Outcomes Following Urgent/Emergent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Mortality Rates in Patients Undergoing Urgent Versus Elective Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-analysis

Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AoS) often present with acute heart failure and compensation, frequently leading to cardiogenic shock. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) has been recently performed as a bailout treatment in such patients. The aim of our meta-analysis is to compare urgent TAVR with elective procedures. We systematically screened three databases searching for studies comparing urgent vs elective TAVR. Primary endpoint is the 30-days mortality. Secondary endpoints included in-hospital mortality, device success, periprocedural vascular complications, 30-days stroke, 30-days acute kidney injury (AKI), permanent pacemaker implantation (PPM), moderate or severe paravalvular leakage, and 30-days bleeding. Seventeen studies were included, with a total of 84,495 patients. Urgent TAVR was associated with an increased risk for 30-days mortality [Risk Ratio (RR): 2.53, 95% Confidence Intervals (CI): 1.81-3.54)], in-hospital mortality (RR: 2.67, 95% CI: 1.94-3.68), periprocedural vascular complications (RR: 1.91, 95% CI: 1.28-2.85) and AKI (RR: 2.83, 95% CI: 1.93-4.14), compared with elective procedure. No differences were observed in the other secondary endpoints. Urgent TAVR was associated with higher in-hospital and 30-days mortality, possibly driven by the increased incidence of AKI and vascular complications in urgent TAVR. The results highlight the importance of early TAVR in stable AoS patients.

Cardiogenic Shock in Older Adults: A Focus on Age-Associated Risks and Approach to Management: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Cardiogenic shock continues to portend poor outcomes, conferring short-term mortality rates of 30% to 50% despite recent scientific advances. Age is a nonmodifiable risk factor for mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock and is often considered in the decision-making process for eligibility for various therapies. Older adults have been largely excluded from analyses of therapeutic options in patients with cardiogenic shock. As a result, despite the association of advanced age with worse outcomes, focused strategies in the assessment and management of cardiogenic shock in this high-risk and growing population are lacking. Individual programs oftentimes develop upper age limits for various interventional strategies for their patients, including heart transplantation and durable left ventricular assist devices. However, age as a lone parameter should not be used to guide individual patient management decisions in cardiogenic shock. In the assessment of risk in older adults with cardiogenic shock, a comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach is central to developing best practices. In this American Heart Association scientific statement, we aim to summarize our contemporary understanding of the epidemiology, risk assessment, and in-hospital approach to management of cardiogenic shock, with a unique focus on older adults.

Clinical Outcomes of Urgent or Emergency Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation - Insights From the Nationwide Registry of Japan Transcatheter Valve Therapies

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available for clinical outcomes in patients who underwent urgent or emergency transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). This study investigated in-hospital and 1-year outcomes and explored prognostic covariates in urgent/emergency TAVI using nationwide registry data.Methods and Results: Among 26,775 patients who underwent TAVI between August 2013 and December 2019, 25,495 with 1-year follow-up information were analyzed in this study. Baseline and procedural characteristics, as well as clinical adverse events, were compared between the urgent/emergency and elective TAVI groups. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 1 year after TAVI. Multivariable Cox regression models were constructed to identify independent predictors after urgent or emergency TAVI. Urgent or emergency TAVI was performed in 578 (2.3%) patients. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was significantly higher in the urgent/emergency than elective TAVI group (13.3% vs. 6.0%; P<0.001). Device success rate was comparable between the 2 groups. All-cause death-free survival within 1 year was lower in the urgent/emergency than elective TAVI group (77.2% vs. 92.2%; log rank P<0.001). Malignancy, albumin and creatinine concentrations, ejection fraction, and mean pressure gradient were associated with 1-year mortality in the urgent/emergency TAVI group.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite higher surgical risk and more comorbidities, the procedure was successfully performed in patients undergoing urgent/emergency TAVI, although it should be noted that prognosis was worse than for elective TAVI.

Association between social vulnerability index and admission urgency for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are not offered equitably to vulnerable population groups. Adequate levels of insurance may narrow gaps among patients with higher social vulnerability index (SVI). Among a national population of individuals with commercial or Medicare insurance, we sought to determine whether SVI was associated with urgency of receipt of TAVR for aortic stenosis.

Methods and results

Using Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database (CDM), we identified admissions for TAVR with aortic stenosis between January 2018 and March 2022. Admission urgency was identified by CDM claims codes. SVI was cross-referenced to patient zip codes and grouped into quintiles. Generalized linear mixed effects models were used to predict the probability of a TAVR admission being urgent based on SVI quintiles, adjusting for patient and hospital-level covariates.

Results

Among 6680 admissions for TAVR [median age 80 years (interquartile range 75-85), 43.9 % female], 8.5 % (n = 567) were classified as urgent. After adjusting for patient and hospital-level variables, there were no significant differences in the odds of urgent admission for TAVR according to SVI quintiles [OR 5th (greatest social vulnerability) vs 1st quintile (least social vulnerability): 1.29 (95 % CI: 0.90-1.85)].

Conclusions

Among commercial or Medicare beneficiaries with aortic stenosis, SVI was not associated with admission urgency for TAVR. To clarify whether cardiovascular care delivery is improved across SVI with higher paying beneficiaries, future investigation should identify whether relationships between SVI and TAVR urgency vary for Medicaid beneficiaries compared to commercial beneficiaries.

High-risk admission prior to transcatheter aortic valve replacement and subsequent outcomes

BACKGROUND

Severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis may cause heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, or syncope; limited data exist on the occurrence of such events before transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and their impact on subsequent outcomes. Thus, we investigated the association between a preceding event and outcomes after TAVR.

METHODS

From 2014 to 2021 all Danish patients who underwent TAVR were included. Preceding events up to 180 days before TAVR were identified. A preceding event was defined as a hospitalization for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, or syncope. The 1-year risk of all-cause death, and cardiovascular or all-cause hospitalization was compared for patients with versus without a preceding event using Kaplan-Meier, Aalen-Johansen, and in Cox regression analyses adjusted for patient characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 5,851 patients included, 759 (13.0%) had a preceding event. The median age was 81 years in both groups. Male sex and frailty were more prevalent in patients with a preceding event (males: 64.7% vs 55.2%, frailty: 49.6% vs 40.6%). The most common type of preceding event was a hospitalization for heart failure (n = 524). For patients with a preceding event, the 1-year risk of death was 11.7% (95% CI: 9.4%-14.1%) versus 8.0% (95% CI: 7.2%-8.7%) for patients without. The corresponding adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) was 1.29 (95%CI: 1.01-1.64). Mortality was highest for patients with a preceding event of a heart failure admission (1-year risk: 13.5% [95%CI: 10.5%-16.5%]). Comparing patients with a preceding event to those without, the 1-year risk for cardiovascular rehospitalization was 15.0% versus 8.2% (aHR 1.60 [95%CI: 1.29-1.99]) and 57.6% versus 50.6% for all-cause rehospitalization (aHR 1.08 [95%CI: 0.87-1.20]).

