Incidence and predictors of prosthesis-patient mismatch after TAVI using SAPIEN 3 in Asian: differences between the newer and older balloon-expandable valve

Peri-procedural outcome according to VARC-3 criteria and hemodynamic mid-term follow-up after Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement for failed aortic bioprosthesis

Despite the widespread adoption of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) for patients with failed aortic bioprosthesis, the effectiveness of this treatment for Japanese patients frequently associated with small aortic annuli remains unclear. From December-2011 to October-2022, 41 consecutive patients undergoing VIV-TAVR were enrolled in this study. The endpoints were technical success, device success, early safety, and two-year mortality according to implanted surgical valve size (small valves: 19-mm and 21-mm, n = 23; large valves: 23-mm and 25-mm, n = 18). The patient population had a mean age of 80.5 years, 46.3% male. Technical success, device success, and early safety rates were 100%, 70.7%, and 87.8%, respectively. There was no significant increase in the transprosthetic gradient throughout the follow-up (mean pressure gradient pre-VIV, post-VIV, at one-year, and at two-year; 37.0 mmHg, 16.5 mmHg, 15.0 mmHg, and 12.0 mmHg, respectively). While technical success and two-year mortality were comparable (87.5% vs. 86.7%, log-rank p = 0.816), device success was significantly lower in the small valves than in the large valves (56.5% vs. 88.9%, p = 0.038). Early safety trended lower in the small valves. Valve hemodynamic performance improved in both groups, but severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was more common in the small valves. VIV-TAVR demonstrated acceptable technical performance and relatively low mid-term mortality in this Japanese population, irrespective of aortic annular size. However, device success and early safety were significantly worse in patients with small valves than in those with large valves.

Bioprosthetic Valves for Lifetime Management of Aortic Stenosis: Pearls and Pitfalls

This review explores the use of bioprosthetic valves for the lifetime management of patients with aortic stenosis, considering recent advancements in surgical (SAV) and transcatheter bioprostheses (TAV). We examine the strengths and challenges of each approach and their long-term implications. We highlight differences among surgical bioprostheses regarding durability and consider novel surgical valves such as the Inspiris Resilia, Intuity rapid deployment, and Perceval sutureless bioprostheses. The impact of hemodynamics on the performance and durability of these prostheses is discussed, as well as the benefits and considerations of aortic root enlargement during Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR). Alternative surgical methods like the Ross procedure and the Ozaki technique are also considered. Addressing bioprosthesis failure, we compare TAV-in-SAV with redo SAVR. Challenges with TAVR, such as TAV explantation and considerations for coronary circulation, are outlined. Finally, we explore the potential challenges and limitations of several clinical strategies, including the TAVR-first approach, in the context of aortic stenosis lifetime management. This concise review provides a snapshot of the current landscape in aortic bioprostheses for physicians and surgeons.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter implantation of contemporary balloon-expandable and self-expandable valves in small aortic annuli

BACKGROUND

Evidence of clinical impact of PPM after TAVI is conflicting and might vary according to the type of valve implanted.

AIMS

To assess the clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with balloon-expandable (BEV) and self-expandable valves (SEV) in patients with small annuli.

METHODS

TAVI-SMALL 2 enrolled 628 patients in an international retrospective registry, which included patients with severe aortic stenosis and small annuli (annular perimeter <72 mm or area <400 mm2 ) treated with transfemoral TAVI at 16 high-volume centers between 2011 and 2020. Analyses were performed comparing patients with less than moderate (n = 452), moderate (n = 138), and severe PPM (n = 38). Primary endpoint was incidence of all-cause mortality. Predictors of all-cause mortality and PPM were investigated.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up of 380 days (interquartile range: 210-709 days), patients with severe PPM, but not moderate PPM, had an increased risk of all-cause mortality when compared with less than moderate PPM (log-rank p = 0.046). Severe PPM predicted all-cause mortality in patients with BEV (hazard ratio [HR]: 5.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.27-21.2) and intra-annular valves (IAVs, HR: 4.23, 95% CI: 1.28-14.02), and it did so with borderline significance in the overall population (HR: 2.89, 95% CI: 0.95-8.79). Supra-annular valve (SAV) implantation was the only predictor of severe PPM (odds ratio: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.13-0.83).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with small aortic annuli and severe PPM after TAVI have an increased risk of all-cause mortality at early term follow-up, especially after IAV or BEV implantation. TAVI with SAV protected from severe PPM.

