Transapical Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Is Associated With Increased Cardiac Mortality in Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction

Postsurgical Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement

Reintervention is commonly required postsurgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR) or repair due to bioprosthetic valve and annuloplasty ring degeneration. However, redo SMVR is associated with a high risk of morbidity and mortality. Postsurgical transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) is a safe and less-invasive alternative that has repeatedly been shown to be associated with improved survival and lower rates of complications compared with redo SMVR. Comprehensive patient evaluation and thorough procedural planning are key to successful TMVR.

Non-femoral focused transaxillary access in TAVI: GARY data analysis and future trends

BACKGROUND

In patients not suitable for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), several access strategies can be chosen.

AIM

To evaluate the use and patient outcomes of transaxillary (TAx), transapical (TA), and transaortic (TAo) as alternative access for TAVI in Germany; to further evaluate surgical cutdown vs. percutaneous TAx access.

METHODS

All patients entered the German Aortic Valve Registry (GARY) between 2011 and 2019 who underwent non-transfemoral TAVI were included in this analysis. Patients with TA, TAo, or TAx TAVI were compared using a weighted propensity score model. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis was performed for TAx regarding the percutaneous or surgical cutdown approach.

RESULTS

Overall, 9686 patients received a non-transfemoral access. A total of 8918 patients (92.1%) underwent TA, 398 (4.1%) TAo, and 370 (3.8%) TAx approaches. Within the TAx subgroup, 141 patients (38.1%) received subclavian cutdown, while 200 (54.1%) underwent a percutaneous approach. The TA patients had a significantly lower 30-day survival than TAx patients (TA 90.92% vs. TAx 95.59%, p = 0.006; TAo 92.22% vs. TAx 95.59%, p = 0.102). Comparing percutaneous and cutdown TAx approaches, no significant differences were seen. However, more vascular complications occurred (TA 1.8%, TAo 2.4%, TAx 12.2%; p < .001), and the hospital length of stay was shorter (TA 12.9 days, TAo 14.1 days, TAx 12 days; p < .001) after TAx access.

CONCLUSION

It may be reasonable to consider TAx access first in patients not suitable for TF-TAVI, because the 30-day survival was higher compared with TA access and the 1-year survival was higher compared with TAo access. It remains important for the heart teams to offer alternative access modalities for patients not amenable to the standard TF-TAVI approaches.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in heart failure

Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) may develop heart failure (HF), the presence of which has traditionally been deemed as a final stage in AS progression with poor outcomes. The use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the preferred therapy for most patients with AS and concomitant HF. With its instant afterload reduction, TAVR offers patients with HF significant haemodynamic benefits, with corresponding changes in left ventricular structure and improved mortality and quality of life. The prognostic covariates and optimal timing of TAVR in patients with less than severe AS remain unclear. The purpose of this review is to describe the association between TAVR and outcomes in patients with HF, particularly in the setting of left ventricular systolic dysfunction, acute HF, and right ventricular systolic dysfunction, and to highlight areas for future research.

1-Year Outcomes Following Transfemoral Transseptal Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement: The HighLife TSMVR Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

A significant number of patients with severe mitral regurgitation (MR) are not suitable for either surgical or transcatheter edge-to-edge repair because of high surgical risk or inappropriate mitral valve anatomy.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the HighLife Trans-Septal Mitral Valve Replacement (TSMVR) system in patients with symptomatic MR and high surgical risk.

METHODS

This prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized feasibility study evaluated the safety and performance of the HighLife TSMVR system in patients with moderate to severe or severe symptomatic MR during 1-year follow-up. Echocardiographic data were assessed at an independent core laboratory.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients (mean age 75.6 years, 27% women, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 5.5%) with severe MR (90% with secondary MR, median left ventricular ejection fraction 43%) were treated at 13 sites. In 27 of the 30 patients, the HighLife TSMVR system was implanted successfully (technical success rate 90%). Device success at 30 days was 83%. After 1 year, 5 patients (17%) had died. None of the patients who underwent implantation required mitral valve reintervention. All patients who underwent implantation had no or trace (78%) or mild (22%) MR, the mean gradient of the HighLife valve was 5.1 mm Hg, and there were no signs of left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (mean gradient 2.0 mm Hg).

