Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation and Morbidity and Mortality-Related Factors: a 5-Year Experience in Brazil

Abstract Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation has become an option for high-surgical-risk patients with aortic valve disease. Objective: To evaluate the in-hospital and one-year follow-up outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Methods: Prospective cohort study of transcatheter aortic valve implantation cases from July 2009 to February 2015. Analysis of clinical and procedural variables, correlating them with in-hospital and one-year mortality. Results: A total of 136 patients with a mean age of 83 years (80-87) underwent heart valve implantation; of these, 49% were women, 131 (96.3%) had aortic stenosis, one (0.7%) had aortic regurgitation and four (2.9%) had prosthetic valve dysfunction. NYHA functional class was III or IV in 129 cases (94.8%). The baseline orifice area was 0.67 ± 0.17 cm2 and the mean left ventricular-aortic pressure gradient was 47.3±18.2 mmHg, with an STS score of 9.3% (4.8%-22.3%). The prostheses implanted were self-expanding in 97% of cases. Perioperative mortality was 1.5%; 30-day mortality, 5.9%; in-hospital mortality, 8.1%; and one-year mortality, 15.5%. Blood transfusion (relative risk of 54; p = 0.0003) and pulmonary arterial hypertension (relative risk of 5.3; p = 0.036) were predictive of in-hospital mortality. Peak C-reactive protein (relative risk of 1.8; p = 0.013) and blood transfusion (relative risk of 8.3; p = 0.0009) were predictive of 1-year mortality. At 30 days, 97% of patients were in NYHA functional class I/II; at one year, this figure reached 96%. Conclusion: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation was performed with a high success rate and low mortality. Blood transfusion was associated with higher in-hospital and one-year mortality. Peak C-reactive protein was associated with one-year mortality.

Primary isolated aortic valve surgery in octogenarians.

We reviewed our surgery registry, to identify predictive risk factors for operative results, and to analyse the long-term survival outcome in octogenarians operated for primary isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR). A total of 124 consecutive octogenarians underwent open AVR from January 1990 to December 2005. Combined procedures and redo surgery were excluded. Selected variables were studied as risk factors for hospital mortality and early neurological events. A follow-up (FU; mean FU time: 77 months) was obtained (90% complete), and Kaplan-Meier plots were used to determine survival rates. The mean age was 82+/-2.2 (range: 80-90 years; 63% females). Of the group, four patients (3%) required urgent procedures, 10 (8%) had a previous myocardial infarction, six (5%) had a previous coronary angioplasty and stenting, 13 patients (10%) suffered from angina and 59 (48%) were in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III-IV. We identified 114 (92%) degenerative stenosis, six (5%) post-rheumatic stenosis and four (3%) active endocarditis. The predicted mortality calculated by logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) was 12.6+/-5.7%, and the observed hospital mortality was 5.6%. Causes of death included severe cardiac failure (four patients), multi-organ failure (two) and sepsis (one). Complications were transitory neurological events in three patients (2%), short-term haemodialysis in three (2%), atrial fibrillation in 60 (48%) and six patients were re-operated for bleeding. Atrio-ventricular block, myocardial infarction or permanent stroke was not detected. The age at surgery and the postoperative renal failure were predictors for hospital mortality (p value <0.05), whereas we did not find predictors for neurological events. The mean FU time was 77 months (6.5 years) and the mean age of surviving patients was 87+/-4 years (81-95 years). The actuarial survival estimates at 5 and 10 years were 88% and 50%, respectively. Our experience shows good short-term results after primary isolated standard AVR in patients more than 80 years of age. The FU suggests that aortic valve surgery in octogenarians guarantees satisfactory long-term survival rates and a good quality of life, free from cardiac re-operations. In the era of catheter-based aortic valve implantation, open-heart surgery for AVR remains the standard of care for healthy octogenarians.

A fully echo-guided trans-apical aortic valve implantation.

