Transcatheter vs surgical aortic-valve replacement in low- to intermediate-surgical-risk candidates: A meta-analysis and systematic review

The importance of MDCT in the evaluation of risk factors before the TAVI procedure and its complications after implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the alternative to surgical valve replacement, expanding its indications in the latest guidelines. Multimodal CT (MDCT) is essential in patient selection and detection of complications. Vascular complications are frequent, so it is important to analyse the anatomy of the vessels before the procedure. Regarding annular ruptures and ventricular perforations, the volume and distribution of calcium and the ventricular diameter play an important role. Finally, valve migration is a rare complication that can occur both during and after TAVI. Proper planning of the MDCT procedure reduces the risk of complications and gives the interventional cardiologist security both before and during the procedure.

Efficacy and Safety of Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training on the Improvement of Cardiopulmonary Function in Patients After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (ENERGY): A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effect of moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on the improvement of cardiopulmonary function for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

DESIGN

Randomized controlled study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Between August 20, 2021, and February 28, 2022, a total of 66 patients after TAVR were screened for inclusion and randomly divided into the MICT and control groups at a ratio of 1:1. MICT was scheduled 3 times per week for 3 months in the intervention group. Patients in the control group received one-time advice on physical activity according to the current guideline.

METHODS

The primary endpoint was the 3-month change in peak oxygen consumption (peak VO2) assessed by cardiopulmonary exercise testing. The secondary endpoints included the 3-month change in 6-minute walk test (6MWT), the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, echocardiographic parameters, and laboratory parameters.

RESULTS

After 3 months, the change in peak VO2 was higher in the MICT group than that in the control group (1.63 mL/kg/min, 95% CI 0.58-2.67, P = .003). Change in 6MWT (21.55 m, 95% CI 0.38-42.71, P = .046) was higher in the MICT group compared with the control group. A significant change in favor of MICT was also observed for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.62 mmol/L, 95% CI -1.00 to -0.23, P = .002). However, there were no significant changes in other echocardiographic indices, laboratory parameters, and SF-12 between the 2 groups (all P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

MICT had a positive effect on the cardiopulmonary function and physical capacity of patients after TAVR.

Cerebral Tissue Oxygen Saturation Is Enhanced in Patients following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Retrospective Study

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a relevant alteration in cerebral tissue oxygen saturation (rSO2) could be detected following TAVI. Retrospective data analysis included 275 patients undergoing TAVI between October 2016 and December 2020. Overall, rSO2 significantly increased following TAVI (64.6 ± 10% vs. 68.1 ± 10%, p < 0.01). However, a significant rise was only observed in patients with a preoperative rSO2 < 60%. Of the hemodynamic confounders studied, hemoglobin, mean arterial pressure and blood pH were lowered, while central venous pressure and arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) were slightly elevated (PaCO2: 39 (36−43) mmHg vs. 42 (37−47) mmHg, p = 0.03; pH: 7.41 (7.3−7.4) vs. 7.36 (7.3−7.4), p < 0.01). Multivariate linear regression modeling identified only hemoglobin as a predictor of altered rSO2. Patients with a EuroScore II above 4% and an extended ICU stay were found to have lower rSO2, while no difference was observed in patients with postoperative delirium or between the implanted valve types. Further prospective studies that eliminate differences in potential confounding variables are necessary to confirm the rise in rSO2. Future research should provide more information on the value of cerebral oximetry for identifying high-risk patients who will require further clinical interventions in the setting of the TAVI procedure.

