Effect of B-type Natriuretic Peptides on Long-Term Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels are elevated in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and decrease acutely after replacement of the stenotic valve. The long-term prognostic value of BNP after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and the relative prognostic utility of single versus serial peri-interventional measurements of BNP and N-terminal prohormone BNP (NT-pro-BNP) are unknown. This study sought to determine the impact of BNP levels on long-term outcomes after TAVI and to compare the utility of BNP versus NT-pro-BNP measured before and after intervention. We analyzed 340 patients with severe AS and baseline pre-TAVI assessment of BNP. In 219 patients, BNP and NT-pro-BNP were measured serially before and after intervention. Clinical outcomes over 2 years were recorded. Patients with high baseline BNP (higher tertile ≥591 pg/ml) had increased risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 3.16, 95% confidence interval 1.84 to 5.42; p <0.001) and cardiovascular death at 2 years (adjusted hazard ratio 3.37, 95% confidence interval 1.78 to 6.39; p <0.001). Outcomes were most unfavorable in patients with persistently high BNP before and after intervention. Comparing the 2 biomarkers, NT-pro-BNP levels measured after TAVI showed the highest prognostic discrimination for 2-year mortality (area under the curve 0.75; p <0.01). Baseline-to-discharge reduction, but not baseline levels of BNP, was related to New York Heart Association functional improvement. In conclusion, high preintervention BNP independently predicts 2-year outcomes after TAVI, particularly when elevated levels persist after the intervention. BNP and NT-pro-BNP and their serial periprocedural changes provide complementary prognostic information for symptomatic improvement and survival.

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.

Transcarotid aortic valve-in-valve implantation for degenerated stentless aortic root conduits with severe regurgitation: a case series

OBJECTIVES Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is routinely performed via the transfemoral and the transapical route. Subclavian and direct aortic access are described alternatives for TAVI. Recently, the transcarotid approach has been shown to be feasible among patients with limited vascular access and severe native aortic valve stenosis. We aim to investigate the feasibility of transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation via the transcarotid access in patients with severe aortic regurgitation due to degenerated stentless Shelhigh conduits using the 29 mm Medtronic CoreValve bioprosthesis. METHODS Three patients with complex vascular anatomy undergoing transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation via the transcarotid route were enrolled in the study. The procedure was performed under general anaesthesia using surgical cut-down to facilitate vascular access. Immediate procedural results as well as echocardiographic and clinical outcomes after 30 days and 6 months of the follow-up were recorded and analysed. RESULTS All three patients underwent unproblematic TAVI and experienced dramatic improvement of symptoms. Mean transvalvular gradient was 3, 6 and 11 mmHg, respectively. Effective orifice area ranged between 1.7 and 2.2 cm(2). Only mild paravalvular regurgitation was detected by echocardiography after 30 days of the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS The transcarotid approach can be safely performed for valve-in-valve procedures using the Medtronic CoreValve in patients with limited vascular access. It enables accurate positioning and implantation of the prosthesis.

Changes in Left Ventricular Torsion Early Postoperatively After Aortic Valve Replacement and at Long-Term Follow-up.

OBJECTIVE In patients with aortic stenosis, left ventricular systolic torsion (pT) is increased to overcome excessive afterload. This study assessed left ventricular torsion before and immediately after surgical valve replacement and tested the instant effect of fluid loading. DESIGN Prospective, clinical single-center study. SETTING Intensive care unit of a university hospital. PARTICIPANTS 12 patients undergoing elective aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. INTERVENTIONS Echocardiography was performed on the day before surgery, within 18 hours after surgery including a fluid challenge, and after 2.5 years. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS pT decreased early postoperatively by 21.2% (23.4° ± 5.6° to 18.4° ± 6.9°; p = 0.012) and reached preoperative values at 2.5 years follow-up (24 ± 7). Peak diastolic untwisting velocity occurred later early postoperatively (13% ± 8% to 21% ± 9.4%; p = 0.019) and returned toward preoperative values at follow-up (10.2 ± 4.7°). The fluid challenge increased central venous pressure (8 ± 4 mmHg to 11 ± 4 mmHg; p = 0.003) and reduced peak systolic torsion velocity (138.7 ± 37.6/s to 121.3 ± 32/s; p = 0.032). pT decreased in 3 and increased in 8 patients after fluid loading. Patients whose pT increased had higher early mitral inflow velocity postoperatively (p = 0.04) than those with decreasing pT. Patients with reduced pT after fluid loading received more fluids (p = 0.04) and had a higher positive fluid balance during the intensive care unit stay (p = 0.03). Torsion after fluid loading correlated with total fluid input (p = 0.001) and cumulative fluid balance (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS pT decreased early after aortic valve replacement but remained elevated despite elimination of aortic stenosis. After 2.5 years, torsion had returned to preoperative levels.

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.

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.

