Position Statement for the Operator and Institutional Requirements for a Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) Program

Transcatheter aortic valve intervention in hospitals without cardiac surgery departments: a future scenario?

Transcatheter aortic valve intervention (TAVI) was introduced in early 2000 to offer treatment to inoperable patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. In a couple of decades, the procedure resulted effective and safe also in patients with intermediate to low risk for surgery; therefore, due to the progressive ageing of the population, the clinical need for TAVI is continuously increasing and is hardly met by the availability of the procedure, the so-called "TAVI capacity". As a result, many patients encounter difficulties in being referred to TAVI centers or face long waiting list times, thus risking severe adverse events (including death) before the procedure is performed. Although contemporary guidelines and consensus documents recommend that TAVI should only be performed in hospitals with active cardiac surgery departments, starting TAVI programs also in interventional cardiac laboratories without on-site cardiac surgery could represent a way to increase TAVI capacity, thus leading to a greater number of patients being treated in less time. On the other side of the coin, such a strategy may jeopardize patient safety in case of periprocedural complications needing bailout surgery and may lead to a suboptimal multidisciplinary Heart Team evaluation. This review aims to assess and discuss available clinical data and implementation of TAVI programs in hospitals without on-site active cardiac surgery departments considering the growing unmet clinical need and technical advancement of TAVI platforms, yet not overlooking the recommendations of international scientific societies.

30-Day Outcomes With the Portico Transcatheter Heart Valve: Insights From a Multi-Centre Australian Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an established therapy for the treatment of aortic valve disease in appropriately selected patients. Previous studies using the self-expanding Portico transcatheter heart valve (THV), (Abbott Structural Heart, St Paul, MN, USA) have demonstrated the technical feasibility of this system albeit in the hands of relatively inexperienced Portico users. The objective of this study was to assess the real-world safety and efficacy of the Portico THV (with and without the FlexNav delivery system, Abbott Structural Heart) at the 30-day timepoint in an Australian cohort.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study was a retrospective real-world cohort analysis of 269 consecutive patients with severe aortic valve disease who underwent TAVI at multiple centres within Australia between February 2015 and April 2021. Of the 269 patients, 51.7% were female, mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score was 5.2 (±6.8) and 98.5% had successful implantations. Thirty (30)-day post-implantation all-cause mortality was observed in one (0.4%) patient, major vascular complications in two (0.7%) patients, more-than-mild paravalvular leak in six (2.2%) patients and requirement for new permanent pacemaker implantation in 27 (10.2%) patients. Haemodynamic parameters at 30 days included mean effective orifice area (EOA) of 2.3 (±0.9) cm² and mean aortic valve gradient (AVG) of 9.6 (±6.2) mmHg.

CONCLUSION

This analysis of the Portico THV in a real-world setting suggested that the system is associated with satisfactory safety and efficacy parameters. Previously published datasets may not have found similar findings owing to lower operator experience with the Portico THV system.

2021 CSANZ and ANZSCTS Position Statement on the Operator and Institutional Requirements for a Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) Program in Australia

This document establishes the minimum standard for accreditation of institutions and operators as endorsed by the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ) and the Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons (ANZSCTS). The original Joint Society Position Statement was ratified in August 2014. This 2021 update replaces the original and serves as a consensus within which the Conjoint Committee for Trancatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) Accreditation will function, as recommended by Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) Determination for TAVI. This is not a Guideline Statement but takes into consideration regional, legislative, and health system factors important to establishing requirements for TAVI accreditation in Australia.

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Public and Private Hospital Settings: A Propensity-Matched Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare short- and long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in the public and private hospital setting.

DESIGN

Propensity-matched, retrospective analysis of a prospective registry.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVI at a tertiary public hospital (n=507) and an experienced private hospital (n=436).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Patients that underwent TAVI in the public hospital were younger than patients in the private hospital (82±8 years vs 84±6 years, p<0.001), with lower estimated short-term mortality risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality [STS-PROM] score >4.0%: 43% vs 56%, p<0.001). There was no difference between public and private hospitals in 30-day mortality (1.5% vs 1.2%, p=1.0), and the rate of complications was similar. Long-term survival was similar in propensity-matched public (n=344) and private (n=344) patient cohorts. The 1-year, 2-year, 5-year and 7-year survival rates were 95%, 90%, 67% and 47% in public patients, and 92%, 86%, 67% and 51% in private patients (p=0.94). In multivariable analysis, the hospital setting was not a predictor of mortality.

