Meta-analysis Comparing Valve-In-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Self-Expanding Versus Balloon-Expandable Valves

Impact of commissural alignment on the hemodynamic performance of supra-annular self-expandable transcatheter aortic valves

BACKGROUND

Hemodynamic impact of commissural alignment (CA) with self-expandable transcatheter aortic valves (TAVR) has not been investigated yet.

AIMS

To determine hemodynamic impact of CA with self-expandable TAVR.

METHODS

Multicentric ambispective study comparing patients who underwent self-expandable TAVR in seven centers with the Evolut Pro/Pro+ (EP) (Medtronic) and Acurate neo2 (AN2) (Boston Scientific) with and without CA strategies. The degree of commissural misalignment (CMA) was assessed by computed tomography/angiography and 1-year transvalvular gradients/regurgitation evaluated by echocardiography. A matched comparison according to annular dimensions/eccentricity, prosthesis size/type, and baseline left ventricular function and gradients was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 557 patients, mean age 80.7 ± 6.6 years, 61.4% men, and STS score of 4.3 ± 3.1% were analyzed. A CA technique was attempted in 215 patients (38.6%), including 113 patients with AN2 and 102 patients with EP. None/mild CMA was found in 158 (73.5% vs. 43.6% if no CA attempted, p < 0.001) with no differences between devices (AN2:75.2%; EP:71.6%, p = 0.545). Patients with moderate/severe CMA had a greater aortic peak gradient (22.3 ± 8.7 vs. 19.7 ± 8.5, p = 0.001), significantly greater progression of both peak (p = 0.002) and mean gradients (p = 0.001) after matching, and higher rate of central aortic regurgitation (1.2% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.005) at 1-year, but not a greater proportion of patients with mean gradient ≥ 10 mmHg.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of CA strategies significantly reduced the rate of CMA for the self-expandable TAVR devices ACN2 and EP which was associated to lower transvalvular gradients and intra-prosthetic regurgitation progression at 1-year although no criteria of structural deterioration were met at this follow up.

CLINICALTRIALS

org: NCT05097183.

Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Replacement With Balloon- Versus Self-Expanding Valves in Patients With Degenerated Stentless Aortic Bioprosthesis

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been associated with favorable outcomes in patients with degenerated stentless bioprosthesis. However, whether the outcomes after ViV TAVR for failed stentless bioprosthesis differ between balloon-expandable valves (BEVs) and self-expanding valves (SEVs) remains unknown. Therefore, we retrospectively analyzed 59 consecutive patients who underwent ViV TAVR for failed stentless bioprsothesis with BEVs (n = 42) versus SEVs (n = 17) in a single-health care system between 2013 and 2022. Overall, the mean age was 70.8 years and 74.6% were men. The mean transcatheter valve size was 26.3 ± 2.2 mm for BEVs and 26.4 ± 4 mm for SEVs (p = 0.93). The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 6.0 ± 3.6 for BEVs and 7.5 ± 5.5 for SEVs (p = 0.22). Compared with patients who received BEVs, those who received SEVs had higher rates of device malposition (2.4% vs 23.5%, p <0.01), postdeployment balloon dilation (11.9% vs 35.5%, p = 0.04) and need for a second transcatheter device (2.4% vs 35.5%, p <0.01). However, both groups showed similar improvement in aortic valve function at 30-day and 1-year follow-up (incidence of 1-year severe patient-prosthesis mismatch in BEVs: 17.6% vs 14.3% in SEVs, p = 0.78). The 1- and 3-year mortality did not differ between BEVs and SEVs (11.9% vs 11.8% and 25% vs 30%, respectively, Log rank p = 0.9). In conclusion, performing ViV TAVR for failed stentless bioprsothesis is technically challenging, especially when using SEVs; however, satisfactory positioning is possible in most cases, with excellent hemodynamic and clinical outcomes with BEVs and SEVs.

TAV-in-TAV in patients with prosthesis embolization: Impact of commissural alignment and global outcomes

BACKGROUND

Optimal strategies to manage embolization of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) devices are unclear; valve-in-valve (ViV) is often used. We aimed to describe through one-single center experience its rate, causes, consequences, and management as well as the rate and relevance of commissural alignment (CA) in this context.