The trans-apical aortic valve implantation (TA-AVI) is an established technique for high-risk patients requiring aortic valve replacement. Traditionally, preoperative (computed tomography (CT) scan, coronary angiogram) and intra-operative imaging (fluoroscopy) for stent-valve positioning and implantation require contrast medium injections. To preserve the renal function in elderly patients suffering from chronic renal insufficiency, a fully echo-guided trans-catheter valve implantation seems to be a reasonable alternative. We report the first successful TA-AVI procedure performed solely under trans-oesophageal echocardiogram control, in the absence of contrast medium injections.

Misdeployment of Edwards Sapien Valve in Transfemoral Aortic Valve Implantation Due to Iatrogenic Endarterectomy

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is an expanding procedure thus far restricted to a target population of old and high-comorbidity patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. The need for bulky devices (up to 24F) combined with the high prevalence of peripheral vascular disease in these patients explains the increased risk of vascular complications in transfemoral Edwards Sapien (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, Calif) transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedures, with a rate of 20% for the transfemoral arm of either the Placement of AoRTic traNscathetER valves in the European Union (PARTNER EU) trial or the SOURCE Registry.1,2

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: Results from the global valve-in-valve registry.

BACKGROUND Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation is an emerging therapeutic alternative for patients with a failed surgical bioprosthesis and may obviate the need for reoperation. We evaluated the clinical results of this technique using a large, worldwide registry. METHODS AND RESULTS The Global Valve-in-Valve Registry included 202 patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves (aged 77.7±10.4 years; 52.5% men) from 38 cardiac centers. Bioprosthesis mode of failure was stenosis (n=85; 42%), regurgitation (n=68; 34%), or combined stenosis and regurgitation (n=49; 24%). Implanted devices included CoreValve (n=124) and Edwards SAPIEN (n=78). Procedural success was achieved in 93.1% of cases. Adverse procedural outcomes included initial device malposition in 15.3% of cases and ostial coronary obstruction in 3.5%. After the procedure, valve maximum/mean gradients were 28.4±14.1/15.9±8.6 mm Hg, and 95% of patients had ≤+1 degree of aortic regurgitation. At 30-day follow-up, all-cause mortality was 8.4%, and 84.1% of patients were at New York Heart Association functional class I/II. One-year follow-up was obtained in 87 patients, with 85.8% survival of treated patients. CONCLUSIONS The valve-in-valve procedure is clinically effective in the vast majority of patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves. Safety and efficacy concerns include device malposition, ostial coronary obstruction, and high gradients after the procedure.

Transapical aortic valve replacement through a chronic apical aneurysm.

Transapical aortic valve replacement through an apical aneurysm is traditionally contraindicated because of the risk of severe systemic embolization when thrombi are present. However, a chronic fibrotic aneurysm without apical thrombi carries a low risk of distal embolization and can be safely employed for a transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement in case of absence of an alternative access site (severe vascular disease, small vascular sizes and diseased calcified aorta). We illustrate our experience with a 73-year-old patient suffering from symptomatic aortic valve stenosis, coronary artery disease with occluded left anterior descending artery, left ventricular apical aneurysm and severe peripheral vascular disease, who successfully underwent a transapical 26 mm Sapien? XT stent-valve implantation through the fibrotic thin akinetic apical wall.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in very elderly patients: immediate results and medium term follow-up.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate immediate transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) results and medium-term follow-up in very elderly patients with severe and symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS This multicenter, observational and prospective study was carried out in three hospitals. We included consecutive very elderly (> 85 years) patients with severe AS treated by TAVI. The primary endpoint was to evaluate death rates from any cause at two years. RESULTS The study included 160 consecutive patients with a mean age of 87 ± 2.1 years (range from 85 to 94 years) and a mean logistic EuroSCORE of 18.8% ± 11.2% with 57 (35.6%) patients scoring ≥ 20%. Procedural success rate was 97.5%, with 25 (15.6%) patients experiencing acute complications with major bleeding (the most frequent). Global mortality rate during hospitalization was 8.8% (n = 14) and 30-day mortality rate was 10% (n = 16). Median follow up period was 252.24 ± 232.17 days. During the follow-up period, 28 (17.5%) patients died (17 of them due to cardiac causes). The estimated two year overall and cardiac survival rates using the Kaplan-Meier method were 71% and 86.4%, respectively. Cox proportional hazard regression showed that the variable EuroSCORE ≥ 20 was the unique variable associated with overall mortality. CONCLUSIONS TAVI is safe and effective in a selected population of very elderly patients. Our findings support the adoption of this new procedure in this complex group of patients.

