Extent and distribution of calcification of both the aortic annulus and the left ventricular outflow tract predict aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Aims: We sought to analyse local distribution of aortic annulus and left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) calcification in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and its impact on aortic regurgitation (AR) immediately after device placement. Methods and results: A group of 177 patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing multislice computed tomography of the aortic root followed by TAVR were enrolled in this single-centre study. Annular and LVOT calcifications were assessed per cusp using a semi-quantitative grading system (0: none; 1 [mild]: small, non-protruding calcifications; 2 [moderate]: protruding [>1 mm] or extensive [>50% of cusp sector] calcifications; 3 [severe]: protruding and extensive calcifications). Any calcification of the annulus or LVOT was present in 107 (61%) and 63 (36%) patients, respectively. Prevalence of annulus/LVOT calcifications in the left coronary cusp was 42% and 25%, respectively, in the non-coronary cusp 28% and 13%, in the right coronary cusp 13% and 5%. AR grade 2 to 4 assessed by the method of Sellers immediately after TAVR device implantation was observed in 55 patients (31%). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that the overall annulus calcification (OR [95% CI] 1.48 [1.10-2.00]; p=0.0106), the overall LVOT calcification (1.93 [1.26-2.96]; p=0.0026), any moderate or severe LVOT calcification (5.37 [1.52-18.99]; p=0.0092), and asymmetric LVOT calcification were independent predictors of AR. Conclusions: Calcifications of the aortic annulus and LVOT are frequent in patients undergoing TAVR, and both the distribution and the severity of calcifications appear to be independent predictors of aortic regurgitation after device implantation. - See more at: http://www.pcronline.com/eurointervention/77th_issue/126/#sthash.Hzodgju5.dpuf

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease.

BACKGROUND Limited information exists describing the results of transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) replacement in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) disease (TAV-in-BAV). OBJECTIVES This study sought to evaluate clinical outcomes of a large cohort of patients undergoing TAV-in-BAV. METHODS We retrospectively collected baseline characteristics, procedural data, and clinical follow-up findings from 12 centers in Europe and Canada that had performed TAV-in-BAV. RESULTS A total of 139 patients underwent TAV-in-BAV with the balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve (THV) (n = 48) or self-expandable THV (n = 91) systems. Patient mean age and Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality scores were 78.0 ± 8.9 years and 4.9 ± 3.4%, respectively. BAV stenosis occurred in 65.5%, regurgitation in 0.7%, and mixed disease in 33.8% of patients. Incidence of type 0 BAV was 26.7%; type 1 BAV was 68.3%; and type 2 BAV was 5.0%. Multislice computed tomography (MSCT)-based TAV sizing was used in 63.5% of patients (77.1% balloon-expandable THV vs. 56.0% self-expandable THV, p = 0.02). Procedural mortality was 3.6%, with TAV embolization in 2.2% and conversion to surgery in 2.2%. The mean aortic gradient decreased from 48.7 ± 16.5 mm Hg to 11.4 ± 9.9 mm Hg (p < 0.0001). Post-implantation aortic regurgitation (AR) grade ≥2 occurred in 28.4% (19.6% balloon-expandable THV vs. 32.2% self-expandable THV, p = 0.11) but was prevalent in only 17.4% when MSCT-based TAV sizing was performed (16.7% balloon-expandable THV vs. 17.6% self-expandable THV, p = 0.99). MSCT sizing was associated with reduced AR on multivariate analysis (odds ratio [OR]: 0.19, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.08 to 0.45; p < 0.0001). Thirty-day device safety, success, and efficacy were noted in 79.1%, 89.9%, and 84.9% of patients, respectively. One-year mortality was 17.5%. Major vascular complications were associated with increased 1-year mortality (OR: 5.66, 95% CI: 1.21 to 26.43; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS TAV-in-BAV is feasible with encouraging short- and intermediate-term clinical outcomes. Importantly, a high incidence of post-implantation AR is observed, which appears to be mitigated by MSCT-based TAV sizing. Given the suboptimal echocardiographic results, further study is required to evaluate long-term efficacy.

