Lifetime management of aortic valve disease: Aligning surgical and transcatheter armamentarium to set the tone for the present and the future

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 65 years in the United States

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to characterize the trends and outcomes of aortic valve replacement in patients aged less than 65 years with aortic stenosis between 2013 and 2021.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included 9557 patients who underwent biological aortic valve replacement in California, New York, and New Jersey from 2013 to 2021. Patients were stratified by approach: transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve replacement. Our primary outcomes were 30-day and 6-year mortality and morbidity (stroke, heart failure rehospitalization, reintervention, and new pacemaker implantation). After propensity score matching, Cox proportional hazard and Fine-Gray models were used to compare outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients aged less than 65 years with aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve replacement increased from 7.1% in 2013 to 54.7% in 2021. After propensity score matching, 30-day mortality was similar between both groups (1.0% vs 1.5%, P = .33). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement had a higher 6-year mortality (23.3% vs 10.5%, hazard ratio, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.82-2.83; P < .001). The 30-day rate of new pacemaker implantation was higher after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (10.7% vs 6.2%, P < .001). There was no difference in the 6-year cumulative incidence of stroke, heart failure hospitalizations, or reoperations. Multiple sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite clinical guidelines, the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement has increased in patients aged less than 65 years. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in this population is associated with a higher 6-year mortality and a higher rate of new permanent pacemaker implantation when compared with a matched cohort treated with biologic surgical aortic valve replacement. These findings support the need for a randomized controlled trial comparing long-term outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients aged less than 65 years.

Commissural alignment and the ACURATE neo2 transcatheter aortic valve: Impact on valve performance

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly being used to treat severe aortic stenosis in younger patients. Accordingly, lifetime management regarding future reintervention and coronary access is a concern.

AIMS

To assess the impact of commissural alignment on ACURATE neo2 transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) performance.

METHODS

COMALIGN-neo2 was an observational, retrospective study enrolling consecutive TAVR patients treated with the ACURATE neo2 (October 2021 to October 2022). The degree of commissural (mis)-alignment (CMA) with the native aortic valve commissures was determined and transvalvular gradient, effective orifice area, patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM), and aortic regurgitation (AR) were assessed.

RESULTS

Among 825 patients, the mean age was 80.7 years and 42% were female. Commissural alignment was achieved in 60% of cases; mild (26%), moderate (9%), and severe misalignment (5%) were found less often. Severe PPM occurred more frequently in patients with severe CMA (14.7%) compared to aligned valves (p = 0.034). By multivariate analysis, severe CMA (odds ratio [OR]: 3.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.09-8.90]; p = 0.033) and lack of postdilatation (OR: 3.85, [1.33-11.1]; p = 0.012) were associated with severe PPM. Higher rates of ≥mild AR (51.4%) were found in TAVs implanted with severe CMA compared to aligned (34.3%), mildly (38.1%) or moderately (36.0%) misaligned TAVs (p = 0.030). Multivariate analysis identified severe CMA (OR: 2.05, [1.05-4.02]; p = 0.037) to be an independent predictor of ≥mild AR.

CONCLUSIONS

COMALIGN-neo2 is the largest study to date assessing the impact of commissural alignment on acute TAV performance. Severe CMA with the ACURATE neo2 platform was associated with worse valve hemodynamics and increased risk for mild AR.

Moderate Aortic Valve Stenosis Is Associated With Increased Mortality Rate and Lifetime Loss: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data of 409 680 Patients

