Outcomes of urgent versus nonurgent transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Mortality Rates in Patients Undergoing Urgent Versus Elective Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-analysis

Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AoS) often present with acute heart failure and compensation, frequently leading to cardiogenic shock. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) has been recently performed as a bailout treatment in such patients. The aim of our meta-analysis is to compare urgent TAVR with elective procedures. We systematically screened three databases searching for studies comparing urgent vs elective TAVR. Primary endpoint is the 30-days mortality. Secondary endpoints included in-hospital mortality, device success, periprocedural vascular complications, 30-days stroke, 30-days acute kidney injury (AKI), permanent pacemaker implantation (PPM), moderate or severe paravalvular leakage, and 30-days bleeding. Seventeen studies were included, with a total of 84,495 patients. Urgent TAVR was associated with an increased risk for 30-days mortality [Risk Ratio (RR): 2.53, 95% Confidence Intervals (CI): 1.81-3.54)], in-hospital mortality (RR: 2.67, 95% CI: 1.94-3.68), periprocedural vascular complications (RR: 1.91, 95% CI: 1.28-2.85) and AKI (RR: 2.83, 95% CI: 1.93-4.14), compared with elective procedure. No differences were observed in the other secondary endpoints. Urgent TAVR was associated with higher in-hospital and 30-days mortality, possibly driven by the increased incidence of AKI and vascular complications in urgent TAVR. The results highlight the importance of early TAVR in stable AoS patients.

Clinical Outcomes of Urgent or Emergency Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation - Insights From the Nationwide Registry of Japan Transcatheter Valve Therapies

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available for clinical outcomes in patients who underwent urgent or emergency transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). This study investigated in-hospital and 1-year outcomes and explored prognostic covariates in urgent/emergency TAVI using nationwide registry data.Methods and Results: Among 26,775 patients who underwent TAVI between August 2013 and December 2019, 25,495 with 1-year follow-up information were analyzed in this study. Baseline and procedural characteristics, as well as clinical adverse events, were compared between the urgent/emergency and elective TAVI groups. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 1 year after TAVI. Multivariable Cox regression models were constructed to identify independent predictors after urgent or emergency TAVI. Urgent or emergency TAVI was performed in 578 (2.3%) patients. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was significantly higher in the urgent/emergency than elective TAVI group (13.3% vs. 6.0%; P<0.001). Device success rate was comparable between the 2 groups. All-cause death-free survival within 1 year was lower in the urgent/emergency than elective TAVI group (77.2% vs. 92.2%; log rank P<0.001). Malignancy, albumin and creatinine concentrations, ejection fraction, and mean pressure gradient were associated with 1-year mortality in the urgent/emergency TAVI group.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite higher surgical risk and more comorbidities, the procedure was successfully performed in patients undergoing urgent/emergency TAVI, although it should be noted that prognosis was worse than for elective TAVI.

Association between social vulnerability index and admission urgency for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are not offered equitably to vulnerable population groups. Adequate levels of insurance may narrow gaps among patients with higher social vulnerability index (SVI). Among a national population of individuals with commercial or Medicare insurance, we sought to determine whether SVI was associated with urgency of receipt of TAVR for aortic stenosis.

Methods and results

Using Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database (CDM), we identified admissions for TAVR with aortic stenosis between January 2018 and March 2022. Admission urgency was identified by CDM claims codes. SVI was cross-referenced to patient zip codes and grouped into quintiles. Generalized linear mixed effects models were used to predict the probability of a TAVR admission being urgent based on SVI quintiles, adjusting for patient and hospital-level covariates.

Results

Among 6680 admissions for TAVR [median age 80 years (interquartile range 75-85), 43.9 % female], 8.5 % (n = 567) were classified as urgent. After adjusting for patient and hospital-level variables, there were no significant differences in the odds of urgent admission for TAVR according to SVI quintiles [OR 5th (greatest social vulnerability) vs 1st quintile (least social vulnerability): 1.29 (95 % CI: 0.90-1.85)].

