Overestimation of aortic valve replacement risk by EuroSCORE: implications for percutaneous valve replacement

Were they inoperable? Really?

The MitraClip technique has been increasingly used for correction of mitral valve regurgitation in patients in whom surgical mitral repair is considered contraindicated or very risky, but off label use occurs often. Failure of the procedure, translated into moderate to severe rates of residual or recurrent mitral regurgitation, is observed in up to one-third of the patients, and surgery has been used to correct it in a number of cases, in what can be called an "operation for the inoperable." That is precisely the subtitle of a paper published in this issue of the JOCS by Gerfen and colleagues, who analyse their institutional experience with a series of 17 patients. In this Editorial, I comment on this series and the possible reasons for failure of the MitraClip, and on the indications for reintervention and its constraints, which I hope can contribute to the discussion about "further exploration and refinement of patient selection criteria and identify predictors for MitraClip failure," as the authors suggest.

The Role of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis: A Feasibility Analysis

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the current treatment of choice for good surgical candidates with moderate to severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). As transcatheter aortic valvular replacement (TAVR) has shown an improved one and two-year all-cause mortality, it has been chosen for moderately symptomatic severe AS patients. The purpose of this review was to perform a clinical comparison of TAVR vs. SAVR and to analyze the Health Index Factor (HIF) that makes TAVR a treatment of choice in asymptomatic AS patients. 

An extensive literature search of PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases was performed using the keywords “Aortic stenosis”, “SAVR”, “TAVR”, and “Asymptomatic”. A total of 45 prospective randomized clinical trials in the English language that were published from the year 2000 onwards were included in the final analysis. It has been found that 59.3% of asymptomatic AS patients are likely to die in the next five years without proactive treatment. Multiple studies have proven that early intervention with aortic valve replacement is superior to conservative treatment in severe asymptomatic AS; however, the choice between SAVR and TAVR is not well established. The NOTION Trial, SURTAVI Trail, and PARTNER 3 study have shown the non-inferiority of TAVR over SAVR, during one-year follow-up for low surgical risk patients. Evolut Low-Risk study and Early TAVR are the only two prospective studies performed to date that have enrolled patients with asymptomatic severe AS. The Evolut Trial demonstrated no difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days (1.3% vs. 4.8%. p=0.23), and 12 days (1.3% vs. 6.5%, p=0.11). Additionally, TAVR also decreases the risk of post-procedural atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury (AKI), and rehospitalization, and leads to significant improvement in the mean trans-aortic pressure gradient. TAVR also showed marked improvement in the 30-day Quality of Life (QOL) index, where SAVR did not report any significant change in the QOL index. However, the official recommendations of Early TAVR are still awaited. TAVR has consistently shown a statistically non-significant difference in case mortality, risk of stroke, and rehospitalization with moderate to high surgical risk patients whereby recent initial trials have shown significant improvement in the QOL index and hemodynamic index for patients with asymptomatic disease. More extensive studies are required to prove the risk stratifications, long-term outcomes, and clinical characteristics that would make TAVR a preferred intervention in asymptomatic patients.

The Evolving Role of the Multidisciplinary Heart Team in Aortic Stenosis

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has transformed the paradigm of care for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). With transcatheter aortic valve replacement now commercially approved for AS patients of all surgical risk, clinical decision-making regarding the initial mode of valve replacement (e.g. surgical versus transcatheter) and prosthesis type has become even more complex. The updated American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery guidelines on valvular heart disease offer a strong foundation from which to address the nuances of the treatment of AS; however, there remain several clinical scenarios for which evidence and thus definitive societal recommendations are lacking. As such, the heart team continues to play an invaluable role in the management of the AS patient by combining available scientific evidence, expertise across disciplines, and the patient's preferences to optimize individualized patient care and healthcare resource usage.

Current Understanding of the Role of Frailty in Cardiovascular Disease

The elderly population is increasing because of increasing life expectancy, and the prevalence of frailty increases with age. Frailty commonly coexists with cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), such as coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure (HF), aortic stenosis (AS), and atrial fibrillation (AF). Frail patients who undergo revascularization for CAD have higher complication rates; those with HF have a high prevalence of poor outcomes, and those with AF are vulnerable to increased stroke incidence. Moreover, frailty and asymptomatic severe AS were independent factors for mortality. The presence of frailty can lead to poor clinical outcomes, and frailty has been identified as a risk factor for mortality. Thus, the identification of frail patients who are at higher risks of disability and adverse clinical outcomes is important. In this review, the relationship between frailty and CVD is appraised and optimal treatments for frail patients are discussed.

The importance of the Heart Team evaluation before transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Results from the BRAVO-3 trial

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Clinicians use validated scores to risk-stratify patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, evaluation by the Heart Team often deems patients to be at higher risk than their formal scores suggest. We sought to assess clinical outcomes of TAVR patients defined as high-risk by the Heart Team's assessment versus the patient's logistic EuroSCORE (LES).

METHODS

The BRAVO-3 trial randomized patients at high risk (LES ≥ 18, or deemed inoperable by the Heart Team) to TAVR with periprocedural anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin versus bivalirudin. Endpoints included net adverse cardiac events (NACE: the composite of all-cause mortality, MI, stroke, or bleeding), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: death, MI, or stroke), the individual components of MACE, major vascular complications, BARC ≥ 3b bleeding and VARC life-threatening bleeding at 30 days. We compared patients deemed high-risk based on LES ≥ 18 versus high-risk by the Heart Team despite lower LES.

