Durability of Transcatheter and Surgical Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves in Patients at Lower Surgical Risk

Long-Term Results Following Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate or high surgical risk. Results after TAVR in low-risk patients are very encouraging at midterm follow-up, whereas limited long-term (≥3 year) data are available in this subset of patients. This meta-analysis aims to compare the long-term follow-up after TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-risk patients. We searched databases up to July 7, 2024 for randomized clinical trials comparing TAVR versus SAVR in low-risk patients (defined as Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score <4%) (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023480495). Primary outcome analyzed was all-cause death at a minimum of 3 years of follow-up. The secondary outcomes were cardiovascular death, disabling stroke, myocardial infarction, aortic valve reintervention, endocarditis, new-onset atrial fibrillation, permanent pacemaker implantation, and bioprosthetic valve failure. A total of 3 randomized clinical trials with 2,644 patients (TAVR n = 1,371 patients; SAVR n = 1,273 patients) were included. The follow-up time was 6 ± 2.9 years. TAVR resulted noninferior to SAVR for all-cause death (risk ratio [RR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84 to 1.17, p = 0.89, I2 = 28%), cardiovascular death (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.15, p = 0.54, I2 = 0%), myocardial infarction (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.57, p = 0.79, I2 = 61%), aortic valve reintervention, endocarditis, and bioprosthetic valve failure. New-onset atrial fibrillation was more common in the SAVR group, whereas permanent pacemaker implantation was more common in the TAVR group. In conclusion, our meta-analysis showed that TAVR is associated with similar long-term outcomes compared with SAVR in selected low-risk patients.

Reoperation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Insights from 10 years' experience

OBJECTIVE

Use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has demonstrated dramatic growth in the past decade. This study aims to investigate implications of post-TAVR reoperation from our 10-year experience.

METHODS

Between 2011 and 2022, 66 post-TAVR patients underwent a reoperation, consisting of 42 (63.6%) patients with native TAVR and 24 (36.4%) patients with valve-in-valve TAVR (VIV-TAVR) after surgical aortic valve replacement.

RESULTS

The aggregate proportion of patients belonging to the low-/intermediate-risk group at the time of TAVR exceeded that of the high-/extreme-risk cohort in 2021. The native TAVR group received a larger TAVR valve, whereas more frequent low-risk status at the time of TAVR than the VIV-TAVR group. Concurrent procedures were highly common during reoperation and isolated surgical aortic valve replacement represented only 18.2% of the entire cohort. The native TAVR group demonstrated significantly higher TAVR explant difficulty index score (2.0 vs 1.0 points; P < .001) and operative mortality (14.2% vs 0%; P = .079) compared with the VIV-TAVR group. The 8-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was 1.9% and 14.1% (subdistribution hazard ratio, 8.0; 95% CI, 4.1-15.9; P < .001) in the native and VIV-TAVR group, respectively. Furthermore, cumulative incidence of valve reintervention, combining reoperations and redo TAVRs, was 3.3% and 19.0% (subdistribution hazard ratio, 6.2; 95% CI, 3.6-10.9; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-/intermediate-risk patients are emerging as the predominant group necessitating reoperations. Native TAVR was associated with lower postimplant reintervention rates, albeit with higher reoperative technical difficulty and mortality. Conversely, VIV-TAVR was associated with higher reintervention, but demonstrated lower technical difficulty and mortality for reoperation.

The evolution of TAVI performance overtime: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a well-established treatment for high and intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Recent studies have demonstrated non-inferiority of TAVI compared to surgery in low-risk patients. In the past decade, numerous literature reviews (SLRs) have assessed the use of TAVI in different risk groups. This is the first attempt to provide an overview of SRs (OoSRs) focusing on secondary studies reporting clinical outcomes/process indicators. This research aims to summarize the findings of extant literature on the performance of TAVI over time.

METHODS

A literature search took place from inception to April 2024. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library for SLRs. SLRs reporting at least one review of clinical indicators were included. Subsequently, a two-step inclusion process was conducted: [1] screening based on title and abstracts and [2] screening based on full-text papers. Relevant data were extracted and the quality of the reviews was assessed.

RESULTS

We included 33 SLRs with different risks assessed via the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score. Mortality rates were comparable between TAVI and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR) groups. TAVI is associated with lower rates of major bleeding, acute kidney injury (AKI) incidence, and new-onset atrial fibrillation. Vascular complications, pacemaker implantation, and residual aortic regurgitation were more frequent in TAVI patients.

CONCLUSION

This study summarizes TAVI performance findings over a decade, revealing a shift to include both high and low-risk patients since 2020. Overall, TAVI continues to evolve, emphasizing improved outcomes, broader indications, and addressing challenges.

Temporal Trends in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: 10-Year Analysis of the TAVIDOR Registry

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has established itself as the preferential strategy to approach severe aortic stenosis. Information on procedural improvements and nationwide results obtained with the technique throughout the past decade are unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the temporal variation of the demographic profile, procedural characteristics, and in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing TAVI procedures at the Rede D'Or São Luiz.

METHODS

Observational registry comprising 29 national institutions, comparing the characteristics of the TAVI procedures performed from 2012 to 2017 (Group 1) to those performed from 2018 to 2023 (Group 2). The statistical significance level adopted was p < 0.05.

RESULTS

This study assessed 661 patients, 95 in Group 1 and 566 in Group 2, with a mean age of 81.1 years. Group 1 patients had a higher prevalence of New York Heart Association functional class III or IV and STS risk score > 8%. In addition, they more often underwent general anesthesia, transesophageal echocardiographic monitoring, and access through femoral dissection. Group 2 patients had a higher success rate of the TAVI procedure (95.4% versus 89.5%; p = 0.018), lower mortality (3.9% versus 11.6%; p = 0.004), and less often needed permanent pacemaker implantation (8.5% versus 17.9%; p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

The 10-year temporal trends analysis of the TAVIDOR Registry shows a reduction in patients' clinical complexity over time. Furthermore, the advance to minimalistic implantation techniques, added to the technological evolution of the devices, may have contributed to the favorable outcomes observed among those whose implantation occurred in the last 5 years studied.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low-risk young population: A double edge sword?

Since the advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in 2002, it has now become the default interventional strategy for symptomatic patients presenting with severe aortic stenosis, particularly in intermediate to high-surgical risk patients. In 2019, the United States Food and Drug Administration approved TAVR in low-risk patients based on two randomized trials. However, these breakthrough trials excluded patients with certain unfavorable anatomies and odd profiles. While currently there is no randomized study of TAVR in young patients, it may be preferred by the young population given the benefits of early discharge, shorter hospital stay, and expedite recovery. Nonetheless, it is important to ruminate various factors including lifetime expectancy, risk of pacemaker implantation, and the need for future valve or coronary interventions in young cohorts before considering TAVR in these patients. Furthermore, the data on long-term durability (> 10 years) of TAVR is still unknown given most of the procedures were initially performed in the high or prohibitive surgical risk population. Thus, this editorial aims to highlight the importance of considering an individualized approach in young patients with consideration of various factors including lifetime expectancy while choosing TAVR against surgical aortic valve replacement.

Reinterventions After CoreValve/Evolut Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Data on valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are limited.

OBJECTIVES

The authors compared the 5-year incidence of valve reintervention after self-expanding CoreValve/Evolut TAVR vs SAVR.

METHODS

Pooled data from CoreValve and Evolut R/PRO (Medtronic) randomized trials and single-arm studies encompassed 5,925 TAVR (4,478 CoreValve and 1,447 Evolut R/PRO) and 1,832 SAVR patients. Reinterventions were categorized by indication, timing, and treatment. The cumulative incidence of reintervention was compared between TAVR vs SAVR, Evolut vs CoreValve, and Evolut vs SAVR.