CONCLUSIONS

The 1-year results from the HighLife TSMVR feasibility study demonstrate a high technical success rate, excellent valve function, no left ventricular outflow tract obstruction, and no need for mitral valve reintervention. Additional patient outcomes and longer follow-up are needed to confirm these findings. (Expanded Study of the HighLife 28mm Trans-Septal Trans-Catheter Mitral Valve in Patients With Moderate-Severe or Severe Mitral Regurgitation and at High Surgical Risk; NCT04029363).

Transcatheter mitral valve implantation for native valve disease

Mitral regurgitation is the second most frequent heart valve disease in Europe and the most frequent in the US. Although surgery is the therapy of choice when intervention is indicated, transcatheter mitral valve repair or replacement are alternatives for patients who are not eligible for surgery. However, the development of transcatheter mitral valves is slower than expected. Although several transcatheter heart valves have been developed, only one has been commercialised. Indeed, most of these devices are being evaluated in clinical studies, with promising initial results. In this review, we propose an overview on transcatheter mitral valve replacement for the treatment of native mitral valve disease, from indication to results, including patients with severe annular calcification, and we provide you with a glimpse into the future of these therapies.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Elderly Patients: Opportunities and Challenges

Over the past two decades, the rapid evolution of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the management of severe aortic stenosis (AS) in the elderly. The prevalence of comorbidities in elderly AS patients presents a considerable challenge to the effectiveness and prognosis of patients after TAVR. In this article, we aim to summarize some of the clinical aspects of the current use of TAVR in elderly patients and attempt to highlight the challenges and issues that need further consideration.

ESC/EACTS vs. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of severe aortic stenosis

Aortic stenosis (AS) is a serious and complex condition, for which optimal management continues to evolve rapidly. An understanding of current clinical practice guidelines is critical to effective patient care and shared decision-making. This state of the art review of the 2021 European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery Guidelines and 2020 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines compares their recommendations for AS based on the evidence to date. The European and American guidelines were generally congruent with the exception of three key distinctions. First, the European guidelines recommend intervening at a left ventricular ejection fraction of 55%, compared with 60% over serial imaging by the American guidelines for asymptomatic patients. Second, the European guidelines recommend a threshold of ≥65 years for surgical bioprosthesis, whereas the American guidelines employ multiple age categories, providing latitude for patient factors and preferences. Third, the guidelines endorse different age cut-offs for transcatheter vs. surgical aortic valve replacement, despite limited evidence. This review also discusses trends indicating a decreasing proportion of mechanical valve replacements. Finally, the review identifies gaps in the literature for areas including transcatheter aortic valve implantation in asymptomatic patients, the appropriateness of Ross procedures, concomitant coronary revascularization with aortic valve replacement, and bicuspid AS. To summarize, this state of the art review compares the latest European and American guidelines on the management of AS to highlight three areas of divergence: timing of intervention, valve selection, and surgical vs. transcatheter aortic valve replacement criteria.

[TAVR : Imaging for an optimal femoral approach]

Both computed tomography (CT) angiography and vascular ultrasound have a major role before and during a transfemoral approach to TAVR. CT angiography will determine whether the patient is eligible for a femoral approach. Peri-procedural arterial ultrasound will be helpful to improve safety and optimize results during the femoral approach. Being able to interpret both of these imaging modalities is of paramount importance for any interventional cardiologist who practices structural interventions.

A 20-year journey in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Evolution to current eminence

Since the first groundbreaking procedure in 2002, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionized the management of aortic stenosis (AS). Through striking developments in pertinent equipment and techniques, TAVI has now become the leading therapeutic strategy for aortic valve replacement in patients with severe symptomatic AS. The procedure streamlining from routine use of conscious sedation to a single arterial access approach, the newly adapted implantation techniques, and the introduction of novel technologies such as intravascular lithotripsy and the refinement of valve-bioprosthesis devices along with the accumulating experience have resulted in a dramatic reduction of complications and have improved associated outcomes that are now considered comparable or even superior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). These advances have opened the road to the use of TAVI in younger and lower-risk patients and up-to-date data from landmark studies have now established the outstanding efficacy and safety of TAVI in patients with low-surgical risk impelling the most recent ESC guidelines to propose TAVI, as the main therapeutic strategy for patients with AS aged 75 years or older. In this article, we aim to summarize the most recent advances and the current clinical aspects involving the use of TAVI, and we also attempt to highlight impending concerns that need to be further addressed.

