Impact of coronary artery disease and percutaneous coronary intervention in women undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: From the WIN-TAVI registry

Aortic Stenosis With Coronary Artery Disease: SAVR or TAVR-When and How?

The growing number of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has increased the interest in the concomitant presence of coronary artery disease (CAD) and severe aortic stenosis (AS), prompting the need to define the appropriate revascularization strategy for each case. The reported prevalence of concurrent AS and CAD has varied over the years on the basis of the CAD definition and the population evaluated. Revascularization for treating CAD in patients with severe AS involves additional interventions that could impact outcomes. The addition of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has demonstrated favourable effects on long-term prognosis, while the impact of adding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to TAVR may depend on the CAD complexity and the feasibility of achieving complete or reasonably incomplete revascularization. Furthermore, the comparison between SAVR+CABG and TAVR+PCI in low-intermediate surgical risk and low-intermediate complex CAD patients did not reveal differences in all-cause mortality or stroke between the groups. However, there is some evidence showing a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events with the SAVR+CABG strategy for patients with complex CAD. Thus, SAVR+CABG seems to be the best option for patients with low-intermediate surgical risk and complex CAD, and TAVR+PCI for high surgical risk patients seeking complete and/or reasonable incomplete revascularization. After deciding between TAVR+PCI or SAVR+CABG, factors such as timing for PCI, low ejection fraction, coronary reaccess, and valve durability must be considered. Finally, alternative methods for assessing CAD severity are currently under evaluation to ascertain their real value for guiding revascularization in patients with severe AS with CAD.

Concomitant percutaneous coronary intervention in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) frequently have coronary artery disease requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Usually, PCI and TAVI are performed in two separate procedures and current studies are investigating potential benefits regarding the order. However, the two interventions may also be performed simultaneously, thereby limiting the risk associated with repeated vascular access. Data evaluating benefit and harm of concomitant procedures are scarce.

AIMS

Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate concomitant PCI (coPCI) in TAVI patients regarding Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) endpoints and long-term mortality.

METHODS

A total of 2233 consecutive TAVI patients from the EVERY-VALVE registry were analyzed according to the VARC-3 endpoint definitions. A total of 274 patients had undergone TAVI and concomitant PCI (coPCI group). They were compared to 226 TAVI patients who had received PCI within 60 days before TAVI in a stepwise approach (swPCI group) and to the remaining 1733 TAVI patients who had not undergone PCI recently (noPCI group).

RESULTS

Overall median age was 81.4 years, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 4.0%. Patients in the coPCI and in the swPCI group were predominantly male with reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction. Rates of VARC-3 composite endpoints technical success and 30-day device success were comparable between all three groups. Mortality rates at 3 years after TAVI were similar (coPCI, 34.2% vs. swPCI, 31.9% vs. noPCI, 34.0% p = 0.84).

CONCLUSIONS

coPCI during TAVI seems comparable in a retrospective analysis. Compared to a stepwise approach, it has similar rates of composite endpoints technical success and device success as well as long-term mortality.

Insight Into the Optimal Timing of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Patients being considered for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are frequently diagnosed with coronary artery disease. In patients requiring revascularization, there is a paucity of data informing when to perform percutaneous coronary artery intervention (PCI). We evaluated the impact of PCI timing on clinical outcomes and readmissions after TAVR. From the National Readmissions Database 2016 to 2019, we stratified the duration between PCI and TAVR into 3 groups: same-day PCI and TAVR, TAVR ≤30 days after PCI, and TAVR >30 days after PCI. We then compared primary and secondary outcomes among them. A total of 5207 patients were included, 1413 (27.1%) of whom underwent PCI and TAVR on the same day, while 2161 (41.5%) underwent TAVR ≤30 days after PCI, and 1632 (31.3%) underwent TAVR >30 days after PCI. There was no significant difference for in-hospital mortality among the groups (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16-1.48, p = 0.203 for same-day versus ≤30 days; aOR 2.07, 95% CI 0.68-6.30, p = 0.199 for same-day versus >30 days). Patients who underwent TAVR ≤30 days after PCI had higher odds of acute kidney injury (aOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.05-2.10, p = 0.024), nonhome discharge (aOR 1.53, 95% CI 1.20-1.96, p = 0.001), and 90-day readmission (aOR 1.35, 95% CI 1.04-1.76, p = 0.026) compared with those who underwent same-day PCI and TAVR. Concomitant PCI and TAVR was associated with lower rates of 90-day readmissions and acute kidney injury compared with TAVR shortly after PCI (<30 days) and should be considered in select patients.