Conclusions

Among commercial or Medicare beneficiaries with aortic stenosis, SVI was not associated with admission urgency for TAVR. To clarify whether cardiovascular care delivery is improved across SVI with higher paying beneficiaries, future investigation should identify whether relationships between SVI and TAVR urgency vary for Medicaid beneficiaries compared to commercial beneficiaries.

Rapid Assessment and Treatment In Decompensated Aortic Stenosis (ASTRID-AS study)- A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Acute decompensated aortic stenosis (ADAS) is common and associated with higher mortality, acute kidney injury (AKI) and longer hospital length of stay (LoS) compared with electively treated stable AS. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of a dedicated pathway that reduces time to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in ADAS, hypothesizing that LoS can be reduced without compromising patient safety.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using a prospective, open label, cluster design, patients from 5 referring centres were allocated to the ASessment and TReatment In Decompensated Aortic Stenosis (ASTRID-AS) pathway where the diagnosis, referral, investigations and treatment of ADAS were prioritised and expedited. 15 hospitals remained on the conventional pathway that followed the same process, albeit according to a waiting list. The primary efficacy endpoint was hospital LoS and the secondary safety endpoint, a composite of death or AKI at 30 days post-TAVI. 58 conventional patients and 25 ASTRID-AS patients were included in this study. Time to TAVI in the conventional vs. ASTRID-AS cohort was 22 (15-30) vs. 10 (6-12) days; P < 0.001, respectively. Length of hospital stay was 24 (18-33) vs. 13 (8-18) days; P < 0.001, respectively. 13.4 bed days were saved per patient using the ASTRID-AS pathway. Secondary safety endpoint occurred in 12 (20.7%) vs. 1 (4.0%) patients; P = 0.093, respectively. Procedural complications were similar between the two cohorts.

CONCLUSION

A dedicated pathway for ADAS that shortens time to TAVI demonstrated reduced hospital LoS without compromising patient safety and a trend towards improving clinical outcomes.

Feasibility of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Very Severe Aortic Stenosis

Background: Very severe aortic stenosis (AS) has a poor prognosis even in asymptomatic patients, and asymptomatic very severe AS is a Class IIa indication for aortic valve replacement, although the safety and effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for very severe AS is not well-established. Methods and Results: This study included 366 patients undergoing TAVI at a single center, with 85 and 281 patients in the very severe AS (peak velocity ≥5 m/s or mean pressure gradient (PG) ≥60 mmHg) and severe AS groups, respectively. Procedural and clinical outcomes at 1-year follow-up were compared between groups. The calcium scores were significantly higher in the very severe AS group (2,864.5 vs. 1,405.8 arbitrary units [AU] (P<0.001). Although the patient-prosthesis mismatch rate was higher in the very severe AS group (38.3% vs. 25.7%; P=0.029), there was no significant difference in the early safety and clinical efficacy between the groups (16.5% vs. 17.1% and 12.0% vs. 18.9%, respectively). Similarly, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 1 year (4.8% vs. 9.8%). Conclusions: Despite a higher incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch in those with very severe AS, the procedural and clinical outcomes were comparable to those in patients with severe AS. TAVI may be a reasonable treatment option for very severe AS.

Short-term Outcomes of Urgent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis That Requires Emergency Hospital Admission