Transfemoral Versus Subclavian Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to compare outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) performed through subclavian access with those performed through transfemoral access.

METHODS

This was an observational study utilizing an institutional TAVR database from 2010 to 2018. All patients undergoing a TAVR via a transfemoral (TF-TAVR) or subclavian (SC-TAVR) approach were included in the study. The groups were analyzed for differences in operative mortality and postoperative outcomes. Multivariable Cox analysis was performed to identify variables associated with long-term survival after TAVR.

RESULTS

Of the 1,095 patients identified, 133 patients underwent SC-TAVR and 962 patients underwent TF-TAVR. Patients who underwent SC-TAVR were younger, more likely to have chronic lung disease and peripheral vascular disease, had higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality scores, and were more likely to have self-expanding valves placed (P < 0.05). Operative mortality was similar between the TF-TAVR (2.7%) and SC-TAVR (3.8%) groups. There were no significant differences in stroke, length of stay, 30-day readmission, blood transfusions, acute kidney injury, need for permanent pacemaker, paravalvular leak, or major vascular complications between the groups (P > 0.05). The unadjusted Kaplan-Meier survival estimate for TF-TAVR was significantly higher than for SC-TAVR (P = 0.009, log-rank). However, on multivariable Cox analysis, subclavian access was not significantly associated with an increased hazard of death as compared with transfemoral access (P = 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes of SC-TAVR are comparable to those of TF-TAVR. Subclavian access may be a favorable alternative approach when TF-TAVR is contraindicated.

The Transaxillary Approach via Prosthetic Conduit for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the New-Generation Balloon-Expandable Valves in Patients With Severe Peripheral Artery Disease

Background: The left subclavian artery (LSA) is an infrequently used alternative access route for patients with severe peripheral artery disease (PAD) in patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We report a new endovascular approach for TAVR combining an axillary prosthetic conduit-based access technique with new-generation balloon-expandable TAVR prostheses.

Methods and Results: Between January 2020 and December 2020, 251 patients underwent TAVR at the West German Heart and Vascular Center. Of these, 10 patients (3.9%) were deemed to be treated optimally by direct surgical exposure of the left or right axillary artery via a surgically adapted prosthetic conduit. All procedures were performed under general anesthesia. One procedural stroke occurred due to severe calcification of the aortic arch. No specific complications of the subclavian access site (vessel rupture, vertebral, or internal mammary ischemia) were reported. Two minor bleedings from the access site could be treated conservatively. No surgical revision was necessary.

Conclusion: The axillary prosthetic conduit-based access technique using new-generation balloon-expandable valves allows safe and successful TAVR in a subgroup of patients with a high risk of procedural complications due to severe peripheral vascular disease. Considering the increasing number of patients referred for TAVR, this approach could represent an alternative for patients with limited access sites.

Access options for transcatheter mitral valve implantation in patients with prior surgical bioprosthesis

Background

Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve (TMVIV) procedure, either transapical (TA) or trans-septal (TS) has become a valuable alternative to conventional redo surgery in case of failing mitral bioprosthesis with good clinical outcomes. Here we present our fourteen-year institutional experience.

Methods

All consecutive patients treated with TMVIV with either TA or TS access at our centre between July 2007 and July 2020 were included. Periprocedural and 30-day follow-up (FU) results are reported and TA and TS data are compared.

