The Self-Expanding Symetis Acurate Does Not Increase Cerebral Microembolic Load When Compared to the Balloon-Expandable Edwards Sapien Prosthesis: A Transcranial Doppler Study in Patients Undergoing Transapical Aortic Valve Implantation

Objectives The aim of this study was to quantify potential differences in count, frequency and pattern of high-intensity transient signals (HITS) during transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TA-TAVI), by comparing the Symetis Acurate TA (SA) with the balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien XT (ES) system. Background Recently, the Symetis Acurate TA revalving system has been introduced for TA-TAVI. The Symetis Acurate TA aortic bioprosthesis is self-expanding and is deployed by a specific two-step implantation technique. Whether this novel method increases the load of intraprocedural emboli, detected by transcranial Doppler ultrasound (TCD) as HITS, or not is not clear. Methods Twenty-two patients (n = 11 in each study arm, median logistic EuroScore 20%, median STS score 7%) displayed continuous TCD signals of good quality throughout the entire TA-TAVI procedure and were included in the final analysis. Data are presented as median with interquartile ranges. Results No significant differences were detected in total procedural or interval-related HITS load (SA: 303 [200; 594], ES: 499 [285; 941]; p = 0.16). With both devices, HITS peaked during prosthesis deployment (PD), whereas significantly fewer HITS occurred during instrumentation (SA: p = 0.002; ES: <0.001) or post-implantation PI (SA: p = 0.007; ES: <0.001). PD-associated HITS amounted to almost half of the total HITS load. One patient suffered new disabling stroke at 30 days. Thirty-day mortality amounted to 13.6% (3 of 22 patients). Conclusions Simplified transapical delivery using the self-expanding SA device does not increase HITS, despite of a two-step deployment technique with more interactions with the native aortic valve, when compared to the balloon-expandable ES valve. The similarity in HITS count, frequency and pattern with the two systems suggests a common mechanism for the release of cerebral microemboli.

Procedural Results and Clinical Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Switzerland: An Observational Cohort Study of Sapien 3 Versus Sapien XT Transcatheter Heart Valves.

BACKGROUND New generation transcatheter heart valves (THV) may improve clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS In a nationwide, prospective, multicenter cohort study (Swiss Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Registry, NCT01368250), outcomes of consecutive transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation patients treated with the Sapien 3 THV (S3) versus the Sapien XT THV (XT) were investigated. An overall of 153 consecutive S3 patients were compared with 445 consecutive XT patients. Postprocedural mean transprosthetic gradient (6.5±3.0 versus 7.8±6.3 mm Hg, P=0.17) did not differ between S3 and XT patients, respectively. The rate of more than mild paravalvular regurgitation (1.3% versus 5.3%, P=0.04) and of vascular (5.3% versus 16.9%, P<0.01) complications were significantly lower in S3 patients. A higher rate of new permanent pacemaker implantations was observed in patients receiving the S3 valve (17.0% versus 11.0%, P=0.01). There were no significant differences for disabling stroke (S3 1.3% versus XT 3.1%, P=0.29) and all-cause mortality (S3 3.3% versus XT 4.5%, P=0.27). CONCLUSIONS The use of the new generation S3 balloon-expandable THV reduced the risk of more than mild paravalvular regurgitation and vascular complications but was associated with an increased permanent pacemaker rate compared with the XT. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the newest generation balloon-expandable THV is associated with a low risk of stroke and favorable clinical outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01368250.

Long-term follow-up after implantation of the Shelhigh® No-React® complete biological aortic valved conduit†.

