Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Young Low-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Review

Isolated surgical vs. transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a propensity score analysis

Background

The debate about the optimal approach for aortic valve replacement continues. We compared the hospital and long-term outcomes (survival, aortic valve reintervention, heart failure readmissions, and stroke) between transcatheter vs. surgical (TAVR vs. SAVR) aortic valve replacement. The study included 789 patients; 293 had isolated SAVR, and 496 had isolated TAVR. Patients with concomitant procedures were excluded. Propensity score matching identified 53 matched pairs.

Results

Patients who had TAVR were significantly older (P ˂ 0.001) and had significantly higher EuroSCORE II (P ˂ 0.001), NYHA class (P ˂ 0.001), and more prevalence of diabetes mellitus (P ˂ 0.001), hypertension (P ˂ 0.001), chronic lung disease (P = 0.001), recent myocardial infarction (P = 0.002), and heart failure (P ˂ 0.001), stroke (P = 0.02), atrial fibrillation (P = 0.004), and previous percutaneous coronary interventions (P ˂ 0.001) than SAVR patients. In the matched cohort, atrial fibrillation occurred more frequently after SAVR (P = 0.01), and hospital stay was significantly longer in SAVR patients (P ˂ 0.001). There were no differences in hospital mortality between groups (P ˃ 0.99). Survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 97%, 95%, and 94% for SAVR and 91%, 79%, and 58% for TAVR patients. Survival was lower in TAVR patients before matching (P ˂ 0.001) and after matching (P = 0.045). Freedom from the composite endpoint of stroke, aortic valve reintervention, and heart failure readmission at 1, 3, and 5 years was 98.9%, 96%, and 94% for SAVR and 94%, 86%, and 75% for TAVR. The composite endpoint was significantly higher in the TAVR group than in SVR before matching (P ˂ 0.001), while there was no difference after matching (P = 0.07). There was no significant difference in the change in ejection fraction between groups (β: −0.88 (95% CI: −2.20–0.43), P = 0.19), and the reduction of the aortic valve peak gradient was significantly higher with TAVR (β: −7.80 (95% CI: −10.70 to −4.91); P ˂ 0.001).

Conclusions

TAVR could reduce postoperative atrial fibrillation and hospital stay. SAVR could have long-term survival benefits over TAVR with comparable long-term stroke, heart failure readmission, and aortic valve reinterventions between SAVR and TAVR.

Comparison of outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement between elderly (65-79 years) and super-elderly (≥80 years) patients

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an effective treatment option for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Nonetheless, there is a paucity of data regarding the differences in the clinical outcomes of TAVR procedures between elderly and super-elderly patients. This study aimed to compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients aged 65 to 79 years and ≥80 years who underwent TAVR for aortic stenosis. The clinical characteristics and outcomes of 134 patients with aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR were analyzed. Patients were categorized into 2 groups: an elderly group (EG; 65-79 years) and a super-elderly group (SEG) (≥80 years). The in-hospital and follow-up clinical outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. The EG tended to be more overweight, obese, and diabetic than the SEG, whereas the SEG had a higher surgical risk but lower creatinine clearance, hematocrit level, and effective orifice area than the EG. However, no difference was found in in-hospital clinical outcomes between the 2 groups, except for atrial fibrillation. In the propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted analyses, these results were similar. All follow-up clinical outcomes were similar, except for rehospitalization, which was statistically attenuated after propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted analyses. TAVR was associated with similar safety outcomes in the EG (65-79 years) and the SEG (≥80 years). Advanced age is not negatively associated with clinical outcomes after the TAVR procedure.

Efficacy and Safety of Emergent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients with Acute Decompensated Aortic Stenosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of emergent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with decompensated aortic stenosis (AS) by comparing the clinical outcomes with the patients who had received the elective TAVI.

Methods

By searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, we obtained the studies comparing the clinical outcomes of emergent TAVI and elective TAVI. Finally, 14 studies were included.

Results

A total of 14 eligible articles with 73,484 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Emergent TAVI was associated with a higher mortality during hospitalization (HR 2.09, 95% CI [1.39 to 3.14]), 30 days (HR 2.29, 95% CI [1.69 to 3.10]), and 1 year (HR 1.96, 95% CI [1.55 to 2.49]). Consistently, the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) (RR 2.48, 95% CI [1.85 to 3.32]), dialysis (RR 2.37, 95% CI [1.95 to 2.88]), bleeding (RR 1.62, 95% CI [1.27 to 2.08]), major bleeding (RR 1.05, 95% CI [1.00 to 1.10]), and 30-day rehospitalization (RR 1.30, 95% CI [1.07, 1.58]) were more common in patients receiving emergent TAVI. No statistical differences were found in the occurrence rate of vascular complications (RR 1.11, 95% CI [0.90, 1.36]), major vascular complications (RR 1.14, 95% CI [0.52, 2.52]), permanent pacemaker (PPM) placement (RR 1.05, 95% CI [0.99, 1.11]), cerebrovascular events (RR 1.11, 95% CI [0.98, 1.25]), moderate to severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) (RR 1.23, 95% [CI 0.94 to 1.61]), and device success (RR 0.99, 95% CI [0.97, 1.01]).

Conclusion

Emergent TAVI is associated with some postoperative complications and increased mortality compared with elective TAVI. Emergent TAVI should be implemented cautiously and individually.

Interventional heart failure therapy: A new concept fighting against heart failure

Heart failure is a progressive disease that is associated with repeated exacerbations and hospitalizations. The rapid increase in the number of heart failure patients is a global health problem known as the 'heart failure pandemic'. To control the pandemic, multifaceted approaches are essential, ranging from prevention of onset to long-term disease management. Especially in patients with moderate to severe heart failure (stages C and D), surgical and catheter-based interventions are prerequisites for saving lives, preserving cardiac function, improving quality of life (QOL), and prognosis. In addition, various new medical technologies for these interventions have been clinically applied and have been shown to be effective against symptoms and improve the QOL and prognosis of patients with heart failure. Furthermore, the concept of interventional heart failure (IHF) therapy, which considers heart recovery and prevention of worsening of heart failure via multidisciplinary treatment using surgical, catheter interventions, and mechanical circulatory support devices, has been proposed worldwide. This review discusses the importance of IHF therapy in heart failure management, recent changes in interventional technologies and strategies for patients with heart failure, and worldwide education attempts for IHF specialists.