Results

Eighty-two patients were included, of those 60 (73.2%) were TA while 22 (26.8%) were TS. Men represented 51.2% of the population with a mean age of 77.3±9.0 years. STS score and EuroSCORE II were 11.4%±6.2% and 11.5%±6.5% respectively. Baseline characteristics of TA and TS groups were comparable. TMVIV was performed at a median time of 9.3 years [interquartile range (IQR), 7.9-12.0 days] from the initial mitral valve surgery. Balloon expandable transcatheter heart valve (THV) prostheses (Edwards LifeSciences Corp., Irvine, CA, USA) were used exclusively. Technical success was 97.6% (96.7% and 100.0% for TA and TS respectively) with two (2.4%) periprocedural death, both in the TA group (P=0.533). We observed four (4.9%) left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstructions with one being hemodynamically significant. Six (7.3%) major bleeding occurred in the TA group, not significantly different from TS group (P=0.279). The median length of stay was 6 days (IQR, 4-12 days, 1.5 vs. 7.0 days for TS and TA groups respectively, P=0.001). The overall 30-day mortality rate was 3.7%. We also observed three (3.7%) structural valve deteriorations and in one (1.2%) case the patient required redo mitral surgery at two months. Eighty-seven-point-eight percent of patients were I-II New York Heart Association (NYHA) class. At 30-day FU mean transmitral valve gradient was 7.3±2.7 mmHg and one patient (1.2%) had mitral regurgitation greater than mild. TA and TS groups were comparable.

Conclusions

Our 14-year single-center experience with TMVIV confirms procedural safety and is an effective alternative to redo surgery with comparable results with both TA and TS. With device, technical improvements and increasing operators' experience, TS is the preferred option for TMVIV. However, in some highly selected patient, TA may still play an important role.

All roads lead to Rome, but some are safer

Since the first in-human implantation, trans-catheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has shown an exciting development in both technical and technological terms, becoming the standard of care for many patients, even not only inoperable ones.  Although trans-femoral (TF) access has the scepter of first-line route for TAVR, in some cases, this access is not feasible, so several alternative routes were introduced over time. The network meta-analysis by Hameed et al. has the great merit to provide a comprehensive picture. Hence, through either direct and indirect comparison, the authors confirmed as TF is the gold standard as access, followed by trans-carotid and trans-subclavian. Conversely, trans-thoracic (trans apical and trans-aortic) routes are the least safe and should be reserved only to sporadic cases.

Short- and Mid-Term Outcomes in Patients Deemed Inoperable Undergoing Transapical and Transfemoral TAVR with an STS-PROM below Four Percent

Transapical (TA) TAVR is known to be associated with increased mortality and vascular complications compared with transfemoral (TF) TAVR in high-risk and inoperable patients. However, safe alternative access methods remain crucial. We aimed to (1) evaluate the 30-day and 1-year outcomes comparing TA and TF TAVR in patients with an STS-PROM of <4% deemed inoperable and (2) determine dependent and independent predictors for all-cause one-year mortality. Data were collected from a single-center registry consisting of 340 eligible patients. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed (n = 50 TA, n = 50 TF). Primary endpoints were all-cause mortality, stroke, and major bleeding. Predictors for all-cause one-year mortality were evaluated. Thirty-day mortality (TF vs. TA: 0.0% vs. 4.0%; p = 0.153) was comparable in both cohorts. One-year all-cause mortality was twice as high in TA patients (TF vs. TA: 10.0% vs. 20.0%, p logrank = 0.165, HR 2.10). Cerebrovascular events and major bleeding during one-year follow-up were similar. The multivariate analysis identified hemoglobin <12 g/dL at admission and dual antiplatelet therapy as strong predictors for one-year mortality. Although femoral access is the primary access with favorable 30-day and 1-year results, transapical access was successful for patients unsuitable for TF TAVR, showing acceptable short- and mid-term results in inoperable patients with low-risk profiles.

Current Status of Catheter-based Mitral Valve Replacement

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) has been developed to address the need for an alternative therapeutic option to surgery in patients suffering from severe mitral regurgitation who are at high surgical risk. The present review illustrated the state-of-the-art of catheter-based mitral valve replacement evaluating technical characteristics and early clinical experience of different devices to outline prospects and challenges of TMVR.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several devices are currently under clinical assessment. Early experience has demonstrated high procedural success of TMVR. However, TMVR faces several possible hurdles such as left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (LVOTO) after prosthesis deployment, access site complications, and thrombotic risk requiring anticoagulatory therapy. Future studies should assess long-term prosthesis stability, optimal anticoagulation regime, and occurrence of paravalvular leakage. The development of smaller TMVR prostheses suitable for transseptal implantation could overcome bleeding complications. In perspective, TMVR may emerge to a clinically relevant therapeutic approach for patients with severe MR at high surgical risk.

