Technical Characteristics and Feasibility of Coronary Angiography and Percutaneous Coronary Interventions Performed after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with Self-Expanding Valves

BACKGROUND

Coronary angiography (CA) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may become technically challenging after implantation of the self-expanding Medtronic CoreValve (MCV) device, which extends above the coronary ostia. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence and feasibility of CA or PCI and the outcomes of PCI after TAVR with the MCV device.

METHODS

From July 2014 to April 2020, among 209 patients treated with TAVR with a MCV device, 14 (7%) underwent CA or PCI after the procedure at a mean duration of 28 ± 15 months at our institution.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 83 ± 6 years. Thirteen (93%) patients underwent CA due to angina symptoms with a positive noninvasive test, and 1 underwent CA for acute coronary syndrome. Most of the CA and PCI procedures were performed through a radial approach: 11 patients (79%) via the right radial artery, 1 (7%) the left radial artery, and 2 (14%) through the right femoral artery. CA of the left and right coronary arteries was successfully achieved in 13 patients (93%) with Judkin left (3.5 to 5) diagnostic catheters and in 11 patients (79%) with Judkin right (4) diagnostic catheters. The second-line catheter of choice was the Amplatz left (AL) 1 catheter for the right coronary artery and AL 2 for the left coronary artery. Procedural success was achieved in all 5 patients who underwent post-TAVR PCI without procedural or in-hospital complications. The use of a Guideliner microcatheter facilitated stent delivery in one patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Coronary angiography or PCI following TAVR with a MCV device is feasible and safe, but requires understanding of the three-dimensional geometry of the prosthetic valve and its relationship to the coronary ostia.

A Non-Invasive Material Characterization Framework for Bioprosthetic Heart Valves

Computational modeling and simulation has become more common in design and development of bioprosthetic heart valves. To have a reliable computational model, considering accurate mechanical properties of biological soft tissue is one of the most important steps. The goal of this study was to present a non-invasive material characterization framework to determine mechanical propertied of soft tissue employed in bioprosthetic heart valves. Using integrated experimental methods (i.e., digital image correlation measurements and hemodynamic testing in a pulse duplicator system) and numerical methods (i.e., finite element modeling and optimization), three-dimensional anisotropic mechanical properties of leaflets used in two commercially available transcatheter aortic valves (i.e., Edwards SAPIEN 3 and Medtronic CoreValve) were characterized and compared to that of a commonly used and well-examined surgical bioprosthesis (i.e., Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna aortic heart valve). The results of the simulations showed that the highest stress value during one cardiac cycle was at the peak of systole in the three bioprostheses. In addition, in the diastole, the peak of maximum in-plane principal stress was 0.98, 0.96, and 2.95 MPa for the PERIMOUNT Magna, CoreValve, and SAPIEN 3, respectively. Considering leaflet stress distributions, there might be a difference in the long-term durability of different TAV models.

From CoreValve to Evolut PRO: Reviewing the Journey of Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valves

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become standard therapy for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are deemed at least intermediate risk for surgical valve replacement. Over the past decade, several technological advances have taken place to improve the quality and safety of these devices. The current commercially available valves are broadly grouped into balloon expandable and self-expandable valves. The latest iteration of the self-expandable valve is Medtronic's repositionable valve known as the Evolut PRO system. In this review, we highlight the evidence behind the use of TAVR, improvement in devices over previous generations, clinical evidence behind the CoreValve Evolut PRO system, and the future of TAVR.

The balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien 3 valve is superior to the self-expanding Medtronic CoreValve in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Residual paravalvular moderate or severe aortic regurgitation (AR) has been an independent risk factor for mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The design of the third generation Edwards Sapien 3 (ES3; Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) valve was optimized with an outer skirt to address the issue of paravalvular AR.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We compared 100 consecutive patients treated with the ES3 for severe aortic stenosis with 100 patients treated with the Medtronic CoreValve (CV; Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) (Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02162069). We evaluated post-procedural AR, rate of permanent pacemaker implantation, device success, and 30-day clinical outcome according to the criteria of the Second Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC-2). Frequency of post-procedural moderate or severe AR was significantly lower with ES3 compared to CV (0% vs. 20%, p<0.01), none or trace AR significantly higher with ES3 (69% vs. 38%, p<0.01) as well as device success (97% vs. 73%, p<0.01). There was a significantly lower need for permanent pacemaker implantation with ES3 compared with CV (14% vs. 31%, p<0.01). Cardiovascular mortality at 30 days was significantly lower with ES3 (0% vs. 6%, p=0.01), and the combined endpoint "early safety" was met significantly less with ES3 (10% vs. 21% with CV, p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Transfemoral TAVI with the ES3 compared with the CV was associated with a significantly lower rate of moderate or severe AR, significantly lower need for pacemaker implantation, and a significantly higher rate of device success according to VARC-2.

Real-time magnetic resonance imaging-guided transcatheter aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVES

To demonstrate the feasibility of Real-time magnetic resonance imaging (rtMRI) guided transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with an active guidewire and an MRI compatible valve delivery catheter system in a swine model.

