Outcomes 2 Years After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients at Low Surgical Risk

Acute Aortic Dissection After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Acute aortic dissection (AAD) is a rare and potentially fatal complication associated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Owing to the paucity of existing institutional data, we sought to assess the incidence of postimplant AAD in patients who underwent TAVR at a single institution. All patients who underwent TAVR from 2013 to 2022 were retrospectively reviewed to identify those who possessed clinical or radiologic evidence of AAD after TAVR. Follow-up and survival data were retrieved for all included patients. A total of 4,317 patients underwent TAVR, of whom 9 (0.2%) sustained an AAD. These patients had a mean age of 80 years (range 53 to 92), mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons 30-day mortality risk of 5.7% (2.4% to 16.7%), and mean effective aortic valve area of 0.8 cm2 (0.4 to 1.5 cm2). Preoperative maximum aortic diameter was 3.9 cm (2.6 to 4 cm). Of these 9 patients, 6 (67%) showed evidence of Stanford type A dissection, whereas 3 (33%) were diagnosed with Stanford type B dissection. The most common causes of dissection were posterior annular rupture by the transcatheter valve (THV) (44%) and THV embolization or "pop-out" into the ascending aorta (22%). A total of 6 patients (66.7%), comprising 5 type A (55.6%) and 1 type B (11.1%) aortic dissections, died within 30 days of AAD. The median time to follow-up in those surviving TAVR with intraoperative AAD was 1,042 days (range: 648 to 2,666). Surviving patients were managed through thoracic endovascular aortic repair and medical management. In conclusion, in this highly selected cohort of patients, our experience indicates that AAD after TAVR is a rare but often lethal intraprocedural sequela of THV implantation, especially in cases of type A aortic dissection.

Aortic valve replacement today: Outcomes, costs, and opportunities for improvement

The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) just two decades ago has transformed the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. TAVR has not only extended the option of aortic valve replacement to patients deemed ineligible for surgery, it has also demonstrated similar or better short- and intermediate-term clinical outcomes compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients at all levels of surgical risk. These benefits have been achieved with similar or lower costs compared with SAVR, at least in the first 1-2 years for intermediate- and low-risk patients. Longer-term data will further inform clinical and shared decision-making. SUMMARY FOR ANNOTATED TABLE OF CONTENTS: In just over two decades, transcatheter aortic valve replacement has emerged as a frontline approach for appropriately selected patients with severe aortic stenosis. A growing body of evidence documents similar or better clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness for transcatheter compared with surgical aortic valve replacement. Whether the mode is transcatheter or surgical, aortic valve replacement remains underutilized in patients with clear indications for intervention.

Heart failure hospitalization following surgical or transcatheter aortic valve implantation in low-risk aortic stenosis

AIMS

In low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), sutureless surgical aortic valve replacement (SU-SAVR) may be an alternative to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The risk of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) in this population is incompletely characterized. This study aims to investigate the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of HFH in patients undergoing SU-SAVR versus TAVI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients referred for AVR between 2013 and 2020 at two centres were consecutively included. The decision for SU-SAVR or TAVI was determined by a multidisciplinary Heart Team. Cox regression and competing risk analysis were conducted to assess adverse events. Of 594 patients (mean age 77.5 ± 6.4, 59.8% male), 424 underwent SU-SAVR, while 170 underwent TAVI. Following a mean follow-up of 34.1 ± 23.1 months, HFH occurred in 112 (27.8%) SU-SAVR patients and in 8 (4.8%) TAVI patients (P < 0.001). The SU-SAVR cohort exhibited higher all-cause mortality (138 [32.5%] patients compared with 30 [17.6%] in the TAVI cohort [P < 0.001]). These differences remained significant after sensitivity analyses with 1:1 propensity score matching for baseline variables. SU-SAVR with HFH was associated with increased all-cause mortality (61.6% vs. 23.1%, P < 0.001). Independent associates of HFH in SU-SAVR patients included diabetes, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lower glomerular filtration rate and lower left ventricular ejection fraction. SU-SAVR patients with HFH had a 12-month LVEF of 59.4 ± 12.7.

CONCLUSIONS

In low-risk AS, SU-SAVR is associated with a higher risk of HFH and all-cause mortality compared to TAVI. In patients with severe AS candidate to SU-SAVR or TAVI, TAVI may be the preferred intervention.

Readmission-related outcomes of surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients aged 65 or older with bicuspid aortic valve

BACKGROUND

There continues to be debate regarding the superiority of transcatheter (TAVR) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with bicuspid aortic valves (BAV). We aimed to compare outcomes during readmissions in elderly patients with BAV who underwent SAVR or TAVR.

METHODS

Patients 65 years or older with BAV who underwent TAVR or isolated SAVR were identified using the National Readmission Database from 2012 through 2018. We compared outcomes during readmissions within 90 days after discharge from the index surgery. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust the baseline differences.

