Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After “High-Risk” Aortic Valve Replacement∗

Reclassification of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement using predicted vs. measured indexed effective orifice area

AIMS

The objective was to compare the incidence and impact on outcomes of measured (PPMM) vs. predicted (PPMP) prosthesis-patient mismatch following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

METHODS AND RESULTS

All consecutives patients who underwent TAVR between 2007 and 2018 were included. Effective orifice area (EOA) was measured by Doppler-echocardiography using the continuity equation and predicted according to the normal reference for each model and size of valve. PPM was defined using EOA indexed (EOAi) to body surface area as moderate if ≤0.85 cm2/m2 and severe if ≤ 0.65 cm2/m2 (respectively, ≤ 0.70 and ≤ 0.55 cm2/m2 if body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2). The outcome endpoints were high residual gradient (≥20 mmHg) and the composite of cardiovascular mortality and hospital readmission for heart failure at 1 year. Overall, 1088 patients underwent a TAVR (55% male, age 79.1 ± 8.4 years, and STS score 6.6 ± 4.7%); balloon-expandable device was used in 83%. Incidence of moderate (10% vs. 27%) and severe (1% vs. 17%) PPM was markedly lower when defined by predicted vs. measured EOAi (P < 0.001). Balloon-expandable device implantation (OR: 1.90, P = 0.029) and valve-in-valve procedure (n = 118; OR: 3.21, P < 0.001) were the main factors associated with PPM occurrence. Compared with measured PPM, predicted PPM showed stronger association with high residual gradient. Severe measured or predicted PPM was not associated with clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The utilization of the predicted EOAi reclassifies the majority of patients with PPM to no PPM following TAVR. Compared with measured PPM, predicted PPM had stronger association with haemodynamic outcomes, while both methods were not associated with clinical outcomes.

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Aortic Valve Replacement in the PARTNER 2 Trial and Registry

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare incidence and impact of measured prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM_M) versus predicted PPM (PPM_P) after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

BACKGROUND

TAVR studies have used measured effective orifice area indexed (EOAi) to body surface area (BSA) to define PPM, but most SAVR series have used predicted EOAi. This difference may contribute to discrepancies in incidence and outcomes of PPM between series.

METHODS

The study analyzed SAVR patients from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2A trial and TAVR patients from the PARTNER 2 SAPIEN 3 Intermediate Risk registry. PPM was classified as moderate if EOAi ≤0.85 cm²/m² (≤0.70 if obese: body mass index ≥30 kg/m²) and severe if EOAi ≤0.65 cm²/m² (≤0.55 if obese). PPM_M was determined by the core lab-measured EOAi on 30-day echocardiogram. PPM_P was determined by 2 methods: 1) using normal EOA reference values previously reported for each valve model and size (PPM_P1; n = 929 SAVR, 1,069 TAVR) indexed to BSA; and 2) using normal reference EOA predicted from aortic annulus size measured by computed tomography (PPM_P2; n = 864 TAVR only) indexed to BSA. Primary endpoint was the composite of 5-year all-cause death and rehospitalization.

RESULTS

The incidence of moderate and severe PPM_P was much lower than PPM_M in both SAVR (PPM_P1: 28.4% and 1.2% vs. PPM_M: 31.0% and 23.6%) and TAVR (PPM_P1: 21.0% and 0.1% and PPM_P2: 17.0% and 0% vs. PPM_M: 27.9% and 5.7%). The incidence of severe PPM_M and severe PPM_P1 was lower in TAVR versus SAVR (P < 0.001). The presence of PPM by any method was associated with higher transprosthetic gradient. Severe PPM_P1 was independently associated with events in SAVR after adjustment for sex and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (hazard ratio: 3.18;95% CI: 1.69-5.96; P < 0.001), whereas no association was observed between PPM by any method and outcomes in TAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

EOAi measured by echocardiography results in a higher incidence of PPM following SAVR or TAVR than PPM based on predicted EOAi. Severe PPM_P is rare (<1.5%), but is associated with increased all-cause death and rehospitalization after SAVR, whereas it is absent following TAVR.

Early and mid-term haemodynamic performance and clinical outcomes of St. Jude Medical Trifecta™ valve

Background

New models of aortic bioprostheses have proven excellent early haemodynamic profile, but their mid and long-term performance warrants further systematic assessment. The aim of this study is to report clinical and haemodynamic performance of St. Jude Medical Trifecta bioprosthesis during 5 years of implantation.

Methods

We performed a single centre, retrospective, observational and descriptive study including all 556 individuals who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with the Trifecta bioprosthesis (between July of 2011 and June of 2016). Survival and re-intervention were censored in February 2017. Postoperative ambulatory echocardiographic data was available for 490 patients. A complete clinical follow-up was available in 463 individuals (mean follow-up time, 27±17 months).