METHODS

We identified across 1038 TAVI cases, those cases requiring ViV for the management of first device embolization. CA (absence or mild misalignment) after first and second device was assessed by CT or fluoroscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 23 cases (2.2%) were identified, 52.3% embolized towards the aorta and 47.7% towards the ventricle. Suboptimal implant height (38%) and embolization at the time of post-dilation (23%) were the most frequent mechanisms together with greater rate of bicuspid valve (p < 0.001) and a trend to greater annular eccentricity. Procedural and 1-year death occurred in 13% and 34%, respectively (vs. 1.1% and 7.8% in the global cohort, p < 0.001). CA was present in 76.9% of the prostheses initially implanted but was only spontaneously achieved in 30.8% of the second ViV device. Adequate CA of both prostheses was identified in only two cases (8.7%). There were no cases of coronary obstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVI device embolization mechanisms can often be predicted and prevented. Mortality following bail-out ViV is higher than in regular TAVI procedures but 2/3 of these patients survived beyond 1-year follow-up. In them, valve degeneration or coronary re-access might be particularly challenging since CA was rarely achieved with both devices suggesting that greater efforts should be made in this regard.

A Case of TAV-in-SAV in a Patient with Structural Valve Deterioration after Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement with the INSPIRIS RESILIA Valve

The INSPIRIS RESILIA valve is designed to dilate its valve annulus in transcatheter aortic valve-in-surgical aortic valve (TAV-in-SAV), a catheter therapy for biological valve deterioration. RESILIA tissue has improved anti-calcification properties. An 83-year-old man on hemodialysis undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with a 25-mm INSPIRIS for severe aortic stenosis 22 months ago presented with general malaise. Transthoracic echocardiography revealed severe bioprosthetic stenosis (peak velocity: 3.5 m/s, mean pressure gradient: 32 mmHg, and effective orifice area: 0.45 cm2) and severely reduced left ventricular function (ejection fraction: 17%). Because redo-SAVR was extremely risky (society of thoracic surgeons [STS] risk score: 31%), the patient underwent transfemoral-TAV-in-SAV using a 26-mm SAPIEN 3️. Pre- and postoperative computed tomography showed that the internal diameter of the INSPIRIS had expanded from 22.2 mm to 24.2 mm. This case demonstrated the dilatable design of INSPIRIS but not the durability of RESILIA tissue.

Prosthesis Tailoring for Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has risen over the past 20 years as a safe and effective alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for treatment of severe aortic stenosis, and is now a well-established and recommended treatment option in suitable patients irrespective of predicted risk of mortality after surgery. Studies of numerous devices, either newly developed or reiterations of previous prostheses, have been accruing. We hereby review TAVI devices, with a focus on commercially available options, and aim to present a guide for prosthesis tailoring according to patient-related anatomical and clinical factors that may favor particular designs.

Incidence, Outcomes and Predictors of Aortic Regurgitation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Al Azhar University Hospitals and National Heart Institute, Egypt

