Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement versus Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement: A Single Center Retrospective Cohort Study

Five-Year Mortality of Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in the Real-World Scenario: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Propensity Score Matching Studies

INTRODUCTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide evidence of efficacy, while real-world data (RWD) demonstrate effectiveness in real-world practice. We designed a systematic review and meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event (RTE) data from propensity score matching studies comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) to compare their effectiveness and evaluate the generalizability of TAVI indications.

METHODS

Systematic review of literature between 2007 and 2023 including propensity score matching studies comparing TAVI or SAVR that reported at least one-year Kaplan-Meier curves of endpoints.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included (39538 participants). TAVI shows a higher all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-1.47, P-value < 0.001), with a significant heterogeneity. The analysis of HR trend over time shows that TAVI superiority is limited to the first month with a steep reversal afterwards, when SAVR becomes clearly superior. All-cause mortality is significantly higher in TAVI in low-risk (HR 1.35; 95% CI 1.08-1.69, P-value < 0.001) as well as in intermediate (HR 1.73; 95% CI 1.35-2.22, P-value < 0.001) and high-risk (HR 1.61; 95% CI 1.38-1.88, P-value < 0.001) patients. The HR trend in the subgroups of risk confirms the data from the whole mixed population.

CONCLUSION

In a real-word setting, TAVI is associated with higher incidence of all-cause death and maintains a survival benefit only in the first month after implantation. These results show that TAVI effectiveness may not reflect the efficacy demonstrated by RCTs and pose a threat to their external validity.

Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement with Perceval Bioprosthesis Superior to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Promising Option for the Gray-Zone of Aortic Valve Replacement Procedures-A State-of-the-Art Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Future Directions

Background: The management of patients with aortic valve pathologies can sometimes fall into a "gray zone", where the optimal treatment approach is not straightforward. The comparative benefits of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SUAVR) using the Perceval bioprosthesis versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for the "gray zone" of aortic valve replacement procedures remain a topic of debate. To further explore this issue, we conducted a study with pairwise, single-arm, and Kaplan-Meier-based meta-analyses to compare the outcomes of SUAVR with the Perceval bioprosthesis versus TAVI, as well as to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and durability of SUAVR with the Perceval bioprosthesis over mid-term and long-term follow-up periods. Methods: The PubMed, PubMed Central, OVID Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. All study types were included, except study protocols and animal studies, without time restrictions. The final search was carried out in May 2024. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed in permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rates between the two groups. SUAVR showed a lower incidence of new-onset myocardial infarction but was associated with higher rates of new-onset atrial fibrillation and major bleeding. TAVI had higher rates of left bundle branch block and major vascular complications. Conclusions: Our findings show that SUAVR has a lower incidence of complications and a favorable mid-term overall survival compared to TAVI. SUAVR has more advantages compared to TAVI and can be considered a valuable and promising option for the "grey zone" of aortic valve pathologies.

Early and Long-Term Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes of Sutureless vs. Sutured Bioprosthesis for Aortic Valve Replacement

Objective: The goal of this manuscript is to compare clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis (SU-AVR) and sutured bioprosthesis (SB). Methods: Following the PRISMA statement, data were extracted from studies published after August 2022 and found in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, ClinicalTrials.gov, SciELO, LILACS, and Google Scholar. The primary outcome of interest was post-procedural permanent pacemaker implantation, and the secondary outcomes were new left bundle branch block (LBBB), moderate/severe paravalvular leak (PVL), valve dislocation (pop-out), need for a second transcatheter heart valve, 30-day mortality, stroke, and echocardiographic outcomes. Results: Twenty-one studies were included in the analysis. When SU-AVR was compared to other SB, mortality ranged from 0 to 6.4% for Perceval and 0 to 5.9% for SB. Incidence of PVL (Perceval 1-19.4% vs. SB 0-1%), PPI (Perceval 2-10.7% vs. SB 1.8-8.5%), and MI (Perceval 0-7.8% vs. SB 0-4.3%) were comparable. In addition, the stroke rate was lower in the SU-AVR group when compared to SB (Perceval 0-3.7% vs. SB 1.8-7.3%). In patients with a bicuspid aortic valve, the mortality rate was 0-4% and PVL incidence was 0-2.3%. Long-term survival ranged between 96.7 and 98.6%. Valve cost analysis was lower for the Perceval valve and higher for sutured bioprosthesis. Conclusions: Compared to SB valves, Perceval bioprosthesis has proved to be a reliable prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement due to its non-inferior hemodynamics, implantation speed, reduced cardiopulmonary bypass time, reduced aortic cross-clamp time, and shorter length of stay.

Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Transcatheter, Minimally Invasive, and Conventional Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

The landscape of aortic valve replacement (AVR) has evolved dramatically over the years, but time-varying outcomes have yet to be comprehensively explored. This study aimed to compare the all-cause mortality among 3 AVR techniques: transcatheter (TAVI), minimally invasive (MIAVR), and conventional AVR (CAVR). An electronic literature search was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TAVI with CAVR and RCTs or propensity score-matched (PSM) studies comparing MIAVR with CAVR or MIAVR to TAVI. Individual patient data for all-cause mortality were derived from graphical reconstruction of Kaplan-Meier curves. Pairwise comparisons and network meta-analysis were conducted. Sensitivity analyses were performed in the TAVI arm for high risk and low/intermediate risk, as well as patients who underwent transfemoral (TF) TAVI. A total of 27 studies with 16,554 patients were included. In the pairwise comparisons, TAVI showed superior mortality to CAVR until 37.5 months, beyond which there was no significant difference. When restricted to TF TAVI versus CAVR, a consistent mortality benefit favoring TF TAVI was seen (shared frailty hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76 to 0.98, p = 0.024). In the network meta-analysis involving majority PSM data, MIAVR demonstrated significantly lower mortality than TAVI (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.82) and CAVR (HR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.80); this association remained compared with TF TAVI but with a lower extent of benefit (HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.65 to 0.99). In conclusion, the initial short- to medium-term mortality benefit for TAVI over CAVR was attenuated over the longer term. In the subset of patients who underwent TF TAVI, a consistent benefit was found. Among majority PSM data, MIAVR showed improved mortality compared with TAVI and CAVR but less than the TF TAVI subset, which requires validation by robust RCTs.

Impact of New-Onset Persistent Left Bundle Branch Block on Reverse Cardiac Remodeling and Clinical Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

The clinical implication of new-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains controversial. We investigated the impact of new-onset persistent LBBB on reverse cardiac remodeling and clinical outcomes after TAVR.

Methods

Among 478 patients who had undergone TAVR for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis from 2011 to 2021, we analyzed 364 patients after excluding patients with pre-existing intraventricular conduction disturbance or a pacing rhythm before or during the indexed hospitalization for TAVR. Echocardiographic variables of cardiac remodeling at baseline and 1 year after TAVR were comprehensively analyzed. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure. Secondary outcomes were all-cause death and individual components of the primary outcome.

Result

New-onset persistent LBBB occurred in 41 (11.3%) patients after TAVR. The no LBBB group showed a significant increase in the left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction and decreases in LV dimensions, the left atrial volume index, and LV mass index 1 year after TAVR (all p < 0.001). However, the new LBBB group showed no significant changes in these parameters. During a median follow-up of 18.1 months, the new LBBB group experienced a higher incidence of primary outcomes [hazard ratio (HR): 5.03; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.60–9.73; p < 0.001] and all-cause death (HR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.38–5.69; p = 0.003). The data were similar after multivariable regression analysis.

Conclusion

New-onset persistent LBBB after TAVR is associated with insufficient reverse cardiac remodeling and increased adverse clinical events.

Early and late outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement with sutureless and rapid-deployment valves versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data of matched studies

Sutureless/rapid-deployment (SURD) valves are options different from the stented prostheses included in the pivotal trials comparing surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We performed a meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data of matched studies published by November 2021 to compare SURD-AVR and TAVI. Primary endpoints were 30-day mortality and overall survival in the follow-up. Secondary endpoints included: 30-day stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), major bleeding, permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), paravalvular leak (PVL), prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), postoperative aortic valve area (AVA), and mean gradients. Ten studies met our eligibility criteria, including a total of 5134 patients (2567 underwent SURD-AVR and 2567 underwent TAVI). Pooled risk of 30-day mortality did not favor any group (odds ratio [OR]: 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31-1.53; p = 0.360). Patients undergoing SURD-AVR had lower risk of PVL (OR: 0.09; 95% CI: 0.05-0.17; p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed for 30-day stroke, AKI, major bleeding, PPI, PPM, and postoperative AVA. In the follow-up, we observed a higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.26-2.40; p < 0.001) with TAVI. Patients who underwent SURD-AVR experienced better survival, however, the interpretation of these results warrant caution due to the fact that SURD-AVR patients tended to be younger than TAVI patients. Structural heart surgeons and interventional cardiologists should consider initial risk and life expectancy when referring patients for one approach over the other.

Comparing clinical and hemodynamic parameters between the two aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis

Context:

Various techniques have been proposed for suturing following prosthetic aortic valve implantation, but each has its potential side effects such as patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) and paravalvular leak (PVL).

Aims:

In the present study, we aimed to compare the postoperative sequels of aortic valve replacement (AVR) following the use of two suturing techniques including from the inside of the aorta as the common and classic suturing techniques as compared to new approach including from the outside of the aorta.

Settings and Design:

This cross-sectional study was performed on patients suffering from symptomatic severe aortic valve disease and candidates for AVR in one of three referral hospitals for cardiovascular disease patients in Shiraz from 2019–2021.

Subjects and Methods:

The patients underwent one of the two considered surgical techniques for AVR including traditional approach (n = 60) or the tested approach (suturing from the outside of the aorta) (n = 30).

Statistical Analysis Used:

For statistical analysis, results were presented as mean ± standard deviation for quantitative variables and were summarized by frequency (percentage) for categorical variables.

Results:

PVL and PPM were revealed in none of the participants undergoing the tested approach, while the pointed complications were found in 41.7% and 25.0% of patients underwent traditional approach, respectively, indicating a significant difference. There was no evidence of abnormal dimensionless valve index (DVI) in the patients undergoing sutures from outside the aorta, whereas the rate of DVI abnormality in the patients undergoing traditional procedures was shown to be 18.3%. The mean aortic valve gradient was significantly higher in the group scheduling for the traditional surgical method.

Conclusions:

Applying new suturing method as suturing from the outside of the aorta, due to the selection of appropriate valve size, the risk for adverse consequences including PPM, PVL, or DVI can be significantly reduced.