Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in a lung transplant recipient.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is a feasible therapeutic option for selected patients with severe aortic stenosis and high or prohibitive risk for standard surgery. Lung transplant recipients are often considered high-risk patients for heart surgery because of their specific transplant-associated characteristics and comorbidities. We report a case of successful transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a lung transplant recipient with a symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, severe left ventricular dysfunction, and end-stage renal failure 9 years after bilateral lung transplantation.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation or surgical aortic valve replacement as redo procedure after prior coronary artery bypass grafting

The perioperative risk for redo surgical aortic valve replacement (S-AVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis and prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is increased. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) represents an alternative. We assessed the perioperative and mid-term clinical outcome of patients undergoing S-AVR or TAVI.

Atrioventricular conduction after transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement

Atrioventricular conduction abnormalities (AVCA) may complicate transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate AVCA after TAVI and SAVR.

Quality of life in high-risk patients: comparison of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with surgical aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVES To compare health-related quality of life (QoL) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation via transapical access (TA TAVI) with patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). METHODS One hundred and forty-four high-risk patients referred for aortic valve replacement underwent TAVI screening and were assigned to either TA TAVI (n = 51, age 79.7 ± 9.2 years, logistic EuroSCORE 26.5 ± 16.1%, 51% males) or SAVR (n = 93, age 81.1 ± 5.3 years, logistic EuroSCORE 12.1 ± 9.3%, 42% males) by the interdisciplinary heart team. QoL was assessed using the Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey Questionnaire and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Furthermore, current living conditions and the degree of independence at home were evaluated. RESULTS Patients undergoing TA TAVI were at higher risk as assessed by EuroSCORE (26.5 ± 16 vs. 12.1 ± 9, P < 0.001) and STS score (6.7 ± 4 vs. 4.4 ± 3, P < 0.001) compared with SAVR patients. At the 30-day follow-up, the rate of mortality was similar and amounted to 7.8% for TA TAVI and 7.5% for SAVR patients and raised to 25.5% in TA TAVI and 18.3% in SAVR patients after a follow-up period of 15 ± 10 months. Assessment of QoL revealed no differences in terms of anxiety and depression between TA TAVI and SAVR patients. The SF-36 mental health metascore was similar in both groups (65.6 ± 19 vs. 68.8 ± 22, P = 0.29), while a significant difference was observed in the physical health metascore (49.7 ± 21 vs. 62.0 ± 21, P = 0.015). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, this difference disappeared. However, every added point in the preoperative risk assessment with the STS score decreased the SF-36 physical health dimension by two raw points at the follow-up assessment. CONCLUSIONS Selected high-risk patients undergoing TAVI by using a transapical access achieve similar clinical outcomes and QoL compared with patients undergoing SAVR. Increased STS scores predict worse QoL outcomes.

A 3-center comparison of 1-year mortality outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement on the basis of propensity score matching among intermediate-risk surgical patients

This study sought to compare all-cause mortality in patients at intermediate surgical risk undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

A comparison of patient characteristics and 30-day mortality outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement for the treatment of aortic stenosis: a two-centre study

AIMS: It is unclear whether transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) addresses an unmet clinical need for those currently rejected for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and whether there is a subgroup of high-risk patients benefiting more from TAVI compared to SAVR. In this two-centre, prospective cohort study, we compared baseline characteristics and 30-day mortality between TAVI and SAVR in consecutive patients undergoing invasive treatment for aortic stenosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: We pre-specified different adjustment methods to examine the effect of TAVI as compared with SAVR on overall 30-day mortality: crude univariable logistic regression analysis, multivariable analysis adjusted for baseline characteristics, analysis adjusted for propensity scores, propensity score matched analysis, and weighted analysis using the inverse probability of treatment (IPT) as weights. A total of 1,122 patients were included in the study: 114 undergoing TAVI and 1,008 patients undergoing SAVR. The crude mortality rate was greater in the TAVI group (9.6% vs. 2.3%) yielding an odds ratio [OR] of 4.57 (95%-CI 2.17-9.65). Compared to patients undergoing SAVR, patients with TAVI were older, more likely to be in NYHA class III and IV, and had a considerably higher logistic EuroSCORE and more comorbid conditions. Adjusted OR depended on the method used to control for confounding and ranged from 0.60 (0.11-3.36) to 7.57 (0.91-63.0). We examined the distribution of propensity scores and found scores to overlap sufficiently only in a narrow range. In patients with sufficient overlap of propensity scores, adjusted OR ranged from 0.35 (0.04-2.72) to 3.17 (0.31 to 31.9). In patients with insufficient overlap, we consistently found increased odds of death associated with TAVI compared with SAVR irrespective of the method used to control confounding, with adjusted OR ranging from 5.88 (0.67-51.8) to 25.7 (0.88-750). Approximately one third of patients undergoing TAVI were found to be potentially eligible for a randomised comparison of TAVI versus SAVR. CONCLUSIONS: Both measured and unmeasured confounding limit the conclusions that can be drawn from observational comparisons of TAVI versus SAVR. Our study indicates that TAVI could be associated with either substantial benefits or harms. Randomised comparisons of TAVI versus SAVR are warranted.