CONCLUSIONS

A hospitalization for heart failure, myocardial infarction, or syncope prior to TAVR was associated with a poorer prognosis and could represent a group to focus resource management on. Interventions to prevent preceding events and improvements in pre- and post-TAVR optimization of these patients are warranted.

Valvular Heart Disease in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit

Valvular heart disease pathologies are commonly encountered in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). Clinical presentations may range from an acute pathology of the aortic or mitral valve necessitating emergency intervention to a more subtle decompensation of longstanding valvular disease. With growing numbers of transcatheter valvular interventions, CICU providers must recognize and manage common complications after transcatheter aortic, mitral, and tricuspid interventions. In addition, prosthetic valve dysfunction should always be excluded in a CICU patient presenting with an acute cardiopulmonary decompensation. Multidisciplinary valve teams can assist with challenging valvular pathologies to determine candidacy for potential interventions.

A heart valve dedicated for aortic regurgitation: Review of technology and early clinical experience with the transfemoral Trilogy system

Aortic regurgitation (AR) is associated with morbidity and premature mortality. Surgical aortic valve replacement is not an option for many patients due to an adverse surgical risk profile, whilst transcatheter aortic valve implantation with most available prostheses has demonstrated suboptimal implantation success and outcomes. The JenaValve Trilogy™ system provides an attractive solution for such patients as it utilizes clips that directly attach onto the native valve leaflets to anchor. Initially designed for transapical delivery, the current transfemoral delivery system is under investigation in the United States and approved for aortic stenosis and regurgitation in Europe. We present an expert review on the technical aspects of the Trilogy system, provide a guide for implantation, discuss the available evidence for the technology and provide illustrative case examples.

TAVR vs balloon aortic valvotomy for severe aortic stenosis and cardiogenic shock: An insight from the National Inpatient Sample database

BACKGROUND

Severe Aortic stenosis (AS) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) represents a grave clinical condition with limited treatment options. Evidence from small observation studies favors that Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) might be a feasible option in these patients in contrast to emergent Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty (BAV) which is associated with very high short and long-term mortality.

METHODS

11,405 hospitalizations with severe AS complicated by CS between 2016 and 2020 were identified using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) Database, and patients were then stratified according to whether they received TAVR or BAV. Propensity-score matching was used to account for differences in the baseline characteristics. Primary and secondary outcomes were then compared between 3485 hospitalizations in direct TAVR group and with 3485 matched hospitalizations in the BAV group. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause in-hospital death, acute cerebrovascular accident (CVA), and myocardial infarction (MI). Secondary outcomes and safety outcomes were also compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

TAVR was associated with fewer primary outcomes events as compared to BAV {36.8 % vs 56.8 %, aOR (95%CI) = 0.38(0.30-0.47)}, due to fewer all-cause in-hospital deaths {17.8 % vs 38.9 %, aOR (95%CI) =0.34 (0.26-0.43)} and MI {12.3 % vs 32.4 %, aOR (95%CI) = 0.29 (0.22-0.39)}. TAVR was associated with higher rates of acute CVA {6.17 % vs 3.44 %, aOR (95%CI) = 1.84 (1.08-3.21)} and pacemaker implantation post procedure {11.9 % vs 6.03 %, aOR (95%CI) = 2.10 (1.41-3.18)}.

CONCLUSION

Direct TAVR in shock and severe Aortic stenosis is a better strategy than rescue Balloon aortic valvotomy.

Health Care Resource, Economic, and Readmission Implications After Acute Decompensated Aortic Stenosis-A Nationwide Study

Acute decompensated aortic stenosis (ADAS) is common. The cumulative burden of ADAS from a clinical, health care resource, and financial perspective is unknown. This study sought to assess the national impact of ADAS compared with electively treated, stable patients with aortic stenosis (non-ADAS). Using the National Readmissions Database between 2016 and 2019, patients with ADAS and non-ADAS were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes. Patients with ADAS were propensity-matched to non-ADAS patients (1:2) using age, gender, and Charlson co-morbidity index. We compared in-hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS), health care-associated costs, and 90-day readmission data between the 2 cohorts. A total of 51,498 propensity-matched patients were included in this study: median age 75 years, 64% men. The in-hospital mortality for ADAS was higher than non-ADAS (2.8% vs 1.5%, p <0.0001). The LOS during the index admission was longer for ADAS (9 [5 to 13] vs 4 [2 to 6] days, p <0.0001). The health care-associated costs per patient was greater for ADAS ($55,450.0 [41,860.4 to 74,500.7] vs $43,405.7 [34,218.5 to 56,034.8], p <0.0001). Readmission to hospital within 90 days was more frequent in ADAS (21.1 vs 16.8%, p <0.001). The in-hospital mortality during readmission was higher with ADAS (3.9% vs 2.8%, p = 0.004). The readmission LOS was longer with ADAS (4 [2 to 7] vs 3 [2 to 6] days, p <0.0001). In conclusion, ADAS imposes a significant burden clinically and financially and on health care resources compared with non-ADAS during the index admission and 90-day follow-up. There is an urgent need to predict ADAS and optimize the timing of aortic valve replacement to reduce the incidence and the burden associated with ADAS.

TAV-in-TAV in Failed Homograft: Redo TAVI in a Patient With 3 Previous Sternotomies

A 59-year-old male patient with history of rheumatic heart disease with 3 previous surgical aortic valve replacements with the last one being homograft followed by transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed homograft presented with severe aortic regurgitation and cardiogenic shock requiring urgent TAV-in-TAV-in homograft. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

Short-term Outcomes of Urgent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis That Requires Emergency Hospital Admission

Objective This study retrospectively compared the outcomes of emergently admitted patients with aortic stenosis (AS) with or without urgent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Methods Patients hospitalized between February 2015 and December 2019 for symptomatic AS were retrospectively analyzed by comparing the received conservative management [continued medical therapy with or without elective surgical transcatheter replacement (SAVR) or TAVR scheduled after the index hospitalization] and urgent TAVR (TAVR during the index hospitalization). Results The cohort comprised 114 patients with symptomatic AS who required emergency admission. Urgent TAVR was performed for 37 patients, while conservative management was provided for 77 patients, including 1 who received urgent SAVR. Urgent TAVR was more likely to be performed in patients with a history of hospitalization for heart failure, high New York Heart Association class scores, a lower clinical frailty scale at admission, and a high aortic valve peak velocity (p=0.01, p<0.001, p<0.01 and p=0.02, respectively). Kaplan-Meier analyses with log-rank test revealed favorable outcomes of urgent TAVR in all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events within 60 days of admission (p<0.01, p<0.01, respectively). Conclusion Urgent TAVR had better short-term outcomes in patients with symptomatic AS who required emergency hospital admission than conservative management. When considering urgent TAVR, patients with typical heart failure symptoms due to AS with a history of heart failure hospitalization and relatively little frailty can be selected.