Background: Aortic regurgitation (AR), which has ill-defined predictors and an unknown long-term influence on outcomes, is a significant transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) constraint. Objective: this research aimed to assess the prevalence, identify predictors, and evaluate the outcomes of aortic regurgitation following trans catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). 1. To calculate the prevalence of aortic regurgitation in elderly patients receiving trans catheter aortic valve implantation who have severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. 2. To determine aortic regurgitation risk factors after trans catheter aortic valve implantation. Methods: From November 2017 to November 2020, this prospective observational study was done in the National Heart Institute on severe aortic valve stenosis patients above 65 years who were candidates for aortic valve replacement from the outpatient department. Results: LVEF significantly improved. Compared to before TAVI (55.08 ± 9.71), LVEF elevated to 58.9 ± 8.8 (P<0.001). Twenty-five patients (83.3%) showed class III/IV, four patients (13.3%) showed class II, and one patient (3.3%) showed class I before TAVI. While after TAVI, three patients (10%) only showed NYHA class III/IV, six patients (20 %) in class II, and 21 patients (70%) improved to be in class I. The left ventricular mass index mean was 158 ±32.37 before TAVI and 133.50 ±21.96 after TAVI (p<0.001). Compared to before TAVI (0.75 ± 0.2), mean aortic valve area was improved to 2.0 ± 0.2 following TAVI (P<0.001). A significant reduction in the mean pressure gradient from 47 ± 11.08 mmHg across the native valve prior to TAVI to 10.28 ± 3.21 mmHg across the prosthetic valve following TAVI (P <0.001). Expert commentary: The clinical and results of TAVR devices were clearly outlined in literature study. The study showed a high incidence of pacemaker implantation with Core valve and aortic regurgitation. This information strongly supports the need for a randomized trial with sufficient power to compare the most recent self-expandable valve generation to balloon expandable valves. In the 2019 PARTNER 3 prospective randomized trial, it was discovered that, when compared to surgical management, low-risk patients (defined as STS 4%) had a lower risk of the composite outcome of stroke, death, and rehospitalization at 1 year. Additionally, it was shown that TAVR had a lower risk of stroke and required less time in the hospital (3 days as opposed to 7, P0.001) than surgery [1]. In addition, despite an elevated permanent pacemaker implantation rate, the 2019 Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement revealed no inferiority for composite all-cause stroke and death, as well as a statistically significant decrease in the rates of life-threatening bleeding, acute kidney injury and atrial fibrillation, compared with SAVR at 30 days following the procedure [2]. Conclusion: According to the study in high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, TAVI is alternative, viable, safe, and successful therapy compared to traditional open-heart surgery.

The selection of transcatheter heart valves in transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter heart valve technology has rapidly progressed since initial approval in the United States. There are currently two widely available transcatheter heart valve delivery systems approved in the US; however limited data exist on optimal device selection for various patient populations. This review explores the characteristics of currently approved transcatheter heart valve systems and scenarios where one valve system may be favored over others. We provide a simplified decision tree for selecting the optimal transcatheter valve system for specific patient-centered characteristics.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for degenerated bioprosthetic aortic and mitral valves - an update on indications, techniques, and clinical results

Introduction: Aortic and mitral bioprosthesis are the gold standard treatment to replace a pathological native valve. However, bioprostheses are prone to structural valve degeneration, resulting in limited long-term durability. During the past decade, the implantation of transcatheter stent-valves within degenerated aortic and mitral bioprostheses, (the so-called 'valve-in-valve' procedure), represents a valid alternative to redo surgery in patients with high-risk surgical profiles.Areas covered: We reviewed the clinical outcomes and the procedural details of transcatheter aortic and mitral valve-in-valve series according to current published literature and include a practical guide for valve sizing and stent-valve positioning and strategies to prevent complications.Expert opinion: In both aortic and mitral positions meticulous planning is fundamental in these procedures to avoid serious complications including patient prosthesis mismatch, coronary obstruction and left ventricular outflow tract obstruction.

Cardiac conduction abnormalities in patients with degenerated bioprostheses undergoing transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantations and their impact on long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

The relationship between preoperative cardiac conduction abnormalities (CCA) and long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation (TAVI-VIV) remains unclear. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of preoperative CCA on mortality and morbidity after TAVI-VIV and to estimate the impact of new-onset CCA on postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

Between 2011 and 2020, 201 patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses were qualified for TAVI-VIV procedures in two German heart centers. Cases with previously implanted permanent rhythm-controlling devices were excluded (n = 53). A total of 148 subjects met the eligibility criteria and were divided into 2 study groups according to the presence of preexisting CCA (CCA (n = 84) and non-CCA (n = 64), respectively). Early and late mortality and morbidity were evaluated. Follow-up functional status was assessed according to New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification.

RESULTS

There were no procedural deaths. TAVI-VIV related new-onset CCAs were observed in 35.8% patients. The 30-day permanent pacemaker implantation rate was 1.6% in non-CCA vs 9.5% in CCA group (p = 0.045). Preexisting right bundle-branch block (OR:5.01; 95%CI, 1.05-23.84) and first-degree atrioventricular block (OR:4.55; 95%CI, 1.10-18.73) were independent predictors of new pacemaker implantation. One-year and five-year probability of survival were comparable in CCA and non-CCA groups: 90.3% vs 91.8% and 68.2% vs 74.3%, respectively. Surviving patients with preexisting and new-onset CCA had a worse functional status according to NYHA classification at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Preexisting and new-onset postoperative CCAs did not affect early and late mortality after TAVI-VIV procedures, however, they may have a negative impact on late functional status.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation versus surgical redo aortic root replacement in patients with degenerated freestyle aortic bioprosthesis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation (ViV TAVI) represents a new treatment option for patients with degenerated aortic bioprosthesis. Comparative data to redo surgical aortic valve replacement (redo SAVR) are limited.