Challenges and opportunities in improving left ventricular remodelling and clinical outcome following surgical and trans-catheter aortic valve replacement

Over the last half century, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has evolved to offer a durable and efficient valve haemodynamically, with low procedural complications that allows favourable remodelling of left ventricular (LV) structure and function. The latter has become more challenging among elderly patients, particularly following trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Precise understanding of myocardial adaptation to pressure and volume overloading and its responses to valve surgery requires comprehensive assessments from aortic valve energy loss, valvular-vascular impedance to myocardial activation, force-velocity relationship, and myocardial strain. LV hypertrophy and myocardial fibrosis remains as the structural and morphological focus in this endeavour. Early intervention in asymptomatic aortic stenosis or regurgitation along with individualised management of hypertension and atrial fibrillation is likely to improve patient outcome. Physiological pacing via the His-Purkinje system for conduction abnormalities, further reduction in para-valvular aortic regurgitation along with therapy of angiotensin receptor blockade will improve patient outcome by facilitating hypertrophy regression, LV coordinate contraction, and global vascular function. TAVI leaflet thromboses require anticoagulation while impaired access to coronary ostia risks future TAVI-in-TAVI or coronary interventions. Until comparable long-term durability and the resolution of TAVI related complications become available, SAVR remains the first choice for lower risk younger patients.

Transcarotid Access Versus Transfemoral Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The transfemoral (TF) route is the gold-standard access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). In 10–15% of patients, alternative accesses are needed, such as the transcarotid (TC) access. We performed a meta-analysis to compare 30-day mortality and complications between TC-TAVR and TF-TAVR.

Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to January 2021 to identify articles comparing TC-TAVR and TF-TAVR. Patients' baseline characteristics, procedural outcomes, and clinical 30-day outcomes were extracted.

Results: We identified 9 studies, among which 2 used propensity-score matching, including 1,374 TC patients and 3,706 TF patients. TC-TAVR was associated with significantly higher EuroSCORE II and Logistic EuroSCORE values (respectively 8.0 ± 6.7 vs. 6.3 ± 5.4, p = 0.002 and 20.8 ± 14.2% vs. 20.0 ± 13.4%, p = 0.04), a higher prevalence of peripheral artery disease (52.6 vs. 32.8%, p = 0.001), previous cardiac surgery (26.3 vs. 22.4%, p = 0.008) and coronary artery disease (64.6 vs. 60.5%, p = 0.020). The pooled results found TC-TAVR to be associated with a significantly higher 30-day mortality risk (RR, 1.41, 95% CI, 1.02–1.96, p = 0.040), and a lower rate of 30-day major vascular complications (RR, 0.48, 95% CI, 0.25–0.92, p = 0.030). No significant difference was found regarding permanent pacemaker implantation, major bleeding and acute kidney injury. A subgroup analysis of the two propensity-score matched studies found a statistically increased risk of 30-day neurovascular complications (RR, 1.61, 95% CI, 1.02–2.55, p = 0.040).

Conclusion: Compared with TF-TAVR, TC-TAVR was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality, likely related to a higher surgical risk and comorbidity burden, and with an increased risk of 30-day neurovascular complications. Careful preprocedural patient selection and close periprocedural neurological monitoring are paramount.

