Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Outside Randomized Trials

Complete transcatheter versus surgical approach to aortic stenosis with coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched through November 2021 to identify studies comparing TAVR + PCI and SAVR + CABG for severe aortic stenosis with concurrent coronary artery disease. Outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, repeat coronary intervention, rehospitalization, myocardial infarction, and stroke during follow-up, and 30-day periprocedural outcomes.

RESULTS

Two randomized controlled trials and 6 observational studies including a total of 104,220 patients (TAVR + PCI, n = 5004; SAVR + CABG, n = 99,216) were included. The weighted mean follow-up period was 30.2 months. TAVR + PCI was associated with greater all-cause mortality and coronary reintervention during follow-up period (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.65; P = .003, hazard ratio, 4.14; 95% CI, 1.74-9.86; P = .001, respectively), 30-day permanent pacemaker implantation rate (odds ratio [OR], 3.79; 95% CI, 1.61-8.95; P = .002), and periprocedural vascular complications (OR, 6.97; 95% CI, 1.85-26.30; P = .004). In contrast, TAVR + PCI was associated with a lower rate of 30-day acute kidney injury (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20-0.50; P = .0001). Rehospitalization, myocardial infarction, stroke during follow-up, and other periprocedural outcomes including 30-day mortality were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease, TAVR + PCI was associated with greater all-cause mortality at follow-up compared with SAVR + CABG. Heart Team approach to assess TAVR candidacy remains imperative.

Midterm Survival of Low-Risk Patients Treated With Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data

Background We performed a meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies comparing transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR versus SAVR) to evaluate midterm outcomes in patients considered low risk for SAVR. Methods and Results Study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of RCTs and PSM studies published by December 31, 2022 was conducted. Eight studies (3 RCTs, 5 PSM studies) met our eligibility criteria and included 5444 patients; 2639 patients underwent TAVR, and 2805 patients underwent SAVR. TAVR showed a higher risk of all-cause mortality at 8 years of follow-up (hazard ratio [HR] 1.22, [95% CI, 1.03-1.43], P=0.018). Up to 2 years of follow-up, TAVR was not inferior to SAVR (HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.89-1.31], P=0.448); however, we observed a statistically significant difference after 2 years with higher mortality with TAVR (HR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.14-2.00]; P=0.004). This difference was driven by PSM studies; our sensitivity analysis showed a statistically significant difference between TAVR and SAVR when we included only PSM studies (HR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.16-1.72], P=0.001) but no statistically significant difference when we included only RCTs (HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.69-1.16], P=0.398). Conclusions In comparison with TAVR, SAVR appeared to be associated with improved survival beyond 2 years in low-risk patients. However, the survival benefit of SAVR was observed only in PSM studies and not in RCTs. The addition of data from ongoing RCTs as well as longer follow-up in previous RCTs will help to confirm if there is a difference in mid- and long-term survival between TAVR versus SAVR in the low-risk population.

Sutureless and Rapid Deployment vs. Transcatheter Valves for Aortic Stenosis in Low-Risk Patients: Mid-Term Results

BACKGROUND

Recent trials showed that TAVI is neither inferior nor superior to surgical aortic valve replacement. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Valves (SuRD-AVR) when compared to TAVI in low surgical risk patients with isolated aortic stenosis.

METHODS

Data from five European Centers were retrospectively collected. We included 1306 consecutive patients at low surgical risk (EUROSCORE II < 4) who underwent aortic valve replacement by means of SuRD-AVR (n = 636) or TAVI (n = 670) from 2014 to 2019. A 1:1 nearest-neighbor propensity-score was performed, and two balanced groups of 346 patients each were obtained. The primary endpoints of the study were: 30-day mortality and 5-year overall survival. The secondary endpoint was 5-year survival freedom from major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs).

