Comparison of multiparametric risk scores for predicting early mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

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.

Surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients: A long-term propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent studies suggest the use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in lower risk populations, but real-world data are scarce.

METHODS

Single-center retrospective study of patients undergoing SAVR (between June 2009 and July 2016, n = 682 patients) or TAVI (between June 2009 and July 2017, n = 400 patients). Low surgical risk was defined as EuroSCORE II (ES II) < 4% for single noncoronary artery bypass graft procedure. TAVI patients were propensity score-matched in a 1:1 ratio with SAVR patients, paired by age, New York Heart Association class, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, creatinine clearance, and left ventricular ejection fraction < 50%.

RESULTS

A total of 158 patients (79 SAVR and 79 TAVI) were matched (mean age 79 ± 6 years, 79 men). TAVI patients had a higher incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (0% vs. 19%, p < 0.001) and more than mild paravalvular leak (4% vs. 18%, p = 0.009), but comparable rates of stroke, major or life-threatening bleeding, emergent cardiac surgery, new-onset atrial fibrillation, and need for renal replacement therapy. Hospital length-of-stay and 30-day mortality were similar. At a median follow-up of 4.5 years (IQR 3.0-6.9), treatment strategy did not influence all-cause mortality (HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.77-1.83, log rank p = 0.43) nor rehospitalization (crude subdistribution HR 1.56, 95% CI 0.71-3.41, p = 0.26). ES II remained the only independent predictor of long-term all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.04-1.90, p = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

In this low surgical risk severe aortic stenosis population, we observed similar rates of 30-day and long-term all-cause mortality, despite higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation and more than mild paravalvular leak in TAVI patients. The results of this small study suggest that both procedures are safe and effective in the short-term, while the Heart Team remains essential to assess both options on the long-term.

TAVR: A Review of Current Practices and Considerations in Low-Risk Patients

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established treatment for severe, symptomatic, aortic stenosis (AS) in patients of all risk categories and now comprises 12.5% of all aortic valve replacements. TAVR is a less invasive alternative to traditional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), with equivalent or superior outcomes. The use of TAVR has increased rapidly. The success and increase in use of TAVR are a result of advances in technology, greater operator experience, and improved outcomes. Indications have recently expanded to include patients considered to be at low risk for SAVR. While TAVR outcomes have improved, remaining challenges include the management of coexistent coronary artery disease, prevention of periprocedural stroke, and issue of durability. These issues are even more relevant for low-risk, younger patients.