The noninferiority of transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared to surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic disease: Evidence based on 16 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Currently, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) as an effective and convenient intervention has been adopted extensively for patients with severe aortic disease. However, the efficacy and safety of TAVI have not yet been well evaluated and its noninferiority compared with traditional surgical aortic valve replacement (sAVR) still lack sufficient evidence. This meta-analysis was designed to comprehensively compare the noninferiority of TAVI with sAVR for patients with severe aortic disease.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to October 1, 2020 was conducted for relevant studies that comparing TAVI and sAVR in the treatment of severe aortic disease. The primary outcomes were early, midterm and long term mortality. The secondary outcomes included early complications and other late outcomes. Two reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted the data independently. All statistical analyzes were performed using the standard statistical procedures provided in Review Manager 5.2.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies including 14394 patients were identified. There was no difference in 30-day, 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year all-cause or cardiovascular mortality as well as stroke between TAVI and sAVR. Regarding to the 30-day outcomes, compared with sAVR, TAVI experienced a significantly lower incidence of myocardial infarction (risk ratio [RR] 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.97; 5441 pts), cardiogenic shock (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.19-0.59; 1936 pts), acute kidney injury (AKI) > stage 2 (RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.25-0.54; 5371 pts), and new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) (RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.24-0.35; 5371 pts) respectively, but higher incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (RR 3.16; 95% CI 1.61-6.21; 5441 pts) and major vascular complications (RR 2.22; 95% CI 1.14-4.32; 5371 pts). Regarding to the 1- and 2-year outcomes, compared with sAVR, TAVI experienced a significantly lower incidence of NOAF, but higher incidence of neurological events, transient ischemic attacks (TIA), permanent pacemaker and major vascular complications respectively. Regarding to the 5-year outcomes, compared with sAVR, TAVI experienced a significantly lower incidence of NOAF, but higher incidence of TIA and reintervention respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis shows that TAVI was equal to sAVR in early, midterm and long term mortality for patients with severe aortic disease. In addition, TAVI may be favorable in reducing the incidence of both early, midterm and long term NOAF. However, pooled results showed superiority of sAVR in reducing permanent pacemaker implantation, neurological events, TIA, major vascular complications and reintervention.

Comparison of postprocedural new-onset atrial fibrillation between transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on 16 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Presently, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as an effective and convenient intervention has been adopted extensively for patients with severe aortic disease. However, after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and TAVR, the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is prevalently found. This meta-analysis was designed to comprehensively compare the incidence of NOAF at different times after TAVR and SAVR for patients with severe aortic disease.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to October 1, 2020 was conducted for relevant studies that comparing TAVR and SAVR in the treatment of severe aortic disease. The primary outcomes were the incidence of NOAF with early, midterm and long term follow-up. The secondary outcomes included permanent pacemaker (PM) implantation, myocardial infarction (MI), cardiogenic shock, as well as mortality and other complications. Two reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted the data independently. All statistical analyses were performed using the standard statistical procedures provided in Review Manager 5.2.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies including 13,310 patients were identified. The pooled results indicated that, compared with SAVR, TAVR experienced a significantly lower incidence of 30-day/in-hospital, 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year NOAF, with pooled risk ratios (RRs) of 0.31 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-0.41; 5725 pts), 0.30 (95% CI 0.24-0.39; 6321 pts), 0.48 (95% CI 0.38-0.61; 3441 pts), and 0.45 (95% CI 0.37-0.55; 2268 pts) respectively. In addition, TAVR showed lower incidence of MI (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.40-0.97) and cardiogenic shock (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.19-0.59), but higher incidence of permanent PM (RR 3.16; 95% CI 1.61-6.21) and major vascular complications (RR 2.22; 95% CI 1.14-4.32) at 30-day/in-hospital. At 1- and 2-year after procedure, compared with SAVR, TAVR experienced a significantly higher incidence of neurological events, transient ischemic attacks (TIA), permanent PM, and major vascular complications, respectively. At 5-year after procedure, compared with SAVR, TAVR experienced a significantly higher incidence of TIA and re-intervention respectively. There was no difference in 30-day, 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year all-cause or cardiovascular mortality as well as stroke between TAVR and SAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis showed that TAVR was superior to SAVR in decreasing the both short and long term postprocedural NOAF. TAVR was equal to SAVR in early, midterm and long term mortality. In addition, TAVR showed lower incidence of 30-day/in-hospital MI and cardiogenic shock after procedure. However, pooled results showed that TAVR was inferior to SAVR in reducing permanent pacemaker implantation, neurological events, TIA, major vascular complications, and re-intervention.

