Prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: prevalence and medium term prognostic impact

Hemodynamic effect of supra-annular implantation of SAPIEN 3 balloon expandable valve

The hemodynamic impact of the implantation depth for balloon-expandable valves is under-investigated, especially with higher implantation techniques. We assessed the hemodynamic performance of supra-annular SAPIEN 3 valve implantation. This retrospective study involved consecutive patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using the SAPIEN 3. The device implantation depth and transcatheter heart valve (THV) leaflet-nadir position were angiographically analyzed, and supra-annular implantation was defined as a higher leaflet-nadir position than the original annular line. The Doppler hemodynamic status was evaluated at patient discharge. Among 184 patients, 120 (65%) underwent supra-annular implantation, and their mean implantation depth was significantly lower than that of intra-annular implantation (1.1 vs. 5.2 mm, p < 0.001). No patients developed valve embolization or coronary occlusion, and none required the TAV-in-TAV procedure. Two (1.6%) patients in the supra-annular implantation group had a mild or greater paravalvular leak. Echocardiography demonstrated that supra-annular implantation had better hemodynamic performance, showing a larger indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) compared with intra-annular implantation (1.09 vs. 0.97 cm2/m2, p < 0.01). There was a weak but negative correlation between the implantation depth and iEOA (r =  - 0.27, p < 0.01). Moderate or severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) was found in 35.9% of the intra-annular group and 9.2% of supra-annular of the supra-annular group (p < 0.01). In the multivariable analysis, supra-annular implantation was an independent predictor of better THV function (iEOA > 0.85). Supra-annular SAPIEN 3 implantation provides beneficial hemodynamic effects and reduces the PPM risk.

Lifetime management considerations to optimise transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a practical guide

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of aortic stenosis. With the recently broadened indications, there is a larger cohort of patients likely to outlive their first transcatheter heart valve (THV). This review discusses relevant lifetime planning considerations, focusing on the utility of preprocedural computed tomography imaging to help implanters future-proof their patients who are likely to outlive their first valve. The initial priority is to optimise the index procedure by maximising THV haemodynamic function and durability. This involves maximising the effective orifice area, minimising the risk of new pacemaker implantation, reducing paravalvular regurgitation, and preventing coronary obstruction and annular rupture. In patients requiring a second valve procedure, a significant proportion will require a TAVI-in-TAVI, and implanters should consider the key priorities for a redo procedure, including the increased risks of patient-prosthesis mismatch and conduction abnormalities, promoting coronary reaccessibility, and preventing coronary obstruction and sinus sequestration. Careful planning can identify potential hurdles as well as predict the feasibility and likely outcomes of redo-TAVI, to help individualise care over the lifetime of each patient.

Impact of Accidental High or Low Implantation Depth on Peri-Procedural Outcomes after Implantation with the Self-Expanding ACURATE neo2

Background: Precise implantation could play a crucial role in the technical success of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for some prostheses. The impact of an accidental implantation depth (ID) outside the recommended range has not been assessed for the ACURATE neo2 (NEO2). Methods: Data from 1839 patients with severe native aortic stenosis treated with the NEO2 prosthesis were evaluated. We compared the results of prostheses implanted in an ID both inside and outside the recommendations. The outcome assessment followed the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria. Results: Patients were retrospectively divided into high (<3 mm; n = 412), optimal (3-7 mm; n = 1236), and low (>7 mm; n = 169) implantations. Technical success (94.7% vs. 94.7% vs. 91.7%, p = 0.296) and device success were high (90.1% vs. 89.3% vs. 84.6%, p = 0.112) without differences between groups. Rates of relevant paravalvular regurgitation (PVL; >mild or VinV due to PVL) were comparable (1.2% vs. 1.8% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.759). Even when hemodynamics were superior in the high-implantation group, with greater iEOA (1.01 cm2/m2 vs. 0.95 cm2/m2 vs. 0.92 cm2/m2, p < 0.001), spontaneous embolization or after post-dilatation was more common. Low implantation was associated with a higher rate of associated pacemaker implantation (PPI) (6.1% vs. 8.8% vs. 14.8%, p = 0.001). Conclusions: Implantation with the ACURATE neo2 showed excellent hemodynamic results, including low gradients and a small number of relevant PVL, in line with a high technical success rate that was irrespective of the ID. A favorable outcome can also be achieved in accidental low or high positions. Low implantation was associated with a higher rate of associated pacemaker implantation. Deliberately high implantation should be avoided due to the risk of embolization.

