Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis in people with low surgical risk

Early offering transcatheter aortic valve replacement to patients with moderate aortic stenosis: quantifying costs and benefits - a Markov model-based simulation study

OBJECTIVE

Aortic stenosis (AS) is one of the most common acquired cardiac valvular diseases. The success of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe AS has led to increasing interest in its use to earlier disease-moderate AS (MAS).

DESIGN

Model-based study using a Markov microsimulation technique to evaluate the long-term costs and benefits associated with 'early' TAVI. Key data inputs were sourced from the international literature and costs were obtained from Australian sources.

SETTING

Australian health care system perspective.

PARTICIPANTS

10 000 hypothetical MAS patients with or without left ventricular diastolic dysfunction or impaired left ventricular ejection fraction.

INTERVENTION

Comparing early TAVI to medical management over a life time horizon for MAS patients aged >65 years. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of offering early TAVI in five scenarios (10%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 90% take-up rates).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure is quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). Secondary outcomes are life-years gained and the number of heart failure case avoided.

RESULTS

Offering early TAVI for MAS patients resulted in both higher healthcare costs and greater benefits (an increase of 3.02 QALYs or 3.99 life-years) per person treated. The ICUR was around $A10 867 and $A11 926 per QALY gained for all five scenarios, with the total cost of early TAVI to the healthcare system being anticipated to be up to $A3.66 billion. Sensitivity analyses indicated a 100% probability of being cost-effective with a willingness to pay threshold of $A50 000/QALY. The benefits remained, even with assumptions of high levels of repeat valve replacement after TAVI.

CONCLUSION

While ongoing randomised controlled trials will define the benefit of TAVI to MAS patients, these results suggest that this intervention is likely to be cost-effective.

Comparative Analysis of TAVR (Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement) and Surgical Valve Replacement for Low-Risk Patients

"Aortic stenosis" (AS) refers to a cardiac condition in which the aortic valve narrows, creating an obstruction that hinders the flow of blood from the left ventricle to the aorta. This contraction of the arteries influences normal blood circulation, leading to elevated pressure within the left ventricle and potentially culminating in heart failure. The management of AS typically involves two primary treatments, i.e. "surgical aortic valve replacement" (SAVR) and "transcatheter aortic valve replacement" (TAVR). In both cases, the goal is to replace a dysfunctional aortic valve with a functional substitute. Presently, TAVR has gained much preference over SAVR in clinical practice. However, there is a dearth of comprehensive research directly comparing the real-world outcomes of TAVR and SAVR. In recent years, TAVR has emerged as an attractive alternative to SAVR, yet studies that provide a detailed comparison of their real-world solutions are limited. This review article assesses the mortality of patients who underwent TAVR vis-a-vis patients who underwent SAVR.

Analysis of heterogeneity of the different health technology assessment reports produced on the transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk

Background

Symptomatic severe aortic stenosis is a congenital or acquired aortic valve disease that occurs when the aortic valve of the heart narrows. It represents the most common valvular disease in adults and generally has a degenerative nature. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), due to its non-invasive approach, has become the standard treatment in patients who are ineligible to surgery or at high surgical risk, and it is also increasingly being performed in patients at intermediate to low surgical risk. The aim is to analyze the heterogeneity and explore the limitations of current health technology assessments (HTAs) on TAVI.

Methods

For the purpose of this analysis, a review of the literature based on manual research was performed. A population, intervention, comparators, and outcome (PICO) model was used to gather the HTA reports assessing TAVI in the treatment of patients affected by symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk. Furthermore, a manual search has been developed to also include assessments from the Haute Autorité de Santé.

Results

At the end of the investigation, a certain degree of heterogeneity in the evidence factored and in the recommendations on the technology has emerged. Relative to the clinical domains, the main drivers for the disparity are found in the type of evidence considered and in the use or not of the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) methodology to evaluate the quality of the clinical evidence included. Another element concerns the chosen device generation assessed within the evaluation. In order to perform the economic evaluation, a cost-utility analysis and a budget impact model were developed. Despite some elements of heterogeneity, the economic assessments demonstrate a favorable or dominant cost-effectiveness profile for TAVI compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

Conclusion

Despite the presence of heterogeneity elements both in clinical and economic domains, HTA agencies reached the same recommendations on the use of TAVI. It emerged the need for a centralized vision on the "strong" domains, which means giving up freedom to local bodies to adapt to their context on the "soft" ones. This approach could have the potential to strengthen the role of HTA in Europe by ensuring faster decision-making and equity of access to health innovations and reduce the heterogeneity in the assessment methods.

