Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

A 20-year journey in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Evolution to current eminence

Since the first groundbreaking procedure in 2002, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionized the management of aortic stenosis (AS). Through striking developments in pertinent equipment and techniques, TAVI has now become the leading therapeutic strategy for aortic valve replacement in patients with severe symptomatic AS. The procedure streamlining from routine use of conscious sedation to a single arterial access approach, the newly adapted implantation techniques, and the introduction of novel technologies such as intravascular lithotripsy and the refinement of valve-bioprosthesis devices along with the accumulating experience have resulted in a dramatic reduction of complications and have improved associated outcomes that are now considered comparable or even superior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). These advances have opened the road to the use of TAVI in younger and lower-risk patients and up-to-date data from landmark studies have now established the outstanding efficacy and safety of TAVI in patients with low-surgical risk impelling the most recent ESC guidelines to propose TAVI, as the main therapeutic strategy for patients with AS aged 75 years or older. In this article, we aim to summarize the most recent advances and the current clinical aspects involving the use of TAVI, and we also attempt to highlight impending concerns that need to be further addressed.

A Meta-Analysis on the Impact of High BMI in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

A paradoxical association of obesity with lower risk of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) outcomes has been reported. We aimed to systematically review the literature and compare TAVR-related morbidity and mortality among individuals with overweight or obesity and their peers with normal body mass index (BMI).

METHODS

PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched for studies reporting TAVR outcomes in different BMI groups. Separate meta-analyses were conducted for studies reporting hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratios/relative risks. Short- and mid-/long-term outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

26 studies with a total of 74,163 patients were included in our study. Overweight was associated with lower risk of short-term mortality (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.60-0.98) and mid-/long-term mortality (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.70-0.89). Obesity was associated with lower risk for mid-/long-term mortality (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.73-0.86), but no difference was observed in short-term mortality, although a trend was noted (HR: 0.87l 95% CI: 0.74-1.01). Individuals with obesity demonstrated an association with higher odds of major vascular complications (OR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.05-1.68). Both overweight (OR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.03-1.30) and obesity (OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.06-1.50) were associated with higher likelihood for receiving permanent pacemakers after TAVR.

CONCLUSION

Individuals with overweight and obesity were associated with lower mortality risk compared to those with normal BMI but with higher likelihood of major vascular complications and permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVR.

Prosthetic Valve Function after Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis by Transcatheter Procedure versus Surgery

Background This study compared the clinical outcomes of transcatheter (TAVR) and surgical (SAVR) aortic valve replacements, focusing on postoperative valvular performance assessed by echocardiography. Method and Results A total of 425 patients who underwent TAVR (230 patients) or SAVR (195 patients) were included. Postoperative effective orifice area index (EOAI) was higher in the TAVR group (1.27 ± 0.35 cm2/m2) than in the SAVR group (1.06 ± 0.27 cm2/m2, p < 0.001), and patient−prosthesis mismatch (PPM) was more frequent in the SAVR group (22.6%) than in the TAVR group (8.7%, p < 0.001). Mild or greater paravalvular leakage (PVL) was more frequent in the TAVR group (21.3%) than in the SAVR group (0%, p < 0.001). Moreover, there was no difference in freedom from all-cause death, stroke, or rehospitalization between the groups. Patients with moderate or greater PPM (EOAI < 0.85 cm2/m2) had lower freedom from composite events than those without this PPM criterion (p = 0.008). Patients with mild or greater PVL also had lower freedom from composite events than those without this PVL criterion (p = 0.017). Conclusions Postoperative valvular performance of TAVR was superior to that of SAVR in terms of EOAI. This merit was counterbalanced by the significantly lower rates of PVL in patients who underwent SAVR. The overall clinical outcomes were similar between the study groups.

Late Outcomes of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After TAVR: Meta-analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data

Background

Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is relatively frequent, and its impact on outcomes during follow-up remains a matter of discussion. Previous meta-analyses have yielded conflicting results.

Methods

To compare late outcomes in patients after TAVR with and without PPI, PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for studies that reported rates of mortality/survival, rehospitalization for heart failure (HF), stroke, and/or endocarditis accompanied by at least 1 Kaplan-Meier curve for any of these outcomes. We adopted a 2-stage approach to reconstruct individual patient data on the basis of the published Kaplan-Meier graphs.

Results

Twenty-eight studies with Kaplan-Meier curves met our eligibility criteria and included a total of 50,282 patients (7232 who underwent PPI and 42,959 who did not undergo PPI). Patients who underwent PPI after TAVR had a significantly higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.21; 95% CI, 1.14-1.28; P < .001) and HF-related rehospitalization (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.17-1.45; P < .001) over time. We did not observe statistically significant differences in the incidence of stroke (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.55-2.08; P = .849) and endocarditis (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.61-1.57; P = .925) during follow-up.

Conclusions

Patients who undergo PPI after TAVR experience higher risk of mortality and HF-related rehospitalization over time. These findings provide support for the implementation of procedural strategies to prevent heart conduction disorder and, thus, avoid PPI at the time of TAVR.

Real-world experience with the cusp-overlap deployment technique in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A propensity-matched analysis

Background

The implantation depth (ID) is a critical condition for optimal hemodynamic and clinical outcomes in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The recently recommended cusp-overlap technique (COT) offers optimized fluoroscopic projections facilitating a precise ID. This single-center observational study aimed to investigate short-term clinical performance, safety, and efficacy outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR with self-expandable prostheses and application of COT in a real-world setting.

Materials and methods

From September 2020 to April 2021, a total of 170 patients underwent TAVR with self-expandable devices and the application of COT, while 589 patients were treated from January 2016 to August 2020 with a conventional three-cusp coplanar view approach. The final ID and 30-day outcomes were compared after 1:1 propensity score matching, resulting in 150 patients in both cohorts.

Results

The mean ID was significantly reduced in the COT cohort (−4.2 ± 2.7 vs. −4.9 ± 2.3 mm; p = 0.007) with an improvement of ID symmetry of less than 2 mm difference below the annular plane (47.3 vs. 57.3%; p = 0.083). The rate of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) following TAVR was effectively reduced (8.0 vs. 16.8%; p = 0.028). While the fluoroscopy time decreased (18.4 ± 7.6 vs. 19.8 ± 7.6 min; p = 0.023), the dose area product increased in the COT group (4951 ± 3662 vs. 3875 ± 2775 Gy × cm²; p = 0.005). Patients implanted with COT had a shorter length of in-hospital stay (8.4 ± 4.0 vs. 10.3 ± 6.7 days; p = 0.007).

Conclusion

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using the cusp-overlap deployment technique is associated with an optimized implantation depth, leading to fewer permanent conduction disturbances. However, our in-depth analysis showed for the first time an increase of radiation dose due to extreme angulations of the gantry to obtain the cusp-overlap view.