RESULTS

There were 99 reinterventions (80 TAVR and 19 SAVR). The cumulative incidence of reintervention through 5 years was higher with TAVR vs SAVR (2.2% vs 1.5%; P = 0.017), with differences observed early (≤1 year; adjusted subdistribution HR: 3.50; 95% CI: 1.53-8.02) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.48-2.28). The most common reason for reintervention was paravalvular regurgitation after TAVR and endocarditis after SAVR. Evolut had a significantly lower incidence of reintervention than CoreValve (0.9% vs 1.6%; P = 0.006) at 5 years with differences observed early (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12-0.73) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.21-1.74). The 5-year incidence of reintervention was similar for Evolut vs SAVR (0.9% vs 1.5%; P = 0.41).

CONCLUSIONS

A low incidence of reintervention was observed for CoreValve/Evolut R/PRO and SAVR through 5 years. Reintervention occurred most often at ≤1 year for TAVR and >1 year for SAVR. Most early reinterventions were with the first-generation CoreValve and managed percutaneously. Reinterventions were more common following CoreValve TAVR compared with Evolut TAVR or SAVR.

Long-term follow-up of balloon-expandable valves according to the implantation strategy: insight from the DIRECTAVI trial

BACKGROUND

Safety and feasibility of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) without balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) using the SAPIEN 3 balloon-expandable device has been previously demonstrated. The impact on long-term valve hemodynamic performances and outcomes remains however unknown. We evaluate long-term clinical and hemodynamic results according to the implant strategy (direct TAVR vs BAV pre-TAVR) in patients included in the DIRECTAVI randomized trial (NCT02729519).

METHODS

Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up until January 2023 was performed for all patients included in the DIRECTAVI trial since 2016 (n = 228). The primary endpoint was incidence of moderate/severe hemodynamic valve deterioration (HVD), according to the Valve Academic Research defined Consortium-3 criteria (increase in mean gradient ≥10 mmHg resulting in a final mean gradient ≥20 mmHg, or new/worsening aortic regurgitation of 1 grade resulting in ≥ moderate aortic regurgitation).

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 3.8 (2.2-4.7) years. Mean age at follow-up was 87 ± 6.7 years. No difference in incidence of HVD in the direct implantation group compared to the BAV group was found (incidence of 1.97 per 100 person-years and 1.45 per 100 person-years, respectively, P = 0.6). Prevalence of predicted prothesis-patient mismatch was low (n = 13 [11.4%] in the direct TAVR group vs n = 15 [13.2%] in BAV group) and similar between both groups (P = .7). Major outcomes including death, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure and pacemaker implantation were similar between both groups, (P = .4, P = .7, P = .3, and P = .3 respectively).

CONCLUSION

Direct implantation of the balloon-expandable device in TAVR was not associated with an increased risk of moderate/severe HVD or major outcomes up to 6-year follow-up. These results guarantee wide use of direct balloon-expandable valve implantation, when feasible.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05140317.

Predicting pressure gradient using artificial intelligence for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Objective

After transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the mean transvalvular pressure gradient indicates the effectiveness of the therapy. The objective is to develop artificial intelligence to predict the post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement aortic valve pressure gradient and aortic valve area from preprocedural echocardiography and computed tomography data.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted on patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement due to aortic valve stenosis. A total of 1091 patients were analyzed for pressure gradient predictions (mean age 76.8 ± 9.2 years, 57.8% male), and 1063 patients were analyzed for aortic valve area predictions (mean age 76.7 ± 9.3 years, 57.2% male). An artificial intelligence learning model was trained (training: n = 663 patients, validation: n = 206 patients) and tested (testing: n = 222 patients) to predict pressure gradient, and a separate artificial intelligence learning model was trained (training: n = 640 patients, validation: n = 218 patients) and tested (testing: n = 205 patients) for predicting aortic valve area.

Results

The mean absolute error for pressure gradient and aortic valve area predictions was 3.0 mm Hg and 0.45 cm2, respectively. Valve sheath size, body surface area, and age were determined to be the top 3 predictors for pressure gradient, and valve sheath size, left ventricular ejection fraction, and aortic annulus mean diameter were identified to be the top 3 predictors of post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement aortic valve area. A training dataset size of more than 500 patients demonstrated good robustness of the artificial intelligence models for pressure gradient and aortic valve area.

Conclusions

The artificial intelligence-based algorithm has demonstrated potential in predicting post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement transvalvular pressure gradient predictions for patients with aortic valve stenosis. Further studies are necessary to differentiate pressure gradient between valve types.

Long-term risk of reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has surpassed surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) as the predominant mode of valve replacement for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the long-term need for valvular reintervention after TAVR remains unknown.

METHODS

Using data from the Medicare Fee for Service 100% dataset, all patients receiving TAVR between July 2011 and December 2020 were identified. Patients were categorized as receiving a valve reintervention (either surgical or transcatheter) or not using the appropriate International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision Procedure Coding System (ICD-10-PCS). A competing risk regression model was used to estimate the cumulative probability of valve reintervention.

RESULTS

Of 230,644 TAVR patients were identified, of whom 1,880 received a reintervention. Patients receiving a reintervention were younger and more likely to be male. At 10 years, the crude rate of reintervention was 0.59% within a surviving cohort of 341 patients. After adjusting for the competing risk of death and other covariates, the adjusted cumulative incidence of reintervention at 10 years after TAVR was 1.63%. When the rate of reinterventions was compared between early (2011-2016) and later (2017-2020) time periods, the risk-adjusted rate of reintervention at 4 years had decreased over time (0.85% vs 0.51%).

CONCLUSION

The 10-year risk of valve reintervention after TAVR is low and appears to be decreasing over time. Further research is necessary to determine the driving factors contributing to valve reintervention in the current era.

The Measurement of Bovine Pericardium Density and Its Implications on Leaflet Stress Distribution in Bioprosthetic Heart Valves

PURPOSE

Bioprosthetic Heart Valves (BHVs) are widely used in clinical practice, showing promising outcomes. Computational modeling offers a valuable tool for quantitatively characterizing BHVs. To ensure the accuracy of computational models, it is crucial to consider precise leaflet properties, including mechanical properties and density. Bovine pericardium (BP) serves as a common material for BHV leaflets. Previous computational studies often assume BP density to approximate that of water or blood. Given that BP leaflets undergo various treatments, such as tissue fixation and anti-calcification, this study aims to measure the density of BP used in BHVs and assess its impact on leaflet stress distribution.

METHODS

Eight square BP samples were laser cut from Edwards BP patches and their density was determined. Specimen weight was measured using an A&D Analytical Balance, while volume was assessed through high-resolution imaging. Additionally, finite element models resembling a BHV, like the Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna, were constructed in ABAQUS.

RESULTS

The average density of the BP samples was found to be 1,410 kg/m3. During the acceleration phase of a cardiac cycle, the maximum stress reached 1.89 MPa for a density of 1,410 kg/m3 and 2.47 MPa for a density of 1,000 kg/m3 (a 30.7% difference). In the deceleration phase, the maximum stress reached 713 kPa and 669 kPa, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Leaflet stress distribution and motion in BHVs are influenced by density variations. Establishing an accurate density value for BHV leaflets is imperative for enhancing the computational models, which can ultimately contribute to improved BHV design and outcomes.

Distal aortic biomechanics after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement: a hypothesis generating study

BACKGROUND

Biomechanical effects of transcatheter (TAVR) versus surgical (SAVR) aortic valve interventions on the distal aorta have not been studied. This study utilized global circumferential strain (GCS) to assess post-procedural biomechanics changes in the descending aorta after TAVR versus SAVR.

