5-Year Outcomes of Self-Expanding Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients

Global Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter vs. Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUD

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a less invasive treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS); however, its economic benefits in patients with low to intermediate surgical risk remain controversial and vary by country. We conducted a systematic review to compare the economic benefits of TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

METHODS

We searched six databases, including PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Clinical Trials for randomized controlled trials on the economic benefits of TAVR with different valve types and SAVR in symptomatic AS patients with low to intermediate surgical risk, from inception to October 2023. We extracted data on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with ICER converted to 2023 United States dollars (USD) exchange rates.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria, with the overall quality ranging from intermediate to high. Among these, TAVR was found to be cost-effective in 14 studies, while in one study conducted in a developing country, TAVR was not cost-effective. When adjusted to 2023 USD, the ICER values ranged from $3,669 to $340,038 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

TAVR appears to be a cost-effective alternative to SAVR in patients with low to intermediate AS. In all studies, TAVR was associated with a significant increase in QALYs compared to SAVR. As it is an expensive procedure, the cost-effectiveness of TAVR depends on each country's ICER and willingness-to-pay threshold.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in low-risk tricuspid or bicuspid aortic stenosis: the NOTION-2 trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the first choice to treat older patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). This study aimed to compare TAVI with surgery in low-risk patients ≤75 years of age, including both tricuspid and bicuspid AS.

METHODS

The Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention (NOTION)-2 trial enrolled and 1:1 randomized low-risk patients aged ≤75 years with severe symptomatic AS to TAVI or surgery. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, or rehospitalization (related to the procedure, valve, or heart failure) at 12 months.

RESULTS

A total of 370 patients were enrolled with a mean age of 71.1 years and a median Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 1.1%. A total of 100 patients had bicuspid AS. The 1-year incidence of the primary endpoint was 10.2% in the TAVI group and 7.1% in the surgery group [absolute risk difference 3.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI), -2.7% to 8.8%; hazard ratio (HR) 1.4; 95% CI, 0.7-2.9; P = .3]. Patients with TAVI, when compared to surgery, had lower risk of major bleeding and new-onset atrial fibrillation and higher risk of non-disabling stroke, permanent pacemaker implantation, and moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation. The risk of the primary composite endpoint was 8.7% and 8.3% in patients with tricuspid AS (HR 1.0; 95% CI, 0.5-2.3) and 14.3% and 3.9% in patients with bicuspid AS (HR 3.8; 95% CI, 0.8-18.5) treated with TAVI or surgery, respectively (P for interaction = .1).

CONCLUSIONS

Among low-risk patients aged ≤75 years with severe symptomatic AS, the rate of the composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year was similar between TAVI and surgery. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation outcomes in young bicuspid AS patients warrant caution and should be further investigated. (NOTION-2, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02825134).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02825134.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients at Four or More Years

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is accepted as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. Prior studies have shown that TAVR has comparable or superior outcomes to SAVR in intermediate and high-risk patients. However, there is paucity of data about outcome of TAVR vs SAVR in low-surgical-risk patients evaluated at 4 or more years post-procedure.

METHODS

A systematic review of all published randomized controlled trials comparing TAVR and SAVR in low-risk patients was completed. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed to study major outcomes, including all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and aortic valve reintervention.

RESULTS

Three randomized trials comprising 2644 patients (1371 TAVR and 1273 SAVR) with a mean age of 74.3 ± 5.8 years were included in this analysis. There was no significant difference in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, or aortic valve reintervention between the TAVR and SAVR groups at long-term follow-up. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement was associated with higher rate of pacemaker implantation, whereas SAVR was associated with more atrial fibrillation.

CONCLUSIONS

At 4 or more years of follow-up, TAVR is safe and has comparable outcomes to SAVR in low-surgical-risk patients. Possibility of TAVR and its risks and benefits should be discussed with low-surgical-risk patients.

Comparative Outcomes of Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-Analysis and Parametric Extrapolation of Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to pool randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and extrapolate pooled time-to-event data to compare long-term outcomes.

METHODS

An electronic database search was performed for RCTs comparing SAVR with TAVR. The most current longest follow-up data for each RCT were included. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Survival data were pooled for Kaplan-Meier analysis as well as parametric modeling with extrapolation.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs comprising 7774 patients were included. Mean valve gradient at 5 y was comparable between SAVR [11 mmHg (3.7; 18.3)] and TAVR [8.1 mmHg (1.9; 14.3)] (P = 0.38). TAVR had a higher mean valve area at 30 d, 1 y, and 2 y [1.68 cm2 (1.22; 2.13) versus 1.8 cm2 (1.35; 2.25), P = 0.02]. SAVR had a higher freedom from any paravalvular leak at 30 d and 1 y [86% (81; 90) versus 39% (36; 41), P < 0.01]. All-cause death was lower in the SAVR group at 5 y [39% (29; 50) versus 43% (31; 57), P < 0.01]. Although no differences were seen between SAVR and TAVR in the pooled Kaplan-Meier analysis of all-cause mortality and composite of all-cause mortality or stroke, parametric modeling with extrapolation showed significant divergence for both outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Pooled all-cause mortality as well as pooled composite of all-cause mortality or stroke indicated better survival with SAVR at 5 y. Long-term parametric extrapolation also indicated superior survival with SAVR.

Sutureless Aortic Prosthesis Valves versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Intermediate Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Literature Review

Aortic stenosis remains the most frequently occurring valvular pathology in the elderly population of Western countries. According to the latest guidelines, the therapeutic choice of aortic stenosis depends on the age of the patient (<75 years or >75 years) and the risk class (STS-Prom/Euroscore II < o >4%). Therefore, if the surgical indication is clear in young and low-risk patients and percutaneous treatment is the gold standard in older and high-risk patients, the therapeutic choice is still debated in intermediate-risk patients. In this group of patients, aortic valve stenosis treatment depends on the patient's global evaluation, the experience of the center, and, no less importantly, the patient's will. Two main therapeutic options are debated: surgical aortic valve replacement with sutureless prosthesis versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation. In addition, the progressive development of mininvasive techniques for aortic valve surgery (right-anterior minithoracotomy) has also reduced the peri- and post-operative risk in this group of patients. The purpose of this review is to compare sutureless aortic valve replacement (SuAVR) versus TAVI in intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Meta-analysis of phase-specific survival after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement from randomized control trials

OBJECTIVE

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, although phase-specific survival and cause of death are implicated following these procedures. Herein, we conducted a phase-specific meta-analysis to compare outcomes after TAVR versus SAVR.

METHODS

A systematic search of databases was performed from inception through December 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials that compared outcomes of TAVR and SAVR. For each trial, the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) of outcomes of interest was extracted for the following each specific phase: the very short-term (0-1 years after the procedure), short-term (1-2 years), and mid-term (2-5 years). Phase-specific HRs were separately pooled using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 8 randomized controlled trials, which enrolled a total of 8885 patients with a mean age of 79 years. The survival after TAVR compared with SAVR was greater in the very short-term periods (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.98; P = .02) but similar in the short-term periods. In contrast, lower survival was observed in the TAVR group compared with the SAVR group in the mid-term periods (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.29; P = .02). Similar temporal trends favoring SAVR in the mid-term were present for cardiovascular mortality and rehospitalization rates. In contrast, the rates of aortic valve reinterventions and permanent pacemaker implantations were initially greater in the TAVR group, although SAVR's superiority eventually disappeared in the mid-term.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis demonstrated phase-specific outcomes following TAVR and SAVR.

Structural Cardiac Interventions in Patients With Heart Failure: JACC Scientific Statement

Pathologic left ventricular remodeling and valvular heart disease may contribute to the clinical presentation and outcomes of patients presenting with heart failure, and limit the effectiveness of guideline-directed medical therapy. Although surgical interventions including surgical ventricular restoration techniques and valve repair or replacement are effective therapies, there is growing evidence that transcatheter interventions may be options for patients with persistent symptoms of heart failure despite optimal medical therapy, where surgical options may be limited. This scientific statement will review the current available and investigational percutaneous strategies for the management of structural contributors to heart failure: dilated left ventricular cardiomyopathies and valvular heart disease.

