Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: prevention and management of complications

Assessment of elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis and decisions in terms of management strategy (conservative with or without balloon aortic valvuloplasty, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement) are complex and warrant a multidisciplinary approach involving collaboration between experienced cardiac surgeons, interventional cardiologists, cardiac imaging specialists, anaesthesiologists, geriatricians and a specialised nursing staff. Patient history, comorbid conditions, perioperative risk stratification as well as anatomical and procedural considerations require careful review on an individual, case-by-case basis and have a major impact on treatment allocation. The aims of this article are to provide insights into the fundamental role of appropriate patient screening and selection, and to review the nature, management and prevention of the most important procedural complications associated with the TAVI procedure.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the procedure

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for the treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis has emerged as an effective treatment for high risk patients. In 2002 TAVI was performed for the first time in a human by Alain Cribier, using an antegrade access approach via the femoral vein, crossing the intra-atrial septum after puncture and passing the native aortic valve in the direction of blood flow. This technically demanding approach was subsequently replaced by retrograde transfemoral arterial access. For patients with severe peripheral vascular disease or inadequately sized femoral arteries, the transapical route provides an alternative route with antegrade access to the aortic valve via puncture of the anterolateral wall of the left ventricle. The transsubclavian access approach using most frequently the left subclavian artery and direct transaortic access have been introduced more recently and attest to the versatility of TAVI in terms of access site. This article will focus on the different access site options available to operators, provide a step-by-step guide through the procedure, and a detailed description of the technological evolution of transcatheter heart valve systems.

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.

Procedural and 30-day outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the third generation (18 Fr) corevalve revalving system: results from the multicentre, expanded evaluation registry 1-year following CE mark approval

AIMS: To describe the procedural performance and 30-day outcomes following implantation using the 18 Fr CoreValve Revalving System (CRS) as part of the multicentre, expanded evaluation registry, 1-year after obtaining CE mark approval. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and logistic Euroscore > or =15%, or age > or =75 years, or age > or =65 years associated with pre-defined risk factors, and for whom a physician proctor and a clinical specialist were in attendance during the implantation and who collected the clinical data, were included. From April 2007, to April 2008, 646 patients with a mean age of 81 +/- 6.6 years, mean aortic valve area 0.6 +/- 0.2 cm2, and logistic EuroSCORE of 23.1 +/- 13.8% were recruited. After valve implantation, the mean transaortic valve gradient decreased from 49.4 +/- 13.9 to 3 +/- 2 mmHg. All patients had paravalvular aortic regurgitation < or = grade 2. The rate of procedural success was 97%. The procedural mortality rate was 1.5%. At 30 days, the all-cause mortality rate (i.e, including procedural) was 8% and the combined rate of death, stroke and myocardial infarction was 9.3%. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate the high rate of procedural success and a low 30-day mortality in a large cohort of high-risk patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the CRS.

Clinical and hemodynamic predictors of natriuretic peptide elevation among aortic valve disease patients

We investigated the relative contribution of hemodynamic and clinical factors to serum natriuretic peptide elevation in seventy-one patients with either aortic stenosis or aortic regurgitation. We found that pulmonary hypertension, heart failure and renal failure are the most powerful independent predictors of natriuretic peptide elevation in patients with aortic valve disease, irrespective of the type or severity of valvular lesion itself.

Impact of B-type natriuretic peptide on short-term clinical outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Aims: We aimed to assess the impact of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) on short-term outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Methods and results: Of 500 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI at our institution, we studied 340 patients who had a BNP assessment prior to TAVI. Patients were divided into tertiles - low: BNP ≤201 pg/mL (n=114), mid: BNP 202-595 pg/mL (n=113) and high: BNP ≥596 pg/mL (n=113). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, cardiac death and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; death, major stroke and myocardial infarction) at 30 days. Compared with low tertile, high tertile patients were at higher baseline surgical risk (STS score 5.5±3.0 vs. 7.4±4.1, p=0.002). On echocardiography, high tertile patients had smaller valve areas (0.74±0.21 vs. 0.66±0.23 cm2, p=0.008), higher left ventricular (LV) mass indices (123.40±33.66 vs. 168.22±47.96 g/m2, p<0.001) and lower LV ejection fractions (61.59±7.18 vs. 42.65±15.41%, p<0.001) as compared with low tertile patients. At 30 days, a significantly higher incidence of death (hazard ratio [HR] 7.41, p=0.001) cardiac death (HR 5.82, p=0.006) and MACCE (HR 9.04, p<0.001) was observed among high as compared to low tertile patients. Conclusions: In TAVI patients, higher BNP values at baseline are associated with an increased risk for an adverse event periprocedurally and after 30 days, respectively.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in Europe: adoption trends and factors influencing device utilization