Impact of Combined "CHADS-BLED" Score to Predict Short-Term Outcomes in Transfemoral and Transapical Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

High CHA₂DS₂-VASC and HAS-BLED scores are linked to increased mortality in structural and nonstructural cardiovascular interventions irrespective of the presence of atrial fibrillation (AF) or oral anticoagulation. We aimed to use the aforementioned scores to quantify the risk of 30-day mortality, major vascular and bleeding events (MVASC/BARC), and cerebrovascular insults (CVI) in patients undergoing different access routes in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

Methods

Out of 1329 patients, 980 transfemoral (TF) TAVR (73.7%) and 349 transapical (TA) TAVR (26.3%) were included. CHA₂DS₂-VASC, HAS-BLED, and combined “CHADS-BLED” scores were calculated and compared to the predictive value of the established EuroSCORE and STS score.

Results

In all-comers TF TAVR patients, the applied risk models showed only poor association with 30-day mortality while, in patients with concomitant AF, a strong association was observed using the combined CHADS-BLED score (c-index: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.76–0.91; p < 0.0001). Concerning 30-day mortality, only the STS score for TF TAVR (c-index: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.59–0.76; p = 0.001) and EuroSCORE for TA TAVR (c-index: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.56–0.76; p = 0.005) could show some predictive value. High CHADS-BLED was associated with enhanced CVI (3.0% vs. 7.2%;p=0.0039^∗) and more frequent MVASC/BARC (3.2% vs. 6.3%; p = 0.0362) in the all-comers TAVR cohort. All risk models failed in the prediction of CVI and MVASC/BARC for TA TAVR patients.

Conclusion

The combined CHADS-BLED score was a strong predictor for 30-day mortality in TF TAVR patients with AF. A high CHADS-BLED score showed a good predictive value for major vascular and bleeding events as well as CVI in TF TAVR patients. This study is registered at clinical trials (NCT01805739).

Expansion of TAVR into Low-Risk Patients and Who to Consider for SAVR

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS) over the last decade. The results of the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) 3 and Evolut Low Risk trials demonstrated the safety and efficacy of TAVR in low-surgical-risk patients and led to the approval of TAVR for use across the risk spectrum. Heart teams around the world will now be faced with evaluating a deluge of younger, healthier patients with severe AS. Prior to the PARTNER 3 and Evolut Low Risk studies, this heterogenous patient population would have undergone surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). It is unlikely that TAVR will completely supplant SAVR for the treatment of severe AS in patients with a low surgical risk, as SAVR has excellent short- and long-term outcomes and years of durability data. In this review, we outline the critical role that SAVR will continue to play in the treatment of severe AS in the post-PARTNER 3/Evolut Low Risk era.

Risk of mortality following transcatheter aortic valve replacement for low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

Low-flow low-gradient (LF-LG) aortic stenosis (AS) is associated with high mortality, even after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Further knowledge of risk indicators is needed and a clinical risk score would be desirable for optimizing patient selection and therapeutic strategy.

METHODS

The study cohort comprised of 219 consecutive LF-LG AS patients undergoing TAVR from 2008 to 2018 in two high-volume German centers. Predictive factors for one-year all-cause mortality were defined according to a Cox proportional hazard model.

RESULTS

At one-year follow-up after TAVR, 28% of patients had died. A multivariate model revealed six independent predictors of one-year mortality: history of myocardial infarction (HR 2.05, 95%CI 1.13-3.72), eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73m² (HR 2.75, 95%CI 1.48-5.11), tricuspid regurgitation moderate or more (HR 2.06, 95%CI 1.14-3.72), stroke volume index < 25 mL/m² (HR 2.03, 95%CI 1.14-3.62), self-expandable device (HR 2.72, 95%CI 1.17-6.27), and non-transfemoral approach (HR 3.42, 95%CI 1.28-9.14). The Rhineland Risk Score (RRS) consisting of these variables (c statistic 0.75, 95%CI 0.68-0.82, p < 0.001) was superior to the EuroSCORE II (c statistic 0.63) and STS-PROM score (c statistic 0.69) at predicting one-year mortality. Patients with a RRS ≥ 8 had a prohibitive risk of one-year mortality of 67.6% (95%CI 52.0-82.4%).

CONCLUSION

In patients with LF-LG AS, history of myocardial infarction, renal dysfunction, tricuspid regurgitation, a low stroke volume index, self-expandable device, and non-femoral approach were associated with increased 1-year mortality after TAVR. The RRS might serve as a helpful tool for risk prediction and patient selection for TAVR in patients with LF-LG AS.