ACURATE neo2 Versus SAPIEN 3 Ultra Transcatheter Heart Valve in Severe Aortic Valve Calcification: A Propensity-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Comparative data on transcatheter self-expanding ACURATE neo2 (NEO2) and balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 Ultra prostheses in technically challenging anatomy of severe aortic valve calcified aortic annuli are scarce.

METHODS

A total of 1987 patients with severe native aortic stenosis treated with the self-expanding NEO2 (n=1457) or balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 Ultra (n=530) from January 2017 to April 2023 were evaluated. The primary end point was procedural outcome according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 definitions. Propensity matching defined 219 pairs with severe calcification (calcium density cutoff, 758 AU/cm2) of the native aortic valve.

RESULTS

Technical success (90.4% versus 91.8%; risk difference, 1.4% [95% CI, -4.4 to -7.2]; P=0.737) and device success at 30 days (80.8% versus 75.8%; risk difference, -5.0% [95% CI, -13.2 to 3.1]; P=0.246) were comparable between NEO2 and SAPIEN 3 Ultra. The rate of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (1.1% versus 10.1%; risk difference, 10.0% [95% CI, 4.0-13.9]; P<0.001) and mean transvalvular gradient ≥20 mm Hg (2.8% versus 14.3%; risk difference, 11.5% [95% CI, 5.8-17.1]; P<0.001) was lower with NEO2. The rate of more-than-mild paravalvular leakage or valve-in-valve due to paravalvular leakage was significantly higher (6.2% versus 0.0%; risk difference, 6.2% [95% CI, -10.1 to -2.7]; P=0.002), and there was a tendency for a higher rate of device embolization or migration (1.8% versus 0.0%; risk difference, -1.8% [95% CI, -4.1 to 0.4]; P=0.123) with NEO2. Multivarate regression revealed no independent impact of transcatheter heart valve selection on device success (odds ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.48-1.77]; P=0.817).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severely calcified annuli, supraannular implantation of NEO2 showed hemodynamic advantages. Nevertheless, NEO2 was associated with a higher incidence of relevant paravalvular leakage and a numerically higher rate of device embolization than SAPIEN 3 Ultra in this particular patient group.

Valve Hemodynamics by Valve Size and 1-Year Survival Following Implantation of the Portico Valve in the Multicenter CONFIDENCE Registry

Background

The CONtrolled delivery For ImproveD outcomEs with cliNiCal Evidence registry was initiated to characterize the clinical safety and device performance from experienced transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) centers in Europe and Australia that use the Portico valve to treat patients with severe aortic stenosis. We herein report for the first time the valve performance at 30-day across all implanted valve sizes and the 1-year survival from this registry.

Methods

This was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm observational clinical investigation of patients clinically indicated for implantation of a Portico valve in experienced TAVI centers. Patients were treated with a commercially available valve (size 23, 25, 27, or 29 mm) using either the first-generation delivery system (DS) (n = 501) or the second-generation (FlexNav) DS (n = 500). Adverse events were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. Echocardiographic outcomes were assessed at 30 days by an independent core laboratory, and a survival check was performed at 1 year.