OBJECTIVES The authors sought to examine the adoption of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in Western Europe and investigate factors that may influence the heterogeneous use of this therapy. BACKGROUND Since its commercialization in 2007, the number of TAVR procedures has grown exponentially. METHODS The adoption of TAVR was investigated in 11 European countries: Germany, France, Italy, United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, Portugal, Denmark, and Ireland. Data were collected from 2 sources: 1) lead physicians submitted nation-specific registry data; and 2) an implantation-based TAVR market tracker. Economic indexes such as healthcare expenditure per capita, sources of healthcare funding, and reimbursement strategies were correlated to TAVR use. Furthermore, we assessed the extent to which TAVR has penetrated its potential patient population. RESULTS Between 2007 and 2011, 34,317 patients underwent TAVR. Considerable variation in TAVR use existed across nations. In 2011, the number of TAVR implants per million individuals ranged from 6.1 in Portugal to 88.7 in Germany (33 ± 25). The annual number of TAVR implants performed per center across nations also varied widely (range 10 to 89). The weighted average TAVR penetration rate was low: 17.9%. Significant correlation was found between TAVR use and healthcare spending per capita (r = 0.80; p = 0.005). TAVR-specific reimbursement systems were associated with higher TAVR use than restricted systems (698 ± 232 vs. 213 ± 112 implants/million individuals ≥ 75 years; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS The authors' findings indicate that TAVR is underutilized in high and prohibitive surgical risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. National economic indexes and reimbursement strategies are closely linked with TAVR use and help explain the inequitable adoption of this therapy.

Future perspectives in transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) constitutes a relatively new treatment option for the patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Evidence from registries and randomized control trials has underscored the value of this treatment in inoperable and high risk populations, while new developments in valve technology and TAVR enabling devices have reduced the risk of complications, simplified the procedure, and broadened the applications of this therapy. The initial promising clinical results and the potential of an effective less invasive treatment of aortic stenosis has not only created high expectations but also the need to address the pitfalls of TAVR technology. The evolving knowledge concerning the groups of patients who would benefit from this treatment, the limited long term follow-up data, the concerns about devices' long term durability, and the severity of complications remain important caveats which restrict the widespread clinical adoption of TAVR. The aim of this review article is to present the recent advances, highlight the limitations of TAVR technology, and discuss the future perspectives in this rapidly evolving field.

Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document

OBJECTIVES The aim of the current Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 initiative was to revisit the selection and definitions of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) clinical endpoints to make them more suitable to the present and future needs of clinical trials. In addition, this document is intended to expand the understanding of patient risk stratification and case selection. BACKGROUND A recent study confirmed that VARC definitions have already been incorporated into clinical and research practice and represent a new standard for consistency in reporting clinical outcomes of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI. However, as the clinical experience with this technology has matured and expanded, certain definitions have become unsuitable or ambiguous. METHODS AND RESULTS Two in-person meetings (held in September 2011 in Washington, DC, and in February 2012 in Rotterdam, The Netherlands) involving VARC study group members, independent experts (including surgeons, interventional and noninterventional cardiologists, imaging specialists, neurologists, geriatric specialists, and clinical trialists), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives, provided much of the substantive discussion from which this VARC-2 consensus manuscript was derived. This document provides an overview of risk assessment and patient stratification that need to be considered for accurate patient inclusion in studies. Working groups were assigned to define the following clinical endpoints: mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding complications, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, conduction disturbances and arrhythmias, and a miscellaneous category including relevant complications not previously categorized. Furthermore, comprehensive echocardiographic recommendations are provided for the evaluation of prosthetic valve (dys)function. Definitions for the quality of life assessments are also reported. These endpoints formed the basis for several recommended composite endpoints. CONCLUSIONS This VARC-2 document has provided further standardization of endpoint definitions for studies evaluating the use of TAVI, which will lead to improved comparability and interpretability of the study results, supplying an increasingly growing body of evidence with respect to TAVI and/or surgical aortic valve replacement. This initiative and document can furthermore be used as a model during current endeavors of applying definitions to other transcatheter valve therapies (for example, mitral valve repair).

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: patient selection

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a disruptive technology as it satisfies a previously unmet need which is associated with a profound therapeutic benefit. In randomized clinical trials, TAVI has been shown to improve survival compared with medical treatment among patients considered not suitable candidates for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), and to provide similar outcomes as SAVR in selected high-risk patients. Currently, TAVI is limited to selected elderly patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. As this patient population frequently suffers from comorbid conditions, which may influence outcomes, the selection of patients to undergo TAVI underlies a complex decision process. Several clinical risk score algorithms are routinely used, although they fall short to fully appreciate the true risk among patients currently referred for TAVI. Beyond traditional risk scores, the clinical assessment by an interdisciplinary Heart Team as well as detailed imaging of the aortic valve, aortic root, descending and abdominal aorta as well as peripheral vasculature are important prerequisites to plan a successful procedure. This review will familiarize the reader with the concepts of the interdisciplinary Heart team, risk scores as well as the most important imaging algorithms suited to select appropriate TAVI patients.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the transfemoral access route is the default access

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a widely accepted alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) among non-operable patients or selected high-risk patients with degenerative, severe aortic stenosis. TAVI is considered less invasive when compared with SAVR; however, there remain significant differences between different TAVI access routes. The transfemoral approach is considered the least invasive access route, and can be performed as a fully percutaneous procedure in a spontaneously breathing patient under local anaesthesia and mild sedation only. Moreover, transfemoral TAVI patients are typically transferred to coronary care rather than to an intensive care unit after the procedure, and benefit from early ambulation and a reduction in overall length of hospital stay. Considering these patient-specific and health-economic advantages, several TAVI centres follow the least invasive strategy for their patients and have implemented the transfemoral access route as the default access in their institutions. This article provides an overview on the prerequisites for a successful transfemoral TAVI procedure, describes the procedural advantages compared to alternative access routes, and highlights differences in clinical outcomes.

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.

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.

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.