BACKGROUND

The mortality risk attributable to moderate aortic stenosis (AS) remains incompletely characterized and has historically been underestimated. We aim to evaluate the association between moderate AS and all-cause death, comparing it with no/mild AS (in a general referral population and in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic review and pooled meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived reconstructed time-to-event data of studies published by June 2023 was conducted to evaluate survival outcomes among patients with moderate AS in comparison with individuals with no/mild AS. Ten studies were included, encompassing a total of 409 680 patients (11 527 with moderate AS and 398 153 with no/mild AS). In the overall population, the 15-year overall survival rate was 23.3% (95% CI, 19.1%-28.3%) in patients with moderate AS and 58.9% (95% CI, 58.1%-59.7%) in patients with no/mild aortic stenosis (hazard ratio [HR], 2.55 [95% CI, 2.46-2.64]; P<0.001). In patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the 10-year overall survival rate was 15.5% (95% CI, 10.0%-24.0%) in patients with moderate AS and 37.3% (95% CI, 36.2%-38.5%) in patients with no/mild AS (HR, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.69-2.0]; P<0.001). In both populations (overall and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction), these differences correspond to significant lifetime loss associated with moderate AS during follow-up (4.4 years, P<0.001; and 1.9 years, P<0.001, respectively). A consistent pattern of elevated mortality rate associated with moderate AS in sensitivity analyses of matched studies was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate AS was associated with higher risk of death and lifetime loss compared with patients with no/mild AS.

Long-Term Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of Kaplan-Meier-Derived Data

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) in patients with failed bioprostheses arose as an alternative to redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). To evaluate all-cause mortality in ViV-TAVI versus redo-SAVR, we performed a study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of nonrandomized studies published by August 2023. A total of 16 studies met our eligibility criteria, with a total of 4,373 patients (2,204 patients underwent ViV-TAVI and 2,169 patients underwent redo-SAVR). Pooling all the studies, ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 6 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46 to 0.73, p <0.001), with an HR reversal after this time point favoring redo-SAVR (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.33, p <0.001). Pooling only the matched populations (which represented 64.6% of the overall population), ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 6 months (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.73, p <0.001], with a reversal after 6 months favoring redo-SAVR (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.93, p <0.001). The meta-regression analyses revealed a modulating effect of the following covariates: age, coronary artery disease, history of coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and implanted valves <25 mm. In conclusion, ViV-TAVI is associated with better survival immediately after the procedure than redo-SAVR; however, this primary advantage reverses over time, and redo-SAVR seems to offer better survival at a later stage. Because these results are pooled data from observational studies, they should be interpreted with caution, and randomized controlled trials are warranted.

Long-Term Outcomes of Ross Procedure versus Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-To-Event Data

In the era of lifetime management of aortic valve disease, the Ross procedure emerged as an alternative to prosthetic heart valves for young adults; however, more long-term data are warranted. We performed a meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data to compare long-term outcomes between the Ross procedure and mechanical aortic valve replacement (mAVR) in young adults. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and GoogleScholar were searched for studies comparing Ross procedure with mAVR that reported mortality/survival rates and/or reoperation rates accompanied by at least one Kaplan-Meier curve for any of the outcomes. Six observational studies (5 with propensity score matching) including 5024 patients (Ross: 1737; mAVR: 3287) met our inclusion criteria. Patients who underwent Ross had a significantly lower risk of mortality in the overall population (HR 0.38, 95%CI 0.30-0.49, P<0.001; median follow-up of 7.2 years) and in the propensity score matched cohorts (HR 0.55, 95%CI 0.42-0.73, P<0.001; median follow-up of 10.2 years); however, the incidence function for the cumulative risk of reoperation was higher for the Ross procedure (HR 1.91, 95%CI 1.36-2.70, P<0.001; median follow-up of 9.3 years). Data from observational studies suggest that the Ross procedure is associated with lower all-cause mortality compared with mAVR; however, there is a higher risk of reoperation. Besides serving as basis to inform patients about benefits and risks involved in this choice, these results call for further randomized clinical trials to determine whether the Ross procedure can achieve its potential benefits in young patients in need of AVR.