Results

We enrolled 1001 patients (82.0 years, 62.5% female, 63.7% New York Heart Association functional class III/IV at baseline) from 27 clinical sites in 8 countries across Europe and one site in Australia. Implantation of a single valve was successful in 97.5% of subjects. Valve hemodynamics at 30 days were substantially improved relative to baseline, with large aortic valve areas and low mean gradients across all implanted valve sizes (aortic valve areas were 1.7 ± 0.4, 1.7 ± 0.5, 1.8 ± 0.5, and 2.0 ± 0.5 cm2, and mean gradients were 7.0 ± 2.7, 7.5 ± 4.7, 7.3 ± 3.3, and 6.4 ± 3.3 mmHg for 23, 25, 27, and 29 mm valve sizes, respectively). Across all implanted valve sizes, most patients (77.1%) had no patient-prosthesis mismatch. Death from any cause within 1 year occurred in 13.7% of the patients in the first-generation DS group as compared with 11.0% in the second-generation DS group (p = 0.2).

Conclusions

The Portico valve demonstrated excellent hemodynamic performance across all valve sizes in a large cohort of subjects implanted in experienced TAVI centers. One-year survival rates were favorable when using both the first-generation and second-generation (FlexNav) DSs in this high-risk cohort.

ClinicalTrialsgov Identifier

NCT03752866.

Self-expanding vs. balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves in small aortic annuli

Background

Clinical consequences of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is currently in the focus of clinical research. Patients with small aortic annulus are at higher risk to display PPM. Data on incidence and clinical consequences of PPM after TAVR with either balloon-expandable (BEV) or self-expanding (SEV) transcatheter heart valves in small aortic annulus are sparse.

Methods

Patients with small aortic annulus (perimeter < 72 mm or aortic annulus area < 400 mm2) who underwent BEV or SEV with contemporary transcatheter heart valve types were identified from the institutional TAVR database. Propensity score matching was applied for imbalanced baseline characteristics between patients undergoing BEV or SEV. Echocardiography and clinical follow-up beyond 3 years was reported following VARC-3 recommendations. Primary endpoint was the incidence of pre-discharge PPM and its association with 3-year mortality.

Results

From a total of 507 patients with small aortic annulus, 192 matched patient pairs with SEV or BEV were identified. Mean age was 81 ± 7 (SEV) vs. 81 ± 6 (BEV) years (p = 0.5), aortic annulus perimeter was 69 ± 3 vs.69 ± 3 mm, (p = 0.8), annulus area was 357 ± 27 vs.357 ± 27 mm2 (p = 0.8), and EuroScore II was 5.8 ± 6.6 vs.5.7 ± 7.2 (p = 0.9). SEV resulted in less moderate (20% vs. 31%, p < 0.001) and severe pre-discharge PPM (9% vs.18%, p < 0.001) compared to BEV. At discharge (7 ± 4 vs. 12 ± 9 mmHg, p = 0.003) and at 1-year follow-up (7 ± 5 vs.13 ± 3 mmHg, p < 0.001), SEV displayed lower mean gradients compared to BEV. Estimated survival after SEV was 85% (95% confidence interval (CI): 80%-90%) at 1 year, 80% (95% CI: 75%-86%) at 2 years, and 71% (95% CI: 65%-78%) at 3 years; estimated survival after BEV was 87% (95% CI: 82%-92%) at 1 year, 81% (95% CI: 75%-86%) at 2 years, and 72% (95% CI: 66%-79%) at 3 years, with no significant difference among the groups (p = 0.9) Body surface area (OR: 1.35, p < 0.001), implantation of BEV (odds ratio (OR): 3.32, p < 0.001), and the absence of postdilatation (OR: 2.16, p < 0.001) were independent risk factors for any PPM. At 3 years, patients without PPM had a higher 3-year survival compared with patients with ≥moderate PPM (77% vs. 67%, p = 0.03).

Conclusion

BEV implantation in patients with small annulus was associated with a twofold higher incidence of pre-discharge severe PPM compared to SEV implantation. Survival at 3 years after TAVR was similar after BEV and SEV. However, patients with the absence of pre-discharge PPM had a higher 3-year survival compared to patients with ≥moderate PPM.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with extra-small aortic annuli

BACKGROUND

A small aortic annulus (SAA) is a risk factor for prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) in patients undergoing surgical or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Data regarding TAVI in patients with extra-SAA are scarce.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to analyse the safety and efficacy of TAVI in patients with extra-SAA.