Sutureless aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) has emerged as an innovative alternative for treatment of aortic stenosis. By avoiding the placement of sutures, this approach aims to reduce cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) duration and thereby improve surgical outcomes and facilitate a minimally invasive approach suitable for higher risk patients. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the safety and efficacy of SU-AVR approach in the current literature. METHODS Electronic searches were performed using six databases from their inception to January 2014. Relevant studies utilizing sutureless valves for aortic valve implantation were identified. Data were extracted and analyzed according to predefined clinical endpoints. RESULTS Twelve studies were identified for inclusion of qualitative and quantitative analyses, all of which were observational reports. The minimally invasive approach was used in 40.4% of included patients, while 22.8% underwent concomitant coronary bypass surgery. Pooled cross-clamp and CPB duration for isolated AVR was 56.7 and 46.5 minutes, respectively. Pooled 30-day and 1-year mortality rates were 2.1% and 4.9%, respectively, while the incidences of strokes (1.5%), valve degenerations (0.4%) and paravalvular leaks (PVL) (3.0%) were acceptable. CONCLUSIONS The evaluation of current observational evidence suggests that sutureless aortic valve implantation is a safe procedure associated with shorter cross-clamp and CPB duration, and comparable complication rates to the conventional approach in the short-term.

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.

Bivalirudin Versus Heparin Anticoagulation in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The Randomized BRAVO-3 Trial.

BACKGROUND Anticoagulation is required during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures. Although an optimal regimen has not been determined, heparin is mainly used. Direct thrombin inhibition with bivalirudin may be an effective alternative to heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in this setting. OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to determine whether bivalirudin offers an alternative to heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in patients undergoing TAVR. METHODS A total of 802 patients with aortic stenosis were randomized to undergo transfemoral TAVR with bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin during the procedure. The 2 primary endpoints were major bleeding within 48 h or before hospital discharge (whichever occurred first) and 30-day net adverse clinical events, defined as the combination of major adverse cardiovascular events (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and major bleeding. RESULTS Anticoagulation with bivalirudin versus heparin did not meet superiority because it did not result in significantly lower rates of major bleeding at 48 h (6.9% vs. 9.0%; relative risk: 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48 to 1.23; p = 0.27) or net adverse cardiovascular events at 30 days (14.4% vs. 16.1%; relative risk: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.24; risk difference: -1.72; 95% CI: -6.70 to 3.25; p = 0.50); regarding the latter, the prespecified noninferiority hypothesis was met (pnoninferiority < 0.01). Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events at 48 h were not significantly different (3.5% vs. 4.8%; relative risk: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.37 to 1.43; p = 0.35). At 48 h, the bivalirudin group had significantly fewer myocardial infarctions but more acute kidney injury events than the heparin group; at 30 days, these differences were no longer significant. CONCLUSIONS In this randomized trial of TAVR procedural pharmacotherapy, bivalirudin did not reduce rates of major bleeding at 48 h or net adverse cardiovascular events within 30 days compared with heparin. Although superiority was not shown, the noninferiority hypothesis was met with respect to the latter factor. Given the lower cost, heparin should remain the standard of care, and bivalirudin can be an alternative anticoagulant option in patients unable to receive heparin in TAVR. (International, Multi-center, Open-label, Randomized Controlled Trial in Patients Undergoing TAVR to Determine the Treatment Effect [Both Safety and Efficacy] of Using Bivalirudin Instead of UFH [BRAVO-2/3]; NCT01651780).

Post-Procedural Troponin Elevation and Clinical Outcomes Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

BACKGROUND Biomarkers of myocardial injury increase frequently during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The impact of postprocedural cardiac troponin (cTn) elevation on short-term outcomes remains controversial, and the association with long-term prognosis is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS We evaluated 577 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis treated with TAVI between 2007 and 2012. Myocardial injury, defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 as post-TAVI cardiac troponin T (cTnT) >15× the upper limit of normal, occurred in 338 patients (58.1%). In multivariate analyses, myocardial injury was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality at 30 days (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 8.77; 95% CI, 2.07-37.12; P=0.003) and remained a significant predictor at 2 years (adjusted HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.36-2.88; P<0.001). Higher cTnT cutoffs did not add incremental predictive value compared with the VARC-2-defined cutoff. Whereas myocardial injury occurred more frequently in patients with versus without coronary artery disease (CAD), the relative impact of cTnT elevation on 2-year mortality did not differ between patients without CAD (adjusted HR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.27-5.26; P=0.009) and those with CAD (adjusted HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.10-2.65; P=0.018; P for interaction=0.24). Mortality rates at 2 years were lowest in patients without CAD and no myocardial injury (11.6%) and highest in patients with complex CAD (SYNTAX score >22) and myocardial injury (41.1%). CONCLUSIONS VARC-2-defined cTnT elevation emerged as a strong, independent predictor of 30-day mortality and remained a modest, but significant, predictor throughout 2 years post-TAVI. The prognostic value of cTnT elevation was modified by the presence and complexity of underlying CAD with highest mortality risk observed in patients combining SYNTAX score >22 and evidence of myocardial injury.