Urgent versus Non-Urgent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

There are limited data about the outcomes of nonelective transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Some studies suggest that these patients (pts) have worst results. Our purpose was to compare outcomes in pts submitted to urgent versus elective TAVI.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 298 consecutive pts submitted to TAVI between 2018 and 2021 in a single tertiary center. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were collected and compared between elective and nonelective TAVI.

RESULTS

Pts submitted to urgent TAVI (79 pts) had worse baseline characteristics, with higher EuroScore risk (9.26 vs. 5.17%, p < 0.0001), STS score (7.09 vs. 4.4%, p < 0.0001), and NT pro-natriuretic peptide B (10,168 vs. 3,241 pg/mL, p = 0.001), lower left ventricle ejection fraction (45 vs. 52%, p = 0.003), more diabetes (46.8 vs. 32.4%, p = 0.0.22), peripheral artery disease (21.5 vs. 6.8%, p < 0.0001), and poor vascular accesses (18.4 vs. 7.4%, p = 0.007). Urgent TAVI was associated with higher mortality (25.3 vs. 15.1%, p = 0.043), 30-day cardiovascular mortality (17.5 vs. 4%, p = 0.001), life-threatening bleeding (11.5 vs. 4.1%, p = 0.018), vascular complications (11.5 vs. 4.6%, p = 0.031), and longer hospital stay (28 vs. 12 days, p < 0.0001), but not with intensive care unit or post-TAVI hospital stay (5 vs. 4 days, p = 0.197 and 11 vs. 10 days, p = 0.572). When adjusted to differences in baseline characteristics, urgent TAVI was only associated with longer hospital stay (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Pts submitted to urgent TAVI have worse short-term outcomes, but this seems to be attributable to the worse baseline characteristics instead of the urgent nature of the procedure.

Acute heart failure and valvular heart disease: A scientific statement of the Heart Failure Association, the Association for Acute CardioVascular Care and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions of the European Society of Cardiology

Acute heart failure (AHF) represents a broad spectrum of disease states, resulting from the interaction between an acute precipitant and a patient's underlying cardiac substrate and comorbidities. Valvular heart disease (VHD) is frequently associated with AHF. AHF may result from several precipitants that add an acute haemodynamic stress superimposed on a chronic valvular lesion or may occur as a consequence of a new significant valvular lesion. Regardless of the mechanism, clinical presentation may vary from acute decompensated heart failure to cardiogenic shock. Assessing the severity of VHD as well as the correlation between VHD severity and symptoms may be difficult in patients with AHF because of the rapid variation in loading conditions, concomitant destabilization of the associated comorbidities and the presence of combined valvular lesions. Evidence-based interventions targeting VHD in settings of AHF have yet to be identified, as patients with severe VHD are often excluded from randomized trials in AHF, so results from these trials do not generalize to those with VHD. Furthermore, there are not rigorously conducted randomized controlled trials in the setting of VHD and AHF, most of the data coming from observational studies. Thus, distinct to chronic settings, current guidelines are very elusive when patients with severe VHD present with AHF, and a clear-cut strategy could not be yet defined. Given the paucity of evidence in this subset of AHF patients, the aim of this scientific statement is to describe the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and overall treatment approach for patients with VHD who present with AHF.

Is the outcome of elective vs non-elective patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation different? Results of a single-centre, observational assessment of outcomes at a large university clinic

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) can either be conducted as an elective (scheduled in advance) or a non-elective procedure performed during an unplanned hospital admission. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of elective and non-elective TAVI patients.

METHODS

This single-centre study included 512 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI between October 2018 and December 2020; 378 (73.8%) were admitted for elective TAVI, 134 (26.2%) underwent a non-elective procedure. Our TAVI programme entails an optimized fast-track concept aimed at minimizing the total length of stay to ≤ 5 days for elective patients which in the German healthcare system is currently defined as the minimal time period to safely perform TAVI. Clinical characteristics and survival rates at 30 days and 1 year were analysed.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent non-elective TAVI had a significantly higher comorbidity burden. Median duration from admission to discharge was 6 days (elective group 6 days versus non-elective group 15 days; p < 0.001), including a median postprocedural stay of 5 days (elective 4 days versus non-elective 7 days; p < 0.001). All-cause mortality at 30 days was 1.1% for the elective group and 3.7% for non-elective patients (p = 0.030). At 1 year, all-cause mortality among elective TAVI patients was disproportionately lower than in non-elective patients (5.0% versus 18.7%, p < 0.001). In the elective group, 54.5% of patients could not be discharged early due to comorbidities or procedural complications. Factors associated with a failure of achieving a total length of stay of ≤ 5 days comprised frailty syndrome, renal impairment as well as new permanent pacemaker implantation, new bundle branch block or atrial fibrillation, life-threatening bleeding, and the use of self-expanding valves. After multivariate adjustment, new permanent pacemaker implantation (odds ratio 6.44; 95% CI 2.59-16.00), life-threatening bleeding (odds ratio 4.19; 95% confidence interval 1.82-9.66) and frailty syndrome (odds ratio 5.15; 95% confidence interval 2.40-11.09; all p < 0.001, respectively) were confirmed as significant factors.

CONCLUSIONS

While non-elective patients had acceptable periprocedural outcomes, mortality rates at 1 year were significantly higher compared to elective patients. Approximately only half of elective patients could be discharged early. Improvements in periprocedural care, follow-up strategies and optimized treatment of both elective and non-elective TAVI patients are needed.

In-hospital Outcomes and the Impact of Transfer Status in Nonelective vs Elective Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

Nonelective transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) requires additional research to be fully understood.

Methods

Using the National Inpatient Sample database (2016-2019), we conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing nonelective vs elective TAVR. The primary outcome of interest was the in-hospital mortality rate among patients undergoing nonelective TAVR, compared to that among patients undergoing elective TAVR. We matched patients in a greedy nearest-neighbor 1:1 model and multivariable logistic regression, which was adjusted for demographics, hospital factors, and comorbidities, and was used to compare mortality in our matched cohort.

Results

Each cohort had 4389 patients in each cohort. When adjusted for age, race, sex, and comorbidities, nonelective TAVR patients had 1.99 times higher odds of suffering in-hospital mortality compared to elective admissions (adjusted odds ratio 1.99, 95% confidence interval: 1.42-2.81; P < 0.001). When separated by transfer status, nonelective patients admitted as regular hospital admissions or transferred from other acute-care centres also had higher odds of suffering in-hospital mortality compared to elective admissions.

