Two-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter Compared With Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in "Minimal-Risk" Patients Lacking EuroSCORE Co-morbidities (from the TAVIK Registry)

In low-risk patients aged >70-75 with severe aortic stenosis, is transcatheter superior to surgical aortic valve replacement in terms of reported cardiovascular composite outcomes and survival?

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: In low-risk patients aged >70-75 with severe aortic stenosis, is transcatheter superior to surgical aortic valve replacement in terms of reported composite outcomes and survival? More than 73 papers were found using the reported search, of which 8 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers were tabulated. The only low-risk randomized control trial to date [Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention (NOTION)] regarding an elderly population did not show a statistically significant difference between the 2 approaches regarding the composite endpoint of death, stroke or myocardial infarction. A subgroup analysis of elderly patients in the 2 main low-risk randomized control trials did not yield statistically different results from those of the overall population; the results indicated the superiority of transcatheter aortic valve implantation regarding the composite of death, stroke or rehospitalization at 1 year [The Safety and Effectiveness of the SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve in Low Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis (PARTNER 3)] and non-inferiority regarding a composite of death or stroke at 2 years [Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients (Evolut LR)]. The results from lower evidence studies are largely consistent with these findings. Overall, there is no compelling evidence indicating that older age should be an isolated criterion for the choice between transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement in otherwise low-risk patients. The superiority of either technique regarding the aforementioned composite short-term outcomes in this particular subgroup of patients is unclear.

Comparison of Valve Durability and Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis and Less-Than-High-Risk for Surgery

This study aimed to investigate the rate of severe structural valve deterioration (SVD) and long-term outcomes of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Propensity score matched analysis of patients who underwent TAVI (n = 216) and SAVR (n = 216) between 2008 and 2012. Long-term echocardiographic parameters and clinical outcomes were assessed after more than 6 years after TAVI/SAVR. Rate of severe SVD was 10.5% versus 4.5% in the TAVI and SAVR groups, respectively, but the difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR] 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7 to 8.3; p = 0.159). This was largely driven by higher rates of mean transprosthetic gradient ≥40 mm Hg (7.0 vs 3.4%; p = 0.327) and aortic regurgitation (4.7% vs 0%; p = 0.058). TAVI patients had lower survival rates at 6 years than SAVR patients (40.7% vs 59.6%, respectively, p <0.001, HR 2.15; 95% CI 1.45 to 3.20). Rate of cardiovascular events (14.4% TAVI vs 18.2% SAVR, HR 0.8; 95% CI 0.4 to 1.3; p = 0.347) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI; 16.0% TAVI vs 9.2% SAVR, p = 0.234) was similar between the 2 groups. In conclusion, incidence of moderate and severe SVD was not statistically different between TAVI and SAVR. Rate of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation was significantly higher in the TAVI group with predominant use of first-generation valves. Reintervention rate was low in both groups. Survival rate was lower after TAVI, probably because of higher frailty index, but incidence of cardiovascular events, PPI, and SVD was similar in both groups.

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.

Effect of procedural refinement of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation on outcomes and costs: a single-centre retrospective study

Objectives

To determine the effect of introducing several procedural refinements of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) on clinical outcomes and costs.

Design

Retrospective analysis comparing two consecutive 1-year periods, before and after the introduction of procedural refinements.

Setting

Tertiary hospital aortic valve programme.

Participants

Consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI treated between April 2014 and August 2015 using the initial setup (n=70; control group) or between September 2015 and August 2016 after the introduction of procedural refinements (n=89).

Interventions

Introduction of conscious sedation, percutaneous access and closure, omission of transoesophageal echocardiography during the procedure, and an early discharge procedure.

Outcome measures

Procedural characteristics, complications and outcomes; length of stay in intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital; hospital-related direct costs associated with TAVI.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of complications or mortality between the two groups. The mean length of stay in the ICU was significantly shorter in the procedural-refinement group compared with the control group (5.1 vs 57.2 hours, p<0.001), as was the mean length of hospital stay (4.7 vs 6.6 days, p<0.001). The total cost per TAVI procedure was significantly lower, by £3580, in the procedural-refinement group (p<0.001). This was largely driven by lower ICU costs.