Outcomes following TAVR in patients with cardiogenic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

While transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has broadened treatment options for critically ill patients, outcomes among those with concomitant cardiogenic shock (CS) are not well-explored.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of major databases for studies comparing outcomes following TAVR in patients with and without CS since inception up to October 31, 2023. Our meta-analysis included five non-randomized observational. Dichotomous outcomes were assessed using the Mantel-Haenszel method (risk ratio, 95 % CI), and continuous outcomes were evaluated using mean difference and 95 % CI with the inverse variance method. Statistical heterogeneity was determined using the inconsistency test (I2).

RESULTS

Among 26,283 patients across five studies, 30-day mortality was higher in the CS group (7267 patients; 27.6 %) compared to those without CS (OR 3.41, 95 % CI [2.01, 5.76], p < 0.01), as well as 30-day major vascular complications (OR 1.72, 95 % CI [1.54, 1.92], p < 0.01). At 1-year follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in mortality rates between the compared groups (OR 2.68, 95 % CI [0.53, 13.46], p = 0.12). No significant between-group differences were observed in the likelihood of 30-day aortic valve reintervention (OR 3.20, 95 % CI [0.63, 16.22], p = 0.09) or post-TAVR aortic insufficiency (OR 0.91, 95 % CI [0.33, 2.51], p = 0.73). Furthermore, 30-day stroke, pacemaker implantation, and in-hospital major bleeding were comparable between both cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Among patients undergoing TAVR, short-term mortality is higher but one-year outcomes are similar when comparing those with, to those without, CS. Future studies should examine whether TAVR outcomes are improved when the procedure is delayed to optimize CS and when delay is not possible, whether particular management strategies lead to more favorable periprocedural outcomes.

Reoperation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Insights from 10 years' experience

OBJECTIVE

Use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has demonstrated dramatic growth in the past decade. This study aims to investigate implications of post-TAVR reoperation from our 10-year experience.

METHODS

Between 2011 and 2022, 66 post-TAVR patients underwent a reoperation, consisting of 42 (63.6%) patients with native TAVR and 24 (36.4%) patients with valve-in-valve TAVR (VIV-TAVR) after surgical aortic valve replacement.

RESULTS

The aggregate proportion of patients belonging to the low-/intermediate-risk group at the time of TAVR exceeded that of the high-/extreme-risk cohort in 2021. The native TAVR group received a larger TAVR valve, whereas more frequent low-risk status at the time of TAVR than the VIV-TAVR group. Concurrent procedures were highly common during reoperation and isolated surgical aortic valve replacement represented only 18.2% of the entire cohort. The native TAVR group demonstrated significantly higher TAVR explant difficulty index score (2.0 vs 1.0 points; P < .001) and operative mortality (14.2% vs 0%; P = .079) compared with the VIV-TAVR group. The 8-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was 1.9% and 14.1% (subdistribution hazard ratio, 8.0; 95% CI, 4.1-15.9; P < .001) in the native and VIV-TAVR group, respectively. Furthermore, cumulative incidence of valve reintervention, combining reoperations and redo TAVRs, was 3.3% and 19.0% (subdistribution hazard ratio, 6.2; 95% CI, 3.6-10.9; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-/intermediate-risk patients are emerging as the predominant group necessitating reoperations. Native TAVR was associated with lower postimplant reintervention rates, albeit with higher reoperative technical difficulty and mortality. Conversely, VIV-TAVR was associated with higher reintervention, but demonstrated lower technical difficulty and mortality for reoperation.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Surgical Risk Patients: An Updated Metanalysis of Extended Follow-Up Randomized Controlled Trials

The long-term safety and effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low surgical risk has not been evaluated in a pooled analysis. An electronic database search was conducted for randomized controlled trials with a maximal 5 years clinical and echocardiographic follow-up including low surgical risk patients who underwent TAVR or SAVR. We calculated odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model. Subgroups analysis was performed for permanent pacemaker implantation and paravalvular leaks. Three randomized controlled trials were included with a total of 2,611 low surgical risk patients (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score <4%). Compared with SAVR, the TAVR group had similar rates of all-cause mortality (OR 0.94,95% CI 0.65 to 1.37, p = 0.75) and disabling stroke (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.36, p = 0.48). No significant differences were registered in the TAVR group in terms of major cardiovascular events (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.38, p = 0.83), myocardial infarction (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.40, p = 0.31), valve thrombosis (OR 3.11, 95% CI 0.29 to 33.47, p = 0.35), endocarditis (OR 0.71,95% CI 0.35 to 1.48, p = 0.36), aortic valve reintervention (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.66, p = 0.80), and rehospitalization (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.02, p = 0.07) compared with SAVR. However, TAVR patients had a higher risk of paravalvular leaks (OR 8.21, 95% CI 4.18 to 16.14, p <0.00001), but lower rates of new-onset atrial fibrillation (OR 0.27,95% CI 0.17 to 0.30, p <0.0001). The rates of permanent pacemaker implantation were comparable from 1 year up to a maximum of 5 years (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.97, p = 0.18). Lastly, TAVR had a greater effective orifice area (0.10 cm2/m2, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.15, p = 0.0001), but similar transvalvular mean gradients (0.60, 95% CI 3.94 to 2.73, p = 0.72). In conclusion, TAVR patients had similar long-term outcomes compared with SAVR, except for an elevated risk of paravalvular leaks in the TAVR group and increased rates of atrial fibrillation in the SAVR cohort.

Trends and predictors of inflation-adjusted costs in transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement in a nationally representative sample

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has become an accepted alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement. We examined the trends and predictors in inflation-adjusted costs of transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

National Inpatient Sample identified patients who underwent aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revisions, codes. Hospitalization costs were inflation-adjusted using the Federal Reserve's consumer price index to reflect current valuation. Outcomes of interest were unadjusted trend in annual cost for each procedure and predictors of in-patient cost. Generalized linear models with a log link function identified predictors of adjusted costs. Interaction terms determined where cost predictors were different by operation type.

RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2019, the mean annual inflation-adjusted cost of surgical aortic valve replacement increased from $62,853 to $63,743, in contrast to decreasing cost of transcatheter aortic valve replacement from $64,913 to $56,042 ($1,854 per year; P = .004). Significant independent predictors of patient-level cost included operation type (transcatheter aortic valve replacement associated with $9,625 increase; P < .001), incidence of in-hospital mortality ($28,836 increase; P < .001), elective status ($2,410 decrease; P < .001), Elixhauser Index ($995 increase; P < .001), and postoperative length of stay ($2,014 per day increase; P < .001). Compared to discharges with Medicare, discharges with private insurance and Medicaid paid $736 less (P = .004) and $1,863 less (P = .01), respectively. Increasing hospital volume was a significant predictor of decreasing patient level cost (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Annual cost of transcatheter aortic valve replacement has decreased significantly and has been a more cost-effective modality compared to surgical aortic valve replacement since 2017. Predictors of patient-level costs allow for mindful preparation of healthcare systems for aortic valve replacement.

Durability of transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is now utilised as a less invasive alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) across the whole spectrum of surgical risk. Long-term durability of the bioprosthetic valves has become a key goal of TAVI as this procedure is now considered for younger and lower-risk populations. The purpose of this article is to present a state-of-the-art overview on the definition, aetiology, risk factors, mechanisms, diagnosis, clinical impact, and management of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) and failure (BVF) following TAVI with a comparative perspective versus SAVR. Structural valve deterioration (SVD) is the main factor limiting the durability of the bioprosthetic valves used for TAVI or SAVR, but non-structural BVD, such as prosthesis-patient mismatch and paravalvular regurgitation, as well as valve thrombosis or endocarditis may also lead to BVF. The incidence of BVF related to SVD or other causes is low (<5%) at midterm (5- to 8-year) follow-up and compares favourably with that of SAVR. The long-term follow-up data of randomised trials conducted with the first generations of transcatheter heart valves also suggest similar valve durability in TAVI versus SAVR at 10 years, but these trials suffer from major survivorship bias, and the long-term durability of TAVI will need to be confirmed by the analysis of the low-risk TAVI versus SAVR trials at 10 years.

Long-Term Outcomes of Transcatheter vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

Background

We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing long-term outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic stenosis. The short-term efficacy and safety of TAVR are proven, but long-term outcomes are unclear.