Predictors of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

As transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) technology expands to healthy and lower‐risk populations, the burden and predictors of procedure‐related complications including the need for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation needs to be identified.

Methods and Results

Digital databases were systematically searched to identify studies reporting the incidence of PPM implantation after TAVR. A random‐ and fixed‐effects model was used to calculate unadjusted odds ratios (OR) for all predictors. A total of 78 studies, recruiting 31 261 patients were included in the final analysis. Overall, 6212 patients required a PPM, with a mean of 18.9% PPM per study and net rate ranging from 0.16% to 51%. The pooled estimates on a random‐effects model indicated significantly higher odds of post‐TAVR PPM implantation for men (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04–1.28); for patients with baseline mobitz type‐1 second‐degree atrioventricular block (OR, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.64–5.93), left anterior hemiblock (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.09–1.86), bifascicular block (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.52–4.42), right bundle‐branch block (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 2.17–2.83), and for periprocedural atriorventricular block (OR, 4.17; 95% CI, 2.69–6.46). The mechanically expandable valves had 1.44 (95% CI, 1.18–1.76), while self‐expandable valves had 1.93 (95% CI, 1.42–2.63) fold higher odds of PPM requirement compared with self‐expandable and balloon‐expandable valves, respectively.

Conclusions

Male sex, baseline atrioventricular conduction delays, intraprocedural atrioventricular block, and use of mechanically expandable and self‐expanding prosthesis served as positive predictors of PPM implantation in patients undergoing TAVR.

Transcatheter vs surgical aortic valve replacement in low to intermediate surgical risk aortic stenosis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is regarded as the most superior alternative treatment approach for patients with aortic stenosis (AS) who are associated with high surgical risk, whereas the effectiveness of TAVR vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low to intermediate surgical risk patients remained inconclusive. This study aimed to determine the best treatment strategies for AS with low to intermediate surgical risk based on published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Hypothesis and Methods

RCTs that compared TAVR vs SAVR in AS patients with low to intermediate surgical risk were identified by PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane library from inception till April 2019. The pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the data collected using random‐effects models.

Results

Seven RCTs with a total of 6929 AS patients were enrolled. We noted that TAVR significantly increased the risk of transient ischemic attack (TIA) (RR: 1.43; 95%CI: 1.04‐1.96; P = .029), and permanent pacemaker implantation (RR: 3.00; 95%CI: 1.70‐5.30; P < .001). However, TAVR was associated with lower risk of post‐procedural bleeding (RR: 0.57; 95%CI: 0.33‐0.98; P = .042), new‐onset or worsening of atrial fibrillation (RR: 0.32; 95%CI: 0.23‐0.45; P < .001), acute kidney injury (RR: 0.40; 95%CI: 0.25‐0.63; P < .001), and cardiogenic shock (RR: 0.34; 95%CI: 0.19‐0.59; P < .001). The risk of aortic‐valve reintervention at 1‐ (RR: 2.63; 95%CI: 1.34‐5.15; P = .005), and 2 years (RR: 3.19; 95%CI: 1.63‐6.24; P = .001) in low to intermediate surgical risk patients who received TAVR was significantly increased than those who received SAVR.

Conclusions

These findings indicated that low to intermediate surgical risk patients who received TAVR had low risk of complications, whereas the risk of TIA, permanent pacemaker implantation, and aortic‐valve reintervention was increased.

Proximalized Total Arch Replacement Can Be Safely Performed by Trainee

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to validate safety of total arch replacement (TAR) using a novel frozen elephant trunk device, operated by trainees as surgical education.

METHODS

Sixty-four patients including 19 patients (29.6%) with acute aortic dissection type A (AADA) underwent TAR in our institute between April 2014 and March 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Twenty-nine patients were operated by trainees (group T) and 35 patients were operated by attending surgeons (group A).