Conclusions

Our findings illustrate that nonelective TAVR patients are a vulnerable population that require additional medical support in the acute-care setting. As the demand for TAVR increases, further discussions regarding access to healthcare in underserved regions, the national physician shortage, and the future of the TAVR industry are imperative.

Acute advanced aortic stenosis

Acute decompensation often represents the onset of symptoms associated with severe degenerative aortic stenosis (AS) and usually complicates the clinical course of the disease with a dismal impact on survival and quality of life. Several factors may derange the faint balance between left ventricular preload and afterload and precipitate the occurrence of symptoms and signs of acute heart failure (HF). A standardized approach for the management of this condition is currently lacking. Medical therapy finds very limited application in this setting, as drugs usually indicated for the control of acute HF might worsen hemodynamics in the presence of AS. Urgent aortic valve replacement is usually performed by transcatheter than surgical approach whereas, over the last decades, percutaneous balloon valvuloplasty gained renewed space as bridge to definitive therapy. This review focuses on the pathophysiological aspects of acute advanced AS and summarizes current evidence on its management.

Outcomes of Adults with Severe Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Urgent or Emergent vs. Elective Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Within an Integrated Health Care Delivery System

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be used to urgently or emergently treat severe aortic stenosis, but outcomes for this high-risk population have not been well-characterized. We sought to describe the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients undergoing urgent or emergent vs. elective TAVR.

Methods

We identified all adults who received TAVR for primary aortic stenosis between 2013 and 2019 within an integrated health care delivery system in Northern California. Elective or urgent/emergent procedure status was based on standard Society of Thoracic Surgeons definitions. Data were obtained from electronic health records, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons-American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry, and state/national reporting databases. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models were performed.

Results

Among 1564 eligible adults that underwent TAVR, 81 (5.2%) were classified as urgent/emergent. These patients were more likely to have heart failure (63.0% vs. 47.4%), reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (21.0% vs. 11.8%), or a prior aortic valve balloon valvuloplasty (13.6% vs. 5.0%) and experienced higher unadjusted rates of 30-day and 1-year morbidity and mortality. Urgent/emergent TAVR status was independently associated with non-improved quality of life at 30-days (hazard ratio, 4.87; p < 0.01) and acute kidney injury within 1-year post-TAVR (hazard ratio, 2.11; p = 0.01). There was not a significant difference in adjusted 1-year mortality with urgent/emergent TAVR.

Conclusions

Urgent/emergent TAVR status was uncommon and associated with high-risk clinical features and higher unadjusted rates of short- and long-term morbidity and mortality. Procedure status may be useful to identify patients less likely to experience significant short term improvement in health-related quality of life post-TAVR.

Rescue aortic valvuloplasty for severe aortic stenosis is simple and effective in severely hemodynamically compromised patients presenting to centers without on-site heart surgery or TAVI facilities

Management of high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) is a challenging issue. The prognosis of patients with AS presenting with therapy-refractory pulmonary edema (RPE) or cardiogenic shock (CS) remains poor. The purpose of this study was to assess the 30-day mortality of rescue percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty (PBAV) in AS patients presenting with RPE or CS in a community-based hospital without on-site heart surgery. From January 2016 to February 2019, we identified consecutively admitted patients with CS or RPE related to severe AS who underwent emergent PBAV. The primary end point was 30-day mortality. Secondary end points included procedural adverse events according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 criteria and predictive factors of the primary end point. We identified 51 patients with either CS (n = 22) or RPE (n = 29). All PBAV procedures were successful with a significant reduction in peak-to-peak gradient (median, [IQR] from 40 [27] mmHg to 15 [20] mmHg, p < 0.001). No procedural deaths occurred, while adverse events included stroke (4%), minor vascular complications (6%), minor (4%) and major bleedings (4%), and no life-threatening bleeding. Overall, 15 deaths (29%) were noted at 30 days after PBAV, while 53% of the surviving patients were successfully bridged to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). 30-day mortality was significantly higher in the CS group compared to the RPE (n = 10 (45%) vs n = 5 (7%), p = 0.029), and was significantly associated with the presence of acute kidney injury (OR 9.09, 95% CI 2.13-38.77, p = 0.003) and elevated pulmonary artery systolic pressure (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.0-1.12, p = 0.047). Rescue PBAV in patients with severe AS presenting with RPE or CS is a feasible and effective therapeutic option, even in a community-based hospital without on-site heart surgery. Rescue PBAV resulted in 30-day survival of more than 70%, with more than half of the surviving patients having been successfully bridged to TAVI.

Emergency transcatheter aortic valve implantation for acute heart failure due to severe aortic stenosis in critically ill patients with or without cardiogenic shock

AIMS

Severe aortic stenosis can cause acute heart failure and cardiogenic shock (CS). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the standard therapy for aortic stenosis in inoperable patients. However, its role in this setting is poorly evaluated. The study purpose was to explore clinical characteristics of these patients and to assess predictors of mortality.

METHODS AND RESULTS

All 2930 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI at our centre between 2013 and 2019 were screened for critically ill patients, receiving intensive care therapy and emergency TAVI. Selected patients were subdivided into two groups, according to the presence or absence of CS. Remaining patients undergoing elective TAVI served as a comparison. Primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Out of 179 critically ill patients, 47 fulfilled criteria of CS (shock group) and 132 did not despite a severe decompensation (no shock group). Shock patients were more often male and had higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores [15.6, interquartile range (8.0-32.1) vs. 5.5 (3.9-8.5), P < 0.01] compared with severely decompensated patients. Ninety-day mortality was: shock group, 42.6%, vs. no shock group, 15.9%, vs. elective group, 5.3% (P < 0.01). A landmark analysis from day 90 showed similar mortality (P = 0.29). Compared with elective patients, 30-day composite endpoint device failure was higher in critically ill groups [shock group, odds ratio, 2.86 (1.43-5.36), no shock group, odds ratio, 1.74 (1.09-2.69)]. Multivariable regression revealed mechanical ventilation, haemofiltration, elevated C-reactive protein or bilirubin, and hypotension before TAVI as 90-day mortality predictors.

CONCLUSION

Ninety-day mortality after TAVI in critically ill patients is increased but survivors have similar outcomes as elective patients.

Procedural and long-term outcome among patients undergoing expedited trans-catheter aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE

Patients with rapidly deteriorating clinical status due to severe aortic stenosis are often referred for expedited transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Data regarding the outcome of such interventions is limited. We aimed to evaluate the outcome of patients undergoing expedited TAVR.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Data were derived from the Israeli Multicenter Registry.

