Developing Hemodynamic Valve Deterioration and Mortality in Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

As life span increases, in patients having a bioprosthetic valve, the development of hemodynamic valve deterioration (HVD) is an important concern. We evaluated the association of developing HVD to survival in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

METHODS

The individuals undergoing isolated SAVR and serial echocardiography exams (interval >30 d) were included in this study. HVD was defined as mean pressure gradient ≥ 20 mmHg, mean pressure gradient ≥10 mmHg higher than in the baseline exam, or more than moderate regurgitation on Doppler echocardiography (moderate and severe grade). A time-dependent Cox proportional hazard model was used for this study.

RESULTS

A total of 631 patients were included. The mean age was 71.8 ± 6.1 y old (female: 53.6%). HVD was found in 259 patients (41%) during echocardiographic follow-up (mean 3.3 ± 3.0 y). Patient-prosthetic mismatch was found in 174 patients. One hundred and twenty-six patients died during follow-up (median 62.1 mo, interquartile range 31.1-96.8). The development of HVD was an independent risk factor for death during follow-up (P = 0.038, hazard ratio 1.46, 95% confidential interval: 1.02-2.08).

CONCLUSIONS

HVD was common after bioprosthetic SAVR during mid-term follow-up. Developing HVD, including moderate and severe grades, was associated with a poor survival rate compared with patients without HVD.

Multicenter experience with valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with primary, native valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers an alternative to reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement. The short- and intermediate-term outcomes after ViV TAVR in the real world are not entirely clear.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of 121 ViV TAVR patients and 2200 patients undergoing primary native valve TAVR from 2012 to 2017 at six medical centers. The main outcome measures were in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury, and pacemaker implantation.

RESULTS

ViV patients were more likely male, younger, prior coronary artery bypass graft, "hostile chest," and urgent. 30% of the patients had Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score <4%, 36.3% were 4%-8% and 33.8% were >8%. In both groups many patients had concomitant coronary artery disease. Median time to prosthetic failure was 9.6 years (interquartile range: 5.5-13.5 years). 82% of failed surgical valves were size 21, 23, or 25 mm. Access was 91% femoral. After ViV, 87% had none or trivial aortic regurgitation. Mean gradients were <20 mmHg in 54.6%, 20-29 mmHg in 30.6%, 30-39 mmHg in 8.3% and ≥40 mmHg in 5.87%. Median length of stay was 4 days. In-hospital mortality was 0%. 30-day mortality was 0% in ViV and 3.7% in native TAVR. There was no difference in in-hospital mortality, postprocedure myocardial infarction, stroke, or acute kidney injury.

CONCLUSION

Compared to native TAVR, ViV TAVR has similar peri-procedural morbidity with relatively high postprocedure mean gradients. A multidisciplinary approach will help ensure patients receive the ideal therapy in the setting of structural bioprosthetic valve degeneration.

5 Year Outcomes of Patients With Aortic Structural Valve Deterioration Treated With Transcatheter Valve in Valve - A Single Center Prospective Registry

The Valve-in-Valve (ViV) technique is an established alternative for the treatment of structural bioprosthetic valve deterioration (SVD). Data describing the intermediate term follow up of patients treated with this approach is scarce. We report on our intermediate-term outcomes of patients with SVD in the Aortic position treated with ViV. Included were patients with symptomatic SVD in the aortic position valve who were treated by Valve in valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) during the years 2010-2019 in our center. Three main outcomes were examined during the follow up period: NYHA functional class, ViV-TAVI hemodynamic per echocardiography, and mortality. Our cohort consisted of 85 patients (mean age 78.8 ± 8.9 years). The indications for aortic ViV were: SVD isolated aortic stenosis in 37.6%, SVD isolated aortic regurgitation in 42.2% and combined valve pathology in 20.0%. Self-expandable and balloon-expandable devices were used in 73 (85.9%) and 12 (14.1%), respectively. Average follow up was 3.7 ± 2.4 years. 95 and 91% of patients were in NYHA functional class I/II at 1 and 5 year follow up respectively. At one year, the mean trans-aortic valve pressure was 15 ± 9 mmHg and rates of ≥ moderate aortic regurgitation were 3.7%. Mortality at one year was 8.6% (95% CI 2.3–14.4) and 31% (95% CI 16.5–42.5) at 5 years. ViV in the aortic position offers an effective and durable treatment option for patient with SVD, with low rates of all-cause mortality, excellent hemodynamic and improved functional capacity at intermediate follow up.

