Center Valve Preference and Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From the AMTRAC Registry

Balloon-expandable Versus Self-expanding Valves in Patients With Prior Surgical Mitral Valve Replacement Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Pre-existing mitral prosthesis raises technical challenges for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) but has been scarcely studied. In this work we sought to compare outcomes of patients with previous surgical mitral valve prostheses undergoing TAVR with balloon-expandable valve (BEV) or self-expanding valve (SEV) systems.

METHODS

Patients from the Spanish TAVR registry with pre-existing surgical mitral prostheses were included this investigation. The primary endpoints were Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 technical and device success, with analysis according to valve type. Transcatheter heart valve (THV) embolization, mitral valve impingement, THV performance, and pacemaker findings were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 243 patients were included (37% BEVs, 63% SEVs). Overall technical success was 95.9%. Thirty-day device success was higher in BEV patients (94.4% vs 85.0%, P = 0.036), mainly driven by fewer incidences of moderate residual aortic regurgitation (0% vs 5.9%, P = 0.028) and THV embolization (0% vs 3.9%, P = 0.087). BEV recipients exhibited higher mean transvalvular gradients (10.5 vs 8.1 mm Hg, P = 0.002) and lower rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (5.6% vs 15.7%, P = 0.023). There were no differences in mortality, bleeding, or readmission at 30 days. In the multivariate analysis, a mitroaortic distance of ≤ 7 mm and lack of transesophageal echocardiography guidance were associated with increased device failure.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with pre-existing MV prostheses, TAVR was safe and effective regardless of the THV type. Nevertheless, the use of BEVs resulted in an increased rate of device success, driven by lesser THV embolization and residual aortic regurgitation.

Aortic Valve Replacement in the Current Era

Aortic valve disease (AVD) is a highly prevalent condition worldwide. Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the surgical treatment for those with severe disease. Common etiologies of AVD include aortic stenosis (AS), aortic insufficiency (AI), endocarditis, and congenital diseases. Shared decision-making plays a large role in the treatment methodology chosen for each patient. Selection of valve type and surgical intervention requires strong considerations of age and compatibility with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) to ensure optimal post-operative outcomes. Due to the development of novel surgical techniques, including transcatheter AVR (TAVR) and placement of sutureless valves, patients who previously had limited access to AVD surgical options can now be considered for AVR. Further research into therapeutic development is imperative to improve patient short- and long-term outcomes as well as widen surgical candidacy for those seeking AVR for the management of AVD. Overall, AVR will continue to hold its prominent role in the treatment of AVD.

Outcomes and predictors of left ventricle recovery in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Data on the likelihood of left ventricle (LV) recovery in patients with severe LV dysfunction and severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and its prognostic value are limited.

AIMS

We aimed to assess the likelihood of LV recovery following TAVI, examine its association with midterm mortality, and identify independent predictors of LV function.

METHODS

In our multicentre registry of 17 TAVI centres in Western Europe and Israel, patients were stratified by baseline LV function (ejection fraction [EF] >/≤30%) and LV response: no LV recovery, LV recovery (EF increase ≥10%), and LV normalisation (EF ≥50% post-TAVI).

RESULTS

Our analysis included 10,872 patients; baseline EF was ≤30% in 914 (8.4%) patients and >30% in 9,958 (91.6%) patients. The LV recovered in 544 (59.5%) patients, including 244 (26.7%) patients whose LV function normalised completely (EF >50%). Three-year mortality for patients without severe LV dysfunction at baseline was 29.4%. Compared to this, no LV recovery was associated with a significant increase in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.32; p<0.001). Patients with similar LV function post-TAVI had similar rates of 3-year mortality, regardless of their baseline LV function. Three variables were associated with a higher likelihood of LV recovery following TAVI: no previous myocardial infarction (MI), estimated glomerular filtration rate >60 mL/min, and mean aortic valve gradient (mAVG) (expressed either as a continuous variable or as a binary variable using the standard low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis [AS] definition).

