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.

Aortic root replacement does not affect outcome and quality of life

BACKGROUND: Different studies have analyzed the potential impact of the underlying pathologic process and the use of deep hypothermic circulatory arrest on outcome and quality of life after surgery on the thoracic aorta. The aim of this study is to analyze the impact of different surgical procedures on outcome and quality of life. METHODS: Between June 2001 and December 2003, 244 patients underwent surgery for various diseases of the ascending aorta with or without involvement of the aortic valve or root. They were divided according to the operative procedure: 76 patients (31.2%) underwent isolated replacement of the ascending aorta, 42 patients (17.2%) received separate aortic valve replacement and supracoronary replacement of the ascending aorta, 86 patients (35.2%) received a mechanical composite graft, and 40 patients (16.4%) received a biologic composite graft. All in-hospital data were assessed, and a follow-up was performed in all survivors after 26.6 +/- 8.8 months, focusing on outcome and quality of life (SF-36). RESULTS: Overall in-hospital mortality was 6.1%, and late mortality was 5.7%, with no significant difference between groups. Independent of the surgical technique and the extent of surgery, there was no difference in quality of life between the surgical collective and an age-matched and sex-matched standard population. CONCLUSIONS: Operations of the ascending aorta and aortic valve are very safe, with low in-hospital mortality and favorable midterm outcome regarding late mortality and morbidity. Quality of life after operations of the ascending aorta and aortic valve is equal to a standard population and is not affected by the surgical procedure. Liberal use of aortic root replacement is therefore justified to radically treat the diseased aortic segment.

Successful percutaneous coronary intervention after implantation of a CoreValve percutaneous aortic valve

BACKGROUND: The association between aortic valve disease and coronary atherosclerosis is common. In the recent era of percutaneous aortic valve replacement (PAVR), there is little experience with coronary artery intervention after valve implantation. CASE REPORT: To our knowledge, this is the first case of successful percutaneous coronary intervention after implantation of a CoreValve percutaneous aortic valve. We report a case of a 79-year-old female patient who underwent successful coronary artery intervention few months after a CoreValve's percutaneous implantation for severe aortic valve stenosis. Verifying the position of the used wires (crossing from inside the self expanding frame) is of utmost importance before proceeding to coronary intervention. In this case, crossing the aortic valve, coronary angiography, and multivessel stenting were successfully performed. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with previous CoreValve is feasible and safe.

Future perspectives in transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) constitutes a relatively new treatment option for the patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Evidence from registries and randomized control trials has underscored the value of this treatment in inoperable and high risk populations, while new developments in valve technology and TAVR enabling devices have reduced the risk of complications, simplified the procedure, and broadened the applications of this therapy. The initial promising clinical results and the potential of an effective less invasive treatment of aortic stenosis has not only created high expectations but also the need to address the pitfalls of TAVR technology. The evolving knowledge concerning the groups of patients who would benefit from this treatment, the limited long term follow-up data, the concerns about devices' long term durability, and the severity of complications remain important caveats which restrict the widespread clinical adoption of TAVR. The aim of this review article is to present the recent advances, highlight the limitations of TAVR technology, and discuss the future perspectives in this rapidly evolving field.

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).

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.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the transfemoral access route is the default access

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a widely accepted alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) among non-operable patients or selected high-risk patients with degenerative, severe aortic stenosis. TAVI is considered less invasive when compared with SAVR; however, there remain significant differences between different TAVI access routes. The transfemoral approach is considered the least invasive access route, and can be performed as a fully percutaneous procedure in a spontaneously breathing patient under local anaesthesia and mild sedation only. Moreover, transfemoral TAVI patients are typically transferred to coronary care rather than to an intensive care unit after the procedure, and benefit from early ambulation and a reduction in overall length of hospital stay. Considering these patient-specific and health-economic advantages, several TAVI centres follow the least invasive strategy for their patients and have implemented the transfemoral access route as the default access in their institutions. This article provides an overview on the prerequisites for a successful transfemoral TAVI procedure, describes the procedural advantages compared to alternative access routes, and highlights differences in clinical outcomes.

Clinical experience with the freedom SOLO stentless aortic valve in 277 consecutive patients.