Femoral Versus Nonfemoral Subclavian/Carotid Arterial Access Route for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Some concerns remain regarding the safety of transcarotid and transsubclavian approaches for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. We aimed to compare the risk of 30‐day complications and death in transcarotid/transsubclavian versus transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement recipients.

Methods and Results

Data from 20 studies, including 79 426 patients (16 studies) and 3992 patients (4 studies) for the evaluation of the unadjusted and adjusted impact of the arterial approach were sourced, respectively. The use of a transcarotid/transsubclavian approach was associated with an increased risk of stroke when using unadjusted data (risk ratio [RR], 2.28; 95% CI, 1.90–2.72) as well as adjusted data (odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% CI, 1.05–2.22). The pooled results deriving from unadjusted data showed an increased risk of 30‐day death (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.22–1.74) and bleeding (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.18–1.97) in patients receiving transcatheter aortic valve replacement through a transcarotid/transsubclavian access (compared with the transfemoral group), but the associations between the arterial access and death (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.89–1.69), bleeding (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.68–1.61) were no longer significant when using adjusted data. No significant effect of the arterial access on vascular complication was observed in unadjusted (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.66–1.06) and adjusted (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.53–1.17) analyses.

Conclusions

Transcarotid and transsubclavian approaches for transcatheter aortic valve replacement were associated with an increased risk of stroke compared with the transfemoral approach. However, these nonfemoral arterial alternative accesses were not associated with an increased risk of 30‐day death, bleeding, or vascular complication when taking into account the confounding factors.

Impact of Bioprosthetic Choice on Mortality After Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Reduced Versus Preserved Left-Ventricular Ejection Fraction

The outcome of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) with a self-expanding (SEP) versus a balloon-expandable prosthesis (BEP) in patients with a reduced ejection fraction (rEF, ≤40%) has not been previously investigated. Patients with rEF have an increased risk of death after TF-TAVI compared to patients with a preserved ejection fraction (pEF), and prosthesis choice might influence the outcome of these patients. We, therefore, sought to compare all-cause mortality of patients with rEF using a SEP versus a BEP. We retrospectively analyzed data of 679 single-center TF-TAVI patients. Patients were censored at death or completion of 1-year follow-up, whichever occurred first. Patients with rEF (n = 141, 21%) had an increased 1-year mortality compared to patients with pEF (28% vs 19%, p = 0.007). SEP were implanted in 149 patients (49 with rEF, 33%), while BEP were implanted in 530 patients (92 with rEF, 17%). In patients with pEF, 1-year mortality was similar after SEP- and BEP-implantation (16% vs 19%, p = 0.516). In patients with rEF, however, 1-year mortality was higher after SEP- than after BEP-implantation (43% vs 21%, p = 0.004). These patients had a higher incidence of new permanent pacemaker implantation (26.5% vs 13%, p = 0.046) and paravalvular leak ≥II° (21% vs 10%, p = 0.07), but both factors could not explain the excess mortality after SEP-implantation in the multivariate analysis. In patients with rEF, the use of a SEP was an independent predictor of 1-year mortality (HR 2.44, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.27, p = 0.007). In conclusion, patients with rEF had a higher 1-year mortality after TF-TAVI when a SEP instead of a BEP was used.

Comparing traditional aortic valve surgery and transapical approach to transcatheter aortic valve implant

During the last 15 years, transcatheter aortic valve implant (TAVI) has become a valid alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis, and high or intermediate operative risk. Transcatheter aortic valve implant could be approached through various access sites, among which the transapical has long been one of the most popular. Through the years, this procedure has shown results similar to the standard surgical approach, but not as good as the same procedure via the transfemoral approach. For this reason, along with continuous technological advances, the transfemoral approach is used, presently, in 90% of the patient, while the transapical route has been limited, progressively, to a minority of patients. Currently the Heart Team should decide, in every single patient, between conventional surgery and TAVI. In clinical practice, TAVI is favoured in high-risk patients, and in the elderly at intermediate surgical risk with favourable anatomical features. In patients in whom TAVI is preferable to surgery, but have ‘non-usable’ femoral approach, alternative routes, such as transaxillary or transapical, could be considered.