Feasibility of transapical aortic valve replacement through a left ventricular apical diverticulum.

ABSTRACT: Transapical aortic valve replacement is an established technique performed in high-risk patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis and vascular disease contraindicating trans-vascular and trans-aortic procedures. The presence of a left ventricular apical diverticulum is a rare event and the treatment depends on dimensions and estimated risk of embolisation, rupture, or onset of ventricular arrhythmias. The diagnosis is based on standard cardiac imaging and symptoms are very rare. In this case report we illustrate our experience with a 81 years old female patient suffering from symptomatic aortic valve stenosis, respiratory disease, chronic renal failure and severe peripheral vascular disease (logistic euroscore: 42%), who successfully underwent a transapical 23 mm balloon-expandable stent-valve implantation through an apical diverticulum of the left ventricle. Intra-luminal thrombi were absent and during the same procedure were able to treat the valve disease and to successfully exclude the apical diverticulum without complications and through a mini thoracotomy. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that a transapical procedure is successfully performed through an apical diverticulum.

Transapical aortic 'valve-in-valve' procedure for degenerated stented bioprosthesis.

Standard surgical aortic valve replacement with a biological prosthesis remains the treatment of choice for low- and mid-risk elderly patients (traditionally >65 years of age) suffering from severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis or insufficiency, and for young patients with formal contraindications to long-lasting anticoagulation. Unfortunately, despite the fact that several technical improvements have noticeably improved the resistance of pericardial and bovine bioprostheses to leaflet calcifications and ruptures, the risk of early valve failure with rapid degeneration still exists, especially for patients under haemodialysis and for patients <60 years of age at the time of surgery. Until now, redo open heart surgery under cardiopulmonary bypass and on cardioplegic arrest was the only available therapeutic option in case of bioprosthesis degeneration, but it carried a higher surgical risk when elderly patients with severe concomitant comorbidities were concerned. Since a few years, the advent of new transcatheter aortic valve procedures has opened new horizons in cardiac surgery and, in particular, the possibility of implanting stented valves within the degenerated stented bioprosthesis, the so-called 'valve-in-valve' (VinV) concept, has become a clinical practice in experienced cardiac centres. The VinV procedure represents a minimally invasive approach dedicated to high-risk redo patients, and published preliminary reports have shown a success rate of 100% with absence of significant valvular leaks, acceptable transvalvular gradients and low complication rate. However, this procedure is not riskless and the most important concerns are about the size mismatch and the right positioning within the degenerated bioprosthesis. In this article, we review the limited available literature about VinV procedures, underline important technical details for the positioning and provide guidelines to prevent valve-prosthesis mismatch comparing the three sizes of the only commercially available transapical device, the Edwards Sapien, with the inner diameter of three of the most commonly used stented bioprostheses.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): state of the art techniques and future perspectives.