Prevalence and Risk Factors Associated With Acute Kidney Injury After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement at a Tertiary Hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Despite recent advancements in techniques, peri- and post-procedural complications still pose a significant challenge in the high-risk transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) patient population. This study aims to investigate and assess the prevalence of acute kidney injury (AKI) following TAVR, and to identify the risk factors associated with its occurrence.

METHODS

We conducted the study at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia from January 2016 to December 2022. We extracted data from electronic medical records. We categorized and compared patients based on their diagnosis of AKI+ following TAVR, or their absence of AKI- after the procedure.

RESULTS

The study included a total of 344 patients who underwent TAVR. The mean age of the patients was 77.8 ± 8.9 years, 61.8% were male, and the average body mass index was 30.5±7.0. In terms of comorbidities, 70.8% of the patients had diabetes mellitus, 80.5% had hypertension, 8.7% had hypothyroidism, 2.0% had hematological disorders, 23.6% had congestive heart disease, 20.4% had cerebrovascular disease, 4.1% had peripheral vascular disease, 7.3% had cancer, and 34.4% had other comorbidities. The prevalence of AKI was 60 (17.50%) following the procedure. Cerebrovascular diseases showed a significant association with AKI (OR= 3.381, 95% CI, 1.65-6.91, p = 0.001). Chronic kidney disease has a significant effect on AKI (OR = 2.56, 95%CI, 1.02-6.39, p = 0.044). The creatinine level on Day 0 has a significant association with AKI (OR = 1.01, 95%CI, 1.006-1.017, p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlight the importance of assessing and managing these risk factors (cerebrovascular diseases, chronic kidney disease, and creatinine level on Day 0) in TAVR patients to mitigate the occurrence and severity of AKI. By understanding and addressing these factors, healthcare providers can potentially improve patient outcomes and reduce the incidence of AKI-associated TAVR procedures.

Temporal Changes in Quality Indicators in a Regional System of Care After Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

Historically, quality-of-care monitoring was performed separately for transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR, SAVR). Using consensus indicators, we provide a global report on the quality of care for treatment of aortic stenosis across the highest-volume treatments: transfemoral (TF) TAVR, isolated SAVR, and SAVR combined with coronary artery bypass graft.

Methods

Retrospective observational cohort study of consecutive patients in a regional system of care. Primary endpoint was 30-day and 1-year mortality (2015-2019). Secondary endpoints included rate of new pacemaker, rate of readmission, and length of stay (2012-2019). Following multivariable logistic regressions, we developed mortality case-mix adjustment models to report risk estimates.

Results

The proportion of patients receiving TAVR grew from 32% to 53% (2015-2019). Those receiving TF TAVR were significantly older, with higher rates of comorbidities. Observed 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality after TF TAVR decreased from 3.1% to 0.6% (P = 0.03), and 13.6% to 6.6% (P = 0.09), respectively; surgical mortality rates for isolated SAVR and SAVR combined with coronary artery bypass graft were low and did not change significantly over time, ranging from 0.3% to 1.4% and from 0.9% to 3.4%, respectively at 30 days, and from 0.9% to 3.4% and from 4.7% to 6.7 at 1 year. In the TF TAVR cohort, the observed vs expected ratio for 30-day and 1-year mortality decreased significantly from 1.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9, 3.5) to 0.3 (95% CI 0.1, 0.8), and from 1.3 (95% CI 0.9, 1.7) to 0.7 (95% CI 0.5, 0.99), respectively; no change occurred in risk-adjusted surgical mortality.

Conclusions

Consensus quality indicators provide unique insights on the quality of care for patients receiving treatment for aortic stenosis.

Efficacy and safety of tirzepatide for treatment of overweight or obesity. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent studies suggest that tirzepatide, a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic-peptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), has significant weight loss effects. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide for weight loss in patients with overweight or obesity.

METHODS

Medline, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on tirzepatide's weight loss efficacy for these patients. A single arm meta-analysis of proportions estimated primary outcomes, ≥5%, ≥10%, and ≥15% weight loss, and adverse events (AEs); while meta-analysis of means estimated secondary outcomes. Comparative meta-analysis was conducted between tirzepatide and control arms where mean differences and odds ratios were estimated for continuous and dichotomous outcomes respectively.