Prediction of One-Year Mortality Based upon A New Staged Mortality Risk Model in Patients with Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Transcatheter Valve Replacement

Background: In-depth knowledge about potential predictors of mortality in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is still warranted. Currently used risk stratification models for TAVR often fail to reach a holistic approach. We, therefore, aimed to create a new staged risk model for 1-year mortality including several new categories including (a) AS-entities (b) cardiopulmonary hemodynamics (c) comorbidities, and (d) different access routes. Methods: 737 transfemoral (TF) TAVR (84.3%) and 137 transapical (TA) TAVR (15.7%) patients were included. Predictors of 1-year mortality were assessed according to the aforementioned categories. Results: Over-all 1-year mortality (n = 100, 11.4%) was significantly higher in the TA TAVR group (TF vs. TA TAVR: 10.0% vs. 18.9 %; p = 0.0050*). By multivariate cox-regression analysis, a three-staged model was created in patients with fulfilled categories (TF TAVR: n = 655, 88,9%; TA TAVR: n = 117, 85.4%). Patients in “stage 2” showed 1.7-fold (HR 1.67; CI 1.07–2.60; p = 0.024*) and patients in “stage 3” 3.5-fold (HR 3.45; CI 1.97–6.05; p < 0.0001*) enhanced risk to die within 1 year. Mortality increased with every stage and reached the highest rates of 42.5% in “stage 3” (p_logrank < 0.0001*), even when old- and new-generation devices (p_logrank = n.s) were sub-specified. Conclusions: This new staged mortality risk model had incremental value for prediction of 1-year mortality after TAVR independently from the TAVR-era.

Experimental Evaluation of a Novel Percutaneous Transseptal Catheter-Based Mitral Valve Replacement Technology

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter mitral valve replacement is a novel therapeutic approach aiming to treat patients with severe mitral regurgitation. This study aimed to evaluate the biological and technical performance of a novel transseptal transcatheter mitral valve replacement system (Cephea Valve Technologies, Santa Cruz, CA) in a preclinical model.

METHODS

Biological performance and healing response were evaluated following open-heart surgical implantation procedures in 10 sheep utilizing an antegrade transatrial access. Valve performance was assessed with fluoroscopy, echocardiography, and histology at 30 (n=2), 60 (n=3), and 90 days (n=5). Feasibility of transseptal valve delivery and performance was tested acutely in 10 pigs.

RESULTS

In the chronic studies, all animals survived without problems until completion of the study. The hemodynamics of the study valves were excellent with low rates of paravalvular leak. There was no left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. Pathological evaluation showed excellent position and condition of the mitral implants without evidence for thrombosis, endocarditis, or excessive calcification. Subsequently, mitral valves were implanted in 10 pigs using a dedicated transseptal delivery system. The implants remained in stable position with excellent hemodynamic profile. Correct valve position and function was confirmed by echocardiography and autopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

The transseptal delivery of the Cephea transcatheter mitral valve replacement system in an experimental model was feasible and safe. The chronic studies demonstrated a favorable healing response. Further human studies are needed to evaluate the performance of this novel valve system in patients with severe mitral regurgitation.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with a focus on transcarotid: a review of the current literature

Valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis has undergone a huge paradigm shift in the recent years in terms of procedural details and vascular access site for patients who have poor peripheral access. Carotid artery is one of the more promising access sites which has been proven to provide a good alternative site with comparable outcomes to transfemoral approach. In this manuscript, we will provide a review of the current literature on transaortic, transapical, transaxillary and transcarotid approaches to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) while focusing on the transcarotid approach.

The Portico transcatheter aortic valve for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis

The Portico TAVI system (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) has been specifically designed to mitigate some of the complications associated with first-generation valves. Most of the data generated from randomized studies comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with surgery stem from reported experiences with first generation transcatheter heart valve devices. The aim of this review is to describe the repositionable and retrievable Portico system and its implantation technique, coupled with our single-center experience and to provide a review of the clinical results reported so far in the literature.