Transcatheter aortic valve therapies are the newest established techniques for the treatment of high risk patients affected by severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. The transapical approach requires a left anterolateral mini-thoracotomy, whereas the transfemoral method requires an adequate peripheral vascular access and can be performed fully percutaneously. Alternatively, the trans-subclavian access has been recently proposed as a third promising approach. Depending on the technique, the fine stent-valve positioning can be performed with or without contrast injections. The transapical echo-guided stent-valve implantation without angiography (the Lausanne technique) relies entirely on transoesophageal echocardiogramme imaging for the fine stent-valve positioning and it has been proved that this technique prevents the onset of postoperative contrast-related acute kidney failure. Recent published reports have shown good hospital outcomes and short-term results after transcatheter aortic valve implantation, but there are no proven advantages in using the transfemoral or the transapical technique. In particular, the transapical series have a higher mean logistic Euroscore of 27-35%, a procedural success rate above 95% and a mean 30-day mortality between 7.5 and 17.5%, whereas the transfemoral results show a lower logistic Euroscore of 23-25.5%, a procedural success rate above 90% and a 30-day mortality of 7-10.8%. Nevertheless, further clinical trials and long-term results are mandatory to confirm this positive trend. Future perspectives in transcatheter aortic valve therapies would be the development of intravascular devices for the ablation of the diseased valve leaflets and the launch of new stent-valves with improved haemodynamic, different sizes and smaller delivery systems.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in a lung transplant recipient.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is a feasible therapeutic option for selected patients with severe aortic stenosis and high or prohibitive risk for standard surgery. Lung transplant recipients are often considered high-risk patients for heart surgery because of their specific transplant-associated characteristics and comorbidities. We report a case of successful transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a lung transplant recipient with a symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, severe left ventricular dysfunction, and end-stage renal failure 9 years after bilateral lung transplantation.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves.

IMPORTANCE: Owing to a considerable shift toward bioprosthesis implantation rather than mechanical valves, it is expected that patients will increasingly present with degenerated bioprostheses in the next few years. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation is a less invasive approach for patients with structural valve deterioration; however, a comprehensive evaluation of survival after the procedure has not yet been performed. OBJECTIVE: To determine the survival of patients after transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation inside failed surgical bioprosthetic valves. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Correlates for survival were evaluated using a multinational valve-in-valve registry that included 459 patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves undergoing valve-in-valve implantation between 2007 and May 2013 in 55 centers (mean age, 77.6 [SD, 9.8] years; 56% men; median Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality prediction score, 9.8% [interquartile range, 7.7%-16%]). Surgical valves were classified as small (≤21 mm; 29.7%), intermediate (>21 and <25 mm; 39.3%), and large (≥25 mm; 31%). Implanted devices included both balloon- and self-expandable valves. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Survival, stroke, and New York Heart Association functional class. RESULTS: Modes of bioprosthesis failure were stenosis (n = 181 [39.4%]), regurgitation (n = 139 [30.3%]), and combined (n = 139 [30.3%]). The stenosis group had a higher percentage of small valves (37% vs 20.9% and 26.6% in the regurgitation and combined groups, respectively; P = .005). Within 1 month following valve-in-valve implantation, 35 (7.6%) patients died, 8 (1.7%) had major stroke, and 313 (92.6%) of surviving patients had good functional status (New York Heart Association class I/II). The overall 1-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 83.2% (95% CI, 80.8%-84.7%; 62 death events; 228 survivors). Patients in the stenosis group had worse 1-year survival (76.6%; 95% CI, 68.9%-83.1%; 34 deaths; 86 survivors) in comparison with the regurgitation group (91.2%; 95% CI, 85.7%-96.7%; 10 deaths; 76 survivors) and the combined group (83.9%; 95% CI, 76.8%-91%; 18 deaths; 66 survivors) (P = .01). Similarly, patients with small valves had worse 1-year survival (74.8% [95% CI, 66.2%-83.4%]; 27 deaths; 57 survivors) vs with intermediate-sized valves (81.8%; 95% CI, 75.3%-88.3%; 26 deaths; 92 survivors) and with large valves (93.3%; 95% CI, 85.7%-96.7%; 7 deaths; 73 survivors) (P = .001). Factors associated with mortality within 1 year included having small surgical bioprosthesis (≤21 mm; hazard ratio, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.14-3.67; P = .02) and baseline stenosis (vs regurgitation; hazard ratio, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.33-7.08; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this registry of patients who underwent transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves, overall 1-year survival was 83.2%. Survival was lower among patients with small bioprostheses and those with predominant surgical valve stenosis.