Short-term clinical outcomes among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation in Switzerland: the Swiss TAVI registry

Aims: To evaluate short-term clinical outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using CE-mark approved devices in Switzerland. Methods and results: The Swiss TAVI registry is a national, prospective, multicentre, monitored cohort study evaluating clinical outcomes in consecutive patients undergoing TAVI at cardiovascular centres in Switzerland. From February 2011 to March 2013, a total of 697 patients underwent TAVI for native aortic valve stenosis (98.1%), degenerative aortic bioprosthesis (1.6%) or severe aortic regurgitation (0.3%). Patients were elderly (82.4±6 years), 52% were females, and the majority highly symptomatic (73.1% NYHA III/IV). Patients with severe aortic stenosis (mean gradient 44.8±17 mmHg, aortic valve area 0.7±0.3 cm2) were either deemed inoperable or at high risk for conventional surgery (STS 8.2%±7). The transfemoral access was the most frequently used (79.1%), followed by transapical (18.1%), direct aortic (1.7%) and subclavian access (1.1%). At 30 days, rates of all-cause mortality, cerebrovascular events and myocardial infarction were 4.8%, 3.3% and 0.4%, respectively. The most frequently observed adverse events were access-related complications (11.8%), permanent pacemaker implantation (20.5%) and bleeding complications (16.6%). The Swiss TAVI registry is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01368250). Conclusions: The Swiss TAVI registry is a national cohort study evaluating consecutive TAVI procedures in Switzerland. This first outcome report provides favourable short-term clinical outcomes in unselected TAVI patients.

Predictors of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Undergoing TAVR

Background Atrioventricular (AV) conduction disturbances requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation may complicate transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Available evidence on predictors of PPM is sparse and derived from small studies. Objectives The objective of this study was to provide summary effect estimates for clinically useful predictors of PPM implantation after TAVR. Methods We performed a systematic search for studies that reported the incidence of PPM implantation after TAVR and that provided raw data for the predictors of interest. Data on study, patient, and procedural characteristics were abstracted. Crude risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals for each predictor were calculated by use of random effects models. Stratified analyses by type of implanted valve were performed. Results We obtained data from 41 studies that included 11,210 TAVR patients, of whom 17% required PPM implantation after intervention. The rate of PPM ranged from 2% to 51% in individual studies (with a median of 28% for the Medtronic CoreValve Revalving System [MCRS] and 6% for the Edwards SAPIEN valve [ESV]). The summary estimates indicated increased risk of PPM after TAVR for men (RR: 1.23; p < 0.01); for patients with first-degree AV block (RR: 1.52; p < 0.01), left anterior hemiblock (RR: 1.62; p < 0.01), or right bundle branch block (RR: 2.89; p < 0.01) at baseline; and for patients with intraprocedural AV block (RR: 3.49; p < 0.01). These variables remained significant predictors when only patients treated with the MCRS bioprosthesis were considered. The data for ESV were limited. Unadjusted estimates indicated a 2.5-fold higher risk for PPM implantation for patients who received the MCRS than for those who received the ESV. Conclusions Male sex, baseline conduction disturbances, and intraprocedural AV block emerged as predictors of PPM implantation after TAVR. This study provides useful tools to identify high-risk patients and to guide clinical decision making before and after intervention.

Local and general anaesthesia do not influence outcome of transfemoral aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND There is great variability for the type of anaesthesia used during TAVI, with no clear consensus coming from comparative studies or guidelines. We sought to detect regional differences in the anaesthetic management of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in Europe and to evaluate the relationship between type of anaesthesia and in-hospital and 1year outcome. METHODS Between January 2011 and May 2012 the Sentinel European TAVI Pilot Registry enrolled 2807 patients treated via a transfemoral approach using either local (LA-group, 1095 patients, 39%) or general anaesthesia (GA-group, 1712 patients, 61%). RESULTS A wide variation in LA use was evident amongst the 10 participating countries. The use of LA has increased over time (from a mean of 37.5% of procedures in the first year, to 57% in last 6months, p<0.01). MI, major stroke as well as in-hospital death rate (7.0% LA vs 5.3% GA, p=0.053) had a similar incidence between groups, confirmed in multivariate regression analysis after adjusting for confounders. Dividing our population in tertiles according to the Log-EuroSCORE we found similar mortality under LA, whilst mortality was higher in the highest risk tertile under GA. Survival at 1year, compared by Kaplan-Meier analysis, was similar between groups (log-rank: p=0.1505). CONCLUSIONS Selection of anaesthesia appears to be more influenced by national practice and operator preference than patient characteristics. In the absence of an observed difference in outcomes for either approach, there is no compelling argument to suggest that operators and centres should change their anaesthetic practice.

Assessment of low-flow, low-gradient, severe aortic stenosis: an invasive evaluation is required for decision making.

Low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis (AS) is characterised by a small aortic valve area (AVA) and low mean gradient (MG) secondary to a low cardiac output and may occur in patients with either a preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Symptomatic patients presenting with low-flow, low-gradient severe AS have a dismal prognosis independent of baseline LVEF if managed conservatively and should therefore undergo aortic valve replacement if feasible. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is the first-line investigation for the assessment of AS haemodynamic severity. However, when confronted with guideline-discordant AVA (small) and MG (low) values, there are several reasons other than severe AS combined with a low cardiac output which may lead to such a situation, including erroneous measurements, small body size, inherent inconsistencies in the guidelines' criteria, prolonged ejection time and aortic pseudostenosis. The distinction between these various entities poses a diagnostic challenge. However, it is important to make a distinction because each has very different implications in terms of risk stratification and therapeutic management. In such instances, cardiac catheterisation forms an integral part of the work-up of these patients in order to confirm or refute the echocardiographic findings to guide management decisions appropriately.