CONCLUSIONS

LV recovery following TAVI and the extent of this recovery are major determinants of midterm mortality in patients with severe AS and severe LV dysfunction undergoing TAVI. Patients with no previous MI and those with an mAVG >40 mmHg show the best results following TAVI, which are at least equivalent to those for patients without severe LV dysfunction. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04031274).

Comparison of outcomes of self-expanding versus balloon-expandable valves for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis of randomized and propensity-matched studies

BACKGROUND

The postoperative outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the new generation of self-expanding valves (SEV) and balloon-expandable valves (BEV) remain uncertain.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score-matched (PSM) studies to evaluate the performance of the new generation TAVR devices, with a focus on Edwards SAPIEN 3/Ultra BEV, Medtronic Evolut R/PRO SEV, and Boston ACURATE neo SEV. Our primary endpoints were mortality and complications at both 30 days and one year post-operation.

RESULTS

A total of 4 RCTs and 14 PSM studies were included. Our findings showed no significant difference between SEV and BEV regarding 30-day and 1-year mortality rates. ACURATE SEV required less permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) at 30-day as compared to SAPIEN BEV, while Evolut SEV required a higher rate of PPI than SAPIEN BEV. The incidence of stroke, major or life-threatening bleeding (MLTB), major vascular complications (MVC), coronary artery obstruction (CAO) and acute kidney injury (AKI) did not differ significantly between the two groups. SEV had a larger effective orifice area (EOA) and lower mean transvalvular gradients (MPG) compared to BEV. However, there was an increased risk of paravalvular leakage (PVL) associated with SEV.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of 30-day mortality, stroke, bleeding, MVC, AKI, CAO, and one-year mortality, there was comparability between the two valve types following TAVR. SEV was associated with better hemodynamic outcomes, except for a higher incidence of PVL. Compared to SAPIEN BEV, ACURATE SEV had a lower risk of PPI at 30 days, while Evolut SEV was associated with a higher risk of PPI. These findings underscore the importance of personalized valve selection.

The Influence of the Learning Curve on Clinical Outcomes in Balloon-Expandable versus Self-Expandable Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

INTRODUCTION

Balloon-expandable (BE) and self-expandable (SE) prostheses are the main types of devices currently used in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Despite the different designs, clinical practice guidelines do not make any specific recommendation on the selection of one device over the other. Most operators are trained in using both BE and SE prostheses, but operator experience with each of the two designs might influence patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare the immediate and mid-term clinical outcomes during the learning curve in BE versus SE TAVI.

METHODS

The transfemoral TAVI procedures performed in a single center between July 2017 and March 2021 were grouped according to the type of implanted prosthesis. The procedures in each group were ordered according to the case sequence number. For each patient, a minimum follow-up time of 12 months was required for inclusion in the analysis. The outcomes of the BE TAVI procedures were compared with the outcomes of the SE TAVI procedures. Clinical endpoints were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3).

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 28 months. Each device group included 128 patients. In the BE group, case sequence number predicted mid-term all-cause mortality at an optimal cutoff value ≤58 procedures (AUC 0.730; 95% CI: 0.644-0.805; p < 0.001), while in the SE group, the cutoff value was ≤85 procedures (AUC 0.625; 95% CI: 0.535-0.710; p = 0.04). A direct comparison of the AUC showed that case sequence number was equally adequate in predicting mid-term mortality, irrespective of prosthesis type (p = 0.11). A low case sequence number was associated with an increased rate of VARC-3 major cardiac and vascular complications (OR 0.98 95% CI: 0.96-0.99; p = 0.03) in the BE device group, and with an increased rate of post-TAVI aortic regurgitation ≥ grade II (OR 0.98; 95% CI: 0.97-0.99; p = 0.03) in the SE device group.

CONCLUSIONS

In transfemoral TAVI, case sequence number influenced mid-term mortality irrespective of prosthesis type, but the learning curve was longer in the case of SE devices.