Assessment of low-flow, low-gradient, severe aortic stenosis: an invasive evaluation is required for decision making.

Low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis (AS) is characterised by a small aortic valve area (AVA) and low mean gradient (MG) secondary to a low cardiac output and may occur in patients with either a preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Symptomatic patients presenting with low-flow, low-gradient severe AS have a dismal prognosis independent of baseline LVEF if managed conservatively and should therefore undergo aortic valve replacement if feasible. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is the first-line investigation for the assessment of AS haemodynamic severity. However, when confronted with guideline-discordant AVA (small) and MG (low) values, there are several reasons other than severe AS combined with a low cardiac output which may lead to such a situation, including erroneous measurements, small body size, inherent inconsistencies in the guidelines' criteria, prolonged ejection time and aortic pseudostenosis. The distinction between these various entities poses a diagnostic challenge. However, it is important to make a distinction because each has very different implications in terms of risk stratification and therapeutic management. In such instances, cardiac catheterisation forms an integral part of the work-up of these patients in order to confirm or refute the echocardiographic findings to guide management decisions appropriately.

Clinical outcomes and revascularization strategies in patients with low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic valve stenosis according to the assigned treatment modality

OBJECTIVES This study compared clinical outcomes and revascularization strategies among patients presenting with low ejection fraction, low-gradient (LEF-LG) severe aortic stenosis (AS) according to the assigned treatment modality. BACKGROUND The optimal treatment modality for patients with LEF-LG severe AS and concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) requiring revascularization is unknown. METHODS Of 1,551 patients, 204 with LEF-LG severe AS (aortic valve area <1.0 cm(2), ejection fraction <50%, and mean gradient <40 mm Hg) were allocated to medical therapy (MT) (n = 44), surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) (n = 52), or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (n = 108). CAD complexity was assessed using the SYNTAX score (SS) in 187 of 204 patients (92%). The primary endpoint was mortality at 1 year. RESULTS LEF-LG severe AS patients undergoing SAVR were more likely to undergo complete revascularization (17 of 52, 35%) compared with TAVR (8 of 108, 8%) and MT (0 of 44, 0%) patients (p < 0.001). Compared with MT, both SAVR (adjusted hazard ratio [adj HR]: 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07 to 0.38; p < 0.001) and TAVR (adj HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.52; p < 0.001) improved survival at 1 year. In TAVR and SAVR patients, CAD severity was associated with higher rates of cardiovascular death (no CAD: 12.2% vs. low SS [0 to 22], 15.3% vs. high SS [>22], 31.5%; p = 0.037) at 1 year. Compared with no CAD/complete revascularization, TAVR and SAVR patients undergoing incomplete revascularization had significantly higher 1-year cardiovascular death rates (adj HR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.07 to 7.36; p = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS Among LEF-LG severe AS patients, SAVR and TAVR improved survival compared with MT. CAD severity was associated with worse outcomes and incomplete revascularization predicted 1-year cardiovascular mortality among TAVR and SAVR patients.

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.

Procedural and 30-day outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the third generation (18 Fr) corevalve revalving system: results from the multicentre, expanded evaluation registry 1-year following CE mark approval

AIMS: To describe the procedural performance and 30-day outcomes following implantation using the 18 Fr CoreValve Revalving System (CRS) as part of the multicentre, expanded evaluation registry, 1-year after obtaining CE mark approval. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and logistic Euroscore > or =15%, or age > or =75 years, or age > or =65 years associated with pre-defined risk factors, and for whom a physician proctor and a clinical specialist were in attendance during the implantation and who collected the clinical data, were included. From April 2007, to April 2008, 646 patients with a mean age of 81 +/- 6.6 years, mean aortic valve area 0.6 +/- 0.2 cm2, and logistic EuroSCORE of 23.1 +/- 13.8% were recruited. After valve implantation, the mean transaortic valve gradient decreased from 49.4 +/- 13.9 to 3 +/- 2 mmHg. All patients had paravalvular aortic regurgitation < or = grade 2. The rate of procedural success was 97%. The procedural mortality rate was 1.5%. At 30 days, the all-cause mortality rate (i.e, including procedural) was 8% and the combined rate of death, stroke and myocardial infarction was 9.3%. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate the high rate of procedural success and a low 30-day mortality in a large cohort of high-risk patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the CRS.