RESULTS

During the study period, 8555 and 1081 elderly patients with BAV underwent SAVR and TAVR, respectively. The number of patients who underwent TAVR went up by 179 % from 2012 to 2018. Propensity score matching yielded 573 patients in each group. A total of 111 (19.4 %) in the SAVR group and 125 (21.8 %) in the TAVR group were readmitted within 90 days after the index surgery (p = .31). The mortality during the readmissions within 90 days was equivalent between the two groups (0.9 % in the SAVR group vs. 3.2 % in the TAVR group, p = .22). However, the median hospital cost was approximately doubled in the TAVR group during the readmission (18,250 dollars vs. 9310 dollars in the SAVR group, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Readmission within 90 days was common in both groups. While the mortality during the readmissions after the surgery was equivalent between the two groups, hospital cost was significantly more expensive in the TAVR group.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Surgical Risk Patients: An Updated Metanalysis of Extended Follow-Up Randomized Controlled Trials

The long-term safety and effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low surgical risk has not been evaluated in a pooled analysis. An electronic database search was conducted for randomized controlled trials with a maximal 5 years clinical and echocardiographic follow-up including low surgical risk patients who underwent TAVR or SAVR. We calculated odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model. Subgroups analysis was performed for permanent pacemaker implantation and paravalvular leaks. Three randomized controlled trials were included with a total of 2,611 low surgical risk patients (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score <4%). Compared with SAVR, the TAVR group had similar rates of all-cause mortality (OR 0.94,95% CI 0.65 to 1.37, p = 0.75) and disabling stroke (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.36, p = 0.48). No significant differences were registered in the TAVR group in terms of major cardiovascular events (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.38, p = 0.83), myocardial infarction (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.40, p = 0.31), valve thrombosis (OR 3.11, 95% CI 0.29 to 33.47, p = 0.35), endocarditis (OR 0.71,95% CI 0.35 to 1.48, p = 0.36), aortic valve reintervention (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.66, p = 0.80), and rehospitalization (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.02, p = 0.07) compared with SAVR. However, TAVR patients had a higher risk of paravalvular leaks (OR 8.21, 95% CI 4.18 to 16.14, p <0.00001), but lower rates of new-onset atrial fibrillation (OR 0.27,95% CI 0.17 to 0.30, p <0.0001). The rates of permanent pacemaker implantation were comparable from 1 year up to a maximum of 5 years (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.97, p = 0.18). Lastly, TAVR had a greater effective orifice area (0.10 cm2/m2, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.15, p = 0.0001), but similar transvalvular mean gradients (0.60, 95% CI 3.94 to 2.73, p = 0.72). In conclusion, TAVR patients had similar long-term outcomes compared with SAVR, except for an elevated risk of paravalvular leaks in the TAVR group and increased rates of atrial fibrillation in the SAVR cohort.

Comparison of ultrasound- versus fluoroscopy-guidEd femorAl access In tranS-catheter aortic valve replacement In the Era of contempoRary devices: The EASIER registry

BACKGROUND

Vascular complications (VCs) still represent one of the principal concerns of trans-femoral trans-catheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR). New-generation devices can minimize such complications but the arterial access management is left to the operator's choice. This study aims to describe the rate of VCs in a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing TAVR with new-generation devices and to determine whether an ultrasound-guided (USG) vs. a fluoroscopy-guided (FG) femoral access management has an impact on their prevention.

METHODS

This is a prospective, observational, multicenter study. Consecutive patients undergoing TAVR with new-generation devices were analyzed from January 2022 to October 2022 in five tertiary care centers. Femoral accesses were managed according to the operator's preferences. All the patients underwent a pre-discharge peripheral ultrasound control. VCs and bleedings were the main endpoints of interest.

RESULTS

A total of 458 consecutive patients were enrolled (274 in the USG group and 184 in the FG group). VCs occurred in 6.5 % of the patients (5.2 % minor and 1.3 % major). There was no difference between the USG and the FG groups in terms of any VCs (7.3 % vs. 5.4 %; p = 0.4), or any VARC-3 bleedings (6.9 % vs 6 %, p = 0.9). At logistic regression analysis, the two guidance strategies did not result as predictors of VCs (odds Ratio 0.8, 95 % Confidence Interval 0.46-1.4; P = 0.4).

CONCLUSIONS

In a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing TAVR with new-generation devices, the occurrence of VCs is low and mostly represented by minor VCs. USG and FG modalities did not affect the rate of VCs.

Assess the Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Bicuspid Valve with Mixed Disease versus Predominant Aortic Stenosis

Purpose

In mixed aortic valve disease (MAVD), the results of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are conflicting. There is limited data on the outcomes of TAVR in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and MAVD. The objective of this study is to compare outcomes after TAVR in BAV patients with MAVD and predominant aortic stenosis (PAS).