Objective This study retrospectively compared the outcomes of emergently admitted patients with aortic stenosis (AS) with or without urgent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Methods Patients hospitalized between February 2015 and December 2019 for symptomatic AS were retrospectively analyzed by comparing the received conservative management [continued medical therapy with or without elective surgical transcatheter replacement (SAVR) or TAVR scheduled after the index hospitalization] and urgent TAVR (TAVR during the index hospitalization). Results The cohort comprised 114 patients with symptomatic AS who required emergency admission. Urgent TAVR was performed for 37 patients, while conservative management was provided for 77 patients, including 1 who received urgent SAVR. Urgent TAVR was more likely to be performed in patients with a history of hospitalization for heart failure, high New York Heart Association class scores, a lower clinical frailty scale at admission, and a high aortic valve peak velocity (p=0.01, p<0.001, p<0.01 and p=0.02, respectively). Kaplan-Meier analyses with log-rank test revealed favorable outcomes of urgent TAVR in all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events within 60 days of admission (p<0.01, p<0.01, respectively). Conclusion Urgent TAVR had better short-term outcomes in patients with symptomatic AS who required emergency hospital admission than conservative management. When considering urgent TAVR, patients with typical heart failure symptoms due to AS with a history of heart failure hospitalization and relatively little frailty can be selected.

Urgent versus Non-Urgent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

There are limited data about the outcomes of nonelective transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Some studies suggest that these patients (pts) have worst results. Our purpose was to compare outcomes in pts submitted to urgent versus elective TAVI.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 298 consecutive pts submitted to TAVI between 2018 and 2021 in a single tertiary center. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were collected and compared between elective and nonelective TAVI.

RESULTS

Pts submitted to urgent TAVI (79 pts) had worse baseline characteristics, with higher EuroScore risk (9.26 vs. 5.17%, p < 0.0001), STS score (7.09 vs. 4.4%, p < 0.0001), and NT pro-natriuretic peptide B (10,168 vs. 3,241 pg/mL, p = 0.001), lower left ventricle ejection fraction (45 vs. 52%, p = 0.003), more diabetes (46.8 vs. 32.4%, p = 0.0.22), peripheral artery disease (21.5 vs. 6.8%, p < 0.0001), and poor vascular accesses (18.4 vs. 7.4%, p = 0.007). Urgent TAVI was associated with higher mortality (25.3 vs. 15.1%, p = 0.043), 30-day cardiovascular mortality (17.5 vs. 4%, p = 0.001), life-threatening bleeding (11.5 vs. 4.1%, p = 0.018), vascular complications (11.5 vs. 4.6%, p = 0.031), and longer hospital stay (28 vs. 12 days, p < 0.0001), but not with intensive care unit or post-TAVI hospital stay (5 vs. 4 days, p = 0.197 and 11 vs. 10 days, p = 0.572). When adjusted to differences in baseline characteristics, urgent TAVI was only associated with longer hospital stay (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Pts submitted to urgent TAVI have worse short-term outcomes, but this seems to be attributable to the worse baseline characteristics instead of the urgent nature of the procedure.

A benchmark study of convolutional neural networks in fully automatic segmentation of aortic root

Recent clinical studies have suggested that introducing 3D patient-specific aortic root models into the pre-operative assessment procedure of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) would reduce the incident rate of peri-operative complications. Tradition manual segmentation is labor-intensive and low-efficient, which cannot meet the clinical demands of processing large data volumes. Recent developments in machine learning provided a viable way for accurate and efficient medical image segmentation for 3D patient-specific models automatically. This study quantitively evaluated the auto segmentation quality and efficiency of the four popular segmentation-dedicated three-dimensional (3D) convolutional neural network (CNN) architectures, including 3D UNet, VNet, 3D Res-UNet and SegResNet. All the CNNs were implemented in PyTorch platform, and low-dose CTA image sets of 98 anonymized patients were retrospectively selected from the database for training and testing of the CNNs. The results showed that despite all four 3D CNNs having similar recall, Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), and Jaccard index on the segmentation of the aortic root, the Hausdorff distance (HD) of the segmentation results from 3D Res-UNet is 8.56 ± 2.28, which is only 9.8% higher than that of VNet, but 25.5% and 86.4% lower than that of 3D UNet and SegResNet, respectively. In addition, 3D Res-UNet and VNet also performed better in the 3D deviation location of interest analysis focusing on the aortic valve and the bottom of the aortic root. Although 3D Res-UNet and VNet are evenly matched in the aspect of classical segmentation quality evaluation metrics and 3D deviation location of interest analysis, 3D Res-UNet is the most efficient CNN architecture with an average segmentation time of 0.10 ± 0.04 s, which is 91.2%, 95.3% and 64.3% faster than 3D UNet, VNet and SegResNet, respectively. The results from this study suggested that 3D Res-UNet is a suitable candidate for accurate and fast automatic aortic root segmentation for pre-operative assessment of TAVR.