SUBJECTS

Subjects were divided into two groups based on procedure urgency: patients who were electively hospitalized for the procedure (N = 3140) and those who had an expedited TAVR (N = 142). Procedural and periprocedural complication rates were significantly higher among patients with an expedited indication for TAVR compared to those having an elective procedure: valve malposition 4.6% versus 0.6% (p &lt; 0.001), procedural cardiopulmonary resuscitation 4.3% versus 1.0% (p = 0.007), postprocedure myocardial infarction 2.0% versus 0.4% (p = 0.002), and stage 3 acute kidney injury 3.0% versus 1.1%, (p &lt; 0.001). Patients with expedited indication for TAVR had significantly higher in hospital mortality (5.6% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.003). Kaplan-Meier's survival analysis showed that patients undergoing expedited TAVR had higher 3-year mortality rates compared to patients undergoing an elective TAVR procedure (p &lt; 0.001). Multivariate analysis found that patients with expedited indication had fourfolds increased risk of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio: 4.07, p = 0.001), and nearly twofolds increased risk of mortality at 3-year (hazard ratio: 1.69, p = 0.001) compared to those having an elective procedure.

CONCLUSION

Patients with expedited indications for TAVR suffer from poor short- and long-term outcomes. It is important to characterize and identify these patients before the deterioration to perform TAVR in a fast-track pathway to minimize their procedural risk.

Trends in invasive treatment of patients hospitalized with aortic stenosis complicated by cardiogenic shock

BACKGROUND

Before the development of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) was the only potential nonsurgical intervention for patients with aortic stenosis complicated by cardiogenic shock. Emergent TAVR is now an option and has shown acceptable outcomes compared with elective TAVR. We explored how treatment patterns for aortic stenosis and cardiogenic shock among patients received invasive intervention have shifted since TAVR was introduced.

METHODS

We used the Nationwide In patients Sample to identify nonelective hospitalizations for patient with aortic stenosis complicated by cardiogenic shock who received invasive treatment (TAVR, BAV, or surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR]). We explored the proportion treated with each treatment modality over time, the patient characteristics and in-hospital mortality associated with each treatment, and used multivariable logistic regression to examine whether changes in in-hospital mortality over time differed by treatment.

RESULTS

Between 2010 and 2019, we identified 9899 hospitalizations for decompensated aortic stenosis with cardiogenic shock during which patients received invasive treatment (TAVR 17.7%, BAV 20.2%, SAVR 62.1%). Use of both TAVR and BAV has increased over time compared with SAVR (TAVR 6.6% ≥ 33.8%, BAV 8.4% ≥ 23.2%, SAVR 91.6% ≥ 43.0%; p < 0.001 for trend). The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 21.0%, which decreased over time for all treatments (TAVR 20.0% ≥ 18.8%, BAV 66.0% ≥ 25.5%, SAVR 17.7% ≥ 11.8%; linear trend p < 0.001 for each), with lower mortality for TAVR versus BAV at all time points. Patients treated with TAVR (vs. BAV) were less likely to require mechanical ventilation (36.8% vs. 46.3%, p < 0.001) or mechanical circulatory support (22.5% vs. 29.9%, p < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, the interaction between treatment and time was not significant (p = 0.245), indicating the reduction in in-hospital mortality over time did not differ among the treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Since the introduction of TAVR, there has been a shift toward increased use of nonsurgical invasive treatments (both BAV and TAVR) for aortic stenosis and cardiogenic shock. Although in-hospital mortality has declined, it remains high in all groups, but particularly among patients treated with BAV, where the severity of cardiogenic shock appears to be higher than in those treated with other modalities.

Acute Decompensated Aortic Stenosis: State of the Art Review

Aortic stenosis (AS) is a progressive disease that carries a poor prognosis. Patients are managed conservatively until satisfying an indication for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) based on AS severity and the presence of symptoms or adverse impact on the myocardium. Up to 1 in 3 TAVIs are performed for patients with acute symptoms of dyspnoea at rest, angina, and/or syncope - termed acute decompensated aortic stenosis (ADAS) and require urgent aortic valve replacement. These patients have longer hospital length of stay, undergo physical deconditioning, have a higher rate of acute kidney injury and mortality compared to stable patients with less severe symptoms. There is an urgent need to prevent ADAS and to deliver pathways to manage and improve ADAS-related outcomes. We provide here a contemporary review on epidemiological and pathophysiological aspects of ADAS, with a focus on the impact of ADAS from clinical and economic perspectives. We will offer also a global overview of the available evidence for treatment of ADAS and with priorities suggested for addressing current gaps in the literature and unmet clinical needs to improve outcomes for AS patients.

Machine learning models predict total charges and drivers of cost for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Background

Given the increasing healthcare costs, there is an interest in developing machine learning (ML) prediction models for estimating hospitalization charges. We use ML algorithms to predict hospitalization charges for patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) utilizing the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database.

Methods

Patients who underwent TF-TAVR from 2012 to 2016 were included in the study. The primary outcome was total hospitalization charges. Study dataset was divided into 80% training and 20% testing sets. We used following ML regression algorithms: random forest, gradient boosting, k-nearest neighbors (KNN), multi-layer perceptron and linear regression. ML algorithms were built for for 3 stages: Stage 1, including variables that were known pre-procedurally (prior to TF-TAVR); Stage 2, including variables that were known post-procedurally; Stage 3, including length of stay (LOS) in addition to the stage 2 variables.

Results

A total of 18,793 hospitalization for TF-TAVR were analyzed. The mean and median adjusted hospitalization charges were $220,725.2 ($137,675.1) and $187,212.0 ($137,971.0-264,824.8) respectively. Random forest regression algorithm outperformed other ML algorithms at all stages with higher R² score and lower mean absolute error (MAE), root mean squared area (RMSE) and root mean squared logarithmic error (RMSLE) (Stage 1: MAE 79,979.11, R² 0.157; Stage 2: MAE 76,200.09, R² 0.256; Stage 3: MAE 69,350.09, R² 0.453). LOS was the most important predictor of hospitalization charges.

Conclusions

We built ML algorithms that predict hospitalization charges with good accuracy in patients undergoing TF-TAVR at different stages of hospitalization and that can be used by healthcare providers to better understand the drivers of charges.

Preprocedural Prognostic Factors in Acute Decompensated Aortic Stenosis

Acute decompensated aortic stenosis (ADAS) is common and associated with poor outcomes. Myocardial remodeling and function, including a novel echo staging classification (0 to 4, representing increasing degrees of cardiac damage/dysfunction), impact outcomes in stable aortic stenosis. However, this has not been assessed in patients with ADAS. This study aims to evaluate the impact of the myocardium, echo staging classification, and clinical parameters on mortality in ADAS. ADAS was defined as an acute deterioration in symptoms (New York Heart Association 4, Canadian Cardiovascular Society 3/4, or syncope) that warranted admission to the hospital and urgent aortic valve replacement. Using a retrospective observational study design, 292 consecutive patients with ADAS who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) were identified and included in this study. Echocardiographic and clinical characteristics were evaluated using regression analysis. The outcome was all-cause mortality after TAVI. At 1 year after TAVI, advanced echo staging (>2) independently predicted mortality (hazards ratio: 1.85, 95% confidence interval: 1.01 to 3.39; p = 0.045). At a follow-up of 2.4 ± 1.4 years, myocardial, valvular, and clinical parameters did not predict mortality, except for frailty (hazards ratio: 2.31, 95% confidence interval: 1.38 to 3.85; p = 0.001). In patients with ADAS, short-term mortality after TAVI is influenced by more advanced cardiac damage/dysfunction based on the echo staging classification, whereas mid-term mortality is driven by frailty rather than echo staging classification.