METHODS

Patients undergoing TAVR or SAVR for aortic stenosis were included. Transesophageal (TEE) and transthoracic (TTE) echocardiography short-axis images of the aorta were used to image the descending aorta immediately before and after interventions. Image analysis was performed with two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography and dedicated software. Delta GCS was calculated as: post-procedural GCS-pre-procedural GCS. Percentage delta GCS was calculated as: (delta GCS/pre-procedural GCS) × 100.

RESULTS

Eighty patients, 40 TAVR (median age 81 y/o, 40% female) and 40 SAVR (median 72 y/o, 30% female) were included. The post-procedure GCS was significantly higher than the pre-procedural GCS in the TAVR (median 10.7 [interquartile range IQR 4.5, 14.6] vs. 17.0 [IQR 6.1, 20.9], p = 0.009) but not in the SAVR group (4.4 [IQR 3.3, 5.3] vs. 4.7 [IQR 3.9, 5.6], p = 0.3). The delta GCS and the percentage delta GCS were both significantly higher in the TAVR versus SAVR group (2.8% [IQR 1.4, 6] vs. 0.15% [IQR - 0.6, 1.5], p < 0.001; and 28.8% [IQR 14.6%, 64.6%] vs. 4.4% [IQR - 10.6%, 5.6%], p = 0.006). Results were consistent after multivariable adjustment for key clinical and hemodynamic characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

After TAVR, there was a significantly larger increase in GCS in the distal aorta compared to SAVR. This may impact descending aortic remodeling and long-term risk of aortic events.

Feasibility of Coronary Access Following Redo-TAVR for Evolut Failure: A Computed Tomography Simulation Study

BACKGROUND

Coronary accessibility following redo-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (redo-TAVR) is increasingly important, particularly in younger low-risk patients. This study aimed to predict coronary accessibility after simulated Sapien-3 balloon-expandable valve implantation within an Evolut supra-annular, self-expanding valve using pre-TAVR computed tomography (CT) imaging.

METHODS

A total of 219 pre-TAVR CT scans from the Evolut Low-Risk CT substudy were analyzed. Virtual Evolut and Sapien-3 valves were sized using CT-based diameters. Two initial Evolut implant depths were analyzed, 3 and 5 mm. Coronary accessibility was evaluated for 2 Sapien-3 in Evolut implant positions: Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 4 and Evolut node 5.

RESULTS

With a 3-mm initial Evolut implant depth, suitable coronary access was predicted in 84% of patients with the Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 4, and in 31% of cases with the Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 5 (P<0.001). Coronary accessibility improved with a 5-mm Evolut implant depth: 97% at node 4 and 65% at node 5 (P<0.001). When comparing 3- to 5-mm Evolut implant depth, sinus sequestration was the lowest with Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 4 (13% versus 2%; P<0.001), and the highest at Evolut node 5 (61% versus 32%; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Coronary accessibility after Sapien-3 in Evolut redo-TAVR relates to the initial Evolut implant depth, the Sapien-3 outflow position within the Evolut, and the native annular anatomy. This CT-based quantitative analysis may provide useful information to inform and refine individualized preprocedural CT planning of the initial TAVR and guide lifetime management for future coronary access after redo-TAVR.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02701283.

Mid-term outcomes and hemodynamic performance of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: Insights from the bicuSpid TAvi duraBILITY (STABILITY) registry

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available on transcatheter heart valves (THVs) durability in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis.

AIMS

To evaluate evaluating 4-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients with BAV undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

METHODS

The bicuSpid TAvi duraBILITY (STABILITY) registry is an Italian multicentre registry including all consecutive patients with BAV and severe aortic stenosis (AS), treated by means of TAVI between January 2011 and December 2017. Outcomes of interest were all-cause death at 4-year, over time changes in echocardiographic measurements, and THV durability according to the valve aortic research consortium (VARC)-3 update definitions.

RESULTS

Study population included 109 patients (50% females; mean age 78 ± 7.5 years) with a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score of 5.1 ± 4.3%. Median follow-up (FU) duration was 4.1 years [interquartile range: 2.8-5.1]. The overall cumulative incidence of all-cause death by Kaplan-Meier estimates at 4 years was 32%. Compared to baseline, a significant decrease in transprosthetic mean gradient was obtained after TAVI (54 ± 16 vs. 10 ± 5 mmHg; p < 0.001), whereas a significant increase was observed at 4-year (13 ± 6.4 mmHg, p = 0.03). Cumulative incidence of hemodynamic valve dysfunction (HVD) was 4%. Six patients met HVD criteria: three moderate and three severe HVD. All three cases of severe HVD were clinically relevant (bioprosthetic valve failure [BVF]) with two patients receiving a reintervention (TAVI in TAVI), and one patient experiencing a valve-related death due to endocarditis.

CONCLUSIONS

The STABILITY registry suggests that in patients with severe AS and BAV undergoing TAVI, postprocedural clinical benefits might last, over time, up to 4-year FU. The low rates of severe HVD and BVF may support the hypothesis of good THV durability also in BAV recipient.

Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With ESRD and Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the standard of care for the treatment of all patients with calcific aortic stenosis. Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on hemodialysis were excluded from participation in many of the seminal trials proving the safety and efficacy of TAVR. The outcomes of TAVR in the ESRD population from a national registry showed significantly higher in-hospital and 1-year mortality compared with patients not on hemodialysis. Comparisons of outcomes for surgical versus transcatheter interventions in patients with ESRD and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are limited. Using the United States Renal Data System, we identified all ESRD patients with aortic stenosis and HFrEF who underwent TAVR, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), or those with HFrEF and aortic stenosis initiated on dialysis after the year 2012 to compare survival. Propensity score matching was performed, and groups were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves. The study population consisted of 7,660 patients, of which 5,064 (66.1%) were male. The median age at initiation of dialysis was 73 years (interquartile range: 65 to 80). There were 1,108 (14.5%) who underwent TAVR and 695 (9.1%) who underwent SAVR. After matching, patients who underwent TAVR had increased survival relative to those who were medically managed. In-hospital outcomes favored TAVR with less mortality and fewer complications when compared with SAVR. TAVR had improved mortality relative to SAVR in the early period, but survival curves crossed at approximately 9 months and SAVR had better mortality in the long-term. TAVR is a safe and effective procedure and is associated with improved mortality when compared with medical management. In conclusion, TAVR and SAVR are both viable options for patients with ESRD and HF with TAVR having better short-term outcomes and SAVR better long-term outcomes.

Comparison of middle-term valve durability between transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs

Background

This study aims to compare valve durability between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was structural valve deterioration (SVD). Secondary outcomes were bioprosthetic valve failure, reintervention, effective orifice area (EOA), mean pressure gradient, and moderate-severe aortic regurgitation (AR, transvalvular and/or paravalvular).

Results

Twenty-five publications from seven RCTs consisting of 7,970 patients were included in the analysis with follow-up ranges of 2-8 years. No significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to SVD [odds ratio (OR) 0.72; 95% CI: 0.25-2.12]. The TAVI group was reported to exhibit a statistically significant higher risk of reintervention (OR 2.03; 95% CI: 1.34-3.05) and a moderate-severe AR (OR 6.54; 95% CI: 3.92-10.91) compared with the SAVR group. A trend toward lower mean pressure gradient in the TAVI group [(mean difference (MD) -1.61; 95% CI: -3.5 to 0.28)] and significant higher EOA (MD 0.20; 95% CI: 0.08-0.31) was noted.

