Over 15 years: the advancement of transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the management of aortic insufficiency secondary to left ventricular assist device implantation: a case report

Background

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is considered either a destination therapy for patients with end-stage heart failure or heart transplantation bridging. LVAD implantation often causes aortic insufficiency (AI), which requires aortic valve repair. However, severe acute AI does not respond well to medication, and re-operation means higher risk to the patients; the most effective therapeutic strategies for LVAD-induced AI still need further exploration. In this report, we present the first described case of new-onset, severe LVAD-induced AI in China with a patient who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and achieved significant improvement in functional capacity and symptoms with lower operation risk.

Case Description

A 55-year-old male patient was diagnosed with dilated cardiomyopathy for 14 years. The effect of the medication gradually deteriorated, LVAD (HeartCon®) was implanted one year earlier. The patient complained of intermittent chest tightness for one week, which had been aggravated for two days before hospitalization. Echocardiographic findings revealed new-onset, severe LVAD-induced AI. TAVR was performed with a self-expandable stent-valve (TAV30, Vitaflow Liberty). Within minutes, the patient recovered with rapid disappearance of chest tightness and stable vital signs. Before discharge, the position of the artificial valve was fixed without incomplete closure nor thrombus attachment, yielding a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 35%. The patient was hospitalized for 38 days, and followed up with outpatient treatment, the condition was stable until 19 June 2023.

Conclusions

TAVR could be an effective, safe, and less invasive means of restoring ejection fraction for patients with a LVAD who develop severe AI.

Comparative Analysis of TAVR (Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement) and Surgical Valve Replacement for Low-Risk Patients

"Aortic stenosis" (AS) refers to a cardiac condition in which the aortic valve narrows, creating an obstruction that hinders the flow of blood from the left ventricle to the aorta. This contraction of the arteries influences normal blood circulation, leading to elevated pressure within the left ventricle and potentially culminating in heart failure. The management of AS typically involves two primary treatments, i.e. "surgical aortic valve replacement" (SAVR) and "transcatheter aortic valve replacement" (TAVR). In both cases, the goal is to replace a dysfunctional aortic valve with a functional substitute. Presently, TAVR has gained much preference over SAVR in clinical practice. However, there is a dearth of comprehensive research directly comparing the real-world outcomes of TAVR and SAVR. In recent years, TAVR has emerged as an attractive alternative to SAVR, yet studies that provide a detailed comparison of their real-world solutions are limited. This review article assesses the mortality of patients who underwent TAVR vis-a-vis patients who underwent SAVR.

Drivers and outcomes of variation in surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in Ontario, Canada: a population-based study

Objectives

To understand the patient and hospital level drivers of the variation in surgical versus trascatheter aortic valve replacement (SAVR vs TAVR) for patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and to explore whether this variation translates into differences in clinical outcomes.

Background

Adoption of TAVR has grown exponentially worldwide. Notwithstanding, a wide variation in TAVR rates has been seen within and between countries and in some jurisdictions AS is still primarily being managed by SAVR.

Methods

We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada, including individuals who received TAVR or SAVR between 2016 and 2020. We developed iterative hierarchical logistic regression models for the likelihood of receiving TAVR instead of SAVR examining sequentially patient characteristics, hospital factors and year of procedure, calculating the median ORs and variance partition coefficients for each. Using Cox proportional hazards models, we examined the relationship between TAVR/SAVR ratio on all-cause mortality and readmissions.

Results

Annual procedures rates per million population increased from 171 to 201, mainly driven by the expansion of TAVR. TAVR/SAVR ratios differed substantially between hospitals, from 0.21 to 3.27. Neither patient nor hospital factors explained the between-hospital variation in AS treatment. The TAVR/SAVR ratio was significantly associated with clinical outcomes with high ratio hospitals having lower mortality and rehospitalisations.

Conclusions

Despite the expansion of TAVR, dramatic variation exists that is not explained by patient or hospital factors. This variation was associated with differences in clinical outcomes, suggesting that further work is needed in understanding and addressing inequity of access.

Post-operative Quality of Life after Full-sternotomy and Mini-sternotomy Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Few longitudinal data exist comparing quality of life (QoL) after full sternotomy aortic valve replacement (fsAVR) vs mini-sternotomy AVR (msAVR) METHODS: 1844 consecutive AVR prospectively enrolled in a European multicentre Registry were dichotomized according to surgical access. A non-parsimonious propensity-score matching selected 187 pairs of fsAVR or msAVR with comparable baseline characteristics. Hospital outcome was compared in the two groups. QoL was assessed with Short Form-36, further detailed in its Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS). QoL was investigated at hospital admission, discharge, 1 month, 6 months and 1 year thereafter.

RESULTS

There were 1654 fsAVR and 190 msAVR in the entire population. fsAVR showed a worse preoperative risk-profile, a longer ICU length of stay (59.7 hours vs 38.8, p=0.002), and a higher life-threatening/disabling bleeding (4.1% vs. 0%; p=0.011); msAVR reported a higher early reintervention for failed index intervention (2.1% vs. 0.5%, p=0.001). QoL showed better PCS and MCS at 1 month after fsAVR, but no temporal-trend differences (PCS group-time p=0.202; MCS group-time p=0.141). Propensity-matched pairs showed comparable baseline characteristics and hospital outcome (p=NS for all endpoints), and comparable improvements of PCS and MCS over time, but no between-group differences over time (PCS group-time p=0.834; MCS group-time p=0.737).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with similar baseline profiles report comparable hospital outcome and comparable improvement of physical and mental health, up to 1 year after surgery, with both fsAVR and msAVR. As for QoL, mini-sternotomy does not seem to offer any advantage compared to the traditional approach.