Transcatheter aortic valve implantation or surgical aortic valve replacement as redo procedure after prior coronary artery bypass grafting

The perioperative risk for redo surgical aortic valve replacement (S-AVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis and prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is increased. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) represents an alternative. We assessed the perioperative and mid-term clinical outcome of patients undergoing S-AVR or TAVI.

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.

Atrioventricular conduction after transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement

Atrioventricular conduction abnormalities (AVCA) may complicate transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate AVCA after TAVI and SAVR.

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.

Costs of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers a new treatment option for patients with aortic stenosis, but costs may play a decisive role in decision making. Current studies are evaluating TAVR in an intermediate-risk population. We assessed the in-hospital and 1-year follow-up costs of patients undergoing TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) at intermediate operative risk and identified important cost components.

A 3-center comparison of 1-year mortality outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement on the basis of propensity score matching among intermediate-risk surgical patients

This study sought to compare all-cause mortality in patients at intermediate surgical risk undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

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.

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.

Safety and Use of Anticoagulation After Aortic Valve Replacement With Bioprostheses: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Cardiology guidelines recommend 3 months of anticoagulation after replacement of the aortic valve with a bioprosthesis. However, there remains great variability in the current clinical practice and conflicting results from clinical studies. To assist clinical decision making, we pooled the existing evidence to assess whether anticoagulation in the setting of a new bioprosthesis was associated with improved outcomes or greater risk of bleeding. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched the PubMed database from the inception of these databases until April 2015 to identify original studies (observational studies or clinical trials) that assessed anticoagulation with warfarin in comparison with either aspirin or no antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. We included the studies if their outcomes included thromboembolism or stroke/transient ischemic attacks and bleeding events. Quality assessment was performed in accordance with the Newland Ottawa Scale, and random effects analysis was used to pool the data from the available studies. I(2) testing was done to assess the heterogeneity of the included studies. After screening through 170 articles, a total of 13 studies (cases=6431; controls=18210) were included in the final analyses. The use of warfarin was associated with a significantly increased risk of overall bleeding (odds ratio, 1.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-3.08; P<0.0001) or bleeding risk at 3 months (odds ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-3.34; P<0.0001) compared with aspirin or placebo. With regard to composite primary outcome variables (risk of venous thromboembolism, stroke, or transient ischemic attack) at 3 months, no significant difference was seen with warfarin (odds ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.56; P=0.67). Moreover, anticoagulation was also not shown to improve outcomes at time interval >3 months (odds ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.58; P=0.79). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to the current guidelines, a meta-analysis of previous studies suggests that anticoagulation in the setting of an aortic bioprosthesis significantly increases bleeding risk without a favorable effect on thromboembolic events. Larger, randomized controlled studies should be performed to further guide this clinical practice.

Three-dimensional printing creates models for surgical planning of aortic valve replacement after previous coronary bypass grafting.

PURPOSE Resternotomy for aortic valve replacement in patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting and an internal mammary artery graft may be a surgical problem. Thus, we are exploring the effect of using rapid prototyping techniques for surgical planning and intraoperative orientation during aortic valve replacement after previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). DESCRIPTION As a proof of concept, we studied a patient who had undergone CABG 5 years earlier. At that time the patient received a left internal mammary artery graft to the left anterior descending artery and a venous graft to the right coronary artery. Now the patient required aortic valve replacement due to symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. The left internal mammary artery bypass and the right coronary artery bypass were patent and showed good flow in the angiography. The patient was examined by 128-slice computed tomography. The image data were visualized and reconstructed. Afterwards, a replica showing the anatomic structures was fabricated using a rapid prototyping machine. EVALUATION Using data derived from 128-slice computed tomography angiography linked to proprietary software, we were able to create three-dimensional reconstructions of the vascular anatomy after the previous CABG. The models were sterilized and taken to the operating theatre for orientation during the surgical procedure. CONCLUSIONS Stereolithographic replicas are helpful for choosing treatment strategies in surgical planning and for intraoperative orientation during reoperations of patients with previous CABG.

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.

Percutaneous aortic valve replacement for severe aortic regurgitation in degenerated bioprosthesis: the first valve in valve procedure using the Corevalve Revalving system

Percutaneous valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis has shown to be an alternative treatment option for non-surgical candidates. We report on the first successful valve in valve procedure in an 80-year-old patient with a severe regurgitation of a degenerated aortic bioprosthesis using the Corevalve Revalving system.

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.