Feasibility and outcomes of combined transcatheter aortic valve replacement with other structural heart interventions in a single session: a matched cohort study

Background Concurrent cardiac diseases are frequent among elderly patients and invite simultaneous treatment to ensure an overall favourable patient outcome. Aim To investigate the feasibility of combined single-session percutaneous cardiac interventions in the era of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Methods This prospective, case–control study included 10 consecutive patients treated with TAVI, left atrial appendage occlusion and percutaneous coronary interventions. Some in addition had patent foramen ovale or atrial septal defect closure in the same session. The patients were matched in a 1:10 manner with TAVI-only cases treated within the same time period at the same institution regarding their baseline factors. The outcome was validated according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) criteria. Results Procedural time (126±42 vs 83±40 min, p=0.0016), radiation time (34±8 vs 22±12 min, p=0.0001) and contrast dye (397±89 vs 250±105 mL, p<0.0001) were higher in the combined intervention group than in the TAVI-only group. Despite these drawbacks, no difference in the VARC endpoints was evident during the in-hospital period and after 30 days (VARC combined safety endpoint 32% for TAVI only and 20% for combined intervention, p=1.0). Conclusions Transcatheter treatment of combined cardiac diseases is feasible even in a single session in a high-volume centre with experienced operators.

Mitral valve replacement in patients under 65 years of age: mechanical or biological valves?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW There is controversy regarding the optimal choice of prosthetic valves in patients less than 65 years of age requiring mitral valve replacement (MVR). Recently, trends for valve replacement are moving towards biological prosthesis also in younger patients, which is justified by the fact that a later valve-in-valve procedure is feasible in the case of degeneration of the tissue valve. This strategy is increasingly recommended in aortic valve surgery but is questionable for MVR. The purpose of this review is to evaluate current guidelines and analyse evidence for biological MVR in patients under 65 years. RECENT FINDINGS There are differences between guidelines of the American Heart Association and those of the European Society of Cardiology concerning the choice of prostheses in patients undergoing MVR. Although the European Society of Cardiology recommends a mechanical mitral valve in patients under 65 years of age, the American Heart Association does not provide detailed advice for these patients. Mitral valve replacement with biological valves in patients under 65 years is associated with higher rates of reoperation due to structural valve deterioration. In addition, several studies showed a decreased survival after biological MVR. SUMMARY Evidence for biological MVR in patients less than 65 years without comorbidities or contraindication for oral anticoagulation does not exist. Recommendations for patients less than 65 years of age should not be blurred by current 'en-vogue' methods for promising but not yet proven valve-in-valve strategies.

Aortic valve replacement and concomitant procedures with the Perceval valve: results of European trials.

BACKGROUND The Perceval (Sorin Group, Milan, Italy) is a self-anchoring sutureless aortic valve prosthesis. We report the short- to midterm results of combined aortic valve replacement (AVR) with concomitant procedures in elderly patients undergoing operation as part of 3 consecutive prospective multicenter European studies. METHODS From April 2007 to February 2013, 243 patients (mean age, 79.7 ± 5.1 years; female patients, 61%; median EuroSCORE, 9%) underwent AVR with concomitant procedures. The concomitant procedures were coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (182 cases), septal myectomy (21 cases), CABG + other procedures (18 cases), and 22 other procedures. Primary and secondary end points included implant feasibility and safety (for mortality and morbidity) and efficacy (New York Heart Association [NYHA] class improvement and hemodynamic results) of the prosthesis at the different follow-up periods. Data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed for survival analysis. RESULTS Mean aortic cross-clamp and extracorporeal circulation (ECC) times were 50.7 ± 22.8 minutes and 78.9 ± 32.3 minutes, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was 2.1%. Mean postoperative gradient and effective orifice area were 10.1 ± 4.7 mm Hg and 1.5 ± 0.4 cm(2) and 8.9 ± 5.6 mm Hg and 1.6 ± 0.4 cm(2), respectively, at 1 year. There were early explantations, 4 of which resulted from paravalvular leaks. One additional valve explantation resulted from aortic root bleeding, probably caused by excessively extensive decalcification. In the late period, there was 1 mild paravalvular leak and no intravalvular insufficiency. No migration, dislodgement, or degeneration of the valve occurred during follow-up. Median follow-up was 444 days. CONCLUSIONS These trials confirm the safety and efficacy of the Perceval sutureless aortic valve, especially in elderly patients requiring AVR + concomitant procedures. In this patient group, sutureless valves may be advantageous compared to transcatheter valve implantations as concomitant procedures other than percutaneous coronary artery angioplasty are not always possible in the latter.

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.

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).