Structured Allocation of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Patients during Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: Impact on Patient Selection and Clinical Results

Due to shortages of medical resources during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, an allocation algorithm for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) was established. We investigated the impact on patient selection and procedural results. In total, 456 TAVR patients before (pre-COVID-19 group) and 456 TAVR patients after (COVID-19 group) the implementation of our allocation algorithm were compared. Concerning patient characteristics, the COVID-19 group revealed a higher rate of cardiac decompensations/cardiogenic shocks (10.5% vs. 1.3%; p < 0.001), severe angina pectoris (Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) II, III and IV: 18.7% vs. 11.8%; p = 0.004), troponin elevation (>14 ng/L: 84.9% vs. 77%; p = 0.003) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (<45%: 18.9% vs. 12%; p = 0.006). Referring to procedural characteristics, more predilatations (46.3% vs. 35.1%; p = 0.001) and a longer procedural time (80.2 min (+/−29.4) vs. 66.9 min (+/−17.5); p < 0.001) were observed. The success rate was evenly high; no differences in safety parameters were reported. Examining the utilization of hospital resources, the COVID-19 group showed a shorter in-hospital stay (8.4 days (+/−5.9) vs. 9.5 days (+/−9.33); p = 0.041) and fewer TAVR patients were treated per month (39 (+/−4.55) vs. 46.11 (+/−7.57); p = 0.03). Our allocation algorithm supported prioritization of sicker patients with similar efficient and safe TAVR procedures. In-hospital stay could be shortened.

Balloon aortic valvuloplasty: current status and future prospects

INTRODUCTION

Balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) improves hemodynamic and clinical status of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) for a limited period of 6-12 months. However, there is a high number of procedures performed worldwide and an upward trend over the last decades.

AREAS COVERED

Epidemiology of AS and the advent of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) contribute to the extensive referral of patients. The expansion of recommendations for TAVI has occasionally led to financial reimbursement-related problems that do not exist for BAV. BAV is indicated as a bridge to valve replacement, to decision in complex cases, and to extracardiac surgery. BAV may play a role in preparing for TAVI and optimizing procedural results. The minimalist approach and reduced complication rate make it applicable in fragile patients.

EXPERT OPINION

In the near future, BAV will continue to be a useful asset in managing patients with AS given the multiple indications, broad applicability, safety profile, low cost, and repeatability. Specific studies are necessary to explore technical solutions, stronger indications, the finest technique, and to standardize the procedural result. Pending the development of potential competitive devices, the role that BAV plays will remain closely intertwined with the one played by TAVI.

Financial Incentives for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Ontario, Canada: A Cost-Utility Analysis

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a minimally invasive therapy for patients with severe aortic stenosis, which has become standard of care. The objective of this study was to determine the maximum cost‐effective investment in TAVI care that should be made at a health system level to meet quality indicator goals.

Methods and Results

We performed a cost‐utility analysis using probabilistic patient‐level simulation of TAVI care from the Ontario, Canada, Ministry of Health perspective. Costs and health utilities were accrued over a 2‐year time horizon. We created 4 hypothetical strategies that represented TAVI care meeting ≥1 quality indicator targets, (1) reduced wait times, (2) reduced hospital length of stay, (3) reduced pacemaker use, and (4) combined strategy, and compared these with current TAVI care. Per‐person costs, quality‐adjusted life years, and clinical outcomes were estimated by the model. Using these, incremental net monetary benefits were calculated for each strategy at different cost‐effectiveness thresholds between $0 and $100 000 per quality‐adjusted life year. Clinical improvements over the current practice were estimated with all comparator strategies. In Ontario, achieving quality indicator benchmarks could avoid ≈26 wait‐list deaths and 200 wait‐list hospitalizations annually. Compared with current TAVI care, the incremental net monetary benefit for this strategy varied from $10 765 (±$8721) and $17 221 (±$8977). This would translate to an annual investment of between ≈$14 to ≈$22 million by the Ontario Ministry of Health to incentivize these performance measures being cost‐effective.

Conclusions

This study has quantified the modest annual investment required and substantial clinical benefit of meeting improvement goals in TAVI care.

Outcomes of emergency transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with cardiogenic shock: A multicenter retrospective study

Rescue transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with cardiogenic shock is challenging, and there is limited literature on these critical patients. The aim of this study was to determine the characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing TAVR, feasibility and safety of the procedure, and 1-year mortality factors. Thirty-eight patients with severe aortic disease and cardiogenic shock admitted to two French hospitals from 2015 to 2019 were included. The patients were critical, 78.9% of them had a left ventricular ejection fraction of <30%, and all of them received inotropic support. "Valve-in-valve" procedures were performed in 15.8% and 13.2% underwent balloon aortic valvuloplasty before TAVR. Edwards Sapien3® and Medtronic CoreValve EvolutR® were used. The survival probability remained reasonable for patients with cardiogenic shock who underwent rescue TAVR. The 30-day mortality rate was 7.9% and 21.1% at 1 year. No patient died during the intervention. The procedure was safe, with few complications except for acute kidney failure, the development of a left bundle branch block, and the need for pacemaker implantation. Both functional and echocardiographic results were good at 1 year, although 29% of the patients underwent rehospitalization within 1 year. The development of a left bundle branch block was found to be a mortality risk factor. This procedure is a safe and effective therapy with acceptable survivorship in critically ill patients. The benefits to their quality of life should be evaluated in future studies, and the need for providing early cardiac resynchronization therapy must be emphasized.

Efficacy and Safety of Emergent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients with Acute Decompensated Aortic Stenosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of emergent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with decompensated aortic stenosis (AS) by comparing the clinical outcomes with the patients who had received the elective TAVI.

Methods

By searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, we obtained the studies comparing the clinical outcomes of emergent TAVI and elective TAVI. Finally, 14 studies were included.