RESULTS

RCTs included in this study revealed that among 5800 patients, 78.22% (95% CI: 72.15% to 83.73%), 55.60% (95% CI: 46.54% to 64.47%), 32.28% (95% CI: 23.17% to 42.12%) achieved ≥5%, ≥10%, and ≥15% weight loss, respectively. Tirzepatide 5 mg demonstrated weight loss superiority relative to placebo (MD: -12.47 kg, 95% CI: -13.94 kg to -11.00 kg) and semaglutide (n = 1409, MD: -1.90 kg, 95% CI: -2.97 kg to -0.83 kg) with dose-dependent increase for 10 mg and 15 mg doses. The comparison between tirzepatide and semaglutide was examined in the SURPASS-2 trial that was included in this systematic review. For AEs, there was increase odds of experiencing gastrointestinal AEs with tirzepatide compared to placebo, but no significant difference with semaglutide.

CONCLUSION

Tirzepatide has significant potential as a weight loss drug in patients with overweight and obesity, with little increase in AEs compared to other weight loss drugs. With its ability to concurrently target multiple aspects of metabolic syndrome, it should be considered as the next helm of weight loss therapies.

Effect of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement on All-Cause Mortality in Patients With Aortic Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement and is the treatment of choice for patients at high operative risk. The role of TAVI in patients at lower risk is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether TAVI is noninferior to surgery in patients at moderately increased operative risk.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this randomized clinical trial conducted at 34 UK centers, 913 patients aged 70 years or older with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and moderately increased operative risk due to age or comorbidity were enrolled between April 2014 and April 2018 and followed up through April 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

TAVI using any valve with a CE mark (indicating conformity of the valve with all legal and safety requirements for sale throughout the European Economic Area) and any access route (n = 458) or surgical aortic valve replacement (surgery; n = 455).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 1 year. The primary hypothesis was that TAVI was noninferior to surgery, with a noninferiority margin of 5% for the upper limit of the 1-sided 97.5% CI for the absolute between-group difference in mortality. There were 36 secondary outcomes (30 reported herein), including duration of hospital stay, major bleeding events, vascular complications, conduction disturbance requiring pacemaker implantation, and aortic regurgitation.

RESULTS

Among 913 patients randomized (median age, 81 years [IQR, 78 to 84 years]; 424 [46%] were female; median Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality risk score, 2.6% [IQR, 2.0% to 3.4%]), 912 (99.9%) completed follow-up and were included in the noninferiority analysis. At 1 year, there were 21 deaths (4.6%) in the TAVI group and 30 deaths (6.6%) in the surgery group, with an adjusted absolute risk difference of -2.0% (1-sided 97.5% CI, -∞ to 1.2%; P < .001 for noninferiority). Of 30 prespecified secondary outcomes reported herein, 24 showed no significant difference at 1 year. TAVI was associated with significantly shorter postprocedural hospitalization (median of 3 days [IQR, 2 to 5 days] vs 8 days [IQR, 6 to 13 days] in the surgery group). At 1 year, there were significantly fewer major bleeding events after TAVI compared with surgery (7.2% vs 20.2%, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.33 [95% CI, 0.24 to 0.45]) but significantly more vascular complications (10.3% vs 2.4%; adjusted HR, 4.42 [95% CI, 2.54 to 7.71]), conduction disturbances requiring pacemaker implantation (14.2% vs 7.3%; adjusted HR, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.43 to 2.94]), and mild (38.3% vs 11.7%) or moderate (2.3% vs 0.6%) aortic regurgitation (adjusted odds ratio for mild, moderate, or severe [no instance of severe reported] aortic regurgitation combined vs none, 4.89 [95% CI, 3.08 to 7.75]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients aged 70 years or older with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and moderately increased operative risk, TAVI was noninferior to surgery with respect to all-cause mortality at 1 year.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

isrctn.com Identifier: ISRCTN57819173.

