Long-term outcome of elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis as a function of treatment modality

OBJECTIVE To assess long-term clinical outcomes of consecutive high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis according to treatment allocation to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or medical treatment (MT). METHODS Patients with severe aortic stenosis were consecutively enrolled into a prospective single centre registry. RESULTS Among 442 patients (median age 83 years, median STS-score 4.7) allocated to MT (n=78), SAVR (n=107), or TAVI (n=257) all-cause mortality amounted to 81%, 37% and 43% after a median duration of follow-up of 3.9 years (p<0.001). Rates of major adverse cerebro-cardiovascular events were lower in patients undergoing SAVR or TAVI as compared with MT (SAVR vs MT: HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.46) (TAVI vs MT: HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.46), with no significant difference between SAVR and TAVI (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.25). Whereas SAVR (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.61), TAVI (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.52), and female gender (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.99) were associated with improved survival, body mass index ≤20 kg/m(2) (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.47), diabetes (HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.12), peripheral vascular disease (HR 2.01, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.81), atrial fibrillation (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.37) and pulmonary hypertension (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.00) were identified as independent predictors of mortality. CONCLUSIONS Among high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, long-term clinical outcome through 5 years was comparable between patients allocated to SAVR or TAVI. In contrast, patients with MT had a dismal prognosis.

Active surveillance for rheumatic heart disease in endemic regions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence among children and adolescents

BACKGROUND Rheumatic heart disease accounts for up to 250 000 premature deaths every year worldwide and can be regarded as a physical manifestation of poverty and social inequality. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of rheumatic heart disease in endemic countries as assessed by different screening modalities and as a function of age. METHODS We searched Medline, Embase, the Latin American and Caribbean System on Health Sciences Information, African Journals Online, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for population-based studies published between Jan 1, 1993, and June 30, 2014, that reported on prevalence of rheumatic heart disease among children and adolescents (≥5 years to <18 years). We assessed prevalence of clinically silent and clinically manifest rheumatic heart disease in random effects meta-analyses according to screening modality and geographical region. We assessed the association between social inequality and rheumatic heart disease with the Gini coefficient. We used Poisson regression to analyse the effect of age on prevalence of rheumatic heart disease and estimated the incidence of rheumatic heart disease from prevalence data. FINDINGS We included 37 populations in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of rheumatic heart disease detected by cardiac auscultation was 2·9 per 1000 people (95% CI 1·7-5·0) and by echocardiography it was 12·9 per 1000 people (8·9-18·6), with substantial heterogeneity between individual reports for both screening modalities (I(2)=99·0% and 94·9%, respectively). We noted an association between social inequality expressed by the Gini coefficient and prevalence of rheumatic heart disease (p=0·0002). The prevalence of clinically silent rheumatic heart disease (21·1 per 1000 people, 95% CI 14·1-31·4) was about seven to eight times higher than that of clinically manifest disease (2·7 per 1000 people, 1·6-4·4). Prevalence progressively increased with advancing age, from 4·7 per 1000 people (95% CI 0·0-11·2) at age 5 years to 21·0 per 1000 people (6·8-35·1) at 16 years. The estimated incidence was 1·6 per 1000 people (0·8-2·3) and remained constant across age categories (range 2·5, 95% CI 1·3-3·7 in 5-year-old children to 1·7, 0·0-5·1 in 15-year-old adolescents). We noted no sex-related differences in prevalence (p=0·829). INTERPRETATION We found a high prevalence of rheumatic heart disease in endemic countries. Although a reduction in social inequalities represents the cornerstone of community-based prevention, the importance of early detection of silent rheumatic heart disease remains to be further assessed. FUNDING UBS Optimus Foundation.

Peter Klug und seine Nachbarn : ein Handbuch der ausübenden Landwirtschaft

von Johann Hirth

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.

Coronary revascularization and TAVI: before, during, after or never?

Aortic valve stenosis and coronary artery disease (CAD) frequently coexist in elderly patients selected for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Therapeutic strategies to manage concomitant obstructive CAD are therefore an important consideration in the overall management of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI. Conventional surgical aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting is the treatment of choice for low and intermediate risk patients with symptomatic severe AS and concomitant obstructive CAD. However, TAVI and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are viable alternative options for high-risk or inoperable patients presenting with symptomatic severe AS. PCI has been shown to be feasible and safe in selected high-risk or inoperable patients with symptomatic severe AS. However, the optimal timing of PCI relative to the TAVI procedure has been a subject of debate. The most frequent approch is staged PCI typically performed a few weeks prior to TAVI. However, concomitant PCI has also been shown to be a feasible and safe approach, particularly in patients with a low level of CAD complexity and an absence of severe renal impairment. Conversely, staged PCI should be considered in patients with higher degrees of CAD complexity, particularly in the presence of severe renal impairment. The aim of the present review is to discuss the safety and feasibility of performing PCI in elderly patients with severe AS and the optimal timing of PCI relative to the TAVI procedure using the most up-to-date available evidence.

Assessment of low-flow, low-gradient, severe aortic stenosis: an invasive evaluation is required for decision making.

Low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis (AS) is characterised by a small aortic valve area (AVA) and low mean gradient (MG) secondary to a low cardiac output and may occur in patients with either a preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Symptomatic patients presenting with low-flow, low-gradient severe AS have a dismal prognosis independent of baseline LVEF if managed conservatively and should therefore undergo aortic valve replacement if feasible. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is the first-line investigation for the assessment of AS haemodynamic severity. However, when confronted with guideline-discordant AVA (small) and MG (low) values, there are several reasons other than severe AS combined with a low cardiac output which may lead to such a situation, including erroneous measurements, small body size, inherent inconsistencies in the guidelines' criteria, prolonged ejection time and aortic pseudostenosis. The distinction between these various entities poses a diagnostic challenge. However, it is important to make a distinction because each has very different implications in terms of risk stratification and therapeutic management. In such instances, cardiac catheterisation forms an integral part of the work-up of these patients in order to confirm or refute the echocardiographic findings to guide management decisions appropriately.

Preinterventional screening of the TAVI patient: how to choose the suitable patient and the best procedure.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a novel therapy, which has transformed the management of inoperable patients presenting with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS). It is also a proven and less invasive alternative therapeutic option for high-risk symptomatic patients presenting with severe AS who are otherwise eligible for surgical aortic valve replacement. Patient age is not strictly a limitation for TAVI but since this procedure is currently restricted to high-risk and inoperable patients, it follows that most patients selected for TAVI are at an advanced age. Patient frailty and co-morbidities need to be assessed and a clinical judgment made on whether the patient will gain a measureable improvement in their quality of life. Risk stratification has assumed a central role in selecting suitable patients and surgical risk algorithms have proven helpful in this regard. However, limitations exist with these risk models, which must be understood in the context of TAVI. When making final treatment decisions, it is essential that a collaborative multidisciplinary "heart team" be involved and this is stressed in the most recent guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology. Choosing the best procedure is contingent upon anatomical feasibility, and multimodality imaging has emerged as an integral component of the pre-interventional screening process in this regard. The transfemoral route is now considered the default approach although vascular complications remain a concern. A minimal vessel diameter of 6 mm is required for currently commercial available vascular introducer sheaths. Several alternative access routes are available to choose from when confronted with difficult iliofemoral anatomy such as severe peripheral vascular disease or diffuse circumferential vessel calcification. The degree of aortic valve leaflet and annular calcification also needs to be assessed as the latter is a risk factor for post-procedural paravalvular aortic regurgitation. The ultimate goal of patient selection is to achieve the highest procedural success rate while minimizing complications and to choose patients most likely to derive tangible benefit from this procedure.

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.