A fully echo-guided trans-apical aortic valve implantation.

The trans-apical aortic valve implantation (TA-AVI) is an established technique for high-risk patients requiring aortic valve replacement. Traditionally, preoperative (computed tomography (CT) scan, coronary angiogram) and intra-operative imaging (fluoroscopy) for stent-valve positioning and implantation require contrast medium injections. To preserve the renal function in elderly patients suffering from chronic renal insufficiency, a fully echo-guided trans-catheter valve implantation seems to be a reasonable alternative. We report the first successful TA-AVI procedure performed solely under trans-oesophageal echocardiogram control, in the absence of contrast medium injections.

Misdeployment of Edwards Sapien Valve in Transfemoral Aortic Valve Implantation Due to Iatrogenic Endarterectomy

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is an expanding procedure thus far restricted to a target population of old and high-comorbidity patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. The need for bulky devices (up to 24F) combined with the high prevalence of peripheral vascular disease in these patients explains the increased risk of vascular complications in transfemoral Edwards Sapien (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, Calif) transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedures, with a rate of 20% for the transfemoral arm of either the Placement of AoRTic traNscathetER valves in the European Union (PARTNER EU) trial or the SOURCE Registry.1,2

Permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: impact on late clinical outcomes and left ventricular function.

BACKGROUND Very few data exist on the clinical impact of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of PPI after transcatheter aortic valve implantation on late outcomes in a large cohort of patients. METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 1556 consecutive patients without prior PPI undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation were included. Of them, 239 patients (15.4%) required a PPI within the first 30 days after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. At a mean follow-up of 22±17 months, no association was observed between the need for 30-day PPI and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.30; P=0.871), cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.17; P=0.270), and all-cause mortality or rehospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.30; P=0.980). A lower rate of unexpected (sudden or unknown) death was observed in patients with PPI (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.85; P=0.023). Patients with new PPI showed a poorer evolution of left ventricular ejection fraction over time (P=0.017), and new PPI was an independent predictor of left ventricular ejection fraction decrease at the 6- to 12-month follow-up (estimated coefficient, -2.26; 95% confidence interval, -4.07 to -0.44; P=0.013; R(2)=0.121). CONCLUSIONS The need for PPI was a frequent complication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation, but it was not associated with any increase in overall or cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for heart failure after a mean follow-up of ≈2 years. Indeed, 30-day PPI was a protective factor for the occurrence of unexpected (sudden or unknown) death. However, new PPI did have a negative effect on left ventricular function over time.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in very elderly patients: immediate results and medium term follow-up.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate immediate transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) results and medium-term follow-up in very elderly patients with severe and symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS This multicenter, observational and prospective study was carried out in three hospitals. We included consecutive very elderly (> 85 years) patients with severe AS treated by TAVI. The primary endpoint was to evaluate death rates from any cause at two years. RESULTS The study included 160 consecutive patients with a mean age of 87 ± 2.1 years (range from 85 to 94 years) and a mean logistic EuroSCORE of 18.8% ± 11.2% with 57 (35.6%) patients scoring ≥ 20%. Procedural success rate was 97.5%, with 25 (15.6%) patients experiencing acute complications with major bleeding (the most frequent). Global mortality rate during hospitalization was 8.8% (n = 14) and 30-day mortality rate was 10% (n = 16). Median follow up period was 252.24 ± 232.17 days. During the follow-up period, 28 (17.5%) patients died (17 of them due to cardiac causes). The estimated two year overall and cardiac survival rates using the Kaplan-Meier method were 71% and 86.4%, respectively. Cox proportional hazard regression showed that the variable EuroSCORE ≥ 20 was the unique variable associated with overall mortality. CONCLUSIONS TAVI is safe and effective in a selected population of very elderly patients. Our findings support the adoption of this new procedure in this complex group of patients.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): state of the art techniques and future perspectives.

Transcatheter aortic valve therapies are the newest established techniques for the treatment of high risk patients affected by severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. The transapical approach requires a left anterolateral mini-thoracotomy, whereas the transfemoral method requires an adequate peripheral vascular access and can be performed fully percutaneously. Alternatively, the trans-subclavian access has been recently proposed as a third promising approach. Depending on the technique, the fine stent-valve positioning can be performed with or without contrast injections. The transapical echo-guided stent-valve implantation without angiography (the Lausanne technique) relies entirely on transoesophageal echocardiogramme imaging for the fine stent-valve positioning and it has been proved that this technique prevents the onset of postoperative contrast-related acute kidney failure. Recent published reports have shown good hospital outcomes and short-term results after transcatheter aortic valve implantation, but there are no proven advantages in using the transfemoral or the transapical technique. In particular, the transapical series have a higher mean logistic Euroscore of 27-35%, a procedural success rate above 95% and a mean 30-day mortality between 7.5 and 17.5%, whereas the transfemoral results show a lower logistic Euroscore of 23-25.5%, a procedural success rate above 90% and a 30-day mortality of 7-10.8%. Nevertheless, further clinical trials and long-term results are mandatory to confirm this positive trend. Future perspectives in transcatheter aortic valve therapies would be the development of intravascular devices for the ablation of the diseased valve leaflets and the launch of new stent-valves with improved haemodynamic, different sizes and smaller delivery systems.

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.

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.

Primary isolated aortic valve surgery in octogenarians.

We reviewed our surgery registry, to identify predictive risk factors for operative results, and to analyse the long-term survival outcome in octogenarians operated for primary isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR). A total of 124 consecutive octogenarians underwent open AVR from January 1990 to December 2005. Combined procedures and redo surgery were excluded. Selected variables were studied as risk factors for hospital mortality and early neurological events. A follow-up (FU; mean FU time: 77 months) was obtained (90% complete), and Kaplan-Meier plots were used to determine survival rates. The mean age was 82+/-2.2 (range: 80-90 years; 63% females). Of the group, four patients (3%) required urgent procedures, 10 (8%) had a previous myocardial infarction, six (5%) had a previous coronary angioplasty and stenting, 13 patients (10%) suffered from angina and 59 (48%) were in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III-IV. We identified 114 (92%) degenerative stenosis, six (5%) post-rheumatic stenosis and four (3%) active endocarditis. The predicted mortality calculated by logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) was 12.6+/-5.7%, and the observed hospital mortality was 5.6%. Causes of death included severe cardiac failure (four patients), multi-organ failure (two) and sepsis (one). Complications were transitory neurological events in three patients (2%), short-term haemodialysis in three (2%), atrial fibrillation in 60 (48%) and six patients were re-operated for bleeding. Atrio-ventricular block, myocardial infarction or permanent stroke was not detected. The age at surgery and the postoperative renal failure were predictors for hospital mortality (p value <0.05), whereas we did not find predictors for neurological events. The mean FU time was 77 months (6.5 years) and the mean age of surviving patients was 87+/-4 years (81-95 years). The actuarial survival estimates at 5 and 10 years were 88% and 50%, respectively. Our experience shows good short-term results after primary isolated standard AVR in patients more than 80 years of age. The FU suggests that aortic valve surgery in octogenarians guarantees satisfactory long-term survival rates and a good quality of life, free from cardiac re-operations. In the era of catheter-based aortic valve implantation, open-heart surgery for AVR remains the standard of care for healthy octogenarians.

Immediate and long-term results of valve replacement for native and prosthetic valve endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the present study was to compare current results of prosthetic valve replacement following acute infective native valve endocarditis (NVE) with that of prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE). Prosthetic valve replacement is often necessary for acute infective endocarditis. Although valve repair and homografts have been associated with excellent outcome, homograft availability and the importance of valvular destruction often dictate prosthetic valve replacement in patients with acute bacterial endocarditis. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the experience with prosthetic valve replacement following acute NVE and PVE between 1988 and 1998 was performed at the Montreal Heart Institute. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients (57 men and 20 women, mean age 48 +/- 16 years) with acute infective endocarditis underwent valve replacement. Fifty patients had NVE and 27 had PVE. Four patients (8%) with NVE died within 30 days of operation and there were no hospital deaths in patients with PVE. Survival at 1, 5, and 7 years averaged 80% +/- 6%, 76% +/- 6%, and 76% +/- 6% for NVE and 70% +/- 9%, 59% +/- 10%, and 55% +/- 10% for PVE, respectively (p = 0.15). Reoperation-free survival at 1, 5, and 7 years averaged 80% +/- 6%, 76% +/- 6%, and 76% +/- 6% for NVE and 45% +/- 10%, 40% +/- 10%, and 36% +/- 9% for PVE (p = 0.003). Five-year survival for NVE averaged 75% +/- 9% following aortic valve replacement and 79% +/- 9% following mitral valve replacement. Five-year survival for PVE averaged 66% +/- 12% following aortic valve replacement and 43% +/- 19% following mitral valve replacement (p = 0.75). Nine patients underwent reoperation during follow-up: indications were prosthesis infection in 4 patients (3 mitral, 1 aortic), dehiscence of mitral prosthesis in 3, and dehiscence of aortic prosthesis in 2. CONCLUSIONS: Prosthetic valve replacement for NVE resulted in good long-term patient survival with a minimal risk of reoperation compared with patients who underwent valve replacement for PVE. In patients with PVE, those who needed reoperation had recurrent endocarditis or noninfectious periprosthetic dehiscence.