A case report of open-aorta, direct transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation: an innovative approach to manage the hazard of coronary flow compromise in transcatheter aortic valve re-interventions

Background

Coronary flow compromise is a significant risk of transcatheter aortic valve therapy. Warranting preservation of coronary flow is even more challenging with transcatheter aortic valve re-intervention since the implantation of a transcatheter valve within a degenerated bioprosthetic or transcatheter valve increases significantly this hazard.

Case summary

We present a case of heart failure secondary to transcatheter aortic valve degeneration requiring a transcatheter aortic valve re-intervention. Pre-operative imaging studies demonstrated a high risk for iatrogenic coronary flow impairment. The patient underwent a successful surgical removal of the prosthetic valve leaflets followed by direct transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Conclusion

We reviewed the literature on the approach to difficult coronaries in transcatheter aortic valve therapy, and we describe an innovative hybrid approach that may represent a viable alternative in cases where catheter techniques of coronary flow preservation are not applicable.

Evaluation of postoperative outcomes of valve reoperation: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of operative death and postoperative complications between primary and reoperation valve surgeries and to identify independent risk factors for these events among valve-reoperation patients.

METHODS

Between 2013 and 2015, 54 269 patients who underwent valve surgery were retrospectively analyzed using the Japan Cardiovascular Surgery Database. They were divided into the primary (group P; n = 49 833) and reoperation (group R; n = 4436) surgery groups. Among the reoperation patients, we conducted multivariable logistic regression analyses to identify risk factors for the incidences of operative mortality and postoperative complications. Then, we also conducted propensity score matched analyses to compare the incidences of these 2 outcomes for primary versus reoperation procedures separately for patients with and without infective endocarditis (IE).

RESULTS

Incidences of postoperative mortality (4.6% vs 9.1%; P < 0.001) and any complications (36.6% vs 41.4%; P < 0.001) were higher in the reoperation group. For patients undergoing reoperation, strong risk factors for operative mortality included urgency status, ejection fraction <30%, IE, dialysis, chronic kidney disease, New York Heart Association class 3/4, concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting and aorta procedure, tricuspid valve surgery only, multivalve surgery and age. In the propensity score matched cohort, the relative odds of operative mortality were 1.53 (95% confidence interval: 1.26-1.86, P < 0.001) among patients with IE and were 1.58 (95% confidence interval: 1.18-2.13, P < 0.002) among those without.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes for reoperation were significantly worse than those for primary surgery. At the primary operation, the risk of reoperation should be considered and when considering the indications for reoperation, the preoperative state, surgical timing and intervention method should be considered.

Meta-Analysis of Stroke and Mortality Rates in Patients Undergoing Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

During the past decade, the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was extended beyond treatment‐naïve patients and implemented for treatment of degenerated surgical bioprosthetic valves. Selection criteria for either valve‐in‐valve (viv) TAVR or redo surgical aortic valve replacement are not well established, and decision making on the operative approach still remains challenging for the interdisciplinary heart team.

Methods and Results

This review was intended to analyze all studies on viv‐TAVR focusing on short‐ and mid‐term stroke and mortality rates compared with redo surgical aortic valve replacement or native TAVR procedures. A structured literature search and review process led to 1667 potentially relevant studies on July 1, 2020. Finally, 23 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for qualitative analysis. All references were case series either with or without propensity score matching and registry analyses. Quantitative synthesis of data from 8509 patients revealed that viv‐TAVR is associated with mean 30‐day stroke and mortality rates of 2.2% and 4.2%, respectively. Pooled data analysis showed no significant differences in 30‐day stroke rate, 30‐day mortality, and 1‐year mortality between viv‐TAVR and comparator treatment (native TAVR [n=11 804 patients] or redo surgical aortic valve replacement [n=498 patients]).

Conclusions

This review is the first one comparing the risk for stroke and mortality rates in viv‐TAVR procedures with native TAVR approach and contributes substantial data for the clinical routine. Moreover, this systematic review is the most comprehensive analysis on ischemic cerebrovascular events and early mortality in patients undergoing viv‐TAVR. In this era with increasing numbers of bioprosthetic valves used in younger patients, viv‐TAVR is a suitable option for the treatment of degenerated bioprostheses.

Reoperative aortic valve replacement in the era of valve-in-valve procedures

Current evidence suggests that the choice between valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation and reoperative aortic valve replacement should be based on multiple factors.

Conventional redo biological valve replacement over 20 years: Surgical benchmarks should guide patient selection for transcatheter valve-in-valve therapy

OBJECTIVES

Although primary transcatheter valve interventions have demonstrated acceptable early- and intermediate-term outcomes, data are lacking to guide patient selection for transcatheter valve-in-valve therapy. Furthermore, very few surgical benchmarks have been established for repeat conventional biological valve replacement to refine momentum for broad application of transcatheter intervention for a degenerated bioprosthesis.