Conclusion

The present data indicate that TAVI provides a comparable risk of SVD with favorable hemodynamic profile compared with SAVR. However, the higher risk of significant AR and reintervention was demonstrated.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO (CRD42022363060).

Comparison of long-term outcomes of bioprosthetic and mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 65 years

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to compare rates of mortality and reoperations for patients aged younger than 65 years who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). AVR with a bioprosthetic valve (BV) is increasing among younger patients, however evidence to inform the choice between BV or mechanical valve is limited.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using linked hospital and mortality data from Australia, for 3969 AVR patients between 2003 and 2018. We compared outcomes for valves in inverse probability of treatment-weighted cohorts, stratified according to age (18-54 years; 55-64 years). We used weighted Cox regression models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and weighted cumulative incidence function for subdistribution hazards, for follow-up intervals: 0 to 10 and >10 to 15 years.

RESULTS

Among patients aged 55 to 64 years, there was no difference in mortality at 0 to 10 years. However, at >10 to 15 years, mortality was higher among BV recipients (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.01-2.42). There was no difference among patients aged 18 to 54 years. Reoperation rates for patients aged 55 to 64 years did not differ according to valve type at 0 to 10 years, but were higher for BV than mechanical valve at >10 to 15 years (HR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.69-4.86). For patients aged 18 to 54 years, reoperation rates were consistently higher for BV at both time intervals (HR, 2.54 [95% CI, 1.03-6.25] and HR, 4.48 [95% CI, 2.15-9.32], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients aged 55 to 64 years who received a BV had a higher risk of mortality beyond 10 years. Rates of reoperations were higher among patients implanted with a BV in the entire cohort. Further investigation of long-term outcomes among patients with a BV is necessary. Continuous long-term monitoring of BV technologies will ensure evidence-based decision-making and regulation.

All-cause procedural readmissions following transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Objective

With expanding eligibility criteria, transcatheter aortic valve replacement is being performed on patients with longer life expectancy, and subsequent procedures after index transcatheter aortic valve replacement are inevitable. This study examines the incidence and outcomes of patients undergoing subsequent procedural readmissions after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Methods

All patients who underwent index transcatheter aortic valve replacement and were discharged alive from January 2012 to December 2019 at a single institution were evaluated. Study end points were mortality and readmission for procedure with more than 1-day hospital stay. Effect on survival was evaluated by treating procedural readmission as a time-dependent variable by Cox proportional hazard model and competing risk analysis.

Results

A total of 1092 patients met inclusion criteria with a median follow-up time of 34 months. A total of 218 patients (20.0%) had 244 subsequent procedural readmissions. During the 244 procedural readmissions, there were 260 procedures; 96 (36.9%) were cardiac (most commonly pacemaker implantation, percutaneous coronary interventions, and surgical aortic valve replacements), and 164 (63.1%) were noncardiac (most commonly orthopedic and gastrointestinal procedures). The overall procedural readmission rates were 32%, 39%, and 42%, and all-cause mortality was 27%, 44%, and 54% at 20, 40, and 60 months, respectively. Procedural readmissions were not associated with a survival penalty in any surgical risk group or on Cox regression (hazard ratio, 1.25; 0.91-1.64, P = .17).

Conclusions

After transcatheter aortic valve replacement, procedural interventions are seen frequently, with most procedures occurring within the first year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. However, subsequent procedural readmissions do not appear to have a survival penalty for patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. After transcatheter aortic valve replacement with resolution of aortic stenosis, subsequent procedures can and should be pursued if they are needed.

Managing the challenge of a small aortic annulus in patients with severe aortic stenosis

INTRODUCTION

Small aortic annulus (SAA) poses a challenge in the management of patients with severe aortic stenosis requiring aortic valve replacement - both surgical and transcatheter - since it has been associated with worse clinical outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to comprehensively summarize the available evidence regarding the management of aortic stenosis in patients with SAA and discuss the current controversies as well as future perspectives in this field.

EXPERT OPINION

It is paramount to agree in a common definition for diagnosing and properly treating SAA patients, and for that purpose, multidetector computer tomography is essential. The results of recent trials led to the expansion of transcatheter aortic valve replacement among patients of all the surgical-risk spectrum, and the choice of treatment (transcatheter, surgical) should be based on patient comorbidities, anatomical characteristics, and patient preferences.

Severe structural valve deterioration after TAVR with ACURATE Neo: report of two cases

Structural valve deterioration (SVD) of transcatheter implanted aortic valve (TAVR) prostheses leading to prosthesis dysfunction is an uncommon yet increasingly described complication. Literature is scarce on specific mechanisms and clinical presentation of SVD after TAVR, notably on self-expanding valve ACURATE Neo. We report on two cases with severe bioprosthetic failure after ACURATE Neo implantation due to leaflet disruption, and we treated them with surgical aortic valve replacement. Based on the literature, we further discuss the incidence of SVD after TAVR, the durability of ACURATE NEO, and the modes of failure of biological valve prostheses.

Does the Type of Chronic Heart Failure Impact In-Hospital Outcomes for Aortic Valve Replacement Procedures?

BACKGROUND

This study assessed in-hospital outcomes of patients with chronic systolic, diastolic, or mixed heart failure (HF) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

METHODS

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was used to identify patients with aortic stenosis and chronic HF who underwent TAVR or SAVR between 2012 and 2015. Propensity score matching and multivariate logistic regression were used to determine outcome risk.

RESULTS

A cohort of 9,879 patients with systolic (27.2%), diastolic (52.2%), and mixed (20.6%) chronic HF were included. No statistically significant differences in hospital mortality were noted. Overall, patients with diastolic HF had the shortest hospital stays and lowest costs. Compared with patients with diastolic HF, the risk of acute myocardial infarction (TAVR odds ratio [OR], 1.95; 95% CI, 1.20-3.19; P = .008; SAVR OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.98-1.95; P = .067) and cardiogenic shock (TAVR OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.43-3.23; P < .001; SAVR OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.42-2.53; P ≤ .001) was higher in patients with systolic HF, whereas the risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (TAVR OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45-0.76; P < .001; SAVR OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.40-0.84; P = .004) was lower following aortic valve procedures. In TAVR, the risk of acute deep vein thrombosis and kidney injury was higher, although not statistically significant, in patients with systolic HF than in those with diastolic HF.

CONCLUSION

These outcomes suggest that chronic HF types do not incur statistically significant hospital mortality risk in patients undergoing TAVR or SAVR.

Coronary Obstruction during Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Pre-Procedural Risk Evaluation, Intra-Procedural Monitoring, and Follow-Up

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is emerging as an effective treatment for patients with symptomatically failing bioprosthetic valves and a high prohibitive surgical risk; a longer life expectancy has led to a higher demand for these valve reinterventions due to the increased possibilities of outliving the bioprosthetic valve's durability. Coronary obstruction is the most feared complication of valve-in-valve (ViV) TAVR; it is a rare but life-threatening complication and occurs most frequently at the left coronary artery ostium. Accurate pre-procedural planning, mainly based on cardiac computed tomography, is crucial to determining the feasibility of a ViV TAVR and to assessing the anticipated risk of a coronary obstruction and the eventual need for coronary protection measures. Intraprocedurally, the aortic root and a selective coronary angiography are useful for evaluating the anatomic relationship between the aortic valve and coronary ostia; transesophageal echocardiographic real-time monitoring of the coronary flow with a color Doppler and pulsed-wave Doppler is a valuable tool that allows for a determination of real-time coronary patency and the detection of asymptomatic coronary obstructions. Because of the risk of developing a delayed coronary obstruction, the close postprocedural monitoring of patients at a high risk of developing coronary obstructions is advisable. CT simulations of ViV TAVR, 3D printing models, and fusion imaging represent the future directions that may help provide a personalized lifetime strategy and tailored approach for each patient, potentially minimizing complications and improving outcomes.