OBJECTIVES Long-term follow-up reports after implantation of the Shelhigh® (Shelhigh, Inc., NJ, USA) No-React® aortic valved conduit used for aortic root replacement do not exist. METHODS Between November 1998 and December 2007, the Shelhigh® No-React® aortic valved conduit was implanted in 291 consecutive patients with a mean age of 69.6 ± 9.1 years, and 33.7% were female (n = 98). Indications were annulo-aortic ectasia (n = 202), aortic valve stenosis combined with ascending aortic aneurysm (n = 67), acute type A aortic dissection (n = 29), endocarditis (n = 26) and other related pathologies (n = 48) including 62 patients with previous cardiac surgery. Data from two cardiac institutions were analysed retrospectively using SPSS (SPSS Software IBM, Inc., 2014, NY, USA). RESULTS Operative mortality was 10% (n = 29). Main cause of death was cardiac failure in 15 patients (51.8%), neurological events in 6 patients (20.7%), respiratory failure in 4 patients (13.8%), bleeding complications in 2 patients (6.9%) and gastrointestinal ischaemia in 2 cases (6.9%). There were 262 hospital survivors and all were entered in the follow-up study (100% complete). During the long-term follow-up (mean 70.3 ± 53.1 in months), a total of 126/262 patients (44.3%) died. Main causes of death in patients after discharge were cardiac (n = 37, 14.1%), neurological (n = 15, 5.7%) respiratory (n = 12, 4.6%), endocarditis (n = 12, 4.6%) and peripheral vascular disease (n = 5, 1.9%). In 29 (11.1%) patients, the cause of death could not be determined. Reoperation was required in 25 (8.6%) patients due to infection of the conduit (n = 9), aortoventricular disconnection (n = 4), pseudoaneurysm formation (n = 4) and structural valve degeneration (n = 8). Reoperations were performed 5.0 ± 3.8 (range 0.1-11.7) years after index surgery. CONCLUSIONS The Shelhigh® No-React® aortic valved conduit showed satisfactory short-term operative results. However, the long-term follow-up revealed a relatively high rate of deaths, which may be explained by the epidemiology of the patient group, but a substantial proportion of deaths could not be clarified. The overall rate of reoperation (8.6%) during the mid-term follow-up is worrisome and the failures due to aortoventricular disconnection, endocarditis and pseudoaneurysm formation remain unexplained. The redo-procedures were technically demanding. We recommend close follow-up of patients with the Shelhigh® No-React® aortic valved conduit, because besides classical structural valve degeneration, unexpected findings may be observed.

Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement International Registry (SU-AVR-IR): design and rationale from the International Valvular Surgery Study Group (IVSSG).

BACKGROUND Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) is an innovative approach which shortens cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp durations and may facilitate minimally invasive approach. Evidence outlining its safety, efficacy, hemodynamic profile and potential complications is replete with small-volume observational studies and few comparative publications. METHODS Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery and high-volume SU-AVR replacement centers were contacted for recruitment into a global collaborative coalition dedicated to sutureless valve research. A Research Steering Committee was formulated to direct research and support the mission of providing registry evidence warranted for SU-AVR. RESULTS The International Valvular Surgery Study Group (IVSSG) was formed under the auspices of the Research Steering Committee, comprised of 36 expert valvular surgeons from 27 major centers across the globe. IVSSG Sutureless Projects currently proceeding include the Retrospective and Prospective Phases of the SU-AVR International Registry (SU-AVR-IR). CONCLUSIONS The global pooling of data by the IVSSG Sutureless Projects will provide required robust clinical evidence on the safety, efficacy and hemodynamic outcomes of SU-AVR.

Expanding Indications of Transcatheter Heart Valve Interventions.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been established as a less invasive alternative to open-heart surgery in inoperable or high-risk patients presenting with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis. The feasibility and efficacy of valve-in-valve implantation in degenerated surgical aortic bioprostheses have also been described and can currently be considered a valuable treatment option in patients deemed unsuitable for repeat cardiac surgery. However, the clinical use of TAVR devices is not limited to the treatment of the tricuspid stenotic aortic valve. Several additional indications including treatment of the bicuspid stenotic aortic valve, aortic regurgitation, and valve-in-valve or valve-in-ring implantation in the mitral or tricuspid position as well as treatment of pure mitral, tricuspid, or pulmonary regurgitation have been described. The purpose of the present review is to summarize the available evidence concerning the emerging off-label use of TAVR devices in current clinical practice. Case examples have been selected to highlight the main procedural steps of each particular intervention.

Mechanical versus biological aortic valve replacement strategies.

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the most frequently performed procedure in valve surgery. The controversy about the optimal choice of the prosthetic valve is as old as the technique itself. Currently there is no perfect valve substitute available. The main challenge is to choose between mechanical and biological prosthetic valves. Biological valves include pericardial (bovine, porcine or equine) and native porcine bioprostheses designed in stented or stentless versions. Homografts and pulmonary autografts are reserved for special indications and will not be discussed in detail in this review. We will focus on the decision making between artificial biological and mechanical prostheses, respectively. The first part of this article reviews guideline recommendations concerning the choice of aortic prostheses in different clinical situations while the second part is focused on novel strategies in the treatment of patients with aortic valve pathology.

Cerebral Microembolization During Aortic Valve Replacement Using Minimally Invasive or Conventional Extracorporeal Circulation: A Randomized Trial.