BACKGROUND The Sorin Freedom SOLO (FS) bovine pericardial stentless valve prosthesis is designed for supraannular, subcoronary implantation. We report our experience and results with 277 consecutively implanted FS bioprostheses. METHODS 277 patients (mean age, 74.2 ± 7.3 years; 139 (50.2%) female) underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with the FS stentless bioprosthesis. The hemodynamic performance was investigated with transthoracic echocardiography at discharge, 6 months later, and yearly thereafter. Follow-up was 100% complete, with an average observation time of 2.6 ± 1.7 years and a total of 697.3 patient-years. RESULTS The overall 30-day mortality was 4.3%. The mortalities for isolated AVR and combined procedures were 1.9% and 7.3%, respectively. No causes of death were valve-related. Preoperative peak (74.2 ± 23.0 mm Hg) and mean (48.6 ± 16.3 mm Hg) gradients decreased to 15.6 ± 5.4 mm Hg and 8.8 ± 3.0 mm Hg postoperatively and remained unchanged for as long as 5 years. The postoperative mean effective orifice area (EOA) for valve sizes 19, 21, 23, 25, and 27 were 1.49 ± 0.32 cm(2), 1.67 ± 0.40 cm(2), 1.92 ± 0.38 cm(2), 2.01 ± 0.42 cm(2), and 2.13 ± 0.36 cm(2), respectively. Severe prosthesis-patient mismach (PPM) was completely absent, and moderate PPM occurred in 17 patients (6.1%). In isolated AVR, 0.8% of patients with preoperative sinus rhythm required a permanent pacemaker before hospital discharge. There was 100% freedom from structural valve deterioration, 99.6 % freedom from endocarditis and reoperation, and 97.3% freedom from thromboembolism at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS The FS stentless aortic valve is safe to implant, and it shows excellent hemodynamic performance and early and midterm results. Owing to the favorable EOA, the valve appears particularly attractive for patients at risk for PPM.

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.

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.

Clinical and haemodynamic outcomes in 658 patients receiving the Perceval sutureless aortic valve: early results from a prospective European multicentre study (the Cavalier Trial)†.

OBJECTIVES The aim of the Cavalier trial was to evaluate the safety and performance of the Perceval sutureless aortic valve in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR). We report the 30-day clinical and haemodynamic outcomes from the largest study cohort with a sutureless valve. METHODS From February 2010 to September 2013, 658 consecutive patients (mean age 77.8 years; 64.4% females; mean logistic EuroSCORE 10.2%) underwent AVR in 25 European Centres. Isolated AVRs were performed in 451 (68.5%) patients with a less invasive approach in 219 (33.3%) cases. Of the total, 40.0% were octogenarians. Congenital bicuspid aortic valve was considered an exclusion criterion. RESULTS Implantation was successful in 628 patients (95.4%). In isolated AVR through sternotomy, the mean cross-clamp time and the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time were 32.6 and 53.7 min, and with the less invasive approach 38.8 and 64.5 min, respectively. The 30-day overall and valve-related mortality rates were 3.7 and 0.5%, respectively. Valve explants, stroke and endocarditis occurred in 0.6, 2.1 and in 0.1% of cases, respectively. Preoperative mean and peak pressure gradients decreased from 44.8 and 73.24 mmHg to 10.24 and 19.27 mmHg at discharge, respectively. The mean effective orifice area improved from 0.72 to 1.46 cm(2). CONCLUSIONS The current 30-day results show that the Perceval valve is safe (favourable haemodynamic effect and low complication rate), and can be implanted with a fast and reproducible technique after a short learning period. Short cross-clamp and CPB times were achieved in both isolated and combined procedures. The Perceval valve represents a promising alternative to biological AVR, especially with a less invasive approach and in older patients.

The sutureless aortic valve at 1 year: A large multicenter cohort study

OBJECTIVE Sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR) offers an alternative to standard AVR in aortic stenosis. This prospective, single-arm study aimed to demonstrate safety and effectiveness of a bovine pericardial sutureless aortic valve at 1 year. METHODS From February 2010 to September 2013, 658 patients (mean age 78.3 ± 5.6 years; 40.0% octogenarian; 64.4% female; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 7.2 ± 7.4) underwent sutureless AVR in 25 European centers. Concomitant cardiac procedures were performed in 29.5% and minimally invasive cardiac surgery in 33.3%. RESULTS One-year site-reported event rates were 8.1% for all-cause mortality, 4.5% for cardiac mortality, 3.0% for stroke, 1.9% for valve-related reoperation, 1.4% for endocarditis, and 0.6% for major paravalvular leak. No valve thrombosis, migration, or structural valve deterioration occurred. New York Heart Association class improved at least 1 level in 77.5% and remained stable (70.4% New York Heart Association class I or II at 1 year). Mean effective orifice area was 1.5 ± 0.4 cm(2); pressure gradient was 9.2 ± 5.0 mm Hg. Left ventricular mass decreased from 138.5 g/m(2) before surgery to 115.3 g/m(2) at 1 year (P < .001). Echocardiographic core laboratory findings confirmed that paravalvular leak was rare and remained stable during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS The Perceval sutureless valve resulted in low 1-year event rates in intermediate-risk patients undergoing AVR. New York Heart Association class improved in more than three-quarters of patients and remained stable. These data support the safety and efficacy to 1 year of the Perceval sutureless valve in this intermediate-risk population.