In-hospital Outcomes and the Impact of Transfer Status in Nonelective vs Elective Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

Nonelective transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) requires additional research to be fully understood.

Methods

Using the National Inpatient Sample database (2016-2019), we conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing nonelective vs elective TAVR. The primary outcome of interest was the in-hospital mortality rate among patients undergoing nonelective TAVR, compared to that among patients undergoing elective TAVR. We matched patients in a greedy nearest-neighbor 1:1 model and multivariable logistic regression, which was adjusted for demographics, hospital factors, and comorbidities, and was used to compare mortality in our matched cohort.

Results

Each cohort had 4389 patients in each cohort. When adjusted for age, race, sex, and comorbidities, nonelective TAVR patients had 1.99 times higher odds of suffering in-hospital mortality compared to elective admissions (adjusted odds ratio 1.99, 95% confidence interval: 1.42-2.81; P < 0.001). When separated by transfer status, nonelective patients admitted as regular hospital admissions or transferred from other acute-care centres also had higher odds of suffering in-hospital mortality compared to elective admissions.

Conclusions

Our findings illustrate that nonelective TAVR patients are a vulnerable population that require additional medical support in the acute-care setting. As the demand for TAVR increases, further discussions regarding access to healthcare in underserved regions, the national physician shortage, and the future of the TAVR industry are imperative.

Acute advanced aortic stenosis

Acute decompensation often represents the onset of symptoms associated with severe degenerative aortic stenosis (AS) and usually complicates the clinical course of the disease with a dismal impact on survival and quality of life. Several factors may derange the faint balance between left ventricular preload and afterload and precipitate the occurrence of symptoms and signs of acute heart failure (HF). A standardized approach for the management of this condition is currently lacking. Medical therapy finds very limited application in this setting, as drugs usually indicated for the control of acute HF might worsen hemodynamics in the presence of AS. Urgent aortic valve replacement is usually performed by transcatheter than surgical approach whereas, over the last decades, percutaneous balloon valvuloplasty gained renewed space as bridge to definitive therapy. This review focuses on the pathophysiological aspects of acute advanced AS and summarizes current evidence on its management.

Emergency transcatheter aortic valve implantation for acute heart failure due to severe aortic stenosis in critically ill patients with or without cardiogenic shock

AIMS

Severe aortic stenosis can cause acute heart failure and cardiogenic shock (CS). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the standard therapy for aortic stenosis in inoperable patients. However, its role in this setting is poorly evaluated. The study purpose was to explore clinical characteristics of these patients and to assess predictors of mortality.

METHODS AND RESULTS

All 2930 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI at our centre between 2013 and 2019 were screened for critically ill patients, receiving intensive care therapy and emergency TAVI. Selected patients were subdivided into two groups, according to the presence or absence of CS. Remaining patients undergoing elective TAVI served as a comparison. Primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Out of 179 critically ill patients, 47 fulfilled criteria of CS (shock group) and 132 did not despite a severe decompensation (no shock group). Shock patients were more often male and had higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores [15.6, interquartile range (8.0-32.1) vs. 5.5 (3.9-8.5), P < 0.01] compared with severely decompensated patients. Ninety-day mortality was: shock group, 42.6%, vs. no shock group, 15.9%, vs. elective group, 5.3% (P < 0.01). A landmark analysis from day 90 showed similar mortality (P = 0.29). Compared with elective patients, 30-day composite endpoint device failure was higher in critically ill groups [shock group, odds ratio, 2.86 (1.43-5.36), no shock group, odds ratio, 1.74 (1.09-2.69)]. Multivariable regression revealed mechanical ventilation, haemofiltration, elevated C-reactive protein or bilirubin, and hypotension before TAVI as 90-day mortality predictors.