Risk of acute kidney injury in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis undergoing transcatheter valve replacement

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for high-risk and inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis is an emerging procedure in cardiovascular medicine. Little is known of the impact of TAVI on renal function. METHODS: We analysed retrospectively renal baseline characteristics and outcome in 58 patients including 2 patients on chronic haemodialysis undergoing TAVI at our institution. Acute kidney injury (AKI) was defined according to the RIFLE classification. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis not considered suitable for conventional surgical valve replacement with a mean age of 83 +/- 5 years underwent TAVI. Two patients died during transfemoral valve implantation and two patients in the first month after TAVI resulting in a 30-day mortality of 6.9%. Vascular access was transfemoral in 46 patients and transapical in 12. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) increased in 30 patients (56%). Fifteen patients (28%) developed AKI, of which four patients had to be dialyzed temporarily and one remained on chronic renal replacement therapy. Risk factors for AKI comprised, among others, transapical access, number of blood transfusions, postinterventional thrombocytopaenia and severe inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). CONCLUSIONS: TAVI is feasible in patients with a high burden of comorbidities and in patients with pre-existing end-stage renal disease who would be otherwise not considered as candidates for conventional aortic valve replacement. Although GFR improved in more than half of the patients, this benefit was associated with a risk of postinterventional AKI. Future investigations should define preventive measures of peri-procedural kidney injury.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves.

IMPORTANCE Owing to a considerable shift toward bioprosthesis implantation rather than mechanical valves, it is expected that patients will increasingly present with degenerated bioprostheses in the next few years. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation is a less invasive approach for patients with structural valve deterioration; however, a comprehensive evaluation of survival after the procedure has not yet been performed. OBJECTIVE To determine the survival of patients after transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation inside failed surgical bioprosthetic valves. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Correlates for survival were evaluated using a multinational valve-in-valve registry that included 459 patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves undergoing valve-in-valve implantation between 2007 and May 2013 in 55 centers (mean age, 77.6 [SD, 9.8] years; 56% men; median Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality prediction score, 9.8% [interquartile range, 7.7%-16%]). Surgical valves were classified as small (≤21 mm; 29.7%), intermediate (>21 and <25 mm; 39.3%), and large (≥25 mm; 31%). Implanted devices included both balloon- and self-expandable valves. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Survival, stroke, and New York Heart Association functional class. RESULTS Modes of bioprosthesis failure were stenosis (n = 181 [39.4%]), regurgitation (n = 139 [30.3%]), and combined (n = 139 [30.3%]). The stenosis group had a higher percentage of small valves (37% vs 20.9% and 26.6% in the regurgitation and combined groups, respectively; P = .005). Within 1 month following valve-in-valve implantation, 35 (7.6%) patients died, 8 (1.7%) had major stroke, and 313 (92.6%) of surviving patients had good functional status (New York Heart Association class I/II). The overall 1-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 83.2% (95% CI, 80.8%-84.7%; 62 death events; 228 survivors). Patients in the stenosis group had worse 1-year survival (76.6%; 95% CI, 68.9%-83.1%; 34 deaths; 86 survivors) in comparison with the regurgitation group (91.2%; 95% CI, 85.7%-96.7%; 10 deaths; 76 survivors) and the combined group (83.9%; 95% CI, 76.8%-91%; 18 deaths; 66 survivors) (P = .01). Similarly, patients with small valves had worse 1-year survival (74.8% [95% CI, 66.2%-83.4%]; 27 deaths; 57 survivors) vs with intermediate-sized valves (81.8%; 95% CI, 75.3%-88.3%; 26 deaths; 92 survivors) and with large valves (93.3%; 95% CI, 85.7%-96.7%; 7 deaths; 73 survivors) (P = .001). Factors associated with mortality within 1 year included having small surgical bioprosthesis (≤21 mm; hazard ratio, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.14-3.67; P = .02) and baseline stenosis (vs regurgitation; hazard ratio, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.33-7.08; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this registry of patients who underwent transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves, overall 1-year survival was 83.2%. Survival was lower among patients with small bioprostheses and those with predominant surgical valve stenosis.

Effect of Pulmonary Hypertension Hemodynamic Presentation on Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Severe Symptomatic Aortic Valve Stenosis Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Insights From the New Proposed Pulmonary Hypertension Classification.