Methods

We included randomized controlled trials comparing TAVR vs SAVR at the longest available follow-up. The primary end point was death or disabling stroke. Secondary end points were all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, stroke, pacemaker implantation, valve thrombosis, valve gradients, and moderate-to-severe paravalvular leaks. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023481856).

Results

Seven trials (N = 7785 patients) were included. Weighted mean trial follow-up was 5.76 ± 0.073 years. Overall, no significant difference in death or disabling stroke was observed with TAVR vs SAVR (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.93-1.11; P = .70). Mortality risks were similar. TAVR resulted in higher pacemaker implantation and moderate-to-severe paravalvular leaks compared to SAVR. Results were consistent across different surgical risk profiles. As compared to SAVR, self-expanding TAVR had lower death or stroke risk (P interaction = .06), valve thrombosis (P interaction = .06), and valve gradients (P interaction < .01) but higher pacemaker implantation rates than balloon-expandable TAVR (P interaction < .01).

Conclusions

In severe aortic stenosis, the long-term mortality or disabling stroke risk of TAVR is similar to SAVR, but with higher risk of pacemaker implantation, especially with self-expanding valves. As compared with SAVR, the relative reduction in death or stroke risk and valve thrombosis was greater with self-expanding than with balloon-expandable valves.

Aortic valve replacement today: Outcomes, costs, and opportunities for improvement

The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) just two decades ago has transformed the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. TAVR has not only extended the option of aortic valve replacement to patients deemed ineligible for surgery, it has also demonstrated similar or better short- and intermediate-term clinical outcomes compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients at all levels of surgical risk. These benefits have been achieved with similar or lower costs compared with SAVR, at least in the first 1-2 years for intermediate- and low-risk patients. Longer-term data will further inform clinical and shared decision-making. SUMMARY FOR ANNOTATED TABLE OF CONTENTS: In just over two decades, transcatheter aortic valve replacement has emerged as a frontline approach for appropriately selected patients with severe aortic stenosis. A growing body of evidence documents similar or better clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness for transcatheter compared with surgical aortic valve replacement. Whether the mode is transcatheter or surgical, aortic valve replacement remains underutilized in patients with clear indications for intervention.

Five-year outcomes of transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TC-TAVR) has emerged as an alternative access route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, scarce data exist on long-term outcomes following TC-TAVR. This study aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes at 5 years after TC-TAVR.

METHODS

A total of 110 consecutive patients who underwent TC-TAVR were included. Baseline, procedural, and follow-up data were collected prospectively in a dedicated database. The primary endpoint was the incidence of a composite outcome of all-cause mortality, stroke, and repeat hospitalization at 5-year follow-up. Echocardiography results, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, and quality of life (QoL) as assessed with the EuroQol visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) were examined over the 5-year follow-up.

RESULTS

The median patient age was 77 years (interquartile range [IQR], 72-82.2 years), 42.3% were women, and the median Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score was 5.02% (IQR, 3.4%-7.5%). The incidence of the composite primary endpoint was 54.5%. Death from any cause occurred in 45.6% of patients (11.9 per 100 patient-years); stroke in 8.2% (1.9 per 100 patient-years); disabling stroke in 2.7% (0.7 per 100 patient-years); and rehospitalization in 27.2%. The improvements in valve hemodynamics, NYHA class, and EQ-VAS following the procedure persisted at 5-year follow-up (P < .001). The incidence of bioprosthetic valve failure was 0.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

About half of the moderate-to high-risk patients undergoing TC-TAVR survived with no major cardiovascular events at the 5-year follow-up. The yearly incidence of stroke events was low, and early improvements in valve hemodynamics, functional status, and QoL persisted at 5 years. These results suggest the long-term safety and efficacy of TC-TAVR and would support this approach as an alternative to surgery in non-transfemoral candidates.

Harnessing the power of artificial intelligence in predicting all-cause mortality in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

In recent years, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) models to generate individualised risk assessments and predict patient outcomes post-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) has been a topic of increasing relevance in literature. This study aims to evaluate the predictive accuracy of AI algorithms in forecasting post-TAVI mortality as compared to traditional risk scores.

Methods

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) standard, a systematic review was carried out. We searched four databases in total-PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane-from 19 June 2023-24 June, 2023.

Results

From 2,239 identified records, 1,504 duplicates were removed, 735 manuscripts were screened, and 10 studies were included in our review. Our pooled analysis of 5 studies and 9,398 patients revealed a significantly higher mean area under curve (AUC) associated with AI mortality predictions than traditional score predictions (MD: -0.16, CI: -0.22 to -0.10, p < 0.00001). Subgroup analyses of 30-day mortality (MD: -0.08, CI: -0.13 to -0.03, p = 0.001) and 1-year mortality (MD: -0.18, CI: -0.27 to -0.10, p < 0.0001) also showed significantly higher mean AUC with AI predictions than traditional score predictions. Pooled mean AUC of all 10 studies and 22,933 patients was 0.79 [0.73, 0.85].

Conclusion

AI models have a higher predictive accuracy as compared to traditional risk scores in predicting post-TAVI mortality. Overall, this review demonstrates the potential of AI in achieving personalised risk assessment in TAVI patients.

Registration and protocol

This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered under the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), under the registration name "All-Cause Mortality in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Assessed by Artificial Intelligence" and registration number CRD42023437705. A review protocol was not prepared. There were no amendments to the information provided at registration.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/, PROSPERO (CRD42023437705).

Complications in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A comprehensive analysis and management strategies

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) marks a significant advancement in treating aortic stenosis (AS), especially for patients with high surgical risks. This concise review outlines TAVR's development, its broader application to include lower-risk patients, and innovations in the device and procedural technology. Clinical trials, notably the PARTNER series, affirm TAVR's efficacy, showing it matches or surpasses surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in mortality reduction, hemodynamic benefits, and symptom alleviation, including heart failure. However, TAVR entails complications such as paravalvular leakage (PVL), conduction disorders, and increased cerebrovascular event risks. We evaluate these issues, their prevalence, causative factors, and clinical consequences, emphasizing improvements in valve design and technique that have significantly lowered PVL rates. The role of aortic valve anatomy and calcification in PVL and conduction issues is analyzed, underlining the necessity for meticulous patient selection and procedural planning. Further, the review delves into cerebrovascular event risks, their origins, and preventative strategies, including cerebral protection devices and the judicious use of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapies. TAVR presents a less invasive, promising alternative to SAVR, but requires careful complication management to optimize patient results. Ongoing innovation and research are vital for advancing TAVR's techniques, improving valve designs, and extending its reach, thereby enhancing AS patients' quality of life.

Reinterventions After CoreValve/Evolut Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Data on valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are limited.

OBJECTIVES

The authors compared the 5-year incidence of valve reintervention after self-expanding CoreValve/Evolut TAVR vs SAVR.

METHODS

Pooled data from CoreValve and Evolut R/PRO (Medtronic) randomized trials and single-arm studies encompassed 5,925 TAVR (4,478 CoreValve and 1,447 Evolut R/PRO) and 1,832 SAVR patients. Reinterventions were categorized by indication, timing, and treatment. The cumulative incidence of reintervention was compared between TAVR vs SAVR, Evolut vs CoreValve, and Evolut vs SAVR.

RESULTS

There were 99 reinterventions (80 TAVR and 19 SAVR). The cumulative incidence of reintervention through 5 years was higher with TAVR vs SAVR (2.2% vs 1.5%; P = 0.017), with differences observed early (≤1 year; adjusted subdistribution HR: 3.50; 95% CI: 1.53-8.02) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.48-2.28). The most common reason for reintervention was paravalvular regurgitation after TAVR and endocarditis after SAVR. Evolut had a significantly lower incidence of reintervention than CoreValve (0.9% vs 1.6%; P = 0.006) at 5 years with differences observed early (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12-0.73) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.21-1.74). The 5-year incidence of reintervention was similar for Evolut vs SAVR (0.9% vs 1.5%; P = 0.41).

CONCLUSIONS

A low incidence of reintervention was observed for CoreValve/Evolut R/PRO and SAVR through 5 years. Reintervention occurred most often at ≤1 year for TAVR and >1 year for SAVR. Most early reinterventions were with the first-generation CoreValve and managed percutaneously. Reinterventions were more common following CoreValve TAVR compared with Evolut TAVR or SAVR.