METHODS

The CoreValve system was minimally modified to be MRI-compatible by replacing the stainless steel components with fluoroplastic resin and high-density polyethylene components. Eight swine weighing 60-90 kg underwent rtMRI-guided TAVR with an active guidewire through a left subclavian approach.

RESULTS

Two imaging planes (long-axis view and short-axis view) were used simultaneously for real-time imaging during implantation. Successful deployment was performed without rapid ventricular pacing or cardiopulmonary bypass. Postdeployment images were acquired to evaluate the final valve position in addition to valvular and cardiac function.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that the CoreValve can be easily and effectively deployed through a left subclavian approach using rtMRI guidance, a minimally modified valve delivery catheter system, and an active guidewire. This method allows superior visualization before deployment, thereby allowing placement of the valve with pinpoint accuracy. rtMRI has the added benefit of the ability to perform immediate postprocedural functional assessment, while eliminating the morbidity associated with radiation exposure, rapid ventricular pacing, contrast media renal toxicity, and a more invasive procedure. Use of a commercially available device brings this rtMRI-guided approach closer to clinical reality.

Comparison of balloon-expandable valves versus self-expandable valves in high-risk patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) who have a high surgical risk. In Taiwan, this is the first study reporting TAVI outcomes at a single center offering two different transcatheter heart valve technologies via four types of approaches. Our aim was to compare 30-day and 6-month Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) outcomes of the two valves.

METHODS

We reported the procedural, 30-day, and 6-month VARC-2 outcomes of high-risk patients who were consecutively treated with the Medtronic CoreValve (MCV) or with the Edwards SAPIEN valve or SAPIEN XT valve (ESV; Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) delivered via four types of approaches.

RESULTS

From May 2010 to December 2013, 30 consecutive patients with severe AS underwent TAVI: 15 patients were treated with the MCV and 15 patients were treated with the ESV. The transfemoral approach was the most frequently used route (13 MCV and 6 ESV), followed by the transapical approach (9 ESV), trans-subclavian approach (1 MCV), and direct aortic approach (1 MCV). There were no procedural deaths. "Device success" was achieved in 29 (96.7%) patients, and is defined as the absence of procedural mortality, correct positioning of one prosthetic heart valve into the proper anatomical location, and intended performance of the heart valve without moderate or severe regurgitation. The VARC-2-defined combined safety endpoint at 30 days was comparable between patients treated with the ESV and the MCV (33.3% vs. 20%, respectively; group, p = 0.409). At the 6-month follow up, the combined efficacy endpoint was not significantly different between the two groups (13.3% in the ESV group vs. 20% in the MCV group; p = 0.624). There was only one (3.3%) patient who required permanent pacemaker implantation.

CONCLUSION

For the first time in Taiwan, we have demonstrated that TAVI using either device is complementary and feasible for treating a wide range of patients by using a careful selection of approaches. Favorable overall procedural success rates and 30-day and 6-month outcomes were achieved with both devices.

Preparatory balloon aortic valvuloplasty during transcatheter aortic valve implantation for improved valve sizing

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to evaluate whether supra-aortic angiography during preparatory balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) improves valve sizing.

BACKGROUND

Current recommendations for valve size selection are based on annular measurements by transesophageal echocardiography and computed tomography, but paravalvular aortic regurgitation (PAR) is a frequent problem.

METHODS

Data of 270 consecutive patients with either conventional sizing (group 1, n = 167) or balloon aortic valvuloplasty-based sizing (group 2, n = 103) were compared. PAR was graded angiographically and quantitatively using several hemodynamic indices.

RESULTS

PAR was observed in 113 patients of group 1 and 41 patients of group 2 (67.7% vs. 39.8%, p < 0.001). More than mild PAR was found in 24 (14.4%) patients of group 1 and 8 (7.8%) patients of group 2. According to pre-interventional imaging, 40 (39%) patients had a borderline annulus size, raising uncertainty regarding valve size selection. Balloon sizing resulted in selection of the bigger prosthesis in 30 (29%) and the smaller prosthesis in the remaining patients, and only 1 of these 40 patients had more than mild PAR. As predicted by the hemodynamic indices of PAR, mortality at 30 days and 1 year was less in group 2 than in group 1 (5.8% vs. 9%, p = 0.2 and 10.6% vs. 20%, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Preparatory balloon aortic valvuloplasty during transcatheter aortic valve implantation improves valve size selection, reduces the associated PAR, and increases survival in borderline cases.

Patient selection for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: An interventional cardiology perspective

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a highly effective minimally invasive treatment symptomatic for severe calcific aortic stenosis in patients at high or prohibitive surgical risk. The success of TAVI has been determined by a number of factors, but in particular by appropriate patient selection. Appropriate patient selection involves identifying patients with the potential to benefit most from TAVI and individualizing the bioprosthesis type and size, and the vascular access site for each case. We present herein, our critical appraisal on patient selection for TAVI: an interventional cardiology perspective.

