Clinical outcome of high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction undergoing medical treatment or TAVI

Introduction Reduced left ventricular function in patients with severe symptomatic valvular aortic stenosis is associated with impaired clinical outcome in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) has been shown non-inferior to SAVR in high-risk patients with respect to mortality and may result in faster left ventricular recovery. Methods We investigated clinical outcomes of high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing medical treatment (n = 71) or TAVI (n = 256) stratified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in a prospective single center registry. Results Twenty-five patients (35%) among the medical cohort were found to have an LVEF≤30% (mean 26.7±4.1%) and 37 patients (14%) among the TAVI patients (mean 25.2±4.4%). Estimated peri-interventional risk as assessed by logistic EuroSCORE was significantly higher in patients with severely impaired LVEF as compared to patients with LVEF>30% (medical/TAVI 38.5±13.8%/40.6±16.4% versus medical/TAVI 22.5±10.8%/22.1±12.8%, p <0.001). In patients undergoing TAVI, there was no significant difference in the combined endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, major stroke, life-threatening bleeding, major access-site complications, valvular re-intervention, or renal failure at 30 days between the two groups (21.0% versus 27.0%, p = 0.40). After TAVI, patients with LVEF≤30% experienced a rapid improvement in LVEF (from 25±4% to 34±10% at discharge, p = 0.002) associated with improved NYHA functional class at 30 days (decrease ≥1 NYHA class in 95%). During long-term follow-up no difference in survival was observed in patients undergoing TAVI irrespective of baseline LVEF (p = 0.29), whereas there was a significantly higher mortality in medically treated patients with severely reduced LVEF (log rank p = 0.001). Conclusion TAVI in patients with severely reduced left ventricular function may be performed safely and is associated with rapid recovery of systolic left ventricular function and heart failure symptoms.

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.

Severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease

Coronary artery disease (CAD) and aortic stenosis (AS) share pathophysiological mechanisms and risk factors. Moreover, the prevalence of CAD increases among elderly patients with severe AS since disease progression is strongly associated with age for both CAD and AS. These factors contribute to the frequent coexistence of CAD and AS. Patients with concomitant AS and CAD are characterised by higher baseline risk profiles with a larger number of comorbidities as compared to patients with isolated AS. Therefore, adequate therapeutic strategies are crucial for the treatment of these patients. The number of patients undergoing concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) doubled during the last decade. Moreover, the development and rapid integration of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) into clinical practice in western European countries has further extended invasive treatment of AS to elderly high-risk patients not considered suitable candidates for SAVR, frequently presenting with CAD. The aim of this review article is to provide an overview on CAD prevalence, impact on clinical outcomes, and treatment strategies in patients with severe AS requiring SAVR or TAVI.

Impact of mitral regurgitation on clinical outcomes of patients with low-ejection fraction, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND Up to 1 in 6 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) present with low-ejection fraction, low-gradient (LEF-LG) severe aortic stenosis and concomitant relevant mitral regurgitation (MR) is present in 30% to 55% of these patients. The effect of MR on clinical outcomes of LEF-LG patients undergoing TAVI is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS Of 606 consecutive patients undergoing TAVI, 113 (18.7%) patients with LEF-LG severe aortic stenosis (mean gradient ≤40 mm Hg, aortic valve area <1.0 cm(2), left ventricular ejection fraction <50%) were analyzed. LEF-LG patients were dichotomized into ≤mild MR (n=52) and ≥moderate MR (n=61). Primary end point was all-cause mortality at 1 year. No differences in mortality were observed at 30 days (P=0.76). At 1 year, LEF-LG patients with ≥moderate MR had an adjusted 3-fold higher rate of all-cause mortality (11.5% versus 38.1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 3.27 [95% confidence interval, 1.31-8.15]; P=0.011), as compared with LEF-LG patients with ≤mild MR. Mortality was mainly driven by cardiac death (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.62; P=0.005). As compared with LEF-LG patients with ≥moderate MR assigned to medical therapy, LEF-LG patients with ≥moderate MR undergoing TAVI had significantly lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.019-0.75) at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS Moderate or severe MR is a strong independent predictor of late mortality in LEF-LG patients undergoing TAVI. However, LEF-LG patients assigned to medical therapy have a dismal prognosis independent of MR severity suggesting that TAVI should not be withheld from symptomatic patients with LEF-LG severe aortic stenosis even in the presence of moderate or severe MR.

Procedural and mid-term results in patients with aortic stenosis treated with implantation of 2 (in-series) CoreValve prostheses in 1 procedure

This study sought to assess post-procedural and mid-term outcome of patients, in which a second "in-series" CoreValve prosthesis (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) was implanted during the same procedure.

Gender differences in clinical presentation and surgical outcome of aortic stenosis

Little is known about the gender differences of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) for isolated severe aortic stenosis.

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.

Atrial fibrillation and aortic stenosis: impact on clinical outcomes among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an important risk factor for stroke and is common among elderly patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of AF on clinical outcomes among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Secondary stroke prevention: patent foramen ovale, aortic plaque, and carotid stenosis

Stroke is the most debilitating cardiovascular event. It has a variety of causes that may be present simultaneously. In young or otherwise healthy people, the search for a patent foramen ovale (PFO) has become standard. In stroke of the elderly, atherosclerosis and atrial fibrillation are in the foreground but the PFO should not be ignored. The risk of a PFO-related stroke over time is controversial and so is its prevention by device closure. The association of proximal aortic plaques in arteries subtending the brain and stroke is considered strong, ignoring that it is as putative as that of the PFO. Statins can prevent progression of such plaques. Antiplatelet agents in asymptomatic and surgical endarterectomy in symptomatic patients or highly ulcerated lesions are the treatment of choice. Stenting with protection devices was shown competitive in selected patients.