RESULTS

A total of 467/800 (58.4%) patients were deemed high-risk by the Heart Team despite LES < 18. After multivariable analysis, there were no differences in the odds of endpoints between groups (NACE, OR_LES≥18 : 1.32, 95% CI 0.86-2.02, p = .21; MACE, OR_LES≥18 : 1.27, 95% CI 0.72-2.25, p = .41; major vascular complications, OR_LES≥18 : 0.97, 95% CI 0.65-1.44, p = .88; BARC ≥3b, OR_LES≥18 : 1.38, 95% CI 0.82-2.33, p = .23; and VARC life-threatening bleeding, OR_LES≥18 : 0.99, 95% CI 0.69-1.41, p = .95).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing TAVR and labeled high-risk by LES ≥ 18 or Heart Team assessment despite LES < 18 have comparable short-term outcomes. Assignment of high-risk status to over 50% of patients is attributable to Heart Team's clinical assessment.

Novel Perspective for Antithrombotic Therapy in TAVI

While surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was for years the only available treatment for symptomatic aortic stenosis, the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in 2002 and the improvement of its technical aspects in the following years, has holistically changed the synchronous therapeutic approach of aortic valve stenosis. Recent evidence has expanded the indication of TAVI from high to lower surgical risk populations with symptomatic aortic stenosis. The administration of antithrombotic therapy periprocedurally and its maintenance after a successful TAVI is crucial for the prevention of complications and affects postprocedural survival. Randomized controlled trials investigating the appropriate combination and the duration of antithrombotic treatment after TAVI are for the moment scarce. This review article sheds light on the underlying pathogenetic mechanisms contributing in periprocedural TAVI thrombotic complications and discuss the efficacy of current antithrombotic policies as evaluated in randomized trials.

Risk Stratification for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Risk assessment models developed from administrative and clinical databases are used for clinical decision making. Since these models are derived from a database, they have an inherent limitation of being as good as the data they are derived from. Many of these models under or overestimate certain clinical outcomes particularly mortality in certain group of patients. Undeniably, there is significant variability in all these models on account of patient population studied, the statistical analysis used to develop the model and the period during which these models were developed. This review aims to shed light on development and application of risk assessment models for cardiac surgery with special emphasis on risk stratification in severe aortic stenosis to select patients for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

EuroSCORE II and the STS score are more accurate in transapical than in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation

OBJECTIVES

The European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II (EuroSCORE II) and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score are currently used to estimate periprocedural risk of death in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, data regarding the predictive ability and usefulness of these scores for TAVI are controversial, especially for different access sites.

METHODS

Between 2008 and 2016, 1192 consecutive patients undergoing TAVI [transfemoral (TF): n = 607 (51%); transapical (TA): n = 585 (49%)] at 2 centres were included. All-cause mortality was assessed at a median of 533 days (interquartile range 153-1036). The value of the EuroSCORE II and the STS score in terms of predicting 30-day and cumulative mortality according to access site was investigated.

RESULTS

The mean age was 83 (interquartile range 79-86) years. Overall, the 30-day mortality rate was 7.6% (n = 90), and the cumulative all-cause mortality rate was 35.1% (n = 418). The EuroSCORE II and the STS score were significantly increased in non-survivors compared with survivors (P < 0.001). The EuroSCORE II and the STS score emerged as independent predictors of 30-day mortality [EuroSCORE II: odds ratio (OR) 1.039, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.013-1.065; P = 0.003; STS score: OR 1.055, 95% CI 1.023-1.088; P = 0.001] and cumulative all-cause mortality [EuroSCORE II: hazard ratio (HR) 1.026, 95% CI 1.013-1.038; P < 0.001; STS score: HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.06; P < 0.001]. In contrast to TF TAVI, the EuroSCORE II (OR 1.038, 95% CI 1.009-1.068; P = 0.010) and the STS score (OR: 1.063, 95% CI 1.025-1.102; P = 0.001) were independent predictors of 30-day mortality and cumulative mortality (EuroSCORE II: HR 1.023, 95% CI 1.009-1.037; P = 0.001; STS score: HR 1.055, 95% CI 1.037-1.073; P < 0.001) in patients undergoing TA TAVI.

CONCLUSIONS

The EuroSCORE II and the STS score were independent predictors of 30-day and cumulative mortality rates in patients undergoing TAVI. The EuroSCORE II and the STS score were associated with 30-day mortality and mortality during follow-up period only in TA TAVI.