RESULTS

Thirty-day mortality was similar between the two groups (SuRD-AVR:1.7%, TAVI:2.0%, p = 0.779), while the TAVI group showed a significantly lower 5-year overall survival and survival freedom from MACCEs (5-year matched overall survival: SuRD-AVR: 78.5%, TAVI: 62.9%, p = 0.039; 5-year matched freedom from MACCEs: SuRD-AVR: 64.6%, TAVI: 48.7%, p = 0.004). The incidence of postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) and paravalvular leak grade ≥ 2 (PVL) were higher in the TAVI group. Multivariate Cox Regression analysis identified PPI as an independent predictor for mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVI patients had a significantly lower five-year survival and survival freedom from MACCEs with a higher rate of PPI and PVL ≥ 2 when compared to SuRD-AVR.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Impact of Subclinical Leaflet Thrombosis in Low-Risk Patients: LRT Trial 4-Year Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The LRT trial (Low-Risk Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement [TAVR]) demonstrated the safety and feasibility of TAVR in low-risk patients, with excellent 1- and 2-year outcomes. The objective of the current study is to provide the overall clinical outcomes and the impact of 30-day hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT) on structural valve deterioration at 4 years.

METHODS

The prospective, multicenter LRT trial was the first Food and Drug Administration-approved investigational device exemption study to evaluate feasibility and safety of TAVR in low-risk patients with symptomatic severe tricuspid aortic stenosis. Clinical outcomes and valve hemodynamics were documented annually through 4 years.

RESULTS

A total of 200 patients were enrolled, and follow-up was available on 177 patients at 4 years. The rates of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death were 11.9% and 3.3%, respectively. The stroke rate rose from 0.5% at 30 days to 7.5% at 4 years, and permanent pacemaker implantation rose from 6.5% at 30 days to 11.7% at 4 years. Endocarditis was detected in 2.5% of the cohort, with no new cases reported between 2 and 4 years. Transcatheter heart valve hemodynamics remained excellent post-procedure and were maintained (mean gradient 12.56±5.54 mm Hg and aortic valve area 1.69±0.52 cm²) at 4 years. At 30 days, HALT was observed in 14% of subjects who received a balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve. There was no difference in valve hemodynamics between patients with and without HALT (mean gradient 14.94±5.01 mm Hg versus 12.3±5.57 mm Hg; P=0.23) at 4 years. The overall rate of structural valve deterioration was 5.8%, and there was no impact of HALT on valve hemodynamics, endocarditis, or stroke at 4 years.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR in low-risk patients with symptomatic severe tricuspid aortic stenosis was found to be safe and durable at 4 years. Structural valve deterioration rates were low irrespective of the type of valve, and the presence of HALT at 30 days did not affect structural valve deterioration, transcatheter valve hemodynamics, and stroke rate at 4 years.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT02628899.

Comparison of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement long-term outcomes: a retrospective cohort study with overlap propensity score weighting

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Randomised controlled trials comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) were performed in highly selected populations and data regarding long-term secondary complications beyond mortality are scarce. This study used data from Ontario, Canada to compare mid-term and long-term clinical outcomes in a representative real-world cohort of patients who underwent TAVR and SAVR from 2007 to 2016.

METHODS

A novel overlap weighting propensity score method was used to match patients undergoing TAVR or SAVR. Primary outcomes were all-cause, cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality either in-hospital or at 1, 3 and 5 years postdischarge. Secondary outcomes included adverse outcomes and readmission. Long-term primary and secondary outcomes were compared using a weighted competing risks subdistribution proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

The study included 9355 SAVR and 2641 TAVR patients. All-cause mortality at 1 year (HR 1.21; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43), 3 years (HR 1.45; 95% CI 1.28 to 1.64) and 5 years (HR 1.48; 95% CI 1.33 to 1.65) was significantly higher among patients underwent TAVR compared with SAVR, with both cardiovascular mortality at 3 and 5 years and non-cardiovascular mortality at 1, 3 and 5 years significantly higher for TAVR. Hazards of myocardial infarction and readmission for angina at 1, 3 and 5 years were significantly greater for TAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

In this overlap weighted cohort, both cardiac and non-cardiac mortality rates were increased in TAVR patients. Residual or unmeasured confounding may have contributed to these findings. More studies are needed to identify factors predictive of long-term outcomes in real-world cohorts.

Comparison of patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve in transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a safe and effective alternative to surgery for aortic stenosis (AS). However, there are still differences in the procedural process and outcome of bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) treated with TAVI compared with tricuspid aortic valve.

AREAS COVERED

This review paper aims to summarize the main characteristics and clinical evidence of TAVI in patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves and compare the outcomes of TAVI procedure.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of TAVI in patients with BAV has shown similar clinical outcomes compared with tricuspid aortic valve. The efficacy of TAVI for challenging BAV anatomies remains a concern due to the lack of randomized trials. Detailed preprocedural planning is of great importance in low-surgical-risk BAV patients. A better understanding of which subtypes of BAV anatomy are at greater risk for adverse outcomes can potentially benefit the selection of TAVI or open-heart surgery in low surgical risk AS patients.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with bicuspid valve morphology: a roadmap towards standardization

Indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have expanded in many countries to include patients with aortic stenosis who are at low surgical risk, and a similar expansion to this cohort is anticipated elsewhere in the world, together with an increase in the proportion of patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) morphology as the age of the patients being treated decreases. To date, patients with BAV have been excluded from major randomized trials of TAVI owing to anatomical considerations. As a consequence, BAV has been a relative contraindication to the use of TAVI in international guidelines. Although clinical experience and observational data are accumulating, BAV presents numerous anatomical challenges for successful TAVI, despite advances in device design. Furthermore, in those with BAV, substantial geographical variation exists in patient characteristics, clinical approach and procedural strategy. Therefore, in this Roadmap article, we summarize the existing evidence and provide consensus recommendations from an international group of experts on the application of TAVI in patients with BAV in advance of the anticipated growth in the use of this procedure in this challenging cohort of patients.

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Complex Coronary Artery Disease

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare, in a cohort of patients with complex coronary artery disease (CAD) and severe aortic stenosis (AS), the clinical outcomes associated with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (plus percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) (plus coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]).

BACKGROUND

Patients with complex CAD were excluded from the main randomized trials comparing TAVR with SAVR, and no data exist comparing TAVR + PCI vs SAVR + CABG in such patients.

METHODS

A multicenter study was conducted including consecutive patients with severe AS and complex CAD (SYNTAX [Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery] score >22 or unprotected left main disease). A 1:1 propensity-matched analysis was performed to account for unbalanced covariates. The rates of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), including all-cause mortality, nonprocedural myocardial infarction, need for new coronary revascularization, and stroke, were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 800 patients (598 undergoing SAVR + CABG and 202 undergoing transfemoral TAVR + PCI) were included, and after propensity matching, a total of 156 pairs of patients were generated. After a median follow-up period of 3 years (interquartile range: 1-6 years), there were no significant differences between groups for MACCE (HR for transfemoral TAVR vs SAVR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.89-1.98), all-cause mortality (HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.81-1.94), myocardial infarction (HR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.41-3.27), and stroke (HR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.13-1.32), but there was a higher rate of new coronary revascularization in the TAVR + PCI group (HR: 5.38; 95% CI: 1.73-16.7).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe AS and complex CAD, TAVR + PCI and SAVR + CABG were associated with similar rates of MACCE after a median follow-up period of 3 years, but TAVR + PCI recipients exhibited a higher risk for repeat coronary revascularization. Future trials are warranted.

Device profile of the SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve in low-risk patients with aortic stenosis: overview of its safety and efficacy

INTRODUCTION

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a treatment of reference for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, and the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 and SAPIEN 3 Ultra transcatheter heart valve systems are two of the most broadly used worldwide. Lately, TAVR has progressively expanded toward the treatment of low-risk patients.

AREAS COVERED

In this review we aimed to describe the main characteristics of the SAPIEN 3 valve, and to delineate the main clinical findings regarding the safety and efficacy associated with this THV system in low-risk patients undergoing TAVR.

EXPERT OPINION

The approval of THV systems for use in low-risk patients has been a significant step forward in expanding current TAVR indications. Along with procedural refinement and growing operator experience, device iterations implemented in new-generation THV systems have played a vital role in the successful spread of TAVR. The availability of SAPIEN 3 represented an inflection point, as it allows for a predictable positioning and safer navigability while dramatically decreasing the rate of residual paravalvular leakage compared to previous balloon-expandable systems. However, some unresolved issues remain like the relatively high rates of conduction disturbances and the uncertainty about valve performance in the long-term. Future studies are warranted.