Impact of left ventricular hypertrophy late after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality

AIMS: The goal of this study was to assess the prevalence of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy in patients with aortic stenosis late (>6 months) after aortic valve replacement and its impact on cardiac-related morbidity and mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a single tertiary centre, echocardiographic data of LV muscle mass were collected. Detailed information of medical history and angiographic data were gathered. Ninety-nine of 213 patients (46%) had LV hypertrophy late (mean 5.8 +/- 5.4 years) after aortic valve replacement. LV hypertrophy was associated with impaired exercise capacity, higher New York Heart Association dyspnoea class, a tendency for more frequent chest pain expressed as higher Canadian Cardiovascular Society class, and more rehospitalizations. 24% of patients with normal LV mass vs. 39% of patients with LV hypertrophy reported cardiac-related morbidity (p = 0.04). In a multivariate logistic regression model, LV hypertrophy was an independent predictor of cardiac-related morbidity (odds ratio 2.31, 95% CI 1.08 to 5.41), after correction for gender, baseline ejection fraction, and coronary artery disease and its risk factors. Thirty seven deaths occurred during a total of 1959 patient years of follow-up (mean follow-up 9.6 years). Age at aortic valve replacement (hazard ratio 1.85, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.47, for every 5 years increase in age), coexisting coronary artery disease at the time of surgery (hazard ratio 3.36, 95% CI 1.31 to 8.62), and smoking (hazard ratio 4.82, 95% CI 1.72 to 13.45) were independent predictors of overall mortality late after surgery, but not LV hypertrophy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with aortic valve replacement for isolated aortic stenosis, LV hypertrophy late after surgery is associated with increased morbidity.

Percutaneous aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis in high-risk patients using the second- and current third-generation self-expanding CoreValve prosthesis: device success and 30-day clinical outcome

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine both the procedural performance and safety of percutaneous implantation of the second (21-French [F])- and third (18-F)-generation CoreValve aortic valve prosthesis (CoreValve Inc., Irvine, California). BACKGROUND: Percutaneous aortic valve replacement represents an emerging alternative therapy for high-risk and inoperable patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. METHODS: Patients with: 1) symptomatic, severe aortic valve stenosis (area <1 cm2); 2) age > or =80 years with a logistic EuroSCORE > or =20% (21-F group) or age > or =75 years with a logistic EuroSCORE > or =15% (18-F group); or 3) age > or =65 years plus additional prespecified risk factors were included. Introduction of the 18-F device enabled the transition from a multidisciplinary approach involving general anesthesia, surgical cut-down, and cardiopulmonary bypass to a truly percutaneous approach under local anesthesia without hemodynamic support. RESULTS: A total of 86 patients (21-F, n = 50; 18-F, n = 36) with a mean valve area of 0.66 +/- 0.19 cm2 (21-F) and 0.54 +/- 0.15 cm2 (18-F), a mean age of 81.3 +/- 5.2 years (21-F) and 83.4 +/- 6.7 years (18-F), and a mean logistic EuroSCORE of 23.4 +/- 13.5% (21-F) and 19.1 +/- 11.1% (18-F) were recruited. Acute device success was 88%. Successful device implantation resulted in a marked reduction of aortic transvalvular gradients (mean pre 43.7 mm Hg vs. post 9.0 mm Hg, p < 0.001) with aortic regurgitation grade remaining unchanged. Acute procedural success rate was 74% (21-F: 78%; 18-F: 69%). Procedural mortality was 6%. Overall 30-day mortality rate was 12%; the combined rate of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction was 22%. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of severe aortic valve stenosis in high-risk patients with percutaneous implantation of the CoreValve prosthesis is feasible and associated with a lower mortality rate than predicted by risk algorithms.

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.

Coronary artery disease severity and aortic stenosis: clinical outcomes according to SYNTAX score in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

AIM The aim of this study was to evaluate whether coronary artery disease (CAD) severity exerts a gradient of risk in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 445 patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI were included into a prospective registry between 2007 and 2012. The preoperative SYNTAX score (SS) was determined from baseline coronary angiograms. In case of revascularization prior to TAVI, residual SS (rSS) was also determined. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients without CAD (n = 158), patients with low SS (0-22, n = 207), and patients with high SS (SS >22, n = 80). The pre-specified primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI). At 1 year, CAD severity was associated with higher rates of the primary endpoint (no CAD: 12.5%, low SS: 16.1%, high SS: 29.6%; P = 0.016). This was driven by differences in cardiovascular mortality (no CAD: 8.6%, low SS: 13.6%, high SS: 20.4%; P = 0.029), whereas the risk of stroke (no CAD: 5.1%, low SS: 3.3%, high SS: 6.7%; P = 0.79) and MI (no CAD: 1.5%, low SS: 1.1%, high SS: 4.0%; P = 0.54) was similar across the three groups. Patients with high SS received less complete revascularization as indicated by a higher rSS (21.2 ± 12.0 vs. 4.0 ± 4.4, P < 0.001) compared with patients with low SS. High rSS tertile (>14) was associated with higher rates of the primary endpoint at 1 year (no CAD: 12.5%, low rSS: 16.5%, high rSS: 26.3%, P = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS Severity of CAD appears to be associated with impaired clinical outcomes at 1 year after TAVI. Patients with SS >22 receive less complete revascularization and have a higher risk of cardiovascular death, stroke, or MI than patients without CAD or low SS.