Quality of Life 5 Years Following Transfemoral TAVR or SAVR in Intermediate Risk Patients

BACKGROUND

Symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) sustain comparable improvements in health status over 5 years after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or SAVR. Whether a similar long-term benefit is observed among intermediate-risk AS patients is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess health status outcomes through 5 years in intermediate risk patients treated with a self-expanding TAVR prosthesis or SAVR using data from the SURTAVI (Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial.

METHODS

Intermediate-risk patients randomized to transfemoral TAVR or SAVR in the SURTAVI trial had disease-specific health status assessed at baseline, 30 days, and annually to 5 years using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). Health status was compared between groups using fixed effects repeated measures modelling.

RESULTS

Of the 1,584 patients (TAVR, n = 805; SAVR, n = 779) included in the analysis, health status improved more rapidly after TAVR compared with SAVR. However, by 1 year, both groups experienced large health status benefits (mean change in KCCQ-Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OS) from baseline: TAVR: 20.5 ± 22.4; SAVR: 20.5 ± 22.2). This benefit was sustained, albeit modestly attenuated, at 5 years (mean change in KCCQ-OS from baseline: TAVR: 15.4 ± 25.1; SAVR: 14.3 ± 24.2). There were no significant differences in health status between the cohorts at 1 year or beyond. Similar findings were observed in the KCCQ subscales, although a substantial attenuation of benefit was noted in the physical limitation subscale over time in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In intermediate-risk AS patients, both transfemoral TAVR and SAVR resulted in comparable and durable health status benefits to 5 years. Further research is necessary to elucidate the mechanisms for the small decline in health status noted at 5 years compared with 1 year in both groups. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System in the Treatment of Severe, Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [SURTAVI]; NCT01586910).

Outcomes in patients with aortic stenosis and severely reduced ejection fraction following surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction demonstrate improvement in left ventricular injection fraction (LVEF) after aortic valve replacement (AVR). The timing and magnitude of recovery in patients with very low LVEF (≤ 25%) in surgical or transcatheter AVR is not well studied.

OBJECTIVE

Determine clinical outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve repair (SAVR) in the subset of patients with severely reduced EF ≤ 25%.

METHODS

Single-center, retrospective study with primary endpoint of LVEF 1-week following either procedure. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality and delayed postprocedural LVEF. T-test was used to compare variables and linear regression was used to adjust differences among baseline variables.

RESULTS

83 patients were enrolled (TAVR = 56 and SAVR = 27). TAVR patients were older at the time of procedure (TAVR 77.29 ± 8.69 vs. SAVR 65.41 ± 10.05, p < 0.001). One week post procedure, all patients had improved LVEF after both procedures (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in LVEF between either group (TAVR 33.5 ± 11.77 vs. SAVR 35.3 ± 13.57, p = 0.60). Average LVEF continued to rise and increased by 101% at final follow-up (41.26 ± 13.70). 30-day mortality rates in SAVR and TAVR were similar (7.4% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.91).

CONCLUSION

Patients with severe AS and LVEF ≤ 25% have a significant recovery in post-procedural EF following AVR regardless of method. LVEF doubled at two years post-procedure. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality or mean EF recovery between TAVR and SAVR.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Indiana University institutional review board granted approval for above study numbered 15,322.

Sex-Specific Disparities in Clinical Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Among Different Racial Populations

Background

Sex-related disparities in clinical outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and the impact of sex on clinical outcomes after TAVR among different racial groups are undetermined.

Objectives

This study assessed whether sex-specific differences in baseline clinical and anatomical characteristics affect clinical outcomes after TAVR and investigated the impact of sex on clinical outcomes among different racial groups.

Methods

The TP-TAVR (Trans-Pacific TAVR) registry is a multinational cohort study of patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR at 2 major centers in the United States and 1 major center in South Korea. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, stroke, or rehospitalization after 1 year.

Results

The incidence of the primary composite outcome was not significantly different between sexes (27.9% in men vs 28% in women; adjusted HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.79-1.20). This pattern was consistent in Asian (23.5% vs 23.3%; adjusted HR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.69-1.41) and non-Asian (30.8% vs 31.6%; adjusted HR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.72-1.24) cohorts, without a significant interaction between sex and racial group (P for interaction = 0.74). The adjusted risk for all-cause mortality was similar between sexes, regardless of racial group. However, the adjusted risk of stroke was significantly lower in male patients than in female patients, which was more prominent in the non-Asian cohort.

Conclusions

Despite significantly different baseline and procedural characteristics, there were no sex-specific differences in the adjusted 1-year rates of primary composite outcomes and all-cause mortality, regardless of different racial groups. (Transpacific TAVR registry [TP-TAVR]; NCT03826264).

Transcatheter or surgical aortic valve implantation: 10-year outcomes of the NOTION trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a viable treatment option for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis across a broad range of surgical risk. The Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention (NOTION) trial was the first to randomize patients at lower surgical risk to TAVI or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The aim of the present study was to report clinical and bioprosthesis outcomes after 10 years.

METHODS

The NOTION trial randomized 280 patients to TAVI with the self-expanding CoreValve (Medtronic Inc.) bioprosthesis (n = 145) or SAVR with a bioprosthesis (n = 135). The primary composite outcome was the risk of all-cause mortality, stroke, or myocardial infarction. Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) was classified as structural valve deterioration (SVD), non-structural valve dysfunction (NSVD), clinical valve thrombosis, or endocarditis according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria. Severe SVD was defined as (i) a transprosthetic gradient of 30 mmHg or more and an increase in transprosthetic gradient of 20 mmHg or more or (ii) severe new intraprosthetic regurgitation. Bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) was defined as the composite rate of death from a valve-related cause or an unexplained death following the diagnosis of BVD, aortic valve re-intervention, or severe SVD.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between TAVI and SAVR: age 79.2 ± 4.9 years and 79.0 ± 4.7 years (P = .7), male 52.6% and 53.8% (P = .8), and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score < 4% of 83.4% and 80.0% (P = .5), respectively. After 10 years, the risk of the composite outcome all-cause mortality, stroke, or myocardial infarction was 65.5% after TAVI and 65.5% after SAVR [hazard ratio (HR) 1.0; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7-1.3; P = .9], with no difference for each individual outcome. Severe SVD had occurred in 1.5% and 10.0% (HR 0.2; 95% CI 0.04-0.7; P = .02) after TAVI and SAVR, respectively. The cumulative incidence for severe NSVD was 20.5% and 43.0% (P < .001) and for endocarditis 7.2% and 7.4% (P = 1.0) after TAVI and SAVR, respectively. No patients had clinical valve thrombosis. Bioprosthetic valve failure occurred in 9.7% of TAVI and 13.8% of SAVR patients (HR 0.7; 95% CI 0.4-1.5; P = .4).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe AS and lower surgical risk randomized to TAVI or SAVR, the risk of major clinical outcomes was not different 10 years after treatment. The risk of severe bioprosthesis SVD was lower after TAVR compared with SAVR, while the risk of BVF was similar.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Failed Surgical or Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Valves: A Comprehensive Review

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has proven to be a safe, effective, and less invasive approach to aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis. In patients who underwent prior aortic valve replacement, transcatheter and surgical bioprosthetic valve dysfunction may occur as a result of structural deterioration or nonstructural causes such as prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and paravalvular regurgitation. Valve-in-Valve (ViV) TAVR is a procedure that is being increasingly utilized for the replacement of failed transcatheter or surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves. Data regarding long-term outcomes are limited due to the recency of the procedure's approval, but available data regarding the short- and long-term outcomes of ViV TAVR are promising. Studies have shown a reduction in perioperative and 30-day mortality with ViV TAVR procedures compared to redo surgical repair of failed bioprosthetic aortic valves, but 1-year and 5-year mortality rates are more controversial and lack sufficient data. Despite the reduction in 30-day mortality, PPM and rates of coronary obstruction are higher in ViV TAVR as compared to both redo surgical valve repair and native TAVR procedures. New transcatheter heart valve designs and new procedural techniques have been developed to reduce the risk of PPM and coronary obstruction. Newer generation valves, new procedural techniques, and increased operator experience with ViV TAVR may improve patient outcomes; however, further studies are needed to better understand the safety, efficacy, and durability of ViV TAVR.