Clinical Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With and Without Percutaneous Coronary Intervention-An Updated Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is indicated for high-risk patients with severe degenerative aortic stenosis (AS). Given the shared risk factors and coexistence of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) and AS, there is inconsistent clinical data regarding potential survival benefits of paired percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with TAVR procedures. We performed a literature search using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception through June 2023 assessing the impact of concomitant PCI in patients with obstructive CAD undergoing TAVR. The primary outcomes were 30-day all-cause mortality, 30-day cardiovascular mortality, and 6 months-1 year all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included 30-day myocardial infarction, stroke, major bleeding complications, and acute kidney injury (AKI). A total of 11 studies involving 2804 patients were included in the final analysis. Compared to patients undergoing TAVR alone, the TAVR+PCI group showed no significant difference in 30-day all-cause mortality (RR 0.90, CI 0.66, 1.22, P = 0.49), 30-day cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.71 CI 0.44, 1.14, P = 0.16), or 6 months-1 year all-cause mortality (RR 0.94, CI 0.75, 1.18, P = 0.57). Regarding secondary outcomes, 30-day myocardial infarction was higher in the TAVR+PCI group (RR 3.09, CI 1.26, 7.57, P = 0.01), with no significant differences noted in rates of 30-day stroke (RR 1.14, CI 0.56, 2.33, P = 0.72), major bleeding/vascular complications (RR 1.11, CI 0.79, 1.56, P = 0.55), and AKI (RR 1.07, CI 0.75, 1.54, P = 0.71). Concomitant PCI does not confer any mortality benefit in patients with obstructive CAD and high-grade AS undergoing TAVR. Further trials are needed to confirm our findings.

Antithrombotic Therapy Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Due to a large technical improvement in the past decade, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has expanded to lower-surgical-risk patients with symptomatic and severe aortic stenosis. While mortality rates related to TAVR are decreasing, the prognosis of patients is still impacted by ischemic and bleeding complications, and defining the optimal antithrombotic regimen remains a priority. Recent randomized control trials reported lower bleeding rates with an equivalent risk in ischemic outcomes with single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) when compared to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients without an underlying indication for anticoagulation. In patients requiring lifelong oral anticoagulation (OAC), the association of OAC plus antiplatelet therapy leads to a higher risk of bleeding events with no advantages on mortality or ischemic outcomes. Considering these data, guidelines have recently been updated and now recommend SAPT and OAC alone for TAVR patients without and with a long-term indication for anticoagulation. Whether a direct oral anticoagulant or vitamin K antagonist provides better outcomes in patients in need of anticoagulation remains uncertain, as recent trials showed a similar impact on ischemic and bleeding outcomes with apixaban but higher gastrointestinal bleeding with edoxaban. This review aims to summarize the most recently published data in the field, as well as describe unresolved issues.

[Aortic stenosis: An update]

Aortic stenosis remains one of the most frequent valvulopathy worldwide, burdened with great mortality and morbidity, and for which there is not yet an effective preventive approach, although the pathophysiological mechanisms involved in its development are better understood nowadays. Its cure, however, has been revolutionized in the last decade by the advent of transcatheter aortic valve implantation, or TAVI (also named transcatheter aortic valve replacement or TAVR). The technique of TAVI has been refined and its indications has been extended, following the publication of large randomized controlled trials where it was compared to surgical aortic valve replacement with favorable results. Consequently, transfemoral TAVR has become the first line of treatment in case of symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis. In this review, we describe the pathophysiological mechanisms leading to severe aortic stenosis and the main ongoing randomized controlled trials targeting them. We describe the indication for surgical or percutaneous aortic valve replacement and the main complications following the procedure.

Incidence, predictors and clinical impact of permanent pacemaker insertion in women following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Insights from a prospective multinational registry

OBJECTIVES

To describe the incidence, predictors, and clinical impact of permanent pacemaker insertion (PPI) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in women.

BACKGROUND

Data on pacemaker insertion complicating TAVR in women are scarce.

METHODS

The Women's International Transcatheter Aortic Valve implantation (WIN-TAVI) is a prospective registry evaluating the safety and efficacy of TAVR in women. We included patients without preprocedural pacemakers and divided them into two groups: (1) PPI and (2) no-PPI. We identified PPI predictors using logistic regression and studied its clinical impact on the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 efficacy and safety endpoints.

RESULTS

Out of 1019 patients, 922 were included in the analysis. Post-TAVR PPI occurred in 132 (14.3%) patients. Clinical and procedural characteristics were similar in both groups. Pre-existing right bundle branch block (RBBB) was associated with a high risk of post-TAVR PPI (OR 3.62, 95% CI 1.85-7.06, p < 0.001), while implantation of balloon-expandable prosthesis was associated with a lower risk (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.74, p < 0.001). Post-TAVR PPI prolonged in-hospital stay by a median of 2 days (11 [9-16] days in PPI vs. 9 [7-14] days in no-PPI, p = 0.005), yet risks of VARC-2 efficacy and safety endpoints at 1 year were similar in both groups (_adj HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.60-1.52, p = 0.84 and _adj HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.83-1.79, p = 0.31, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Pacemaker implantation following TAVR is frequent among women and is associated with pre-existing RBBB and valve type. PPI prolongs hospital stay, albeit without any significant impact on 1-year outcomes.