Initial experience with repositionable J-Valve for severe aortic regurgitation: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of treating high-risk patients presenting with severe aortic regurgitation (AR) or aortic stenosis (AS) using transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

METHODS

This retrospective study included 290 consecutive patients with symptomatic severe aortic regurgitation or aortic stenosis. All patients who underwent TAVR with J-Valve (Med Tech College LLC, Fort Wayne, IN, USA) at our institution between March 2014 and July 2019. Preoperative demographic data, clinical and echocardiographic parameters, procedural parameters, postoperative clinical outcomes, and echocardiographic parameters were recorded retrospectively.

RESULTS

The study included a total of 290 participants. 161 patients had severe aortic regurgitation and 129 patients had severe aortic stenosis. The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. The device success rate was high for both aortic regurgitation and aortic stenosis groups (95.0% vs. 93.0%, P=0.47). All-cause mortality of both groups was similar at 30 days (1.9% vs. 3.9%, P=0.48). Patients treated for aortic regurgitation had a higher incidence of pacemaker implantation compared to the aortic stenosis group (8.3% vs. 0.8%, P<0.01) at 30 days postoperation. There was no significant difference between the groups in moderate or severe paravalvular leakage (1.9% vs. 0, P=0.13). The use of larger prostheses was more common in the aortic regurgitation group compared to the aortic stenosis group (66.5% vs. 13.2%, P<0.01). Mean pressure gradient was lower in the aortic stenosis group (8.5±2.9 vs. 12.9±6.6, P<0.01), but structural valve deterioration was more common in the aortic stenosis group (9.7% vs. 0, P<0.01) at 30 days postop.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we found that the prognosis of patients with aortic regurgitation is comparable to that of patients with aortic stenosis after TAVR with J-valve. For patients with severe aortic regurgitation or aortic stenosis, TAVR is an effective therapeutic option. Pacemaker rate in the aortic regurgitation group was higher, but structural valve deterioration was more common in aortic stenosis patients.

Multi-Center Comparison of Two Self-Expanding Transcatheter Heart Valves: A Propensity Matched Analysis

Background: During the last years, several transcatheter aortic heart valves entered the clinical market and are commercially available. The prostheses differ regarding several technical and functional aspects. However, little is known regarding head-to-head comparative data of the ACURATE neo and the PORTICO valve prostheses. Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare two self-expanding transcatheter aortic heart valves (THV), the ACURATE neo and the PORTICO, with regard to in-hospital and 30-day outcomes, as well as early device failures. Methods: A total of 1591 consecutive patients with severe native aortic valve stenosis from two centers were included in the analyses and matched by 1:1 nearest neighbor matching to identify one patient treated with PORTICO (n = 344) for each patient treated with ACURATE neo (n = 344). Results: In-hospital complications were comparable between both valves, including any kind of stroke (ACURATE neo = 3.5% vs. PORTICO = 3.8%; p = 1.0), major vascular complications (ACURATE neo = 4.5% vs. PORTICO = 5.4%; p = 0.99) or life-threatening bleeding (ACURATE neo = 1% vs. PORTICO = 2%; p = 0.68). The rate of device failure defined by the VARC-2 criteria were comparable, including elevated gradients and moderate-to-severe paravalvular leakage (ACURATE neo = 7.3% vs. PORTICO = 7.6%; p = 1.0). However, the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) was significantly more frequent after the use of PORTICO THV (9.5% vs. 18.7%; p = 0.002). Conclusions: In this two-center case-matched comparison, short-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes showed comparable results between PORTICO and ACURATE neo prostheses. However, PORTICO was associated with a significant higher incidence of PPI.

Mid- to Long-Term Clinical and Echocardiographic Effects of Post-procedural Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Aims

To date, the prognostic effects of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remain controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the mid- (1 year) to long-term (> 1 year) clinical and echocardiographic effects of post-procedural PPI in patients after TAVR.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched from the establishment of databases up to 1 December 2021. Studies comparing clinical and echocardiographic outcomes between patients with and without post-TAVR PPI of ≥ 1-year follow-up were collected for further meta-analysis.

Results

A total of 39 studies comprising of 83,082 patients were included in this meta-analysis. At mid-term follow-up (1 year), the pooled results demonstrated a higher risk of all-cause mortality in patients with post-procedural PPI than those without following TAVR (relative risk (RR), 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10–1.24; P < 0.00001). No significant differences were observed in cardiovascular mortality (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.71–1.03; P = 0.10) or heart failure rehospitalization (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.58–1.44; P = 0.69) at 1-year follow-up. At long-term follow-up (> 1 year), post-TAVR PPI had negative effects on all-cause mortality (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.09–1.28; P < 0.0001) and heart failure rehospitalization (RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.18–1.71; P = 0.0002). There was no difference in long-term cardiovascular mortality between the two groups (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.97–1.36; P = 0.11). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was not significantly different at baseline (mean difference, 1.40; 95% CI, –0.13–2.93; P = 0.07), but was significantly lower in the PPI group at 1-year follow-up (mean difference, –3.57; 95% CI, –4.88 to –2.26; P < 0.00001).

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis provides evidence that post-TAVR PPI has negative clinical and echocardiographic effects on patients at mid- to long-term follow-up. Further studies are urgently needed to explore the cause of these complications and optimize the treatment and management of patients requiring permanent pacing after TAVR.

Systematic Review Registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021289935], identifier [CRD42021289935].

Patient-Specific Computer Simulation to Predict Conduction Disturbance With Current-Generation Self-Expanding Transcatheter Heart Valves

Background

Patient-specific computer simulation may predict the development of conduction disturbance following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Validation of the computer simulations with current-generation devices has not been undertaken.

Methods

A retrospective study was performed on patients who had undergone TAVR with a current-generation self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (THV). Preprocedural computed tomography imaging was used to create finite element models of the aortic root. Procedural contrast angiography was reviewed, and finite element analysis performed using a matching THV device size and implantation depth. A region of interest corresponding to the atrioventricular bundle and proximal left bundle branch was identified. The percentage of this area (contact pressure index [CPI]) and maximum contact pressure (CPMax) exerted by THV were recorded. Postprocedural electrocardiograms were reviewed, and major conduction disturbance was defined as the development of persistent left bundle branch block or high-degree atrioventricular block.

Results

A total of 80 patients were included in the study. THVs were 23- to 29-mm Evolut PRO (n = 53) and 34-mm Evolut R (n = 27). Major conduction disturbance occurred in 27 patients (33.8%). CPI (28.3 ± 15.8 vs. 15.6 ± 11.2%; p < 0.001) and CPMax (0.51 ± 0.20 vs. 0.36 ± 0.24 MPa; p = 0.008) were higher in patients who developed major conduction disturbance. CPI (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.86; p < 0.001) and CPMax (AUC, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57-0.81; p = 0.006) demonstrated a discriminatory power to predict the development of major conduction disturbance.