Long-Term Outcomes of Aortic Stenosis Patients with Different Flow/Gradient Patterns Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Background: Few data exist on the comparative long-term outcomes of severe aortic stenosis (AS) patients with different flow-gradient patterns undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). This study sought to evaluate the impact of the pre-TAVI flow-gradient pattern on long-term clinical outcomes after TAVI and assess changes in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of different subtypes of AS patients following TAVI. Methods: Consecutive patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI in our institution were screened and prospectively enrolled. Patients were divided into four subgroups according to pre-TAVI flow/gradient pattern: (i) low flow-low gradient (LF-LG): stroke volume indexed (SVi) ≤ 35 mL/m2 and mean gradient (MG) < 40 mmHg); (ii) normal flow-low gradient (NF-LG): SVi > 35 mL/m2 and MG < 40 mmHg; (iii) low flow-high gradient (LF-HG): Svi 35 mL/m2 and MG ≥ 40 mmHg and (iv) normal flow-high gradient (NF-HG): SVi > 35 mL/m2 and MG ≥ 40 mmHg. Transthoracic echocardiography was repeated at 1-year follow-up. Clinical follow-up was obtained at 12 months, and yearly thereafter until 5-year follow-up was complete for all patients. Results: A total of 272 patients with complete echocardiographic and clinical follow-up were included in our analysis. Their mean age was 80 ± 7 years and the majority of patients (N = 138, 50.8%) were women. 62 patients (22.8% of the study population) were distributed in the LF-LG group, 98 patients (36%) were LF-HG patients, 95 patients (34.9%) were NF-HG, and 17 patients (6.3%) were NF-LG. There was a greater prevalence of comorbidities among LF-LG AS patients. One-year all-cause mortality differed significantly between the four subgroups of AS patients (log-rank p: 0.022) and was more prevalent among LF-LG patients (25.8%) compared to LF-HG (11.3%), NF-HG (6.3%) and NF-LG patients (18.8%). At 5-year follow-up, global mortality remained persistently higher among LF-LG patients (64.5%) compared to LF-HG (47.9%), NF-HG (42.9%), and NF-LG patients (58.8%) (log-rank p: 0.029). At multivariable Cox hazard regression analysis, baseline SVi (HR: 0.951, 95% C.I.; 0.918-0.984), the presence of at least moderate tricuspid regurgitation at baseline (HR: 3.091, 95% C.I: 1.645-5.809) and at least moderate paravalvular leak (PVL) post-TAVI (HR: 1.456, 95% C.I.: 1.106-1.792) were significant independent predictors of late global mortality. LF-LG patients and LF-HG patients exhibited a significant increase in LVEF at 1-year follow-up. A lower LVEF (p < 0.001) and a lower Svi (p < 0.001) at baseline were associated with LVEF improvement at 1-year. Conclusions: Patients with LF-LG AS have acceptable 1-year outcomes with significant improvement in LVEF at 1-year follow-up, but exhibit exceedingly high 5-year mortality following TAVI. The presence of low transvalvular flow and at least moderate tricuspid regurgitation at baseline and significant paravalvular leak post-TAVI were associated with poorer long-term outcomes in the entire cohort of AS patients. The presence of a low LVEF or a low SVi predicts LVEF improvement at 1-year.

2024 Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics: A Report of US and Global Data From the American Heart Association

BACKGROUND

The American Heart Association (AHA), in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors, including core health behaviors (smoking, physical activity, nutrition, sleep, and obesity) and health factors (cholesterol, blood pressure, glucose control, and metabolic syndrome) that contribute to cardiovascular health. The AHA Heart Disease and Stroke Statistical Update presents the latest data on a range of major clinical heart and circulatory disease conditions (including stroke, brain health, complications of pregnancy, kidney disease, congenital heart disease, rhythm disorders, sudden cardiac arrest, subclinical atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, cardiomyopathy, heart failure, valvular disease, venous thromboembolism, and peripheral artery disease) and the associated outcomes (including quality of care, procedures, and economic costs).

METHODS

The AHA, through its Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee, continuously monitors and evaluates sources of data on heart disease and stroke in the United States and globally to provide the most current information available in the annual Statistical Update with review of published literature through the year before writing. The 2024 AHA Statistical Update is the product of a full year's worth of effort in 2023 by dedicated volunteer clinicians and scientists, committed government professionals, and AHA staff members. The AHA strives to further understand and help heal health problems inflicted by structural racism, a public health crisis that can significantly damage physical and mental health and perpetuate disparities in access to health care, education, income, housing, and several other factors vital to healthy lives. This year's edition includes additional global data, as well as data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population, with an enhanced focus on health equity across several key domains.

RESULTS

Each of the chapters in the Statistical Update focuses on a different topic related to heart disease and stroke statistics.

CONCLUSIONS

The Statistical Update represents a critical resource for the lay public, policymakers, media professionals, clinicians, health care administrators, researchers, health advocates, and others seeking the best available data on these factors and conditions.

Clinical considerations and challenges in TAV-in-TAV procedures

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a viable treatment for aortic valve disease, including low-risk patients. However, as TAVR usage increases, concerns about long-term durability and the potential for addition interventions have arisen. Transcatheter aortic valve (TAV)-in-TAV procedures have shown promise in selected patients in numerous registries, offering a less morbid alternative to TAVR explantation. In this review, the authors aimed to comprehensively review the experience surrounding TAV-in-TAV, summarize available data, discuss pre-procedural planning, highlight associated challenges, emphasize the importance of coronary obstruction assessment and provide insights into the future of this technique.

Midterm outcomes of aortic valve replacement using a rapid-deployment valve for aortic stenosis: TRANSFORM trial

Background

The use of rapid-deployment valves (RDVs) has been shown to reduce the operative time for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Long-term core laboratory-adjudicated data are scarce, however. Here we report final 7-year data on RDV use.

Methods

TRANSFORM was a prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter, single-arm trial implanting a stented bovine pericardial valve with an incorporated balloon-expandable sealing frame. A prior published 1-year analysis included 839 patients from 29 centers. An additional 46 patients were enrolled and implanted, for a total of 885 patients. Annual clinical and core laboratory-adjudicated echocardiographic outcomes were collected through 8 years. Primary endpoints were structural valve deterioration (SVD), all-cause reintervention, all-cause valve explantation, and all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included hemodynamic performance assessed by echocardiography. The mean duration of follow-up was 5.0 ± 2.0 years.

Results

The mean patient age was 73.3 ± 8.2 years. Isolated AVR was performed in 62.1% of the patients, and AVR with concomitant procedures was performed in 37.9%. Freedom from all-cause mortality at 7 years was 76.0% for isolated AVR and 68.2% for concomitant AVR. Freedom from SVD, all-cause reintervention, and valve explantation at 7 years was 97.5%, 95.7%, and 97.8%, respectively. The mean gradient and effective orifice area at 7 years were 11.1 ± 5.3 mm Hg and 1.6 ± 0.3 cm2, respectively. Paravalvular leak at 7 years was none/trace in 88.6% and mild in 11.4%. In patients undergoing isolated AVR, the cumulative probability of pacemaker implantation was 13.9% at 30 days, 15.5% at 1 year, and 21.8% at 7 years.

Conclusions

AVR for aortic stenosis using an RDV is associated with low rates of late adverse events. This surgical pericardial tissue platform provides excellent and stable hemodynamic performance through 7 years.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (from inception to standard treatment): a single-center observational study

Background

Treatment of severe aortic stenosis with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) was introduced in 2002. Since then, TAVI has become the primary treatment approach worldwide for advanced-age patients and younger patients with severe comorbidities. We aimed to evaluate the changes in patient demographics, complications, and mortality rates within 13 years.

Methods

This retrospective observational study included 867 patients who underwent TAVI at the University Hospital of North Norway in Tromsø from 2008 to 2021. The 13-year period was divided into period 1 (2008-2012), period 2 (2013-2017), and period 3 (2018-2021). The primary objective was to evaluate the changes in periprocedural (30 days), early (30-365 days), and late mortality rates (>365 days) between the periods. The secondary objective was to evaluate late mortality rates by sex and age groups: <70 years, 70-79 years, 80-89 years, and ≥90 years.