CONCLUSION

Despite increased age and predicted mortality in private hospital patients, short- and long-term outcomes after TAVI were comparable between public and private hospital settings. This study demonstrates the feasibility of performing TAVI in a private hospital with a dedicated and experienced team and questions the current restricted access to TAVI in the private sector.

Contemporary review of severe aortic stenosis

Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common form of valvular heart disease in the developed world, with a rising prevalence due to an ageing Australian population. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) offers a less invasive option for the treatment of severe AS, with evidence supporting TAVI compared with medical therapy in inoperable patients and superior with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in high-risk patients. Equal outcomes have been observed in all-comer intermediate-risk populations. The Heart Team utilises a shared decision-making approach between physicians and surgeons in risk-stratifying patients and reduces the intrinsic bias that may occur if decisions are made in isolation. Geriatric assessment is useful for identifying preoperative frailty, a major risk factor for death post-aortic valve intervention. In severe AS, a decision can be made collaboratively to pursue TAVI, SAVR, a Ross Procedure or conservative management. The learning curve associated with TAVI has improved markedly, with overall complication rates decreasing around the world. Contemporary changes in practice, such as conscious sedation without general anaesthesia, expedited recovery and early discharge, will likely improve cost-effectiveness. In 2018, TAVI is a well-established procedure in Australia that has revolutionised the management of severe AS. In the future, with an expanding elderly population, the number of patients to benefit from transcatheter therapies for severe AS is hypothesised to increase 4-10-fold. Heart Team assessment is crucial in patients with severe AS to direct appropriate management.

Outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation for intermediate-risk patients in Australia: the SOLACE-AU trial

Background: Few studies have examined the safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe aortic stenosis (AS) in Australian patients. SOLACE-AU was a single-arm, open-label clinical trial conducted in Australian hospitals to determine the safety, performance, and cost implications of TAVI in patients with severe, symptomatic AS at intermediate surgical risk.Methods: This was a prospective, pragmatic, single-arm, multi-center, observational trial of 199 patients with severe, symptomatic AS treated with transfemoral TAVI using the SAPIEN XT transcatheter heart valve (THV) at 11 hospitals in Australia. The primary outcome was Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) criteria - a composite of seven safety endpoints. Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates and descriptive analyses were used to evaluate the impact of transfemoral TAVI on safety and valve performance. We also evaluated patient health-related quality of life (QoL) and healthcare resources used throughout the trial.Results: The valve was successfully implanted in 88% of patients. The VARC-2 outcome at 30 days was 12.1% (95% CI: 8.3-17.5%), and almost 90% of patients had improved heart failure symptoms at 1 year based on New York Heart Association functional class criteria. Patient QoL remained stable over time, with mean EQ-5D-3L scores being 0.71 ± 0.20 at baseline and 0.71 ± 0.21 at 2 years. Duration of post-procedure hospitalization (mean: 6.9 ± 4.7 days) decreased as procedural familiarity increased. The median total cost of TAVI decreased 10.1% at 3 years after introduction of the procedure at the sites.Conclusions: The SOLACE-AU trial demonstrated favorable safety and performance of the SAPIEN XT valve in patients with AS at intermediate risk of surgical complications.

Percutaneous cardiological intervention and cardiac surgery: patient-centered care. Position statement of the Spanish Society of Cardiology

The percutaneous treatment of coronary artery disease and some structural cardiovascular diseases has undergone spectacular changes. More and more patients with different types of heart disease are being treated by percutaneous or transcatheter interventions, with no such increase in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. This situation has led to different types of approach, requiring an objective analysis that includes all the factors possibly influencing these changes. This document assesses the 2 scenarios where this problem is most evident: coronary revascularization and the treatment of aortic stenosis. The document analyzes the situation of coronary revascularization in Spain, and the causes that may explain the differences between the number of patients who currently undergo percutaneous revascularization and those who undergo coronary surgery. In contrast, treatment of aortic stenosis through transcatheter aortic valve implantation will lead to a foreseeable reduction in the number of candidates for surgical replacement. Several international scientific societies have published the requirements on training and experience and the necessary operator and center volumes to implement a transcatheter aortic valve implantation program, conditions that the Spanish Society of Cardiology, adopting a patient-centered approach, considers absolutely essential. Given that the 2 forms of intervention (percutaneous and surgical) are complementary, multidisciplinary patient assessment (Heart Team) remains crucial to offer the best treatment option. In this scenario of diverse approaches, a key figure is the clinical cardiologist. Finally, the changes currently occurring in the treatment of structural heart disease will, in future, lead to the performance of procedures requiring the participation of professionals from both specialties. This approach will require a redesign of current training programs.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a new standard of care

Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular lesion requiring intervention and with an ageing population, its burden is likely to increase. Increasing comorbidity and a desire for less invasive treatment strategies has facilitated the expansion of percutaneous aortic valve therapies. Robust clinical trial data are now available to support the role of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients of prohibitive, high and now intermediate surgical risk. The introduction of a Medicare Benefits Schedule reimbursement is likely to see TAVI use grow exponentially in Australia over the next 5 years. Clinical trials evaluating low risk patients may be the final frontier to see TAVI become the standard of care for most patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Position paper of French Interventional Group (GACI) for TAVI in France in 2018

Aortic stenosis is a frequent disease in the elderly. Its prevalence is 0.4% with a sharp increase after the age of 65, and its outcome is very poor when the patient becomes symptomatic. The interventional procedure known as TAVI (trans-catheter aortic valve implantation), which was developed in France and carried out for the first time in Rouen by Prof. Alain Cribier and his team in 2002, has proven to be a valid alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement. At first, this technique was shown to be efficient in patients with contra-indications to surgical treatment or deemed to be at high surgical risk. Given the very promising outcomes achieved as a result of close heart team collaboration, appropriate patient selection, simplified procedures and reduced complication rates, transfemoral (TF) TAVI is now preferred in symptomatic intermediate risk patients>75 years old according to the latest ESC guidelines. In 2017, in France, TAVI is currently performed in 50 centers with on-site cardiac surgery. The 2016 TAVI outcomes recorded in the French national TAVI registry (France TAVI) are very encouraging and show that for 7133 patients treated (age 83.4±7 years, logistic Euroscore 14%), 87% of whom via the TF approach, cross-over to surgery was very low (0.5%) with a 3.0% in-hospital mortality rate. The substantial increase in TAVI indications and the improvement of its outcomes may in the near future call for a reconsideration of the number of high volume centers authorized to carry out this technique.

A proctoring system to manage the learning curve associated with the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in Japan

As transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) requires multidisciplinary collaboration, operators and the entire heart team must overcome a steep learning curve. A web-based screening and traditional on-site proctoring system were developed for the introduction of TAVI in Japan. To assess the learning curve involved with the introduction of TAVI under the supervision of a novel proctoring system. We divided 749 consecutive patients enrolled in the OCEAN-TAVI study between October 2013 and August 2015 into the trans-femoral (TF, n = 608) and transapical (TA, n = 141) approach groups to compare outcomes in patients who underwent TAVI during the early proctoring period (proctoring group) and after the procedures began to be performed independently (independent group). The primary endpoint was the rate of composite events regarding early safety (at 30 days) according to the valve academic research consortium-2 criteria. For TF-TAVI, the logistic EuroSCORE and the rate of peripheral artery disease were significantly lower during the independent period. The rate of device success significantly increased during the independent period (90.5 vs. 81.8%, p = 0.005). The rate of the primary endpoint was significantly reduced during the independent period compared to that during the proctoring period for TA-TAVI (21.3 vs. 37.9%, p = 0.031); however, no difference was observed for TF-TAVI (16.8 vs. 13.1%, p = 0.283). No deaths occurred within 30 days during the proctoring period for TF-TAVI. After adjustment using propensity score matching, the procedure time for TF-TAVI (88 ± 43 vs. 102 ± 36 min, p = 0.004) and the rate of life-threatening bleeding for TA-TAVI (3.6 vs. 25%, p = 0.026) reduced during the independent period compared to the values during the proctoring period. During the introduction of TAVI under the supervision of a new proctoring system in Japan, clinical outcomes and technical aspects improved significantly. There are differences in the steepness of the learning curve between TF-TAVI and TA-TAVI.