The impact of preoperative frailty status on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: An update of systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Frailty is a syndrome of impaired physiologic reserve and decreased resistance to stressors and can often be seen in high-risk patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Preoperative frailty status is thought to be related to adverse outcomes after TAVR. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the impact of preoperative frailty status on outcomes among patients after TAVR.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies through January 2018. Fourteen articles (n = 7489) meeting the inclusion criteria were finally included. Possible effects were calculated using meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The pooled risk ratios (RRs) of late mortality (>6 months) and acute kidney injury after TAVR in frail group were 2.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.90-4.15, P < .001, I = 84%) and 1.41 (95% CI 1.02-1.94, P = .04, I = 24%), respectively. Compared with non-frail group, significantly higher incidence of 30-day mortality (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.63-2.54, P < .001, I = 0%) and life threatening or major bleeding after TAVR (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.20-1.82, P < .001, I = 14%) was found in frail group. There was no significant association between frailty and incidence of stroke after TAVR (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.53-1.63, P = .80, I = 0%).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative frailty status is proved to be significantly associated with poor outcomes after TAVR. Our findings may remind doctors in the field of a more comprehensive preoperative evaluation for TAVR candidates. More well-designed and large-sample sized prospective studies are further needed to figure out the best frailty assessment tool for patients undergoing TAVR.

The relationship between preoperative frailty and outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an increasingly common intervention for patients with aortic stenosis deemed high risk for major cardiac surgery, but identifying those who will benefit can be challenging. Frailty reflects physiological reserve and may be a useful prognostic marker in this population. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between frailty and outcomes after TAVI.

Methods and Results

Five databases were searched between January 2000 and May 2015. From 2623 articles screened, 54 were assessed for eligibility. Ten cohort studies (n = 4592) met the inclusion criteria of reporting a measure of frailty with early (≤30 days) or late (>30 days) mortality and procedural complications following TAVI as defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC). Frailty was associated with increased early mortality in four studies (n = 1900) (HR 2.35, 95% CI 1.78–3.09, P < 0.001) and increased late mortality in seven studies (n = 3159) (HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.34–1.97, P < 0.001). Objective frailty tools identified an even higher risk group for late mortality (HR 2.63, 95% CI 1.87–3.70, P < 0.001). Frail individuals undergoing TAVI have a mortality rate of 34 deaths per 100 patient years, compared with 19 deaths per 100 patient years in non-frail patients. There was limited reporting of VARC procedural outcomes in relation to frailty, preventing meta-analysis.

Conclusion

Frailty assessment in an already vulnerable TAVI population identifies individuals at even greater risk of poor outcomes. Use of objective frailty tools may inform patient selection, but this requires further assessment in large prospective registries.

Measuring the quality of perioperative care in cardiac surgery

Quality of care is of increasing importance in health and surgical care. In order to maintain and improve quality, we must be able to measure it and identify variation. In this narrative review, we aim to identify measures used in the assessment of quality of care in cardiac surgery and to evaluate their utility. The electronic databases Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and CINAHL were searched for original published studies using the terms 'cardiac surgery' and 'quality or outcome or process or structure' as either keywords in the title or text or MeSH terms. Secondary searches and identification of references from original articles were carried out. We found a total of 54 original articles evaluating measurements of quality. While structure, process, and outcome indicators remain the mainstay of quality measurement, new and innovative methods of risk assessment have improved reliability and discrimination. Continuous assessment provides a promising method of both maintaining and improving quality of care. Future studies should focus on long-term and patient-centred outcomes, such as quality-of-life measures.

Insulin like growth factor binding protein 2 (IGFBP-2) for risk prediction in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI)

INTRODUCTION

Severe aortic stenosis (AS) caused by degenerative calcification is the most frequent acquired valvular heart disease worldwide and mortality rates are considerably high. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) is a well-established method for valve replacement in high risk patients with AS. However, there is a lack of reliable predictors for patients undergoing TAVI since commonly used scores were developed for surgical populations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

208 patients subjected to TAVI were included in this study. Plasma samples were obtained before TAVI and were evaluated for IGFBP-2 using commercially available ELISA kits. IGFBP-2 levels were analyzed for their ability for risk prediction after TAVI.

RESULTS

IGFBP-2 levels measured before TAVI correlated significantly with left ventricular ejection fraction, EUROSCORE and other functional and prognostic parameters like the 6-minute walking test. When patients were retrospectively divided in two groups with a cut-off of serum IGFBP-2 levels of 275 ng/ml, IGFBP-2 was a strong predictor for 30-day and one-year mortality (3% vs. 11%, p = 0.05 and 18.2% vs. 46.2%; p < 0.001 respectively). Compared to an EUROSCORE above 20 or an STS score cut-off above 8, IGFBP-2 plasma levels above 275 ng/ml outperformed the established risk score for prediction of one-year mortality as assessed by NRI (0.65 95% CI 0.37-0.94; p < 0.001 and 0.54 95% CI 0.25-0.82; p < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that IGFBP-2 could serve as new outcome predictor for patients undergoing TAVI procedure. By providing additional information to the commonly used EUROSCORE, IGFPB-2 analysis could further assist Heart Team decision making.