METHODS

From January 1993 to July 2014, 694 patients underwent repeat biological valve replacement at our clinic. Median age at repeat operation was 71 years (range, 26-95 years) and there were 437 men (63%). Hypertension was present in 453 patients (65%), diabetes in 128 patients (18%), prior myocardial infarction in 85 patients (12%), and prior stroke in 81 patients (12%). Prior coronary bypass grafting was performed in 212 patients (31%). Median left ventricular ejection fraction was 41% (range, 20-61) and New York Heart Association functional class III or IV was present in 529 patients (76%).

RESULTS

Biological valve re-replacement included most commonly aortic valve in 464 patients (67%) and mitral valve in 170 (24%). Concomitant coronary bypass grafting was performed in 134 patients (19%). Mortality at 30 days occurred in 56 patients (8%). Multivariable analysis with backward stepwise regression identified New York Heart Association functional class (per 1 increment) (hazard ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-4.3; P = .03) and prior coronary bypass grafting (hazard ratio, 3.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-10.9; P = .03) as independent predictors of early death. Patients with the combination of prior coronary bypass grafting and New York Heart Association functional class III or IV accounted for 26 out of 56 early deaths (46%) and in the absence of this combination, early death in the cohort was 30 out of 694 (4%). Follow-up was available in 602 out of 638 early survivors (94%) for a median of 45 months (range, 1 month-23.4 years). Survival at 5 and 10 years was 63% and 34%, respectively. For patients who died during follow-up, 2-dimensional scatter plots demonstrate durable length of postoperative survival (median, 5.5 years; maximum, 22 years).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large population of patients undergoing repeat biological valve replacement, prior coronary bypass grafting and advanced New York Heart Association functional class were associated with increased 30-day mortality, with the remaining population having a low 30-day mortality of 4%. This study could serve as a surgical benchmark to guide patient selection for transcatheter valve-in-valve technology rather than employing a broader application of these techniques to those who may otherwise have low early risk of mortality and durable long-term survival after conventional valve surgery.

Clinical trends in surgical, minimally invasive and transcatheter aortic valve replacement†

OBJECTIVES

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) have emerged as alternatives to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) via traditional sternotomy. However, their effect on clinical practice remains unclear. The study's objective is to describe clinical trends between TAVR, MIAVR and SAVR in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).

METHODS

This retrospective observational study analyzed trends in isolated severe aortic valve replacement (AVR) among three high volume TAVR, MIAVR and SAVR centres in the United States. The cohort included 2571 patients from 2011 through 2014 undergoing SAVR ( n  = 842), MIAVR ( n  = 699) and TAVR ( n  = 1030) further stratified into transapical (TA-TAVR) and trans-femoral (TF-TAVR).

RESULTS

Total AVR volume increased +107% with increases in TF-TAVR (+595%) and MIAVR (+57%). However, SAVR (-15%) and TA-TAVR (-49%) decreased from 2013 to 2014. In the final year, risk stratification by age ≥ 80, redo AVR, patients receiving dialysis and STS score >8% revealed increases in TF-TAVR and MIAVR, while SAVR decreased for all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

TF-TAVR and MIAVR increased while SAVR and TA-TAVR trended down in the latter periods, which underscore a paradigm shift in the treatment of severe AS and the importance of surgeon adoption of TF-TAVR and MIAVR techniques. As the demand for minimally invasive modalities increases, further studies comparing MIAVR versus TF-TAVR in low and intermediate risk patients are warranted.

Outcomes comparison of different surgical strategies for the management of severe aortic valve stenosis: study protocol of a prospective multicentre European registry (E-AVR registry)

INTRODUCTION

Traditional and transcatheter surgical treatments of severe aortic valve stenosis (SAVS) are increasing in parallel with the improved life expectancy. Recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reported comparable or non-inferior mortality with transcatheter treatments compared with traditional surgery. However, RCTs have the limitation of being a mirror of the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, without reflecting the 'real clinical world'. Technological improvements have recently allowed the development of minimally invasive surgical accesses and the use of sutureless valves, but their impact on the clinical scenario is difficult to assess because of the monocentric design of published studies and limited sample size. A prospective multicentre registry including all patients referred for a surgical treatment of SAVS (traditional, through full sternotomy; minimally invasive; or transcatheter; with both 'sutured' and 'sutureless' valves) will provide a 'real-world' picture of available results of current surgical options and will help to clarify the 'grey zones' of current guidelines.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

European Aortic Valve Registry is a prospective observational open registry designed to collect all data from patients admitted for SAVS, with or without coronary artery disease, in 16 cardiac surgery centres located in six countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and UK). Patients will be enrolled over a 2-year period and followed up for a minimum of 5 years to a maximum of 10 years after enrolment. Outcome definitions are concordant with Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria and established guidelines. Primary outcome is 5-year all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes aim at establishing 'early' 30-day all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, as well as major morbidity, and 'late' cardiovascular mortality, major morbidity, structural and non-structural valve complications, quality of life and echocardiographic results.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol is approved by local ethics committees. Any formal presentation or publication of data will be considered as a joint publication by the participating physician(s) and will follow the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors for authorship.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03143361; Pre-results.