Early and Mid-Term Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: The use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis is expanding significantly. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of TAVI versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) during the early and mid-term follow-up period. (2) Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 1- to 2-year outcomes between TAVI and SAVR. The study protocol was preregistered in PROSPERO and the results were reported according to PRISMA guidelines. (3) Results: The pooled analysis included data from eight RCTs totaling 8780 patients. TAVI was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke (OR 0.87, 95%CI 0.77-0.99), significant bleeding (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.25-0.59), acute kidney injury (AKI; OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.40-0.69) and atrial fibrillation (OR 0.28, 95%CI 0.19-0.43). SAVR was associated with a lower risk of major vascular complication (MVC; OR 1.99, 95%CI 1.29-3.07) as well as permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI; OR 2.28, 95%CI 1.45-3.57). (3) Conclusions: TAVI compared with SAVR during early and mid-term follow-up was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke, significant bleeding, AKI and atrial fibrillation; however, it was associated with a higher risk of MVC and PPI.

Aortic valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Despite the rapid adoption of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), there are scant data regarding aortic valve reintervention after initial TAVR.

METHODS

Between 2011 and 2019, 1487 patients underwent a TAVR at the University of Michigan. Among these, 24 (1.6%) patients required an aortic valve reintervention. Additionally, 4 patients who received a TAVR at another institution underwent a valve reintervention at our institution. We retrospectively reviewed these 28 patients.

RESULTS

The median age was 72 years, 36% were female and 86% of implanted TAVR devices were self-expandable. The leading indications for reintervention were structural valve degeneration (39%) and paravalvular leak (36%). The cumulative incidence of aortic valve reintervention was 4.6% at 8 years. Most (71%) were deemed unsuitable for repeat TAVR because of the need for concurrent cardiac procedures (50%), unfavorable anatomy (45%), or endocarditis (10%). TAVR valve explant was associated with frequent concurrent procedures, consisting of aortic repair (35%), mitral repair/replacement (35%), tricuspid repair (25%), and coronary artery bypass graft (20%). Seventy-one percent of aortic procedures were unplanned but proved necessary because of severe adhesion of the devices to the contacting tissue. There were 3 (15%) in-hospital mortalities in the TAVR valve explant group, whereas there was no mortality in the repeat TAVR group.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat TAVR procedure was frequently not feasible because of unfavorable anatomy and/or the need for concurrent cardiac procedures. Careful assessment of TAVR procedure repeatability should be weighed at the initial TAVR workup especially in younger patients who are expected to require a valve reintervention.

Externally mounted versus internally mounted leaflet aortic bovine pericardial bioprosthesis: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent studies reported higher-than-expected rates of early structural valve degeneration (SVD) and/or reoperation of externally mounted leaflet aortic bioprosthesis compared with others. This meta-analysis aims to compare the outcomes of bioprostheses with externally versus internally mounted leaflet design in patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through November 2021 to identify comparative studies investigating outcomes following SAVR with either externally or internally mounted leaflet aortic bioprosthesis. Outcomes of interest were reoperation for SVD or any cause and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 15 observational studies that enrolled a total of 23,539 patients who underwent SAVR using externally mounted (n = 9338; 39.7%) or internally mounted leaflet (n = 14,201; 60.3%) bioprostheses. Externally mounted valves consisted of the Trifecta (Abbott, St Paul, MN) (n = 6146) and the Mitroflow (LivaNova, London, UK) (n = 3192), and all internally mounted valves were the Perimount (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA). Externally mounted valves compared with the Perimount were associated with higher reoperation rates for SVD [hazard ratio (HR) 3.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.67-4.72; P < 0.001] and any cause (HR 9.36, 95% CI 3.70-23.67; P < 0.001). Furthermore, externally mounted valves demonstrated higher all-cause mortalities (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13-1.56; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study summarizing updated evidence revealed higher reoperation rates and all-cause mortalities in patients with externally mounted leaflet aortic bioprostheses compared with those with internally mounted design. Choosing the right SAVR valve type is critical part of lifetime management of aortic valve disease.

Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Transcatheter, Minimally Invasive, and Conventional Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

The landscape of aortic valve replacement (AVR) has evolved dramatically over the years, but time-varying outcomes have yet to be comprehensively explored. This study aimed to compare the all-cause mortality among 3 AVR techniques: transcatheter (TAVI), minimally invasive (MIAVR), and conventional AVR (CAVR). An electronic literature search was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TAVI with CAVR and RCTs or propensity score-matched (PSM) studies comparing MIAVR with CAVR or MIAVR to TAVI. Individual patient data for all-cause mortality were derived from graphical reconstruction of Kaplan-Meier curves. Pairwise comparisons and network meta-analysis were conducted. Sensitivity analyses were performed in the TAVI arm for high risk and low/intermediate risk, as well as patients who underwent transfemoral (TF) TAVI. A total of 27 studies with 16,554 patients were included. In the pairwise comparisons, TAVI showed superior mortality to CAVR until 37.5 months, beyond which there was no significant difference. When restricted to TF TAVI versus CAVR, a consistent mortality benefit favoring TF TAVI was seen (shared frailty hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76 to 0.98, p = 0.024). In the network meta-analysis involving majority PSM data, MIAVR demonstrated significantly lower mortality than TAVI (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.82) and CAVR (HR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.80); this association remained compared with TF TAVI but with a lower extent of benefit (HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.65 to 0.99). In conclusion, the initial short- to medium-term mortality benefit for TAVI over CAVR was attenuated over the longer term. In the subset of patients who underwent TF TAVI, a consistent benefit was found. Among majority PSM data, MIAVR showed improved mortality compared with TAVI and CAVR but less than the TF TAVI subset, which requires validation by robust RCTs.

Contemporary issues and lifetime management in patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Latest clinical trials have indicated favorable outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low surgical risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. However, there are unanswered questions particularly in younger patients with longer life expectancy. While current evidence are limited to short duration of clinical follow-up, there are certain factors which may impair patients clinical outcomes and quality-of-life at long-term. Contemporary issues in the current TAVR era include prosthesis-patient mismatch, heart failure hospitalization, subclinical thrombosis, future coronary access, and valve durability. In this review, the authors review available evidence and discuss each remaining issues and theoretical treatment strategies in lifetime management of TAVR patients.

Age-related enhanced degeneration of bioprosthetic valves due to leaflet calcification, tissue crosslinking, and structural changes

AIMS

Bioprosthetic heart valves (BHVs), made from glutaraldehyde-fixed heterograft materials, are subject to more rapid structural valve degeneration (SVD) in paediatric and young adult patients. Differences in blood biochemistries and propensity for disease accelerate SVD in these patients, which results in multiple re-operations with compounding risks. The goal of this study is to investigate the mechanisms of BHV biomaterial degeneration and present models for studying SVD in young patients and juvenile animal models.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We studied SVD in clinical BHV explants from paediatric and young adult patients, juvenile sheep implantation model, rat subcutaneous implants, and an ex vivo serum incubation model. BHV biomaterials were analysed for calcification, collagen microstructure (alignment and crimp), and crosslinking density. Serum markers of calcification and tissue crosslinking were compared between young and adult subjects. We demonstrated that immature subjects were more susceptible to calcification, microstructural changes, and advanced glycation end products formation. In vivo and ex vivo studies comparing immature and mature subjects mirrored SVD in clinical observations. The interaction between host serum and BHV biomaterials leads to significant structural and biochemical changes which impact their functions.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an increased risk for accelerated SVD in younger subjects, both experimental animals and patients. Increased calcification, altered collagen microstructure with loss of alignment and increased crimp periods, and increased crosslinking are three main characteristics in BHV explants from young subjects leading to SVD. Together, our studies establish a basis for assessing the increased susceptibility of BHV biomaterials to accelerated SVD in young patients.

