Clinical profile and natural history of 453 nonsurgically managed patients with severe aortic stenosis

Sex differences in mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine sex differences in outcome after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with real-world data from 2 large centers in Canada.

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is an effective alternative to surgical valve replacement in symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis, but the impact of sex on outcomes remains unclear. The PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 1A trial demonstrated greater benefit of TAVR over surgery in women, but whether this was due to the poorer surgical outcome of women or better TAVR outcome, compared with men, is unknown.

METHODS

Consecutive patients (n = 641) undergoing TAVR in Vancouver and Quebec City, Canada, were evaluated. Differences in all-cause mortality were examined with Kaplan-Meier estimates, adjusted logistic regression, and proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

Women comprised 51.3% of the cohort. Balloon-expandable valves were used in 97% of cases, with transapical approach in 51.7 % women and 38.1% men. Women had more major vascular complications (12.4% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.003) and borderline significantly more major/life-threatening bleeds (21.6% vs. 15.8%, p = 0.08). At baseline, women had higher aortic gradients and worse renal function but better ejection fractions. Men had more comorbidities: prior myocardial infarction, prior revascularization, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The adjusted odds ratio for 30-day all-cause mortality favored women, 0.39 (95% confidence interval: 0.19 to 0.80; p = 0.01), and this benefit persisted for 2 years, hazard ratio 0.60 (95% confidence interval: 0.41 to 0.88; p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Female sex is associated with better short- and long-term survival after TAVR. Added to the PARTNER 1A findings, these results suggest TAVR might be the preferred treatment option for elderly women with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis.

Impact of New York Heart Association classification, advanced age and patient-prosthesis mismatch on outcomes in aortic valve replacement surgery

OBJECTIVES More elderly patients (>80 years of age) are being referred for aortic valve replacement (AVR) with or without CABG. Current risk stratification models may not accurately predict the preoperative risk in these patients. We sought to determine which perioperative variables were relevant in determining short-term (30-day to in-hospital) outcomes in our intuition's series of consecutive AVR and AVR+CABG surgeries. We constructed a novel variable, patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) in the presence of diminished functional status (NYHA) classification, and studied its role as a predictor of mortality risk. METHODS From 2006 to 2010, 509 patients undergoing AVR or AVR+CABG were evaluated. We created four groups based on the age and procedure (AVR >80, AVR+CABG >80, AVR <80 and AVR+CABG <80). PPM was defined as a calculated effective orifice area index value of ≤ 0.85, and it was calculated from manufacturer-generated charts. In-hospital and 30-day outcomes were assessed using the Chi-square and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS Overall observed 30-day mortality for all groups was lower (n = 8, 1.6%) than the STS-predicted mortality. Reoperation and PPM+NYHA class III-IV were associated with short-term mortality, but age >80 years was not. Octogenarians referred for surgery often had advanced heart failure. CONCLUSIONS Overall, short-term outcomes after AVR with or without CABG were excellent and lower than predicted by the STS model. The low risk of AVR with CABG supports the consideration for earlier surgical referral and intervention for patients with a high likelihood of aortic stenosis progression before the onset of advanced heart failure ensues, regardless of the age. This should help further decrease the already very low mortality observed in these series. Efforts to avoid PPM in the setting of advanced heart failure may improve short-term results in this subset of patients.

Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement

BACKGROUND

The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial showed that among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, the 1-year survival rates are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical replacement. However, longer-term follow-up is necessary to determine whether TAVR has prolonged benefits.

METHODS

At 25 centers, we randomly assigned 699 high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis to undergo either surgical aortic-valve replacement or TAVR. All patients were followed for at least 2 years, with assessment of clinical outcomes and echocardiographic evaluation.

RESULTS

The rates of death from any cause were similar in the TAVR and surgery groups (hazard ratio with TAVR, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.15; P=0.41) and at 2 years (Kaplan-Meier analysis) were 33.9% in the TAVR group and 35.0% in the surgery group (P=0.78). The frequency of all strokes during follow-up did not differ significantly between the two groups (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.23; P=0.52). At 30 days, strokes were more frequent with TAVR than with surgical replacement (4.6% vs. 2.4%, P=0.12); subsequently, there were 8 additional strokes in the TAVR group and 12 in the surgery group. Improvement in valve areas was similar with TAVR and surgical replacement and was maintained for 2 years. Paravalvular regurgitation was more frequent after TAVR (P<0.001), and even mild paravalvular regurgitation was associated with increased late mortality (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A 2-year follow-up of patients in the PARTNER trial supports TAVR as an alternative to surgery in high-risk patients. The two treatments were similar with respect to mortality, reduction in symptoms, and improved valve hemodynamics, but paravalvular regurgitation was more frequent after TAVR and was associated with increased late mortality. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00530894.).

Chronic kidney disease is not associated with a higher risk for mortality or acute kidney injury in transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a new therapeutic option for surgical high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Many of these patients suffer from chronic kidney disease (CKD), which substantially increases the risk for acute kidney injury (AKI), need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) and mortality after surgical aortic valve repair. The impact of pre-existing CKD for the outcome of TAVI is still unclear.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 199 consecutive patients with symptomatic high-grade AS undergoing TAVI with the CoreValve prosthesis at our centre. We analysed incidence and predictive factors for AKI, RRT and mortality in patients with and without CKD (defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min).

RESULTS

26.8% of the patients suffered from AKI, 4.9% needed RRT and 5.5% died. All patients on chronic haemodialysis (n = 10) survived. There were no significant differences between patients with or without CKD concerning the incidence of AKI, RRT and mortality. Age, peripheral vascular disease and the need for blood transfusion were independently associated with AKI. AKI proved to be a predictive factor for mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the CoreValve prosthesis does not seem to bear an increased risk for patients with CKD. For surgical high-risk patients with severe AS, a more liberal consideration for TAVI as an alternative to open surgery might be justified.

Percutaneous Valve Therapy: Choosing the Appropriate Patients and Outcomes

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the current gold standard for the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS), but transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) currently represents a viable alternative to conventional SAVR for patients with AS at high risk of operative mortality. On multivariate analysis it has been shown that female gender is independently associated with better recovery of the left ventricular systolic function after TAVI and that left ventricular hypertrophy reverses more frequently in female patients after SAVR. During follow-up, however, women remain significantly more symptomatic compared with men, mainly because they present with more advanced valve disease at a significantly older age.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in dialysis patients

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a new therapeutic option for high-risk patients. However, dialysis patients were excluded from all previous studies. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of TAVI for dialysis patients with those for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 3 and 4 and to compare TAVI with open surgery in dialysis patients.

METHODS

Part I: comparison of 10 patients on chronic hemodialysis with 116 patients with non-dialysis-dependent CKD undergoing TAVI. Part II: comparison of transcatheter (n = 15) with open surgical (n = 24) aortic valve replacement in dialysis patients.

RESULTS

Part I: dialysis patients were significantly younger (72.3 vs. 82.0 years; p < 0.01). Hospital stay was significantly longer in dialysis patients (21.8 vs. 12.1 days; p = 0.01). Overall 30-day mortality was 3.17%, with no deaths among dialysis patients. Six-month survival rates were similar (log-rank p = 0.935). Part II: patient age was comparable (66.5 vs. 69.5 years; p = 0.42). Patients in the surgical group tended to stay longer in hospital than TAVI patients (29.5 vs. 22.5 days; p = 0.35).

CONCLUSION

TAVI is a safe procedure in patients on chronic hemodialysis. Until new data become available, we find no compelling reason to refuse these patients TAVI.

Management of the Patient for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in the Perioperative Period

Aortic stenosis is a prevalent valvular disease among aging patients, and surgical correction is the most definitive treatment. Yet many elderly patients are deemed to be “inoperable” or at excessive risk to undergo open surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), either through a transfemoral or transapical approach, has become a potential option for these high-risk patients. Although TAVI technology will continue to be developed and perfected, most studies at this time reveal that symptoms are improved and that 1-year morbidity and mortality are similar to those for open surgical AVR. Anesthetic management for patients undergoing TAVI involves maintaining hemodynamic stability during periods of rapidly changing conditions and providing echocardiographic guidance and assessment. Postoperative care includes a variety of challenges such as managing pain control, monitoring for potential complications, and providing hemodynamic management.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: assessing the learning curve

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the learning curve for the implantation of the percutaneous aortic valve via the transfemoral route.

BACKGROUND

Transcutaneous aortic valve insertion is a fundamentally new procedure for the treatment of aortic valve stenosis. The number of cases needed to gain proficiency with concomitant ease and familiarity (i.e., the "learning curve") with the procedure is unknown.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of the first 44 consecutive patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation as part of the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial at our institution between November 2008 and May 2011.

RESULTS

The median age of the patients was 83 years (interquartile range: 77 to 87 years) and a median Society of Thoracic Surgery risk score of 9.6. Pre-procedural assessment of the aortic valve revealed a mean gradient of 53.5 mm Hg, mean aortic valve area of 0.7 mm(2), and a median ejection fraction of 59.5%. Patients were divided into tertiles based on sequence. Significant decreases in median contrast volume (180 to 160 to 130 ml, p = 0.003), valvuloplasty to valve deployment time (12.0 to 11.6 to 7.0 min, p < 0.001) and fluoroscopy times, from 26.1 to 17.2 and 14.3 min occurred from tertiles 1 to 3, p < 0.001. Significant decreases in radiation doses were also seen across the 3 tertiles, p < 0.001. The 30-day mortality for the entire cohort was 11%.

CONCLUSIONS

Experience accumulated over 44 transfemoral aortic valve implantations led to significant decreases in procedural times, radiation, and contrast volumes. Our data show increasing proficiency with evidence of plateau after the first 30 cases. More studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Surface and intracardiac ECG for discriminating conduction disorders after CoreValve implantation

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been developed to minimize operative morbidity and mortality in high-risk symptomatic patients unfit for open surgery. With the proximity of the aortic valve annulus to the conduction system there is, however, an unknown risk of conduction disturbances necessitating monitoring and often cardiac pacing.

Materials and methods

We enrolled 50 consecutive patients from January 2007 to 2008 in our prospective evaluation of conduction disturbances measured by surface and intracardiac ECG recordings. Baseline parameters, procedural characteristics as well as twelve-lead surface ECG and intracardiac conduction times were revealed pre-interventionally, after TAVI and at 7-day follow-up.

Results

TAVI was performed successfully in all patients. During 7 days of follow-up the rate for first-degree AV block raised from 14% at baseline to 44% at day 7 (p < 0.001), while rates for type II second- and third-degree were 0 versus 8% (p < 0.001) and 0 versus 12% (p < 0.001), respectively. Similarly, the prevalence of new left bundle branch block (LBBB) rose from 2 to 54% (p < 0.001). Intracardiac measurements revealed a prolongation of both AH and HV interval from 123.7 ± 41.6 to 136.6 ± 40.5 ms (p < 0.001) and from 54.8 ± 11.7 to 71.4 ± 20.0 ms (p < 0.001), respectively. Pacemaker implantation at a mean follow-up of 4.8 ± 1.2 days was subsequently performed in 23 patients (46%) due to complete AV block (12%) and type II second-degree AV block (8%) while another 13 patients (26%) received a pacemaker for the combination of new LBBB with marked HV prolongation. The high rate of first-degree AV block was primarily driven by an increase in HV interval.

Conclusion

Cardiac conduction disturbances were common in the early experience with CoreValve implantation necessitating close surveillance for at least 1 week.

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients

BACKGROUND

The use of transcatheter aortic-valve replacement has been shown to reduce mortality among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis who are not candidates for surgical replacement. However, the two procedures have not been compared in a randomized trial involving high-risk patients who are still candidates for surgical replacement.

METHODS

At 25 centers, we randomly assigned 699 high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis to undergo either transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable bovine pericardial valve (either a transfemoral or a transapical approach) or surgical replacement. The primary end point was death from any cause at 1 year. The primary hypothesis was that transcatheter replacement is not inferior to surgical replacement.

RESULTS

The rates of death from any cause were 3.4% in the transcatheter group and 6.5% in the surgical group at 30 days (P=0.07) and 24.2% and 26.8%, respectively, at 1 year (P=0.44), a reduction of 2.6 percentage points in the transcatheter group (upper limit of the 95% confidence interval, 3.0 percentage points; predefined margin, 7.5 percentage points; P=0.001 for noninferiority). The rates of major stroke were 3.8% in the transcatheter group and 2.1% in the surgical group at 30 days (P=0.20) and 5.1% and 2.4%, respectively, at 1 year (P=0.07). At 30 days, major vascular complications were significantly more frequent with transcatheter replacement (11.0% vs. 3.2%, P<0.001); adverse events that were more frequent after surgical replacement included major bleeding (9.3% vs. 19.5%, P<0.001) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (8.6% vs. 16.0%, P=0.006). More patients undergoing transcatheter replacement had an improvement in symptoms at 30 days, but by 1 year, there was not a significant between-group difference.

CONCLUSIONS

In high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, transcatheter and surgical procedures for aortic-valve replacement were associated with similar rates of survival at 1 year, although there were important differences in periprocedural risks. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; Clinical Trials.gov number, NCT00530894.).

Management and outcomes of severe aortic stenosis in cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the commonest native valve lesion, affecting 43% of all patients with valvular heart disease. The optimal treatment of severe AS in cancer patients is unknown. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on survival of cancer patients with severe AS.

METHODS

Cancer patients with severe AS seen at our center between January 2001 and April 2007 were identified. Baseline demographics, symptoms, cancer diagnosis, laboratory data, treatment, and outcome were collected. Patient who had AVR were matched with controls who did not have AS.

RESULTS

Out of 39,071 echocardiograms performed over the study period, 1,299 had AS (3.3%), of which 50 patients (0.13%) were identified as having severe AS. Thirteen patients (27%) underwent AVR, and 35 were managed medically. Two patients underwent valvuloplasty and were excluded. Survival was significantly longer in patients with severe AS who underwent AVR and was independent of cancer status or presence of metastases. No difference in survival was found between patients who underwent AVR and matched cancer controls. In a multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis, AVR was the only significant predictor of longer survival (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.22, P = .028).

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer patients with severe AS who underwent AVR had an improved survival, regardless of cancer status.

[Transapical aortic valve implantation--indications, risks and limitations]

Calcified aortic stenosis is the predominant valve disease in the western world. Currently, surgical aortic valve replacement is the gold standard procedure for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis that can be performed with low morbidity and mortality. The prevalence of aortic stenosis increases with age, and the incidence of several comorbidities also unavoidably elevates the risk of surgical treatment. Therefore, the most adequate and gentle treatment is needed especially for this population. Since the first transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) was performed in 2002, the main implanting routes are the transfemoral, retrograde access through the common femoral artery, and the antegrade, transapical approach via anterolateral minithoracotomy. Meanwhile, TAVI has become an alternative treatment for patients who are not suitable candidates for surgical therapy in some centers.The initial clinical results are promising and have confirmed the feasibility of this technique. Due to the restricted long-term data, conventional aortic valve replacement still remains the standard for the treatment of aortic stenosis. Selection of the suitable therapy approach (surgical replacement, transfemoral or transapical aortic valve implantation) must consider each patient's specific risk profile and individual indication. Prospective, randomized trials will be necessary to assess the individual survival benefit of TAVI for various risk populations and to extend the indication.

Changing nature of cardiac interventions in older adults

Older adults represent a rapidly growing segment of the population in developed countries. Advancing age is the most powerful risk factor for the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and CVD-related mortality increases markedly in older individuals. Procedures for patients with CVD, including percutaneous coronary intervention, aortic valve replacement and implantable cardioverter defibrillators were all initially validated in younger individuals but are increasingly being applied in older adults who for the most part have been significantly understudied in clinical trials. While advanced age alone is not a contraindication to these procedures, with the advent of less invasive methods to manage CVD including percutaneous techniques to treat both coronary artery disease and valvular heart disease, future research will need to weigh the potential harms of intervention in a population of older adults with multiple medical comorbidities and complex physiologic phenotypes against outcomes that include preventing functional decline and improving quality of life.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for failing bioprosthetic valves

Transcatheter valve implantation is becoming an alternative to conventional surgical valve replacement in patients at high surgical risk. While experience and acceptance with transcatheter techniques increased rapidly, transcatheter valve implantation within failing bioprostheses has emerged as a new concept (valve-in-valve implantation). Currently, the majority of prostheses implanted in patients are bioprosthetic valves that are expected to degenerate over time. Valve-in-valve implantation provides great utility in high-operative-risk patients since the mortality risk for reoperation can be significantly higher than for first-time isolated valve replacement. Although two current devices are CE Mark approved in Europe for implantation within native valves, off-label clinical implementation of valve-in-valve have been described in numerous case reports. In this article, we provide an overview of transcatheter valve implantation in failing bioprostheses with an emphasis on the aortic position.

ESC Working Group on Valvular Heart Disease Position Paper: assessing the risk of interventions in patients with valvular heart disease

AIMS

Risk scores provide an important contribution to clinical decision-making, but their validity has been questioned in patients with valvular heart disease (VHD), since current scores have been mainly derived and validated in adults undergoing coronary bypass surgery. The Working Group on Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology reviewed the performance of currently available scores when applied to VHD, in order to guide clinical practice and future development of new scores.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The most widely used risk scores (EuroSCORE, STS, and Ambler score) were reviewed, analysing variables included and their predictive ability when applied to patients with VHD. These scores provide relatively good discrimination, i.e. a gross estimation of risk category, but cannot be used to estimate the exact operative mortality in an individual patient because of unsatisfactory calibration.

CONCLUSION

Current risk scores do not provide a reliable estimate of exact operative mortality in an individual patient with VHD. They should therefore be interpreted with caution and only used as part of an integrated approach, which incorporates other patient characteristics, the clinical context, and local outcome data. Future risk scores should include additional variables, such as cognitive and functional capacity and be prospectively validated in high-risk patients. Specific risk models should also be developed for newer interventions, such as transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Renal function as predictor of mortality in patients after percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the influence of baseline renal function and periprocedural acute kidney injury (AKI) on prognosis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

BACKGROUND

Evidence is growing that renal function is a major predictor of mortality in patients after TAVI.

METHODS

TAVI was performed with the 18-F CoreValve prosthesis via transfemoral access. All-cause mortality was determined 30 days and 1 year after TAVI in 77 patients with a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality score of 9.3 ± 6.1% and a mean logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation of 31.2 ± 17.6%.

RESULTS

Overall procedural success rate was 98% with 1 periprocedural death. The 30-day mortality was 10%, and 1-year mortality was 26%. The mortality risk increased stepwise across quartiles of baseline serum creatinine. An AKI occurred in 20 of 77 patients: 12 patients (60%) with AKI died during follow-up. The incidence of AKI was related to peripheral arterial disease (65% vs. 39%; p = 0.04), the occurrence of a systemic inflammatory response syndrome (60% vs. 21%, p = 0.002), and post-procedural peri-prosthetic regurgitation ≥2+ (35% vs. 9%, p = 0.02). Impaired renal function at baseline reflected by serum creatinine ≥1.58 mg/dl (hazard ratio: 3.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.6 to 9.5; p = 0.002) and the occurrence of AKI (hazard ratio: 5.9, 95% confidence interval: 2.4 to 14.5, p < 0.001) that was not related to the amount of contrast dye were strong predictors of 1-year mortality after TAVI.

CONCLUSIONS

Impaired renal function at baseline and the occurrence of periprocedural AKI, independent whether renal function returns to baseline or not, are strong predictors of 30-day and 1-year mortality after TAVI.

Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

Short-term results are presented from our first year of experience with transcatheter aortic-valve implantation [corrected] (TAVI) at the University Hospital of North Norway.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

TAVI was used to treat 25 patients with aortic stenosis [corrected] from September 2008 to August 2009. 25 patients operated with conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) served as controls.

RESULTS

The TAVI group had a significantly higher EuroSCORE (p < 0.001) than the AVR group. No patients in the TAVI group were treated in the intensive care unit while those in the AVR group received 38 days of intensive care in total. The TAVI group had shorter operating times (p < 0.001), larger mean valve sizes (p < 0.001) and significantly fewer postoperative transfusions (p < 0.001) than the ACR group. Peri-operative stroke and myocardial infarction did not occur in the TAVI group while there was one incidence of stroke and one myocardial infarction in the AVR group. The postoperative transvalvular mean gradient decreased in both groups (p < 0.001) and was significantly lower in the TAVI group (p = 0.001). The NYHA class improved significantly in the TAVI group (p < 0.001). No patients needed implantation of a permanent pacemaker. 30-day mortality was four patients in the AVR group and one patient in the TAVI group. After discharge one patient died in each group.

INTERPRETATION

TAVI is safe and effective for selected patients with aortic stenosis [corrected] who are assessed as high risk for AVR. Long-term results are needed and will be decisive for use of this approach in the future.

Impact of treatment choice on the outcome of patients proposed for transcatheter aortic valve implantation

AIMS

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a new option for patients with severe aortic stenosis at high surgical risk. We compared the clinical outcome of patients referred for TAVI and subsequently treated with TAVI, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV), or medical management (MM).

METHODS AND RESULTS

All consecutive patients (n=166, EuroSCORE 24.9 ± 13.9%) referred for TAVI to our two centres were enrolled in a prospective registry and were assigned to SAVR (n=21), TAVI with the CoreValve prosthesis (n=75), BAV (n=20), or MM (n=50) by a multi-specialty team. The primary endpoint was 6-month cardiac mortality. Patients undergoing BAV had a significantly higher EuroSCORE (33.6 ± 15.9%; p=0.01). Median follow-up time was nine months (interquartile range 4.5-12.4 months). Six-month freedom from cardiac death was 81.0 ± 8.6%, 92.0 ± 3.1%, 72.9 ± 10.5%, and 72.7 ± 6.5% for SAVR, TAVI, BAV, and MM groups, respectively. Freedom from major cardiac and cerebrovascular events was 76.2 ± 9.3%, 83.9 ± 4.3%, 72.9 ± 10.5%, and 65.6 ± 6.8% for SAVR, TAVI, BAV, and MM groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

With respect to medical management and BAV, TAVI was associated with lower cardiac mortality at six months. Clinical outcome after TAVI was similar to that of less sick patients undergoing SAVR.

Standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation clinical trials: a consensus report from the Valve Academic Research Consortium

OBJECTIVES

To propose standardized consensus definitions for important clinical endpoints in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), investigations in an effort to improve the quality of clinical research and to enable meaningful comparisons between clinical trials. To make these consensus definitions accessible to all stakeholders in TAVI clinical research through a peer reviewed publication, on behalf of the public health.

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation may provide a worthwhile less invasive treatment in many patients with severe aortic stenosis and since its introduction to the medical community in 2002, there has been an explosive growth in procedures. The integration of TAVI into daily clinical practice should be guided by academic activities, which requires a harmonized and structured process for data collection, interpretation, and reporting during well-conducted clinical trials.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Valve Academic Research Consortium established an independent collaboration between Academic Research organizations and specialty societies (cardiology and cardiac surgery) in the USA and Europe. Two meetings, in San Francisco, California (September 2009) and in Amsterdam, the Netherlands (December 2009), including key physician experts, and representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and device manufacturers, were focused on creating consistent endpoint definitions and consensus recommendations for implementation in TAVI clinical research programs. Important considerations in developing endpoint definitions included (i) respect for the historical legacy of surgical valve guidelines; (ii) identification of pathophysiological mechanisms associated with clinical events; (iii) emphasis on clinical relevance. Consensus criteria were developed for the following endpoints: mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, bleeding, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, and prosthetic valve performance. Composite endpoints for TAVI safety and effectiveness were also recommended.

CONCLUSION

Although consensus criteria will invariably include certain arbitrary features, an organized multidisciplinary process to develop specific definitions for TAVI clinical research should provide consistency across studies that can facilitate the evaluation of this new important catheter-based therapy. The broadly based consensus endpoint definitions described in this document may be useful for regulatory and clinical trial purposes.

One year follow-up of the multi-centre European PARTNER transcatheter heart valve study

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a new therapeutic option in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Aims

PARTNER EU is the first study to evaluate prospectively the procedural and mid-term outcomes of transfemoral (TF) or transapical (TA) implantation of the Edwards SAPIEN® valve involving a multi-disciplinary approach.

Methods and results

Primary safety endpoints were 30 days and 6 months mortality. Primary efficacy endpoints were haemodynamic and functional improvement at 12 months. One hundred and thirty patients (61 TF, 69 TA), aged 82.1 ± 5.5 years were included. TA patients had higher logistic EuroSCORE (33.8 vs. 25.7%, P = 0.0005) and more peripheral disease (49.3 vs. 16.4%, P< 0.0001). Procedures were aborted in four TA (5.8%) and six TF cases (9.8%). Valve implantation was successful in the remaining patients in 95.4 and 96.4%, respectively. Thirty days and 6 months survival were 81.2 and 58.0% (TA) and 91.8 and 90.2% (TF). In both groups, mean aortic gradient decreased from 46.9 ± 18.1 to 10.9 ± 5.4 mmHg 6 months post-TAVI. In total, 78.1 and 84.8% of patients experienced significant improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, whereas 73.9 and 72.7% had improved Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scores in TA and TF cohorts, respectively.

Conclusion

This first team-based multi-centre European TAVI registry shows promising results in high-risk patients treated by TF or TA delivery. Survival rates differ significantly between TF and TA groups and probably reflect the higher risk profile of the TA cohort. Optimal patient screening, approach selection, and device refinement may improve outcomes.