Results

The periprocedural mortality rates for periods 1, 2, and 3 were 10.3%, 2.9%, and 1.2%, respectively (P < 0.001). The early mortality rates were 5.6%, 5.8%, and 6.5%, respectively. No significant differences were observed in late mortality by sex or age group (<70, 70-79, and 80-89 years) with a median survival of 5.3-5.6 years. The median survival in patients aged ≥90 years was 4.0 years (P = 0.018).

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that most patients are octogenarians, and the burden of their comorbidities should be highly considered compared to their age when evaluating the procedural outcomes. As the incidence of most complications related to TAVI has decreased, the rates of permanent pacemaker implantation remain high. Important advancements in diagnostics, valve technology, and procedural techniques have improved the periprocedural mortality rates; however, early mortality remains unchanged and poses a clinical challenge that needs to be addressed in the future.

Transcatheter aortic valve durability, predictors of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction, longer-term outcomes - a review

INTRODUCTION

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is one of the most significant inventions in cardiology, as it provides a viable minimally invasive treatment option for patients with aortic stenosis, the most common valvular disease in the developed world and one with a poor prognosis when left untreated. Using data available to date, this review aims to discuss and identify possible predictors of TAVI valve durability - an essential requirement for the device's wide-spread use, especially in younger patients.

AREAS COVERED

This article explores the main causes of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) based on pathophysiology and available data, and reviews possible predictors of BVD including prosthesis-related, procedure-related, and patient-related factors. An emphasis is made on affectable predictors, which could potentially be targeted with prevention management and improve valve durability. A literature search of online medical databases was conducted using relevant key words and dates; significant clinical trials were identified. A brief overview of important randomized controlled trials with mid to long-term follow-up is included in this article.

EXPERT OPINION

Identifying modifiable predictors of valve dysfunction presents an opportunity to enhance and predict valve durability - a necessity as patients with longer life-expectancies are being considered for the procedure.

Long-term risk of reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has surpassed surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) as the predominant mode of valve replacement for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the long-term need for valvular reintervention after TAVR remains unknown.

METHODS

Using data from the Medicare Fee for Service 100% dataset, all patients receiving TAVR between July 2011 and December 2020 were identified. Patients were categorized as receiving a valve reintervention (either surgical or transcatheter) or not using the appropriate International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision Procedure Coding System (ICD-10-PCS). A competing risk regression model was used to estimate the cumulative probability of valve reintervention.

RESULTS

Of 230,644 TAVR patients were identified, of whom 1,880 received a reintervention. Patients receiving a reintervention were younger and more likely to be male. At 10 years, the crude rate of reintervention was 0.59% within a surviving cohort of 341 patients. After adjusting for the competing risk of death and other covariates, the adjusted cumulative incidence of reintervention at 10 years after TAVR was 1.63%. When the rate of reinterventions was compared between early (2011-2016) and later (2017-2020) time periods, the risk-adjusted rate of reintervention at 4 years had decreased over time (0.85% vs 0.51%).

CONCLUSION

The 10-year risk of valve reintervention after TAVR is low and appears to be decreasing over time. Further research is necessary to determine the driving factors contributing to valve reintervention in the current era.

Impact of cardiac rehabilitation on pre- and post-operative transcatheter aortic valve replacement prognoses

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a relatively new treatment method for aortic stenosis (AS) and has been demonstrated to be suitable for patients with varying risk levels. Indeed, among high-risk patients, TAVR outcomes are comparable to, or even better, than that of the traditional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) method. TAVR outcomes, with respect to post-surgical functional capacity and quality of life, have also been found to be improved, especially when combined with cardiac rehabilitation (CR). CR is a multidisciplinary system, which integrates cardiology with other medical disciplines, such as sports, nutritional, mind-body, and behavioral medicine. It entails the development of appropriate medication, exercise, and diet prescriptions, along with providing psychological support, ensuring the cessation of smoking, and developing risk factor management strategies for cardiovascular disease patients. However, even with CR being able to improve TAVR outcomes and reduce post-surgical mortality rates, it still has largely been underutilized in clinical settings. This article reviews the usage of CR during both pre-and postoperative periods for valvular diseases, and the factors involved in influencing subsequent patient prognoses, thereby providing a direction for subsequent research and clinical applications.

Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients at Five Years

BACKGROUND

A previous analysis in this trial showed that among patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, the rate of the composite end point of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year was significantly lower with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) than with surgical aortic-valve replacement. Longer-term outcomes are unknown.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either TAVR or surgery. The first primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization related to the valve, the procedure, or heart failure. The second primary end point was a hierarchical composite that included death, disabling stroke, nondisabling stroke, and the number of rehospitalization days, analyzed with the use of a win ratio analysis. Clinical, echocardiographic, and health-status outcomes were assessed through 5 years.

RESULTS

A total of 1000 patients underwent randomization: 503 patients were assigned to undergo TAVR, and 497 to undergo surgery. A component of the first primary end point occurred in 111 of 496 patients in the TAVR group and in 117 of 454 patients in the surgery group (Kaplan-Meier estimates, 22.8% in the TAVR group and 27.2% in the surgery group; difference, -4.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.9 to 1.3; P = 0.07). The win ratio for the second primary end point was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.51; P = 0.25). The Kaplan-Meier estimates for the components of the first primary end point were as follows: death, 10.0% in the TAVR group and 8.2% in the surgery group; stroke, 5.8% and 6.4%, respectively; and rehospitalization, 13.7% and 17.4%. The hemodynamic performance of the valve, assessed according to the mean (±SD) valve gradient, was 12.8±6.5 mm Hg in the TAVR group and 11.7±5.6 mm Hg in the surgery group. Bioprosthetic-valve failure occurred in 3.3% of the patients in the TAVR group and in 3.8% of those in the surgery group.

CONCLUSIONS

Among low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR or surgery, there was no significant between-group difference in the two primary composite outcomes. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02675114.).

Bayesian interpretation of non-inferiority in transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The concept of non-inferiority is widely adopted in randomized trials comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, uncertainty exists regarding the long-term outcomes of TAVR, and non-inferiority may be difficult to assess. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing TAVR and SAVR, with a specific emphasis on the non-inferiority margin for 5-year all-cause mortality.

METHODS

A systematic search was applied to 3 electronic databases. Randomized trials comparing TAVR and SAVR were included. Bayesian methods were implemented to evaluate the posterior probability of non-inferiority at different trial non-inferiority margins under either a vague, Cauchy, or a literature-based prior. Primary outcomes were 5-year actuarial all-cause mortality, and the probability of non-inferiority at various transformed trial non-inferiority margins. Secondary outcomes were long-term survival and 1- and 2-year actuarial survival.

RESULTS

Eight trials (n = 8698 patients) were included. Kaplan-Meier-derived 5-year survival was 61.6% (95% CI 59.8-63.5%) for TAVR, and 63.7% (95% CI 61.9-65.6%) for SAVR. Six trials (n = 6370 patients) reported all-cause mortality at 5-year follow-up. Under a vague prior, the posterior median relative risk for all-cause mortality of TAVR was 1.14, compared to SAVR (95% credible interval 1.06-1.22, probability of relative risk <1.00 = 0.01%, I2 = 0%). Similar results in terms of point estimate and uncertainty measures were obtained using frequentist methods. Based on the various trial non-inferiority margins, the results of the analysis suggest that non-inferiority at 5 years is no longer likely.

CONCLUSIONS

It is unlikely that TAVR is still non-inferior to SAVR at 5 years in terms of all-cause mortality.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients at low to intermediate surgical risk: rationale and design of the randomised DEDICATE Trial

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the preferred treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and for older patients irrespective of risk. However, in younger, low-risk patients for whom both therapeutic options, TAVI and SAVR, are applicable, the optimal treatment strategy remains controversial, as data on long-term outcomes remain limited. The DEDICATE-DZHK6 Trial is an investigator-initiated, industry-independent, prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial investigating the efficacy and safety of TAVI compared to SAVR in low- to intermediate-risk patients aged 65 years or older. To evaluate both treatment strategies, approximately 1,404 patients determined eligible for both TAVI and SAVR by the interdisciplinary Heart Team were randomised to TAVI or SAVR. Broad inclusion and strict exclusion criteria targeted an all-comers patient population. Procedures were performed according to local best practice with contemporary routine medical devices. The primary endpoints are a composite of mortality or stroke at 1 year and 5 years in order to incorporate midterm efficacy results and complement early safety data. Primary outcomes will be tested sequentially for non-inferiority and superiority. The DEDICATE-DZHK6 Trial has been designed to mirror clinical reality for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis and provide unique information on overall outcomes after TAVI and SAVR that can be directly applied to clinical routines. Its results will help further define optimal treatment strategies for low- to intermediate-risk patients in whom both TAVI and SAVR are currently advisable.

