Coronary Angiography and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71:1360-1378. [PMID: 29566822 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.01.057]

Case Report: Emergency High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Bicuspid Anatomy

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVR) continues to develop as a valuable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in an increasingly wide spectrum of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). AS frequently coexists with coronary artery disease, and performing technically challenging percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) following TAVR will become more frequent with increased use of TAVR. Case Summary: We herein report the case of a 53-years-old man with complex medical history including type 1 diabetes and dialysis-dependent renal failure and prior Evolut-R TAVR for critical bicuspid aortic valve stenosis who underwent intravascular ultrasound study (IVUS)-guided PCI to a critical distal left main stem (LMS) and proximal left anterior descending (LAD) lesion after presenting with ventricular fibrillation (VF) secondary to an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Discussion: Selective engagement of coronary ostia through the side cells of TAVR prosthesis can be challenging, especially in an emergency setting. The particular challenges associated with this case are described, as well as an up-to-date literature search on strategies and equipment that can help in this situation.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of delayed coronary artery access for coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)

Coronary artery disease (CAD) and severe aortic valve stenosis frequently coexist. Given the progressive nature of CAD, silent or non-significant CAD may become symptomatic or functionally relevant years after TAVR. However, there is a paucity of data documenting the feasibility of either coronary angiography and/or PCI after TAVR. We systematically searched Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane database, Google Scholar, Science Direct, Web of Science, and conference abstracts from conception to March 2020 using OvidSP in TAVR patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without PCI at least 6 months after TAVR. Patients and procedural characteristics were summarized. The primary outcome of interest was successful coronary angiography for either the left main coronary artery (LMCA) or right coronary artery (RCA) with or without PCI. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO. Eleven reports for a total of 696 coronary angiograms and 287 PCI were included in the analysis. Patients were slightly predominantly male, older and had a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of more than 50% with an intermediate STS. The summary estimate rates of successful LMCA and RCA angiography with a Medtronic self-expandable valve (SEV) were 84% (95% CI 73-90%, I² = 79, p = 0.015) and 69% (95% CI 37-89%, I² = 86, p = 0.23), respectively, while with the Edwards Lifesciences balloon expandable valve (BEV), the summary estimate rates for successful LMCA and RCA angiography were 94% (95% CI 72-99%, I² = 66, p = 0.003) and 95% (95% CI 48-99%, I² = 83, p = 0.05), respectively. The summary estimate rate of successful PCI post TAVR with either a Medtronic SEV or Edwards Lifesciences BEV was 93% (95% CI 86-96%, I² = 33, p = 0.0001). The overall achievement of a successful coronary angiography with or without PCI in post-TAVR patients is high, with a lower success rate for RCA angiography in patients with the Medtronic SEV Mortality and bleeding did not differ in our analysis.

Risk of Coronary Obstruction and Feasibility of Coronary Access After Repeat Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Self-Expanding Evolut Valve: A Computed Tomography Simulation Study

BACKGROUND

The supra-annular leaflet position and tall stent frame of the self-expanding Evolut PRO or Evolut PRO+ transcatheter heart valves (THVs) may cause coronary occlusion during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)-in-TAVR and present challenges for future coronary access. We sought to evaluate the risk of TAVR-in-TAVR with Evolut PRO or Evolut PRO+ THVs and the feasibility of future coronary access.

METHODS

The CoreValve Evolut PRO Prospective Registry (EPROMPT; NCT03423459) prospectively enrolled patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis to undergo TAVR using a commercially available latest generation self-expanding THV at 2 centers in the United States. Computed tomography was performed 30 days after TAVR, which we used to simulate TAVR-in-TAVR with a second Evolut PRO or Evolut PRO+ THV and evaluate for risk of coronary obstruction and feasibility of future coronary access.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients enrolled with interpretable computed tomography are reported herein. Computed tomography simulation predicted sinus of Valsalva sequestration and resultant coronary obstruction during future TAVR-in-TAVR in up to 23% of patients. Computed tomography simulation predicted that the position of the pinned THV leaflets would hinder future coronary access in up to 78% of patients after TAVR-in-TAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

Further THV design improvements and leaflet modification strategies are needed to mitigate the risk of coronary obstruction during TAVR-in-TAVR with self-expanding THVs and to facilitate future coronary access. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03423459.

Utility of Routine Invasive Coronary Angiography Prior to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Despite the high prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), the optimal management of concomitant CAD, including revascularization before transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), remains controversial. Contemporary, real-world practice patterns have not yet been described. We aimed to characterize the burden of CAD in contemporary TAVR patients and evaluate revascularization practices at a high-volume center.