CONCLUSION

Ninety-day mortality after TAVI in critically ill patients is increased but survivors have similar outcomes as elective patients.

Procedural and long-term outcome among patients undergoing expedited trans-catheter aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE

Patients with rapidly deteriorating clinical status due to severe aortic stenosis are often referred for expedited transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Data regarding the outcome of such interventions is limited. We aimed to evaluate the outcome of patients undergoing expedited TAVR.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Data were derived from the Israeli Multicenter Registry.

SUBJECTS

Subjects were divided into two groups based on procedure urgency: patients who were electively hospitalized for the procedure (N = 3140) and those who had an expedited TAVR (N = 142). Procedural and periprocedural complication rates were significantly higher among patients with an expedited indication for TAVR compared to those having an elective procedure: valve malposition 4.6% versus 0.6% (p &lt; 0.001), procedural cardiopulmonary resuscitation 4.3% versus 1.0% (p = 0.007), postprocedure myocardial infarction 2.0% versus 0.4% (p = 0.002), and stage 3 acute kidney injury 3.0% versus 1.1%, (p &lt; 0.001). Patients with expedited indication for TAVR had significantly higher in hospital mortality (5.6% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.003). Kaplan-Meier's survival analysis showed that patients undergoing expedited TAVR had higher 3-year mortality rates compared to patients undergoing an elective TAVR procedure (p &lt; 0.001). Multivariate analysis found that patients with expedited indication had fourfolds increased risk of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio: 4.07, p = 0.001), and nearly twofolds increased risk of mortality at 3-year (hazard ratio: 1.69, p = 0.001) compared to those having an elective procedure.

CONCLUSION

Patients with expedited indications for TAVR suffer from poor short- and long-term outcomes. It is important to characterize and identify these patients before the deterioration to perform TAVR in a fast-track pathway to minimize their procedural risk.

Acute Decompensated Aortic Stenosis: State of the Art Review

Aortic stenosis (AS) is a progressive disease that carries a poor prognosis. Patients are managed conservatively until satisfying an indication for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) based on AS severity and the presence of symptoms or adverse impact on the myocardium. Up to 1 in 3 TAVIs are performed for patients with acute symptoms of dyspnoea at rest, angina, and/or syncope - termed acute decompensated aortic stenosis (ADAS) and require urgent aortic valve replacement. These patients have longer hospital length of stay, undergo physical deconditioning, have a higher rate of acute kidney injury and mortality compared to stable patients with less severe symptoms. There is an urgent need to prevent ADAS and to deliver pathways to manage and improve ADAS-related outcomes. We provide here a contemporary review on epidemiological and pathophysiological aspects of ADAS, with a focus on the impact of ADAS from clinical and economic perspectives. We will offer also a global overview of the available evidence for treatment of ADAS and with priorities suggested for addressing current gaps in the literature and unmet clinical needs to improve outcomes for AS patients.

Clinical outcomes of patients with hepatic insufficiency undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is currently a common treatment in high-risk aortic stenosis patients, but the impact of hepatic insufficiency on prognosis after TAVI is debatable and whether TAVI is superior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with hepatic insufficiency is uncertain.

Objective

To investigate the effect of abnormal liver function on the outcome and safety after TAVI and whether TAVI is superior to SAVR in patients with hepatic insufficiency.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception up to 26 November 2021. Studies were eligible if mortality and complications after TAVI in patients with and without hepatic insufficiency, or mortality and complications for TAVI versus SAVR in patients with hepatic insufficiency were reported. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of each study. This meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021253423) and was carried out by using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 14.0.

