardiography before and one year after AVR. Results: Twenty-seven percent (27%) of patients had MetS, 21% DM and 52% neither MetS nor DM (No MetS-DM). Prior to AVR, indexed LV mass (LVMi) was higher in MetS and DM groups compared to NoMetS-DM group (56.1±14.2, 56.2±18.2 vs. 49.2±14.1 g/m2.7 respectively; p<0.01). Prevalence of LV hypertrophy was higher in MetS and DM than in NoMetS-DM patients (66%, 65% vs 44%, p<0.01) as well as LV mass to-end-diastolic volume ratio (2.10±0.44 and 2.21±0.63 vs 1.96±0.41 g/ml respectively, p=0.03). One year after AVR, decrease in LVMi was significant (p<0.001) in all 3 groups. DM and MetS were independently associated with higher baseline LVMi (p<0.05). MetS was independently associated with less LVM regression and higher LVMi 1 year after AVR. MetS and DM groups showed more residual LV hypertrophy than NoMetS-DM patients (57%, 38% and 17%, p<0.01). Conclusions: MetS and DM were independently associated with a higher preoperative LVMi and more concentric remodeling. One year after AVR, MetS was associated with less LVMi regression and higher LVMi. MetS and DM patients remained with more residual LV hypertrophy
  • Publication
    Accès libre
    Prevalence of left ventricle non-compaction criteria in adult patients with bicuspid aortic valve versus healthy control subjects
    (BMJ Publishing Group, 2018-10-07) Guzzetti, Ezequiel; Tizón-Marcos, Helena; Larose, Éric; Shen, Mylène; Le Ven, Florent; Chetaille, Philippe; Bédard, Élisabeth; Capoulade, Romain; Pibarot, Philippe; Clavel, Marie-Annick; Tastet, Lionel; Salaun, Erwan; Arsenault, Marie
    Objective The aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of left ventricle non-compaction (LVNC) criteria (or hypertrabeculation) in a cohort of patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and healthy control subjects (CTL) without cardiovascular disease using cardiovascular MR (CMR). Methods 79 patients with BAV and 85 CTL with tricuspid aortic valve and free of known cardiovascular disease underwent CMR to evaluate the presence of LVNC criteria. The left ventricle was assessed at end-systole and end-diastole, in the short-axis, two-chamber and four-chamber views and divided into the 16 standardised myocardial segments. LVNC was assessed using the non-compacted/compacted (NC/C) myocardium ratio and was considered to be present if at least one of the myocardial segments had a NC/C ratio superior to the cut-off values defined in previous studies: Jenni et al (>2.0 end-systole); Petersen et al (>2.3 end-diastole); or Fazio et al (>2.5 end-diastole). Results 15 CTL (17.6%) vs 8 BAV (10.1%) fulfilled Jenni et al’s criterion; 69 CTL (81.2%) vs 49 BAV (62.0%) fulfilled Petersen et al’s criterion; and 66 CTL (77.6%) vs 43 BAV (54.4%) fulfilled Fazio et al’s criterion. Petersen et al and Fazio et al’s LVNC criteria were met more often by CTL (p=0.006 and p=0.002, respectively) than patients with BAV, whereas this difference was not statistically significant according to Jenni et al’s criterion (p=0.17). In multivariable analyses, after adjusting for age, sex, the presence of significant valve dysfunction (>mild stenosis or >mild regurgitation), indexed LV mass, indexed LV end-diastolic volume and LV ejection fraction, BAV was not associated with any of the three LVNC criteria. Conclusion Patients with BAV do not harbour more LVNC than the general population and there is no evidence that they are at higher risk for the development of LVNC cardiomyopathy.