TAVR in 2023: Who Should Not Get It?

Since the first transcatheter delivery of an aortic valve prosthesis was performed by Cribier et al in 2002, the picture of aortic stenosis (AS) therapeutics has changed dramatically. Initiated from an indication of inoperable to high surgical risk, extending to intermediate and low risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now an approved treatment for patients with severe, symptomatic AS across all the risk categories. The current evidence supports TAVR as a frontline therapy for treating severe AS. The crucial question remains concerning the subset of patients who still are not ideal candidates for TAVR because of certain inherent anatomic, nonmodifiable, and procedure-specific factors. Therefore, in this study, we focus on these scenarios and reasons for referring selected patients for surgical aortic valve replacement in 2023.

Long-Term Valve Durability in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

AIMS

To evaluate the long-term incidence of structural valve deterioration (SVD) in patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

METHOD AND RESULTS

Between 2008 and 2018, 693 underwent TAVI at two centres. Four hundred and twenty-one (421) patients (mean age 83.6±6.0 yrs) survived for ≥2 years post TAVI and had at least two consecutive transthoracic echocardiographies (TTEs) with the latest TTE no less than 2 years after TAVI, and were therefore included in the analysis for SVD. Median follow-up was 4.7 (3.6-6.0) years and median echocardiography follow-up 3 (3.0-4.0) years. All-cause mortality was 30.9% (130) with a median time to death of 4.1 (3.0-5.6) years. The cumulative incidence of SVD increased from 1.7% (95% CI, 0.4-2.9) at 3 years to 3.5% (95% CI, 1.5-5.8) at 5 years and 4.7% (95% CI, 1.6-7.9) at 10 years. The overall median time to SVD was 3 (2-4) years. Twelve (12) patients demonstrated SVD stage 2, and 1 patient stage 3. No SVD required re-intervention. All other patients showed no significant changes in valve parameters over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Structural valve deterioration is an uncommon event, occurring in 5% over a total follow-up of 10 years. Most patients show stable valve parameters. However, the analysis is limited by the loss of follow-up (owing to patient mortality), which renders extrapolation of the data to a younger patient population difficult.

Long-term outcomes of balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement in Japanese patients

BACKGROUND

Data on long-term outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in Japanese patients beyond 5 years are limited.

METHODS

Between June 2010 and December 2014, 55 consecutive inoperable or high surgical risk patients underwent TAVR with SAPIEN XT valves (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) for severe aortic stenosis at our institution. Among them, 2 patients were excluded from the analysis because one was converted to open surgery during the TAVR procedure and the other could not undergo TAVR due to device delivery failure. We retrospectively analyzed long-term clinical outcomes of these 53 patients (mean age: 84.1 years; mean STS score: 8.4) who had at least a 7-year follow-up after TAVR.

RESULTS

The rates of freedom from all-cause and cardiovascular deaths at 7 years were 35.8 % and 79.3 %, respectively. The moderate or severe structural valve deterioration (SVD) rate at 5 and 7 years was 7.2 % and 11.4 %, respectively. The rate of bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) at 7 years was 6.2 %.

CONCLUSIONS

The 7-year mortality rate of inoperable or high surgical risk patients treated with SAPIEN XT was high, while the cardiovascular mortality rate was acceptable. Although the poor survival rate limited the long-term assessment of SAPIEN XT valve durability, the incidence of SVD and BVF was not rare.

Real-World Comparison of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in the Era of Current-Generation Devices

Few studies have reported comparisons of out-of-hospital clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) in the era of current-generation valves that reflect the real-world situation. Data on patients with severe AS aged 65 years or older who underwent TAVR or SAVR between 2015 and 2018 were obtained from the National Health Insurance Service in Korea and clinical event rate was analyzed. The primary endpoint was all-cause death at 1 year. The cohort included a total of 4623 patients over 65 years of age, of whom 1269 (27.4%) were treated with TAVR. After 1:1 propensity score matching, 2120 patients were included in the study. TAVR was associated with reduced 1-year mortality (hazard ratio (HR): 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42−0.70; p < 0.001). There was no difference between the groups in the incidence of ischemic stroke (HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.43−1.20; p = 0.21) and intracranial hemorrhage (HR: 1.10; p = 0.74). Permanent pacemaker insertion was observed more frequently in the TAVR cohort (9.4% vs. 2.5%, HR: 3.95, 95% CI: 2.57−6.09; p < 0.001), whereas repeat procedures were rare in both treatments (0.5% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.499). In the nation-wide real-world data analysis, TAVR with current-generation devices showed significantly lower 1-year mortality compared to SAVR in severe AS patients.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Long-Term Outcomes and Durability

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the standard of care in symptomatic older patients with severe aortic stenosis regardless of surgical risk. With the development of newer generation transcatheter bioprostheses, improved delivery systems, better preprocedure planning with imaging guidance, increased operator experience, shorter hospital length of stay, and low short- and mid-term complication rates, TAVI is gaining popularity among younger patients at low or intermediate surgical risk. Long-term outcomes and durability of transcatheter heart valves have become substantially important for this younger population due to their longer life expectancy. The lack of standardized definitions of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and disagreement about how to account for the competing risks made comparison of transcatheter heart valves with surgical bioprostheses challenging until recently. In this review, the authors discuss the mid- to long-term (≥ 5 years) clinical outcomes observed in the landmark TAVI trials and analyze the available long-term durability data emphasizing the importance of using standardized definitions of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction.

Long-term survival after surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement for low or intermediate surgical risk aortic stenosis: Comparison with general population

BACKGROUND

Long-term survival after surgery for severe aortic stenosis (AS) provides important information regarding the choice between surgical (SAVR) and transcatheter (TAVR) aortic valve replacement. This study investigated the long-term survival of AS patients with low or intermediate surgical risk who underwent SAVR or TAVR in our institution versus that of the Japanese general population.

METHODS

From 2009 to 2019, 1276 consecutive patients underwent SAVR or TAVR for severe AS. Among them, we retrospectively investigated those with low (n = 383) or intermediate (n = 137) surgical risk treated with SAVR and those with low (n = 86) or intermediate (n = 333) surgical risk treated with TAVR. Their post-intervention survival was compared with that of an age- and gender-matched Japanese general population.

RESULTS

The overall 5-year survival rate of SAVR for patients with low surgical risk (mean age, 72 ± 9 years) was not significantly different from that of the general population (90 % vs. 89 %, respectively; p = 0.58), whereas that of patients with intermediate surgical risk (77 ± 6 years) was significantly lower than that of the general population (77 % vs. 84 %, respectively; p = 0.03). After TAVR, the 5-year survival of patients with low (78 ± 8 years) or intermediate (83 ± 5 years) surgical risk was significantly lower than that of the general population (low risk, 64 % vs. 81 %, p < 0.01; intermediate risk, 66 % vs. 71 %, respectively, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that long-term survival after SAVR for AS patients with low surgical risk was as good as that of the age- and gender-matched general population, while the long-term survival after SAVR for intermediate-risk or TAVR for low- or intermediate-risk patients was lower than that of the general population. These findings suggest that SAVR is an appropriate option for AS patients with low surgical risk and good life expectancy, especially in Japan, where the life expectancy is the longest worldwide.

Surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch on outcomes

BACKGROUND

The hemodynamics of most prosthetic valves are often inferior to that of the normal native valve, and a significant proportion of patients undergoing surgical (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have high residual transaortic pressure gradients due to prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM). As the experience with TAVR has increased and long-term outcomes are reported, a close look at the PPM literature is required in light of new evidence.

METHODS

For this review, we searched the Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases from 2000 to 2022. Articles reporting PPM as an outcome following aortic valve replacements were identified and reviewed.

RESULTS

The impact of PPM on clinical outcomes in aortic valve replacement has not been clear as multiple studies failed to report PPM incidence. However, the PPM outcomes after SAVR vary more widely than after TAVR, ranging from 8% to 80% in SAVR and from 24% to 35% in TAVR. Incidence of severe PPM following redo SAVR ranges from 2% to 9% and following valve-in-valve TAVR is from 14% to 33%, however, while PPM is higher in valve-in-valve TAVR, patients had better survival rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The gap between valve performance and clinical outcomes in SAVR and TAVR could be reduced by carefully selecting patients for either treatment option. Understanding predictors of PPM can add to the safety, effectiveness, and increased survival benefit of both SAVR and TAVR.

Incidence and mechanisms of bioprosthetic dysfunction after transcatheter implantation of a mechanically-expandable heart valve

BACKGROUND

The mechanically-expandable transcatheter valve is no longer commercially available, yet clinical and echocardiographic surveillance is imperative for thousands of patients who received transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with this platform.

AIMS

We aimed to determine the incidence and mechanism of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) following TAVI with mechanically-expandable valves.

METHODS

From 2013 to 2020, all 234 patients who underwent TAVI with the LOTUS valve were included. BVD was categorised as (i) structural valve deterioration (SVD), (ii) non-structural valve dysfunction (NSVD), (iii) clinical valve thrombosis and (iv) endocarditis, according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria.

RESULTS

The mean age was 79±7 years, 60% were male, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 4.2±2.9%. The technical success rate was 94% and the 30-day device success rate was 78%. All-cause mortality at 1 year was 15%; median follow-up duration was 36 (IQR 18-60) months during which 47% of patients died. One hundred and three patients had ≥1 type of BVD (44%), which predominantly consisted of NSVD (39%, mostly because of ≥moderate patient-prosthesis mismatch). BVD during follow-up included endocarditis (3.4%), clinical valve thrombosis (3.4%) and SVD (1.3%). Both endocarditis and clinically apparent valve thrombosis occurred early and late after TAVI and resulted in valve-related deaths in 38% and 13% of patients, respectively. Overall, ≥moderate haemodynamic valve deterioration occurred in 5.5% and bioprosthetic failure in 7.3%, leading to valve-related deaths in 36% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

BVD represents a relevant health issue after TAVI with a mechanically-expandable valve. Serious but reversible causes of BVD include endocarditis and clinically apparent valve thrombosis, both carrying a time-independent hazard post-TAVI.

Midterm Durability and Structural Valve Degeneration of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in a Federal Facility

OBJECTIVE

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), previously reserved for patients of intermediate to prohibitive surgical risk, has now been expanded to patients of any surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis. Bioprostheses are prone to structural valve degeneration (SVD), a progressive and multifactorial process that limits valve durability. As the population undergoing TAVR shifts toward a lower-risk and younger profile, long-term durability is a crucial determinant for patient outcomes. Our objective was to determine the incidence and risk factors of SVD at midterm follow-up in a veteran TAVR population.

METHODS

Patients undergoing TAVR at our federal facility were retrospectively evaluated for SVD and other endpoints with standardized consensus criteria. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to evaluate risk factors for mortality and SVD.

RESULTS

From 2013 to 2020, 344 patients (median age, 78 years) underwent TAVR. Survival from all-cause mortality was 91.3% at 1 year, 75.1% at 3 years, and 61.7% at 5 years. Cumulative freedom from SVD was 98.2% at 1 year, 96.5% at 3 years, and 93.7% at 5 years. All 13 patients with SVD met hemodynamic criteria, and 1 required intervention. Median time to hemodynamic SVD was 1.04 years. Independent risk factors for SVD included age (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.86 to 0.99) and valve size (HR = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

SVD was evident at a low but detectable rate at 5-year follow-up. Further understanding of TAVR biomechanics as well as continued longer-term follow-up will be essential for informing patient-specific risk of SVD.

Incidence, causes, correlates, and outcome of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure following transcatheter aortic valve implantation

AIMS

Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) is a major concern regarding transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) durability. We aimed to assess incidence, correlates, causes, and outcome of early to mid-term BVD after TAVI in relation to patient's life expectancy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive TAVI recipients (2007-20) with a follow-up ≥1 year were prospectively included. BVD and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) were assessed according to Valve-Academic-Research-Consortium-3. BVD/BVF and all-cause death served as endpoints. Average life expectancy was calculated from National Open Health Data and patients were stratified according to tertiles (1st: <6.85 years, 2nd: 6.85-9.7 years, 3rd: >9.7 years). Of 1047 patients (81.6 ± 6.8 years old, EuroSCORE II 4.5 ± 2.5), ≥2 follow ups were available from 622 (serial echo cohort). After a median echo follow up of 12.2 months, incidence rates of BVD/BVF were 8.4% (95% confidence interval 6.7-10.3), and 3.5% (2.5-4.9) per valve-year, respectively, without differences between life expectancy tertiles. The incidence of BVD was two-fold higher within the first year of implant (9.9% per valve-year) vs. beyond (4.8% per valve-year). Valve-in-valve procedure and residual stenosis, but not age/life expectancy predisposed for BVD. BVD/BVF were independently associated with outcome for patients in the first [adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) 1.72 (1.06-2.88)/2.97 (1.72-6.22)] and second [AHR 1.96 (1.02-3.73)/2.31 (1.00-5.30)], but not the third tertile of life expectancy (P = n.s.).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large prospective observational cohort, early to mid-term BVD after TAVI occurred at the same rate across the spectrum of life expectancy and was associated with increased mortality in patients with short but not in those with the longest life expectancy.

Evolving Devices and Material in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: What to Use and for Whom

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the treatment of aortic stenosis, providing a viable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients deemed to be at prohibitive surgical risk, but also for selected patients at intermediate or low surgical risk. Nonetheless, there still exist uncertainties regarding the optimal management of patients undergoing TAVR. The selection of the optimal bioprosthetic valve for each patient represents one of the most challenging dilemmas for clinicians, given the large number of currently available devices. Limited follow-up data from landmark clinical trials comparing TAVR with SAVR, coupled with the typically elderly and frail population of patients undergoing TAVR, has led to inconclusive data on valve durability. Recommendations about the use of one device over another in given each patient’s clinical and procedural characteristics are largely based on expert consensus. This review aims to evaluate the available evidence on the performance of different devices in the presence of specific clinical and anatomic features, with a focus on patient, procedural, and device features that have demonstrated a relevant impact on the risk of poor hemodynamic valve performance and adverse clinical events.

Surgical Management of Complex Aortic Valve Disease in Young Adults: Repair, Replacement, and Future Alternatives

The ideal aortic valve substitute in young adults remains unknown. Prosthetic valves are associated with a suboptimal survival and carry a significant risk of valve-related complications in young patients, mainly reinterventions with tissue valves and, thromboembolic events and major bleeding with mechanical prostheses. The Ross procedure is the only substitute that restores a survival curve similar to that of a matched general population, and permits a normal life without functional limitations. Though the risk of reintervention is the Achilles' heel of this procedure, it is very low in patients with aortic stenosis and can be mitigated in patients with aortic regurgitation by tailored surgical techniques. Finally, the Ozaki procedure and the transcatheter aortic valve implantation are seen by many as future alternatives but lack evidence and long-term follow-up in this specific patient population.