Contemporary trends in the management of aortic stenosis in the USA

AIMS

To assess the contemporary trends in aortic stenosis (AS) interventions in the USA before and after the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We utilized the National-Inpatient-Sample to assess temporal trends in the incidence, cost, and outcomes of AS interventions between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2016. During the study's period, AS interventions increased from 96 to 137 per 100 000 individuals > 60 years old, P < 0.001. In-hospital expenditure on AS interventions increased from $2.28 billion in 2003 to $4.33 in 2016 P < 0.001. Among patients who underwent aortic valve replacement, the proportion of TAVI increased from 11.9% in 2012 to 43.2% in 2016 (P < 0.001). Males and Hispanics had lower proportions of TAVI compared with females and White patients. Adjusted in-hospital mortality of isolated SAVR decreased from 5.4% in 2003 to 3.3% in 2016 (P < 0.001), whereas adjusted in-hospital mortality of TAVI decreased from 4.7% in 2012 to 2.2% in 2016, P < 0.001. The incidence of new dialysis, permanent pacemaker implantation, and blood transfusion decreased after both TAVI and SAVR between 2012 and 2016. However, the rate of post-operative stroke did not significantly decrease. Length of stay and cost of hospitalization decreased after both SAVR and TAVI, although the later remained higher with TAVI. Rates of non-home discharge decreased over time after TAVI but remained stable after isolated SAVR.

CONCLUSION

This nationwide survey documents the increasing incidence of AS interventions, the rising cost of modern AS care, and the paradigm shift in aortic valve replacement practice in the USA.

Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Patients with Concomitant Severe Aortic Stenosis and Coronary Artery Disease: A Closer Look to the Unresolved Perplexity

Degenerative aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD) are the most prevalent cardiovascular diseases in developed countries, and they coexist in up to 50% of patients. The pathophysiological rationale behind concomitant AS and CAD is discussed in detail in this review, together with prognostic implications. Detecting CAD in patients with AS may be challenging, as AS may mask the existence and symptoms of CAD. The safety and reliability of invasive and non-invasive physiological assessment for epicardial coronary disease are also a matter of debate. Finally, the selection and timing of optimal treatment of CAD in patients with severe AS are still unclear. Given the aging of the population, the increase in the prevalence of AS, and the ongoing paradigm shift in its treatment, controversies in the diagnosis and treatment of CAD in the setting of AS are deemed to grow in importance. In this paper, we present contemporary issues in the diagnosis and management of CAD in patients with severe AS who are transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) candidates and provide perspective on the treatment approach.

How the COVID-19 pandemic changed treatment of severe aortic stenosis: a single cardiac center experience

Background

Currently, two effective therapeutic options for severe aortic stenosis (AS) are available, one catheter-based [transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)], the other open surgical approach [surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR)]. The COVID-19 pandemic has limited the availability of medical procedures. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to assess if this pandemic had any impact on the treatment strategy of severe AS in a single cardiac center.

Methods

This study involved AS patients treated in 3-month periods (February through April) over 3 consecutive years 2018, 2019 [defined as COV(-) group] and 2020 [COV(+)]. We assessed if there were any differences regarding patients' clinical profile, applied therapeutic method, procedure complexity and early clinical outcomes.

Results

In the years 2018 through 2019, approximately 50% of AS patients were treated classically (SAVR) while in 2020 this rate dropped to 34%. The preoperative clinical characteristic of TAVI subjects was comparable irrespective of the year. Regarding SAVR, more patients in COV(+) underwent urgent and more complex procedures. More of them were found in NYHA class III or IV, and had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (51.9%±14.4% vs. 58.3%±8.1%; P=0.021) than in COV(-) individuals. During the pandemic, a change in applied therapeutic methods and differences in patients' clinical profile did not have an unfavorable impact on in-hospital mortality (2.0% before vs. 3.6% during pandemic) and morbidity. Of note, intubation time and in-hospital stay were significantly shorter (P<0.05) in 2020 (4.2 hours and 7.5 days) than in the previous years (7.5 hours and 9.0 days, respectively).