Conclusions

Among patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI, procedural refinement facilitated a shorter stay in ICU and earlier discharge from hospital and was cost saving compared with the previous setup.

TAVI and the future of aortic valve replacement

Aortic valve stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular pathology and has traditionally been managed using surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). A large proportion of affected patient demographics, however, are unfit to undergo major surgery given underlying comorbidities. Since its introduction in 2002, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has gained popularity and transformed the care available to different-risk group patients with severe symptomatic AS. Specific qualifying criteria and refinement of TAVI techniques are fundamental in determining successful outcomes for intervention. Given the successful applicability in high-risk patients, TAVI has been further developed and trialed in intermediate and low-risk patients. Within intermediate-risk patient groups, TAVI was shown to be noninferior to SAVR evaluating 30-d mortality and secondary endpoints such as the risk of bleeding, development of acute kidney injury, and length of admission. The feasibility of expanding TAVI procedures into low-risk patients is still a controversial topic in the literature. A number of trials have recently been published which demonstrate TAVI as noninferior and even superior over SAVR for primary study endpoints.

Peri-procedural hemostasis disorders in surgical and transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Introduction

Despite their high effectiveness, surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are associated with substantial risk of bleeding. Although procedure-related hemostasis disorders might be crucial for safety of both procedures, the amount of data on the peri-procedural status of hemostasis in patients with aortic valve stenosis (AS) subjected to AVR and TAVI is negligible.

Aim

To investigate the profile of peri-procedural hemostasis in elderly patients with AS, subjected to aortic valve prosthesis implantation.

Material and methods

We performed a prospective analysis of global hemostasis using ROTEM thromboelastometry and platelet reactivity assessment using impedance aggregometry in 30 consecutive patients ≥ 70 years old subjected to AVR and TAVI. All tests were performed within 24 h before, directly and 24 h after the procedures.

Results

Surgical aortic valve replacement was characterized by transient hypofibrinogenemia and von Willebrand factor (vWF) depletion, which quickly recovered within 24 h after AVR. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation was characterized by substantial alteration of platelet function and vWF depletion with significant platelet reactivity impairment and increase in platelet sensitivity to antiplatelet agent, early after the procedure. TAVI-related hemostasis alterations were not recovered at 24 h after the procedure.

Conclusions

Surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedures are associated with substantial and diverse peri-procedural hemostasis disorders. Since hemostasis disorders related to TAVI are mainly characterized by impaired platelet function, early dual antiplatelet prophylaxis after TAVI requires careful consideration.

Comparison of Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Among Patients With Aortic Stenosis at Low Operative Risk

IMPORTANCE

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown to be a valid alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients at high operative risk with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the evidence of the benefits and harms of TAVR in patients at low operative risk is still scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the short-term and midterm outcomes after TAVR and SAVR in low-risk patients with AS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective comparative effectiveness cohort study used data from the Nationwide Finnish Registry of Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Valve Stenosis of patients at low operative risk who underwent TAVR or SAVR with a bioprosthesis for severe AS from January 1, 2008, to November 30, 2017. Low operative risk was defined as a Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score less than 3% without other comorbidities of clinical relevance. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline covariates between the TAVR and SAVR cohorts.

EXPOSURES

Primary TAVR or SAVR with a bioprosthesis for AS with or without associated coronary revascularization.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were 30-day and 3-year survival.