Results

In our sample the mean age was 73±9 years, 57.6% were male and median European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II was 2.9 (interquartile range, 1.6-5.8). There were 301 (54.1%) combined procedures, mostly coronary artery bypass grafting in 170 (30.6%). Overall 30-days mortality was 5.4% (n=30) and cumulative survival at 5-years was 72.3%. There were 23 (4.3%) permanent pacemaker implantations. During follow-up, 5 (0.9%) patients presented non-structural valve dysfunction (NSVD) and 4 (0.8%) underwent reoperation due to prosthesis endocarditis. At the first ambulatory evaluation transvalvular mean gradient and effective orifice area (EOA) were 10.9±4.1 mmHg and 2.0±0.5 cm², respectively. Severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) was observed in 5 (1.1%) individuals and moderate in 52 (11.3%).

Conclusions

In a "real-world" clinical setting, our findings support the good overall mid-term haemodynamic and safety profile of the Trifecta bioprosthesis.

Incidence, Predictors and Outcome of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence, predictors and outcome of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). A total of 30 articles incorporating 4,691 patients were identified. The pooled incidences of overall, moderate and severe PPM following TAVR were 33.0%, 25.0% and 11.0% respectively. Medtronic CoreValve (MCV) had lower incidence of overall (32% vs: 40%, P < 0.0001) and moderate (23% vs 32%, P < 0.0001) than Edwards Sapien (ESV). PPM was associated with a younger age, smaller annulus diameter and lower left ventricular ejection fraction in comparison with those patients without PPM. Post-dilation (OR, 0.51, 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.68, p < 0.001) during TAVR would decrease the incidence of PPM. Although PPM was common after TAVR, no significant differences were observed both in short- and mid-term all-cause mortality (30 day: OR: 1.1, 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.73 and 2 year: OR: 1.01, 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.38) between patients with PPM and those without PPM. In conclusion, despite being common after TAVR, the incidence of PPM was lower than that of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and decreased with the experience accumulating, and PPM was not seen to impact on short- and mid-term survival, regardless of its magnitude.

Early Clinical Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Using a Novel Self-Expanding Bioprosthesis in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Who Are Suboptimal for Surgery: Results of the Evolut R U.S. Study

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to evaluate this transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) bioprosthesis in patients who are poorly suitable for surgical aortic valve (AV) replacement.

BACKGROUND

A novel self-expandable TAV bioprosthesis was designed to provide a low-profile delivery system, conformable annular sealing, and the ability to resheath and reposition during deployment.

METHODS

The Evolut R U.S. study included 241 patients with severe aortic stenosis who were deemed to be at least high risk for surgery treated at 23 clinical sites in the United States. Clinical outcomes at 30 days were evaluated using Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. An independent echocardiography laboratory was used to evaluate hemodynamic outcomes.

RESULTS

Patients were elderly (83.3 ± 7.2 years of age) and had high surgical risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality of 7.4 ± 3.4%). The majority of patients (89.5%) were treated by iliofemoral access. Resheathing or recapturing was performed in 22.6% of patients; more than 1 valve was required in 3 patients (1.3%). The 30-day outcomes included all-cause mortality (2.5%), disabling stroke (3.3%), major vascular complications (7.5%), life-threatening or disabling bleeding (7.1%), and new permanent pacemaker (16.4%). AV hemodynamics were markedly improved at 30 days: the mean AV gradient was reduced from 48.2 ± 13.0 mm Hg to 7.8 ± 3.1 mm Hg (p < 0.001) and AV area increased from 0.6 ± 0.2 cm² to 1.9 ± 0.5 cm² (p < 0.001). Moderate residual paravalvular leak was identified in 5.3% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that this novel self-expanding TAV bioprosthesis is safe and effective for the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis who are suboptimal for surgery. (Medtronic CoreValve Evolut R U.S. Clinical Study; NCT02207569).

Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Surgical Valve Replacement in Patients at High Risk for Surgery

Background—

The CoreValve US High-Risk Clinical Study compared clinical outcomes and serial echocardiographic findings in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding bioprosthesis or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

Methods and Results—

Eligible patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis or SAVR (N=747). Echocardiograms were obtained at baseline, discharge, 30 days, 6 months, and 1 year after the procedure and were analyzed at a central core laboratory. Compared with SAVR patients (N=357), TAVR patients (N=390) had a lower mean aortic valve gradient, larger valve area, and less patient–prosthesis mismatch (all P <0.001), but more paravalvular regurgitation at discharge, which decreased at 1 year. SAVR patients experienced significant right ventricular systolic dysfunction at discharge and 1 month with normal right ventricular function at 1 year. One-year all-cause mortality was 14.2% for TAVR and 19.1% for SAVR patients. Preimplantation aortic regurgitation ≥mild was associated with reduced mortality hazard for both the TAVR (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.27–0.85; P =0.01) and the SAVR groups (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.32–0.87; P =0.01). Aortic regurgitation ≥mild after TAVR was associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.95, 95% confidence interval 1.08–3.53; P =0.03).

Conclusions—

In patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased surgical risk, TAVR was associated with better systolic valve performance, similar left ventricular remodeling, more paravalvular regurgitation, and less right ventricular systolic dysfunction compared with SAVR. Despite an overall mortality reduction for the TAVR group, ≥mild aortic valve regurgitation after TAVR was associated with an increased mortality hazard.

Clinical Trial Registration—

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01240902.