Results

A total of 14 eligible articles with 73,484 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Emergent TAVI was associated with a higher mortality during hospitalization (HR 2.09, 95% CI [1.39 to 3.14]), 30 days (HR 2.29, 95% CI [1.69 to 3.10]), and 1 year (HR 1.96, 95% CI [1.55 to 2.49]). Consistently, the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) (RR 2.48, 95% CI [1.85 to 3.32]), dialysis (RR 2.37, 95% CI [1.95 to 2.88]), bleeding (RR 1.62, 95% CI [1.27 to 2.08]), major bleeding (RR 1.05, 95% CI [1.00 to 1.10]), and 30-day rehospitalization (RR 1.30, 95% CI [1.07, 1.58]) were more common in patients receiving emergent TAVI. No statistical differences were found in the occurrence rate of vascular complications (RR 1.11, 95% CI [0.90, 1.36]), major vascular complications (RR 1.14, 95% CI [0.52, 2.52]), permanent pacemaker (PPM) placement (RR 1.05, 95% CI [0.99, 1.11]), cerebrovascular events (RR 1.11, 95% CI [0.98, 1.25]), moderate to severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) (RR 1.23, 95% [CI 0.94 to 1.61]), and device success (RR 0.99, 95% CI [0.97, 1.01]).

Conclusion

Emergent TAVI is associated with some postoperative complications and increased mortality compared with elective TAVI. Emergent TAVI should be implemented cautiously and individually.

Futility in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Search for Clarity

Although transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionised the landscape of treatment for aortic stenosis, there exists a cohort of patients where TAVI is deemed futile. Among the pivotal high-risk trials, one-third to half of patients either died or received no symptomatic benefit from the procedure at 1 year. Futility of TAVI results in the unnecessary exposure of risk for patients and inefficient resource utilisation for healthcare services. Several cardiac and extra-cardiac conditions and frailty increase the risk of mortality despite TAVI. Among the survivors, these comorbidities can inhibit improvements in symptoms and quality of life. However, certain conditions are reversible with TAVI (e.g. functional mitral regurgitation), attenuating the risk and improving outcomes. Quantification of disease severity, identification of reversible factors and a systematic evaluation of frailty can substantially improve risk stratification and outcomes. This review examines the contribution of pre-existing comorbidities towards futility in TAVI and suggests a systematic approach to guide patient evaluation.

30-day readmission following urgent and elective transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A Nationwide Readmission Database analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is being increasingly used for decompensated severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Data on urgent and elective TAVR readmission is scarce in the literature. Here, we have performed a retrospective cohort study with the Nationwide Readmission Database of 2016 to identify the rate of 30-day all-cause readmission, common causes of readmission, and distribution of morbidity in index admission and readmission after urgent and elective TAVR.

METHODS

We used International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes (02R.F38H, 02R.F38Z, 02R.F48Z) for identification of all TAVR procedures done in 2016 in patients >18 years old. We found 8379 patients who underwent urgent TAVR and 32,006 patients who underwent elective TAVR in 2016.

RESULT

The mean age of patients undergoing urgent TAVR was 79 ± 9.97 years with 44.6% women. The mean age of patients undergoing elective TAVR was 80.7 ± 8.25 years with 46.2% women. We found the 30-day all-cause readmission rate of 15.5% and 9.5% in patients undergoing urgent and elective TAVR, respectively (p < 0.001). The cardiac cause was the predominant cause of readmission in both groups (43.77% vs. 42.11%, p = 0.57), followed by pulmonary cause, gastrointestinal (GI) cause, and renal cause. Among cardiac causes, congestive heart failure (CHF) was predominant cause of readmission and was similar in both groups (18.73 in urgent TAVR vs. 15.73 in elective TAVR, p = 0.12).

CONCLUSION

We found that the all-cause 30-day readmission rate was higher in patients who had undergone urgent TAVR. Further studies are needed to better understand this difference.

Identifying opportunities to advance health equity in interventional cardiology: Structural heart disease

Health care practices are influenced by variety of factors. These factors that include social determinants, race and ethnicity, and gender not only affect access to health care but can also affect quality of care and patient outcomes. These are a source of health care disparities. This article acknowledges that these disparities exist in getting optimal care in structural heart disease, reviews the literature and proposes steps that can help reduce these disparities on personal and committee levels.

Urgent transcatheter aortic valve implantation in an all-comer population: a single-centre experience

Background

When compared with older reports of untreated symptomatic aortic valve stenosis (AoS), urgent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (u-TAVI) seems to improve mortality rates. We performed a single centre, retrospective cohort analysis to characterize our u-TAVI population and to identify potential predictors of worse outcomes.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of 631 consecutive TAVI patients between 2013 and 2018. Of these patients, 53 were categorized as u-TAVI. Data was collected from the local electronic database.

Results

Urgent patients had more often a severely decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF < 30%) and increased creatinine levels (115.5 [88–147] vs 94.5 [78–116] mmol/l; p = 0.001). Urgent patients were hospitalised for 18 [10–28] days before and discharged 6 [4–9] days after the implantation. The incidence of peri-procedural complications and apical implantations was comparable among the study groups. Urgent patients had higher in-hospital (11.3% vs 3.1%; p = 0.011) and 1-year mortality rates (28.2% vs 8.5%, p < 0.001). An increased risk of one-year mortality was associated with urgency (HR 3.5; p < 0.001), apical access (HR 1.9; p = 0.016) and cerebrovascular complications (HR 4.3; p = 0.002). Within the urgent group, the length of pre-hospital admission was the only significant predictor of 1-year mortality (HR 1.037/day; p = 0.003).

Conclusions

Compared to elective procedures, u-TAVI led to increased mortality and comparable complication rates. This detrimental effect is most likely related to the length of pre-procedural hospitalisation of urgent patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12872-021-02347-1.

Coronary Revascularization in Patients Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis

Aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD) frequently coexist, with up to two thirds of patients with AS having significant CAD. Given the challenges when both disease states are present, these patients require a tailored approach diagnostically and therapeutically. In this review the authors address the impact of AS and aortic valve replacement (AVR) on coronary hemodynamic status and discuss the assessment of CAD and the role of revascularization in patients with concomitant AS and CAD. Remodeling in AS increases the susceptibility of myocardial ischemia, which can be compounded by concomitant CAD. AVR can improve coronary hemodynamic status and reduce ischemia. Assessment of the significance of coexisting CAD can be done using noninvasive and invasive metrics. Revascularization in patients undergoing AVR can benefit certain patients in whom CAD is either prognostically or symptomatically important. Identifying this cohort of patients is challenging and as yet incomplete. Patients with dual pathology present a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge; both AS and CAD affect coronary hemodynamic status, they provoke similar symptoms, and their respective treatments can have an impact on both diseases. Decisions regarding coronary revascularization should be based on understanding this complex relationship, using appropriate coronary assessment and consensus within a multidisciplinary team.

Patients' characteristics and mortality in urgent/emergent/salvage transcatheter aortic valve replacement: insight from the OCEAN-TAVI registry

Objectives

Patients’ backgrounds and clinical outcomes in urgent/emergent/salvage transcatheter aortic valve replacement (Em-TAVR) remain unclear. We investigated patient characteristics and the mortality in Em-TAVR and the predictors for the need for Em-TAVR.