RESULTS

Patient characteristics did not differ between groups. Operative time (409.4 ± 87.8 vs. 468.6 ± 129.6 minutes, p = 0.034), cardiopulmonary bypass time (177.7 ± 50.4 vs. 222.9 ± 596.7 minutes, p = 0.019), and hypothermic circulatory arrest time (39.5 ± 13.4 vs. 54.5 ± 18.5 minutes, p = 0.001) were significantly shorter in group A than in group T, but aortic clamping time did not differ between groups (115.3 ± 55.7 vs. 114.2 ± 35.0 minutes, p = 0.924) because the rate of concomitant surgery was higher in group A (37.1 vs. 10.3%, p = 0.014). Thirty-day mortality was 3.1% in the entire cohort. Although operation time was longer in group T, there were no significant difference in postoperative results between the groups, and the experience levels of the main operator were not independent predictors for in-hospital mortality + major postoperative complications. There was no difference in late death and aortic events between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated that TAR can be safely performed by trainees, and suggests TAR as a possible and safe educational operation.

Assessing the safety and efficacy of TAVR compared to SAVR in low-to-intermediate surgical risk patients with aortic valve stenosis: An overview of reviews

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was initially introduced to treat patients with aortic valve stenosis (AS) at high-risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Today, there is ample evidence supporting TAVR in high-risk groups. However, in recent years TAVR has been extended to low-to intermediate risk groups and relevant clinical evidence is still emerging, leaving some uncertainties.

Methods

To obtain information on TAVR versus SAVR in low-to intermediate risk groups, we conducted an overview of systematic reviews following PRISMA guidelines and based on a systematic search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane and CRD databases. We focused on systematic reviews assessing mortality and VARC 2 as clinical outcomes.

Results

The majority of the 11 systematic reviews included in our study reported no differences in mortality between TAVR and SAVR at short and long-term follow-up times. Two reviews that included the most recent RCTs on low-risk patients reported a decreased mortality risk with TAVR at one-year follow-up. Regarding the secondary endpoints of stroke and MI, the majority of studies presented similar results for TAVR and SAVR. Acute Kidney Injury, Bleeding Complications, Atrial Fibrillation were less frequent with TAVR, with lower risk of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation and Aortic Regurgitation with SAVR.

Conclusions

Our overview indicated that TAVR is a promising intervention for low-to-intermediate surgical risk patients; however additional evidence from longer term follow-up is needed to confirm these findings. This overview highlights inconsistencies about reporting and presentation of data, most notably limited clarity on effects of risk of bias on trial results.

•

We reviewed the evidence for TAVR and SAVR in low-to intermediate risk patients.

•

Most reviews found no difference in mortality between TAVR and SAVR.

•

Acute Kidney Injury, Bleeding and Atrial Fibrillation were less frequent with TAVR.

•

Pacemaker Implantation and Aortic Regurgitation were less frequent with SAVR.

•

Most reviews found no difference for Stroke and Myocardial Infarction.

Mortality after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement: an updated meta-analysis of randomised trials

Background

To determine whether transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) improves early (30-day) and midterm (1-year) mortality compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), we performed an updated meta-analysis of all the currently available randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

To identify all RCTs providing both 30-day and 1‑year mortality after TAVI versus SAVR, PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to and including July 2019. A risk difference (RD) and its 95% confidence interval were generated using data of prespecified outcomes in both the TAVI and SAVR groups. Study-specific estimates were pooled using inverse variance-weighted averages of RDs in the random-effects model.

Results

We identified seven eligible high-quality RCTs including a total of 7631 as-treated patients. Pooled analyses demonstrated significantly lower 30-day (RD −0.60%; p = 0.046) and 1‑year all-cause mortality (RD −1.12%; p = 0.03) after TAVI than after SAVR. No funnel plot asymmetry was detected for 30-day and 1‑year mortality. Meta-regression analyses indicated that RDs of 30-day and 1‑year mortality between TAVI and SAVR were not modulated by mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score. Bleeding complications at 30 days and 1 year and stage 2/3 acute kidney injury at 30 days were significantly less frequent after TAVI than after SAVR, whereas major vascular complications and new permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days and 1 year were significantly more frequent after TAVI than after SAVR.