Comparison of Carbohydrate Antigen 125 and N-Terminal Pro-Brain Natriuretic Peptide for Risk Prediction After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Elevated carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125) and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NTproBNP) have been associated with adverse outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). This study performs a comparison of both biomarkers for prognosis after TAVI. The study includes 363 patients. The primary end point was all-cause death or readmission for worsening congestive heart failure within 1 year after TAVI, and this end point occurred in 16% of the population. The optimal cutoff to predict the primary end point was 18.4 U/ml for CA125 and 2,570 ng/L for NTproBNP. Elevated CA125 levels were present in 52% and were associated with a higher rate of the primary end point (27% vs 3%; p <0.001). In parallel, elevated NTproBNP levels were present in 42% and were also associated with a higher rate of the primary end point (27% vs 8%; p <0.001). After multivariable adjustment, elevated CA125 (hazard ratio [HR] 5.26; p <0.001) and elevated NTproBNP (HR 2.12; p = 0.022) were independent predictors of the primary end point. To explore the utility of combining both biomarkers, CA125 was added to the model containing baseline variables and NTproBNP. Elevated CA125 (HR 4.62; p = 0.001), but not NTproBNP (HR 1.58; p = 0.194), persisted as an independent predictor of the primary end point. Addition of CA125 significantly improved the predictive capability of the model (C-statistic: 0.805 vs 0.776) and the net reclassification index (50%, 95% confidence interval [20 to 84]) with an integrated discriminative improvement of 3.0%. In conclusion, elevated CA125 and NTproBNP predict adverse clinical outcome after TAVI. However, when combining both biomarkers, the predictive capacity of CA125 was superior.

Treatment Strategies in Symptomatic Intermediate, Low-Risk, and Asymptomatic Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis

Survival of symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) is very poor, with an average mortality reaching up to 2% per month. Approach to diagnosis and treatment of patients with AS was conservative; patients were referred to surgery only if the AS-induced symptoms become apparent and significantly limit the quality of patient' life. In the past 15 years, the novel treatment strategy in subgroups of symptomatic patients with AS have been the subject of extensive research, starting from introduction of transcatheter aortic valve implant (TAVI) in inoperable symptomatic patients with severe AS and continuing further to patients with very high and high operative risk. In the past few years, the focus has further shifted toward the patients with lower operative risk, as well as to asymptomatic patients with severe AS. In the former group, the question relates to whether TAVI is beneficial when compared to SAVR in intermediate- to low-risk patients with symptomatic AS. In the latter group, the main issue is if and when the SAVR should be performed. This article analyzes current status and evidences regarding treatment strategies in symptomatic high, intermediate, low-risk, and asymptomatic patients with isolated severe AS.

Efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in aortic stenosis patients at low to moderate surgical risk: a comprehensive meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the procedure of choice in high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (AS). However, its value is still debated in operable AS cases. We performed this meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of TAVR to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-to-moderate surgical risk patients with AS.

METHODS

A systematic search of five authentic databases retrieved 11 eligible studies (20,056 patients). Relevant Data were pooled as risk ratios (RRs) or standardized mean differences (SMD), with their 95% confidence interval, using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis and RevMan software for windows.

RESULTS

At one-year of follow-up, the pooled effect-estimates showed no significant difference between TAVR and SAVR groups in terms of all-cause mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI [0.83, 1.26], stroke (RR 0.83, 95%CI [0.56, 1.21]), myocardial infarction (RR 0.82, 95% CI [0.57, 1.19]), and length of hospital stay (SMD -0.04, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.26]). The incidence of major bleeding (RR 0.45, 95% CI [0.24, 0.86]) and acute kidney injury (RR 0.52, 95% CI [0.30, 0.88]) was significantly lower in the TAVR group, compared to the SAVR group. However, TAVR was associated with a higher risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (RR 2.57, 95% CI [1.36, 4.86]), vascular-access complications at 1 year (RR 1.99, 95%CI [1.04, 3.80]), and paravalvular aortic regurgitation at 30 days (RR 3.90, 95% CI [1.25, 12.12]), compared to SAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the comparable mortality rates in SAVR and TAVR groups and the lower risk of life-threatening complications in the TAVR group, TAVR can be an acceptable alternative to SAVR in low-to-moderate risk patients with AS. However, larger trials with longer follow-up periods are required to compare the long-term outcomes of both techniques.

Patient selection for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A combined clinical and multimodality imaging approach

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been validated as a new therapy for patients affected by severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who are not eligible for surgical intervention because of major contraindication or high operative risk. Patient selection for TAVR should be based not only on accurate assessment of aortic stenosis morphology, but also on several clinical and functional data. Multi-Imaging modalities should be preferred for assessing the anatomy and the dimensions of the aortic valve and annulus before TAVR. Ultrasounds represent the first line tool in evaluation of this patients giving detailed anatomic description of aortic valve complex and allowing estimating with enough reliability the hemodynamic entity of valvular stenosis. Angiography should be used to assess coronary involvement and plan a revascularization strategy before the implant. Multislice computed tomography play a central role as it can give anatomical details in order to choice the best fitting prosthesis, evaluate the morphology of the access path and detect other relevant comorbidities. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography are emergent modality helpful in aortic stenosis evaluation. The aim of this review is to give an overview on TAVR clinical and technical aspects essential for adequate selection.

Aortic Stenosis: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Therapy

The incidence of aortic stenosis increases with age, affecting up to 10% of the population by the eighth decade. Once symptoms develop, aortic stenosis is rapidly fatal. Proper management requires an understanding of the physiology and criteria used to define disease severity. There is no effective pharmacologic treatment. Surgical aortic valve replacement has been the gold standard treatment for decades. However, over the last 10 years transcatheter aortic valve replacement has emerged as an attractive, less-invasive option for appropriately selected patients. Refinements in valve design and delivery systems have led to widespread use of this breakthrough technology in selected patients. We review the pathophysiology, criteria for valve replacement, and the results of the trials comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement with surgical aortic valve replacement.