METHODS/MATERIALS

We retrospectively analyzed all adult patients referred for TAVR at our center between January 2019 and January 2020. Presence of significant CAD and subsequent management were recorded. Presenting symptoms, use of non-invasive and invasive ischemia testing, and pre-TAVR computed tomography (CT) imaging were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 394 patients with severe AS were referred for TAVR. Thirty-nine patients (9.9%) instead underwent surgery, of whom only 5 (1.3%) received coronary artery bypass grafting. Of the remaining 355 patients, 218 patients (61.4%) had insignificant CAD. Of the 137 patients (38.6%) with significant CAD, only 30 (8.5%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Of these, less than half had anginal symptoms, a third had CAD in proximal segments, and a third underwent ischemia testing before PCI. Pre-TAVR CT accurately identified significant CAD in 28/30 patients (93.3%) who underwent PCI.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 1 in 25 contemporary TAVR patients had significant CAD and angina requiring intervention, calling into question the utility of routine invasive coronary angiography before TAVR. A Heart Team approach integrating anginal symptoms, ischemia testing and possibly pre-TAVR CT is needed to guide the need, timing, and strategy of revascularization.

Overcoming the transcatheter aortic valve replacement Achilles heel: coronary re-access

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for the treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS). Coronary artery disease (CAD) is common in patients with severe AS. As the indications for TAVR extend to lower risk patients with longer life expectancy and as CAD is a progressive condition, coronary angiography will become increasingly common in patients who have had a previous TAVR. Coronary artery re-access after TAVR may be challenging but is possible in most cases. Commissural alignment of the prosthesis with the native coronary ostia plays an important role in successful coronary re-access. Coronary artery obstruction is a potentially devastating complication of TAVR, particularly in valve-in-valve procedures. In the present keynote lecture, we review techniques used to mitigate the risk of coronary obstruction, as well as catheter selection and strategies for selective coronary artery engagement for specific transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) bioprostheses.

Coronary Cannulation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The RE-ACCESS Study

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to investigate the feasibility of coronary ostia cannulation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and to assess potential predictors of coronary access impairment.

BACKGROUND

Certain data concerning the feasibility and reproducibility of coronary cannulation after TAVR are lacking.

METHODS

RE-ACCESS (Reobtain Coronary Ostia Cannulation Beyond Transcatheter Aortic Valve Stent) was an investigator-driven, single-center, prospective, registry-based study that enrolled consecutive patients undergoing TAVR using all commercially available devices. All patients underwent coronary angiography before and after TAVR. The primary endpoint was the rate of unsuccessful coronary ostia cannulation after TAVR. Secondary endpoints were the identification of factors associated with the inability to selectively cannulate coronary ostia after TAVR.

RESULTS

Among 300 patients enrolled in the RE-ACCESS study from December 2018 to January 2020, a total of 23 cases (7.7%) of unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR were documented. This issue occurred in 22 of 23 cases with the use of Evolut R/PRO transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) (17.9% vs. 0.4%; p < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, the use of Evolut R/PRO TAVs (odds ratio [OR]: 29.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.6 to 335.0; p < 0.01), the TAV-sinus of Valsalva relation (OR: 1.1 per 1-mm increase; 95% CI: 1.0 to 1.2; p < 0.01), and the mean TAV implantation depth (OR: 1.7 per 1-mm decrease; 95% CI: 1.3 to 2.3; p < 0.01) were found to be independent predictors of unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR. A model combining these factors was demonstrated to predict with very high accuracy the risk for unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR (area under the curve: 0.94; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Unsuccessful coronary cannulation following TAVR was observed in 7.7% of patients and occurred almost exclusively in those receiving Evolut TAVs. The combination of Evolut TAV, a higher TAV-sinus of Valsalva relation, and implantation depth predicts with high accuracy the risk for unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR. (Reobtain Coronary Ostia Cannulation Beyond Transcatheter Aortic Valve Stent [RE-ACCESS]; NCT04026204).

Role of computed tomography in transcatheter aortic valve implantation and valve-in-valve implantation: complete review of preprocedural and postprocedural imaging

: Since 2002, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionized the treatment and prognosis of patients with aortic stenosis. A preprocedural assessment of the patient is vital for achieving optimal outcomes from the procedure. Retrospective ECG-gated cardiac computed tomography (CT) today it is the gold-standard imaging technique that provides three-dimensional images of the heart, thus allowing a rapid and complete evaluation of the morphology of the valve, ascending aorta, coronary arteries, peripheral access vessels, and prognostic factors, and also provides preprocedural coplanar fluoroscopic angle prediction to obtain complete assessment of the patient. The most relevant dimension in preprocedural planning of TAVI is the aortic annulus, which can determine the choice of prosthesis size. CT is also essential to identify patients with increased anatomical risk for coronary artery occlusion in Valve in Valve (ViV) procedures.Moreover, CT is very useful in the evaluation of late complications, such as leakage, thrombosis and displacements. At present, CT is the cornerstone imaging modality for the extensive and thorough work-up required for planning and performing each TAVI procedure, to achieve optimal outcomes. Both the CT procedure and analysis should be performed by trained and experienced personnel, with a radiological background and a deep understanding of the TAVI procedure, in close collaboration with the implantation team. An accurate pre-TAVI CT and post-processing for the evaluation of all the points recommended in this review allow a complete planning for the choice of the valve dimensions and type (balloon or self-expandable) and of the best percutaneous access.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: potential use in lower-risk aortic stenosis

INTRODUCTION

The widespread use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is expanding to low-risk patients. Nevertheless, a low clinical risk does not always correspond to a low procedural risk for the percutaneous approach.