Conclusion

The best evidence from the present meta-analysis of all the currently available RCTs suggests that TAVI may reduce 30-day and 1‑year all-cause mortality compared with SAVR.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-020-01378-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Meta-Analysis of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Low Surgical Risk

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the current standard of care for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high risk for surgery. However, several recent studies have demonstrated the comparable safety and efficacy of TAVI in low-risk patients as well. We sought to pool the existing data to further assert its comparability. MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase databases were evaluated for relevant articles published from January 2005 to June 2019. Studies comparing outcomes of TAVI versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients who are at low risk for surgery were included. Twelve studies (5 randomized controlled trials and 7 observational studies) totaling 27,956 patients were included. Follow-up ranged from 3 months to 5 years. Short-term all-cause mortality, short-term, and 1-year cardiac mortality were significantly lower in the TAVI group. One-year all-cause mortality, short-term, and 1-year stroke and myocardial infarction were similar in both groups. Rate of acute kidney injury and new-onset atrial fibrillation were lower in the TAVI group, whereas permanent pacemaker implantation and major vascular complications were higher in the TAVI group. Subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials showed significantly lower 1-year all-cause mortality in the TAVI group. In conclusion, in severe aortic stenosis patients at low surgical risk, TAVI when compared with surgical aortic valve replacement, demonstrated a lower rate of short-term all-cause mortality, short-term, and 1-year cardiac mortality and similar in terms of 1-year all-cause mortality. TAVI is emerging as a safe and efficacious alternative for low surgical risk patients.

Meta-analysis of Temporal and Surgical Risk Dependent Associations With Outcomes After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Implantation

Temporal and surgical risk dependent associations with clinical outcomes in patients receiving transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve implantation (TAVI vs SAVI) are uncertain. In this meta-analysis, 7 randomized controlled trials (7,771 patients) were included to investigate trends in outcomes in TAVI versus SAVI up to 5 years, and variation in outcomes with respect to low-, intermediate-, and high-surgical risk of the patients up to 1 year. Estimates were calculated as random effects hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). All-cause mortality was similar in TAVI and SAVI at 30 days (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.21, p = 0.31), 1 year (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.06, p = 0.49), 2 years (HR 0.96, 95 CI 0.85 to 1.09, p = 0.54), and 5 years (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.21, p = 0.62). Cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke were similar in both interventions up to 5 years. TAVI was associated with lower risk of atrial fibrillation, but higher risk of vascular complications, pacemaker implantation, and paravalvular leak up to 5 years. The lower risks of major bleeding and acute kidney injury with TAVI versus SAVI were limited to 1 and 2 years, respectively. Compared with SAVI, TAVI was superior in reducing all-cause mortality in low surgical risk patients at 30 days only, whereas TAVI was noninferior to SAVI in intermediate- and high-risk patients at 30 days and across all risks at 1 year. In conclusion, TAVI was noninferior to SAVI in terms of mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke up to 5 years. TAVI improved survival versus SAVI in low-risk patients at 30 days.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation to Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Surgical Risk Patients

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is recommended for inoperable and high risk surgical patients with severe aortic stenosis. It is noninferior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in intermediate risk candidates. TAVI is currently being assessed for low surgical risk individuals. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and matched observational studies between TAVI and SAVR in low surgical risk patients. The primary outcomes were short-term and mid-term mortality and neurologic events. Secondary outcomes were other periprocedure complications. A total of 8 studies (3 RCTs and 5 matched observational studies) totaling 6,686 patients were included. No difference was seen in short-term mortality and neurologic events (risk ratio [RR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 1.03, p 0.07 and RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.13, p 0.18) as well as mid-term mortality and neurologic events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.47, p 0.65 and RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.97, p 0.9) between the 2 groups. Reduced risk of new onset atrial fibrillation (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.25, p <0.00001), acute kidney injury (RR 0.43, 95 CI 0.23 to 0.82, p 0.01), and bleeding (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.69, p 0.0005) whereas increased risk of ≥ moderate aortic regurgitation (RR 6.53, 95% CI 3.48 to 12.24, p <0.00001), pacemaker or defibrillator implantation (RR 3.11, 95% CI 1.96 to 4.94, p <0.00001) and vascular complications (RR 5.29, 95% CI 1.58 to 17.70, p 0.007) was noted in TAVI arm. In conclusion, TAVI is comparable to SAVR in terms of short-term and mid-term mortality and neurologic events in low surgical risk patients. The risk of periprocedure events is variable.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgery for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: A reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