A Novel Method to Predict Mortality and Length of Stay after Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Background and Objectives: We tested if a novel combination of predictors could improve the accuracy of outcome prediction after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Materials and Methods: This prospective study recruited 169 participants (49% female; median age 81 years). The primary endpoint was midterm mortality; secondary endpoints were acute Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3 complication rate and post-TAVI in-hospital length of stay (LoS). EuroSCORE II (ESII), comorbidities (e.g., coronary artery disease), eGFR (estimated glomerular filtration rate; based on cystatin C), hemoglobin, creatinine, N-Terminal pro-Brain Natriuretic Peptide (NTproBNP) levels and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs, namely EuroQol-5-Dimension-5-Levels, EQ5D5L; Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, KCCQ; clinical frailty scale, CFS) at baseline were tested as predictors. Regression (uni- and multi-variate Cox; linear; binary logistic) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC)-curve analysis were applied. Results: Within a median follow-up of 439 (318–585) days, 12 participants died (7.1%). Independent predictors of mortality using multivariate Cox regression were baseline eGFR (p = 0.001) and KCCQ (p = 0.037). Based on these predictors, a Linear Prediction Score (LPS1) was calculated. The LPS1-area under the curve (AUC)-value (0.761) was significantly higher than the ESII-AUC value (0.597; p = 0.035). Independent predictors for LoS > 6 days (the median LoS) were eGFR (p = 0.028), NTproBNP (p = 0.034), and EQ5D5L values (p = 0.002); a respective calculated LPS2 provided an AUC value of 0.677 (p < 0.001). Eighty participants (47.3%) experienced complications. Male sex predicted complications only in the univariate analysis. Conclusions: The combination of KCCQ and eGFR can better predict midterm mortality than ES II alone. Combining eGFR, NTproBNP, and EQ5D5L can reliably predict LoS after TAVI. This novel method improves personalized TAVI risk stratification and hence may help reduce post-TAVI risk.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Patients undergoing surgery for severe aortic stenosis (SAS) can be treated with either transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The choice of procedure depends on several factors, including the clinical judgement of the heart team and patient preferences, which are captured by actively informing and involving patients in a process of shared decision making (SDM). We synthesised the most up-to-date and accessible evidence on the benefits and risks that may be associated with TAVI versus SAVR to support SDM in this highly personalised decision-making process.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Wiley) were searched from January 2000 to August 2020 with no language restrictions. Reference lists of included studies were searched to identify additional studies.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared TAVI versus SAVR in patients with SAS and reported on all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, length of stay in intensive care unit or hospital, valve durability, rehospitalisation/reintervention, stroke (any stroke or major/disabling stroke), myocardial infarction, major vascular complications, major bleeding, permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, new-onset or worsening atrial fibrillation (NOW-AF), endocarditis, acute kidney injury (AKI), recovery time or pain were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers were involved in data extraction and risk of bias (ROB) assessment using the Cochrane tool (one reviewer extracted/assessed the data, and the second reviewer checked it). Dichotomous data were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel method with random-effects to generate a risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. Continuous data were pooled using the inverse-variance method with random-effects and expressed as a mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic.

RESULTS

8969 records were retrieved and nine RCTs (61 records) were ultimately included (n=8818 participants). Two RCTs recruited high-risk patients, two RCTs recruited intermediate-risk patients, two RCTs recruited low-risk patients, one RCT recruited high-risk (≥70 years) or any-risk (≥80 years) patients; and two RCTs recruited all-risk or 'operable' patients. While there was no overall change in the risk of dying from any cause (30 day: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.22; ≤1 year: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; 5 years: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.22), cardiovascular mortality (30 day: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.39; ≤1 year: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.06; 2 years: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.12), or any type of stroke (30 day: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.14;≤1 year: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.23; 5 years: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.30), the risk of several clinical outcomes was significantly decreased (major bleeding, AKI, NOW-AF) or significantly increased (major vascular complications, PPM implantation) for TAVI vs SAVR. TAVI was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay vs SAVR (MD -3.08 days, 95% CI -4.86 to -1.29; 4 RCTs, n=2758 participants). Subgroup analysis generally favoured TAVI patients receiving implantation via the transfemoral (TF) route (vs non-TF); receiving a balloon-expandable (vs self-expanding) valve; and those at low-intermediate risk (vs high risk). All RCTs were rated at high ROB, predominantly due to lack of blinding and selective reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

No overall change in the risk of death from any cause or cardiovascular mortality was identified but 95% CIs were often wide, indicating uncertainty. TAVI may reduce the risk of certain side effects while SAVR may reduce the risk of others. Most long-term (5-year) results are limited to older patients at high surgical risk (ie, early trials), therefore more data are required for low risk populations. Ultimately, neither surgical technique was considered dominant, and these results suggest that every patient with SAS should be individually engaged in SDM to make evidence-based, personalised decisions around their care based on the various benefits and risks associated with each treatment.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019138171.

