Sutureless valves fit/perform well in a small aortic annulus

Impact of Small Aortic Annuli on the Performance of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Bioprostheses: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Recent Studies

A metanalysis of available randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing self-expanding (SE) and balloon-expandable (BE) bioprostheses in patients with small aortic annulus and aortic stenosis for short- and midterm hemodynamic and clinical outcomes was performed. A total of 21 studies with a total 8,647 patients (SE: n = 4,336 patients vs BE: n = 4,311 patients) were included. SE bioprostheses had a lower postoperative mean gradient at 30 days (Mean Difference [MD] -5.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.7 to 5.5, p <0.001) and at 1 year (MD -6.6, 95%CI 6.1 to 7.03, p <0.001), with a larger indexed effective orifice area (0.17, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.22, p <0.001 and 0.17, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.27, p <0.001) at both time intervals. BE bioprostheses had a higher risk of 30-day and 1-year severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (risk ratio [RR] 1.07, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.09, p <0.001; RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.11, p <0.001). The 30-day and 1 year paravalvular leaks (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 0.99, p <0.001; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95, p <0.001) and permanent pacemaker implantation (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.99, p 0.01, I2 = 40%,) were lower in the BE group. BE bioprostheses were associated with a lower risk of in-hospital stroke (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1, p = 0.01). In conclusion, in patients with small aortic annulus and aortic stenosis, SE bioprostheses have superior hemodynamic performance but higher rates of paravalvular leak, permanent pacemaker implantation, and in-hospital stroke. BE bioprostheses were associated with a higher risk of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch.

Successful Implantation of Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve after TAVR Explantation

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become widely used in recent years, However, there is also an increasing need for removal of TAVR valves due to prosthetic valve dysfunction (PVD) and the development of infective endocarditis. Surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) for these patients is risky due to the original patient background and anatomic conditions. Intuity rapid deployment aortic valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) replacement would be useful for such high risk patients to prevent longer cardiac arrest time and obtain good hemodynamic results. However, there are few reports which present Intuity valve replacement after TAVR explantation. Herein, We report two cases in which we have achieved good hemodynamics with shorter cardiac arrest times by using a rapid deployment valve after TAVR explantation.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present 2 cases of successful implantation of the Intuity rapid deployment valve after TAVR explantation. The 84- and 88-year-old female patients had previously received TAVR for severe aortic stenosis with SAPIEN XT (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) and developed PVD during follow-up. The TAVR valve was removed carefully, then an Intuity valve was implanted with cardiac arrest times of 69 and 41 min. Both patients had good echocardiographic results with effective orifice area of 2.0 cm2 and 1.2 cm2 and mean trans-aortic plessure gradient of 9 mmHg and 15 mmHg respectively without aortic regurgitation. They were discharged without major complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical AVR using a rapid deployment valve is a useful alternative to sutured AVR after TAVR valve explantation. It allows for shorter cardiac arrest times and better postoperative hemodynamics without major complication.

Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and Small Aortic Annulus: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment in patients with severe aortic stenosis and small aortic annulus (SAA) remains to be determined. This study aimed to compare the hemodynamic and clinical outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with a SAA.