OBJECTIVE

We investigated feasibility and outcome of ViV TAVI versus redo SAVR in patients with symptomatic degenerated Medtronic Freestyle aortic bioprosthesis (FSB).

METHODS

Between January 2002 and February 2020, 25 patients with failed FSB underwent ViV TAVI and 10 patients with failed FSB underwent redo SAVR. Endpoints were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) criteria.

RESULTS

Age and logistic EuroSCORE II were higher in patients with ViV TAVI (75.4 ± 1.7 vs. 62.9 ± 5.1 years, p = .019; 11.5 ± 1.6 vs. 5.6 ± 5.6%, p = .007). Valve implantation was successful in all cases. Mean transvalvular pressure gradients were significantly lower in patients with redo SAVR than ViV TAVI (7.6 ± 1.0 vs. 10.3 ± 0.8 mmHg, p = .037). Aortic valve regurgitation was absent in 91% and 100% of patients with ViV TAVI and redo SAVR, respectively. Thirty-day mortality rates were 12% in the ViV TAVI cohort versus 0% in the redo SAVR cohort (p = .542). Within the first year after hospital discharge, one patient after ViV TAVI had redo surgical intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

ViV TAVI and redo SAVR lead to excellent functional results in patients with degenerated FSB. Post-procedural early complications must be considered particularly in patients with ViV TAVI because of higher clinical risk profiles.

Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Coronary Obstruction Following Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

There is scant information about the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of coronary obstruction (CO) following valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR). A meta-analysis of the published studies from January 2000 to April 2020 was conducted, and the endpoint was CO. A total of 2858 patients were enrolled in this study. The mean age was 77.7 ± 9.8, and 39.9% of them were female. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score, European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE), and Logistic EuroSCORE were 8.9 ± 7.8, 16.0 ± 10.9, and 26.3 ± 16.3, respectively. The overall incidence of CO was 2.58%. CO incidence between patients with prior stented and stentless valves were significantly different (1.67% versus 7.17%), with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.25 and a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.14-0.44 (P < 0.00001). The first-generation valves were significantly associated with higher CO incidence compared with the second-generation valves (7.09% versus 2.03%; OR, 2.44; 95%CI, 1.06-5.62; P = 0.04), while no statistical difference was found between self-expandable valves and balloon-expandable valves (2.45% versus 2.60%; OR, 0.99; 95%CI, 0.55-1.79; P = 0.98). Virtual transcatheter to coronary ostia (VTC) distance (3.3 ± 2.1 mm, n = 29 versus 5.8 ± 2.4 mm, n = 169; mean difference, -2.70; 95%CI, -3.46 to -1.95; P < 0.00001) and the sinus of Valsalva (SOV) diameter (27.5 ± 3.8 mm, n = 23 versus 32.3 ± 4.0 mm, n = 101; mean difference, -3.80; 95%CI, -6.55 to -1.05; P = 0.007) were enormously shorter in patients with CO. The 24-hour, in-hospital, and 30-day mortality of patients with CO were 10.5%, 30.8%, and 37.1%, respectively. In conclusion, device selections, VTC distances, and SOV diameters may be important factors in assessing the CO risk in VIV-TAVR.

Is this a bridge too far?

Maeda et al. present what may be the second reported case of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) followed by staged open surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in a high-risk patient. The authors propose that TAVR may serve as a bridge procedure before SAVR for aortic stenosis in selected younger patients with high surgical risk. Further experience may clarify how long to wait after TAVR to perform SAVR. Timing will be a balance between improving surgical risk versus increasing difficulty removing the prosthesis. Knowledge of TAVR durability will ultimately be needed to decide between "destination" TAVR versus bridging to SAVR with a more durable device.