Lifetime Management of Aortic Stenosis: Transcatheter Versus Surgical Treatment for Young and Low-Risk Patients

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is now indicated across all risk categories of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and has been proposed as first line option for the majority of patients >74 years old. However, median age of patients enrolled in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement low-risk trials is 74 years and transcatheter aortic valve replacement has never been systematically investigated in young low risk patients. Although the long-term data in surgical aortic valve replacement in young patients (age <75) are well known, such data remain lacking in transcatheter aortic valve replacement. In the absence of clear guideline recommendations in patients with challenging anatomies (eg, hostile calcium, bicuspid), it is important to know the potential advantages and disadvantages of each treatment and to consider how they might integrate with each other in the lifetime management of such patients. In this review, we discuss current outstanding issues on the management of severe aortic stenosis from a lifetime management perspective, particularly in terms of initial intervention and future reinterventions.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), first described in 1978, occurs when a prosthetic valve functions normally, but has an effective orifice area that is too small relative to the patient's body surface area. It results in residual left ventricular afterload and higher transvalvular pressure gradient, which has been considered to impair prognosis. PPM following surgical aortic replacement is reportedly associated with worse clinical outcomes, such as high mortality. However, the impact of PPM on clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains unclear. There is conflicting evidence on the impact of PPM following TAVI due to differences across studies in terms of follow-up period, methods, patient populations, and type of bioprosthetic valve. The present review summarizes the most recent evidence on PPM after TAVI.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Risk Factors, Incidence, and Outcomes of Patients With Versus Without Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Current guidelines on the management of patients with aortic valvular disease have widened the use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with an emphasis on avoidance of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM). This study sought to examine the incidence, risk factors, and all-cause mortality of PPM after TAVI. Medline and Embase databases were searched from inception to August 10, 2021. Patients were compared along 2 arms: (1) any degree of PPM and those without PPM, (2) severe PPM, and nonsevere PPM. A total of 22 articles involving 115,442 patients after TAVI were included. Pooled incidence for any degree of PPM was 30.1% and 10.7% in severe PPM. Incidence was significantly higher (p <0.001) for any degree of PPM in Europe (33.1%) and North America (34.4%) compared with Asia (10.4%). Incidence of severe PPM was higher (p = 0.015) in older generation (13.6%) compared with current-generation valves (6.3%). Severe PPM increased the risk of all-cause mortality relative to nonsevere PPM (hazard ratio: 1.86, 95% confidence interval: 1.05 to 3.29, p = 0.034). Patients of younger age, increased body surface area, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and classified New York Heart Association Class III/IV were at greater risk of both any degree and severe PPM. Smaller prosthesis size increased the risk of any degree of PPM, whereas postdilation and larger prostheses were protective factors. In conclusion, all-cause mortality was significantly affected in severe PPM compared with nonsevere cases, whereas this excess mortality was not observed between those with any degree of PPM and those without. Closer attention to patient and bioprosthetic valve factors is required to minimize the occurrence of severe PPM.

Low Incidence of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Following Extremely Small Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with 20-mm Sapien 3

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has been developed as an emerging technique to treat patients with aortic valve disease. However, safety and outcome data on extremely small transcatheter heart valves (THV) is limited. We aimed to assess hemodynamic profiles and clinical outcome of very small balloon expandable THVs with 20-mm Sapien 3 (SP3).

We examined data for all patients who received third-generation SP3 THV at a single hospital. Complications and clinical outcomes were defined based on the VARC-2 criteria. Postoperative prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) was defined as indexed effective orifice area (EOA) < 0.85 cm2/m2. We compared clinical characteristics and outcome between patients with 20-mm (n = 21), 23-mm (n = 67), and 26- or 29-mm (n = 113) sized valves.

The 20-mm group included significantly higher number of Asian and female populations with lower body surface area. The baseline CT annular area in the 20-mm group was 316.5 ± 24.9 mm2. There was no significant difference between groups in procedural mortality or early safety at 30 days. The higher procedural complication was observed in 20-mm group due to significant differences in minor vascular and bleeding complications. Despite higher post-THV gradients and smaller indexed EOA in 20-mm group, no PPM was observed in 20-mm group. The mortality at 30 days and 1 year in 20-mm group was 4.8% and 16.7%, respectively.

The patients who received very small THVs with 20-mm SP3 did not result in PPM and experienced favorable early safety and midterm outcome in our cohort.

One-year outcomes of the pivotal clinical trial of a balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve implantation in Japanese dialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Dialysis patients with aortic stenosis are generally considered as being at extreme or high surgical risk. Herein, the first clinical trial was conducted to investigate clinical safety and effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using the balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve (SAPIEN 3, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) in Japanese dialysis patients.

METHODS

The clinical trial is a single arm, prospective, open, non-randomized, Japanese multicenter study. The primary purpose of this trial is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TAVR using SAPIEN 3 in 28 Japanese dialysis patients.

RESULTS

Mean age was 79.2 years and 67.9% were male (Mean STS score was 14.3%). Transfemoral and transapical approaches were performed in 25 (89.3%) and 3 patients (10.7%), respectively. All bioprostheses were successfully implanted. Median intensive care unit stay and hospital stay after TAVR were 1.4 days and 6.3 days, respectively. In-hospital mortality was 3.6% and freedom from all-cause mortality at 1 year was 89.3%. Disabling stroke and life-threatening bleeding at 1 year was 7.7% and 8.5%, respectively. There was no structural valve deterioration during follow-up. New York Heart Association functional status, six-minute walk test, and EuroQOL visual analogue scale score significantly improved through 1 year compared with baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR using SAPIEN 3 is safe and effective for the treatment of Japanese dialysis patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis.