Aortic Stenosis and Small Aortic Annulus

Predictors of high residual gradient after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis

OBJECTIVES

To define the incidence of high residual gradient (HRG) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in BAVs and their impact on short term outcome and 1-year mortality.

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter heart valves (THVs) offer good performance in tricuspid aortic valves with low rate of HRG. However, data regarding their performance in bicuspid aortic valves (BAV) are still lacking.

METHODS

The BEAT (Balloon vs Self-Expandable valve for the treatment of bicuspid Aortic valve sTenosis) registry included 353 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR (Evolut R/PRO or Sapien 3 valves) in BAV between June 2013 and October 2018. The primary endpoint was device unsuccess with post-procedural HRG (mean gradient ≥ 20 mmHg). The secondary endpoint was to identify the predictors of HRG following the procedure.

RESULTS

Twenty patients (5.6%) showed HRG after TAVR. Patients with HRG presented higher body mass index (BMI) (30.7 ± 9.3 vs. 25.9 ± 4.8; p < 0.0001) and higher baseline aortic mean gradients (57.6 ± 13.4 mmHg vs. 47.7 ± 16.6, p = 0.013) and more often presented with BAV of Sievers type 0 than patients without HRG. At multivariate analysis, BMI [odds ratio (OR) 1.12; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.20, p = 0.001] and BAV type 0 (OR 11.31, 95% CI 3.45-37.06, p < 0.0001) were confirmed as independent predictors of high gradient.

CONCLUSION

HRG following TAVR in BAVs is not negligible and is higher among patients with high BMI and with BAV 0 anatomy.

Comparison of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement between Self-Expanding versus Balloon-Expandable Valves in Patients with Small Aortic Annulus

Background and Objectives

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been reported as a good alternative for surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with small aortic annulus. Head-to-head comparisons of different transcatheter aortic valves in these patients are insufficient. We compared the outcomes after TAVR between two different types of recent transcatheter aortic valves (self-expanding vs. balloon-expandable) in patients with small aortic annulus.

Methods

A total of 70 patients with severe aortic stenosis and small annulus (mean diameter ≤23 mm or minimal diameter ≤21 mm on computed tomography) underwent TAVR with either a self-expanding valve with supra-annular location (n=45) or a balloon-expandable valve with intra-annular location (n=25). The echocardiographic hemodynamic parameters after TAVR and 1-year follow-up were compared.

Results

Between the self-expanding and balloon-expandable valve-treated patients, the clinical outcomes including permanent pacemaker implantation (11.1% vs. 8.0%), acute kidney injury stage 2 or 3 (4.4% vs. 4.0%), and major vascular complication (4.4% vs. 0.0%) were similar without all-cause mortality, stroke, and life-threatening bleeding during 30-day follow-up. Compared with the balloon-expandable valve-treated patients, the self-expanding valve-treated patients presented larger effective orifice area (EOA) (1.46±0.28 vs. 1.75±0.42 cm², p=0.002) and indexed EOA (0.95±0.21 vs. 1.18±0.28 cm²/m², p=0.001), whereas mean aortic valve gradient (11.7±2.9 vs. 8.9±5.2 mmHg, P=0.005) and incidence of ≥moderate prosthesis-patient mismatch (36.0% vs. 8.9%, p=0.009) were lower. These hemodynamic differences were maintained at 1-year follow-up.

Conclusions

TAVR with self-expanding valves was associated with superior hemodynamic outcomes compared with balloon-expandable valves in patients with small aortic annulus.

The benefit of fibrosa layer stripping technique during minimally invasive aortic valve replacement for calcified aortic valve stenosis-A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Fibrosa layer stripping (FLS) technique is a new approach to remove the calcified aortic valve. In this study, we aimed to assess the effectiveness of the FLS technique by comparing it with the conventional technique in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR).

METHODS

A prospective, single-center, randomized controlled trial was conducted at Beijing Anzhen Hospital. Seventy patients diagnosed with severe calcific aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to undergo FLS (n = 35) or conventional (n = 35) technique to debride calcified aortic valve. Preoperative profile, procedural parameters, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed in the preoperative profile between the two groups. Compared with the conventional technique, the FLS technique had a significantly higher indexed effective orifice area and lower mean gradient. Moreover, the FLS technique was associated with significantly reduced aortic cross-clamp time (41 [38-44] vs. 56 [51-60] min, p < .001), cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time (63 [56-69] vs. 81 [75-84] min, p < .001), and operative time (148 [141-156] vs. 173 [169-180] min, p < .001). Lastly, the length of intensive care unit stay (1.2 ± 0.4 vs. 1.5 ± 0.8 days, p = .041) and hospital stay (5.3 ± 0.6 vs. 6.0 ± 1.4 days, p = .020) was significantly reduced in the FLS group compared with those in the conventional group.

CONCLUSIONS

FLS technique is effective in removing calcified tissue during MIAVR and is associated with shorter cross-clamp time and CPB time, and better hemodynamic performance than the conventional technique.

Expansion of TAVR into Low-Risk Patients and Who to Consider for SAVR

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS) over the last decade. The results of the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) 3 and Evolut Low Risk trials demonstrated the safety and efficacy of TAVR in low-surgical-risk patients and led to the approval of TAVR for use across the risk spectrum. Heart teams around the world will now be faced with evaluating a deluge of younger, healthier patients with severe AS. Prior to the PARTNER 3 and Evolut Low Risk studies, this heterogenous patient population would have undergone surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). It is unlikely that TAVR will completely supplant SAVR for the treatment of severe AS in patients with a low surgical risk, as SAVR has excellent short- and long-term outcomes and years of durability data. In this review, we outline the critical role that SAVR will continue to play in the treatment of severe AS in the post-PARTNER 3/Evolut Low Risk era.

Hemodynamic performance and incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch of small-sized Trifecta pericardial aortic valves

OBJECTIVES

Small-sized bioprosthetic valves are sometimes associated with suboptimal hemodynamic performance, leading to a patient-prosthesis mismatch. Trifecta pericardial valves are designed to improve hemodynamic performance. The purpose of this study was to investigate the hemodynamic properties of small-sized Trifecta valves and their efficacy in preventing a patient-prosthesis mismatch.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of 108 patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement with a Trifecta valve of 23 mm or less in a single Japanese institution. The hemodynamic performance was evaluated with an echocardiography examination in all patients after surgery, and the development of a patient-prosthesis mismatch was judged with the measured in vivo indexed effective orifice area.

RESULTS

There was one early and seven late mortalities. There were no valve explants due to structural valve deterioration. Postoperative mean pressure gradients of 19-, 21-, and 23-mm valves were 15.1, 11.4, and 9.0 mmHg, respectively. The effective orifice area of 19-, 21-, and 23-mm valves was 1.41, 1.69, and 1.78 cm², respectively. Patient-prosthesis mismatch occurred in 14 patients (1 severe and 13 moderate) and the incidence was 13.0% (15.4% in 19 mm, 18.0% in 21 mm, and 3.3% in 23 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

The small-sized Trifecta valves showed excellent hemodynamic performance and were associated with a low incidence rate of patient-prosthesis mismatch.