Advantages of a prospective multidisciplinary approach in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Eight years of experience

INTRODUCTION

Aortic stenosis is the most prevalent type of valvular disease in Europe. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the standard therapy, while transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an alternative in patients at unacceptably high surgical risk. Assessment by a heart team is recommended by the guidelines but there is little published evidence on this subject. The purpose of this paper is to describe the experience of a multidisciplinary TAVI program that began in 2008.

METHODS

The heart team prospectively assessed 473 patients using a standardized approach. A total of 214 patients were selected for TAVI and 80 for SAVR. Demographic, clinical and procedural characteristics and long-term success rates were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

TAVI patients were older than the SAVR group (median 83 vs. 81 years), and had higher surgical risk scores (median EuroSCORE II 5.3 vs. 3.6% and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 5.1 vs. 3.1%), as did the patients under medical treatment only. These scores were unable to assess multiple comorbidities. Patients' outcomes were different between the three groups (mortality with SAVR 25% vs. TAVI 37.6% vs. conservative therapy 57.6%, p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The heart team program was able to select candidates appropriately for TAVI, SAVR and conservative treatment, taking into account the risk of both invasive treatments. The use of a prospective standardized heart team approach is recommended, but requires continuous monitoring to ensure effectiveness in a timely manner.

Volume-outcome relationships for transcatheter aortic valve replacement-risk-adjusted and volume stratified analysis of TAVR outcomes

Objectives

This purpose of the study was to evaluate TAVR outcomes at low, intermediate and high volume institutions.

Background

For the care of complex patients, volume-outcome effect is well described. The initial US TAVR experience was limited to a few centers of excellence. The impact of institutional volume on outcomes after TAVR has not been systematically studied.

Methods

Within the Banner Health system, TAVR is performed at 3 institutions-a low volume, an intermediate volume and a high volume institution. 181 consecutive patients undergoing TAVR within these 3 institutions were the study cohort. To adjust for bias and confounders between the 3 groups, risk-adjusted multivariate logistic regression and propensity score analysis was performed. The primary endpoint was a composite of mortality, dialysis-dependent renal failure, cerebrovascular accident, need for new permanent pacemaker and readmission within 30 days.

Results

The primary endpoint was reached in 38.8% of patients at the high volume institution and 76.2% of patients at the low volume institution (p < 0.01). Having a TAVR procedure at a larger volume institution was an independent predictor of having improved outcomes (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16–0.68; p = 0.003). These improved outcomes after the TAVR procedure noted at the large volume institution were seen in the most complex patients: age ≥80 years, BMI >30, diabetes, hypertension, prior CAD, CKD and NYHA class III/IV heart failure.

Conclusions

High-risk patients undergoing TAVR at a large volume institution have better 30-day outcomes compared to outcomes at intermediate and low volume centers.

Sedation or general anesthesia for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)

Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is nowadays a routine therapy for elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and high perioperative risk. With growing experience, further development of the devices, and the expansion to "intermediate-risk" patients, there is increasing interest in performing this procedure under conscious sedation (TAVI-S) rather than the previously favoured approach of general anesthesia (TAVI-GA). The proposed benefits of TAVI-S include; reduced procedure time, shorter intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, reduced need for intraprocedural vasopressor support, and the potential to perform the procedure without the direct presence of an anesthetist for cost-saving reasons. To date, no randomized trial data exists. We reviewed 13 non-randomized studies/registries reporting data from 6,718 patients undergoing TAVI (3,227 performed under sedation). Patient selection, study methods, and endpoints have differed considerably between published studies. Reported rates of in-hospital and longer-term mortality are similar for both groups. Up to 17% of patients undergoing TAVI-S require conversion to general anesthesia during the procedure, primarily due to vascular complications, and urgent intubation is frequently associated with hemodynamic instability. Procedure related factors, including hypotension, may compound preexisting age-specific renal impairment and enhance the risk of acute kidney injury. Hypotonia of the hypopharyngeal muscles in elderly patients, intraprocedural hypercarbia, and certain anesthetic drugs, may increase the aspiration risk in sedated patients. General anesthesia and conscious sedation have both been used successfully to treat patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI with similar reported short and long-term mortality outcomes. The authors believe that the significant incidence of complications and unplanned conversion to general anesthesia during TAVI-S mandates the start-to-finish presence of an experienced cardiac anesthetist in order to optimize patient outcomes. Good quality randomized data is needed to determine the optimal anesthetic regimen for patients undergoing TAVI.