Incidence and predictors of atrioventricular conduction impairment after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Atrioventricular (AV) conduction impairment is well described after surgical aortic valve replacement, but little is known in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We assessed AV conduction and need for a permanent pacemaker in patients undergoing TAVI with the Medtronic CoreValve Revalving System (MCRS) or the Edwards Sapien Valve (ESV). Sixty-seven patients without pre-existing permanent pacemaker were included in the study. Forty-one patients (61%) and 26 patients (39%) underwent successful TAVI with the MCRS and ESV, respectively. Complete AV block occurred in 15 patients (22%), second-degree AV block in 4 (6%), and new left bundle branch block in 15 (22%), respectively. A permanent pacemaker was implanted in 23 patients (34%). Overall PR interval and QRS width increased significantly after the procedure (p <0.001 for the 2 comparisons). Implantation of the MCRS compared to the ESV resulted in a trend toward a higher rate of new left bundle branch block and complete AV block (29% vs 12%, p = 0.09 for the 2 comparisons). During follow-up, complete AV block resolved in 64% of patients. In multivariable regression analysis pre-existing right bundle branch block was the only independent predictor of complete AV block after TAVI (relative risk 7.3, 95% confidence interval 2.4 to 22.2). In conclusion, TAVI is associated with impairment of AV conduction in a considerable portion of patients, patients with pre-existing right bundle branch block are at increased risk of complete AV block, and complete AV block resolves over time in most patients.

Impact of coronary artery disease and percutaneous coronary intervention on outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is frequently present in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). While revascularisation affects peri-operative outcome in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement, the impact of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients undergoing TAVI is not well established.

Recent developments for surgical aortic valve replacement: the concept of sutureless valve technology

Aortic stenosis has become the most frequent type of valvular heart disease in Europe and North America and presents in the large majority of patients as calcified aortic stenosis in adults of advanced age. Surgical aortic valve replacement has been recognized to be the definitive therapy which improves considerably survival for severe aortic stenosis since more than 40 years. In the most recent period, operative mortality of isolated aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis varies between 1–3% in low-risk patients younger than 70 years and between 4 and 8% in selected older adults. Long-term survival following aortic valve replacement is close to that observed in a control population of similar age. Numerous observational studies have consistently demonstrated that corrective surgery in symptomatic patients is invariably followed by a subjective improvement in quality of life and a substantial increase in survival rates. More recently, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been demonstrated to be feasible in patients with high surgical risk using either a retrograde transfemoral or transsubclavian approach or an antegrade, transapical access. Reported 30-day mortality ranges between 5 and 15%) and is acceptable when compared to the risk predicted by the logistic EuroSCORE (varying between 20 and 35%) and the STS Score, although the EuroScore has been shown to markedly overestimate the effective operative risk. One major concern remains the high rate of paravalvular regurgitation which is observed in up to 85% of the patients and which requires further follow-up and critical evaluation. In addition, long-term durability of these valves with a focus on the effects of crimping remains to be addressed, although 3-5 year results are promising. Sutureless biological valves were designed to simplify and significantly accelerate the surgical replacement of a diseased valve and allow complete excision of the calcified native valve. Until now, there are 3 different sutureless prostheses that have been approved. The 3f Enable valve from ATS-Medtronic received CE market approval in 2010, the Perceval S from Sorin during Q1 of 2011 and the intuity sutureless prosthesis from Edwards in 2012. All these devices aim to facilitate valve surgery and therefore have the potential to decrease the invasivness and to shorten the conventional procedure without compromise in term of excision of the diseased valve. This review summarizes the history and the current knowledge of sutureless valve technology.