Methods

We consecutively enrolled 1613 patients undergoing TAVR for severe aortic stenosis between October 2013 and July 2016 from the Optimised transCathEter vAlvular interventioN (OCEAN)-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) registry. The urgency was based on the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II. Urgent, emergent or salvage were included with the Em-TAVR group and elective with the El-TAVR group.

Results

Em-TAVR was observed in 87 (5.4%) patients. A higher Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), peripheral artery disease (PAD), hypoalbuminaemia, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and preoperative at least moderate mitral regurgitation (MR) predicted the need for the Em-TAVR by the multivariate logistic regression analysis. The Em-TAVR group had the higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons Score (13.7 (IQR 8.2–21.0) vs 6.5 (IQR 4.6–9.2); p<0.001) and higher 30-day mortality (9.2% vs 1.3%; p<0.001) than the El-TAVR group. Accordingly, Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the cumulative mortality was higher in the Em-TAVR group than that in the El-TAVR group (log-rank; p<0.001). However, Em-TAVR did not predict mortality in the multivariate Cox regression analysis.

Conclusions

Em-TAVR was performed in 5.4% of patients. Higher CFS, PAD, hypoalbuminaemia, reduced LVEF and preprocedural MR predicted the need for Em-TAVR. Em-TAVR was not a predictor for mortality in the multivariate analysis, suggesting that it is a reasonable treatment option.

Elective versus urgent in-hospital transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is maturing as a treatment option and is now often undertaken during an unscheduled index hospital admission. The aim of this study was to look at procedural and mid-term outcomes of patients undergoing elective versus urgent in-hospital transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

METHODS

We identified a total of 1,157 patients who underwent TAVI between November 2007 and November 2019 at the Sussex Cardiac Centre in the UK. We compared the demographics, procedural outcomes, 30-day and 1-year mortality between elective and urgent patients. Emergency and salvage TAVI cases were excluded.

RESULTS

Of the 1,157 patients who underwent the procedure, 975 (84.3%) had elective while 182 (15.7%) had urgent TAVI. Predominant aortic stenosis was more frequent in elective patients (91.7% vs. 77.4%); p < .01), while predominant aortic regurgitation was seen more commonly in the urgent group (11.5% vs. 4.2%; p < .01). Implantation success was similar between the elective (99.1%) and urgent group (99.4%). In-hospital (1.65% vs. 1.3%: p .11), 30 day (3.5% vs. 3.3%: p .81) and 1 year (10.9% vs. 11%; p .81) mortality rates were similar in the elective and urgent groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In contemporary practice, urgent TAVI undertaken on the index admission can be performed at similar risk to elective outpatient TAVI.

Association of Acute Kidney Injury with Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair

INTRODUCTION

Although transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) is a contrast-free procedure, prior single-center studies have demonstrated a high incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) following TMVr. The main objective of this study was to examine risk factors for AKI, and its association with outcomes in patients undergoing TMVr.

METHODS

We queried the National Readmission Database to identify TMVr procedures performed between January 2014 and December 2017. Complex samples multivariable logistic and linear regression models were used to identify risk factors associated with AKI, as well as to determine the association between AKI and clinical outcomes (in-hospital mortality, index length of stay (LOS), 30-day all-cause readmissions, and 30-day heart failure [HF] readmissions).

RESULTS

Of 14,623 patients who underwent TMVr during the study period, 2,001 (13.6%) had a diagnosis of AKI. HF, chronic kidney disease, chronic liver disease, fluid/electrolyte disorder, weight loss, nonelective admission, cardiogenic shock, and bleeding/transfusion were independently associated with an increased risk of AKI. In patients undergoing TMVr, AKI was associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.92-8.34), 30-day all-cause readmissions (aOR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.49-2.46), 30-day HF readmissions (aOR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.38-3.84), and longer index LOS (adjusted parameter estimate, 5.78; 95% CI, 5.26-6.41).

CONCLUSION

AKI in the setting of TMVr is common and is associated with worse clinical outcomes. Further studies are needed to determine if optimizing renal function prior to TMVr may improve outcomes, as well as to understand the impact of TMVr itself on renal function.

Racial and socioeconomic disparities in urgent transcatheter mitral valve repair: A National Inpatient Sample analysis

BACKGROUND

Cardiac interventions performed urgently are known to be associated with poor outcomes compared with electively performed procedures. Transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (TMVr) has developed as a reasonable alternative to mitral valve surgery in certain patient populations. We aimed to leverage a national database to identify predictors of urgent versus elective TMVr, as well as the association between urgency and outcomes.

METHODS

The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) was queried to identify patients who underwent TMVr from 2016 to 2017. Hospitalizations were identified within the database as elective versus nonelective. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to identify patient characteristics associated with urgent procedures. In-hospital outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

There were 10,195 cases of TMVr in this cohort, 24.2% of which were performed urgently. In multivariable analysis, Hispanic race, Medicaid insurance, and low income were associated with increased likelihood of urgent hospital admission and TMVr. Additionally, small hospital size and Northeast region were associated with increased likelihood of urgent admission and procedure. Urgent TMVr was associated with increased mortality (4.5% vs. 1.6%, p < .001), prolonged length of stay (6.0 vs. 2.0, p < .001), and increased cost ($71,451.90 vs. $44,981.20, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Racial and socioeconomic disparities exist in the utilization of TMVr as an urgent versus elective procedure, suggesting differences in access to surveillance and preventive care. Urgent TMVr is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, prolonged length of stay, and increased hospital costs. Priority should be placed on mitigating such disparities to improve outcomes.

Modeling the Impact of Delaying TAVR for the Treatment of Aortic Stenosis in the Era of COVID-19

Objective

The aim of this study was to model the short term and 2-year overall survival for intermediate- and low-risk patients with severe symptomatic AS undergoing timely or delayed transcatheter aortic valve replacement during the 2019 novel coronavirus pandemic.

Methods

We developed a decision analysis model to evaluate two treatment strategies for both low-risk and intermediate-risk patients with aortic stenosis during the 2019 novel coronavirus pandemic.

Results

Prompt transcatheter aortic valve replacement resulted in improved 2-year overall survival when compared to delayed intervention for intermediate-risk patients (0.81 versus 0.67) and low-risk patients (0.95 vs 0.85), due to the risk of death or the need for urgent/emergent transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the waiting period. However, if the probability of acquiring the 2019 novel coronavirus is greater than 55% (intermediate risk patients) or 47% (low risk patients), delayed transcatheter aortic valve replacement is favorable to prompt intervention (0.66 vs 0.67, intermediate risk; 0.84 vs 0.85, low risk).

Conclusions and Relevance

Prompt transcatheter aortic valve replacement for both intermediate-risk and low-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis results in improved 2-year survival when local healthcare system resources are not significantly constrained by the 2019 novel coronavirus.