Results

This meta-analysis of 21 studies assessed a total of 222,694 patients. Hepatic insufficiency was associated with higher short-term (in-hospital or 30-day) mortality [OR = 1.62, 95% CI (1.18 to 2.21), P = 0.003] and 1–2 years mortality [HR = 1.64, 95% CI (1.42 to 1.89), P < 0.00001] after TAVI. Between TAVI and SAVR in patients with hepatic insufficiency, there was a statistically significant difference in in-hospital mortality [OR = 0.46, 95% CI (0.27 to 0.81), P = 0.007], the occurrence rate of blood transfusions [OR = 0.29, 95% CI (0.22 to 0.38), P < 0.00001] and the occurrence rate of acute kidney injury [OR = 0.55, 95% CI (0.33 to 0.91), P = 0.02].

Conclusions

TAVI patients with hepatic insufficiency may have negative impact both on short-term (in-hospital or 30-day) and 1–2-years mortality. For patients with hepatic insufficiency, TAVI could be a better option than SAVR.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12872-022-02510-2.

Efficacy and Safety of Emergent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients with Acute Decompensated Aortic Stenosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of emergent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with decompensated aortic stenosis (AS) by comparing the clinical outcomes with the patients who had received the elective TAVI.

Methods

By searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, we obtained the studies comparing the clinical outcomes of emergent TAVI and elective TAVI. Finally, 14 studies were included.

Results

A total of 14 eligible articles with 73,484 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Emergent TAVI was associated with a higher mortality during hospitalization (HR 2.09, 95% CI [1.39 to 3.14]), 30 days (HR 2.29, 95% CI [1.69 to 3.10]), and 1 year (HR 1.96, 95% CI [1.55 to 2.49]). Consistently, the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) (RR 2.48, 95% CI [1.85 to 3.32]), dialysis (RR 2.37, 95% CI [1.95 to 2.88]), bleeding (RR 1.62, 95% CI [1.27 to 2.08]), major bleeding (RR 1.05, 95% CI [1.00 to 1.10]), and 30-day rehospitalization (RR 1.30, 95% CI [1.07, 1.58]) were more common in patients receiving emergent TAVI. No statistical differences were found in the occurrence rate of vascular complications (RR 1.11, 95% CI [0.90, 1.36]), major vascular complications (RR 1.14, 95% CI [0.52, 2.52]), permanent pacemaker (PPM) placement (RR 1.05, 95% CI [0.99, 1.11]), cerebrovascular events (RR 1.11, 95% CI [0.98, 1.25]), moderate to severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) (RR 1.23, 95% [CI 0.94 to 1.61]), and device success (RR 0.99, 95% CI [0.97, 1.01]).

Conclusion

Emergent TAVI is associated with some postoperative complications and increased mortality compared with elective TAVI. Emergent TAVI should be implemented cautiously and individually.

Modeling the Impact of Delaying TAVR for the Treatment of Aortic Stenosis in the Era of COVID-19

Objective

The aim of this study was to model the short term and 2-year overall survival for intermediate- and low-risk patients with severe symptomatic AS undergoing timely or delayed transcatheter aortic valve replacement during the 2019 novel coronavirus pandemic.

Methods

We developed a decision analysis model to evaluate two treatment strategies for both low-risk and intermediate-risk patients with aortic stenosis during the 2019 novel coronavirus pandemic.

Results

Prompt transcatheter aortic valve replacement resulted in improved 2-year overall survival when compared to delayed intervention for intermediate-risk patients (0.81 versus 0.67) and low-risk patients (0.95 vs 0.85), due to the risk of death or the need for urgent/emergent transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the waiting period. However, if the probability of acquiring the 2019 novel coronavirus is greater than 55% (intermediate risk patients) or 47% (low risk patients), delayed transcatheter aortic valve replacement is favorable to prompt intervention (0.66 vs 0.67, intermediate risk; 0.84 vs 0.85, low risk).

