Early and Midterm Clinical and Hemodynamic Outcomes of Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Implantation: Results From a Multicenter Experience

Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement: Patient Selection and Special Considerations

Sutureless or rapid deployment valves in the setting of aortic valve replacement (AVR) is an emerging surgical technique using the transcatheter valve technology, which may lead to reduction in cross-clamp time and potentially better hemodynamics compared to a stented bioprosthetic valve. The absence of subannular pledgets results to excellent hemodynamic performance with reduced turbulent flow and larger effective orifice area. However, complications from both surgical and transcatheter AVR may still occur and impact survival. The incidence of paravalvular leakage and permanent pacemaker implantation are not low. Although technical modifications can improve these outcomes, there is a learning curve effect. Therefore, technical and anatomical considerations as well as better patient selection are paramount for better outcomes. In this review, we discuss the use of sutureless or rapid deployment valves in setting of (1) complex procedures, (2) minimally invasive AVR, and (3) small aortic annulus. The advantage of sutureless or rapid deployment valves in terms of mortality remains to be clarified; therefore, it is necessary to accumulate long-term outcomes in an appropriate patient cohort.

Current Indications for Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement Using Transcatheter Aortic Valves

Use of transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) using transcatheter aortic valves in clinical practice is limited to patients with failing bioprostheses and rings or mitral valve disease associated with severe mitral annulus calcification. Whereas the use of valve-in-valve TMVR appears to be a reasonable alternative to surgery in patients at high surgical risk, much less evidence supports valve-in-ring and valve-in-mitral annulus calcification interventions. Data on the results of TMVR in these settings are derived from small case series or voluntary registries. This review summarizes the current evidence on TMVR using transcatheter aortic valves in clinical practice from the characteristics of the TMVR candidates, screening process, performance of the procedure, and description of current results and future perspectives. TMVR using dedicated devices in native noncalcified mitral valve diseases is beyond the scope of the article.

History, development and clinical perspectives of sutureless and rapid deployment surgical aortic valve replacement

Degenerative aortic stenosis is the most frequent valvular heart disease in industrialized countries. Conservative treatment may beneficially influence symptoms but is never successful. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was the only recognized treatment option to provide substantially prolonged survival until 2008. Operative mortality of isolated SAVR has been reported as low as 0.5% to 1% in experienced institutions, while long-term survival is close to that observed in a control healthy population of similar age. A multitude of studies have demonstrated the beneficial effects of SAVR with regard to improvement in quality of life and physical performance in the majority of symptomatic patients. In the last decade, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an equal treatment modality, first in patients with high surgical risk and more recently in patients with intermediate and low surgical risk. Paravalvular regurgitation and the higher rate of pacemaker implantation remain points of consideration. Additionally, the long-term durability of TAVI devices and occurrence of stroke late after TAVI require additional analyses. Sutureless (SU-SAVR) and rapid deployment valve (R-SAVR) were designed to simplify and accelerate a conventional or less invasive surgical procedure while allowing complete excision of the calcified native valve. From 3 different implants tested more than 10 to 15 years ago, only two are available on the market today: the Perceval^® valve from Liva Nova and the Intuity^® sutureless prosthesis from Edwards Lifesciences. There has been extensive experience with these two devices in previous years and the results obtained are comparable to those observed following the use of conventional implants. The sutureless devices may be of particular interest for more complex and combined surgical procedures. This review summarizes the sutureless (SU-SAVR) and rapid deployment valve technologies and presents a clinical outlook for the patient population managed with these devices.

Long term outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): a systematic review of 5-year survival and beyond

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation/replacement (TAVI/TAVR) is becoming more frequently used to treat aortic stenosis (AS), with increasing push for the procedure in lower risk patients. Numerous randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that TAVI offers a suitable alternative to the current gold standard of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in terms of short-term outcomes. The present review evaluates long-term outcomes following TAVI procedures.

METHODS

Literature search using three electronic databases was performed up to June 2017. Studies which included 20 or more patients undergoing TAVI procedures, either as a stand-alone or concomitant procedure and with a follow-up of at least 5 years, were included in the present review. Literature search and data extraction were performed by two independent researchers. Digitized survival data were extracted from Kaplan-Meier curves in order to re-create the original patient data using an iterative algorithm and subsequently aggregated for analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-one studies were included in the present analysis, with a total of 13,857 patients. Two studies were national registries, eight were multi-institutional collaborations and the remainder were institutional series. Overall, 45.7% of patients were male, with mean age of 81.5±7.0 years. Where reported, the mean Logistic EuroSCORE (LES) was 22.1±13.7 and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score was 9.2±6.6. The pooled analysis found 30-day mortality, cerebrovascular accidents, acute kidney injury (AKI) and requirement for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation to be 8.4%, 2.8%, 14.4%, and 13.4%, respectively. Aggregated survival at 1-, 2-, 3-, 5- and 7-year were 83%, 75%, 65%, 48% and 28%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The present systematic review identified acceptable long-term survival results for TAVI procedures in an elderly population. Extended follow-up is required to assess long-term outcomes following TAVI, particularly before its application is extended into wider population groups.

A systematic review of reported cases of combined transcatheter aortic and mitral valve interventions

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the published data of combined transcatheter aortic and mitral valve intervention (CTAMVI).

BACKGROUND

CTAMVI, a combination of either transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve (TAViV) and transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR), transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve/valve-in-ring (TMViV/ViR), or percutaneous mitral valve repair (PMVR) is an attractive alternative in high-surgical risk patients with combined aortic and mitral valve disease. However, its procedural details and clinical outcomes have not been well described.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of all the published articles from PUBMED and EMBASE.

RESULTS

A total of 37 studies with 60 patients were included. The indication for CTAMVI was high or inoperable surgical risk and symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (92%) or severe aortic regurgitation (8%) combined with moderate to severe/severe mitral stenosis (30%) or moderate/severe mitral regurgitation (65%) or both (5%). In majority of the cases, aortic valve intervention was performed prior to the mitral valve. Mortality rate were 25% for TAVR + TMVR (range 42 days to 10 months), 17% for TAVR + TMViV/ViR (range 13 days to 6 months), 0% for TAViV + TMViV/ViR (range 6-365 days), and 15% for TAVR/ViV + PMVR (range 17 days to 419 days). Significant (more than moderate) paravalvular regurgitation post-procedure was rare.

CONCLUSIONS

CTAMVI appears to confer reasonable clinical outcome. Further large study is warranted to clarify the optimal strategy, procedural details and clinical outcomes in the future.