Conclusions

Patient-specific computer simulation may identify patients at risk for conduction disturbance after TAVR with current-generation self-expanding THVs.

Early versus late discharge after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and readmissions for permanent pacemaker implantation

OBJECTIVE

To examine the rate of readmission for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation with early versus late discharge after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

BACKGROUND

There is a current trend toward early discharge after TAVR. However, paucity of data exists on the impact of such practice on readmissions for PPM implantation.

METHODS

The Nationwide Readmission Database 2016-2018 was queried for all hospitalizations where patients underwent TAVR. Hospitalizations were stratified into early (Days 0 and 1) versus late (≥Day 2) discharge groups. Observations in which PPM was required in the index admission were excluded. Multivariable regression analyses involving patient- and hospital-related variables were utilized. The primary outcome was 90-day readmission for PPM implantation.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 68,482 TAVR hospitalizations, 20,261 (29.6%) with early versus 48,221 (70.4%) with late discharge. Early discharge after TAVR increased over the study period (16.2% in 2016 vs. 37.9% in 2018, P_trend  < 0.01). Nevertheless, 90-day readmission for PPM implantation remained stable (1.8% in 2016 vs. 2.0% in 2018, P_trend  = 0.32). The 90-day readmission rate for PPM implantation (2.0% vs. 1.8%; adjusted odds ratio: 1.15; 95% confidence interval: 0.95-1.39; p = 0.15) and median time-to-readmission (5 days [interquartile range, IQR 3-9] vs. 5 days [IQR 3-14], p = 0.92) were similar with early versus late discharge. Similar rates were observed regardless of whether readmission was elective versus not. Early discharge was associated with lower hospitalization cost ($39,990 ± $13,681 vs. $46,750 ± $18,218, p < 0.01) compared with late discharge.

CONCLUSION

In patients who did not require PPM during the index TAVR hospitalization, the rate of readmission for PPM implantation was similar with early versus late discharge.

Center Valve Preference and Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From the AMTRAC Registry

BACKGROUND

Data on outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using balloon-expandable valves (BEVs) or self-expandable valves (SEVs) as well as the impact of center valve preference on these outcomes are limited.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of TAVR procedures using third-generation BEVs and SEVs stratified by center valve preference.

METHODS

In a multicenter registry (n = 17), 13 centers exhibited valve preference (66.6%-90% of volume) and were included. Outcomes were compared between BEVs and SEVs stratified by center valve preference.

RESULTS

In total, 7,528 TAVR procedures (3,854 with SEVs and 3,674 with BEVs) were included. The mean age was 81 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 5.2. Baseline characteristics were similar between BEVs and SEVs. Need for pacemaker implantation was higher with SEVs at BEV- and SEV-dominant centers (17.8% vs 9.3% [P < 0.001] and 12.7% vs 10.0% [P = 0.036], respectively; HR: 1.51; P for interaction = 0.021), risk for cerebrovascular accident was higher with SEVs at BEV-dominant but not SEV-dominant centers (3.6% vs 1.1% [P < 0.001] and 2.2% vs 1.4% [P = 0.162]; HR: 2.08; P for interaction < 0.01). Aortic regurgitation greater than mild was more frequent with SEVs at BEV-dominant centers and similar with BEVs regardless of center dominance (5.2% vs 2.8% [P < 0.001] and 3.4% vs 3.7% [P = 0.504], respectively). Two-year mortality was higher with SEVs at BEV-dominant centers but not at SEV-dominant centers (21.9% vs 16.9% [P = 0.021] and 16.8% vs 16.5% [P = 0.642], respectively; HR: 1.20; P for interaction = 0.032).

CONCLUSIONS

Periprocedural outcomes, aortic regurgitation greater than mild, and 2-year mortality are worse when TAVR is performed using SEVs at BEV-dominant centers. Outcomes are similar regardless of valve type at SEV-dominant centers. The present results stress the need to account for this factor when comparing BEV and SEV outcomes. (The Aortic+Mitral Transcatheter [AMTRAC] Valve Registry; NCT04031274).

Pacing Burden and Clinical Outcomes Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement - A Real-World Registry Report

INTRODUCTION

Conflicting data exists regarding the prognostic significance of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation following TAVR.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate whether PPM implantation post TAVR is associated with adverse outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a cohort comprised of patients enrolled to a prospective registry between 2008-2019. Participants were allocated into three groups: patients without prior pacemaker (n=930, 75%), patients with previous pacemaker implantation (n=118, 10%) and those with pacemaker implantation following TAVR (n=191, 15%). Primary outcome included death and heart failure hospitalizations at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included death and heart failure hospitalizations stratified by pacing burden.

RESULTS

A total of 1239 patients underwent TAVR with median follow up of 2.3 years (IQR 1-4). Patients with previous and new pacemaker implantation were older [84 (80-88), 84 (80-88), 82 (78-86), p-0.009)], and had lower baseline LVEF (50%±15%, 55%±12%, 56%±12%, p<0.001). Patients who underwent new pacemaker implantations had higher combined outcome of death and heart failure hospitalizations (21%,12% ,14%, p-0.01). New pacemaker implantation was associated with almost twice the risk of 1-year mortality (HR-1.85, 95% C.I 1.13-3.02, p-0.014). Pacing burden, however, was not associated with the primary outcome. Furthermore, no significant difference was observed at long term follow up [cumulative probability to develop primary endpoint at 3 years was 57%±2% (without PPM), 57%±6% (prior PPM), 54%±4% (new PPM), p-0.52].

CONCLUSION

Pacemaker implantation following TAVR is associated with higher 1-year adverse outcome, but this attenuates over time, suggesting that competing factors may play a role. Interestingly, pacing burden is not associated with adverse clinical course.

Predicting Permanent Pacemaker Implantation following Trans-catheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Contemporary Meta-Analysis of 981,168 patients

Background

Heart block requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is a relatively frequent complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

Objective

The purpose of this study was to perform a contemporary meta-analysis to provide an updated assessment of clinically useful predictors of PPM implantation post-TAVR.

Methods

Medline and EMBASE searches were performed to include all studies reporting PPM post-TAVR between 2015 and 2020. Pertinent data were extracted from the studies for further analysis. RevMan was used to create forest plots and calculate risk ratios (RRs).

Results

We evaluated 41 variables from 239 studies with a total of 981,168 patients. From this cohort, 17.4% received a PPM following TAVR. Strong predictors for PPM implant were right bundle branch block (RBBB) (RR 3.12; P <.001) and bifascicular block (RR 2.40; P = .002). Intermediate factors were chronic kidney disease (CKD) (RR 1.53; P <.0001) and first-degree atrioventricular block (FDAVB) (RR 1.44; P <.001). Weak factors (RR 1–1.50; P <.05) were male gender, age ≥80 years, body mass index ≥25, diabetes mellitus (DM), atrial fibrillation (AF), and left anterior fascicular block (LAFB). These factors along with increased left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) area (>435 mm²) and/or aortic annulus diameter (>24.4 mm) were incorporated to propose a new scoring system to stratify patients into high- and low-risk groups.