AREAS COVERED

The initial trials on TAVI in low-risk populations had encouraging results, showing non-inferiority in comparison to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, the low-risk definition is based on risk score calculators developed for the surgical setting and not including other specific features that are more relevant to TAVI and can affect procedural outcomes. For example, the presence of bicuspid aortic valves, high calcific burden, low coronary height or conduction disturbances is all potentially associated with suboptimal results or even procedural complications. In addition, the lack of longer follow-up prevents us to draw conclusions about long-term outcomes, including data about valve durability and coronary re-access.

EXPERT OPINION

Although current evidence suggest similar results for TAVI and SAVR in low-risk populations, there are some technical and procedural limitations that still need to be addressed in order to close the gap between TAVI and surgery. Optimal, lasting results with a low rate of procedural complications are highly expected in low-risk, otherwise healthy subjects, with potential for longevity.

A case of challenging percutaneous coronary intervention following surgical aortic valve replacement with a sutureless aortic bioprosthesis

A 71-year-old man with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis and stenosis of the proximal right coronary artery (RCA) underwent aortic valve replacement with Perceval (LivaNova, London, UK), a sutureless aortic bioprosthesis with a self-expanding open-cell designed nitinol frame (SL-AVR). Seven weeks after the SL-AVR, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to the RCA was required. However, engagement of the guiding catheter (GC) was challenging because the RCA ostium was jailed by the strut of the Perceval. Therefore, the "Mother, Child, and Grandchild Technique" was used. A 4-Fr diagnostic catheter (DC) was partially engaged, and a support type 0.014-inch guidewire (GW) was inserted into the distal RCA. The DC was replaced by a 6-Fr GC. To fill the gap between the 0.014-inch GW and 6-Fr GC, a 5-Fr tapered inner sheath (IS, tip size was 3.0-Fr, used as Child catheter) was inserted into the 6-Fr GC (Mother catheter), and a 2.6-Fr microcatheter (Grandchild catheter) was inserted into the 5-Fr IS. Therefore, the gap between the 0.014-inch GW and 6-Fr GW was obliterated. Finally, we successfully inserted the PCI system and engaged the GC. RCA stenosis was treated using the conventional PCI technique. Herein, we report a case of successful PCI subsequent to SL-AVR. <Learning objective: The technical feasibility of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) following aortic valve replacement with a sutureless aortic bioprosthesis with a self-expanding open-cell designed nitinol frame (SL-AVR) remains unclear. In this report, we describe a case of challenging PCI following SL-AVR.>.

Low Rate of Invasive Coronary Angiography Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Real-World Prospective Cohort Findings

AIM

To evaluate the real need for coronary access after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Prospective observational single-center registry, including 563 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI between April 2008 and November 2018, with both self- and balloon-expandable valves in a tertiary European center. Mean age was 82.4 ± 6.9 years, 53.3% were female, 16% had previous history of coronary artery bypass grafting, 33% of previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and 16.6% of myocardial infarction (MI). Twenty-four percent of the patients were revascularized within one year before TAVI in preparation for the procedure. Median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 4.82 (IQ 2.84). In a median follow-up of 24 months (IQ 21.5), 18 patients (3.2%) were identified as potentially in need for invasive coronary angiography: 9 (1.6%) in the setting of stable coronary artery disease and 9 (1.6%) for an acute coronary syndrome. A total of 11 PCIs were performed in 9 patients, with a complete success rate of 63.6%. Procedures that were unsuccessful or partially unsuccessful were due to the inability to cross the stent or the drug-eluting balloon through the valve struts or misplacement within the coronary artery due to lack of catheter support.

CONCLUSION

In this population, a strategy of previous guideline-directed revascularization before TAVI was associated with a low rate of MI and repeated need of coronary access, with a scattered distribution over time. Assuring future access to coronary arteries in patients at increased risk may depend on the revascularization strategy rather than device selection.

Non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction after complex percutaneous coronary intervention and transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a case report of bioprosthesis-related delayed coronary obstruction and its difficult diagnosis

Background

There is a high coincidence of significant coronary artery disease and severe aortic stenosis. Coronary revascularization should be performed prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We report a case of non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) after complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) prior to TAVI, where differential diagnosis between coronary stent failure and bioprosthesis-related sinus obstruction was substantial.