Late Survival After Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Balloon- Versus Self-Expandable Valves: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with failed bioprostheses arose as an alternative to redo surgical aortic valve replacement. There is an increasing interest in exploring the differences between self-expanding valves (SEVs) and balloon-expandable valves (BEVs). Our study aimed to evaluate the all-cause mortality in ViV-TAVI with SEV versus BEV in patients with failed bioprostheses. We performed a study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of studies published by March 30, 2023. A total of 5 studies met our eligibility criteria and included 1,454 patients who underwent ViV-TAVI (862 with SEV and 592 with BEV). Almost all BEVs were iterations of the Edwards BEVs (SAPIEN, SAPIEN XT, and SAPIEN 3) and almost all SEVs were iterations of the Medtronic SEVs (CoreValve/Evolut). During the first year after ViV-TAVI, 67 deaths (11.8%) occurred in patients treated with BEV compared with 92 deaths (11.1%) in patients treated with SEV (hazard ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.27, p = 0.632). At 8 years of follow-up, the all-cause death was not statistically significantly different between the groups, with mortality rates of 65.4% in the group treated BEV and 58.8% in the group treated with SEV (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.09, p = 0.302). The restricted mean survival time was overall 0.25 years greater with SEV than BEV, but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.278), which indicates no lifetime gain or loss with SEV in comparison with BEV. There seems to be no difference in terms of all-cause death in ViV-TAVI with SEV versus BEV. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate our results.

Late outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in bicuspid versus tricuspid valves: Meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data

Based on previous meta-analyses including immediate/1-year results, individuals with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis can undergo TAVI with similar outcomes as those with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV), but with higher rates of periprocedural complications. The widespread belief is that BAV patients would have poor results in comparison with TAV patients after TAVI over time. Therefore, we performed a systematic review with meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data of studies published by January 2022 to compare late outcomes of patients with BAV versus TAV who underwent TAVI. This approach reconstructs individual patient data (IPD) based on the published Kaplan-Meier graphs. Ten studies met our eligibility criteria, including 9,071 patients with BAV and 171,070 patients with TAV. Patients with BAV had a significantly lower risk of mortality (HR 0.70, 95%CI 0.65-0.77, P<0.001), however, this result was driven by populations in which the risk score was statistically significantly lower in the BAV group (HR 0.69, 95%CI 0.63-0.76, P<0.001) and by populations in which the BAV group was statistically significantly younger (HR 0.72, 95%CI 0.64-0.81, P<0.001). In patients with selected BAV anatomy deemed favorable for TAVI, we did not find worse survival over time in comparison with patients with TAV; however, the follow-up beyond 1 year remains limited in the studies and we need more investigation for specific bicuspid anatomies with longer follow-up. Most importantly, randomized controlled trials including exclusively BAV patients treated with TAVI versus SAVR are warranted.

Y Incision and Roof Technique for Aortic Root Enlargement: A Minimally Invasive Approach

The Y incision and roof technique for aortic valve replacement enable implantation of a large prosthetic valve and extensive enlargement of the sinotubular junction. Surgeons have been reluctant to adopt a minimally invasive approach for this procedure because of its complexity and risk. The Stonehenge technique was designed to achieve an ideal surgical view of the aortic root through a small right thoracotomy. Herein, we report implementing a Y incision and roof technique for aortic valve replacement through a minimally invasive approach facilitated by the Stonehenge technique.

Trends in surgical aortic valve replacement in pre- and post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement eras at a structural heart center

Background

The advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has directly impacted the lifelong management of patients with aortic valve disease. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved TAVR for all surgical risk: prohibitive (2011), high (2012), intermediate (2016), and low (2019). Since then, TAVR volumes are increasing and surgical aortic valve replacements (SAVR) are decreasing. This study sought to evaluate trends in isolated SAVR in the pre- and post-TAVR eras.

Methods

From January 2000 to June 2020, 3,861 isolated SAVRs were performed at a single academic quaternary care institution which participated in the early trials of TAVR beginning in 2007. A formal structural heart center was established in 2012 when TAVR became commercially available. Patients were divided into the pre-TAVR era (2000-2011, n = 2,426) and post-TAVR era (2012-2020, n = 1,435). Data from the institutional Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database was analyzed.