Conclusions and Relevance

Prompt transcatheter aortic valve replacement for both intermediate-risk and low-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis results in improved 2-year survival when local healthcare system resources are not significantly constrained by the 2019 novel coronavirus.

Readmission following urgent transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus urgent balloon aortic valvuloplasty in patients with decompensated heart failure or cardiogenic shock

BACKGROUND

Urgent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a feasible option for aortic stenosis (AS) patients with decompensated heart failure (HF) and cardiogenic shock (CS) as compared to the more traditional urgent balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV).

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a retrospective analysis to compare risk and cause of readmission in these two high-risk groups.

METHODS

Nationwide Readmission Database (NRD) 2011-2014 was retrospectively analyzed to identify patients with AS having either urgent TAVI or urgent BAV using appropriate ICD-9 codes. Propensity scores were used to match patients with urgent TAVI as compared to patients with urgent BAV. Statistical analysis was performed using the Stata 15.1 software.

RESULTS

We identified a weighted sample of 6,670 patients with urgent BAV and 6,964 patients with urgent TAVI. The all-cause 30- and 90-day readmission was lower in the urgent TAVI group compared to urgent BAV (15.4 vs. 22.5%, (aHR): 0.92 [0.90-0.95] p < .001). 30-day readmission due to CV cause and HF was also lower in the urgent TAVI group (aHR, 0.93: p < .001 and aHR, 0.98: p = .040, respectively). The 30-day gastrointestinal (GI) bleed readmission rate was three times higher in urgent TAVI group (aHR, 3.00:95% CI (1.23-7.33), p = .016), but was not statistically significant at 90-days. Cardiac causes of readmission were the predominant cause of readmission in both groups, but more pronounced in urgent BAV group (60.3 vs. 40.5%, p < .001).

CONCLUSION

Urgent TAVI appears beneficial in patients with AS and decompensated HF or CS driven by roughly 10 and 25% reductions in overall readmissions at 30 and 90 days, and marked reductions in reintervention, although offset partially by higher risk of readmission due to GI bleeding at 30 days.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Hospitalized With Acute Heart Failure

Optimal timing and outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients presenting with acute heart failure (AHF) remain unclear. In this consecutive cohort of 1,547 patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI, the AHF status at admission was collected, and patients were classified into AHF and elective TAVI groups. In the AHF group, early TAVI was defined as TAVI performed ≤60 hours after emergency room arrival. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30-day and 2-year after TAVI. There were 139 (9%) patients who underwent TAVI while hospitalized with AHF. At baseline, this group had higher rates of chronic kidney disease, higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, and lower left ventricular ejection fraction. After adjusting for baseline differences, the AHF group had significantly higher all-cause mortality at 30-day and 2-year than the elective TAVI group (8% vs 2%; p = 0.002, and 33% vs 18%; p = 0.002, respectively). In the AHF group, 43 (31%) patients underwent early treatment with TAVI. No significant difference in all-cause mortality at 30-day was observed between early and non-early TAVI groups (5% vs 10%; p = 0.617). All-cause mortality at 2-year was lower in the early TAVI groups (16% vs 40%, log-rank p = 0.022); however, after multivariable adjustment, the difference was barely statistically significant (p = 0.053). In conclusion, TAVI in patients with AHF was associated with worse short and long-term outcomes. In AHF setting, early TAVI did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality at 30-day; however, it showed a strong trend for lower all-cause mortality at 2-year.

Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock due to Structural Heart Disease

Despite advances in cardiovascular care, managing cardiogenic shock caused by structural heart disease is challenging. Patients with cardiogenic shock are critically ill upon presentation and require early disease recognition and rapid escalation of care. Temporary mechanical circulatory support provides a higher level of care than current medical therapies such as vasopressors and inotropes. This review article focuses on the role of hemodynamic monitoring, mechanical circulatory support, and device selection in patients who present with cardiogenic shock due to structural heart disease. Early initiation of appropriate mechanical circulatory support may reduce morbidity and mortality.