Conclusion

Male gender, age ≥80 years, FDAVB, RBBB, AF, DM, CKD, Medtronic CoreValve, transfemoral TAVR, increased LVOT, and aortic annulus diameter were significant predictors of post-TAVR PPM implantation. Preprocedural assessment should consider these factors to guide clinical decision-making before TAVR. Validation of our scoring system is warranted.

Safety of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Aortic Aneurysm: A Propensity-Matched Analysis

Introduction

There is a paucity of data regarding the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) among patients with thoracic or abdominal aortic aneurysms (AA). Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database, we explored the safety of TAVR among patients with a diagnosis of AA.

Methods

We queried the National Inpatient Sample database (2012–2017) for hospitalized patients undergoing TAVR, using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes for endovascular TAVR. Reports show that > 95% of endovascular TAVR in the US is via transfemoral access, so our population are mostly patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR. Using propensity score matching, we compared the trends and outcomes of TAVR procedures among patients with versus without AA.

Results

From a total sample of 29,517 individuals who had TAVR procedures between January 2012 and December 2017, 910 had a diagnosis of AA. In 774 matched-pair analysis, all-cause in-hospital mortality was similar in patients with and without AA OR 0.63 [(95% CI 0.28–1.43), p = 0.20]. The median length of stay was higher in patients with AA: 4 days (IQR 2.0–7.0) versus 3 days (IQR 2.0–6.0) p = 0.01. Risk of AKI [OR 1.01 (0.73–1.39), p = 0.87], heart block requiring pacemaker placement [OR 1.17 (0.81–1.69), p = 0.40], aortic dissection [OR 2.38 (0.41–13.75), p = 0.25], acute limb ischemia [OR 0.46 (0.18–1.16), p = 0.09], vascular complications [OR 0.80 (0.34–1.89), p = 0.53], post-op bleeding [OR 1.12 (0.81–1.57), p = 0.42], blood transfusion [OR 1.20 (0.84–1.70), p = 0.26], and stroke [OR 0.58 (0.24–1.39), p = 0.25] were similar in those with and without AA.

Conclusions

Data from a large nationwide database demonstrated that patients with AA undergoing TAVR are associated with similar in-hospital outcomes compared with patients without AA.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40119-022-00258-6.

[Aortic stenosis: An update]

Aortic stenosis remains one of the most frequent valvulopathy worldwide, burdened with great mortality and morbidity, and for which there is not yet an effective preventive approach, although the pathophysiological mechanisms involved in its development are better understood nowadays. Its cure, however, has been revolutionized in the last decade by the advent of transcatheter aortic valve implantation, or TAVI (also named transcatheter aortic valve replacement or TAVR). The technique of TAVI has been refined and its indications has been extended, following the publication of large randomized controlled trials where it was compared to surgical aortic valve replacement with favorable results. Consequently, transfemoral TAVR has become the first line of treatment in case of symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis. In this review, we describe the pathophysiological mechanisms leading to severe aortic stenosis and the main ongoing randomized controlled trials targeting them. We describe the indication for surgical or percutaneous aortic valve replacement and the main complications following the procedure.

Long-term clinical impact of permanent pacemaker implantation in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims

The aims of this study is to assess by an updated meta-analysis the clinical outcomes related to permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) at long-term (≥12 months) follow-up (LTF).

Methods and results

A comprehensive literature research was performed on PubMed and EMBASE. The primary endpoint was all-cause death. Secondary endpoints were rehospitalization for heart failure, stroke, and myocardial infarction. A subgroup analysis was performed according to the Society of Thoracic Surgeon—Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) score. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021243301). A total of 51 069 patients undergoing TAVI from 31 observational studies were included. The mean duration of follow-up was 22 months. At LTF, PPI post-TAVI was associated with a higher risk of all-cause death [risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10–1.25; P < 0.001] and rehospitalization for heart failure (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.13–1.52; P < 0.001). In contrast, the risks of stroke and myocardial infarction were not affected. Among the 20 studies that reported procedural risk, the association between PPI and all-cause death risk at LTF was statistically significant only in studies enrolling patients with high STS-PROM score (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.12–1.40), although there was a similar tendency of the results in those at medium and low risk.

Conclusion

Patients necessitating PPI after TAVI have a higher long-term risk of all-cause death and rehospitalization for heart failure as compared to those who do not receive PPI.

The conjunction conundrum in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

A continuous discussion regarding the predictors for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is ongoing, especially in the era of low and medium risk patients. The aim of this article is to review the data so far regarding the pathophysiology, risk factors, and the indications for permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVI. The factors that contribute to rhythm abnormalities post TAVI can be divided into pre-existing conduction abnormalities, patient-related anatomical factors, and peri-procedural technical factors. The latter components are potentially modifiable, and this is where attention should be directed, particularly now that in an era of TAVI expansion towards lower-risk patients.

One-year outcome after transcatheter aortic valve replacement for aortic regurgitation: A single-center study

BACKGROUND

Presently, there are limited reports in the literature on the postoperative (midterm) clinical outcome for pure aortic regurgitation (AR) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

METHODS

Between March 2014 and June 2019, a total of 134 high-risk patients with pure, symptomatic severe AR patients were enrolled in the current study. The outcome was assessed according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. Procedural results, clinical outcomes, and the patients' hemodynamics for a period of 1 year were analyzed.

RESULTS

The patient mean was 73.1 ± 6.4 years and 25.4% were female. The average Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 9.8 ± 5.3%. Procedural success was 97.1% (130/134), and the device success rate was 96.3% (129/134). Five cases were converted to open surgery, while two patients underwent valvular reinterventions (surgical aortic valve replacement for thrombosis and increasing paravalvular regurgitation). The mean aortic valve gradient was 10.2 ± 4.1 mmHg, while the moderate and severe AR was 1.6% at 1 year. Paravalvular regurgitation was none/trivial in 79.8% and mild in 18.5%. The 1-year all-cause mortality rate was 7.4%. At 1 year, the stroke incidence rate was 2.2%, and a pacemaker was implanted in 8.9% of the enrolled patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In high-risk patients undergoing transapical TAVR for AR, the use of the J-Valve is safe, and effective TAVR should be considered as a reasonable option for high-risk patients with pure AR.

