Clinical outcome and predictors for adverse events after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the use of different devices and access routes

Background Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a treatment option for high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. Previous reports focused on a single device or access site, whereas little is known of the combined use of different devices and access sites as selected by the heart team. The purpose of this study is to investigate clinical outcomes of TAVI using different devices and access sites. Methods A consecutive cohort of 200 patients underwent TAVI with the Medtronic CoreValve Revalving system (Medtronic Core Valve LLC, Irvine, CA; n = 130) or the Edwards SAPIEN valve (Edwards Lifesciences LLC, Irvine, CA; n = 70) implanted by either the transfemoral or transapical access route. Results Device success and procedure success were 99% and 95%, respectively, without differences between devices and access site. All-cause mortality was 7.5% at 30 days, with no differences between valve types or access sites. Using multivariable analysis, low body mass index (<20 kg/m2) (odds ratio [OR] 6.6, 95% CI 1.5-29.5) and previous stroke (OR 4.4, 95% CI 1.2-16.8) were independent risk factors for short-term mortality. The VARC-defined combined safety end point occurred in 18% of patients and was driven by major access site complications (8.0%), life-threatening bleeding (8.5%) or severe renal failure (4.5%). Transapical access emerged as independent predictor of adverse outcome for the Valve Academic Research Consortium–combined safety end point (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.5-7.1). Conclusion A heart team–based selection of devices and access site among patients undergoing TAVI resulted in high device and procedural success. Low body mass index and history of previous stroke were independent predictors of mortality. Transapical access emerged as a risk factor for the Valve Academic Research Consortium–combined safety end point.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation or surgical aortic valve replacement as redo procedure after prior coronary artery bypass grafting

The perioperative risk for redo surgical aortic valve replacement (S-AVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis and prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is increased. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) represents an alternative. We assessed the perioperative and mid-term clinical outcome of patients undergoing S-AVR or TAVI.

Recent developments for surgical aortic valve replacement: the concept of sutureless valve technology

Aortic stenosis has become the most frequent type of valvular heart disease in Europe and North America and presents in the large majority of patients as calcified aortic stenosis in adults of advanced age. Surgical aortic valve replacement has been recognized to be the definitive therapy which improves considerably survival for severe aortic stenosis since more than 40 years. In the most recent period, operative mortality of isolated aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis varies between 1–3% in low-risk patients younger than 70 years and between 4 and 8% in selected older adults. Long-term survival following aortic valve replacement is close to that observed in a control population of similar age. Numerous observational studies have consistently demonstrated that corrective surgery in symptomatic patients is invariably followed by a subjective improvement in quality of life and a substantial increase in survival rates. More recently, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been demonstrated to be feasible in patients with high surgical risk using either a retrograde transfemoral or transsubclavian approach or an antegrade, transapical access. Reported 30-day mortality ranges between 5 and 15%) and is acceptable when compared to the risk predicted by the logistic EuroSCORE (varying between 20 and 35%) and the STS Score, although the EuroScore has been shown to markedly overestimate the effective operative risk. One major concern remains the high rate of paravalvular regurgitation which is observed in up to 85% of the patients and which requires further follow-up and critical evaluation. In addition, long-term durability of these valves with a focus on the effects of crimping remains to be addressed, although 3-5 year results are promising. Sutureless biological valves were designed to simplify and significantly accelerate the surgical replacement of a diseased valve and allow complete excision of the calcified native valve. Until now, there are 3 different sutureless prostheses that have been approved. The 3f Enable valve from ATS-Medtronic received CE market approval in 2010, the Perceval S from Sorin during Q1 of 2011 and the intuity sutureless prosthesis from Edwards in 2012. All these devices aim to facilitate valve surgery and therefore have the potential to decrease the invasivness and to shorten the conventional procedure without compromise in term of excision of the diseased valve. This review summarizes the history and the current knowledge of sutureless valve technology.

Costs of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers a new treatment option for patients with aortic stenosis, but costs may play a decisive role in decision making. Current studies are evaluating TAVR in an intermediate-risk population. We assessed the in-hospital and 1-year follow-up costs of patients undergoing TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) at intermediate operative risk and identified important cost components.

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.

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.