Gender Differences after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR): Insights from the Italian Clinical Service Project

Background: TAVR is a safe alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR); however, sex-related differences are still debated. This research aimed to examine gender differences in a real-world transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) cohort. Methods: All-comer aortic stenosis (AS) patients undergoing TAVR with a Medtronic valve across 19 Italian sites were prospectively included in the Italian Clinical Service Project (NCT01007474) between 2007 and 2019. The primary endpoint was 1-year mortality. We also investigated 3-year mortality, and ischemic and hemorrhagic endpoints, and we performed a propensity score matching to assemble patients with similar baseline characteristics. Results: Out of 3821 patients, 2149 (56.2%) women were enrolled. Compared with men, women were older (83 ± 6 vs. 81 ± 6 years, p < 0.001), more likely to present severe renal impairment (GFR ≤ 30 mL/min, 26.3% vs. 16.3%, p < 0.001) but had less previous cardiovascular events (all p < 0.001), with a higher mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score (7.8% ± 7.1% vs. 7.2 ± 7.5, p < 0.001) and a greater mean aortic gradient (52.4 ± 15.3 vs. 47.3 ± 12.8 mmHg, p < 0.001). Transfemoral TAVR was performed more frequently in women (87.2% vs. 82.1%, p < 0.001), with a higher rate of major vascular complications and life-threatening bleeding (3.9% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.012 and 2.5% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.024). One-year mortality differed between female and male (11.5% vs. 15.0%, p = 0.002), and this difference persisted after adjustment for significant confounding variables (Adj.HR1yr 1.47, 95%IC 1.18–1.82, p < 0.001). Three-year mortality was also significantly lower in women compared with men (19.8% vs. 24.9%, p < 0.001) even after adjustment for age, STS score, eGFR, diabetes and severe COPD (Adj.HR3yr 1.42, 95%IC 1.21–1.68, p < 0.001). These results were confirmed in 689 pairs after propensity score matching. Conclusion: Despite higher rates of peri-procedural complications, women presented better survival than men. This better adaptive response to TAVR may be driven by sex-specific factors.

MitraClip for mitral valve regurgitation and transcatheter aortic valve implantation for severe aortic valve stenosis: state-of-the-art

There is a worldwide expansion in percutaneous therapy for valvular heart disease. Rapidly evolving technology and the general increase in life expectancy will support the evolution of new treatment options dedicated to structural heart interventions. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for severe aortic valve stenosis and percutaneous mitral valve repair with the MitraClip system for severe mitral regurgitation have been demonstrated as a feasible, innovative alternative for surgical treatment. Despite the inequality in clinical experience, both procedures have encouraging results and now are a part of everyday clinical practice. More importantly, rapid development is expected in the next decades. However, the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic imposed redistribution of healthcare resources. Hospitals were obliged to modify their workflow and limit TAVI and MitraClip procedures to urgent or in highly symptomatic patients. Despite this encumbrance improvement in technology and experience supported by robust evidence from current studies might extend indications for both procedures. The future holds promise for this treatment modality to become the preferred procedure for all patients despite age or risk and reserving surgical treatment for a minority. Thus, we present state-of-the-art and current evidence for both methods assumed to change the paradigm of treatment of valvular heart failure in the future.

Meta-Analysis of Stroke and Mortality Rates in Patients Undergoing Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

During the past decade, the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was extended beyond treatment‐naïve patients and implemented for treatment of degenerated surgical bioprosthetic valves. Selection criteria for either valve‐in‐valve (viv) TAVR or redo surgical aortic valve replacement are not well established, and decision making on the operative approach still remains challenging for the interdisciplinary heart team.

Methods and Results

This review was intended to analyze all studies on viv‐TAVR focusing on short‐ and mid‐term stroke and mortality rates compared with redo surgical aortic valve replacement or native TAVR procedures. A structured literature search and review process led to 1667 potentially relevant studies on July 1, 2020. Finally, 23 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for qualitative analysis. All references were case series either with or without propensity score matching and registry analyses. Quantitative synthesis of data from 8509 patients revealed that viv‐TAVR is associated with mean 30‐day stroke and mortality rates of 2.2% and 4.2%, respectively. Pooled data analysis showed no significant differences in 30‐day stroke rate, 30‐day mortality, and 1‐year mortality between viv‐TAVR and comparator treatment (native TAVR [n=11 804 patients] or redo surgical aortic valve replacement [n=498 patients]).