Improvement in Risk Stratification in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Using a Combination of the Tumor Marker CA125 and the Logistic EuroSCORE

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Conventional risk scores have not been accurate in predicting peri- and postprocedural risk of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Elevated levels of the tumor marker carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125) have been linked to adverse outcomes after TAVI. We studied the additional value of CA125 to that of the EuroSCORE in predicting long-term mortality after TAVI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 59 weeks, 115 of 422 patients (27%) died after TAVI. Mortality was higher with elevated CA125 (> 30 U/mL) and EuroSCORE (> median) (47% vs 20%, P<.001 and 38% vs 16%, P<.001, respectively). In the multivariable analysis, CA125 (> 30 U/mL) remained an independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.16; 95% confidence interval [95%CI], 1.48-3.15; P<.001) and improved the predictive capability of the model (C-statistic: 0.736 vs 0.731) and the net reclassification index (51% 95%CI, 33-73) with an integrated discriminative improvement of 3.5% (95%CI, 0.5-8.4). A new variable (CA125-EuroSCORE) was created, with the combinations of the 2 possible binary states of these variables (+, elevated, -, not elevated; C1: CA125- EuroSCORE-; C2: CA125+ EuroSCORE-; C3: CA125- EuroSCORE+; C4: CA125+ EuroSCORE+). Patients in C1 exhibited the lowest cumulative mortality rate (14% [26 of 181]). Mortality was intermediate for C2 (CA125 > 30 U/mL and EuroSCORE ≤ median) and C3 (CA125 ≤ 30 U/mL and EuroSCORE > median): 27% (8 of 30) and 28% (37 of 131), respectively. Patients in C4 (CA125 > 30 U/mL and EuroSCORE > median) exhibited the highest mortality (55% [44 of 80], P-value for trend<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

CA125 offers additional prognostic information beyond that obtained by the EuroSCORE. Elevation of both markers was associated with a poor prognosis.

Prognostic value of body mass index and body surface area on clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Inverse associations between Body Mass Index (BMI) and Body Surface Area (BSA) with mortality in patients after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) have been reported. This "obesity paradox" is controversial, and it remains unclear which parameter, BMI or BSA, is of greater prognostic value. The aim of this study was to investigate the association of BMI and BSA on short- and mid-term outcomes after TAVI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This prospective, observational study consisted of 917 consecutive patients undergoing TAVI at our center from 2011 to 2014. The association between BMI/BSA and mortality (at 30 days and 1 year) was assessed using restricted cubic spline functions in propensity-adjusted (by Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk factors) logistic and Cox proportional models, respectively. The median age of the patients was 82.6 years, with a mean STS Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) of 6.6 ± 4.3 %. Throughout the study period (mean follow-up time was 297 days), 150 (16.4 %) patients died; 72 (7.9 %) patients died within 30 days of TAVI. After risk adjustment, the association between body constitution and 30-day mortality was not significant for either measure (BMI p = 0.25; BSA p = 0.32). However, BMI (p = 0.01), but not BSA (p = 0.13), was significantly associated with 1-year survival. There was no association between stroke, vascular complications, or length of stay with BMI or BSA.

CONCLUSIONS

BMI was associated with survival at 1-year after TAVI. Despite the trend towards implementing BSA in risk score calculation, BMI may be more suitable for the assessment of TAVI patients.

Temporal trends in transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement : An analysis of aortic valve replacements in Germany during 2012-2014

This analysis of the data of the obligatory quality assurance programme AQUA shows the perioperative risk as well as the procedural outcome evaluated by the observed versus expected in-hospital mortality ratio (O/E ratio) of 62,872 patients undergoing isolated surgical (sAVR), transcatheter transvascular (TV-), or transapical (TA-) aortic valve replacement (TAVI) from 2012 to 2014 in Germany. The number of TAVI procedures increased from 9,352 in 2012 to 13,278 in 2014, whereas the number of sAVR remained constant (2012: 9,949; 2014: 9,953). Between 2012 and 2014, the number of TAVI implanted in patients with a logistic EuroScore I (logESI) of ≤10 % (2012: 21 %; 2014: 26 %) as well as with a logESI <20 % (2012: 57 %; 2014: 64 %) increased. In-hospital mortality in TAVI patients decreased from 5.2 % (TV: 5.0 %; TA: 7.4 %) in 2012 to 4.2 % (TV: 3.8 %; TA: 5.5 %) in 2014, whereas it was stable for sAVR patients (2012: 2.8 %; 2014: 2.6 %). The O/E ratio of TAVI patients decreased from 0.91 (TV: 0.79; TA: 1.2) to 0.73 (TV: 0.69; TA: 0.89), whereas this ratio remained constant for sAVR patients (2012: 0.92; 2014: 0.93). In summary, estimated surgical risk, in-hospital mortality, as well as the O/E ratio for patients undergoing TAVI declined constantly during the last 3 years.

[Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): Current perspectives]

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has evolved as the treatment modality of choice for elderly patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who are at high risk for surgery. More than 10,000 TAVI procedures were undertaken in Germany during 2014.A mortality benefit has been shown for TAVI compared with conservative treatment in patients deemed inoperable, and the procedure was proven to be at least non-inferior to surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients. Through improvements in preprocedural imaging and in valve technology as well as increasing operator and surgical team experience, TAVI has developed rapidly in the past few years. Complication rates declinded considerably and the latest study results even suggest a superiority of TAVI to surgical valve replacement in patients at intermediate operative risk. Nevertheless, the challenge to avoid procedure-specific complications influencing the outcome still remains. Therefore, making an individual decision about the approach and the valve prosthesis in an interdisciplinary heart team consisting of a cardiologist and a cardiac surgeon is indispensable for guaranteeing the best therapy for the patient.Considering the rapid developments and procedural improvements in this field, randomized trials are required to assess whether the indication for TAVI may be extended to patients at lower perioperative risk in the future.

The Benefits and Pitfalls of the Use of Risk Stratification Tools in Cardiac Surgery

Risk assessment tools are increasingly used in surgery. In cardiac surgery, risk models are used for patient counselling, surgical decision-making, performance benchmarking, clinical research, evaluation of new therapies and quality assurance, among others. However, they have numerous disadvantages which need to be considered. This article evaluates the utility of risk assessment tools in cardiac surgery including a discussion of their advantages and disadvantages.

In-hospital outcome of transcatheter vs. surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic valve stenosis: complete dataset of patients treated in 2013 in Germany

BACKGROUND

Transvascular (TV-AVI) or transapical (TA-AVI) aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a treatment option for patients with aortic stenosis being at high or prohibitive risk for surgical aortic valve implantation (SAVR). Randomized data demonstrated that these subgroups can safely been treated with TAVI. However, a comparison of SAVR and TAVI in intermediate and low-risk patients is missing. Therefore, the aim of the analysis was to compare TAVI and SAVR in all patients who were treated for aortic valve stenosis in Germany throughout 1 year.

METHODS

The mandatory quality assurance collects data on the in-hospital outcome from all patients (n = 20,340) undergoing either SAVR or TAVI in Germany. In order to compare the different treatment approaches patients were categorized into four risk groups using the logistic EuroScore I (ES). In-hospital mortality and peri- and postprocedural complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

The in-hospital mortality did not differ between TV-AVI and SAVR in the low risk group (ES <10 %: TV-AVI 2.4 %, SAVR 2.0 %, p = 0.302) and was significantly higher for SAVR in all other risk groups (ES 10-20 %: TV-AVI 3.5 %, SAVR 5.3 %; p = 0.025; ES 20-30 %: TV-AVI 5.5 %, SAVR 12.2 %, p < 0.001; ES >30 %: TV-AVI 6.5 %, SAVR 12.9 %, p = 0.008). TA-AVI had a significantly higher mortality in all risk groups compared to TV-AVI. In comparison to SAVR, TA-AVI had a higher mortality in patients with ES <10, comparable mortality in ES 10-20 %, and lower mortality in patients with an ES >20 %. The overall stroke rate was 2.3 %. It occurred more frequently in patients with an ES <10 % treated with a transapical approach (SAVR 1.8 %, TV-AVI 1.9 %, TA-AVI 3.1 %, p < 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences in all other comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that TAVI provides excellent outcomes in all risk categories. Compared with SAVR, TV-TAVI yields similar in-hospital mortality among low-risk patients and lower in-hospital mortality among intermediate and high-risk patient populations.

30-day mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting and valve surgery has greatly improved over the last decade, but the 1-year mortality remains constant

Introduction:

European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (EuroSCORE) is a valuable tool in control of the quality of cardiac surgery. However, the validity of the risk score for the individual patient may be questioned. The present study was carried out to investigate whether the continued fall in short-term mortality reflects an actual improvement in late mortality, and subsequently, to investigate EuroSCORE as predictor of 1-year mortality.

Methods:

A population-based cohort study of 25,602 patients from a 12-year period from three public university hospitals undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or valve surgery. Analysis was carried out based on EuroSCORE, age and co-morbidity factors (residual EuroSCORE).

Results:

During the period the average age increased from 65.1 ± 10.0 years to 68.9 ± 10.7 years (P < 0.001, one-way ANOVA), and the number of females increased from 26.0% to 28.2% (P = 0.0012, Chi-square test). The total EuroSCORE increased from 4.67 to 5.68 while the residual EuroSCORE decreased from 2.64 to 1.83. Thirty-day mortality decreased from 4.07% in 1999–2000 to 2.44% in 2011–2012 (P = 0.0056; Chi-square test), while 1-year mortality was unchanged (6.50% in 1999–2000 vs. 6.25% in 2011–2012 [P = 0.8086; Chi-square test]).

Discussion:

The study demonstrates that both co-morbidity and age has a great impact on 30-day mortality. However, with time the impact of co-morbidity seems less. Thus, age is more important than co-morbidity in late mortality. The various developments in short and long-term mortality are not readily explained.

Conclusion:

Although 30-day mortality of CABG and valve surgery patients has decreased during the 12-year period, the 1-year mortality remains the same.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in very elderly patients: immediate results and medium term follow-up

Objective

To evaluate immediate transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) results and medium-term follow-up in very elderly patients with severe and symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS).

Methods

This multicenter, observational and prospective study was carried out in three hospitals. We included consecutive very elderly (> 85 years) patients with severe AS treated by TAVI. The primary endpoint was to evaluate death rates from any cause at two years.