Predictors and outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation using different approaches according to the valve academic research consortium definitions

OBJECTIVES

We report the results of a large single-center study evaluating predictors and outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with different devices and access routes according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC).

BACKGROUND

The widespread adoption of TAVI warrants a systematic analysis of outcomes. Only few comprehensive data exist comparing different approaches as selected by a heart team.

METHODS

TAVI was performed in 326 consecutive patients (mean age 80.6 ± 7.1 years, 55.5% female) at high risk for surgery with balloon-expandable and self-expanding devices through transfemoral or transapical access. Data were analyzed according to VARC endpoints; predictors of mortality were identified.

RESULTS

All-cause mortality was 10.1% (30 days) and 29.9% (1 year) overall and comparable with regard to valve or access choice (P = 0.295) despite different risk profiles at baseline. Device success and 30-day safety endpoints were achieved in 87.1 and 21.2%. Myocardial infarction [hazard ratio (HR) 6.52], stage-2 and -3 acute kidney injury (HR 2.52 and 6.80) and major access site complications (HR 1.96) were independent predictors of 1-year all-cause mortality. Device success had a protective effect (HR 0.58). Baseline predictors included body mass index <20 kg/m(2) (HR 3.20), NYHA class IV (HR 1.87), left ventricular ejection-fraction <30% (HR 2.30), higher STS-PROM scores (HR 1.05 per percent), and age (group 75-85 years, HR 0.47).

CONCLUSIONS

Comparable results were achieved with different devices and access routes in a heart team approach. Baseline and perioperative predictors of all-cause mortality were identified, contributing to the refinement of patient and device selection criteria for TAVI.

Multimodality noninvasive imaging for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a primer

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has recently emerged as a treatment option for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS). For patients who are deemed inoperable for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), TAVI has a significant mortality benefit compared to medical therapy. This review discusses established and emerging roles for multimodality imaging and focuses on the application of these technologies for patient selection, intraprocedural guidance, and the detection and quantification of acute and chronic complications of this novel procedure.

Complications at the time of transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) improves the prognosis of patients with severe aortic stenosis who are deemed too high risk for surgical valve replacement. However, this evolving technology is associated with a wide range of potential complications--some specific to TAVI, some often fatal. Prevention, early recognition, and effective treatment of these complications will significantly improve the outcome of this procedure and are essential prerequisites before the therapy is extended to lower-risk patient subsets.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of TAVR

Transcather aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has rapidly gained worldwide acceptance for treating very high-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Two valve systems are currently in common use worldwide and under trial in the United States. The Edwards SAPIEN valve has completed its PARTNER trial and has been approved for use in nonoperative patients. The Medtronic CoreValve is currently completing its US pivotal trial. Both plan studies of intermediate-risk patients. The use of TAVR in Europe has grown rapidly and is now about 23% of the total aortic valve replacements done in which a tissue valve is chosen (generally patients over 60 to 65 years of age). This technology is used in a patient population that was either not receiving any surgical therapy due to extreme risk or was considered very high risk for conventional surgery. The procedure requires a highly trained TAVR team, advanced imaging, and the devices themselves, which are expensive. Medical device trials are generally designed to establish if the device works as planned. For TAVR in today's world of rising health care costs, the additional question of cost effectiveness is important to address. Fortunately, the PARTNER trial addressed this and the CoreValve trial has built this into the trial design as well. This article examines what is currently known about the cost-effectiveness of TAVR.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR): access planning and strategies

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has proven to be a viable tool for the high-surgical-risk population with severe aortic valve stenosis. Vascular access complications are not uncommon with TAVR and may increase early and late mortality. Avoiding these serious complications is the goal. With experience and careful screening, we are now able to risk-stratify patients who may be at increased risk of vascular complications. While the traditional iliofemoral access site remains the most common for TAVR, alternate access sites that have proven to be viable and safe alternatives include the transapical, direct-aortic, and subclavian techniques. TAVR teams should be familiar and comfortable with these approaches as each of them has its own advantages and weaknesses. The best option is usually one in which the procedure is tailored to the patient. The present review examines our current access planning and strategies for TAVR.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: design, clinical application, and future challenges

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a new technology that recently has been shown to improve survival and quality of life in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who are not surgical candidates. The development and design of transcatheter valves has been ongoing for the past 20 years, and TAVR has now been approved by the FDA as a treatment for aortic stenosis in patients who are not surgical candidates. In the United States, there are currently two transcatheter valves available: the Edwards Sapien Valve and the Medtronic CoreValve. While similar in some design elements, they also have characteristic differences that affect both the mechanism of delivery as well as performance in patients. This review aims to take a closer look at the development of this new technology, review the published clinical results, and look toward the future of transcatheter valve therapeutics and the challenges therein.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Experience with the CoreValve Device

The field of transcatheter aortic valve implantation has been rapidly evolving. The Medtronic CoreValve first emerged on the landscape in 2004 with initial first human studies, and it is currently being studied in the Pivotal US trial. This article details the current experience with the self-expanding aortic valve with a focus on clinical results and ongoing challenges.