Dependence on permanent pacemakers inserted after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: predictive factors in a ten-year retrospective analysis: Rates and predictors of pacemaker dependence after TAVI

AIMS

The requirement for a permanent pacemaker (PPM) is an important sequela after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The aim of this analysis was to identify predictive factors for pacemaker dependence in PPM-insertions post-TAVI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A retrospective analysis of all PPM insertions done between January 2009 and December 2018 (n=1,373) identified 33 patients who received a PPM within one month of TAVI. Thirty-two had completed a PPM check at one year and were included in the final analyses. Of those who had PPM insertions after TAVI, 41% (13/32) were not PPM-dependent at one year. This cohort was predominantly European (94%) and over half were octogenerians (56%). Statistically significant associations with being PPM-dependent at one year include intraoperative PPM dependence (OR 5.714 [95% CI: 1.163-28.070]; p=0.032), third-degree heart block being the indication for PPM insertion (OR 8.533 [95% CI: 1.616-45.063]; p=0.012) and mean valve depth over 6.0 mm (OR 6.222 [95% CI: 1.200-32.273]; p=0.030).

CONCLUSIONS

A significant number of patients are not dependent on the PPMs inserted after TAVI. Although small, our study suggests that those who are pacing-dependent intraoperatively, have a third-degree heart block as their PPM indication or have a mean valve depth of over 6.0 mm, are more likely to be pacing-dependent in the long term. Larger studies are required to draw more definitive conclusions.

Predictors for the risk of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a less invasive treatment than surgery for severe aortic stenosis. However, its use is restricted by the fact that many patients eventually require permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI). This meta-analysis was performed to identify predictors of post-TAVR PPMI.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched. Relevant studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in the pooling analysis after quality assessment.

RESULTS

After pooling 67 studies on post-TAVR PPMI risk in 97,294 patients, balloon-expandable valve use was negatively correlated with PPMI risk compared with self-expandable valve (SEV) use (odds ratio [OR]: 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37-0.53). Meta-regression analysis revealed that history of coronary artery bypass grafting and higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score increased the risk of PPMI with SEV utilization. Patients with pre-existing cardiac conduction abnormalities in 28 pooled studies also had a higher risk of PPMI (OR: 2.33, 95% CI: 1.90-2.86). Right bundle branch block (OR: 5.2, 95% CI: 4.37-6.18) and first-degree atrioventricular block (OR: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.38-2.79) also increased PPMI risk. Although the trans-femoral approach was positively correlated with PPMI risk, the trans-apical pathway showed no statistical difference to the trans-femoral pathway. The approach did not increase PPMI risk in patients with STS scores >8. Patient-prosthesis mismatch did not influence post-TAVR PPMI risk (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.67-1.16). We also analyzed implantation depth and found no difference between patients with PPMI after TAVR and those without.

CONCLUSIONS

SEV selection, pre-existing cardiac conduction abnormality, and trans-femoral pathway selection are positively correlated with PPMI after TAVR. Pre-existing left bundle branch block, patient-prosthesis mismatch, and implantation depth did not affect the risk of PPMI after TAVR.

Conduction Disturbances and Pacing in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Conduction disturbances (CDs) after transcatheter artic replacement remain a clinical concern and relatively common complication. A recent meta-analysis showed both new-onset persistent left bundle branch block and new permanent pacemaker implantation were related to all-cause death with risk ratio 1.32 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17 to 1.49; P<.001) and 1.17 (95% CI 1.11-1.25; P<.001) at 1 year, respectively. Preprocedural computed tomography imaging can highlight potential risk factors for CDs, such as membranous septum length, device landing zone calcium, and the annulus size/degree of device oversizing.

The atrioventricular conduction axis and the aortic root-Inferences for transcatheter replacement of the aortic valve

Conduction problems still occur following transcatheter aortic valvar replacement. With this in mind, we have assessed the relationship of the conduction axis to the aortic root. We used serial histological sections, made perpendicular to the base of the triangle of Koch in nine hearts, and perpendicular to the aortic root in 11 hearts. We first defined the extent of the fibrous tissues forming the boundaries of an infero-septal recess of the subaortic outflow tract, found in all datasets but one. When the recess was present, the axis penetrated through its rightward wall, giving rise to the left bundle branch prior to entering the outflow tract. The axis itself was usually on the crest of the ventricular septum, but could be deviated leftward or rightward. Its proximity to the virtual basal plane reflected the angulation of the muscular septum. On average, the superior edge of the left bundle was within 3.3 mm of the hinge of the right coronary leaflet, with a range from 0.4 to 10.2 mm. The arrangement was markedly different in the case lacking an infero-septal recess. Our findings necessitated a redefinition of the right fibrous trigone and the central fibrous body. The atrioventricular conduction axis, having entered the aortic root, is usually closest at the hinge of the right coronary leaflet. Knowledge of the depth of the infero-septal recess, and the angulation of the muscular ventricular septal, may help to avoid conduction problems following transcatheter implantation of the aortic valve.

Next-Day Discharge vs Early Discharge After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

With the growing utilization of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as an alternative option to surgical valve replacement (SAVR) in patients considered to be suboptimal for surgery, there is a need to explore the possibility of next day discharge (NDD) and its potential outcomes. The aim of our study is to compare outcomes and complications following NDD vs the standard early discharge (ED) (less than 3 days). A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane to identify relevant trials. Summary effects were calculated using a DerSimonian and Laird random effects model as odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals for all the clinical endpoints. Studies comparing same-day or next-day discharge vs discharge within the next three days were included in our analysis. 6 studies with 2,672 patients were identified. The risk of bleeding and vascular complications was significantly lower in patients with NDD compared to ED (OR 0.10, P < 0.00001 and OR 0.22, P = 0.002 respectively). The incidence of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implants was significantly lower in patients who had NDD compared to ED (OR 0.21, P = 0.0005). The incidence of 30 day mortality, stroke, AKI and readmission rates was not different between the two groups. NDD after TAVR allows for reduction in hospital stay and can mitigate hospital costs without an increased risk of complications. Our analysis shows that complication rate is comparable to ED, NDD is a reasonable option for certain patients with severe aortic stenosis who undergo TAVR. Further studies are needed to elucidate whether higher risk patients who would benefit from an extended inpatient monitoring post TAVR.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Self-Expandable Supra-Annular Valves for Degenerated Surgical Bioprostheses: Insights From Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with supra‐annular transcatheter heart valves has been adopted in patients with degenerated surgical aortic valves. The next generation self‐expanding Evolut PRO valve has not been evaluated in patients with surgical valve failure.

Methods and Results

Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in degenerated surgical aortic valve procedures using the Evolut R or Evolut PRO transcatheter heart valves in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry between April 2015 and June 2019 were evaluated. Transcatheter valve performance was evaluated by clinical site echocardiography. In‐hospital, 30‐day, and 1‐year clinical outcomes were based on the Society of Thoracic Surgeons‐American College of Cardiology‐Transcatheter Valve Therapy registry definitions. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in degenerated surgical aortic valve was performed in 5897 patients (5061 [85.8%] patients received the Evolut R valve and 836 [14.2%] received the Evolut PRO valve). Thirty‐day transcatheter heart valves hemodynamic performance was excellent in both groups (mean gradient: Evolut PRO: 13.8±7.5 mm Hg; Evolut R: 14.5±8.1 mm Hg), while paravalvular regurgitation was significantly different between valve types (P=0.02). Clinical events were low at 30 days (Evolut PRO: for the all‐cause mortality, 2.8%, any stroke was 1.8%, new pacemaker implantation, 3.0%: Evolut R:all‐cause mortality, 2.5%, any stroke was 2.2%, new pacemaker implantation, 5.3%) and 1 year (Evolut PRO: all‐cause mortality, 9.2%; any stroke, 3.1%; Evolut R: all‐cause mortality, 9.8%; any stroke, 2.9%).

Conclusions

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in degenerated surgical aortic valve with self‐expandable supra‐annular transcatheter heart valves is associated with excellent clinical outcomes and valve hemodynamics. Additional reductions in residual paravalvular regurgitation were obtained with the next generation Evolut PRO.

Initial in-human experience with the conveyor cardiovascular system for the delivery of large profile transcatheter valve devices

OBJECTIVES

To determine the safety and efficacy of the conveyor cardiovascular system (CCS) to facilitate the delivery of large profile transcatheter valve devices.

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter valve devices rely on force provided by the operator to be delivered to their intended position. This delivery may be challenging in a variety of anatomic scenarios. The ability to provide steering from the tip of the device by forming an arterial venous loop may help overcome these challenges.

METHODS

Between May, 2019 and October, 2020, five patients were recruited for delivery of transcatheter valve devices with the CCS. These patients were deemed by the operators to have challenging anatomy which could make conventional valve delivery difficult or impossible. These patients were recruited as part of an FDA approved early feasibility study or through an institutional review board approved compassionate use protocol.

RESULTS

Three patients underwent transcatheter mitral valve replacement with a SAPIEN-3 valve. One patient each underwent transcatheter aortic valve (TAVR) implantation with a SAPIEN 3 and 1 patient underwent TAVR implantation with a Lotus valve. All patients underwent successful implantation of the valve and removal of the CCS and valve delivery systems. There was no more than trivial mitral regurgitation post procedure in any patient and there was no more than trivial paravavular leak. There were no major in-hospital complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The CCS facilitates the delivery of large profile transcatheter valve devices in challenging anatomic scenarios. Further studies are needed with additional valve technologies.

Incidence, predictors, and clinical outcomes of permanent pacemaker insertion following transcatheter aortic valve implantation in an Arab population

PURPOSE

Conduction defects requiring permanent pacemaker insertion (PPI) are one of the most common complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The purpose of this study was to identify the incidence and predictors of this complication as well as to assess clinical outcomes of patients requiring PPI after TAVI in an Arab population.

METHODS

In this single-center, retrospective cohort analysis, all patients who underwent TAVI from 2010 to 2018 were reviewed; seventy-four independent variables were collected per patient, and multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors. In-hospital outcomes were examined as well as 30-day and 1-year endpoints as defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2.

RESULTS

There were 48 of 170 patients (28.2%) who required PPI within 30 days of TAVI. The median time from TAVI to PPI was 2 days (interquartile range: 0 to 5 days). Positive predictors of 30-day PPI were prior right bundle branch block (odds ratio [OR]: 4.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37 to 0.79; p < 0.001), post-procedural development of new right bundle branch block (OR: 3.59; 95% CI: 1.07 to 12.03; p = 0.038), post-procedural development of new left bundle branch block (LBBB) (OR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.21 to 2.84; p = 0.005), post-procedural prolongation of PR interval (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.02; p < 0.001), and post-procedural QRS duration (OR: 1.01; 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.03; p = 0.02). However, post-procedural development of new LBBB no longer remained a significant predictor of PPI after excluding six patients with LBBB who underwent prophylactic PPI (p = 0.093). Negative predictors of 30-day PPI were the presence of diabetes (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 037 to 0.79; p = 0.001), the use of prosthesis size 29 compared to 23 (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.87; p = 0.010), and the use of prosthesis size 26 compared to 23 (OR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.50; p < 0.001). PPI was associated with longer median hospital stay, but the result was borderline significant after multivariate adjustment (19 vs. 14 days; p = 0.052). There was no statistically significant difference in 30-day and 1-year clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

One-third of patients required PPI after TAVI. Several risk factors can identify patients at risk for PPI particularly pre-existing right bundle branch block. Further studies are needed to assess the association between PPI and negative clinical outcomes.

Predictors of pacemaker implantation after TAVI in a registry including self, balloon and mechanical expandable valves

The need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI) is a burdensome complication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The aim of our study was to evaluate different anatomical, clinical, electrocardiographic, and procedural variables associated with the development of conduction abnormalities after TAVI across the entire device spectrum. Single-center prospective cohort of consecutive patients who underwent TAVI since March 2017. Final cohort was studied to detect areas of calcium within aortic valve characterized by leaflet sector and region. Membranous septum (MS) length was assessed throughout a modified coronal view. Device selection and positioning were performed according to the operator criteria. Device selection and positioning were performed according to the operator criteria. From the 273 patients included, 57 underwent PPMI (20.8%). Univariate analysis determined right bundle branch block (RBBB), QRS duration, MS length and calcium within LVOT of non-coronary cuspid as independent predictors. After multivariable logistic regression, both RBBB (OR 6.138; 95% CI 1.23-30.73, P = 0.027) and MS length (OR 0.259; 95% CI 0.164-0.399, P < 0.005) emerged as statistically significant. As a model, they could predict PPMI in 88.7%, independently of which valve used. Youden index analysis yielded 7.69 mm as the optimal cut-off with a negative and positive predictive value of 94.7 and 71.9%, respectively. In our experience, both RBBB pattern and short membranous septum (< 8 mm) were strongly and independently associated with new permanent pacemaker implantation, regardless of the device type. Our findings suggest that this simple evolved measure of MS length may guide device selection and implantation technique and facilitate early discharge.

Comparison of permanent pacemaker implantation rate after first and second generation of transcatheter aortic valve implantation-A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI) rates among patients undergoing Trans-catheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) with first generation (G1) versus second generation (G2) valves and the impact of PPMI on long-term mortality.

BACKGROUND

PPMI is a known adverse event after TAVI. Recently, two novel iterations of valve designs of both the balloon expandable valves (BEV) and self-expanding valves (SEV) were introduced as a second generation valves.

METHODS

All patients included in the Israeli multicenter TAVI registry were grouped according to valve type (BEV vs. SEV) and generation (G1 vs. G2). A comparison was made for clinical and outcome indices of patients undergoing TAVI with G1 and G2 in each of the valve systems.

RESULTS

A total of 1377 patients were included. The incidence of PPMI did not differ between G1-BEV versus G2-BEV (15.3% vs. 17.4%; p = 0.598) nor between G1-SEV versus G2-SEV (23.4% vs. 20.3%; p = 0.302). Depth of implantation and complete right bundle branch block were independently associated with PPMI post-TAVI in both valve systems. PPMI was not associated with an increased risk for 2-year mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of PPMI remains a relevant adverse event post-TAVI even when the newer generation valves are used. Since the predictors for PPMI are well established, a standardized approach for the management of conduction disorders is much needed.

Clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in South America: A centre-level systematic review and meta-analysis of observational data

OBJECTIVES

To estimate in-hospital and 30-day outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in South America through a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational data.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched for papers published in peer-reviewed medical journals and for abstracts presented in medical conferences of the region from 1 September 2008, through 29 June 2020, using predefined criteria. We included single-centre studies on TAVR populations with ≥10 patients from South America reporting any in-hospital or 30-day clinical outcome.

RESULTS

Fifty-five cohorts from seven countries, pooling 3001 patients, were included in a random-effects meta-analysis. Self-expandable prostheses were the most frequently implanted. Pooled estimate of procedure success by VARC2 criteria was 90.0% (95%CI 81.8%-94.7%; I² 75.0%). The pooled estimate rates of the outcomes were as follow: post-procedure moderate or severe aortic regurgitation, 9.7% (95%CI 6.0%-15.4%; I² 65.4%), in-hospital cardiac tamponade, 4.0% (95%CI 2.5%-6.6%; I² 0%), in-hospital stroke, 4.1% (95%CI 2.9%-5.7%; I² 0%), in-hospital major vascular complication, 7.8% (95%CI 5.2%-11.5%; I² 22.3%), in-hospital permanent pacemaker implantation, 19.4% (95%CI 15.9%-23.4%; I² 53.8%), in-hospital mortality, 8.0% (95%CI 6.7%-9.6%; I² 0%), and 30-day mortality, 9.7% (95%CI 7.9%-11.8%; I² 26.4%).

CONCLUSION

As compared with published international registries, the overall results of TAVR in South America seemed underrated. Significant heterogeneity was observed in procedural success, pacemaker requirement, and post-procedure moderate or severe aortic regurgitation. This study provides a real-life framework for the analysis of the performance of this technology in the region, intended to be a starting point for quality improvement.

Incidence, Predictors, and Implications of Permanent Pacemaker Requirement After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a safe and feasible alternative to surgery in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis regardless of the surgical risk. Conduction abnormalities requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation remain a common finding after TAVR due to the close proximity of the atrioventricular conduction system to the aortic root. High-grade atrioventricular block and new onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) are the most commonly reported conduction abnormalities after TAVR. The overall rate of PPM implantation after TAVR varies and is related to pre-procedural and intraprocedural factors. The available literature regarding the impact of conduction abnormalities and PPM requirement on morbidity and mortality is still conflicting. Pre-procedural conduction abnormalities such as right bundle branch block and LBBB have been linked with increased PPM implantation and mortality after TAVR. When screening patients for TAVR, heart teams should be aware of various anatomical and pathophysiological conditions that make patients more susceptible to increased risk of conduction abnormalities and PPM requirement after the procedure. This is particularly important as TAVR has been recently approved for patients with low surgical risk. The purpose of this review is to discuss the incidence, predictors, impact, and management of the various conduction abnormalities requiring PPM implantation in patients undergoing TAVR.

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: An Updated Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate early results of valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for structural valve degeneration (SVD).

BACKGROUND

ViV TAVR has been increasingly used for SVD, but it remains unknown whether it produces better or at least comparable results as redo SAVR.

METHODS

Observational studies comparing ViV TAVR and redo SAVR were identified in a systematic search of published research. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed, comparing clinical outcomes between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Twelve publications including a total of 16,207 patients (ViV TAVR, n = 8,048; redo SAVR, n = 8,159) were included from studies published from 2015 to 2020. In the pooled analysis, ViV TAVR was associated with lower rates of 30-day mortality overall (odds ratio [OR]: 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32 to 0.87; p = 0.017) and for matched populations (OR: 0.419; 95% CI: 0.278 to 0.632; p = 0.003), stroke (OR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.76; p < 0.001), permanent pacemaker implantation (OR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.22 to 2.43; p = 0.536), and major bleeding (OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.93; p = 0.034), as well as with shorter hospital stay (OR: -3.30; 95% CI: -4.52 to -2.08; p < 0.001). In contrast, ViV TAVR was associated with higher rates of myocardial infarction (OR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.23; p = 0.045) and severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (OR: 4.63; 95% CI: 3.05 to 7.03; p < 0.001). The search revealed an important lack of comparative studies with long-term results.

CONCLUSIONS

ViV TAVR is a valuable option in the treatment of patients with SVD because of its lower incidence of post-operative complications and better early survival compared with redo SAVR. However, ViV TAVR is associated with higher rates of myocardial infarction and severe patient-prosthesis mismatch.

Evaluation and Management of Heart Block After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has developed substantially since its inception. Improvements in valve design, valve deployment technologies, preprocedural imaging and increased operator experience have led to a gradual decline in length of hospitalisation after TAVR. Despite these advances, the need for permanent pacemaker implantation for post-TAVR high-degree atrioventricular block (HAVB) has persisted and has well-established risk factors which can be used to identify patients who are at high risk and advise them accordingly. While most HAVB occurs within 48 hours of the procedure, there is a growing number of patients developing HAVB after initial hospitalisation for TAVR due to the trend for early discharge from hospital. Several observation and management strategies have been proposed. This article reviews major known risk factors for HAVB after TAVR, discusses trends in the timing of HAVB after TAVR and reviews some management strategies for observing transient HAVB after TAVR.

Systemic corticosteroid exposure and atrioventricular conductance delays after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Atrioventricular conduction delays (AVCD) are common after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and frequently require implantation of a permanent pacemaker (PPM). Autopsy studies demonstrated the role of ischemia, inflammation, and oedema in the pathogenesis of AVCD. Corticosteroids (CS) reduce inflammation and oedema and hence might lead to a lower rate of AVCD.

METHODS

Based on a prospective single-center registry, we performed a propensity score (PS) matched analysis of subjects treated with or without systemic CS (>2.5 mg prednisolone-equivalent per day) at the time of TAVI. The primary endpoint was a composite of PPM-implantation and new-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) within 30 days after TAVI.

RESULTS

Among 2213 consecutive patients undergoing TAVI (51.5% female, mean age 82.1 ± 6.1 years) 89 patients were treated with systemic CS, of which 87 were included in the PS matched analysis. At 30 days, rates of the composite of PPM and LBBB were comparable between patients with versus without CS both in the overall cohort (33.7% versus 33.0%, p = 0.89) and the PS matched cohort (34.5% versus 40.2%, p = 0.443). There were no differences in a composite of major or minor vascular complications and major or life-threatening bleeding events between patients with versus without CS in the overall cohort (34.8% versus 26.6%, p = 0.088) or the PS matched cohort (33.3% versus 33.3%, p ≥ 0.999).