TAVR for All? The Surgical Perspective

In spite of the noninferiority of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in high- and intermediate-risk patients, there are still obstacles that need to be overcome before the procedure is further expanded and clinically integrated. The lack of evidence on the long-term durability of the bioprostheses used for TAVR remains of particular concern. In addition, surgery may be preferred over TAVR in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) or with concomitant pathologies such as other valve diseases (mitral regurgitation/tricuspid regurgitation), aortopathy, and coronary artery disease. In this review, we discuss and summarize relevant data from clinical trials, current trends, and remaining obstacles, and provide our perspective on the indications for the expansion of TAVR.

Surgical aortic valve replacement with a stented pericardial bioprosthesis: 5-year outcomes

OBJECTIVES

This analysis evaluated the safety, durability, and haemodynamic performance of a stented bovine pericardial valve through 5 years of follow-up in patients with an indication for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

METHODS

Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate the incidence of survival and valve-related thromboembolism, major paravalvular leak (PVL), endocarditis, structural valve deterioration (SVD), and reintervention. Mean aortic gradient and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class were also evaluated.

RESULTS

1118 patients have received the Avalus valve (Medtronic); 564 have completed 5-year follow-up. Median follow-up was 4.85 years (4810 patient-years total follow-up). At baseline, mean age was 70.2 ± 9.0 years; 75.1% of patients were male. STS predicted risk of mortality was 2.0 ± 1.4%. Most patients were in NYHA class II (46.8%) or III (40.3%). At 5 years follow-up, the overall Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 88.1% (85.9-90.0%). The Kaplan-Meier event rates were 5.6% (4.3-7.2%) for thromboembolism, 4.4% (3.2-6.0%) for endocarditis, 0.2% (0.0-0.7%) for major PVL, and 3.2% (2.3-4.6%) for reintervention. There were no cases of SVD. Mean gradient decreased from 42.1 ± 17.1 mmHg at baseline, to 13.1 ± 4.7 mmHg at discharge, and remained stable at 12.5 ± 4.6 mmHg at 5 years. More than 95% of patients were in NYHA class I/II 5 years after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of a high survival rate, excellent safety, no SVD, and stable haemodynamic performance and functional status through 5 years of follow-up are encouraging. Additional follow-up is needed to assess the long-term durability of this contemporary surgical bioprosthesis.

Biomechanics of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implant

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has grown exponentially within the cardiology and cardiac surgical spheres. It has now become a routine approach for treating aortic stenosis. Several concerns have been raised about TAVI in comparison to conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The primary concerns regard the longevity of the valves. Several factors have been identified which may predict poor outcomes following TAVI. To this end, the lesser-used finite element analysis (FEA) was used to quantify the properties of calcifications which affect TAVI valves. This method can also be used in conjunction with other integrated software to ascertain the functionality of these valves. Other imaging modalities such as multi-detector row computed tomography (MDCT) are now widely available, which can accurately size aortic valve annuli. This may help reduce the incidence of paravalvular leaks and regurgitation which may necessitate further intervention. Structural valve degeneration (SVD) remains a key factor, with varying results from current studies. The true incidence of SVD in TAVI compared to SAVR remains unclear due to the lack of long-term data. It is now widely accepted that both are part of the armamentarium and are not mutually exclusive. Decision making in terms of appropriate interventions should be undertaken via shared decision making involving heart teams.

Commissural Alignment After Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Is Associated With Improved Hemodynamic Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is generally performed without control over the alignment of the bioprosthesis to the native aortic valve (AV) commissures. Data on the impact of commissural misalignment (CMA) on the clinical and hemodynamic outcome after TAVR are scarce.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of commissural misalignment (CMA) on the clinical and hemodynamic outcome in patients with severe tricuspid aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR using the balloon-expandable (BE) SAPIEN 3 valve (Edwards LifeSciences).

METHODS

Clinical data of consecutive patients who underwent BE TAVR at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Los Angeles, California, USA) enrolled in the RESOLVE (Assessment of TRanscathetER and Surgical Aortic BiOprosthetic Valve Thrombosis and Its TrEatment With Anticoagulation) registry were retrospectively analyzed to evaluate CMA, which was defined as a neocommissure position >30° compared with native commissures on computed tomography.

RESULTS

A total of 324 patients (36.6% female, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 3.9%) were included in the analysis. CMA was present in 171 individuals (52.8%). At 30 days, rates of aortic regurgitation greater than mild (5.6%) and a residual AV gradient ≥20 mm Hg (7.4%) were not different between CMA and non-CMA patients. Commissural orientation was independently associated with a relative AV mean gradient increase >50% from discharge to 30 days (per increase of 10° misalignment; OR: 1.3; 95% CI: 1.0-1.4; P = 0.01). The long-term composite outcome of death or stroke was not different between groups (log-rank P = 0.29).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe tricuspid aortic stenosis who undergo SAPIEN 3 TAVR, the neocommissures align randomly. Our data demonstrate that commissural alignment may impact device performance and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing BE TAVR. (Assessment of TRanscathetEr and Surgical Aortic BiOprosthetic VaLVve Dysfunction with Multimodality Imaging and Its TrEatment with Anticoagulation [RESOLVE]; NCT02318342).

10-Year Impact of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Leaflet Design (Intra- Versus Supra-Annular) in Mortality and Hemodynamic Performance

Background

The impact of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) leaflet design on long-term device performance is still unknown. This study sought to compare the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of intra- (IA) versus supra-annular (SA) TAVR designs up-to 10-years following implantation.

Methods

Consecutive patients with at least 5-years follow-up following TAVR for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis from June 2007 to December 2016 were included. Bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) and hemodynamic valve deterioration (HVD) were defined according to VARC-3 updated definitions and estimated using cumulative incidence function to account for the competing risk of death.

Results

A total of 604 patients (82 years; 53% female) were analyzed and divided into IA (482) and SA (122) groups. Overall survival rates at 10-years were similar (IA 15%, 95%CI: 10-22; SA 11%, 95%CI: 6-20; p = 0.21). Compared to the SA TAVR, mean transaortic gradients were significantly higher and increased over time in the IA group. IA TAVRs showed higher 10-year cumulative incidences of BVF (IA 8% vs. SA 1%, p = 0.02) and severe HVD (IA 5% vs. SA 1%, p = 0.05). The occurrence of BVF and HVD in the IA group occurred primarily in the smallest TAVR devices (20-23-mm). After excluding these sizes, the cumulative incidences of BVF (IA 5% vs. SA 1%, p = 0.40) and severe HVD (IA 2% vs. SA 1%, p = 0.11) were similar.

Conclusion

In this study, TAVR leaflet design had no impact on survival at 10-years. IA devices showed higher transaortic gradients and cumulative incidences of HVD and BVF predominantly occurring in the smallest valve sizes.

Valve-in-valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Failed Surgical Valves and Adjunctive Therapies

While redo surgical aortic valve replacement has traditionally been the gold standard for the treatment of failed surgical valves, valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has arisen as a viable, less invasive option with the potential for improved short-term morbidity and mortality. Retrospective registry data regarding ViV TAVR outcomes have been encouraging, with excellent 1-year mortality, and sustained valve performance and quality of life improvement out to 3 years. Operators must be comfortable with CT analysis for procedural planning, and be able to identify and troubleshoot patients who are at risk for coronary obstruction and patient prosthesis mismatch. The authors provide a review of clinical outcomes associated with ViV TAVR, procedural planning recommendations, and strategies to overcome technical challenges that can occur during ViV TAVR.