Conclusions

The coronavirus pandemic has changed substantially the management of severe AS. The shift into less invasive treatment method of AS patients resulted in shortening of in-hospital stay without compromise of short-term outcomes.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Versus Without Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Patients having transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) routinely undergo coronary angiography before the procedure to define the coronary anatomy and to evaluate the extend of coronary artery disease (CAD). Whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) prior/concomitant with TAVI confers any additional clinical benefit in patients with CAD remains unclear. Literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and Scopus from inception of these databases till April 2019. Included outcomes were 30-day all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), acute kidney injury, and 1-year mortality. The main summary estimate was random effects odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Eleven cohort studies enrolling 5,580 patients (mean age 82.4 years and 52.6% females) were included. Our study found no difference in effect estimates for 30-day all-cause mortality (OR 1.30 [0.85 to 1.98], p = 0.22, I² = 37.5%), stroke (OR 0.7 (0.36 to 1.45), p = 0.36, I² = 32.8%), MI (OR 2.71 [0.55 to 12.23], p = 0.22, I² = 41.3%), acute kidney injury (OR 0.7 [0.46 to 1.06], p = 0.08, I² = 14.4%) and 1-year all-cause mortality (OR 1.19 [0.92 to 1.52], p = 0.18, I² = 0.0%) in patients who underwent TAVI with and without PCI. In conclusion, our analysis indicates that PCI with TAVI in patients with severe aortic stenosis and concomitant CAD grants no additional clinical advantage in terms of patient important clinical outcomes. Further randomized studies are needed to better delineate the clinical practice for myocardial revascularization in patients receiving transcatheter therapy for aortic valve disease.

[TAVI in women, very encouraging results]

The population of elderly patients comprises a high percentage of women. This population is more vulnerable due to the presence of numerous comorbidities and is, therefore, particularly exposed to the risk of aortic valve degeneration, resulting in aortic valve stenosis whose symptoms are predictors of poor short-term outcomes. In the presence of symptomatic aortic stenosis, the recommended therapeutic option in this vulnerable population is the implementation of transcatheter aortic valve implantation, preferably via the femoral route. The outcomes of this procedure are better in women than in men despite a more frequent occurrence of vascular, bleeding and cerebral complications. Several hypotheses have been reported in the literature regarding the reasons for such differences. Among other reasons, it is likely that in female patients, the myocardium adjusts better to the occurrence of aortic stenosis and that recovery after valve treatment is also more optimal. Another explanation is the higher frequency of coronary artery disease in this older population. This has a considerable impact on the outcome even when coronary lesions are treated prior to valve implantation. There is still room for improvement and progress can be achieved by further reducing the size of the equipment used in order to decrease the diameter of the vascular access, and by continuing to simplify TAVI procedures. Less invasive techniques should result in decreased complication rates. In addition, dedicated studies should allow us to further improve our practice in this growing population of vulnerable patients.

Sex and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Impact of Female Sex on Clinical Outcomes

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an alternative treatment for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis in patients who are not suitable for surgery or are at high surgical risk. Approximately 50% of patients undergoing TAVI are female and this is reflected by a higher inclusion rate of women in TAVI trials. However, women undergoing TAVI have different baseline clinical characteristics in comparison to men, with fewer comorbidities and a more preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. This translates into favourable outcomes after TAVI, despite a higher rate of peri-procedural complications. This article discusses gender differences in terms of presentation, procedural characteristics and post-procedural results in patients with aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI, with particular focus on possible sex-specific factors affecting outcome.

[What antithrombotic treatment should we prescribe after transvalvular aortic valve implantation?]

The performance and indications of transvalvular aortic valve implantation or TAVI has considerably expanded and is now the first therapeutic line option in the management of severe aortic stenosis. The targeted population shares both high risk of ischemic complications, particularly stroke or subclinical leaflet thrombosis of the bioprothesis, as well as hemorrhagic complications, strongly correlated to death. Based on previous experience with intracoronary stents, a dual antiplatelet therapy has been recommended by experts' consensus. This paradigm is now challenged by the observed increased risk of hemorrhagic complications without a reduction of ischemic events. Moreover, the role of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant in patients undergoing TAVI remains to be determined. Several large ongoing randomized controlled trials will likely change our practice within the next coming year.

Adjunct Pharmacotherapy After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Current Status and Future Directions

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a validated treatment option for severe aortic stenosis. Ischemic and thrombotic complications remain important and strongly correlate with mortality. The optimal postprocedural antithrombotic strategy for prevention of thrombotic events remains unclear. The international guidelines for medical management following TAVR are discordant, allowing for significant variance in prescribing habits. The optimal treatment strategy has yet to be delineated. Clinical trials are ongoing to assess the risks and benefits of various strategies. We discuss the pathobiology and rationale for antithrombotic therapy after TAVR, review current evidence and guidelines, and offer a concise evidence-based approach to this subject.