Outcomes of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and predictors of thirty-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and one-year mortality

Mid-term outcomes of valve replacement surgery with or without coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with overweight and obesity: A cohort study

Current data evaluating outcomes of valve replacement surgery in patients with overweight/obesity is contradictory. There is a scarce study comparing outcomes of valve surgery considering the type of valve involved in the procedure. We followed outcomes in patients with overweight and obesity after valve replacement surgery with or without coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and also patients with aortic valve replacement (AVR) and mitral valve replacement (MVR), separately to compare their mid-term prognosis in each group. Consecutive patients who had undergone cardiac valve surgery with or without CABG in Tehran Heart Center were enrolled. We enrolled 3158 patients. Median survival was 125.71 ± 82.20 weeks in patients with overweight/obesity. We found a significantly higher LVDd, LVDs and RVDd in patients with CABG (51.85 ± 7.31, 36.80 ± 8.81 and 30.04 ± 3.58, respectively) compared to the valve group (50.10 ± 6.35 mm, 35.08 ± 7.29 mm and 29.76 ± 4.07 mm, respectively). All-cause mortality is significantly higher in patients with AVR (5.7%) than those with MVR (3.3%). Patients with CABG are at higher risk of myocardial infarction (MI) compared to the ones without CABG (0.8% vs. 0.1%). No significant interaction was observed between the type of valve surgery (AVR/MVR) or valve surgery combinations (valve/valve + CABG) (p-values = .81 vs. .97, respectively). Post-operative outcomes in patients with overweight/obesity depend on several factors such as type of valve involved and presence of CABG. Risk management can lower the rate of mortality and morbidity in these patients.

Ultra-low radiation dose and contrast volume CT protocol and TAVI-CT score for TAVI planning and outcome

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the feasibility of an ultra-low radiation dose and contrast volume protocol using third-generation dual-source (DS) CT for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) planning with coronary artery disease (CAD) assessment, coronary artery calcium score (CACS) and aortic valve calcium score (AVCS) quantification and to evaluate their relationship with TAVI outcome.

METHODS

In this retrospective study were selected 203 patients (131 males, 79.4 ± 5.4 years) underwent to TAVI and at 30- and 90-day follow-up. All patients had performed a third-generation 2 × 192-slices DSCT. The CT protocol included a non-contrast and a contrast high-pitch aortic acquisition for TAVI planning and CAD assessment. Semi-qualitative and quantitative image analysis were performed; the performance in CAD assessment was compared with ICA; the relationship between AVCS and CACS and paravalvular aortic regurgitation (PAR) and major cardiovascular events (MACEs) were evaluated. Mean radiation dose were calculated. Non-parametric tests were used.

RESULTS

Semi-qualitative image analysis was good. Contrast enhancement >500 Hounsfield unit (HU) and contrast-to-noise ratio <20 were obtained in all segments. The diagnostic accuracy in CAD was 89.0%. AVCS was significantly higher in patients with 30-day severe PAR. AVCS and CACS were higher in patients with 90-day MACE complications, respectively, 1904.5 ± 621.3 HU (p < 0.0001) and 769.2 ± 365.5 HU (p < 0.0230). Mean radiation dose was 2.8 ± 0.3 mSv.

CONCLUSION

A TAVI planning ultra-low radiation dose and contrast volume protocol using third-generation DSCT provides highly diagnostic images with CAD assessment, AVCS and CACS quantification and these latter were related with TAVI outcomes.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

The proposed protocol using third-generation 2 × 192-slices DSCT allows with an ultra-low radiation dose and contrast volume the TAVI planning and the coronary artery assessment.

Comparisons of different new-generation transcatheter aortic valve implantation devices for patients with severe aortic stenosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether there are differences among the new-generation transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) devices for patients with aortic stenosis remains unclear. The aim of the study was to compare the efficiency and safety of different new-generation TAVI devices for patients with aortic stenosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from their inception to 1 February 2022. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies that compared two or more different TAVI devices were enroled. Pairwise meta-analysis and frequentist network meta-analysis were conducted to pool the outcome estimates of interest.