Results

The study included 160 consecutive patients with a mean age of 87 ± 2.1 years (range from 85 to 94 years) and a mean logistic EuroSCORE of 18.8% ± 11.2% with 57 (35.6%) patients scoring ≥ 20%. Procedural success rate was 97.5%, with 25 (15.6%) patients experiencing acute complications with major bleeding (the most frequent). Global mortality rate during hospitalization was 8.8% (n = 14) and 30-day mortality rate was 10% (n = 16). Median follow up period was 252.24 ± 232.17 days. During the follow-up period, 28 (17.5%) patients died (17 of them due to cardiac causes). The estimated two year overall and cardiac survival rates using the Kaplan-Meier method were 71% and 86.4%, respectively. Cox proportional hazard regression showed that the variable EuroSCORE ≥ 20 was the unique variable associated with overall mortality.

Conclusions

TAVI is safe and effective in a selected population of very elderly patients. Our findings support the adoption of this new procedure in this complex group of patients.

Risk and Outcome of Aortic Valve Surgery in the Transcatheter Valve Era: The Gender Aspect

OBJECTIVES

In 2009, a transcatheter valve intervention program was introduced at our centre. The aim of this single-centre retrospective study was to evaluate gender-specific risk profiles and outcome of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement before and after 2009.

METHODS

We assessed the preoperative logistic EuroSCORE and age, gender and 30-day-survival of 357 patients diagnosed with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis that underwent primary isolated surgical aortic valve replacement in 2007-2008 (group I, n = 191, 47% female) and 2010-2011 (group II, n = 166, 40% female). Survival follow up data was 100% complete.

RESULTS

Women in group II were significantly younger (71.6 ± 9.0 years; p = 0.004) and showed significantly lower risk profiles (logistic EuroSCORE: 9.6 ± 9.9%; p = 0.04) than women in group I (age: 75.6 ± 8.5 years, logistic EuroSCORE: 13.9 ± 15.9). Men's age and risk profiles remained similar in both groups. Observed survival at 30 days was 98.8% in group II and 95.8% in group I which represented a statistical trend (p = 0.09). Female survival in group I was 92.2% and significantly worse as compared to 99% male survival in group I (p = 0.03). This significant difference in gender ratio of mortality was not detected in group II (female survival 97%, male survival 100%; p = 0.2). Being female was a significant risk factor in group I (odds ratio; 8.4; p = 0.03) but not in group II any longer (odds ratio: 1.0; p = 0.2).

CONCLUSIONS

The possibility of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for therapy of aortic stenosis has led to a lower risk and improved outcome of surgical aortic valve replacement especially for women.

Is the EuroSCORE II best suited for reoperative risk estimation in patients with structural deterioration of aortic bioprostheses?

BACKGROUND

Operative risk prediction systems (logistic EuroSCORE I, EuroSCORE II and STS Score) are employed together with multidisciplinary discussion to contraindicate conventional surgery in patients with valvular heart disease and propose the employment of alternative transcatheter procedures. The EuroSCORE I has been reported to underperform in these circumstances; we hypothesize that the EuroSCORE II is best suited for the stratification of risk in patients with structural deterioration (SVD) of valvular bioprostheses and potential candidates to the Valve-in-Valve procedure (deployment of a transcatheter valve within a failing valvular bioprosthesis).

METHODS AND EVALUATION OF THE HYPOTHESIS

A multi-institutional collaboration is required to fully address such hypothesis. Therefore, we performed a preliminary validation study by retrieval of the complete records of 81 patients undergoing reoperative aortic valve replacement for preoperative diagnosis of bioprosthetic SVD at our Institution. Logistic EuroSCORE I, EuroSCORE II and STS Score were calculated by preoperatively available data. Faced to an observed reoperative mortality of 4.9%, average EuroSCORE I was 15.8%±13.4, EuroSCORE II was 7.3%±7.4 and the STS Score was 15%±9.8. The three systems provided sufficient adequacy (Hosmer-Lemeshow p=0.847, p=0.999 and p=0.9948, respectively). Yet, the area under the ROC curve was significantly higher for the EuroSCORE II (0.9903) vs. the EuroSCORE I (0.8994) (p=0.044). The STS Score yielded an intermediate figure (0.9643). The odds ratios (logistic regression) were 1.079 for EuroSCORE I, 1.223 for the STS Score and 1.474 for EuroSCORE II.

CONCLUSIONS

The three investigated algorithms showed reasonable calibration in the prediction of mortality for reoperative aortic valve replacement, but they evenly overestimated the observed mortality. The hypothesis that the EuroSCORE II is better suited for the selection of candidates to Valve-in-Valve implantation is worth of further multi-institutional investigations on the basis of our preliminary findings and due to the expanding role of transcatheter techniques.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI): Is it Time for This Intervention to be Applied in a Lower Risk Population?

Patients with severe aortic stenosis are sometimes not candidates for conventional open heart surgery because of severe deconditioning, excessive risk factors, and multiple comorbidities. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a relatively recent intervention, which was initially addressed to individuals with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis at substantial or prohibitive surgical risk. Despite the documented beneficial effects of this therapeutic intervention in certain carefully selected individuals, it has not yet been applied to lower risk patients. This is a review of the current literature and accumulated clinical data of this rapidly evolving invasive procedure in an attempt to resolve whether it can now be applied to a wider portion of patients with aortic stenosis.