Conclusions

This review is the first one comparing the risk for stroke and mortality rates in viv‐TAVR procedures with native TAVR approach and contributes substantial data for the clinical routine. Moreover, this systematic review is the most comprehensive analysis on ischemic cerebrovascular events and early mortality in patients undergoing viv‐TAVR. In this era with increasing numbers of bioprosthetic valves used in younger patients, viv‐TAVR is a suitable option for the treatment of degenerated bioprostheses.

Acute kidney injury may impede results after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

INTRODUCTION

Severe complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are rare due to increasing procedural safety. However, TAVI procedure-related haemodynamic instability and increased risk of infection may affect renal functional reserve with subsequent renal acidosis and hyperkalaemia.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we investigated incidence, modifiable risk factors and prognosis of acute kidney injury (AKI) and AKI complicated by hyperkalaemia, pulmonary oedema or metabolic acidosis after TAVI.

METHODS

In a retrospective single-centre study, 804 consecutive patients hospitalized during 2017 and 2018 for elective TAVI were included. AKI was defined according to the 'Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcome' (KDIGO) initiative. Variables on co-morbidities, intra-/post-interventional complications and course of renal function up to 6 months after index-hospitalization were assessed. In multivariate regression analyses, risk factors for the development of AKI, complicated AKI, renal non-recovery from AKI and in-hospital mortality were determined.

RESULTS

Incidence of AKI was 13.8% (111/804); in-hospital mortality after TAVI was 2.3%. AKI was an independent risk factor for in-hospital mortality, odds ratio (OR) 10.3 (3.4-31.6), P < 0.001, further increasing to OR = 21.8 (6.6-71.5), P < 0.001 in patients with AKI complicated by hyperkalaemia, pulmonary oedema or metabolic acidosis, n = 57/111 (51.4%). Potentially modifiable, interventional factors independently associated with complicated AKI were infection [OR = 3.20 (1.61-6.33), P = 0.001] and red blood cell transfusion [OR = 5.04 (2.67-9.52), P < 0.001]. Valve type and size, contrast volume and other intra-interventional characteristics, such as the need for tachycardial pacing, did not influence the development of AKI. Eleven of 111 (9.9%) patients did not recover from AKI, mostly affecting patients with cardiac decompensation. In 18/111 (16.2%) patients, information concerning AKI was provided in discharge letter. Within 6 months after TAVI, higher proportion of patients with AKI showed progression of pre-existing chronic kidney disease compared with patients without AKI [14/29, 48.3% versus 54/187, 28.9%, OR = 2.3 (95% confidence interval 1.0-5.1), P = 0.036].

CONCLUSIONS

AKI is common and may impede patient outcome after TAVI with acute complications such as hyperkalaemia or metabolic acidosis and adverse renal function until 6 months after intervention. Our study findings may contribute to refinement of allocation of appropriate level of care in and out of hospital after TAVI.

History, development and clinical perspectives of sutureless and rapid deployment surgical aortic valve replacement

Degenerative aortic stenosis is the most frequent valvular heart disease in industrialized countries. Conservative treatment may beneficially influence symptoms but is never successful. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was the only recognized treatment option to provide substantially prolonged survival until 2008. Operative mortality of isolated SAVR has been reported as low as 0.5% to 1% in experienced institutions, while long-term survival is close to that observed in a control healthy population of similar age. A multitude of studies have demonstrated the beneficial effects of SAVR with regard to improvement in quality of life and physical performance in the majority of symptomatic patients. In the last decade, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an equal treatment modality, first in patients with high surgical risk and more recently in patients with intermediate and low surgical risk. Paravalvular regurgitation and the higher rate of pacemaker implantation remain points of consideration. Additionally, the long-term durability of TAVI devices and occurrence of stroke late after TAVI require additional analyses. Sutureless (SU-SAVR) and rapid deployment valve (R-SAVR) were designed to simplify and accelerate a conventional or less invasive surgical procedure while allowing complete excision of the calcified native valve. From 3 different implants tested more than 10 to 15 years ago, only two are available on the market today: the Perceval^® valve from Liva Nova and the Intuity^® sutureless prosthesis from Edwards Lifesciences. There has been extensive experience with these two devices in previous years and the results obtained are comparable to those observed following the use of conventional implants. The sutureless devices may be of particular interest for more complex and combined surgical procedures. This review summarizes the sutureless (SU-SAVR) and rapid deployment valve technologies and presents a clinical outlook for the patient population managed with these devices.

Preprocedural circulating galectin-3 and the risk of mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Galectin-3 may predict mortality for patients with aortic stenosis (AS) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, the results were inconsistent. We aimed to evaluate the association between baseline galectin and mortality after TAVR in a meta-analysis.

Methods: Related follow-up studies were obtained by systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane’s Library, and Embase databases. Both the fixed- and the random-effect models were used for the meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate the influences of study characteristics on the outcome.

Results: Five prospective cohort studies with 854 patients were included, with a follow-up period between 1 and 1.9 years. Patients with higher baseline circulating galectin-3 had an increased risk of all-cause mortality after TAVR (random-effects model: risk ratio [RR]: 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19–2.23, P=0.002; fixed-effects model: RR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.19–2.20, P=0.002; I² = 4%). Adjustment of estimated glomerular filtration rate (RR: 1.73, P=0.02) or B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal pro-BNP (RR: 1.83, P=0.02) did not significantly affect the result. A trend of stronger association between higher baseline circulating galectin-3 and increased risk of all-cause mortality after TAVR was observed in studies with an enzyme-linked fluorescent assay (ELFA) (RR: 3.04, P=0.003) compared with those with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (RR: 1.42, P=0.04; P for subgroup difference =0.06).

Conclusion: Higher circulating galectin-3 before the procedure may predict all-cause mortality of AS patients after TAVR.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis in people with low surgical risk

BACKGROUND

Severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The definitive management for severe AS is aortic valve replacement (AVR). The choice of transcatheter approach versus open-heart surgery for AVR in people with severe AS and low surgical risk remains a matter of debate.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in people with severe AS and low surgical risk.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on 29 April 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We searched all databases from inception to present and imposed no restriction on language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared TAVI and SAVR in adults (18 years of age or older) with severe AS and low surgical risk.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts for inclusion, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias in the studies included. We analysed dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) and continuous data using the mean difference (MD), with respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. Our outcomes of interest were assessed in the short term (i.e. during hospitalisation and up to 30 days of follow-up). Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, stroke, and rehospitalisation. Secondary outcomes were myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death, length of hospital stay (LOS), permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, new-onset atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury (AKI), and any bleeding.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four studies (13 reports), with 2818 participants, and one ongoing study. Overall certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low. There is probably little or no difference between TAVI and SAVR for the following short-term outcomes: all-cause mortality (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.44; SAVR 11 deaths per 1000, TAVI 8 deaths per 1000 (95% CI 4 to 16); 2818 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); stroke (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.25; SAVR 21 strokes per 1000, TAVI 16 strokes per 1000 (95% CI 9 to 27); 2818 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); MI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.58; SAVR 14 MI per 1000, TAVI 11 MI per 1000 (95% CI 6 to 21); 2748 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); and cardiac death (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.56; SAVR 10 cardiac deaths per 1000, TAVI 7 cardiac deaths per 1000 (95% CI 3 to 16); 2818 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). TAVI may reduce the risk of short-term rehospitalisation, although the confidence interval also includes the possibility of no difference in risk between groups (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.06; SAVR 30 cases per 1000, TAVI 19 cases per 1000 (95% CI 12 to 32); 2468 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). TAVI, compared with SAVR, probably increases the risk of PPM implantation (RR 3.65, 95% CI 1.50 to 8.87; SAVR 47 per 1000, TAVI 170 cases per 1000 (95% CI 70 to 413); number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 7; 2683 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether TAVI, compared with SAVR, affects the LOS in days, although it appears to be associated with shorter LOS. TAVI, compared with SAVR, reduces the risk of atrial fibrillation (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.30; 2683 participants; 3 studies), AKI (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.58; 2753 participants; 4 studies), and bleeding (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.62; 2753 participants; 4 studies) (all high-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis indicates that, in the short term, TAVI probably has little or no mortality difference compared to SAVR for severe AS in individuals with low surgical risk. Similarly, there is probably little or no difference in risk of stroke, MI, and cardiac death between the two approaches. TAVI may reduce the risk of rehospitalisation, but we are uncertain about the effects on LOS. TAVI reduces the risk of atrial fibrillation, AKI, and bleeding. However, this benefit is offset by the increased risk of PPM implantation. Long-term follow-up data are needed to further assess and validate these outcomes, especially durability, in the low surgical risk population.