Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: predictors of procedural success--the Siegburg-Bern experience

The purpose of the present analysis was to identify predictors of procedural success of percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

Early hemodynamic and neurohormonal response after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

The conventional surgical aortic bioprostheses used for treatment of aortic stenosis (AS) are inherently stenotic in nature. The more favorable mechanical profile of the Medtronic CoreValve bioprosthesis may translate into a better hemodynamic and neurohormonal response.

Correlation of Device landing zone calcification and acute procedural success in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantations with the self-expanding CoreValve prosthesis

The aim of this study was to assess the influence of amount and distribution of calcifications of the aortic valve and the left ventricular outflow tract on the acute procedural outcome of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (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.

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.

Standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation clinical trials: a consensus report from the Valve Academic Research Consortium

To propose standardized consensus definitions for important clinical endpoints in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), investigations in an effort to improve the quality of clinical research and to enable meaningful comparisons between clinical trials. To make these consensus definitions accessible to all stakeholders in TAVI clinical research through a peer reviewed publication, on behalf of the public health.

Predictors of functional decline in elderly patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)

Aims This study aimed to assess functional course in elderly patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and to find predictors of functional decline. Methods and results In this prospective cohort, functional course was assessed in patients ≥70 years using basic activities of daily living (BADL) before and 6 months after TAVI. Baseline EuroSCORE, STS score, and a frailty index (based on assessment of cognition, mobility, nutrition, instrumental and basic activities of daily living) were evaluated to predict functional decline (deterioration in BADL) using logistic regression models. Functional decline was observed in 22 (20.8%) of 106 surviving patients. EuroSCORE (OR per 10% increase 1.18, 95% CI: 0.83-1.68, P = 0.35) and STS score (OR per 5% increase 1.64, 95% CI: 0.87-3.09, P = 0.13) weakly predicted functional decline. In contrast, the frailty index strongly predicted functional decline in univariable (OR per 1 point increase 1.57, 95% CI: 1.20-2.05, P = 0.001) and bivariable analyses (OR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.20-2.04, P = 0.001 controlled for EuroSCORE; OR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.17-2.02, P = 0.002 controlled for STS score). Overall predictive performance was best for the frailty index [Nagelkerke's R(2) (NR(2)) 0.135] and low for the EuroSCORE (NR(2) 0.015) and STS score (NR(2) 0.034). In univariable analyses, all components of the frailty index contributed to the prediction of functional decline. Conclusion Over a 6-month period, functional status worsened only in a minority of patients surviving TAVI. The frailty index, but not established risk scores, was predictive of functional decline. Refinement of this index might help to identify patients who potentially benefit from additional geriatric interventions after TAVI.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation and bleeding: incidence, predictors and prognosis

Peri-procedural bleeding complications are feared adverse events in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Little is known about the implications of peri-procedural bleeding on clinical outcome. In a prospective single-center registry of consecutive patients undergoing TAVI, we investigated incidence, predictors and clinical consequences of life-threatening and major bleeding as defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium. Among 389 consecutive patients undergoing TAVI by a transfemoral (79.2%), transapical (19.6%) or trans-subclavian (1.3%) approach between July 2007 and October 2011, life-threatening or major peri-procedural bleeding events occurred in 64 (16.4%) and 125 patients (32.1%), respectively. Patients with peri-procedural bleeding events had a higher logistic EuroSCORE, more advanced renal disease, and were more symptomatic as assessed by New York Heart Association functional class at baseline as compared to patients with no bleeding. Life-threatening bleeding was associated with a higher all-cause (17.2 vs. 5.6 vs. 3.0%, p < 0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (10.9 vs. 5.6 vs. 2.5%, p = 0.02) at 30 days compared to patients with major bleeding or no bleeding. Multivariate analysis identified transapical access (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.4-4.8; p = 0.002), glomerular filtration rate <30 ml/min (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1-4.7, p = 0.031), and diabetes (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.001-3.2, p = 0.049) as independent predictors of life-threatening, peri-procedural bleeding. Life-threatening bleeding complications in patients undergoing TAVI are associated with increased mortality. Renal impairment, diabetes, and transapical approach were identified as independent risk factors for life-threatening bleeding events.

Clinical outcomes of patients with low-flow, low-gradient, severe aortic stenosis and either preserved or reduced ejection fraction undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

AIMS Our aim was to evaluate the invasive haemodynamic indices of high-risk symptomatic patients presenting with 'paradoxical' low-flow, low-gradient, severe aortic stenosis (AS) (PLF-LG) and low-flow, low-gradient severe AS (LEF-LG) and to compare clinical outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) among these challenging AS subgroups. METHODS AND RESULTS Of 534 symptomatic patients undergoing TAVI, 385 had a full pre-procedural right and left heart catheterization. A total of 208 patients had high-gradient severe AS [HGAS; mean gradient (MG) ≥40 mmHg], 85 had PLF-LG [MG ≤ 40 mmHg, indexed aortic valve area [iAVA] ≤0.6 cm(2) m(-2), stroke volume index ≤35 mL/m(2), ejection fraction (EF) ≥50%], and 61 had LEF-LG (MG ≤ 40 mmHg, iAVA ≤0.6 cm(2) m(-2), EF ≤40%). Compared with HGAS, PLF-LG and LEF-LG had higher systemic vascular resistances (HGAS: 1912 ± 654 vs. PLF-LG 2006 ± 586 vs. LEF-LG 2216 ± 765 dyne s m(-5), P = 0.007) but lower valvulo-arterial impedances (HGAS: 7.8 ± 2.7 vs. PLF-LG 6.9 ± 1.9 vs. LEF-LG 7.7 ± 2.5 mmHg mL(-1) m(-2), P = 0.027). At 30 days, no differences in cardiac death (6.5 vs. 4.9 vs. 6.6%, P = 0.90) or death (8.4 vs. 6.1 vs. 6.6%, P = 0.88) were observed among HGAS, PLF-LG, and LEF-LG groups, respectively. At 1 year, New York Heart Association functional improvement occurred in most surviving patients (HGAS: 69.2% vs. PLF-LG 71.7% vs. LEF-LG 89.3%, P = 0.09) and no significant differences in overall mortality were observed (17.6 vs. 20.5 vs. 24.5%, P = 0.67). Compared with HGAS, LEF-LG had a higher 1 year cardiac mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 2.45, 95% confidence interval 1.04-5.75, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION TAVI in PLF-LG or LEF-LG patients is associated with overall mortality rates comparable with HGAS patients and all groups profit symptomatically to a similar extent.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: patient selection

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a disruptive technology as it satisfies a previously unmet need which is associated with a profound therapeutic benefit. In randomized clinical trials, TAVI has been shown to improve survival compared with medical treatment among patients considered not suitable candidates for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), and to provide similar outcomes as SAVR in selected high-risk patients. Currently, TAVI is limited to selected elderly patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. As this patient population frequently suffers from comorbid conditions, which may influence outcomes, the selection of patients to undergo TAVI underlies a complex decision process. Several clinical risk score algorithms are routinely used, although they fall short to fully appreciate the true risk among patients currently referred for TAVI. Beyond traditional risk scores, the clinical assessment by an interdisciplinary Heart Team as well as detailed imaging of the aortic valve, aortic root, descending and abdominal aorta as well as peripheral vasculature are important prerequisites to plan a successful procedure. This review will familiarize the reader with the concepts of the interdisciplinary Heart team, risk scores as well as the most important imaging algorithms suited to select appropriate TAVI patients.