[Transcatheter aortic valve implantation]

As the French population is aging, a growing number of elderly patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis are going to require therapeutic management. Approximately 30 to 40 % of these patients do not undergo surgical treatment and a high proportion is considered to be at high risk for surgery. The transluminal aortic valve implantation technique has been increasingly used over the past few years, thus providing a solution to a major therapeutic issue in our industrialized countries. Thanks to major randomized studies such as the PARTNER US trial, this treatment has been approved for high-risk patients. Expertise and new devices are now opening the way to intermediate risk population.

Multidisciplinary team approach for identifying potential candidate for transcatheter aortic valve implantation

PURPOSE

We sought to evaluate the clinical usefulness of decision making by a multidisciplinary heart team for identifying potential candidates for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The multidisciplinary team consisted of two interventional cardiologists, two cardiovascular surgeons, one cardiac imaging specialist, and two cardiac anesthesiologists.

RESULTS

Out of 60 patients who were screened as potential TAVI candidates, 31 patients were initially recommended as appropriate for TAVI, and 20 of these 31 eventually underwent TAVI. Twenty-two patients underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR), and 17 patients received only medical treatment. Patients who underwent TAVI and medical therapy were older than those who underwent surgical AVR (p<0.001). The logistic Euroscore was significantly highest in the TAVI group and lowest in the surgical AVR group (p=0.012). Most patients in the TAVI group (90%) and the surgical AVR group (91%) had severe cardiac symptoms, but only 47% in the medical therapy group had severe symptoms. The cumulative percentages of survival without re-hospitalization or all-cause death at 6 months for the surgical AVR, TAVI, and medical therapy groups were 84%, 75%, and 28%, respectively (p=0.007, by log-rank).

CONCLUSION

TAVI was recommended in half of the potential candidates following a multidisciplinary team approach and was eventually performed in one-third of these patients. One-third of the patients who were initially considered potential candidates received surgical AVR with favorable clinical outcomes.

Conventional surgery results in patients originally referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation

AIMS

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is increasingly considered as a viable alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) in high-risk patients. Long-term results, however, are still scarce and medical community hesitates in enlarging indications to lower-risk patients. Moreover, available devices are expensive and a strict potential candidate selection is necessary.

METHODS

From April 2008 to August 2012, a total of 212 patients, originally referred for percutaneous treatment, were thoroughly evaluated by the aortic team of our department in order to choose the optimal procedure. Of them, 55 patients (35 women; 20 men) were considered as still acceptable candidates for conventional AVR.

RESULTS

Mean age was 80.7 ± 4.7 years; mean additive and logistic Euroscore I were 9.7 ± 1.8 and 17.8 ± 9.5%, respectively. Mean Euroscore II was 7.9 ± 5.5%. Mean New York Heart Association class was 2.9 ± 0.5. The majority of patients (87.2%) presented a geriatric frailty score of 0-1. Four patients showed a heavily calcified ascending aorta, and five patients (9%) underwent reoperations. Hospital mortality was 10.9% (six patients). Mean follow-up was 535.9 ± 407.4 days (range: 6-1365 days). Six other patients died during this period for a mean survival of 74.4 ± 6.9% at 2 years. Mean New York Heart Association class at 1 year was 1.25 ± 0.5 (P < 0.01 vs. preoperative value).

CONCLUSION

AVR should be indicated with caution in high-risk patients originally referred for TAVI. Despite medium-term results being good, with excellent functional status, hospital mortality is not negligible.

Development of a risk score for outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

AIMS

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an increasingly common procedure in elderly and multimorbid patients with aortic stenosis. We aimed at developing a pre-procedural risk evaluation scheme beyond current surgical risk scores.

METHODS

We developed a risk algorithm for 1-year mortality in two cohorts consisting of 845 patients undergoing routine TAVI procedures by commercially available devices, mean age 80.9 ± 6.5, 51 % women. Clinical variables were determined at baseline. Multivariable Cox regression related clinical data to mortality (n = 207 deaths).

RESULTS

To account for variability related to age and sex and by enrolment site we forced age, sex, and cohort into the score model. Body mass index, estimated glomerular filtration rate, hemoglobin, pulmonary hypertension, mean transvalvular gradient and left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline were most strongly associated with mortality and entered the risk prediction algorithm [C-statistic 0.66, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.70, calibration χ (2)-statistic = 6.51; P = 0.69]. Net reclassification improvement compared to existing surgical risk predication schemes was positive. The score showed reasonable model fit and calibration in external validation in 333 patients, N = 55 deaths (C-statistic 0.60, 95 % CI 0.52-0.68; calibration χ (2)-statistic = 16.2; P = 0.06). Additional measurement of B-type natriuretic peptide and troponin I did not improve the C-statistic. Frailty increased the C-statistic to 0.71, 95 % CI 0.65-0.76.

CONCLUSIONS

We present a new risk evaluation tool derived and validated in routine TAVI cohorts that predicts 1-year mortality. Biomarkers only marginally improved risk prediction. Frailty increased the discriminatory ability of the score and needs to be considered. Risk algorithms specific for TAVI may help to guide decision-making when patients are evaluated for TAVI.