Timing and Outcomes of PCI in the TAVR Era

Techniques to overcome difficult delivery of the Impella CP device through a previously placed transcatheter aortic valve

The utilization of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patient with previous bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement continues to increase. This is due to an aging population and increased utilization of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to treat symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS). These patients often have concurrent high complexity coronary artery disease (CAD). Various strategies are available for the management of significant CAD in patients undergoing TAVR, including PCI before or after TAVR. However, placement of the Impella (Abiomed Danvers, MA) device in the left ventricle post TAVR can be challenging based on the device interaction with the TAVR cage or angulations of the ascending aorta. We describe a case of unsuccessful delivery of the Impella device through a previously placed 26 mm Sapien 3 TAVR (Edwards Irvine, CA) valve and the techniques that lead to successful placement of the device and review the tips and techniques that operators can employ to optimize success.

Outcomes of concomitant percutaneous coronary interventions and transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Introduction

Coronary artery disease is a common diagnosis among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The treatment and timing of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain controversial. We sought to compare in-hospital periprocedural outcomes of combined TAVR and PCI during the same index hospitalization versus the isolated TAVR procedure.

Material and methods

The study population was extracted from the 2016 Nationwide Readmissions Data (NRD) using International Classification of Diseases, tenth edition, clinical modifications/procedure coding system codes for TAVR, coronary PCI, and post-procedural complications. Study endpoints included in-hospital all-cause mortality, length of index hospital stay, cardiogenic shock, need for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices, mechanical complications of prosthetic valve, paravalvular leak (PVL), acute kidney injury (AKI), bleeding and total hospital charges. Propensity matching was used to adjust for baseline characteristics.

Results

There were 23,604 TAVRs in the 2016 NRD, of which 852 were combined with PCI during the same index hospitalization. Mean age was 80.5 years and 45.9% were female. In comparison to isolated TAVR, TAVR-PCI was associated with higher in-hospital all-cause mortality (4.5% vs. 1.7%, p < 0.01), longer length of stay (10.5 vs. 5.4 days, p < 0.01), and higher incidence of cardiogenic shock (9.4% vs. 2.1%, p < 0.01), use of MCS devices (6.8% vs. 0.7%, p < 0.01), mechanical complications of prosthetic valve (6.8% vs. 0.7%, p < 0.01), PVL (0.9% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.01), AKI (25.5% vs. 11.5%, p < 0.01), bleeding (25.2% vs. 18.1%, p < 0.01), and total hospital charges ($354,725 vs. $220474, p < 0.01).

Conclusions

In comparison to isolated TAVR, combined TAVR-PCI was associated with a higher incidence of in-hospital morbidity and mortality. The association and mechanism of increased mortality warrant further study.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: An alternative for severe aortic stenosis

ABSTRACT

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is considered a lower-risk procedure for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. Several FDA-approved trials performed in the United States support TAVR to be beneficial over surgical aortic valve replacement in certain patient populations. An optimal TAVR program consists of a multidisciplinary team that selects candidates for the procedure based on shared decision-making and the patient's anatomy and risk factors, and follows the patients through the Transcatheter Valve Therapy National Registry.

Adverse clinical outcomes in patients undergoing both PCI and TAVR: Analysis from a pooled multi-center registry

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data regarding the optimum timing of PCI in relation to TAVR.

OBJECTIVE

We compared the major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) rates among patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) before transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with those who received PCI with/after TAVR.

METHODS

In this multicenter study, we pooled all consecutive patients who underwent TAVR at three high volume centers.

RESULTS

Among 3,982 patients who underwent TAVR, 327 (8%) patients underwent PCI within 1 year before TAVR, 38 (1%) had PCI the same day as TAVR and 15 (0.5%) had PCI within 2 months after TAVR. Overall, among patients who received both PCI and TAVR (n = 380), history of previous CABG (HR:0.501; p = .001), higher BMI at TAVR (HR:0.970; p = .038), and statin therapy after TAVR (HR:0.660, p = .037) were independently associated with lower MACCE while warfarin therapy after TAVR was associated with a higher risk of MACCE (HR:1.779, p = .017). Patients who received PCI within 1 year before TAVR had similar baseline demographics, STS scores, clinical risk factors when compared to patients receiving PCI with/after TAVR. Both groups were similar in PCI (Syntax Score, ACC/AHA lesion class) and TAVR (valve types, access) related variables. There were no significant differences in terms of MACCE (log rank p = .550), all-cause mortality (log rank p = .433), strokes (log rank p = .153), and repeat PCI (log rank p = .054) in patients who underwent PCI with/after TAVR when compared to patients who received PCI before TAVR.

CONCLUSION

Among patients who underwent both PCI and TAVR, history of CABG, higher BMI, and statin therapy had lower, while those discharged on warfarin, had higher adverse event rates. Adverse events rates were similar regardless of timing of PCI.

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

Current guidelines recommend transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for patients with severe aortic stenosis at elevated surgical risk, but not for patients at low surgical risk. Our objective is to compare major clinical outcomes and procedural complications with TAVI versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low surgical risk. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, identified through a systematic search of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Count data were pooled across trials using random-effects models with inverse variance weighting to obtain relative risks (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Three randomized controlled trials (n = 2,629) were included. At 30 days, TAVI was associated with a substantial reduction in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.45, 95%CI: 0.20 to 0.99), atrial fibrillation (RR: 0.27, 95%CI: 0.17 to 0.41), life threatening/disabling bleeding (RR: 0.29, 95%CI: 0.12 to 0.69), and acute kidney injury (RR: 0.28, 95%CI: 0.14 to 0.57). The reduction in atrial fibrillation persisted at 12 months (RR: 0.32, 95%CI: 0.21 to 0.49). However, TAVI patients had an increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation at both 30 days (RR: 3.13, 95%CI: 1.36 to 7.21) and 12 months (RR: 2.99, 95%CI: 1.19 to 7.51). Due to the low absolute numbers of events, results were inconclusive at 30 days and 12 months for cardiovascular mortality, stroke, transient ischemic attack, and myocardial infarction. In conclusion, while some outcomes remained inconclusive, these data suggest that TAVI should be considered as a first-line therapy for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in low surgical risk patients.

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.