Results

The median age was 66 years, similar between groups. The post-TAVR group had a statistically higher rate of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, heart failure, more reoperative SAVR, and lower STS Predicted Risk of Mortality (PROM) (2.0% vs. 2.5%, p < 0.0001). There were more urgent/emergent/salvage SAVRs (38% vs. 24%) and fewer elective SAVRs (63% vs. 76%), (p < 0.0001) in the post-TAVR group. More bioprosthetic valves were implanted in the post-TAVR group (85% vs. 74%, p < 0.0001). Larger aortic valves were implanted (25 vs. 23 mm, p < 0.0001) and more annular enlargements were performed (5.9% vs. 1.6%, p < 0.0001) in the post-TAVR era. Postoperatively, the post-TAVR group had less blood product transfusion (49% vs. 58%, p < 0.0001), renal failure (1.4% vs. 4.3%, p < 0.0001), pneumonia (2.3% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.01), shorter lengths of stay, and lower in-hospital mortality (1.5% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.0007).

Conclusion

The approval of TAVR changed the landscape of aortic valve disease management. At a quaternary academic cardiac surgery center with a well-established structural heart program, patients undergoing isolated SAVR in the post-TAVR era had lower STS PROM, more implantation of bioprosthetic valves, utilization of larger valves, annular enlargement, and lower in-hospital mortality. Isolated SAVR continues to be performed in the TAVR era with excellent outcomes. SAVR remains an essential tool in the lifetime management of aortic valve disease.

Commissural Alignment With ACURATE neo2 Valve in an Unselected Population

BACKGROUND

Commissural alignment has become an important topic in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) because it may improve coronary access, facilitate future valve procedures, and possibly improve valve durability. The efficacy of commissural alignment with ACURATE neo2 has not yet been shown in a large population.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to determine the feasibility and success of attempting commissural alignment in an unselected TAVR population treated with the ACURATE neo2 prosthetic heart valve.

METHODS

A total of 170 consecutive patients underwent TAVR with a dedicated implantation technique to align the TAVR valve to the native valve. Using right-left overlap and 3-cusp views, valve orientation was adjusted by rotation of the unexpanded valve at the level of the aortic root. Effectiveness was assessed postprocedure as the degree of misalignment determined by analyzing fluoroscopic valve orientation to corresponding cusp orientation on preprocedural computed tomography. Safety endpoints included mortality, stroke/transient ischemic attack, and additional complications through 30 days.

RESULTS

Of 170 patients, 167 (98.2%) could be analyzed for alignment, and all 170, for safety outcomes. Most patients (97%) had successful alignment (≤ mild misalignment), with 80% with commissural alignment, while the degrees of misalignment were 17% mild, 1.2% moderate, 1.8% severe.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large evaluation of a commissural alignment technique, alignment was achieved in nearly all patients without safety concerns or impact to procedure duration. Commissural alignment appears effective and safe across all patients with this novel technique.

Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement versus Valve-In-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Reconstructed Time-To-Event Meta-Analysis

Objective. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) has emerged as a useful alternative intervention to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SVAR) for the treatment of degenerated bioprosthesis valve. However, there is no robust evidence about the long-term outcome of both treatments. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the long-term outcomes of Redo-SVAR versus ViV-TAVI by reconstructing the time-to-event data. Methods. The search strategy consisted of a comprehensive review of relevant studies published between 1 January 2000 and 30 September 2022 in three electronic databases, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and EMBASE. Relevant studies were retrieved for the analysis. The primary endpoint was the long-term mortality for all death. The comparisons were made by the Cox regression model and by landmark analysis and a fully parametric model. A random-effect method was applied to perform the meta-analysis. Results. Twelve studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis. A total of 3547 patients were included. Redo-SAVR group included 1783 patients, and ViV-TAVI included 1764 subjects. Redo-SAVR showed a higher incidence of all-cause mortality within 30-days [Hazard ratio (HR) 2.12; 95% CI = 1.49−3.03; p < 0.0001)], whereas no difference was observed between 30 days and 1 year (HR = 1.03; 95% CI = 0.78−1.33; p = 0.92). From one year, Redo-SAVR showed a longer benefit (HR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.40−0.67; p < 0.0001). These results were confirmed for cardiovascular death (HR = 2.04; 95% CI = 1.29−3.22; p = 0.001 within one month from intervention; HR = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.18−0.71; p = 0.003 at 4-years follow-up). Conclusions. Although the long-term outcomes seem similar between Redo-SAVR and ViV-TAVI at a five-year follow-up, ViV-TAVI shows significative lower mortality within 30 days. This advantage disappeared between 30 days and 1 year and reversed in favor of redo-SAVR 1 year after the intervention.