RESULTS

Overall, 2841 patients (mean [SD] age, 74.0 [6.2] years; 1560 [54.9%] men) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis; TAVR was performed in 325 patients and SAVR in 2516 patients. Propensity score matching produced 304 pairs with similar baseline characteristics. Third-generation devices were used in 263 patients (86.5%) who underwent TAVR. Among these matched pairs, 30-day mortality was 1.3% after TAVR and 3.6% after SAVR (P = .12). Three-year survival was similar in the study cohorts (TAVR, 85.7%; SAVR, 87.7%; P = .45). Interaction tests found no differences in terms of 3-year survival between the study cohorts in patients younger than vs older than 80 years or in patients who received recent aortic valve prostheses vs those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using mostly third-generation devices achieved similar short- and mid-term survival compared with SAVR in low-risk patients. Further studies are needed to assess the long-term durability of TAVR prostheses before extending their use to low-risk patients.

The association of diabetes mellitus treated with oral antidiabetic drugs and insulin with mortality after transcatheter valve implantation: a 3-year follow-up of the TAVIK registry

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus (DM) on insulin is a patient-related factor in the assessment of surgical risk based on the EuroSCORE II and, as such, it confers additional risk on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of diabetes mellitus treated with insulin and oral antidiabetic drugs on clinical outcomes after TAVI.

METHODS

This study is an analysis of 2000 patients who underwent TAVI between 2008 and 2015. Patients were stratified post hoc into the following categories: without diabetes (n = 1337), with diabetes treated with oral antidiabetic drugs (OAD; n = 387) and with diabetes treated using insulin (n = 276).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in device success (89.5% vs 89.4% vs 88.8%, adjusted odds ratio (adjOR) 1.10 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64-1.91]) and VARC-2-defined major complications among the three groups of patients (without DM, OAD, and insulin, respectively). Minor but not major or disabling strokes (adjOR 2.19; 95% CI 1.11-4.3) and overall renal complications (but not stage 2/3 alone) (adjOR 1.46; 95% CI 1.18-1.81) were more common in patients with diabetes than in those without diabetes. Insulin-treated patients had a significantly lower survival rate than that of patients with orally treated diabetes and of those without diabetes at 1 year (75.7% vs. 84.5% vs 84.7%, pairwise p < 0.01) and 3 years (56.9% vs. 65.9% vs. 67.9%, adj. p < 0.05) after TAVI. However, insulin-treated diabetes was not identified as an independent risk factor for higher mortality in the first (HR 1.29; 95% CI 0.97-1.72, p = 0.084) and 3rd years (HR 1.21; 95% CI 0.98-1.49; p = 0.079) after multivariable adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

Although insulin-dependent DM is an established component of surgical risk assessment, it was not identified as an independent factor associated with reduced survival in TAVI. DM treated with oral antidiabetic drugs or insulin may have less role in decision making of treatment in TAVI candidates.

Prospective Evaluation for Hypoattenuated Leaflet Thickening Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Prospective investigations for the frequency of hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT) and its clinical implications in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) patients are limited. We initiated a prospective screening program of TAVI patients for HALT beginning in July 2015. Eligible patients were evaluated with gated, contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography within 30 days of TAVI, and examined for HALT and clinical outcomes. During the study period, 287 patients (81 ± 8 years; 53% men) who underwent TAVI with commercially approved devices were examined. Overall, 26 patients (9.1%) had occurrence of HALT, and only one of these patients had detectable hemodynamic changes on echocardiography at diagnosis. Notably, 9 of 26 HALT patients had been receiving warfarin, however, the HALT patients more often had subtherapeutic international normalized ratio whereas using warfarin than patients without HALT on index multidetector computed tomography imaging (p = 0.01). Patients who developed HALT had lower baseline aortic gradient, valvuloarterial impedance, and peak aortic velocity, and more commonly had been treated with balloon-expandable valves (73% of all HALT cases) with a higher incidence among those who received larger prostheses. All patients with HALT were placed on anticoagulation at diagnosis, and valvular function remained unchanged at follow-up. Two patients with HALT (7.7%) experienced ischemic stroke. A statistical trend for more major adverse clinical events was present in HALT patients. In conclusion, HALT was detected in 9% of TAVI cases in this prospective observational cohort, with a greater frequency in patients with large, balloon-expandable prostheses. Prospective screening may be considered as early HALT is reversible by timely therapeutic anticoagulation.