Clinical outcomes of patients with low-flow, low-gradient, severe aortic stenosis and either preserved or reduced ejection fraction undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

AIMS Our aim was to evaluate the invasive haemodynamic indices of high-risk symptomatic patients presenting with 'paradoxical' low-flow, low-gradient, severe aortic stenosis (AS) (PLF-LG) and low-flow, low-gradient severe AS (LEF-LG) and to compare clinical outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) among these challenging AS subgroups. METHODS AND RESULTS Of 534 symptomatic patients undergoing TAVI, 385 had a full pre-procedural right and left heart catheterization. A total of 208 patients had high-gradient severe AS [HGAS; mean gradient (MG) ���40 mmHg], 85 had PLF-LG [MG ��� 40 mmHg, indexed aortic valve area [iAVA] ���0.6 cm(2) m(-2), stroke volume index ���35 mL/m(2), ejection fraction (EF) ���50%], and 61 had LEF-LG (MG ��� 40 mmHg, iAVA ���0.6 cm(2) m(-2), EF ���40%). Compared with HGAS, PLF-LG and LEF-LG had higher systemic vascular resistances (HGAS: 1912 �� 654 vs. PLF-LG 2006 �� 586 vs. LEF-LG 2216 �� 765 dyne s m(-5), P = 0.007) but lower valvulo-arterial impedances (HGAS: 7.8 �� 2.7 vs. PLF-LG 6.9 �� 1.9 vs. LEF-LG 7.7 �� 2.5 mmHg mL(-1) m(-2), P = 0.027). At 30 days, no differences in cardiac death (6.5 vs. 4.9 vs. 6.6%, P = 0.90) or death (8.4 vs. 6.1 vs. 6.6%, P = 0.88) were observed among HGAS, PLF-LG, and LEF-LG groups, respectively. At 1 year, New York Heart Association functional improvement occurred in most surviving patients (HGAS: 69.2% vs. PLF-LG 71.7% vs. LEF-LG 89.3%, P = 0.09) and no significant differences in overall mortality were observed (17.6 vs. 20.5 vs. 24.5%, P = 0.67). Compared with HGAS, LEF-LG had a higher 1 year cardiac mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 2.45, 95% confidence interval 1.04-5.75, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION TAVI in PLF-LG or LEF-LG patients is associated with overall mortality rates comparable with HGAS patients and all groups profit symptomatically to a similar extent.

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.