Open issues in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Part 2: procedural issues and outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

This article provides an overview on procedure-related issues and uncertainties in outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The different access sites and how to select them in an individual patient are discussed. Also, the occurrence and potential predictors of aortic regurgitation (AR) after TAVI are addressed. The different methods to quantify AR are reviewed, and it appears that accurate and reproducible quantification is suboptimal. Complications such as prosthesis-patient mismatch and conduction abnormalities (and need for permanent pacemaker) are discussed, as well as cerebrovascular events, which emphasize the development of optimal anti-coagulative strategies. Finally, recent registries have shown the adoption of TAVI in the real world, but longer follow-up studies are needed to evaluate the outcome (but also prosthesis durability). Additionally, future studies are briefly discussed, which will address the use of TAVI in pure AR and lower-risk patients.

Open issues in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Part 1: patient selection and treatment strategy for transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

An exponential increase in the use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with severe aortic stenosis has been witnessed over the recent years. The current article reviews different areas of uncertainty related to patient selection. The use and limitations of risk scores are addressed, followed by an extensive discussion on the value of three-dimensional imaging for prosthesis sizing and the assessment of complex valve anatomy such as degenerated bicuspid valves. The uncertainty about valvular stenosis severity in patients with a mismatch between the transvalvular gradient and the aortic valve area, and how integrated use of echocardiography and computed tomographic imaging may help, is also addressed. Finally, patients referred for TAVI may have concomitant mitral regurgitation and/or coronary artery disease and the management of these patients is discussed.

Pitfalls and premature failure of the Freedom SOLO stentless valve.

OBJECTIVES This study reports a series of pitfalls, premature failures and explantations of the third-generation Freedom SOLO (FS) bovine pericardial stentless valve. METHODS A total of 149 patients underwent aortic valve replacement using the FS. Follow-up was 100% complete with an average observation time of 5.5 ± 2.3 years (maximum 8.7 years) and a total of 825 patient-years. Following intraoperative documentation, all explanted valve prostheses underwent histological examination. RESULTS Freedom from structural valve deterioration (SVD) at 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 years was 92, 88, 80, 70 and 62%, respectively. Fourteen prostheses required explantation due to valve-independent dysfunction (n = 5; i.e. thrombus formation, oversizing, aortic dilatation, endocarditis and suture dehiscence) or valve-dependent failure (acute leaflet tears, n = 4 and severe stenosis, n = 5). Thus, freedom from explantation at 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 years was 95, 94, 91, 81 and 72%, respectively. An acute vertical tear along the non-coronary/right coronary commissure to the base occurred at a mean of 6.0 years (range 4.3-7.3 years) and affected size 25 and 27 prostheses exclusively. Four FS required explantation after a mean of 7.5 years (range 7.0-8.3 years) due to severe functional stenosis and gross calcification that included the entire aortic root. CONCLUSIONS The FS stentless valve is safe to implant and shows satisfying mid-term results in our single institution experience. Freedom from SVD and explantation decreased markedly after only 6-7 years, so that patients with FS require close observation and follow-up. Exact sizing, symmetric positioning and observing patient limitations are crucial for optimal outcome.

The Freedom SOLO bovine pericardial stentless valve: Single-center experience, outcome and long-term durability

Abstract Objectives We report our institutional experience and long-term results with the Sorin Freedom SOLO bovine pericardial stentless bioprosthesis. Methods Between January 2005 and November 2009, 149 patients (mean age 73.6±8.7 years, 68 [45.6%] female) underwent isolated (n=75) or combined (n=74) aortic valve replacement (AVR) using the SOLO in our institution. Follow-up was 100% complete with an average follow-up time of 5.9±2.6 years (maximum 9.6 years) and a total of 885.3 patient years. Results Operative (30-day) mortality was 2.7% (1.3% for isolated AVR [n=1] and 4.0% for combined procedures [n=3]). All causes of death were not valve-related. Preoperative peak (mean) gradients of 74.2±23.0 mmHg (48.6 ± 16.3 mmHg) decreased to 15.6±5.4 (8.8±3.0) after AVR, and remained low for up to 9 years. The postoperative effective orifice area (EOA) was 1.6 ±0.57 cm2, 1.90±0.45 cm2, 2.12±0.48 cm2 and 2.20±0.66 cm2 for the valve sizes 21, 23, 25 and 27, respectively; with absence of severe prosthesis-patient-mismatch (PPM) and 0.7% (n=1) moderate PPM. During follow-up, Twenty-six patients experienced structural valve deterioration (SVD) and 14 patients underwent explantation. Kaplan-Meier estimates for freedom from death, explantation and SVD at 9 years averaged 0.57 [0.47‒0.66], 0.82 [0.69‒0.90] and 0.70 [0.57‒0.79], respectively. Conclusions The Freedom SOLO stentless aortic valve is safe to implant and shows excellent early and mid-term hemodynamic performance. However, SVD was observed in a substantial number of patients after only 5 ̶ 6 years and the need for explantation increased markedly, suggesting low durability.

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.