Clinical outcomes of patients with estimated low or intermediate surgical risk undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

AimsTranscatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an established treatment alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk and inoperable patients and outcomes among patients with estimated low or intermediate risk remain to be determined. The aim of this study was to assess clinical outcomes among patients with estimated low or intermediate surgical risk undergoing TAVI.Methods and resultsBetween August 2007 and October 2011, 389 consecutive patients underwent TAVI and were categorized according to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score into low (STS < 3%; n = 41, 10.5%), intermediate (STS ≥3% and ≤8%, n = 254, 65.3%), and high-risk (STS > 8%; n = 94, 24.2%) groups for the purpose of this study. Significant differences were found between the groups (low risk vs. intermediate risk vs. high risk) for age (78.2 ± 6.7 vs. 82.7 ± 5.7 vs. 83.7 ± 4.9, P < 0.001), body mass index (28.1 ± 6.1 vs. 26.5 ± 4.9 vs. 24.4 ± 4.6, P < 0.001), chronic renal failure (34 vs. 67 vs. 90%, P < 0.001), all-cause mortality at 30 days (2.4 vs. 3.9 vs. 14.9%, P = 0.001), and all-cause mortality at 1 year (10.1 vs. 16.1 vs. 34.5%, P = 0.0003). No differences were observed with regards to cerebrovascular accidents and myocardial infarction during 1-year follow-up.ConclusionIn contemporary practice, TAVI is not limited to inoperable or STS-defined high-risk patients and should be guided by the decision of an interdisciplinary Heart Team. Compared with patients at calculated high risk, well-selected patients with STS-defined intermediate or low risk appear to have favourable clinical outcomes.

Improvement of physical and mental health after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a treatment alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in elderly high-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. In this patient population, rapid improvement or restoration of quality of life (QoL) is at least as important as improved clinical outcomes. The purpose of the present study was to assess changes in QoL in response to TAVI.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: prevention and management of complications

Assessment of elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis and decisions in terms of management strategy (conservative with or without balloon aortic valvuloplasty, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement) are complex and warrant a multidisciplinary approach involving collaboration between experienced cardiac surgeons, interventional cardiologists, cardiac imaging specialists, anaesthesiologists, geriatricians and a specialised nursing staff. Patient history, comorbid conditions, perioperative risk stratification as well as anatomical and procedural considerations require careful review on an individual, case-by-case basis and have a major impact on treatment allocation. The aims of this article are to provide insights into the fundamental role of appropriate patient screening and selection, and to review the nature, management and prevention of the most important procedural complications associated with the TAVI procedure.

Three-dimensional printing of models for preoperative planning and simulation of transcatheter valve replacement

In this study, we show the use of three-dimensional printing models for preoperative planning of transcatheter valve replacement in a patient with an extreme porcelain aorta. A 70-year-old man with severe aortic stenosis and a porcelain aorta was referred to our center for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Unfortunately, the patient died after the procedure because of a potential ischemic event. Therefore, we decided to fabricate three-dimensional models to evaluate the potential effects of these constructs for previous surgical planning and simulation of the transcatheter valve replacement.

Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document

OBJECTIVES The aim of the current Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 initiative was to revisit the selection and definitions of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) clinical endpoints to make them more suitable to the present and future needs of clinical trials. In addition, this document is intended to expand the understanding of patient risk stratification and case selection. BACKGROUND A recent study confirmed that VARC definitions have already been incorporated into clinical and research practice and represent a new standard for consistency in reporting clinical outcomes of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI. However, as the clinical experience with this technology has matured and expanded, certain definitions have become unsuitable or ambiguous. METHODS AND RESULTS Two in-person meetings (held in September 2011 in Washington, DC, and in February 2012 in Rotterdam, The Netherlands) involving VARC study group members, independent experts (including surgeons, interventional and noninterventional cardiologists, imaging specialists, neurologists, geriatric specialists, and clinical trialists), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives, provided much of the substantive discussion from which this VARC-2 consensus manuscript was derived. This document provides an overview of risk assessment and patient stratification that need to be considered for accurate patient inclusion in studies. Working groups were assigned to define the following clinical endpoints: mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding complications, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, conduction disturbances and arrhythmias, and a miscellaneous category including relevant complications not previously categorized. Furthermore, comprehensive echocardiographic recommendations are provided for the evaluation of prosthetic valve (dys)function. Definitions for the quality of life assessments are also reported. These endpoints formed the basis for several recommended composite endpoints. CONCLUSIONS This VARC-2 document has provided further standardization of endpoint definitions for studies evaluating the use of TAVI, which will lead to improved comparability and interpretability of the study results, supplying an increasingly growing body of evidence with respect to TAVI and/or surgical aortic valve replacement. This initiative and document can furthermore be used as a model during current endeavors of applying definitions to other transcatheter valve therapies (for example, mitral valve repair).