METHODS

A multicentre registry study including patients with extra-SAA (defined as an aortic annulus area <280 mm2 and/or perimeter <60 mm) undergoing TAVI was established. Primary efficacy and safety endpoints were defined as device success and early safety at 30 days, respectively, using the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria, and were analysed according to valve type: self-expanding (SEV) versus balloon-expandable (BEV).

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients were included, of which 139 (92.7%) were women, and 110 (73.3%) received an SEV. Intraprocedural technical success was 91.3%, with a higher rate in patients receiving an SEV (96.4% vs 77.5% with BEV; p=0.001). Overall, 30-day device success was 81.3%, (85.5% with SEV vs 70.0% with BEV; p=0.032). The primary safety endpoint occurred in 72.0% of patients (with no difference between groups; p=0.118). Severe PPM occurred in 12% (9.0% with SEV and 24.0% with BEV; p=0.039), with no impact on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or heart failure readmission at 2-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVI is a safe and feasible treatment in patients with extra-SAA with a high rate of technical success. The use of SEV was associated with a lower rate of intraprocedural complications, higher device success at 30 days and better haemodynamic outcomes compared to BEV.

Intermediate Follow-Up of Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Small Aortic Annuli

The clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) in patients with small aortic annuli who underwent transcatheter aortic valve (AV) implantation with either balloon-expandable (BE) or self-expanding (SE) valves remains controversial. We assessed in-hospital and intermediate clinical outcomes in 573 patients with transfemoral transcatheter AV implantation with a small AV annulus, defined as an AV annulus area ≤430 mm². A total of 337 patients treated with a 23-mm BE valve (SAPIEN 3, Ultra) were compared with 236 patients treated with a 26-mm SE valve (Evolut series). Valve-in-valve cases were excluded, and late echo follow-up (mean 674 ± 438 days) was assessed in a subset of 292 patients (51.0%). Well-matched BE and SE cohorts did not differ with respect to major in-hospital outcomes, other than a borderline increase in vascular complications and composite bleeding in patients with SE. Patients with BE had a higher incidence of severe PPM on discharge echocardiography (16.9% vs 6.8%, p <0.002). The mean AV gradient at 30 days was higher for patients with BE (12.2 ± 4.2 vs 6.2 ± 7.9 mm Hg, p <0.001) and at late follow-up (14.0 ± 8.2 vs 7.2 ± 3.5 mm Hg, p <0.001). The follow-up left ventricular ejection fraction and incidence of >mild aortic insufficiency were similar. All-cause mortality for the 2 cohorts was similar, with an overall mean (95% confidence interval) survival time of 61.2 months (57.8 to 64.5; p = 0.98). There were no significant survival differences between combined patients with BE and SE with no, moderate, or severe PPM, with an overall mean (95% confidence interval) survival time of 32.5 (30.5 to 34.5) months combining valve types (p = 0.23). In conclusion, despite an increased incidence of PPM with higher mean AV gradients that persist on late echocardiography in the BE cohort, patients with BE and SE with small aortic annuli have similar clinical outcomes at intermediate follow-up. Moderate and severe PPM had no impact on survival at a mean follow-up of 32.5 months.

Surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch on outcomes

BACKGROUND

The hemodynamics of most prosthetic valves are often inferior to that of the normal native valve, and a significant proportion of patients undergoing surgical (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have high residual transaortic pressure gradients due to prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM). As the experience with TAVR has increased and long-term outcomes are reported, a close look at the PPM literature is required in light of new evidence.

METHODS

For this review, we searched the Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases from 2000 to 2022. Articles reporting PPM as an outcome following aortic valve replacements were identified and reviewed.