A Review of the Cost Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR)

The cost of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been studied in the context of high-risk or specific comorbidity populations; this paper provides a comprehensive overview of broader patient populations' outcomes and costs with TAVR in comparison to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). In the past, SAVR had been the more cost-effective option than TAVR, but in recent years, TAVR has been becoming more cost-effective.Though the cost of TAVR can vary due to several factors the major focus of this review will focus on the surgical technique, medicare reimbursements, insertion point, and varying risk populations. In conclusion, the price of TAVR is declining as more cost-efficient valves arrive on the market. Climbing healthcare costs play a significant role in clinical decisions when deciding on which procedures are most cost-effective for the patient and healthcare system. The declining price of TAVR could lead to the preference of TAVR over SAVR for both low-risk and high-risk aortic stenosis patients.

Secondary analysis of REPRISE III trial: The Lotus valve's persistence after withdrawal

INTRODUCTION

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the leading heart valve disease in developed countries, often caused by calcific degeneration. In low-and-middle-income countries, it's primarily due to RHD. Prevalence of AS increases with age and up to 22.8% of those affected over the age of 75. While surgical aortic valve replacement is standard treatment for AS, many older individuals are not ideal candidates. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers an alternative. The REPRISE III trial showed the Lotus valve outperformed the CoreValve/EvolutR TAVR valves in various metrics over 2 years. Despite its success and over 10,000 implantations, the Lotus valve was pulled from the market, highlighting the need to understand its long-term outcomes. Study and results: In the REPRISE III trial, the long-term outcomes of TAVR using the Lotus valve were compared to the CoreValve/EvolutR over 5 years across 55 global centers. Of the participants, 581 (95.7%) used the Lotus valve and 285 (93.4%) used CoreValve/EvolutR. Event rates for all-cause mortality were similar between the groups, but the Lotus valve group had lower rates of disabling stroke and pacemaker implantation. The Lotus valve showed a higher aortic gradient but lower effective orifice area. Additionally, the Lotus valve had reduced mild PVL, valve malpositioning, and the need for a second valve. Both groups showed comparable long-term improvements in heart and cardiomyopathy assessments.

LESSONS LEARNED

The REPRISE III analysis highlights the favourable long-term outcomes of the Lotus valve and CoreValve/EvolutR for high-risk surgical patients. These findings underscore the importance of ongoing management post-valve procedure and the potential advantages of the Lotus valve design. Further studies comparing these valves to surgery will inform aortic stenosis management and potentially expand TAVR indications. The future goal is to develop a tissue-engineered living heart valve to improve survival and quality of life.

Comparison of middle-term valve durability between transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs

Background

This study aims to compare valve durability between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was structural valve deterioration (SVD). Secondary outcomes were bioprosthetic valve failure, reintervention, effective orifice area (EOA), mean pressure gradient, and moderate-severe aortic regurgitation (AR, transvalvular and/or paravalvular).

Results

Twenty-five publications from seven RCTs consisting of 7,970 patients were included in the analysis with follow-up ranges of 2-8 years. No significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to SVD [odds ratio (OR) 0.72; 95% CI: 0.25-2.12]. The TAVI group was reported to exhibit a statistically significant higher risk of reintervention (OR 2.03; 95% CI: 1.34-3.05) and a moderate-severe AR (OR 6.54; 95% CI: 3.92-10.91) compared with the SAVR group. A trend toward lower mean pressure gradient in the TAVI group [(mean difference (MD) -1.61; 95% CI: -3.5 to 0.28)] and significant higher EOA (MD 0.20; 95% CI: 0.08-0.31) was noted.

Conclusion

The present data indicate that TAVI provides a comparable risk of SVD with favorable hemodynamic profile compared with SAVR. However, the higher risk of significant AR and reintervention was demonstrated.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO (CRD42022363060).

All-cause procedural readmissions following transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Objective

With expanding eligibility criteria, transcatheter aortic valve replacement is being performed on patients with longer life expectancy, and subsequent procedures after index transcatheter aortic valve replacement are inevitable. This study examines the incidence and outcomes of patients undergoing subsequent procedural readmissions after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Methods

All patients who underwent index transcatheter aortic valve replacement and were discharged alive from January 2012 to December 2019 at a single institution were evaluated. Study end points were mortality and readmission for procedure with more than 1-day hospital stay. Effect on survival was evaluated by treating procedural readmission as a time-dependent variable by Cox proportional hazard model and competing risk analysis.

Results

A total of 1092 patients met inclusion criteria with a median follow-up time of 34 months. A total of 218 patients (20.0%) had 244 subsequent procedural readmissions. During the 244 procedural readmissions, there were 260 procedures; 96 (36.9%) were cardiac (most commonly pacemaker implantation, percutaneous coronary interventions, and surgical aortic valve replacements), and 164 (63.1%) were noncardiac (most commonly orthopedic and gastrointestinal procedures). The overall procedural readmission rates were 32%, 39%, and 42%, and all-cause mortality was 27%, 44%, and 54% at 20, 40, and 60 months, respectively. Procedural readmissions were not associated with a survival penalty in any surgical risk group or on Cox regression (hazard ratio, 1.25; 0.91-1.64, P = .17).

Conclusions

After transcatheter aortic valve replacement, procedural interventions are seen frequently, with most procedures occurring within the first year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. However, subsequent procedural readmissions do not appear to have a survival penalty for patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. After transcatheter aortic valve replacement with resolution of aortic stenosis, subsequent procedures can and should be pursued if they are needed.

TAVI after More Than 20 Years

It has been more than 20 years since the first in man transcatheter aortic valve intervention (TAVI), and during this period we have witnessed an impressive evolution of this technique, with an extension of its use from non-operable patients to high-, intermediate- and even low-risk patients with aortic stenosis, and with a decrease in the incidence of complications. In this review, we discuss the evaluation of patients before TAVI, the procedure and the changes it has seen over time, and we present the current main complications and challenges of TAVI.

Is It Reasonable to Perform Isolated SAVR by Residents in the TAVI Era?

BACKGROUND

The role of conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is increasingly questioned since the indication for transcatheter aortic valve implantations (TAVIs) is currently extended. While the number of patients referred to SAVR decreases, it is unclear if SAVR should be performed by junior resident surgeons in the course of a heart surgeons training.

METHODS

Patients with isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) were analyzed with respect to the surgeon's qualification. AVR performed by resident surgeons was compared with AVR by senior surgeons. The collective was analyzed with respect to clinical short-term outcomes comparing full sternotomy (FS) with minimally invasive surgery and ministernotomy (MS) with right anterior thoracotomy (RAT) after a 1:1 propensity score matching.

RESULTS

The 30-day all-cause mortality was 2.3 and 3.4% for resident versus senior AVR groups, cerebrovascular event rates were 1.1 versus 2.6%, and no cases of significant paravalvular leak were detected. Clinical short-term outcomes between FS and minimally invasive access, as well after MS and RAT were comparable.

CONCLUSION

Our current data show feasibility and safety of conventional SAVR procedure performed by resident surgeons in the era of TAVI. Minimally invasive surgery should be trained and performed in higher volumes early in the educational process as it is a safe treatment option.

Long-Term Survival among Octogenarians Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement with or without Simultaneous Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A 22-Year Tertiary Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

The impact of concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) on aortic valve replacement (AVR) in octogenarians is still debated. We analyzed the characteristics and long-term survival of octogenarians undergoing isolated AVR and AVR + CABG.

METHODS

All octogenarians who consecutively underwent AVR with or without concomitant CABG at our tertiary cardiac center between 2000 and 2022 were included. Patients with redo, emergent, or any other concomitant procedures were excluded. The primary endpoints were 30-day and long-term survival. The secondary endpoints were early postoperative outcomes and determinants of long-term survival. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of 30-day mortality, and Cox regression analysis was performed for predictors of adverse long-term survival.