Late outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus re-replacement: Meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data

AIMS

To evaluate all-cause mortality in ViV-TAVI versus redo SAVR in patients with failed bioprostheses.

METHODS

Study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of non-randomized studies published by September 30, 2021.

RESULTS

Ten studies met our eligibility criteria and included a total of 3345 patients (1676 patients underwent ViV-TAVI and 1669 patients underwent redo SAVR). Pooling all the studies, ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 44 days [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.93, P = 0.017], with an HR reversal after 197 days favoring redo SAVR (HR 1.53; 95% CI 1.22-1.93; P < 0.001). Pooling only the matched populations (1143 pairs), ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 55 days [hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-0.89, P < 0.001], with a reversal HR after 212 days favoring redo SAVR (HR 1.57; 95% CI 1.22-2.03; P < 0.001). The Cox regression model showed a statistically significant association of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) with all-cause mortality during follow-up for ViV-TAVI (HR 1.03 per percentage increase in the study- and treatment arm-level proportion of PPM, 95% 1.02-1.05, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

ViV-TAVI is associated with a strong protective effect immediately after the procedure in comparison with redo SAVR, however, this initial advantage reverses over time and redo SAVR seems to be a protective factor for all-cause mortality after 6 months. Considering that these results are the fruit of pooling data from observational studies, they should be interpreted with caution and trials are warranted.

Transcatheter heart valve commissural alignment: an updated review

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) indications recently extended to lower surgical risk patients with longer life expectancy. Commissural alignment (CA) is one of the emerging concepts and is becoming one of the cornerstones of the TAVR procedure in a patient with increased longevity. Indeed, CA may improve transcatheter heart valve (THV) hemodynamics, future coronary access, and repeatability. The definition of CA has been recently standardized by the ALIGN-TAVR consortium using a four-tier scale based on CT analysis. Progress has been made during the index TAVR procedure to optimize CA, especially with self-expandable platforms. Indeed, specific delivery catheter orientation, THV rotation, and computed-tomography-derived views have been proposed to achieve a reasonable degree of CA. Recent data demonstrate feasibility, safety, and a significant reduction in coronary overlap using these techniques, especially with self-expandable platforms. This review provides an overview of THV CA including assessment methods, alignment techniques during the index TAVR procedure with different THV platforms, the clinical impact of commissural misalignment, and challenging situations for CA.

Prosthesis Tailoring for Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has risen over the past 20 years as a safe and effective alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for treatment of severe aortic stenosis, and is now a well-established and recommended treatment option in suitable patients irrespective of predicted risk of mortality after surgery. Studies of numerous devices, either newly developed or reiterations of previous prostheses, have been accruing. We hereby review TAVI devices, with a focus on commercially available options, and aim to present a guide for prosthesis tailoring according to patient-related anatomical and clinical factors that may favor particular designs.

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Young, Low-risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis

Aortic stenosis is a common form of acquired degenerative valvular disease associated with poor survival after the onset of symptoms. Treatment options for patients with aortic stenosis in addition to medical therapy include surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with either tissue or mechanical valves, or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with either balloon-expandable or self-expanding valves via either transfemoral or alternative access routes. In this review, the authors discuss the current evidence and special considerations regarding the use of TAVR versus SAVR in the management of severe aortic stenosis in young (<65 years of age), low-risk patients, highlighting the history of aortic stenosis treatment, the current guidelines and recommendations, and important issues that remain to be addressed. Ultimately, until ongoing clinical trials with long-term follow-up data shed light on whether interventions for aortic stenosis can be broadened to a low-risk population, TAVR in young, low-risk patients should be undertaken with caution and with guidance from a multidisciplinary heart team.