RESULTS

The impact of PPM on clinical outcomes in aortic valve replacement has not been clear as multiple studies failed to report PPM incidence. However, the PPM outcomes after SAVR vary more widely than after TAVR, ranging from 8% to 80% in SAVR and from 24% to 35% in TAVR. Incidence of severe PPM following redo SAVR ranges from 2% to 9% and following valve-in-valve TAVR is from 14% to 33%, however, while PPM is higher in valve-in-valve TAVR, patients had better survival rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The gap between valve performance and clinical outcomes in SAVR and TAVR could be reduced by carefully selecting patients for either treatment option. Understanding predictors of PPM can add to the safety, effectiveness, and increased survival benefit of both SAVR and TAVR.

Propensity-Weighted Comparison of Conventional Stented and Rapid-Deployment Aortic Bioprostheses

OBJECTIVE

Aim of this study was to compare early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of Intuity and ME bioprostheses.

METHODS

A propensity score weighting approach was performed. Preoperative variables were defined according to EuroSCORE criteria and postoperative complications according to VARC-2 definitions.

RESULTS

We evaluated 375 patients who underwent SAVR with the two study devices. Intuity and ME were implanted in 252 (67.2%) and in 123 (32.8%) patients, respectively. There were no differences in terms of postoperative complications, including mortality (1% in each group; OR 0.46[0.05;4.21]). The incidence of pace-maker implantation was 6% and 5% in Intuity and ME groups, respectively (OR 0.53[0.27;1.07]). Intuity showed significantly lower gradients (Median mean gradients: 9mmHg vs. 14mmHg, p<0.001), larger effective orifice area index (1.13cm²/m² vs. 1cm²/m², p=0.007) and lower incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (7.1% vs. 22.8%, p=0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

The RD Intuity provides similar early clinical outcomes but shows significantly better hemodynamic performance compared to the ME valve.

Hemodynamic Performance of Two Current-Generation Transcatheter Heart Valve Prostheses in Severely Calcified Aortic Valve Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Treatment of severely calcified aortic valve stenosis is associated with a higher rate of paravalvular leakage (PVL) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI). We hypothesized that the self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (THV) prostheses Evolut Pro (EPro) is comparable to the balloon-expandable Sapien 3 (S3) regarding hemodynamics, PPI, and clinical outcome in these patients.

METHODS

From 2014 to 2019, all patients with very severe calcification of the aortic valve who received an EPro or an S3 THV were included. Propensity score matching was utilized to create two groups of 170 patients.

RESULTS

At discharge, there was significant difference in transvalvular gradients (EPro vs. S3) (dPmean 8.1 vs. 11.1 mmHg, p ≤ 0.001) and indexed effective orifice area (EOAi) (1.1 vs. 0.9, p ≤ 0.001), as well as predicted EOAi (1 vs. 0.9, p ≤ 0.001). Moderate patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM) was significantly lower in the EPro group (17.7% vs. 38%, p ≤ 0.001), as well as severe PPM (2.9% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.03). PPI and the PVL rate as well as stroke, bleeding, vascular complication, and 30-day mortality were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severely calcified aortic valves, both THVs performed similarly in terms of 30-day mortality, PPI rate, and PVL occurrence. However, patient prothesis mismatch was observed more often in the S3 group, which might be due to the intra-annular design.

Artificial Intelligence-Based Spiral CT 3D Reconstruction in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

To evaluate the clinical application effect of spiral computed tomography (CT) three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction based on artificial intelligence in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), a CT 3D reconstruction model based on deep convolutional neural networks (DCNN) was established in this research, which was compared with the model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) and used in clinical practice. Then, 62 patients with aortic stenosis (AS) who underwent TAVI surgery were recruited as the research objects. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the multislice spiral CT scan (MSCT) and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in predicting the type of TAVI surgical valve were compared and analyzed. The results showed that the mean absolute error (MAE) (0.01) and root mean square error (RMSE) (0.086) of the MBIR model were higher than the reconstruction model in this research. The structural similarity (SSIM) (0.831) and peak signal-to noise ratio (PSNR) (32.77 dB) of the MBIR model were lower than the reconstruction model, and the differences were considerable ( $P<0.05$ ). Of the valve models selected based on the TTE measurement results, 35 cases were accurately predicted and 27 cases were incorrectly predicted. The accuracy of MSCT was 87.1%, the specificity was 98.84%, and the sensitivity was 92.87%; all of which were significantly higher than TTE ( $P<0.05$ ). In summary, compared with the MBIR reconstruction model, the imaging results of the model established in this research were closer to the real image. Compared with TTE, MSCT had higher accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity and can provide more accurate preoperative predictions for patients undergoing TAVI surgery.

Early- and mid-term outcomes of reinterventions for aortic bioprosthesis failure

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate early- and mid-term results of our actual practice embedding redo aortic valve replacement and transcatheter procedures for aortic bioprosthetic failure.

METHODS

Data for aortic valve reinterventions (redo surgical aortic valve replacement, isolated redo aortic valve replacement, and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation, transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure) were collected (2010-2019). Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors favouring the choice of transcatheter against redo surgery. Cox analysis was used to study the association of preoperative variables with survival. Survival probabilities were calculated with Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared using a log-rank test.

RESULTS

A total of 125 patients were included (redo surgical aortic valve replacement: 84 patients, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 41 patients). Median age was 74 [63-80] years, 58% of the patients were male and the median logistic EuroSCORE was 15 [8-26] %. There was no early mortality. Eighteen patients (redo surgical aortic valve replacement: 15, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 3) sustained at least one postoperative complication. At pre-discharge transthoracic echocardiogram, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation had significantly higher trans-prosthetic gradients (mean gradient: valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation 18 mmHg vs. redo surgical aortic valve replacement 14 mmHg, p < 0.001). Overall survival probabilities were 94% and 73% at 1 year and 5 years, respectively. Previous coronary artery bypass surgery operation and age were independently associated with lower survival probabilities during the follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Redo surgical aortic valve replacement and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation are both safe and effective for aortic bioprosthetic failure. Further valve-in-valve data are needed to determine the haemodynamic performance of transcatheter prostheses and its impact on long-term outcomes.

Patient Prosthesis Mismatch After SAVR and TAVR

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) remains one out of many factors to be considered during decision-making for the treatment of aortic valve pathologies. The idea of adequate sizing of a prosthetic heart valve was established by Rahimtoola already in 1978. In this article, the author described the phenomenon that the orifice area of a prosthetic heart valve may be too small for the individual patient. PPM is assessed by measurement or projection of the prosthetic effective orifice area indexed to body surface area (iEOA), while it is recommended to use different cut point values for non-obese and obese patients for the categorization of moderate and severe PPM. Several factors influence the accuracy of both the projected and the measured iEOA for PPM assessment, which leads to a certain number of false assignments to the PPM or no PPM group. Despite divergent findings on the impact of PPM on clinical outcomes, there is consensus that PPM should be avoided to prevent sequelae of increased prosthetic gradients after aortic valve replacement. To prevent PPM, it is required to anticipate the iEOA of the prosthesis prior to the procedure. The use of adequate reference tables, derived from echocardiographically measured mean effective orifice area (EOA) values from preferably large numbers of patients, is most appropriate to predict the iEOA. Such tables should be used also for transcatheter heart valves in the future. During the decision-making process, all available options should be taken into account for the individual patient. If the predicted size and type of a surgical prosthesis cannot be implanted, additional surgical procedures, such as annular enlargement with the Manougian technique, or alternative procedures, such as transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) can prevent PPM. PPM prevention for TAVI patients is a new field of interest and includes anticipation of the iEOA, prosthesis selection, and procedural strategies.

Calcific Aortic Stenosis-A Review on Acquired Mechanisms of the Disease and Treatments

Calcific aortic stenosis is a progressive disease that has become more prevalent in recent decades. Despite advances in research to uncover underlying biomechanisms, and development of new generations of prosthetic valves and replacement techniques, management of calcific aortic stenosis still comes with unresolved complications. In this review, we highlight underlying molecular mechanisms of acquired aortic stenosis calcification in relation to hemodynamics, complications related to the disease, diagnostic methods, and evolving treatment practices for calcific aortic stenosis.

Surgical aortic valve replacement in small aortic annulus

BACKGROUND

Although aortic valve replacement (AVR) has been the standard of treatment for severe aortic stenosis, a small aortic annulus (SAA) poses significant challenges. Improvements in valve designs and evolution in surgical techniques have led to improved outcomes, however, the ideal prosthetic valve remains elusive.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature review to discuss the surgical management of aortic stenosis, with a special focus on patients with SAA.

RESULTS

Stentless valves and root replacement techniques have been shown to overcome the hemodynamic challenges associated with conventional stented bioprostheses, but are technically challenging and require longer cross-clamp times. Sutureless and rapid deployment valves mitigate the long operative time while maintaining the hemodynamic advantages. The use of transcatheter AVR has emerged as another reasonable alternative and has shown promise among patients with SAA, however, long-term outcomes are awaited.

CONCLUSION

There is no consensus regarding the type of valve prosthesis or replacement technique among patients with SAA. Consideration of patient comorbidities and valvular anatomy is paramount in planning the optimal strategy for AVR. Further long-term clinical trials are necessary to assess outcomes and achieve progress toward the development of the ideal prosthesis.

Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement on Changes in Cardiac Sympathetic Nervous Function

The impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) on changes in cardiac sympathetic nervous (CSN) function remains unclear. Using 123I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) myocardial scintigraphy, we investigated the impact of PPM after TAVR on CSN activity.We enrolled 44 of 117 patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR for analysis in the present study. We conducted 123I-MIBG scintigraphy at baseline and at about 9 months after TAVR. Differences between baseline and post-TAVR 123I-MIBG parameters were compared between cases with and without PPM.There were 17 and 27 patients with and without PPM, respectively. Those without PPM exhibited significantly decreased left ventricular mass index (122 ± 36 g/m² versus 108 ± 30 g/m², P < 0.001) following TAVR, whereas those with PPM did not (117 ± 21 g/m² versus 110 ± 17 g/m², P = 0.09). Significant improvements in delayed heart-to-mediastinum (H/M) ratio (2.8 ± 0.4 versus 3.0 ± 0.4, P = 0.004) and washout rate (WR) (33% ± 10% versus 24% ± 12%, P < 0.001) were observed after TAVR in patients without PPM but not in those with PPM. Multivariable linear regression analysis revealed PPM to be a negative predictor of improvements in delayed H/M ratio and WR.Delayed H/M ratio and WR improve significantly after TAVR in the absence of PPM, whereas these improvements are not observed in patients with PPM. Hence, the presence of PPM is a negative predictor of improvements in delayed H/M ratio and WR in patients undergoing TAVR.

Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on 1-Year Outcomes after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Meta-analysis of 71,106 Patients

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to evaluate the impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) on the risk of early-term mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

METHODS

Databases (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online [MEDLINE], Excerpta Medica dataBASE [EMBASE], Cochrane Controlled Trials Register [CENTRAL/CCTR], ClinicalTrials.gov, Scientific Electronic Library Online [SciELO], Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences [LILACS], and Google Scholar) were searched for studies published until February 2019. PPM after TAVI was defined as moderate if the indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) was between 0.85 cm2/m2 and 0.65 cm2/m2 and as severe if iEOA ≤ 0.65 cm2/m2.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1,092 studies for inclusion. Of these, 18 articles were analyzed, and their data extracted. The total number of patients included who underwent TAVI was 71,106. The incidence of PPM after TAVI was 36.3% (25,846 with PPM and 45,260 without PPM). One-year mortality was not increased in patients with any PPM (odds ratio [OR] 1.021, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.979-1.065, P=0.338) neither in those with moderate PPM (OR 0.980, 95% CI 0.933-1.029, P=0.423). Severe PPM was separately associated with high risk (OR 1.109, 95% CI 1.041-1.181, P=0.001).

CONCLUSION

The presence of severe PPM after TAVI increased early-term mortality. Although moderate PPM seemed harmless, the findings of this study cannot not rule out the possibility of it being detrimental, since there are other registries that did not address this issue yet.