RESULTS

A total of 79 studies were finally included. According to the surface under the cumulative ranking, the top two ranked valves for lower rates of events were as follows: direct flow medical (DFM) (4.6%) and Lotus (48.8%) for lower rate of device success; Sapien 3 (16.8%) and DFM (19.7%) for lower mortality; DFM (8.6%) and Sapien 3 (25.5%) for lower rates of stroke; Evolut (27.6%) and DFM (35.8%) for lower rates of major and life-threatening bleeding; Portico (22.6%) and Sapien 3 (41.9%) for lower rates of acute kidney injury; Acurate (8.6%) and DFM (13.2%) for lower rates of permanent pacemaker implantation; Lotus (0.3%) and Sapien 3 (22.7%) for lower rates of paravalvular leak; Evolut (1.4%) and Portico (29.1%) for lower rates of mean aortic valve gradients.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the present study suggested that the device success rates were comparable among these new-generation valves except for DFM. After excluding DFM, Sapien 3 might be the best effective for decreased mortality and stroke; Lotus might be the best effective for decreased paravalvular leak; Evolut might be the best effective for decreased major and life-threatening bleeding and mean aortic valve gradients; Acurate and Portico might be the best effective for decreased permanent pacemaker implantation and acute kidney injury, respectively.

Meta-analysis of short- and long-term clinical outcomes of the self-expanding Evolut R/pro valve versus the balloon-expandable Sapien 3 valve for transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

The Evolut R/Pro and the Sapien 3 are the most commonly valve systems used today for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, there is a still uncertainty regarding the efficacy and safety comparison of these two valves.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the Evolut R/Pro versus the Sapien 3. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality (short and long-term). The secondary outcomes were stroke, bleeding, permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), acute kidney injury (AKI), major vascular complication, device success, moderate- severe aortic regurgitation (AR), and pressure gradients.

RESULTS

Twenty-one publications totaling 35,248 patients were included in the analysis. Evolut R/Pro was associated with higher risk of short-term all-cause mortality (OR = 1.31;95% CI 1.15-1.49, p < 0.001) and a trend of higher long-term mortality (OR = 1.07;95% CI 1.00-1.16, p = 0.06). The Evolut R/Pro was associated with higher risk of PPI and AR and lower risk for bleeding, major vascular complication, and pressure gradients. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding the risk of stroke, AKI and device success.

CONCLUSIONS

The Evolut R/Pro valve system compared to the Sapien 3 is associated with higher risk of short-term mortality, significant AR and PPI while providing the advantage of lower risk of bleeding, major vascular complication, and lower residual transvalvular gradients.

Comparison of MANTA vs ProGlide Vascular Closure Device and 30-Day Outcomes in Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Background

Vascular complications (VCs) after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have an increased mortality risk, and vascular closure device (VCD) use is mandatory. The percutaneous MANTA VCD (Teleflex) is a novel collagen-based technology for closure of large-bore arteriotomies. We compared the MANTA VCD with the suture-based ProGlide VCD (Abbott Vascular).

Methods

A retrospective review was performed on all consecutive patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI in our center from January 1, 2015, to February 28, 2021, and 30-day outcomes were recorded. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were cardiac death, disabling stroke, and/or major VCs. Access site–related VCs were VCs related to the access site vessel from which the transcatheter valve was introduced and advanced.

Results

The MANTA VCD was used in 99 patients and the ProGlide in 224. There was 4.0% MACE in the MANTA group and 4.9% in the ProGlide group (P = .999). Overall VCs were 10.1% vs 7.6%, major VCs were 3.0% vs 2.2%, and minor VCs 7.1% vs 5.4%(P = .753). Access site–related VCs were 5.1% vs 5.8% in the (P = .999), and periprocedural vascular surgical intervention was needed in 6.1% of the MANTA group vs 2.2% of the ProGlide group (P = .099).

Conclusion

There was no significant difference in MACE, mortality, cardiovascular mortality, VCs, access site–related VCs, periprocedural vascular surgical interventions, bleeding, or transfusion rate between the 2 groups. The MANTA VCD group had more periprocedural vascular surgical interventions which did not reach statistical significance.

Predictors Of Post-Operative Negative Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

With the advent of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI), populations who were previously not fit enough for heart valve surgery are now able to have a valve replacement without placing these higher risk individuals through major surgery. Complication rates following TAVI have reduced over the last few years, but recent studies suggest that the incidence of several complications remains high. Avoiding complications is key to reducing costs associated with TAVI, which is important given that the procedure is already more expensive than other treatment options. An emerging strategy for patients undergoing TAVI is to identify pre-operative factors predictive of post-operative adverse outcomes. This commentary summarises three systematic reviews exploring moderating factors for adverse events after TAVI surgery, with the aim of identifying statistically and clinically significant factors associated with poor surgical outcomes and contextualise these factors within clinical practice.