BACKGROUND Pulmonary hypertension (PH) frequently coexists with severe aortic stenosis, and PH severity has been shown to predict outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The effect of PH hemodynamic presentation on clinical outcomes after TAVI is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS Of 606 consecutive patients undergoing TAVI, 433 (71.4%) patients with severe aortic stenosis and a preprocedural right heart catheterization were assessed. Patients were dichotomized according to whether PH was present (mean pulmonary artery pressure, ≥25 mm Hg; n=325) or not (n=108). Patients with PH were further dichotomized by left ventricular end-diastolic pressure into postcapillary (left ventricular end-diastolic pressure, >15 mm Hg; n=269) and precapillary groups (left ventricular end-diastolic pressure, ≤15 mm Hg; n=56). Finally, patients with postcapillary PH were divided into isolated (n=220) and combined (n=49) subgroups according to whether the diastolic pressure difference (diastolic pulmonary artery pressure-left ventricular end-diastolic pressure) was normal (<7 mm Hg) or elevated (≥7 mm Hg). Primary end point was mortality at 1 year. PH was present in 325 of 433 (75%) patients and was predominantly postcapillary (n=269/325; 82%). Compared with baseline, systolic pulmonary artery pressure immediately improved after TAVI in patients with postcapillary combined (57.8±14.1 versus 50.4±17.3 mm Hg; P=0.015) but not in those with precapillary (49.0±12.6 versus 51.6±14.3; P=0.36). When compared with no PH, a higher 1-year mortality rate was observed in both precapillary (hazard ratio, 2.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-5.22; P=0.046) and combined (hazard ratio, 3.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.43-6.93; P=0.004) but not isolated PH patients (P=0.11). After adjustment, combined PH remained a strong predictor of 1-year mortality after TAVI (hazard ratio, 3.28; P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS Invasive stratification of PH according to hemodynamic presentation predicts acute response to treatment and 1-year mortality after TAVI.

Clinical outcome and predictors for adverse events after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the use of different devices and access routes

Background Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a treatment option for high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. Previous reports focused on a single device or access site, whereas little is known of the combined use of different devices and access sites as selected by the heart team. The purpose of this study is to investigate clinical outcomes of TAVI using different devices and access sites. Methods A consecutive cohort of 200 patients underwent TAVI with the Medtronic CoreValve Revalving system (Medtronic Core Valve LLC, Irvine, CA; n = 130) or the Edwards SAPIEN valve (Edwards Lifesciences LLC, Irvine, CA; n = 70) implanted by either the transfemoral or transapical access route. Results Device success and procedure success were 99% and 95%, respectively, without differences between devices and access site. All-cause mortality was 7.5% at 30 days, with no differences between valve types or access sites. Using multivariable analysis, low body mass index (<20 kg/m2) (odds ratio [OR] 6.6, 95% CI 1.5-29.5) and previous stroke (OR 4.4, 95% CI 1.2-16.8) were independent risk factors for short-term mortality. The VARC-defined combined safety end point occurred in 18% of patients and was driven by major access site complications (8.0%), life-threatening bleeding (8.5%) or severe renal failure (4.5%). Transapical access emerged as independent predictor of adverse outcome for the Valve Academic Research Consortium–combined safety end point (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.5-7.1). Conclusion A heart team–based selection of devices and access site among patients undergoing TAVI resulted in high device and procedural success. Low body mass index and history of previous stroke were independent predictors of mortality. Transapical access emerged as a risk factor for the Valve Academic Research Consortium–combined safety end point.

Initial results of a computerized screening alert for abdominal aortic aneurysm in patients undergoing vascular assessment

Although routine ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) reduces mortality in subjects at risk, it is often omitted in clinical practice. Because computerized alerts may systematically identify subjects at risk of AAA, we hypothesized that such alerts would encourage physicians to perform an ultrasound screening test.

Preliminary results following reinforcement of the pulmonary autograft to prevent dilatation after the Ross procedure

OBJECTIVE: The Ross operation remains a controversially discussed procedure, because concern exists regarding late dilatation of the neoaortic root and progressive regurgitation of the autograft valve. We present our early experience with an external reinforcement of the autograft, which is inserted into a prosthetic Dacron graft with an artificial aortic root configuration. This detail should help to prevent neoaortic root dilatation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2006 and 2007, 12 patients (mean age 16 +/- 38 years; range 15-38 years) underwent a Ross procedure by this technique. Indications were aortic regurgitation (n = 2), aortic stenosis (n = 5), and combined aortic stenosis and insufficiency (n = 5). A bicuspid aortic valve was present in 9 patients. Balloon valvuloplasty had been performed in 7 patients. Follow-up was performed by clinical and echocardiographic examinations. RESULTS: No early or late deaths occurred in this small series, and freedom from reoperation is 100%. Echocardiographic follow-up confirmed absence of aortic insufficiency in 11 patients after a mean of 11 months (range 2-30 months). In 1 patient, a small asymmetric regurgitation jet was already observed at discharge echocardiography. As expected, no neoaortic root dilatation was observed during follow-up. All patients are in New York Heart Association class I. CONCLUSIONS: The present technique is a simple and reproducible technical step that does not require significant additional time. Inclusion of the autograft within a root prosthesis may be especially indicated in situations known for late autograft dilatation, namely, bicuspid aortic valve, predominant aortic insufficiency, and ascending aortic enlargement.