CONCLUSION

In this exploratory study, intake of systemic CS among patients undergoing TAVI was not associated with differences in rates of AVCD, vascular complications, or bleeding events after TAVI.

TAVI Beyond 3 Years: Durability and Predictors for Survival

The use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has greatly increased over the past 2 decades and now has overtaken surgical aortic valve replacement. We have limited data regarding the long-term durability of TAVI and the predictors of survival. Calcification, inflammation, fibrous tissue deposition, and mechanical stress are important in the structural deterioration of surgical bioprosthetic valves and likely contribute to TAVI durability. However, TAVI has several differences to surgical valve replacement such as valve preparation, valve to native anatomy interaction, and valve sizing which all likely contribute to durability and long-term survival. Most procedures have been performed on older patients and therefore long-term follow-up studies have noted mortality of approximately 50% at 5 years and 75% by 7 years. Current data are limited by the high mortality of patients who have received TAVI often as a result of age, frailty, and other competing comorbidities. TAVI as compared with surgical valve replacement is associated with several differences including higher conduction abnormalities (i.e., need for pacemakers) and paravalvular leak, both of which may affect long-term morbidity and mortality. In this review, we discuss the current status of our knowledge and identify areas that require further investigation.

Right bundle branch block is not associated with worse short- and mid-term outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the standard treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at intermediate or high surgical risk. Preexisting right bundle branch block (RBBB) is a strong predictor of new pacemaker implantation (PPM) after TAVI, and previous data indicate a worse short- and long-term outcome of patients. The aim of this study was to investigate whether preexisting RBBB has an effect on the short- and mid-term outcome of patients undergoing TAVI in a German high-volume TAVI center.

Methods

For the present retrospective analysis, a total of 1,891 patients with native severe AS with successful TAVI without preexisting PPM were included. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality after 30 days and 12 months. Baseline RBBB was present in 190 (10.1%) of cases.

Results

Patients with preexisting RBBB had a considerably higher rate of new PPM after TAVI compared with patients without RBBB (87/190 [45.8%] vs. 219/1,701 [12.9%]; p<0.001). RBBB had no impact on all-cause mortality at 30 days (2.1% vs. 2.7%; p = 0.625) and at 12 months (14.4% vs. 13.6%; p = 0.765). Further stratification according to the presence of new PPM showed a difference in mid-term survival rates between the four groups, with the worst outcome for patients without RBBB and new PPM (log rank p = 0.024). However, no difference in mid-term cardiovascular survival was found.

Conclusion

Preexisting RBBB is a common finding in patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI and is associated with considerably higher PPM rates but not with worse short- and mid-term outcome.

Conduction Disturbances and Permanent Pacemaker Implantation after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Predictors and Prevention

Conduction disturbances and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI) remain a frequent and important consequence of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Understanding risk factors for TAVR-related conduction disturbances could improve patient selection, procedural techniques, and peri-procedural efforts for monitoring and treatment of heart block. Several studies have identified patient-related and procedural factors associated with new-onset left bundle branch block, high-degree atrioventricular block, and the need for PPMI after TAVR. Notable patient-related predictors include pre-existing right bundle branch block, membranous septal length, and calcification of the left ventricular outflow tract. Modifiable procedural predictors include device implantation depth, prosthesis oversizing, and valve type. This review aims to summarize the current literature examining predictors of conduction disturbances and PPMI after TAVR, particularly with regard to the newer-generation valve types. We also propose a management algorithm for the management of conduction disturbances post-procedure.

Incidence, predictors and clinical impact of permanent pacemaker insertion in women following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Insights from a prospective multinational registry

OBJECTIVES

To describe the incidence, predictors, and clinical impact of permanent pacemaker insertion (PPI) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in women.

BACKGROUND

Data on pacemaker insertion complicating TAVR in women are scarce.

METHODS

The Women's International Transcatheter Aortic Valve implantation (WIN-TAVI) is a prospective registry evaluating the safety and efficacy of TAVR in women. We included patients without preprocedural pacemakers and divided them into two groups: (1) PPI and (2) no-PPI. We identified PPI predictors using logistic regression and studied its clinical impact on the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 efficacy and safety endpoints.

RESULTS

Out of 1019 patients, 922 were included in the analysis. Post-TAVR PPI occurred in 132 (14.3%) patients. Clinical and procedural characteristics were similar in both groups. Pre-existing right bundle branch block (RBBB) was associated with a high risk of post-TAVR PPI (OR 3.62, 95% CI 1.85-7.06, p < 0.001), while implantation of balloon-expandable prosthesis was associated with a lower risk (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.74, p < 0.001). Post-TAVR PPI prolonged in-hospital stay by a median of 2 days (11 [9-16] days in PPI vs. 9 [7-14] days in no-PPI, p = 0.005), yet risks of VARC-2 efficacy and safety endpoints at 1 year were similar in both groups (_adj HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.60-1.52, p = 0.84 and _adj HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.83-1.79, p = 0.31, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Pacemaker implantation following TAVR is frequent among women and is associated with pre-existing RBBB and valve type. PPI prolongs hospital stay, albeit without any significant impact on 1-year outcomes.

Five-Year Clinical and Quality of Life Outcomes From the CoreValve US Pivotal Extreme Risk Trial

[Figure: see text].

Temporal Incidence and Predictors of High-Grade Atrioventricular Block After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

The temporal incidence of high‐grade atrioventricular block (HAVB) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is uncertain. As a result, periprocedural monitoring and pacing strategies remain controversial. This study aimed to describe the temporal incidence of initial episode of HAVB stratified by pre‐ and post‐TAVR conduction and identify predictors of delayed events.

Methods and Results

Consecutive patients undergoing TAVR at a single center between February 2012 and June 2019 were retrospectively assessed for HAVB within 30 days. Patients with prior aortic valve replacement, permanent pacemaker (PPM), or conversion to surgical replacement were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess predictors of delayed HAVB (initial event >24 hours post‐TAVR). A total of 953 patients were included in this study. HAVB occurred in 153 (16.1%). After exclusion of those with prophylactic PPM placed post‐TAVR, the incidence of delayed HAVB was 33/882 (3.7%). Variables independently associated with delayed HAVB included baseline first‐degree atrioventricular block or right bundle‐branch block, self‐expanding valve, and new left bundle‐branch block. Forty patients had intraprocedural transient HAVB, including 16 who developed HAVB recurrence and 6 who had PPM implantation without recurrence. PPM was placed for HAVB in 130 (13.6%) (self‐expanding valve, 23.7% versus balloon‐expandable valve, 11.9%; P<0.001). Eight (0.8%) patients died by 30 days, including 1 unexplained without PPM present.

Conclusions

Delayed HAVB occurs with higher frequency in patients with baseline first‐degree atrioventricular block or right bundle‐branch block, new left bundle‐branch block, and self‐expanding valve. These findings provide insight into optimal monitoring and pacing strategies based on periprocedural ECG findings.