METHODS

This prospective multicenter international randomized trial was performed in 15 university hospitals. Participants were 151 patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA (mean diameter <23 mm) randomized (1:1) to TAVR (n=77) versus SAVR (n=74). The primary outcome was impaired valve hemodynamics (ie, severe prosthesis patient mismatch or moderate-severe aortic regurgitation) at 60 days as evaluated by Doppler echocardiography and analyzed in a central echocardiography core laboratory. Clinical events were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants was 75.5±5.1 years, with 140 (93%) women, a median Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality of 2.50% (interquartile range, 1.67%-3.28%), and a median annulus diameter of 21.1 mm (interquartile range, 20.4-22.0 mm). There were no differences between groups in the rate of severe prosthesis patient mismatch (TAVR, 4 [5.6%]; SAVR, 7 [10.3%]; P=0.30) and moderate-severe aortic regurgitation (none in both groups). No differences were found between groups in mortality rate (TAVR, 1 [1.3%]; SAVR, 1 [1.4%]; P=1.00) and stroke (TAVR, 0; SAVR, 2 [2.7%]; P=0.24) at 30 days. After a median follow-up of 2 (interquartile range, 1-4) years, there were no differences between groups in mortality rate (TAVR, 7 [9.1%]; SAVR, 6 [8.1%]; P=0.89), stroke (TAVR, 3 [3.9%]; SAVR, 3 [4.1%]; P=0.95), and cardiac hospitalization (TAVR, 15 [19.5%]; SAVR, 15 [20.3%]; P=0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA (women in the majority), there was no evidence of superiority of contemporary TAVR versus SAVR in valve hemodynamic results. After a median follow-up of 2 years, there were no differences in clinical outcomes between groups. These findings suggest that the 2 therapies represent a valid alternative for treating patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA, and treatment selection should likely be individualized according to baseline characteristics, additional anatomical risk factors, and patient preference. However, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution because of the limited sample size leading to an underpowered study, and need to be confirmed in future larger studies.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03383445.

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch and Aortic Root Enlargement: Indications, Techniques and Outcomes

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is defined as implanting a prosthetic that is insufficiently sized for the patient receiving it. PPM leads to high residual transvalvular gradients post-aortic valve replacement and consequently results in left ventricular dysfunction, morbidity and mortality in both the short and long term. Younger patients and patients with poor preoperative left ventricular function are more vulnerable to increased mortality secondary to PPM. There is debate over the measurement of valvular effective orifice area (EOA) and variation exists in how manufacturers report the EOA. The most reliable technique is using in vivo echocardiographic measurements to create tables of predicted EOAs for different valve sizes. PPM can be prevented surgically in patients at risk through aortic root enlargement (ARE). Established techniques include the posterior enlargement through Nicks and Manouguian procedures, and aortico-ventriculoplasty with the Konno-Rastan procedure, which allows for a greater enlargement but carries increased surgical risk. A contemporary development is the Yang procedure, which uses a Y-shaped incision created through the non- and left-coronary cusp commissure, undermining the nadirs of the non- and left-coronary cusps. Early results are promising and demonstrate an ability to safely increase the aortic root by up to two to three sizes. Aortic root enlargement thus remains a valuable and safe tool in addressing PPM, and should be considered during surgical planning.

Managing the challenge of a small aortic annulus in patients with severe aortic stenosis

INTRODUCTION

Small aortic annulus (SAA) poses a challenge in the management of patients with severe aortic stenosis requiring aortic valve replacement - both surgical and transcatheter - since it has been associated with worse clinical outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to comprehensively summarize the available evidence regarding the management of aortic stenosis in patients with SAA and discuss the current controversies as well as future perspectives in this field.

EXPERT OPINION

It is paramount to agree in a common definition for diagnosing and properly treating SAA patients, and for that purpose, multidetector computer tomography is essential. The results of recent trials led to the expansion of transcatheter aortic valve replacement among patients of all the surgical-risk spectrum, and the choice of treatment (transcatheter, surgical) should be based on patient comorbidities, anatomical characteristics, and patient preferences.

Updates on the Latest Surgical Approach of the Aortic Stenosis

Over the last twenty years, we marked significant progresses in the field of tissue engineering and the development of new aortic valve structural and delivery systems. These continuous iterations on the field, have completely changed the surgical indications and approaches for AVR. Nowadays, therapeutic decisions are endorsed by international guidelines; however, new technical advances need a new integrated approach. The clinical scenarios issued from the interaction between the Guidelines and the newest approaches and technologies are regularly on debate by the Heart Team. We will present some of our most encountered situations and the pattern of our therapeutic decisions. To easily navigate through Guidelines and clinical scenarios, we reported in this review a simplified and easy to use Clinical decision-making algorithm that may be a valuable tool in our daily practice.