Impact of coronary artery disease and percutaneous coronary intervention on outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is frequently present in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). While revascularisation affects peri-operative outcome in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement, the impact of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients undergoing TAVI is not well established.

Clinical outcomes of patients with estimated low or intermediate surgical risk undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

AimsTranscatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an established treatment alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk and inoperable patients and outcomes among patients with estimated low or intermediate risk remain to be determined. The aim of this study was to assess clinical outcomes among patients with estimated low or intermediate surgical risk undergoing TAVI.Methods and resultsBetween August 2007 and October 2011, 389 consecutive patients underwent TAVI and were categorized according to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score into low (STS < 3%; n = 41, 10.5%), intermediate (STS ≥3% and ≤8%, n = 254, 65.3%), and high-risk (STS > 8%; n = 94, 24.2%) groups for the purpose of this study. Significant differences were found between the groups (low risk vs. intermediate risk vs. high risk) for age (78.2 ± 6.7 vs. 82.7 ± 5.7 vs. 83.7 ± 4.9, P < 0.001), body mass index (28.1 ± 6.1 vs. 26.5 ± 4.9 vs. 24.4 ± 4.6, P < 0.001), chronic renal failure (34 vs. 67 vs. 90%, P < 0.001), all-cause mortality at 30 days (2.4 vs. 3.9 vs. 14.9%, P = 0.001), and all-cause mortality at 1 year (10.1 vs. 16.1 vs. 34.5%, P = 0.0003). No differences were observed with regards to cerebrovascular accidents and myocardial infarction during 1-year follow-up.ConclusionIn contemporary practice, TAVI is not limited to inoperable or STS-defined high-risk patients and should be guided by the decision of an interdisciplinary Heart Team. Compared with patients at calculated high risk, well-selected patients with STS-defined intermediate or low risk appear to have favourable clinical outcomes.

Improvement of physical and mental health after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a treatment alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in elderly high-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. In this patient population, rapid improvement or restoration of quality of life (QoL) is at least as important as improved clinical outcomes. The purpose of the present study was to assess changes in QoL in response to TAVI.

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.

Aortic root replacement does not affect outcome and quality of life

BACKGROUND: Different studies have analyzed the potential impact of the underlying pathologic process and the use of deep hypothermic circulatory arrest on outcome and quality of life after surgery on the thoracic aorta. The aim of this study is to analyze the impact of different surgical procedures on outcome and quality of life. METHODS: Between June 2001 and December 2003, 244 patients underwent surgery for various diseases of the ascending aorta with or without involvement of the aortic valve or root. They were divided according to the operative procedure: 76 patients (31.2%) underwent isolated replacement of the ascending aorta, 42 patients (17.2%) received separate aortic valve replacement and supracoronary replacement of the ascending aorta, 86 patients (35.2%) received a mechanical composite graft, and 40 patients (16.4%) received a biologic composite graft. All in-hospital data were assessed, and a follow-up was performed in all survivors after 26.6 +/- 8.8 months, focusing on outcome and quality of life (SF-36). RESULTS: Overall in-hospital mortality was 6.1%, and late mortality was 5.7%, with no significant difference between groups. Independent of the surgical technique and the extent of surgery, there was no difference in quality of life between the surgical collective and an age-matched and sex-matched standard population. CONCLUSIONS: Operations of the ascending aorta and aortic valve are very safe, with low in-hospital mortality and favorable midterm outcome regarding late mortality and morbidity. Quality of life after operations of the ascending aorta and aortic valve is equal to a standard population and is not affected by the surgical procedure. Liberal use of aortic root replacement is therefore justified to radically treat the diseased aortic segment.

Successful percutaneous coronary intervention after implantation of a CoreValve percutaneous aortic valve

BACKGROUND: The association between aortic valve disease and coronary atherosclerosis is common. In the recent era of percutaneous aortic valve replacement (PAVR), there is little experience with coronary artery intervention after valve implantation. CASE REPORT: To our knowledge, this is the first case of successful percutaneous coronary intervention after implantation of a CoreValve percutaneous aortic valve. We report a case of a 79-year-old female patient who underwent successful coronary artery intervention few months after a CoreValve's percutaneous implantation for severe aortic valve stenosis. Verifying the position of the used wires (crossing from inside the self expanding frame) is of utmost importance before proceeding to coronary intervention. In this case, crossing the aortic valve, coronary angiography, and multivessel stenting were successfully performed. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with previous CoreValve is feasible and safe.

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.

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.

Localized amyloid light-chain amyloidosis and extramedullary plasmacytoma of the mitral valve

An unusual case of localized amyloid light-chain (AL) amyloidosis and extramedullary plasmacytoma of the mitral valve is described. The worsening of a mitral regurgitation led to investigations and surgery. The valve presented marked distortion and thickening by type AL amyloid associated with a monotypic CD138+ immunoglobulin lambda plasma cell proliferation. Systemic staging showed a normal bone marrow and no evidence of amyloid deposition in other localizations. The patient's outcome after mitral valve replacement was excellent. To our knowledge, this is the first description of a localized AL amyloidosis as well as of a primary extramedullary plasmacytoma of the mitral valve.

In Vitro Testing of a Temporary Catheter-Based Aortic "Parachute" Valve

Recently developed technologies allow aortic valve implantation off-pump in a beating heart. In this procedure, the native, stenotic aortic valve is not removed, but simply crushed by a pressure balloon mounted on a percutaneous catheter. Removal of the native aortic cusps before valve replacement may reduce the incidence of annular or cuspal calcium embolization and late perivalvular leaks and increase implantable valve size. However, a temporary valve system in the ascending aorta may be necessary to maintain hemodynamic stability by reducing acute aortic regurgitation and left ventricular volume overload. This study evaluates the hemodynamic effects of a wire-mounted, monoleaflet, temporary valve apparatus in a mechanical cardiovascular simulator. Aortic flow, systemic pressure and left ventricular pressure were continuously monitored. An intraluminal camera obtained real-time proximal and distal images of the valve in operation. Insertion of the parachute valve in the simulator increased diastolic pressure from 7 to 38 mm Hg. Cardiac output increased from 2.08 to 4.66 L/min and regurgitant volume decreased from 65 to 23 mL. In conclusion, placement of a temporary valve in the ascending aorta may help maintain hemodynamic stability and improve off-pump aortic valve replacement.

Pitfalls and premature failure of the Freedom SOLO stentless valve.

OBJECTIVES This study reports a series of pitfalls, premature failures and explantations of the third-generation Freedom SOLO (FS) bovine pericardial stentless valve. METHODS A total of 149 patients underwent aortic valve replacement using the FS. Follow-up was 100% complete with an average observation time of 5.5 ± 2.3 years (maximum 8.7 years) and a total of 825 patient-years. Following intraoperative documentation, all explanted valve prostheses underwent histological examination. RESULTS Freedom from structural valve deterioration (SVD) at 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 years was 92, 88, 80, 70 and 62%, respectively. Fourteen prostheses required explantation due to valve-independent dysfunction (n = 5; i.e. thrombus formation, oversizing, aortic dilatation, endocarditis and suture dehiscence) or valve-dependent failure (acute leaflet tears, n = 4 and severe stenosis, n = 5). Thus, freedom from explantation at 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 years was 95, 94, 91, 81 and 72%, respectively. An acute vertical tear along the non-coronary/right coronary commissure to the base occurred at a mean of 6.0 years (range 4.3-7.3 years) and affected size 25 and 27 prostheses exclusively. Four FS required explantation after a mean of 7.5 years (range 7.0-8.3 years) due to severe functional stenosis and gross calcification that included the entire aortic root. CONCLUSIONS The FS stentless valve is safe to implant and shows satisfying mid-term results in our single institution experience. Freedom from SVD and explantation decreased markedly after only 6-7 years, so that patients with FS require close observation and follow-up. Exact sizing, symmetric positioning and observing patient limitations are crucial for optimal outcome.