RESULTS

A total of 1011 patients who underwent AVR (83.0 [81.0-85.0] years, 42.0% males) and 1055 with AVR + CABG (83.0 [81.2-85.4] years, 66.1% males) were included in our study. Survival at 30 days and at 1, 3, and 5 years in the AVR group was 97.9%, 91.5%, 80.5%, and 66.2%, respectively, while in the AVR + CABG group it was 96.2%, 89.6%, 77.7%, and 64.7%, respectively. There was no significant difference in median postoperative survival between the AVR and AVR + CABG groups (7.1 years [IQR: 6.7-7.5] vs. 6.6 years [IQR: 6.3-7.2], respectively, p = 0.21). Significant predictors of adverse long-term survival in the AVR group included age (hazard ratio (HR): 1.09; 95% CI: 1.06-1.12, p < 0.001), previous MI (HR: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.32-3.28, p = 0.002), and chronic kidney disease (HR 2.07; 95% CI: 1.33-3.23, p = 0.001), while in the AVR + CABG group they included age (HR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.04-1.10, p < 0.001) and diabetes mellitus (HR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.15-1.89, p = 0.002). Concomitant CABG was not an independent risk factor for adverse long-term survival (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.77-1.02, p = 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term survival of octogenarians who underwent AVR or AVR + CABG was similar and was not affected by adding concomitant CABG. However, octogenarians who underwent concomitant CABG with AVR had significantly higher in-hospital mortality. Each decision should be discussed within the heart team.

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.

Race-Specific Impact of Conventional Surgical Risk Score on 1-Year Mortality After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

Interracial differences in the distribution and prognostic value of conventional Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score on long-term mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are uncertain.

Objectives

This study aims to compare the impact of STS scores on clinical outcomes at 1-year after TAVR between Asian and non-Asian populations.

Methods

We used the Trans-Pacific TAVR (TP-TAVR) registry, a multinational multicenter, observational registry involving patients undergoing TAVR at 2 major centers in the United States and 1 major center in Korea. Patients were classified into 3 groups (low, intermediate, and high-risk) according to the STS score and compared between STS risk groups and race. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 1-year.

Results

Among 1,412 patients, 581 were Asian and 831 were non-Asian. The distribution of the STS risk score group was different between Asian and non-Asian groups (62.5% low-, 29.8% intermediate-, and 7.7% high-risk in Asian vs 40.6% low-, 39.1% intermediate-, and 20.3% high-risk in non-Asian). In the Asian population, the all-cause mortality at 1-year was substantially higher in the high-risk STS group than in the low- and intermediate-risk groups (3.6% low-risk, 8.7% intermediate-risk, and 24.4% high-risk; log-rank P < 0.001), which was primarily driven by noncardiac mortality. In the non-Asian group, there was a proportional increase in all-cause mortality at 1-year according to the STS risk category (5.3% low-risk, 12.6% intermediate-risk, and 17.8% high-risk; log-rank P < 0.001).

Conclusions

In this multiracial registry of patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR, we identified a differential proportion and prognostic impact of STS score on 1-year mortality between Asian and non-Asian patients (TP-TAVR [Transpacific TAVR Registry]; NCT03826264).

Severe structural valve deterioration after TAVR with ACURATE Neo: report of two cases

Structural valve deterioration (SVD) of transcatheter implanted aortic valve (TAVR) prostheses leading to prosthesis dysfunction is an uncommon yet increasingly described complication. Literature is scarce on specific mechanisms and clinical presentation of SVD after TAVR, notably on self-expanding valve ACURATE Neo. We report on two cases with severe bioprosthetic failure after ACURATE Neo implantation due to leaflet disruption, and we treated them with surgical aortic valve replacement. Based on the literature, we further discuss the incidence of SVD after TAVR, the durability of ACURATE NEO, and the modes of failure of biological valve prostheses.

Transcatheter aortic valve durability: a contemporary clinical review

Encouraged by randomized controlled trials demonstrating non-inferiority of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) across all surgical risk categories, there has been a dramatic increase in the use of TAVI in a younger patient cohort with severe aortic stenosis, endorsed by both European and American Cardiac Societies. However, the standard use of TAVI in younger, less co-morbid patients with a longer life expectancy can only be supported if there is sound data demonstrating long-term durability of transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs). In this article, we have reviewed available randomized and observational registry clinical data pertaining to TAV long-term durability, placing emphasis on trials and registries using the new standardized definitions of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF). Despite inherent difficulties in interpreting the available data, the determination reached is that the risk of structural valve deterioration (SVD) is potentially lower after TAVI than SAVR at 5 to 10 years, and that the two treatment modalities have a similar risk of BVF. This supports the adoption of TAVI in younger patients evident in current practice. However, the routine use of TAVI in younger patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis should be cautioned due to insufficient long-term TAV durability data in this particular patient population. Finally, we highlight the importance of future research into the unique potential mechanisms that can potentially contribute to TAV degeneration.

3-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Randomized data comparing outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with surgery in low-surgical risk patients at time points beyond 2 years is limited. This presents an unknown for physicians striving to educate patients as part of a shared decision-making process.

OBJECTIVES

The authors evaluated 3-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes from the Evolut Low Risk trial.

METHODS

Low-risk patients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular valve or surgery. The primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke and several secondary endpoints were assessed at 3 years.

RESULTS

There were 1,414 attempted implantations (730 TAVR; 684 surgery). Patients had a mean age of 74 years and 35% were women. At 3 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 7.4% of TAVR patients and 10.4% of surgery patients (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.49-1.00; P = 0.051). The difference between treatment arms for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke remained broadly consistent over time: -1.8% at year 1; -2.0% at year 2; and -2.9% at year 3. The incidence of mild paravalvular regurgitation (20.3% TAVR vs 2.5% surgery) and pacemaker placement (23.2% TAVR vs 9.1% surgery; P < 0.001) were lower in the surgery group. Rates of moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation for both groups were <1% and not significantly different. Patients who underwent TAVR had significantly improved valve hemodynamics (mean gradient 9.1 mm Hg TAVR vs 12.1 mm Hg surgery; P < 0.001) at 3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the Evolut Low Risk study, TAVR at 3 years showed durable benefits compared with surgery with respect to all-cause mortality or disabling stroke. (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients; NCT02701283).

Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement After Prior Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Aortic stenosis treatment should consider risks and benefits for lifetime management. Although the feasibility of redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains unclear, concerns are emerging regarding reoperation after TAVR.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to define comparative risk of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) after prior TAVR or SAVR.

METHODS

Data on patients undergoing bioprosthetic SAVR after TAVR and/or SAVR were extracted from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database (2011-2021). Overall and isolated SAVR cohorts were analyzed. The primary outcome was operative mortality. Risk adjustment using hierarchical logistic regression as well as propensity score matching for isolated SAVR cases were performed.

RESULTS

Of 31,106 SAVR patients, 1,126 had prior TAVR (TAVR-SAVR), 674 had prior SAVR and TAVR (SAVR-TAVR-SAVR), and 29,306 had prior SAVR (SAVR-SAVR). Yearly rates of TAVR-SAVR and SAVR-TAVR-SAVR increased over time, whereas SAVR-SAVR was stable. The TAVR-SAVR patients were older, with higher acuity, and with greater comorbidities than other cohorts. The unadjusted operative mortality was highest in the TAVR-SAVR group (17% vs 12% vs 9%, respectively; P < 0.001). Compared with SAVR-SAVR, risk-adjusted operative mortality was significantly higher for TAVR-SAVR (OR: 1.53; P = 0.004), but not SAVR-TAVR-SAVR (OR: 1.02; P = 0.927). After propensity score matching, operative mortality of isolated SAVR was 1.74 times higher for TAVR-SAVR than SAVR-SAVR patients (P = 0.020).

CONCLUSIONS

The number of post-TAVR reoperations is increasing and represent a high-risk population. Yet even in isolated SAVR cases, SAVR after TAVR is independently associated with increased risk of mortality. Patients with life expectancy beyond a TAVR valve and unsuitable anatomy for redo-TAVR should consider a SAVR-first approach.