Case summary

A 79-year-old woman was re-admitted to the hospital 5 days after TAVI due to troponin-negative new-onset angina. She underwent complex PCI 3 days before TAVI and was not compliant to medications. Symptoms initially resolved after re-establishment of anti-hypertensive treatment. There were no signs of aortic bioprosthesis failure, paravalvular leak, or myocardial ischaemia. After 1 month, the symptoms re-occurred. Due to elevated troponins, myocardial ischaemia in electrocardiogram and new contractility disorders, NSTEMI was diagnosed. Because it was impossible to intubate the left coronary artery (LCA), cardiac surgery was performed. Calcified native coronary leaflet was pushed by the stent frame of aortic bioprosthesis towards LCA ostium causing its subtotal occlusion. Transcatheter heart valve (THV) was removed and the new surgical aortic bioprosthesis was implanted. Further hospitalization and 1-month follow-up were uneventful.

Discussion

Pre-procedural assessment is crucial prior to THV interventions. Delayed coronary obstruction caused by the native leaflet is extremely rare and potentially fatal complication of TAVI. The diagnosis is difficult and high clinical suspicion is required to detect this pathology. Given our experience, the indication towards interventional or surgical repair should be established faster to avoid coronary ischaemia.

Considerations for Optimal Device Selection in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Review

Importance

Aortic valve stenosis (AS) is the most common manifestation of acquired valvular heart disease in developed countries. Several large-scale randomized clinical trials investigating the entire spectrum of patients with severe symptomatic AS from low to prohibitive risk have established transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as a safe and effective alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement.

Observations

There are currently only 3 types of TAVR devices commercially available in the US, but several other valve types are undergoing clinical trials in the US. Because of fundamental differences in engineering features, each TAVR device type has specific strengths and limitations. This review aims to provide an overview of design features and clinical outcomes of various TAVR devices that are either commercially available or undergoing clinical investigation.

Conclusions and Relevance

Given the lack of large-scale head-to-head comparisons of various TAVR devices and the rapid development of new device iterations, there is insufficient evidence to claim superiority of one device type over another. Nonetheless, as each TAVR device has unique design characteristics, certain patient-related and anatomy-related factors may slightly favor one or several particular designs.

Coronary revascularization after surgical aortic valve replacement

Objective

It remains unclear how often coronary revascularization is necessary after aortic valve interventions, either by surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement. However, these data are relevant for treatment and prosthesis choice. The authors sought to analyze the incidence and characteristics of coronary revascularization after SAVR during follow-up.

Methods

Of 2256 patients undergoing isolated SAVR between 1987 and 2015, 420 patients (mean age 56.9 ± 15.5 years, 66.9% male) were followed at the Erasmus Medical Center. Incidence, predictors, and characteristics of coronary revascularization were analyzed. Cumulative incidence of revascularization was assessed using a competing risk approach.

Results

Mean follow-up after SAVR was 17.2 years (total of 4541 patient-years). A total of 24 patients underwent 28 procedures of revascularization. The cumulative incidence of revascularization after SAVR was 0.5%, 2.2%, 4.1%, and 6.9% at 1, 5, 10, and 20 years, respectively. The linearized rate of revascularization was 6.2 per 1000 patient-years. Percutaneous coronary intervention was the most common revascularization method (64%; N = 18/28). Revascularization before SAVR (N = 36/420; of whom 27 percutaneous coronary intervention) was an independent predictor of revascularization during follow-up (hazard ratio, 6.6; 95% confidence interval, 2.6-17.1; P < .001).

Conclusions

After SAVR, the rate of coronary revascularization was 6.9% (N = 24/420) at 20-year follow-up. Patients were at particular risk if they had undergone previous revascularization before SAVR. These data may furthermore be relevant to the transcatheter aortic valve replacement population.

ACURATE neo: How Is This TAVR Valve Doing to Fit into an Increasingly Crowded Field?

Purpose of Review

Critical appraisal of the available evidence on the self-expanding ACURATE neo transcatheter heart valve (THV) for the treatment of aortic valve disease.

Recent Findings

In an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized non-inferiority trial with broad inclusion criteria, ACURATE neo failed to meet non-inferiority compared with SAPIEN 3 with regard to a primary composite safety and efficacy endpoint at 30 days. The difference was driven by higher rates of moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation and higher rates of acute kidney injury. In turn, registry data suggest that the safety and efficacy profile of the ACURATE neo is comparable to that of other commercially available devices. Randomized evidence indicated favorable hemodynamic results with large effective orifice areas and low residual gradients.

Summary

The self-expanding ACURATE neo THV is associated with higher rates of residual aortic regurgitation compared to the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 THV. The supra-annular design with low residual gradients may be advantageous in patients with small anatomy and mild degree of calcification.

Procedural and Mid-Term Outcomes of Coronary Protection During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients at Risk of Coronary Occlusion: Insight From a Single-Centre Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Detailed procedural analysis and long-term data is limited for coronary protection (CP) during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for patients with high anatomical risk for coronary occlusion (CO). We aim to assess the procedural and mid-term outcomes of CP during TAVR.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent TAVR at Henry Ford Hospital, USA from January 2015 to August 2019 and identified those considered at risk of CO and underwent pre-emptive CP with or without subsequent "chimney" stenting (i.e. coronary stenting with intentional protrusion into the aorta). Procedural features, immediate and mid-term clinical outcomes were reviewed.

RESULTS

Twenty-five out of 1166 (2.1%) patients underwent TAVR with CP, including 10 (40%) valve-in-valve procedures. Twenty-eight coronary arteries (Left: n = 11, Right: n = 11; Left + Right: n = 3) were protected. Eleven coronaries (39.3%) were electively "chimney"-stented due to angiographic evidence of coronary impingement (63.6%), tactile resistance while withdrawing stent (27.3%) and electrocardiogram change (9.1%). Twenty-four patients (24/25, 96%) had successful TAVR without CO. Procedure-related complications included stent-balloon entrapment (n = 1), stent entrapment (n = 1) and occlusive distal stent edge dissection (n = 1). After a mean follow-up of 19.1 months, there was 1 cardiac death but no target vessel re-intervention or myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that angiographic evidence of coronary impingement (63.6%) was the most common reason for stent deployment during TAVR with CP. The mid-term clinical outcome of CP with TAVR was favorable.

Ten year follow-up of high-risk patients treated during the early experience with transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

The long-term clinical performance of transcatheter heart valves (THV) is unknown.

AIMS

This study assessed the clinical outcomes, rate of structural valve deterioration (SVD) and bioprosthetic valve failure in patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to 10-year follow-up.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing TAVI for native aortic valve stenosis or failed aortic surgical bioprosthesis, between 2005 and 2009 at our institution were included. A total of 235 consecutive patients.

RESULTS

At the time of TAVI mean age was 82.4 ± 7.9 years. All patients were judged to be high risk, with a STS score > 8 in 53.6%. THVs implanted were the Cribier-Edwards (20.9%), Edwards SAPIEN (77.4%) or CoreValve (1.7%). Mortality at 1, 5, and 10-year follow-up was 23.4%, 63%, and 91.6%, respectively. Of the total cohort, 15 patients had structural valve deterioration/bioprosthetic valve failure, with a cumulative incidence at 10-years of 6.5% (95% CI 3.3%, 9.6%). The rate of SVD/BVF at 4, 6, 8, and 10 years was 0.4%, 1.7%, 4.7%, and 6.5%, respectively. Nine patients had moderate SVD and six patients had severe SVD. Of the six patients with severe SVD, two patients had reintervention (one patient had redo TAVR, and the second had surgical aortic valve replacement). Survivors (n = 19) at 10-year follow-up, had a mean gradient of 14.0 ± 7.6 mmHg and aortic regurgitation ≥moderate in 5%. Quality of life measures in 10-year survivors demonstrated ADLs 6/6 in 43.8%, and ambulation without a mobility aid of 62.5%.

CONCLUSION

Using early generation balloon expandable THVs in a high-risk population, there was a low rate of structural valve deterioration and valve failure at 10-year follow-up. This study provides insights into the long-term performance of transcatheter heart valves and patients self-reported derived benefits.

Coronary Access and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Up to 3 Years After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With a Balloon-Expandable Valve

Background:

Coronary artery disease and aortic stenosis often coexist. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a valid therapeutic option for younger, lower-risk patients who may eventually require coronary artery disease treatment. Thus, post-TAVI coronary access (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention are expected to increase. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively evaluate patients who were enrolled in the SOURCE 3 (SAPIEN 3 Aortic Bioprosthesis European Outcome) European registry for treatment with the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve and underwent CA with or without percutaneous coronary intervention after TAVI.

Methods:

Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with or without CA up to 3 years after TAVI were compared. A Kaplan-Meier estimate with a univariate model determined the impact of CA on cardiac mortality.

Results:

Of 1936 TAVI patients (mean age 81.6 years, 52% male), 68 (3.5%) had CA within 3 years (mean 441±332 days) after TAVI. At baseline, the logistic EuroSCORE was similar (20.2% versus 18.3%, P=0.2, CA and non-CA groups, respectively). Higher rates of coronary artery disease (76.5% versus 50.6%, P<0.001), myocardial infarction (20.6% versus 11.5%, P=0.03) and previous coronary artery bypass graft (22.1% versus 11.0%, P=0.01) were present in the CA group. In 100% of patients, CA was successfully achieved. The clinical success of percutaneous coronary intervention was 97.9%. Cardiovascular mortality was numerically higher in patients with CA than in those without CA.

Conclusions:

In the large SOURCE 3 European registry, CA was needed at 3-year follow-up after TAVI with a balloon-expandable valve in 3.5% of patients and was successful in all patients. The clinical success of percutaneous coronary intervention was 97.9%.

Registration:

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02698956.

Coronary Angiography After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) to Evaluate the Risk of Coronary Access Impairment After TAVR-in-TAVR

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)‐in‐TAVR is a possible treatment for transcatheter heart valve (THV) degeneration. However, the displaced leaflets of the first THV will create a risk plane (RP) under which the passage of a coronary catheter will be impossible. The aim of our study was to evaluate the potential risk of impaired coronary access (CA) after TAVR‐in‐TAVR.

Methods and Results

We prospectively performed coronary angiography after TAVR with different THVs in 137 consecutive patients, looking where the catheter crossed the valve frame. If coronary cannulation was achieved from below the RP, the distance between valve frame and aortic wall was measured by aortic angiography. CA after TAVR‐in‐TAVR was defined as feasible if the catheter passed above the RP, as theoretically feasible if passed under the RP with valve‐to‐aorta distance >2 mm, and as unfeasible if passed under the RP with valve‐to‐aorta distance ≤2 mm. Seventy‐two patients (53%) received a Sapien 3 THV, 26 (19%) received an Evolut Pro/R THV, and 39 (28%) received an Acurate Neo THV. CA after TAVR‐in‐TAVR was considered feasible in 40.9% (68.1%, 19.2%, and 5.1%, respectively; P<0.001), theoretically feasible in 27.7% (8.3%, 42.3%, and 53.8%, respectively; P<0.001), and unfeasible in 31.4% (23.6%, 38.5%, and 41.1%, respectively; P=0.116). Independent predictors of impaired CA after TAVR‐in‐TAVR were female sex (odds ratio [OR], 3.99; 95% CI, 1.07–14.86; P=0.040), sinotubular junction diameter (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48–0.80; P<0.001), and implantation of a supra‐annular THV (OR, 6.61; 95% CI, 1.98–22.03; P=0.002).

Conclusions

CA after TAVR‐in‐TAVR might be unfeasible in >30% of patients currently treated with TAVR. Patients with a small sinotubular junction and those who received a supra‐annular THV are at highest risk of potential CA impairment with TAVR‐in‐TAVR.

Coronary Artery Disease and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

About one-half of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) candidates have coronary artery disease (CAD), and controversial results have been reported regarding the effect of the presence and severity of CAD on clinical outcomes post-TAVR. In addition to coronary angiography, promising data has been recently reported on both the use of computed tomography angiography and the functional invasive assessment of coronary lesions in the work-up pre-TAVR. While waiting for the results of ongoing randomized trials, percutaneous revascularization of significant coronary lesions has been the routine strategy in TAVR candidates with CAD. Also, scarce data exists on the incidence, characteristics, and management of coronary events post-TAVR, and increasing interest exist on potential coronary access challenges in patients requiring coronary angiography/intervention post-TAVR. This review provides an updated overview of the current landscape of CAD in TAVR recipients, focusing on its prevalence, clinical impact, pre- and post-procedural evaluation and management, unresolved issues and future perspectives.

Complexity assessment and technical aspect of coronary angiogram and percutaneous coronary intervention following transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Performing selective coronary angiogram (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) post transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) may be challenging with various success rates of coronary ostia engagement.

METHODS

Among all patients who underwent CA and/or PCI after TAVI from our single center TAVI registry, ostia cannulation success was reported according to the quality of ostia engagement and artery opacification, and was classified as either selective, partially selective or non-selective but sufficient for diagnosis.

RESULTS

Among the 424 consecutive TAVI procedures performed at the aforementioned institution, 20 (4.7%) CA were performed in 19 (4.5%) patients at a median time of 464 days post TAVI (25-75% IQ: 213-634 days). CA were performed in 7 CoreValve, 9 Evolut R, 1 Evolut PRO and 2 Edwards Sapien 3 devices. Transradial vascular approach was attempted in 9 procedures (45%, right n = 6 and left n = 3) and was successful in 8 (40%) patients. A total of 20 left main artery ostium cannulation were attempted leading to a diagnostic CA in all of them with selective engagement in 65%. Engagement of the right coronary artery in 2 out of 15 attempted cases failed due to a low ostium in conjunction with a high implantation of a CoreValve prosthesis. 11 PCI (55% of CA) including 2 left main lesions were performed. In 4 patients (36.4% of the PCI), an extension catheter was required to engage the left main. All planned PCI were successful.

CONCLUSIONS

Post TAVI CA and PCI are challenging but feasible even after supra-annular self-expandable valve implantation.

2019 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Position Statement for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or replacement has rapidly changed the treatment of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. It is now the standard of care for patients believed to be inoperable or at high surgical risk, and a reasonable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for those at intermediate surgical risk. Recent clinical trial data have shown the benefits of this technology in patients at low surgical risk as well. This update of the 2012 Canadian Cardiovascular Society TAVI position statement incorporates clinical evidence to provide a practical framework for patient selection that does not rely on surgical risk scores but rather on individual patient evaluation of risk and benefit from either TAVI or surgical aortic valve replacement. In addition, this statement features new wait time categories and treatment time goals for patients accepted for TAVI. Institutional requirements and recommendations for operator training and maintenance of competency have also been revised to reflect current standards. Procedural considerations such as decision-making for concomitant coronary intervention, antiplatelet therapy after intervention, and follow-up guidelines are also discussed. Finally, we suggest that all patients with aortic stenosis might benefit from evaluation by the heart team to determine the optimal individualized treatment decision.

Timing and Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients Who Underwent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Limited data exist regarding the timing of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with coronary artery disease who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We aimed to investigate clinical outcomes of patients who underwent TAVI and planned PCI according to the timing of PCI in relation to the TAVI. Consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVI with planned PCI between January 2013 and November 2017 were included. Patients were divided according to the timing of PCI. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, unplanned revascularization, and stroke. Among 1,756 patients who underwent TAVI, 258 patients underwent planned PCI either before TAVI (n = 143, 55.4%), concomitantly with TAVI (n = 77, 29.8%), or after TAVI (n = 38, 14.7%). All patients in the post-TAVI PCI group were treated using balloon-expandable valves, and neither hemodynamic instability during TAVI nor PCI-related complications were observed. In a multivariable analysis, the timing of PCI was not associated with 2-year major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events rate (concomitant vs pre-TAVI, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52 to 1.66; p = 0.79; post- vs pre-TAVI, HR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.18 to 1.16; p = 0.10). In conclusion, there were no significant differences in terms of mid-term outcomes among pre-TAVI, concomitant, and post-TAVI PCI groups when the timing of PCI was carefully selected by heart team.

Management of Coronary Artery Disease in the Setting of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease (CAD) frequently co-exist, as they share a common pathophysiology and risk factors. Due to lack of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and exclusion of significant CAD in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) trials, the optimal method of revascularisation of CAD in patients undergoing TAVR remains unknown. Observational studies and meta-analyses have shown varied results in outcomes for patients with CAD undergoing TAVR, and no significant difference in post-TAVR outcomes in patients who underwent revascularisation either prior to or during TAVR versus those who did not. However, some observational studies have shown that patients with lower residual SYNTAX score (rSS) post-revascularisation have better outcomes post-TAVR compared to those with higher rSS. RCTs are needed to clearly understand whether revascularisation is beneficial in these patients. Until then, management of CAD in patients undergoing TAVR must be individualised based on discussion with the heart team.

Current issues in transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease worldwide. With transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) being increasingly expanded to lower-risk populations, several challenging issues remain to be solved. The present review aims at discussing modern approaches to such issues as well as the current status of TAVR. TAVR has undergone several developments in the recent years: an increased use of transfemoral access, the development of prostheses in order to adapt to challenging anatomies, improved delivery systems with repositioning features, and outer skirts aiming at reducing paravalvular leak. The indication of TAVR is increasingly being expanded to patients with lower surgical risk. The main clinical trials supporting such expansion are reviewed and the latest data on low-risk patients are discussed. A number of challenges need still to be addressed and are also reviewed in this paper: the need for updated international guidelines including the latest evidence; a reduction of main complications such as permanent pacemaker implantation, paravalvular leak, and stroke (and its potential prevention by using anti-embolic protection devices); the appropriate role of TAVR in patients with concomitant cardiac ischemic disease; and durability of bio-prosthetic implanted valves. Finally, the future perspectives for TAVR use and next device developments are discussed.

A meta-analysis of 1-year outcomes of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) is indicated in patients with intermediate or higher surgical risk. Latest trials showed TAVR, and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) perform similarly at 1-year for the composite outcomes of mortality, stroke and rehospitalization. We performed a comprehensive meta-analysis to compare individual outcomes at 1-year for TAVR compared to SAVR in low-risk patients.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane central were searched for all the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported 1-year comparative outcomes of TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Our conclusions are based upon the random-effects model using DerSimonian-Laird estimator.

Results

Data from 4 trials and 2887 randomized patients showed that TAVR had lower rates of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and atrial fibrillation compared to SAVR at 1-year follow-up (P < 0.05 for all). Also, TAVR was also associated with a significantly higher risk of permanent pacemaker implantation and moderate-severe paravalvular leak (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

The latest randomised trial data demonstrates that in short-term, TAVR is safe and effective in reducing all-cause mortality or stroke. Longer follow-up of RCTs is needed to determine the durability of clinical benefits in TAVR over SAVR in low-risk patients.

Differences in Pressure Recovery Between Balloon Expandable and Self-expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valves

Pressure recovery downstream of the aortic valve constitutes an important factor affecting the calculation of pressure gradient (PG) across the valve and therefore the accuracy of the calculated aortic valve area. Some clinical studies hypothesized that stent and valve cusps design contribute to flow acceleration and Doppler-measured valve gradients across the balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve. This study aims at elucidating the physical mechanisms behind pressure recovery variations between Edwards SAPIEN 3 and Medtronic Evolut TAVs through the measurements of sensitive and precise axial pressure profiles. A 23 mm Edwards SAPIEN3 and a 26 mm Medtronic Evolut were deployed in a pulse duplicator. A Millar catheter was used to record 50 cycles of pressure data along the centerline of the valve chamber upstream and downstream of the valve. The peak PG obtained with SAPIEN at vena contracta (VC) is 18.83 ± 0.75 mmHg and after recovery, 9.56 ± 0.78 mmHg. For Evolut at VC, peak PG is 18.25 ± 0.63 mmHg and after recovery, 10.3 ± 0.57 mmHg. The differences in peak PG at VC and at the recovery were statistically significant (p < 0.001). With SAPIEN 3 at VC, the mean PG obtained is 10.11 ± 0.63 mmHg and after recovery 7.06 ± 0.46 mmHg. For Evolut, mean PG at VC is 10.45 ± 0.67 mmHg and after recovery 7.99 ± 0.61 mmHg. The differences between the mean PG between the two valves was not statistically significant at VC (p = 0.71) but significant post-recovery (p < 0.00001). While gradients at the VC are higher with the SAPIEN 3, the net gradient after pressure recovery is significantly lower compared to Evolut TAV. Efficiency of pressure recovery significantly depends on valve type due to stent interference with the recovering blood flow.

Acute Coronary Syndrome Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Scarce data exist on coronary events following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), and no study has determined the factors associated with poorer outcomes in this setting. This study sought to determine the clinical characteristics, outcomes, and prognostic factors of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) events following TAVR.

METHODS

Multicenter cohort study including a total of 270 patients presenting an ACS after a median time of 12 (interquartile range, 5-17) months post-TAVR. Post-ACS death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and overall major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events were recorded.

RESULTS

The ACS clinical presentation consisted of non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) type 2 (31.9%), non-STEMI type 1 (31.5%), unstable angina (28.5%), and STEMI (8.1%). An invasive strategy was used in 163 patients (60.4%), and a percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 97 patients (35.9%). Coronary access issues were observed in 2.5% and 2.1% of coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention procedures, respectively. The in-hospital mortality rate was 10.0%, and at a median follow-up of 17 (interquartile range, 5-32) months, the rates of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events were 43.0%, 4.1%, 15.2%, and 52.6%, respectively. By multivariable analysis, revascularization at ACS time was associated with a reduction of the risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.36-0.81] P=0.003), whereas STEMI increased the risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio, 2.06 [95% CI, 1.05-4.03] P=0.036) and major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (hazard ratio, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.08-3.57] P=0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

ACS events in TAVR recipients exhibited specific characteristics (ACS presentation, low use of invasive procedures, coronary access issues) and were associated with a poor prognosis, with a very high in-hospital and late death rate. STEMI and the lack of coronary revascularization determined an increased risk. These results should inform future studies to improve both the prevention and management of ACS post-TAVR.

Current challenges in TAVI: neo-commissural alignment to mimic more physiologic valve implantation

Commissural alignment during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has important clinical implications as TAVI expands to younger patients in whom lifetime treatment of aortic valve disease and coronary artery disease is of particular importance. Numerous studies have shown that lack of commissural alignment may adversely affect coronary reaccess and the feasibility of redo-TAVI in this patient population. To assess the risk of commissural misalignment more accurately, we have pioneered and validated the use of a preprocedural imaging protocol that determines valve orientation using multi-detector computed tomography-fluoroscopy co-registration. Furthermore, we have shown that a modified delivery system insertion technique during initial valve deployment results in improved commissural alignment and reduced coronary artery overlap following TAVI with a self-expanding device. However, numerous unanswered questions remain about the impact of commissural misalignment on balloon-expandable valve-in-valve TAVI, especially in patients with unfavorable aortic root anatomy. It is imperative that clinicians consider these anatomic, device-related, and procedure factors, among others, when evaluating patients for transcatheter therapies.

CT in planning transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedures and risk assessment

For surgical aortic valve replacement, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (STSS) is the reference standard for the prediction of operative risk. In transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) though, where the procedure itself is minimally invasive, the traditional risk assessment is supplemented by CTA. Through a consistent approach to the acquisition of high-quality images and the standardised reporting of annular measurements and adverse root and vascular features, patients at risk of complications can be identified. In turn, this may allow for a personalised procedural approach and treatment strategies devised to potentially reduce or mitigate this risk. This article provides a systematic and standardised approach to pre-procedural work-up with computed tomography angiography (CTA) and explores the current state of evidence and future areas of development in this rapidly developing field.