The Freedom SOLO bovine pericardial stentless valve: Single-center experience, outcome and long-term durability

Abstract Objectives We report our institutional experience and long-term results with the Sorin Freedom SOLO bovine pericardial stentless bioprosthesis. Methods Between January 2005 and November 2009, 149 patients (mean age 73.6±8.7 years, 68 [45.6%] female) underwent isolated (n=75) or combined (n=74) aortic valve replacement (AVR) using the SOLO in our institution. Follow-up was 100% complete with an average follow-up time of 5.9±2.6 years (maximum 9.6 years) and a total of 885.3 patient years. Results Operative (30-day) mortality was 2.7% (1.3% for isolated AVR [n=1] and 4.0% for combined procedures [n=3]). All causes of death were not valve-related. Preoperative peak (mean) gradients of 74.2±23.0 mmHg (48.6 ± 16.3 mmHg) decreased to 15.6±5.4 (8.8±3.0) after AVR, and remained low for up to 9 years. The postoperative effective orifice area (EOA) was 1.6 ±0.57 cm2, 1.90±0.45 cm2, 2.12±0.48 cm2 and 2.20±0.66 cm2 for the valve sizes 21, 23, 25 and 27, respectively; with absence of severe prosthesis-patient-mismatch (PPM) and 0.7% (n=1) moderate PPM. During follow-up, Twenty-six patients experienced structural valve deterioration (SVD) and 14 patients underwent explantation. Kaplan-Meier estimates for freedom from death, explantation and SVD at 9 years averaged 0.57 [0.47‒0.66], 0.82 [0.69‒0.90] and 0.70 [0.57‒0.79], respectively. Conclusions The Freedom SOLO stentless aortic valve is safe to implant and shows excellent early and mid-term hemodynamic performance. However, SVD was observed in a substantial number of patients after only 5 ̶ 6 years and the need for explantation increased markedly, suggesting low durability.

Clinical experience with the freedom SOLO stentless aortic valve in 277 consecutive patients.

BACKGROUND The Sorin Freedom SOLO (FS) bovine pericardial stentless valve prosthesis is designed for supraannular, subcoronary implantation. We report our experience and results with 277 consecutively implanted FS bioprostheses. METHODS 277 patients (mean age, 74.2 ± 7.3 years; 139 (50.2%) female) underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with the FS stentless bioprosthesis. The hemodynamic performance was investigated with transthoracic echocardiography at discharge, 6 months later, and yearly thereafter. Follow-up was 100% complete, with an average observation time of 2.6 ± 1.7 years and a total of 697.3 patient-years. RESULTS The overall 30-day mortality was 4.3%. The mortalities for isolated AVR and combined procedures were 1.9% and 7.3%, respectively. No causes of death were valve-related. Preoperative peak (74.2 ± 23.0 mm Hg) and mean (48.6 ± 16.3 mm Hg) gradients decreased to 15.6 ± 5.4 mm Hg and 8.8 ± 3.0 mm Hg postoperatively and remained unchanged for as long as 5 years. The postoperative mean effective orifice area (EOA) for valve sizes 19, 21, 23, 25, and 27 were 1.49 ± 0.32 cm(2), 1.67 ± 0.40 cm(2), 1.92 ± 0.38 cm(2), 2.01 ± 0.42 cm(2), and 2.13 ± 0.36 cm(2), respectively. Severe prosthesis-patient mismach (PPM) was completely absent, and moderate PPM occurred in 17 patients (6.1%). In isolated AVR, 0.8% of patients with preoperative sinus rhythm required a permanent pacemaker before hospital discharge. There was 100% freedom from structural valve deterioration, 99.6 % freedom from endocarditis and reoperation, and 97.3% freedom from thromboembolism at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS The FS stentless aortic valve is safe to implant, and it shows excellent hemodynamic performance and early and midterm results. Owing to the favorable EOA, the valve appears particularly attractive for patients at risk for PPM.

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.