Aortic Valve Bioprostheses: Leaflet Immobility and Valve Thrombosis

Leaflet immobility and valve thrombosis have been reported with both transcatheter and surgical aortic valve bioprostheses. The relationships between these abnormalities and their incidence, time course, clinical significance, predisposing factors, optimal imaging modality, and current therapeutic options remain uncertain but are rapidly evolving. Four-dimensional computerized tomographic imaging has been determined to have the highest sensitivity in studies evaluating leaflet immobility and valve thrombosis. Echocardiography is also used during surveillance, but it appears to be less sensitive. The definitive diagnosis of valve thrombosis is based on a combination of diagnostic 4-dimensional computerized tomographic imaging findings, resolution of imaging abnormalities, and elevated transcatheter gradients with anticoagulation or surgical or pathological confirmation. Uncertainty about the incidence and clinical significance of the findings is the basis of 2 US Food and Drug Administration-approved studies comparing transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement with a subset undergoing surveillance 4-dimensional computerized tomographic imaging. Given the expansion of transcatheter aortic valve procedures, including potentially lower-risk patients, the resolution of these uncertainties is critical.

The expanding indications of transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), also known as transcatheter aortic valve replacement, is increasingly performed worldwide and is a technology that is here to stay. It has become the treatment of choice for inoperable patients and an alternative option for patients at high surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis. Early results of TAVI in intermediate-risk patients appear promising although larger randomized trial results are awaited before the widespread adoption of this technology in this big pool of patients. In patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis and degenerated surgical bioprostheses, TAVI has been shown to be feasible and relatively safe, though certain important considerations remain. Indications for TAVI are likely to grow as newer generation and improved devices and delivery systems become available.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation versus reoperative conventional aortic valve replacement: a systematic review

Transcatheter valve-in-valve (VIV) implantation for degenerated aortic bioprostheses has emerged as a promising alternative to redo conventional aortic valve replacement (cAVR). However there are concerns surrounding the efficacy and safety of VIV. This systematic review aims to compare the outcomes and safety of transcatheter VIV implantation with redoes cAVR. Six databases were systematically searched. A total of 18 relevant studies (823 patients) were included. Pooled analysis demonstrated VIV achieved significant improvements in mean gradient (38 mmHg preoperatively to 15.2 mmHg postoperatively, P<0.001) and peak gradient (59.2 to 23.2 mmHg, P=0.0003). These improvements were similar to the outcomes achieved by cAVR. The incidence of moderate paravalvular leaks (PVL) were significantly higher for VIV compared to cAVR (3.3% vs. 0.4%, P=0.022). In terms of morbidity, VIV had a significantly lower incidence of stroke and bleeding compared to redo cAVR (1.9% vs. 8.8%, P=0.002 & 6.9% vs. 9.1%, P=0.014, respectively). Perioperative mortality rates were similar for VIV (7.9%) and redo cAVR (6.1%, P=0.35). In conclusion, transcatheter VIV implantation achieves similar haemodynamic outcomes, with lower risk of strokes and bleeding but higher PVL rates compared to redo cAVR. Future randomized studies and prospective registries are essential to compare the effectiveness of transcatheter VIV with cAVR, and clarify the rates of PVLs.

Mechanisms of Heart Block after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement - Cardiac Anatomy, Clinical Predictors and Mechanical Factors that Contribute to Permanent Pacemaker Implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a valuable, minimally invasive treatment option in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis at prohibitive or increased risk for conventional surgical replacement. Consequently, patients undergoing TAVR are prone to peri-procedural complications including cardiac conduction disturbances, which is the focus of this review. Atrioventricular conduction disturbances and arrhythmias before, during or after TAVR remain a matter of concern for this high-risk group of patients, as they have important consequences on hospital duration, short- and long-term medical management and finally on decisions of device-based treatment strategies (pacemaker or defibrillator implantation). We discuss the mechanisms of atrioventricular disturbances and characterise predisposing factors. Using validated clinical predictors, we discuss strategies to minimise the likelihood of creating permanent high-grade heart block, and identify factors to expedite the decision to implant a permanent pacemaker when the latter is unavoidable. We also discuss optimal pacing strategies to mitigate the possibility of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy.