Outcomes From Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Low-Flow, Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis and Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Less Than 30%: A Substudy From the TOPAS-TAVI Registry

Rates, predictors, and causes of readmission after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a revolutionary procedure for severe aortic stenosis. The coexistence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and TAVR introduces a challenge that significantly impacts patient outcomes.

AIM

To define readmission rates, predictors, and causes after TAVR procedure in CKD stage 1-4 patients.

METHODS

We used the national readmission database 2018 and 2020 to look into readmission rates, causes and predictors after TAVR procedure in patients with CKD stage 1-4.

RESULTS

Out of 24758 who underwent TAVR and had CKD, 7892 (32.4%) patients were readmitted within 90 days, and had higher adjusted odds of being females (adjusted odds ratio: 1.17, 95%CI: 1.02-1.31, P = 0.02) with longer length of hospital stay > 6 days, and more comorbidities including but not limited to diabetes mellitus, anemia, and congestive heart failure (CHF).

CONCLUSION

Most common causes of readmission included CHF (18.0%), sepsis, and complete atrioventricular block. Controlling readmission predictors with very close follow-up is warranted to prevent such high rate of readmission.

Sex Differences in Aortic Stenosis: From the Pathophysiology to the Intervention, Current Challenges, and Future Perspectives

Calcific aortic stenosis (AS) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in high-income countries. AS presents sex-specific features impacting pathophysiology, outcomes, and management strategies. In women, AS often manifests with a high valvular fibrotic burden, small valvular annuli, concentric left ventricular (LV) remodeling/hypertrophy, and, frequently, supernormal LV ejection fraction coupled with diastolic dysfunction. Paradoxical low-flow low-gradient AS epitomizes these traits, posing significant challenges post-aortic valve replacement due to limited positive remodeling and significant risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch. Conversely, men present more commonly with LV dilatation and dysfunction, indicating the phenotype of classical low-flow low-gradient AS, i.e., with decreased LV ejection fraction. However, these distinctions have not been fully incorporated into guidelines for AS management. The only treatment for AS is aortic valve replacement; women are frequently referred late, leading to increased heart damage caused by AS. Therefore, it is important to reassess surgical planning and timing to minimize irreversible cardiac damage in women. The integrity and the consideration of sex differences in the management of AS is critical. Further research, including sufficient representation of women, is needed to investigate these differences and to develop individualized, sex-specific management strategies.

Impact of Stress Echocardiography on Aortic Valve Stenosis Management

Rest and stress echocardiography (SE) play a fundamental role in the evaluation of aortic valve stenosis (AS). According to the current guidelines for the echocardiographic evaluation of patients with aortic stenosis, four broad categories can be defined: high-gradient AS (mean gradient ≥ 40 mmHg, peak velocity ≥ 4 m/s, aortic valve area (AVA) ≤ 1 cm2 or indexed AVA ≤ 0.6 cm2/m2); low-flow, low-gradient AS with reduced ejection fraction (mean gradient < 40 mmHg, AVA ≤ 1 cm2, left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50%, stroke volume index (Svi) ≤ 35 mL/m2); low-flow, low-gradient AS with preserved ejection fraction (mean gradient < 40 mmHg, AVA ≤ 1 cm2, LVEF ≥ 50%, SVi ≤ 35 mL/m2); and normal-flow, low-gradient AS with preserved ejection fraction (mean gradient < 40 mmHg, AVA ≤ 1 cm2, indexed AVA ≤ 0.6 cm2/m2, LVEF ≥ 50%, SVi > 35 mL/m2). Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is indicated with the onset of symptoms development or LVEF reduction. However, there is often mismatch between resting transthoracic echocardiography findings and patient's symptoms. In these discordant cases, SE and CT calcium scoring are among the indicated methods to guide the management decision making. Additionally, due to the increasing evidence that in asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis an early AVR instead of conservative treatment is associated with better outcomes, SE can help identify those that would benefit from an early AVR by revealing markers of poor prognosis. Low-flow, low-gradient AS represents a challenge both in diagnosis and in therapeutic management. Low-dose dobutamine SE is the recommended method to distinguish true-severe from pseudo-severe stenosis and assess the existence of flow (contractile) reserve to appropriately guide the need for intervention in these patients.

Survival outcomes of TAVR and self-expanding versus balloon-expandable valves in patients with advanced cardiac dysfunction

AIMS

There is a growing body of literature on long-term outcomes post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), but to our knowledge, few research have focused on patients with advanced cardiac dysfunction. This challenging category of patients was excluded from the Partner 3 clinical trial. There are no data to guide the choice of valve type in patients with severely depressed ejection fraction. This study evaluates the safety, efficacy, and outcomes of TAVR in patients with severe aortic stenosis and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35%. It compares post-TAVR survival outcomes with self-expanding (SEV) versus balloon-expandable (BEV) valves in the context of cardiac dysfunction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A retrospective cohort was conducted on 977 patients who underwent TAVR at Toulouse University Hospital between January 2016 and December 2020. The study population included two groups: LVEF ≤ 35% (N = 157) and LVEF ≥ 50% (N = 820). The group of LVEF ≤ 35% was divided into two subgroups according to the type of implanted device: self-expanding (N = 66) versus balloon-expandable (N = 91). The living status of each of study's participants was observed in December 2022. Patients with low ejection fraction were younger (82 vs. 84.6 years) and commonly males (71.3% vs. 45.6%). Procedural success was almost 98% in both study groups (97.5% vs. 97.9%). The prevalence of all in-hospital post-TAVR complications [acute kidney injury (3.8% vs. 2.2%), major bleeding events (2.5% vs. 3.2%), stroke (1.3% vs. 1.6%), pacemaker implantation (10.2% vs. 10.7%), major vascular complication (4.5% vs. 4.5%), new onset atrial fibrillation (3.2% vs. 3.4%), and in-hospital death (3.2% vs. 2.8%)] were similar between groups (LVEF ≤ 35% vs. LVEF ≥ 50%). No difference in long-term survival has been revealed over 3.4 years (P = 0.268). In patients with LVEF ≤ 35%, except for post-TAVR mean aortic gradient (7.8 ± 4.2 vs. 10.2 ± 3.6), baseline and procedural characteristics were comparable between SEV versus BEV subgroups. An early improvement in LVEF (from 29.2 ± 5.5 to 37.4 ± 10.8) was observed. In patients with LVEF ≤ 35%, the all-cause mortality rate was significantly higher in BEV than that in SEV subgroups, respectively (40.7% vs. 22.7%, P = 0.018). Kaplan-Meier curve showed better survival outcomes after SEV implantation (P = 0.032). A Cox regression identified BEV as independent predictor of mortality [HR = 3.276, 95% CI (1.520-7.060), P = 0.002].

CONCLUSIONS

In the setting of low LVEF, TAVR remains a safe and effective procedure not associated with an increased risk of complications and mortality. SEV implantation may likely result in superior survival outcomes in patients with advanced cardiac dysfunction.

Outcomes and predictors of left ventricle recovery in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Data on the likelihood of left ventricle (LV) recovery in patients with severe LV dysfunction and severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and its prognostic value are limited.

AIMS

We aimed to assess the likelihood of LV recovery following TAVI, examine its association with midterm mortality, and identify independent predictors of LV function.

METHODS

In our multicentre registry of 17 TAVI centres in Western Europe and Israel, patients were stratified by baseline LV function (ejection fraction [EF] >/≤30%) and LV response: no LV recovery, LV recovery (EF increase ≥10%), and LV normalisation (EF ≥50% post-TAVI).

RESULTS

Our analysis included 10,872 patients; baseline EF was ≤30% in 914 (8.4%) patients and >30% in 9,958 (91.6%) patients. The LV recovered in 544 (59.5%) patients, including 244 (26.7%) patients whose LV function normalised completely (EF >50%). Three-year mortality for patients without severe LV dysfunction at baseline was 29.4%. Compared to this, no LV recovery was associated with a significant increase in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.32; p<0.001). Patients with similar LV function post-TAVI had similar rates of 3-year mortality, regardless of their baseline LV function. Three variables were associated with a higher likelihood of LV recovery following TAVI: no previous myocardial infarction (MI), estimated glomerular filtration rate >60 mL/min, and mean aortic valve gradient (mAVG) (expressed either as a continuous variable or as a binary variable using the standard low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis [AS] definition).

CONCLUSIONS

LV recovery following TAVI and the extent of this recovery are major determinants of midterm mortality in patients with severe AS and severe LV dysfunction undergoing TAVI. Patients with no previous MI and those with an mAVG >40 mmHg show the best results following TAVI, which are at least equivalent to those for patients without severe LV dysfunction. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04031274).

Is the Corrected Carotid Flow Time a Clinically Acceptable Surrogate Hemodynamic Parameter for the Left Ventricular Ejection Time?

OBJECTIVE

The corrected left ventricular ejection time (cLVET) comprises the phase from aortic valve opening to aortic valve closure corrected for heart rate. As a surrogate measure for cLVET, the corrected carotid flow time (ccFT) has been proposed in previous research. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical agreement between cLVET and ccFT in a dynamic clinical setting.

METHODS

Twenty-five patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) were selected for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The cLVET and ccFT were derived from the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) and the common carotid artery (CCA), respectively, using pulsed wave Doppler ultrasound. Bazett's (B) and Wodey's (W) equations were used to calculate cLVET and ccFT. Measurements were performed directly before (T1) and after (T2) TAVR. Correlation, Bland-Altman and concordance analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Corrected LVET decreased from T1 to T2 (p < 0.001), with relative reductions of 11% (B) and 9% (W). Corrected carotid flow time decreased (p < 0.001), with relative reductions of 12% (B) and 10% (W). The correlation between cLVET and ccFT was strong for B (ρ = 0.74, p < 0.001) and W (ρ = 0.81, p < 0.001). The bias was -39 ms (B) and -37 ms (W), and the upper and lower levels of agreement were 19 and -98 ms (B) and 5 and -78 ms (W), respectively. Trending ability between cLVET and ccFT was good (concordance 96%) for both B and W.

CONCLUSION

In TAVR patients, the clinical agreement between cLVET and ccFT was acceptable, indicating that ccFT could serve as a surrogate measure for cLVET.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Improves Quality of Life and Ventricular Function With Low-Flow/Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis

Background

D2 aortic stenosis (AS) is the highest risk AS subtype with worse operative and mortality outcomes. This study aimed to investigate the quality of life (QoL) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with classic (D2 subtype) low-flow/low-gradient AS who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

Methods

In total, 634 patients with severe AS underwent TAVR at our institution from 2014 to 2020, of whom 76 met criteria for classic D2 AS with reduced LVEF. Echocardiographic and clinical outcomes including mortality, stroke, pacemaker placement (PPM), and readmission at baseline were compared with those at 30 days and 1 year. QoL data were extracted from the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-12).

Results

The average baseline Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score for patients with D2 AS was 7.66 ± 6.76. Patients with D2 AS reported improved QoL post-TAVR. The average baseline KCCQ-12 score was 39.5 ± 20, with improvement to 68.9 ± 20.6 at 30 days (P < .01) and 74.9 ± 17.5 at 1 year (P < .01). Mortality was 0% at 30 days and 18.4% at 1 year. The average baseline LVEF was 36.1 ± 9.4. Left ventricular function improved to 43.5 ± 12.9 (P <.001) at 30 days and 46.3 ± 11.2 (P = .03) at 1 year. Complications post-TAVR at 30 days included stroke (1.3%) and PPM (11.8%). Patients with D2 AS exhibited higher baseline conduction defects including atrial fibrillation and higher postoperative PPM than those with other subtypes.

Conclusions

Patients with D2 AS had significantly improved LVEF and QoL following TAVR at 30 days and 1 year. Postoperative rates of new PPM were higher than other subtypes, while stroke, dialysis, and mortality were lower than expected, supporting the benefit of TAVR in this high-risk group.

Multimodality imaging for the global evaluation of aortic stenosis: The valve, the ventricle, the afterload

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular heart disease growing in parallel to the increment of life expectancy. Besides the valve, the degenerative process affects the aorta, impairing its elastic properties and leading to increased systemic resistance. The composite of valvular and systemic afterload mediates ventricular damage. The first step of a thorough evaluation of AS should include a detailed assessment of valvular anatomy and hemodynamics. Subsequently, the ventricle, and the global afterload should be assessed to define disease stage and prognosis. Multimodality imaging is of paramount importance for the comprehensive evaluation of these three elements. Echocardiography is the cornerstone modality whereas Multi-Detector Computed Tomography and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance provide useful complementary information. This review comprehensively examines the merits of these imaging modalities in AS for the evaluation of the valve, the ventricle, and the afterload and ultimately endeavors to integrate them in a holistic assessment of AS.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in heart failure

Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) may develop heart failure (HF), the presence of which has traditionally been deemed as a final stage in AS progression with poor outcomes. The use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the preferred therapy for most patients with AS and concomitant HF. With its instant afterload reduction, TAVR offers patients with HF significant haemodynamic benefits, with corresponding changes in left ventricular structure and improved mortality and quality of life. The prognostic covariates and optimal timing of TAVR in patients with less than severe AS remain unclear. The purpose of this review is to describe the association between TAVR and outcomes in patients with HF, particularly in the setting of left ventricular systolic dysfunction, acute HF, and right ventricular systolic dysfunction, and to highlight areas for future research.

Unsupervised cluster analysis reveals different phenotypes in patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Aims

The aim of this study was to identify phenotypes with potential prognostic significance in aortic stenosis (AS) patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) through a clustering approach.

Methods and results

This multi-centre retrospective study included 1365 patients with severe AS who underwent TAVR between January 2015 and March 2019. Among demographics, laboratory, and echocardiography parameters, 20 variables were selected through dimension reduction and used for unsupervised clustering. Phenotypes and outcomes were compared between clusters. Patients were randomly divided into a derivation cohort (n = 1092: 80%) and a validation cohort (n = 273: 20%). Three clusters with markedly different features were identified. Cluster 1 was associated predominantly with elderly age, a high aortic valve gradient, and left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy; Cluster 2 consisted of preserved LV ejection fraction, larger aortic valve area, and high blood pressure; and Cluster 3 demonstrated tachycardia and low flow/low gradient AS. Adverse outcomes differed significantly among clusters during a median of 2.2 years of follow-up (P < 0.001). After adjustment for clinical and echocardiographic data in a Cox proportional hazards model, Cluster 3 (hazard ratio, 4.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.76-9.94; P = 0.001) was associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes. In sequential Cox models, a model based on clinical data and echocardiographic variables (χ2 = 18.4) was improved by Cluster 3 (χ2 = 31.5; P = 0.001) in the validation cohort.

Conclusion

Unsupervised cluster analysis of patients after TAVR revealed three different groups for assessment of prognosis. This provides a new perspective in the categorization of patients after TAVR that considers comorbidities and extravalvular cardiac dysfunction.

Left ventricular reverse remodeling after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis

OBJECTIVES

Left ventricular reverse remodeling (LVRR) is associated with improved outcome in patients with heart failure. Factors associated with and predictive of LVRR in patients with low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis (LFLG AS) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and its impact on outcome were assessed.

METHODS

Pre- and postprocedural left ventricular (LV) function and volume were investigated in 219 patients with LFLG. LVRR was defined as an absolute increase of ≥10% in LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and reduction of ≥15% in LV end-systolic volume (LVESV). The primary endpoint was the combination of all-cause mortality and rehospitalization for heart failure.

RESULTS

The mean LVEF was 35.0 ± 10.0%, with a stroke volume index (SVI) of 25.9 ± 6.0 mL/m2 and LVESV of 94.04 ± 46.0 mL. At a median of 5.2 months (interquartile range, 2.7-8.1 months), 77.2% (n = 169) of the patients showed echocardiographic evidence of LVRR. A multivariate model revealed three independent factors for LVRR after TAVI: SVI of <25 mL/m2 (hazard ratio [HR], 2.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-3.58; p < 0.01), LVEF of <30% (HR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.53-2.91; p < 0.01), and valvulo-arterial impedance (Zva) of <5 mmHg/mL/m2 (HR, 5.36; 95% CI, 1.80-15.98; p < 0.01). Patients without evidence of LVRR showed a significantly higher incidence of the 1-year combined endpoint (32 [64.0%] vs. 75 [44.4%], p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients with LFLG AS show LVRR after TAVI, which is associated with favorable outcomes. An SVI of <25 mL/m2, LVEF of <30%, and Zva < 5mmHg/mL/m2 represent predictors of LVRR.

ABCDEG Stress Echocardiography in Aortic Stenosis

Rest and stress echocardiography (SE) plays a pivotal role in the evaluation of valvular heart disease. The use of SE is recommended in valvular heart disease when there is a mismatch between resting transthoracic echocardiography findings and symptoms. In aortic stenosis (AS), rest echocardiographic analysis is a stepwise approach that begins with the evaluation of aortic valve morphology and proceeds to the measurement of the transvalvular aortic gradient and aortic valve area (AVA) using continuity equations or planimetry. The presence of the following three criteria suggests severe AS: AVA < 1.0 cm2, a peak velocity > 4.0 m/s, or a mean gradient > 40 mmHg. However, in approximately one in three cases, we can observe a discordant AVA < 1 cm2 with a peak velocity < 4.0 m/s or a mean gradient <40 mmHg. This is due to reduced transvalvular flow associated with LV systolic dysfunction (LVEF < 50%) defined as "classical" low-flow low-gradient (LFLG) AS or normal LVEF "paradoxical" LFLG AS. SE has an established role in evaluating LV contractile reserve (CR) patients with reduced LVEF. In classical LFLG AS, LV CR distinguished pseudo-severe AS from truly severe AS. Some observational data suggest that long-term prognosis in asymptomatic severe AS may not be as favorable as previously thought, offering a window of opportunity for intervention prior to the onset of symptoms. Therefore, guidelines recommend evaluating asymptomatic AS with exercise stress in physically active patients, particularly those younger than 70 years, and symptomatic classical LFLG severe AS with low-dose dobutamine SE. A comprehensive SE assessment includes evaluating valve function (gradients), the global systolic function of the LV, and pulmonary congestion. This assessment integrates considerations of blood pressure response, chronotropic reserve, and symptoms. StressEcho 2030 is a prospective, large-scale study that employs a comprehensive protocol (ABCDEG) to analyze the clinical and echocardiographic phenotypes of AS, capturing various vulnerability sources which support stress echo-driven treatment strategies.

Comparison of Periprocedural and Intermediate-Term Outcomes of TAVI in Patients with Ejection Fraction ≤ 20% vs. Patients with 20% < EF ≤ 40

Treatment of congestive heart failure (CHF) with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction and severe aortic stenosis (AS) is challenging, yet transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a suitable treatment option in such patients. We compared the periprocedural outcomes of TAVR in patients with an ejection fraction (EF) of ≤20% (VLEF group) to patients with an EF > 20% to ≤40% (LEF group). We included patients with severe AS and reduced LV ejection fraction (LVEF ≤ 40%) who underwent TAVR at four centers within Northwell Health between January 2016 and December 2020. Over 2000 consecutive patients were analyzed, of which 355 patients met the inclusion criteria. The primary composite endpoint was in-hospital mortality, moderate or greater paravalvular (PVL), stroke, conversion to open surgery, aortic valve re-intervention, and/or need for PPM. Secondary endpoints were length of stay, NYHA classification at 1 month and 1 year, mortality at 1 month and 1 year, mean valve gradient at 1 month, KCCQ score at 1 month, and ≥ moderate PVL at 1 month. There was no difference in the primary composite endpoint between the two groups (23.6% for VLEF vs. 25.3% for LEF, p = 0.29). During TAVR placement, 40% of patients in the VLEF group required ≥1 vasopressors for hypotension lasting ≥30 min vs. only 21% of patients in the LEF group (p < 0.01). Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use during procedure was greater in the VLEF group (9% vs. 1%, p < 0.01)-all placed post TAVR. Emergency ECMO use was higher in the VLEF group as well (5% vs. 0%). Total length of stay was significantly different between the two groups as well (6 days vs. 3 days, p < 0.01). Both groups had a change in LVEF of ~10%. One-year outcomes were similar between the groups. All-cause mortality at 1 year was not significantly different at 1 year (13% for VLEF vs. 11% for LEF), and KCC scores were also similar (77.54 vs. 74.97). Mean aortic valve gradients were also similar (12 mmHg vs. 11 mmHg, p = 0.48). Our study suggests that patients with EF ≤ 20% can safely have TAVR with similar periprocedural outcomes compared to patients with EF > 20% to ≤40% despite higher rates of vasopressor and mechanical support.

ESC/EACTS vs. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of severe aortic stenosis

Aortic stenosis (AS) is a serious and complex condition, for which optimal management continues to evolve rapidly. An understanding of current clinical practice guidelines is critical to effective patient care and shared decision-making. This state of the art review of the 2021 European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery Guidelines and 2020 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines compares their recommendations for AS based on the evidence to date. The European and American guidelines were generally congruent with the exception of three key distinctions. First, the European guidelines recommend intervening at a left ventricular ejection fraction of 55%, compared with 60% over serial imaging by the American guidelines for asymptomatic patients. Second, the European guidelines recommend a threshold of ≥65 years for surgical bioprosthesis, whereas the American guidelines employ multiple age categories, providing latitude for patient factors and preferences. Third, the guidelines endorse different age cut-offs for transcatheter vs. surgical aortic valve replacement, despite limited evidence. This review also discusses trends indicating a decreasing proportion of mechanical valve replacements. Finally, the review identifies gaps in the literature for areas including transcatheter aortic valve implantation in asymptomatic patients, the appropriateness of Ross procedures, concomitant coronary revascularization with aortic valve replacement, and bicuspid AS. To summarize, this state of the art review compares the latest European and American guidelines on the management of AS to highlight three areas of divergence: timing of intervention, valve selection, and surgical vs. transcatheter aortic valve replacement criteria.

Early Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Conservative Management in Asymptomatic Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The merits of conservative management vs early intervention in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis remains unknown. Digital databases (MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Embase) were searched for all relevant studies from inception through September 2022. Studies comparing conservative management with early intervention were compared using a random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 12 studies comprising 3624 asymptomatic aortic stenosis patients (1747 receiving surgery, and 1877 receiving conservative treatment) were included in the analysis. The average follow-up time was 4.45 (IQR 3.5-5) years. Early intervention was associated with a significantly reduced risk of cardiac (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.25-0.72; P = 0.001; I² = 54%), non-cardiac (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.32-0.68; P < 0.0001; I² = 0%), all-cause mortality (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.32-0.51; P < 0.00001; I² = 58%), heart failure hospitalization (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13-0.36; P < 0.00001; I² = 0%), sudden cardiac death (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12-0.66; P = 0.004, I² = 24%), and MACE (RR 0.46, 95% CI; 0.28-0.75; P = 0.002; I² = 68%), compared with conservative management. There was no significant difference in the 30-day mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.19-2.04; P = 0.44; I² = 28%), myocardial infarction (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.19-1.06; P = 0.07, I²=0%), and 90-day mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.20-2.37; P = 0.55; I² = 61%) between the 2 groups. This meta-analysis shows statistically significant reductions in the risk for all-cause mortality, cardiac specific mortality, non-cardiac mortality, heart failure hospitalization, MACE, and sudden cardiac death among asymptomatic aortic stenosis patients who underwent early intervention as opposed to conservative management.

Acute Modification of Hemodynamic Forces in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the established first-line treatment for patient with severe aortic stenosis not suitable for surgery. Echocardiographic evaluation of hemodynamic forces (HDFs) is a growing field, holding the potential to early predict improvement in LV function. A prospective observational study was conducted. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed before and after TAVI. HDFs were analyzed along with traditional left ventricular (LV) function parameters. Twenty-five consecutive patients undergoing TAVI were enrolled: mean age 83 ± 5 years, 74.5% male, mean LV Ejection Fraction (LVEF) at baseline 57 ± 8%. Post-TAVI echocardiographic evaluation was performed 2.4 ± 1.06 days after the procedure. HDF amplitude parameters improved significantly after the procedure: LV Longitudinal Forces (LF) apex-base [mean difference (MD) 1.79%; 95% CI 1.07-2.5; p-value < 0.001]; LV systolic LF apex-base (MD 2.6%; 95% CI 1.57-3.7; p-value < 0.001); LV impulse (LVim) apex-base (MD 2.9%; 95% CI 1.48-4.3; p-value < 0.001). Similarly, HDFs orientation parameters improved: LVLF angle (MD 1.5°; 95% CI 0.07-2.9; p-value = 0.041); LVim angle (MD 2.16°; 95% CI 0.76-3.56; p-value = 0.004). Conversely, global longitudinal strain and LVEF did not show any significant difference before and after the procedure. Echocardiographic analysis of HDFs could help differentiate patients with LV function recovery after TAVI from patients with persistent hemodynamic dysfunction.

Transcatheter heart valve selection in patients with low ejection fraction and aortic stenosis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of transcatheter heart valve (THV) choice in patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction.

BACKGROUND

The management congestive heart failure with combined LV systolic dysfunction and severe aortic stenosis (AS) is challenging, yet transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a suitable treatment option in such patients. Head-to-head comparisons among the balloon-expandable (BEV) and self-expandable (SEV) THV remain limited in this subgroup of patients.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we included patients with severe AS with LV systolic dysfunction (LVEF ≤40%) who underwent TAVR at four high volume centers. Two thousand and twenty-eight consecutive patients were analyzed, of which 335 patients met inclusion criteria. One hundred fourty-six patients (43%) received a SEV, and 189 patients (57%) received a BEV.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar except for a higher proportion of females in the SEV group. The primary composite endpoint of in-hospital mortality, moderate or greater paravalvular (PVL), stroke, conversion to open surgery, aortic valve reintervention, and/or need for permanent pacemaker (PPM) was no different among THV choice. There was more PVL in the SEV group, but higher transaortic gradients in the BEV group. Clinical outcomes and quality of life measures were similar up to 1 year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The choice of THV in patients with severe AS and systolic dysfunction must be weighed on a case-by-case basis.

The role of stress echocardiography in transcatheter aortic valve implantation and transcatheter edge-to-edge repair era: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

In the last decade, percutaneous treatment of valve disease has changed the approach toward the treatment of aortic stenosis (AS) and mitral regurgitation (MR). The clinical usefulness of stress echocardiography (SE) in the candidates for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) of MR remains to be established. Therefore, the key aim of this review is to assess the main applications of SE in patients undergoing TAVI or TEER.

METHODS

We searched for relevant studies to be included in the systematic review on PubMed (Medline), Cochrane library, Google Scholar, and Biomed Central databases. The literature search was conducted in February 2022. The inclusion criteria of the studies were: observational and clinical trials or meta-analysis involving patients with AS or MR evaluated with SE (excluding those in which SE was used only for screening of pseudo-severe stenosis) and treated with percutaneous procedures.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies published between 2013 and 2021 were included in the review: five regarding candidates for TEER and eight for TAVI. In TEER candidates, seeing an increase in MR grade, and stroke volume of >40% during SE performed before treatment was, respectively, related to clinical benefits (p = 0.008) and an increased quality of life. Moreover, overall, 25% of patients with moderate secondary MR at rest before TEER had the worsening of MR during SE. At the same time, in SE performed after TEER, an increase in mean transvalvular diastolic gradient and in systolic pulmonary pressure is expected, but without sign and symptoms of heart failure. Regarding TAVI, several studies showed that contractile reserve (CR) is not predictive of post-TAVI ejection fraction recovery and mortality in low-flow low-gradient AS either at 30 days or at long-term.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review shows in TEER candidates, SE has proved useful in the optimization of patient selection and treatment response, while its role in TAVI candidates is less defined. Therefore, larger trials are needed to test and confirm the utility of SE in candidates for percutaneous procedures of valve diseases.

Surgical vs Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With a Low Ejection Fraction

Currently, there is no preference for surgical (SAVR) vs transcatheter (TAVR) aortic valve replacement in patients with low ejection fraction (EF). The present study retrospectively compared the outcomes of SAVR vs TAVR in patients with EF ≤40% (70 SAVR and 117 TAVR patients). Study outcomes were survival and the composite endpoint of stroke, aortic valve reintervention, and heart failure readmission. The patients who had TAVR were older (median: 75 (25-75th percentiles: 69-81) vs 51 (39-66) years old; P < .001) with higher EuroSCORE II (4.95 (2.99-9.85) vs 2 (1.5-3.25); P < .001). Postoperative renal impairment was more common with SAVR (8 (12.5%) vs 4 (3.42%); P = .03), and they had longer hospital stay [9 (7-15) vs 4 (2-8) days; P < .001). There was no difference between groups in stroke, reintervention, and readmission (Sub-distributional Hazard ratio: .95 (.37-2.45); P = .92). Survival at 1 and 5 years was 95% and 91% with SAVR and 89% and 63% with TAVR. Adjusted survival was comparable between groups. EF improved significantly (β: .28 (.23-.33); P < 0.001) with no difference between groups ( P = .85). In conclusion, TAVR could be as safe as SAVR in patients with low EF.

Low-flow/low-gradient aortic stenosis without contractile reserve—a case report

Background

Diagnosis and management of low-flow/low-gradient aortic stenosis are very challenging. Resting echocardiography is not capable of differentiating between different types and origins of low-flow and low-gradient state in aortic valve stenosis. Therefore, dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) and cardiac computed tomography (CCT) are necessary. This case report should illustrate the importance of these assessments.

Case summary

A 73-year-old woman presented to our emergency department with New York Heart Association III symptoms of exertional dyspnoea. In addition, the patient complained of fatigue and low resilience. On physical examination, auscultation revealed a systolic murmur over the aortic valve. Further diagnostic steps revealed a low-flow/low-gradient aortic valve stenosis (LF/LGAS) without contractile reserve (CR) in DSE and massive valve calcification in CCT.

Discussion

In this case, we demonstrate the importance of different assessments and workflow. The prognosis of LF/LGAS has been re-evaluated during the last decade and the current guidelines recommend the treatment of such patients even in the absence of CR. Furthermore, we are discussing the results of LF/LGAS.

Aortic Valve Replacement in the Failing Left Ventricle: Worthwhile?

Purpose

According to the 2020 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, the aortic valve should be replaced in the setting of severe aortic stenosis or regurgitation, independent of left ventricular function (even for EF < 55%). However, in clinical practice, especially in a very low EF range, surgeons may avoid surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) because of concern over operative risk. This study examines outcomes of patients with EF ≤ 35% undergoing SAVR.

Methods

From 2004 to 2019, 895 patients underwent SAVR for aortic stenosis (AS) and/or regurgitation (AR) by a single surgeon at our institution. From among these, 40 patients (4.47%) had an ejection fraction (EF) of 35% or less, forming the study group. Intra-aortic balloon pump was placed intraoperatively prophylactically pre-bypass in 18 out of the 40. Preoperative and post-operative echocardiograms were compared to determine changes in ejection fraction. Mid-term survival was assessed.

Results

16 patients presented with AS, 20 with AR, and 4 with a combination of AS and AR. Hospital survival was 97.5% (one patient death). The average ejection fraction progressively improved over time from 26% initially to 46% mid-term with mean follow-up of 43 months (0.1-140.7). Remarkably, five-year survival was comparable between the study group and an age- and gender-matched general population (p = 0.834). Downward trends in LV end-diastolic diameter and end-systolic diameter were seen. The former achieved statistical significance (6.0 cm to 5.3 cm; p = 0.0046), while the latter fell slightly short (4.8 cm to 4.1 cm; p = 0.056). Patients in whom an IABP was used had lower EFs than those without IABP (range 10-35, mean 23% vs. 15-35%, mean 27.6%). The EFs of the three subgroups improved significantly postoperatively (p < 0.001 for AS, p = 0.002 for AR, and p = 0.046 for AS and AR).

Conclusions

Surgical AVR can be done safely in patients with a failing LV with EF ≤ 35%. Significant improvements in the ejection fraction are seen over time. We believe there is a role for prophylactic pre-bypass IABP. Five-year survival is normalized. Surgeons should not hesitate to perform AVR in these highly jeopardized patients.

Association of heart failure with procedural complications and in-hospital outcomes from left atrial appendage occlusion device implantation in patients with atrial fibrillation: insights from the national inpatient sample of 62 980 procedures

AIMS

To determine outcomes in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with concomitant heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data were extracted from National Inpatient Sample for calendar years 2015-2019. LAAO device implantations were identified on the basis of ICD-10-CM code of 02L73DK. The outcomes assessed in our study included complications, in-patient mortality, and resource utilization. A total of 62 980 LAAO device implantations were studied. HFpEF (14.4%, n = 9040) and HFrEF (11.2%, n = 7100) were associated with a higher prevalence of major complications and in-patient mortality in crude analysis. In the multivariate model adjusted for potential confounders, HFpEF and HFrEF were not associated with major complications [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93-1.16 and aOR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95-1.21] or in-patient mortality (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 0.85-2.55 and aOR 1.26, 95% CI 0.67-2.38). HFpEF and HFrEF were associated with prolonged length of stay (LOS) > 1 day (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.31-1.53 and aOR 1.66, 95% CI 1.53-1.80) and increased hospitalization costs > median cost 24 752$ (aOR 1.26, 95% CI 1.19-1.34 and aOR 1.21, 95% CI 1.13-1.29).

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of HF in AF patients undergoing percutaneous LAAO was approximately 26%. HF was not independently associated with major complications and in-patient mortality but was associated with prolonged LOS and higher hospitalization costs.

ANMCO position paper: 2022 focused update of appropriate use criteria for multimodality imaging: aortic valve disease

This document addresses the evaluation of the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) of multimodality imaging in the diagnosis and management of aortic valve disease. The goal of this AUC document is to provide a comprehensive resource for multimodality imaging in the context of aortic valve disease, encompassing multiple imaging modalities. Clinical scenarios are developed in a simple way to illustrate patient presentations encountered in everyday practice.

Surgical aortic valve replacement for low-gradient aortic stenosis

AIMS

Low-gradient aortic stenosis is a challenging entity that needs accurate preoperative evaluation. For this high-risk patient population, ad hoc predictive scores are not available and profile risk is currently revealed by the EuroSCOREs. Aims of this study are to verify the suitability of the ES II as predictor of mortality in low-gradient aortic stenosis and to analyse the role of surgery as a treatment.

METHODS

From June 2013 to August 2019, 414 patients underwent surgical aortic valve replacement for low-gradient aortic stenosis. Mean age was 75.78 ± 6.77 years and 190 were women. The prognostic value of Logistic EuroSCORE and EuroSCORE II were compared by receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis.

RESULTS

In-hospital, 30-day and 1-year mortality rates were respectively 3.4, 2.9 and 4.8% (14, 12 and 20 patients over 414). In-hospital mortality risk calculated by the Additive EuroSCORE was 7.2 ± 2.7%, by the Logistic EuroSCORE was 9 ± 5.2% and by the ES II was 4.13 ± 2.56%. The prognostic values of the EuroSCORE II and of the EuroSCORE were analysed in a ROC curve analysis for the prediction of in-hospital mortality [area under the curve (AUC): 0.62 vs. 0.58], 30-day mortality (AUC: 0.63 vs. 0.64) and 1-year mortality (AUC: 0.79 vs. 0.65). Both scores did not show significant differences with the only exception of 1-year mortality, for which EuroSCORE II had a better predictive ability than the Logistic EuroSCORE (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In low-gradient aortic stenosis undergoing surgery, the EuroSCORE II is a strong predictor of 1-year mortality.

Clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement stratified by left ventricular ejection fraction: A single centre pilot study

Introduction

To define baseline echocardiographic, electrocardiographic (ECG) and computed tomographic (CT) findings of patients with heart failure undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and analyze their overall procedural outcomes.

Methods

Between 2018 and 2021, patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) who performed transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in Sabah Al Ahmad Cardiac Centre, Al Amiri Hospital were identified. A retrospective review of patients' parameters including pre-, intra-, and post-procedural data was conducted. Patients were grouped in 2 subgroups according to their EF: EF <40% (HFrEF) and EF ≥ 40%. The data included patients’ baseline characteristics, electrocardiographic and echocardiographic details along with pre-procedural CT assessment of aortic valve dimensions. Primary outcomes including post-operative disturbances, pacemaker implantation and in-hospital mortality following TAVR were additionally analyzed.

Results

A total of 61 patients with severe AS underwent TAVR. The mean age was 73.5 ± 9, and 21 (34%) of the patients were males. The mean ejection fraction (EF) was 55.5 ± 9.7%. Of 61 patients, 12 (20%) were identified as heart failure with reduced EF (<40%). These patients were younger, more often males, and were more likely to have coronary artery disease (75% versus 53.1%). Left ventricular hypertrophy and diastolic dysfunction was documented in 75% and 58.3% of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) respectively. Post TAVR conduction disturbances, with the commonest being LBBB was observed in 41.7%. Permanent pacemaker was implanted in 3 of patients with HFrEF (25%). There were no significant differences between the two groups with regards to in hospital mortality (p = 0.618).

Conclusion

Severe AS with EF <40% constitute a remarkable proportion of patients undergoing TAVR. Preliminary results of post-operative conduction disturbances and in hospital mortality in HFrEF patients were concluded to not differ from patients with LVEF ≥40%.

•

This is the first reported outcome study of TAVR in patients with heart failure in Kuwait.

•

Conduction disturbances induced by TAVR was observed in almost half of the patients.

•

Systolic dysfunction was not a predictor of in hospital complications or mortality outcomes.

Restructuring the Heart From Failure to Success: Role of Structural Interventions in the Realm of Heart Failure

Heart failure through the spectrum of reduced (HFrEF), mid-range (or mildly reduced or HFmEF), and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), continues to plague patients' quality of life through recurrent admissions and high mortality rates. Despite tremendous innovation in medical therapy, patients continue to experience refractory congestive symptoms due to adverse left ventricular remodeling, significant functional mitral regurgitation (FMR), and right-sided failure symptoms due to significant functional tricuspid regurgitation (FTR). As most of these patients are surgically challenging for open cardiac surgery, the past decade has seen the development and evolution of different percutaneous structural interventions targeted at improving FMR and FTR. There is renewed interest in the sphere of left ventricular restorative devices to effect reverse remodeling and thereby improve effective stroke volume and patient outcomes. For patients suffering from HFpEF, there is still a paucity of disease-modifying effective medical therapies, and these patients continue to have recurrent heart failure exacerbations due to impaired left ventricular relaxation and high filling pressures. Structural therapies involving the implantation of inter-atrial shunt devices to decrease left atrial pressure and the development of implantable devices in the pulmonary artery for real-time hemodynamic monitoring would help redefine treatment and outcomes for patients with HFpEF. Lastly, there is pre-clinical data supportive of soft robotic cardiac sleeves that serve to improve cardiac function, can assist contraction as well as relaxation of the heart, and have the potential to be customized for each patient. In this review, we focus on the role of structural interventions in heart failure as it stands in current clinical practice, evaluate the evidence amassed so far, and review promising structural therapies that may transform the future of heart failure management.

Cardiac Cachexia Associated With Valvular Heart Failure

Cardiac cachexia (CC) represents a serious complication of heart failure (HF). This condition could be directly related to mortality. The weight or muscle mass loss has to be monitored in our patients with HF to avoid potential complications.

We report a case of an elderly patient with a history of aortic stenosis (AS) who presented with progressive shortness of breath limiting his daily activities associated with weight loss. Signs of heart failure were evident on physical examination, and valvulopathy was also evident. His echocardiogram showed reduced ejection fraction (EF) with structural changes and severe aortic stenosis. He was not a candidate for cardiothoracic surgery, and a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was performed. After the procedure, his symptoms improved, and during the outpatient follow-up, his cardiac function and dry weight improved.

Cardiac cachexia could be caused by reversible cardiomyopathy. Early assessment and approach are critical for the outcome of our patients, impacting their quality of life and outcome in terms of morbidity and mortality consequences.

Timing of aortic valve replacement in high-gradient severe aortic stenosis: impact of left ventricular ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Patients with high-gradient (HG) severe aortic stenosis (AS) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction are at high risk of death. The optimal timing for aortic valve replacement (AVR) is not defined by guidelines. The objective was to define the optimal timing to perform isolated AVR in patients with HG-AS and severe LV dysfunction.

METHODS

We retrospectively included 233 consecutive patients admitted for severe HG-AS (aortic valve area <1cm² and mean gradient ≥40mmHg). Severe LV dysfunction was defined by LV ejection fraction ≤35% (LVEF). All-cause mortality while waiting for AVR and after the intervention (30 days) was compared in patients with (n = 28) and without (n = 205) LVEF ≤35%.

RESULTS

Patients with HG-AS and severe LV dysfunction had a higher risk profile than those with LVEF >35%. AVR was performed in 93% (218/233) of patients, 41% by surgery (SAVR) and 53% by transcatheter (TAVR). TAVR was the preferred method to treat HG-AS patients with LVEF ≤35%. All-cause mortality while waiting for AVR was higher in patients with severe LV dysfunction (22% vs. 2.0%, p < 0.001) and occurred within a shorter time (12 [8-26] days vs. 63 [58-152] days, p = 0.010) compared to those with LVEF >35%. All death in HG-AS patients with a severe LV dysfunction occurred within the first month. Postoperative mortality was low (1.3%), irrespective of LVEF.

CONCLUSIONS

AVR should be performed promptly after Heart Team decision in patients with HG severe AS and LVEF ≤35% because of a very high and premature risk of death while waiting for intervention.

Effect of Transaortic Valve Intervention for Aortic Stenosis on Myocardial Mechanics

Chronic afterload excess in aortic stenosis results in compensatory concentric hypertrophy which mitigates the increased systolic load. Surgical aortic valve replacement has been shown to decrease afterload and improve left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF). The extent to which these changes take place in patients undergoing TAVI (transcatheter aortic valve intervention) may be different than what has been observed in the surgical aortic valve replacement patients who were generally younger with few co-morbidities. Accordingly, we analyzed indices of LV structure and ventricular mechanics pre- and 1-year after TAVI in 397 patients (mean age 81±9, 46% women) with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, complete echocardiographic data was available in 156 patients and these patients compromised our study population. Our principal findings are: (1) LV remodeling occurs after TAVI; (2) afterload decreases significantly; (3) LV chamber and myocardial function, assessed by left ventricular ejection fraction and midwall fractional shortening, and stroke volume, respectively, remain unchanged or decrease. In conclusion, TAVI effects LV remodeling despite significant co-morbidities. Thus, TAVI reduces afterload and leads to LV remodeling. Surprisingly, however, systolic function does not improve. These data run counter to the paradigm that afterload reduction improves systolic function and suggest that the response to afterload reduction is complex in the TAVI population.

Current Therapeutic Options in Aortic Stenosis

Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease requiring valve replacement. Valve replacement therapies have undergone progressive evolution since the 1960s. Over the last 20 years, transcatheter aortic valve replacement has radically transformed the care of aortic stenosis, such that it is now the treatment of choice for many, particularly elderly, patients. This review provides an overview of the pathophysiology, presentation, diagnosis, indications for intervention, and current therapeutic options for aortic stenosis.

Echocardiographic assessment of aortic stenosis: a practical guideline from the British Society of Echocardiography

The guideline provides a practical step-by-step guide in order to facilitate high-quality echocardiographic studies of patients with aortic stenosis. In addition, it addresses commonly encountered yet challenging clinical scenarios and covers the use of advanced echocardiographic techniques, including TOE and Dobutamine stress echocardiography in the assessment of aortic stenosis.

Safety and feasibility of dobutamine stress echocardiography in symptomatic high gradient aortic stenosis patients scheduled for transcatheter aortic valve implantation

PURPOSE

We aimed to study the safety and feasibility of low-dose dobutamine stress echocardiography in a symptomatic high gradient aortic stenosis population scheduled for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and to quantify left ventricular (LV) flow reserve.

METHODS

Fifty patients underwent dobutamine stress echocardiography with 5 minutes increments of 5 μg/kg/min up to 20 μg/kg/min until the heart rate increased ≥20 beats/min from baseline or exceeded 100 beats/min. Other criteria for discontinuing the infusion were major adverse events: ventricular arrhythmia, persistent supraventricular arrhythmia, pulmonary edema, chest pain with significant ST-changes, or minor events: ST-changes, drop in systolic blood pressure >30 mmHg, mild chest pain, and/or dyspnea. LV flow reserve was defined as an increase in stroke volume ≥20% during the test.

RESULTS

Of 50 patients, 45 completed the test according to protocol. No patient had major adverse event. Five patients experienced minor side effects: mild chest pain/dyspnea in three, self-terminating atrial flutter in one, and decrease in blood pressure in one. Significant LV flow reserve was observed in 20 patients (40%).

CONCLUSION

Low-dose dobutamine stress test appeared safe and feasible patients with high gradient aortic stenosis, and showed LV flow reserve in a minority of them.

Impact of Left-Ventricular Dysfunction in Patients With High- and Low- Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with high-gradient (HG) severe aortic stenosis (AS) and reduced left-ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) are unknown.

METHODS

Patients undergoing TAVR for native severe AS between 2009 and 2018 were retrospectively included and classified into 3 groups: HG (≥ 40 mm Hg) and preserved EF (≥ 50%), HG low EF (< 50%), and low gradient (LG < 40 mm Hg) low EF. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular mortality and readmission for heart failure at 1 year after TAVR.

RESULTS

Of the 526 patients included, 323 (61%) had HG preserved EF, 69 (13%) had HG low EF, and 134 (26%) had LG low EF. HG low EF group had higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation and heart failure and higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons score compared with the HG preserved EF group. Patients in the LG low EF group were older and had higher prevalence of coronary artery disease compared with those in the HG groups. All-cause mortality at 30 days (4.0%) was similar across the 3 groups. After adjustment, the risk of primary endpoint was similar in the HG low-EF vs preserved EF groups. Conversely, the risk of primary endpoint was higher in the LG low EF group vs the HG preserved EF group (hazard ratio [HR], 2.24; 95% confidence interval [CI],1.36-3.70; P = 0.002) and vs HG low EF group (HR, 3.50; 95% CI, 1.55-7.90; P = 0.003), whereas the risk of all-cause mortality was similar across the 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcome of patients with HG low EF severe AS following TAVR is as good as that of patients with HG preserved EF.