Decision-making in aortic root surgery in Marfan syndrome: bleeding, thromboembolism and risk of reintervention after valve-sparing or mechanical aortic root replacement†

OBJECTIVES Valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) is thought to reduce the rate of thromboembolic and bleeding events compared with aortic root replacement using a mechanical aortic root replacement (MRR) with a composite graft by avoiding oral anticoagulation. But as VSRR carries a certain risk for subsequent reinterventions, decision-making in the individual patient can be challenging. METHODS Of 100 Marfan syndrome (MFS) patients who underwent 169 aortic surgeries and were followed at our institution since 1995, 59 consecutive patients without a history of dissection or prior aortic surgery underwent elective VSRR or MRR and were retrospectively analysed. RESULTS VSRR was performed in 29 (David n = 24, Yacoub n = 5) and MRR in 30 patients. The mean age was 33 ± 15 years. The mean follow-up after VSRR was 6.5 ± 4 years (180 patient-years) compared with 8.8 ± 9 years (274 patient-years) after MRR. Reoperation rates after root remodelling (Yacoub) were significantly higher than after the reimplantation (David) procedure (60 vs 4.2%, P = 0.01). The need for reinterventions after the reimplantation procedure (0.8% per patient-year) was not significantly higher than after MRR (P = 0.44) but follow-up after VSRR was significantly shorter (P = 0.03). There was neither significant morbidity nor mortality associated with root reoperations. There were no neurological events after VSRR compared with four stroke/intracranial bleeding events in the MRR group (log-rank, P = 0.11), translating into an event rate of 1.46% per patient-year following MRR. CONCLUSION The calculated annual failure rate after VSRR using the reimplantation technique was lower than the annual risk for thromboembolic or bleeding events. Since the perioperative risk of reinterventions following VSRR is low, patients might benefit from VSRR even if redo surgery may become necessary during follow-up.

Deleterious outcome of No-React-treated stentless valved conduits after aortic root replacement: why were warnings ignored?

OBJECTIVE: The implantation of a composite graft is the treatment of choice for patients with aortic root disease if the valve cannot be preserved and the patient is not a suitable candidate for a Ross procedure. Several years ago, the Shelhigh NR-2000C (Shelhigh, Inc, Millburn, NJ) was introduced in Europe. Being a totally biologic conduit and considering the lack of homografts, the graft seemed an ideal conduit for patients with destructive endocarditis, as well as for older patients who were not suitable candidates for oral anticoagulation. METHODS: From 2001 until 2006, the Shelhigh NR-2000C stentless valved conduit was implanted in 115 patients for various aortic root pathologies. The conduit consists of a bovine pericardial straight graft with an incorporated porcine stentless valve. Aortic root repair was performed during standard cardiopulmonary bypass and mild hypothermia in the majority of patients. Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest combined with selective antegrade cerebral perfusion was used when the repair extended into the arch. RESULTS: Seven patients with uncomplicated early outcome presented with unexpected sudden disastrous findings at the level of the aortic root, although 1-year follow-up computed tomographic scans were normal. Four of these patients underwent emergency operations because of desintegration of the graft, along with rupture of the aortic root. Retrospectively, the main findings were persistent fever or subfebrility over months and a halo-like enhancement on computed tomographic scans. Extensive microbiologic examinations were performed without finding a causative organism. CONCLUSION: The use of the Shelhigh aortic stentless conduit can no longer be advocated, and meticulous follow-up of patients in whom this device has been implanted has to be recommended.

[Treatment of the aortic valve and ascending aorta. The significance of reconstructive methods on the aortic root]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The standard surgical repair of disease of the aortic valve and the ascending aorta has been combined replacement, which includes the disadvantage of inserting a mechanical valve. We have investigated an individualized approach which preserves the native valve. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between October 1995 and October 1997, a consecutive total of 101 patients (72 men, 29 women, aged 21-83 years) underwent operations for disease of the ascending aorta: aortic dissection type A in 34 patients, aneurysmal dilatation in 67. Dilatation of the aortic arch was associated with aortic regurgitation in 58 patients. There were 11 patients with aortic valve stenosis or previously implanted aortic valve prosthesis among a total of 46 whose aortic valve was replaced (group II). Supracommissural aortic replacement with a Dacron tube was performed in 16 patients (group I) with normal valve cusps and an aortic root diameter < 3.5 cm. In 28 patients with an aortic root diameter of 3.5-5.0 cm the aortic root was remodelled (group III). Resuspension of the native aortic valve was undertaken in 11 patients with aortic root dilatation of > 5.0 cm (group IV). RESULTS: Operative intervention was electively performed in 72 patients, without any death. Of 29 patients operated as an emergency for acute type A dissection four died (14%). In 55 of the 58 patients with aortic regurgitation in proved possible to preserve native aortic valve (95%). In the early postoperative phase and after an average follow-up time of 11.8 months, transthoracic echocardiography demonstrated good aortic valve function, except in one patient each of groups III and IV who developed aortic regurgitation grades I or II. CONCLUSION: The described individualized approach makes it possible to preserve the native aortic valve in most patients with aortic regurgitation, at a low risk. Follow-up observations so far indicate good results of the reconstruction.