To compare intraoperative cerebral microembolic load between minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) and conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC) during isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), we conducted a randomized trial in patients undergoing primary elective SAVR at a tertiary referral hospital. The primary outcome was the procedural phase-related rate of high-intensity transient signals (HITS) on transcranial Doppler ultrasound. HITS rate was used as a surrogate of cerebral microembolism in pre-defined procedural phases in SAVR using MiECC or CECC with (+F) or without (-F) an oxygenator with integrated arterial filter. Forty-eight patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to MiECC or CECC. Due to intraprocedural Doppler signal loss (n = 3), 45 patients were included in final analysis. MiECC perfusion regimen showed a significantly increased HITS rate compared to CECC (by a factor of 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-2.56). This was due to different HITS rates in procedural phases from aortic cross-clamping until declamping [phase 4] (P = 0.01), and from aortic declamping until stop of extracorporeal perfusion [phase 5] (P = 0.05). Post hoc analysis revealed that MiECC-F generated a higher HITS rate than CECC+F (P = 0.005), CECC-F (P = 0.05) in phase 4, and CECC-F (P = 0.03) in phase 5, respectively. In open-heart surgery, MiECC is not superior to CECC with regard to gaseous cerebral microembolism. When using MiECC for SAVR, the use of oxygenators with integrated arterial line filter appears highly advisable. Only with this precaution, MiECC confers a cerebral microembolic load comparable to CECC during this type of open heart surgery.

Mitral regurgitation

Mitral regurgitation (MR) involves systolic retrograde flow from the left ventricle into the left atrium. While trivial MR is frequent in healthy subjects, moderate to severe MR constitutes the second most prevalent valve disease after aortic valve stenosis. Major causes of severe MR in Western countries include degenerative valve disease (myxomatous disease, flail leaflet, annular calcification) and ischaemic heart disease, while rheumatic disease remains a major cause of MR in developing countries. Chronic MR typically progresses insidiously over many years. Once established, however, severe MR portends a poor prognosis. The severity of MR can be assessed by various techniques, Doppler echocardiography being the most widely used. Mitral valve surgery is the only treatment of proven efficacy. It alleviates clinical symptoms and prevents ventricular dilatation and heart failure (or, at least, it attenuates further progression of these abnormalities). Valve repair significantly improves clinical outcomes compared with valve replacement, reducing mortality by approximately 70%. Reverse LV remodelling after valve repair occurs in half of patients with functional MR. Percutaneous, catheter-based to mitral valve repair is a novel approach currently under clinical scrutiny, with encouraging preliminary results. This modality may provide a valuable alternative to mitral valve surgery, especially in critically ill patients.

Coronary revascularization and TAVI: before, during, after or never?

Aortic valve stenosis and coronary artery disease (CAD) frequently coexist in elderly patients selected for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Therapeutic strategies to manage concomitant obstructive CAD are therefore an important consideration in the overall management of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI. Conventional surgical aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting is the treatment of choice for low and intermediate risk patients with symptomatic severe AS and concomitant obstructive CAD. However, TAVI and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are viable alternative options for high-risk or inoperable patients presenting with symptomatic severe AS. PCI has been shown to be feasible and safe in selected high-risk or inoperable patients with symptomatic severe AS. However, the optimal timing of PCI relative to the TAVI procedure has been a subject of debate. The most frequent approch is staged PCI typically performed a few weeks prior to TAVI. However, concomitant PCI has also been shown to be a feasible and safe approach, particularly in patients with a low level of CAD complexity and an absence of severe renal impairment. Conversely, staged PCI should be considered in patients with higher degrees of CAD complexity, particularly in the presence of severe renal impairment. The aim of the present review is to discuss the safety and feasibility of performing PCI in elderly patients with severe AS and the optimal timing of PCI relative to the TAVI procedure using the most up-to-date available evidence.

Coronary artery disease in patients undergoing TAVI: why, what, when and how to treat.

Coronary artery disease (CAD) and aortic valve stenosis (AS) are frequently coexisting. It has been reported that CAD is present in 40% of patients with AS undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement, and in up to 60% of patients with AS undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Elderly patients with CAD and AS are characterised by higher baseline risk profiles as compared to patients with isolated AS, increasing the complexity of their therapeutic management. In patients with CAD and AS the combination of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and surgical aortic valve replacement has been shown to improve survival. Therefore, CABG is recommended in patients with CAD and AS undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement according to current guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association (ACCF/AHA). Conversely, whether the presence of CAD has any prognostic implications in elderly patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI is still a matter of debate. Of note, according to the most recent ESC guidelines on myocardial revascularisation, percutaneous revascularisation should be considered in patients undergoing TAVI with a stenosis >70% in proximal coronary segments (class IIa, level of evidence C). The aim of this article is to provide an overview of evidence supporting the need for coronary revascularisation in patients with severe AS and CAD undergoing TAVI, and to summarise optimal timing and treatment modalities for percutaneous coronary interventions in these patients.