Impact of Valve Size on Paravalvular Leak and Valve Hemodynamics in Patients With Borderline Size Aortic Valve Annulus

Outcomes and treatment strategy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with balloon-expandable valve in borderline-size annulus

BACKGROUND

Candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) occasionally have a "borderline-size" aortic annulus between 2 transcatheter heart valve sizes, based on the manufacturer's sizing chart. Data on TAVR outcomes in such patients are limited.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 1816 patients who underwent transfemoral-TAVR with balloon-expandable valve (BEV) at our institution between 2016 and 2020. We divided patients into borderline and non-borderline groups based on computed tomography-derived annular measurements and compared outcomes. Furthermore, we analyzed procedural characteristics and compared outcomes between the smaller- and larger-valve strategies in patients with borderline-size annulus.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 23.3 months, there was no significant difference between the borderline (n = 310, 17.0 %) and non-borderline (n = 1506) groups in mortality (17.3 % vs. 19.5 %; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86 [95% CI = 0.62-1.20], p = 0.39), major adverse cardiac/cerebrovascular events (MACCE: death/myocardial infarction/stroke, 21.2 % vs. 21.5 %; HR = 0.97 [0.71-1.32], p = 0.85), paravalvular leak (PVL: mild 21.8 % vs. 20.6 %, p = 0.81; moderate 0 % vs. 1.2 %; p = 0.37), or mean gradient (12.9 ± 5.8 vs. 12.6 ± 5.2 mmHg, p = 0.69) at 1 year. There was no significant difference between the larger-(n = 113) and smaller-valve(n = 197) subgroups in mortality (23.7 % vs. 15.2 %; HR = 1.57 [0.89-2.77], p = 0.12), MACCE (28.1 % vs. 18.4 %; HR = 1.52 [0.91-2.54], p = 0.11), mild PVL (13.3 % vs. 25.9 %; p = 0.12), or mean gradient (12.3 ± 4.5 vs. 13.6 ± 5.3 mmHg, p = 0.16); however, the rate of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) was higher in the larger-valve subgroup (15.9 % vs. 2.6 %, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Borderline-size annulus is not associated with higher risk of adverse outcomes after BEV-TAVR. However, the larger-valve strategy for borderline-size annulus is associated with higher PPI risk, suggesting a greater risk of injury to the conduction system.

Risk of Coronary Occlusion Due to Sinus Sequestration by Redo Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Japanese Patients With SAPIEN 3

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve (TAV)-in-TAV is an attractive treatment for degenerated TAV. The risk of coronary artery occlusion due to sequestration of the sinus of Valsalva (SOV) in TAV-in-TAV has been reported, but the risk in Japanese patients is unknown. This study aimed to investigate the proportion of Japanese patients who are expected to experience difficulty with the second TAV implantation (TAVI) and evaluate the possibility of reducing the risk of coronary artery occlusion. Methods and Results: Patients (n=308) with an implanted SAPIEN 3 were divided into 2 groups: a high-risk group, which included patients with a TAV-sinotubular junction (STJ) distance <2 mm and a risk plane above the STJ (n=121); and a low-risk group, which included all other patients (n=187). The preoperative SOV diameter, mean STJ diameter, and STJ height were significantly larger in the low-risk group (P<0.05). The cut-off value for predicting the risk of SOV sequestration due to TAV-in-TAV in the difference between the mean STJ diameter and area-derived annulus diameter was 3.0 mm (sensitivity 70%; specificity 68%; area under the curve 0.74). Conclusions: Japanese patients may have a higher risk for sinus sequestration caused by TAV-in-TAV. The risk of sinus sequestration should be assessed before the first TAVI in young patients who are likely to require TAV-in-TAV, and whether TAVI is the best aortic valve therapy must be carefully decided.

Comparison of cusp-overlap projection and standard three-cusp coplanar view during self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) is a common complication after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Recently, the cusp-overlap projection (COP) technique was thought to be a feasible method to reduce PPI risk. However, the evidence is still relatively scarce. Therefore, this meta-analysis was performed to compare COP and standard three-cusp coplanar (TCC) projection technique.

Methods

PubMed and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for relevant literature published from the inception (EMBASE from 1974 and PubMed from 1966) to 16 April 2022, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The primary outcome of interest was post-operative (including in-hospital and 30-day) PPI.

Results

Total of 3,647 subjects from 11 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Of those, 1,453 underwent self-expanding TAVR using COP and 2,194 using TCC technique. In a pooled analysis, the cumulative PPI incidence was 9.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.9–11.7%] and 18.9% (95% CI: 15.5–22.3%) in the COP group and TCC group, respectively. The application of the COP technique was associated with a significant PPI risk reduction (I² = 40.3% and heterogeneity Chi-square p = 0.070, random-effects OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.36–0.66, p < 0.001). A higher implantation depth was achieved in the COP group compared with the TCC group [standardized mean difference (SMD) = −0.324, 95% CI: (−0.469, −0.180)]. There was no significant difference between the two groups in second valve implantation, prosthesis pop-out, fluoroscopic time, post-operative left bundle branch block, mortality, stroke, moderate/severe paravalvular leakage, mean gradient, and length of hospital stay. However, radiation doses were higher in the COP group [SMD = 0.394, 95% CI: (0.216, 0.572), p < 0.001].

Conclusion

In self-expanding TAVR, the application of the cusp overlap projection technique was associated with a lower risk of PPI compared with the standard TCC technique.

Systematic review registration

[https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-4-0092/], identifier [INPLASY202240092].