We wished to undertake a reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgery for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND

TAVR and surgery are both well-established methods for treating patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who are at low, intermediate, and high risk for surgery.

METHODS

Data were identified by searches of Medline, Embase, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov for all randomized clinical trials, which compared TAVR and surgery that had published at least 1 year of follow-up. Individual patient data were reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

A total of 7,770 patients from seven randomized clinical trials were included in this meta-analysis. At 1 year, TAVR was associated with a lower risk of death from any cause (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-0.98; p = .03), disabling stroke (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.93; p = .01) and the composite end point of death or disabling stroke (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67-0.92; p = .002). Significant interactions were found for access suitability, with TAVR associated with a lower risk of these end points in patients suitable for transfemoral access. TAVR was associated with a lower risk of periprocedural events, whereas the risk of late events was similar between TAVR and surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

At 1 year, TAVR was associated with a lower risk of death, disabling stroke and the composite end point, when compared with surgery. These associations were strongest within the subgroup of patients in whom transfemoral access was feasible.

Current results and remaining challenges of trans-catheter aortic valve replacement expansion in intermediate and low risk patients

TAVR has become the standard treatment in patients at increased surgical risk (STS or EuroSCORE II ≥4% or logistic EuroSCORE I ≥ 10% or other risk factors not included in these scores such as frailty, porcelain aorta, sequelae of chest radiation) and it is increasingly being performed in patients at intermediate to low (STS or EuroSCORE II <4% or logistic EuroSCORE I < 10%) surgical risk. Although non-inferiority has been demonstrated in intermediate and low-risk patients, several challenges need to be addressed before expansion to younger patients. Current trends, trials results, and remaining challenges are summarized and discussed in this review.

Surgical treatment of elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis in the modern era - review

Surgical treatment of severe aortic stenosis offers good early and long-term results, even in elderly patients. Despite the implementation of percutaneous methods for the very high-risk group, surgical valve replacement remains the gold standard. The advanced age of patients should not be the only indicator limiting the possibility of surgery. In this review we present the most important information on the results of aortic stenosis surgical treatment in the groups of older patients. New methods such as percutaneous and minimally invasive methods of surgery are also discussed. Additionally, the presented information is referred to current guidelines for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis.

Increased risk profile in the treatment of patients with symptomatic degenerative aortic valve stenosis over the last 10 years

Introduction

Currently, Cardiology Centres are overfilled with patients with degenerative aortic valve stenosis (DAS), usually eldery, with severe concommittant comorbidities, who are referred for further decisions and possible intervention.

Aim

To evaluate changes in the risk profile of patients with severe DAS admitted to the cardiology department a decade ago compared with patients currently being admitted.

Material and methods

We retrospectively evaluated all patients admitted with confirmed severe DAS, hospitalized during 2005-2006 (group I: 140 patients) and in 2016 (group II: 152 patients), admitted for aortic valve intervention. A standard transthoracic echocardiogram, cardiovascular symptom and risk factor distribution, perioperative risk with the logistic EuroSCORE II and STS mortality scores were obtained.

Results

Patients in group II were significantly older (p < 0.001), had more cardiovascular risk factors, and more often presented with atrial fibrillation (27% vs. 11.4%, p = 0.001), renal impairment (34.9% vs. 22.8%; p = 0.024), severe lung disease (17.1% vs. 2.1%, p < 0.001), and extracardiac arteriopathy (40.1% vs. 17.8%, p < 0.001). The aortic valve area (AVA) (p = 0.356), mean-transvalvular pressure gradient (p = 0.215), and left ventricular ejection fraction (p = 0.768) were similar in both groups. However, the prevalence of pulmonary hypertension, severe mitral regurgitation, and low-flow, low-gradient DAS were 3.1-, 8.4- and 1.84-fold more frequent in group II than group I. The percentages of subjects with EuroSCORE II and STS scores ≥ 4% in 2005-2006 were 7.1% and 6.4%, as compared to 27% and 26.3% in 2016 (both p < 0.001). 22% of patients in 2016, as compared to 31% in 2005/2006, were considered ineligible for DAS intervention.

Conclusions

In just a decade, the risk profile of patients admitted with DAS has increased hugely, mainly due to older age, accumulation of comorbidities and more advanced disease at presentation. Although transcatheter aortic valve intervention has expanded the indications for intervention in high-risk patients, the number of patients disqualified from interventional treatment remains high.

Incidence of arrhythmias and impact of permanent pacemaker implantation in hospitalizations with transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

This study sought to analyze in-hospital outcomes associated with preexisting and newly implanted permanent pacemaker (PPM) in patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). PPM implantation following the development of conduction abnormalities is a common adverse event following TAVR. Furthermore, PPM implantation rates are higher in TAVR hospitalizations compared with the surgical alternative, thus we have analyzed the predictors of pacing post-TAVR.

HYPOTHESIS

We hypothesize that incidence of arrhythmias are high post-TAVR and have worse adverse outcomes after receiving PPM.

METHODS

The study population was identified from the National Inpatient Sample database between 2012 and 2014. TAVR population was identified using ICD-9-CM procedure codes 35.05 and 35.06. Hospitalizations were divided into 3 group: (1) with preexisting PPM, (2) with newly implanted PPM, and (3) without any PPM.

RESULTS

Overall, 0.8% of hospitalizations presented with preexisting PPM and 23.7% of hospitalizations received new PPM. The overall incidence of atrial fibrillation was 44.5%, left bundle branch block 8.9%, complete atrioventricular block 9.5%, and right bundle branch block 2.7%. In-hospital mortality was higher in hospitalizations receiving PPM compared with those without (4.9% vs 4.0%; P = 0.05). Length of stay and cost were higher in the group receiving new PPM. Female sex, atrial fibrillation, left bundle branch block, and second-degree and complete atrioventricular block were significant predictors for receiving PPM after TAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

A risk stratification for hospitalizations with conduction disorders is necessary to avoid longer hospital stays, added costs, and mortality. Further research is warranted to investigate additional predictors for PPM after TAVR.

Transcatheter vs surgical aortic-valve replacement in low- to intermediate-surgical-risk candidates: A meta-analysis and systematic review

The American and European expert documents recommend transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for inoperable or high-surgical-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. In comparison, efficacy of TAVR is relatively less studied in low- to intermediate-surgical-risk patients. We sought to discover whether TAVR can be as effective as surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low- to intermediate-surgical-risk candidates. Four randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 8 prospective matched studies were selected using PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library (inception: March 2017). Results were reported as random-effects odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Among 9851 patients, analyses of RCTs showed that all-cause mortality was comparable between TAVR and SAVR (short term, OR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.86-1.64, P = 0.30; mid-term, OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.75-1.26, P = 0.84; and long term, OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.81-1.16, P = 0.76). The analysis restricted to matched studies showed similar outcomes. In the analysis stratified by study design, no significant differences were noted in the RCTs for stroke, whereas TAVR was better than SAVR in matched studies at short term only (OR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.33-0.65, P < 0.001). TAVR is associated with reduced risk of acute kidney injury and new-onset atrial fibrillation (P < 0.05). However, increased incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation and paravalvular leaks was observed with TAVR. TAVR can provide similar mortality outcome compared with SAVR in low- to intermediate-surgical-risk patients with critical aortic stenosis. However, both procedures are associated with their own array of adverse events.