Patients and Methods

Patients with BAV who underwent TAVR between January 2016 and April 2023 were included. The primary outcome was device success. The secondary endpoints were periprocedural mortality and other complications as defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 (VARC-3). Propensity score matching was used to minimize potential confounding.

Results

A total of 262 patients were included in this study, 83 of whom had MAVD. The median age was 72 years, and 55.7% were male. The baseline comorbidity risk files were comparable between the two groups. Patients with MAVD had more mitral regurgitation, tricuspid regurgitation and pulmonary hypertension, larger annular and left ventricular outflow tract dimensions, and more severe calcification than PAS. In the unmatched population, MAVD patients had similar device success rate (69.9% vs 79.9%, P=0.075) and 30-day mortality (3.6% vs 3.4%, P=1) compared to PAS. Propensity score matching resulted in 66 patient pairs. Device success rate were still comparable in the matched population. Other clinical outcomes, including stroke, bleeding (type 2-4), major vascular complications, acute kidney injury (stage 2-4) and permanent pacemaker implantation, were comparable between the two groups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis did not show MAVD to be an independent negative predictor of device success. At one year, survival was similar between patients with MAVD and those with PAS.

Conclusion

For the bicuspid valve, patients with MAVD had a more challenging anatomy. MAVD patients associated with comparable 30-day clinical outcomes after TAVR compared to PAS patients in patients with BAV.

Complications in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A comprehensive analysis and management strategies

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) marks a significant advancement in treating aortic stenosis (AS), especially for patients with high surgical risks. This concise review outlines TAVR's development, its broader application to include lower-risk patients, and innovations in the device and procedural technology. Clinical trials, notably the PARTNER series, affirm TAVR's efficacy, showing it matches or surpasses surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in mortality reduction, hemodynamic benefits, and symptom alleviation, including heart failure. However, TAVR entails complications such as paravalvular leakage (PVL), conduction disorders, and increased cerebrovascular event risks. We evaluate these issues, their prevalence, causative factors, and clinical consequences, emphasizing improvements in valve design and technique that have significantly lowered PVL rates. The role of aortic valve anatomy and calcification in PVL and conduction issues is analyzed, underlining the necessity for meticulous patient selection and procedural planning. Further, the review delves into cerebrovascular event risks, their origins, and preventative strategies, including cerebral protection devices and the judicious use of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapies. TAVR presents a less invasive, promising alternative to SAVR, but requires careful complication management to optimize patient results. Ongoing innovation and research are vital for advancing TAVR's techniques, improving valve designs, and extending its reach, thereby enhancing AS patients' quality of life.

Short-Term Outcomes of ACURATE neo2

Inferior outcomes with ACURATE neo, a self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (THV) for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis, were mainly driven by higher rates of moderate/severe paravalvular leak (PVL). To overcome this limitation, the next-generation ACURATE neo2 features a 60% larger external sealing skirt. Data on long-term performance are limited; however, clinical evidence suggests improved short-term performance which is comparable to contemporary THVs. This report reviews data on short-term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of ACURATE neo2. A PubMed search yielded 13 studies, including 5 single arm and 8 nonrandomized comparative studies with other THVs which reported in-hospital or 30-day clinical and echocardiographic outcomes. In-hospital or 30-day all-cause mortality was ≤3.3%, which is comparable to other contemporary THVs. The rates of postprocedural ≧moderate PVL ranged 0.6%-4.7%. In multicenter propensity-matched analyses, neo2 significantly reduced the rate of ≧moderate PVL compared to neo (3.5% vs. 11.3%, p < 0.01), whereas rates were comparable to Evolut Pro/Pro+ (Neo2: 2.0% vs. Pro/Pro+: 3.1%, p = 0.28) and SAPIEN 3 Ultra (Neo2: 0.6% vs. Ultra: 1.1%, p = 0.72). The rate of permanent pacemaker implantation with neo2 was consistently low (3.3%-8.6%) except in one study, and in propensity-matched analyses were significantly lower than Evolut Pro/Pro+ (6.7% vs. 16.7%, p < 0.01), and comparable to SAPIEN 3 Ultra (8.1% vs. 10.3%, p = 0.29). In conclusion, ACURATE neo2 showed better short-term performance by considerably reducing PVL compared to its predecessor, with short-term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes comparable to contemporary THVs.

Valvular heart disease: from mechanisms to management

Valvular heart disease is common and its prevalence is rapidly increasing worldwide. Effective medical therapies are insufficient and treatment was historically limited to the surgical techniques of valve repair or replacement, resulting in systematic underprovision of care to older patients and those with substantial comorbidities, frailty, or left ventricular dysfunction. Advances in imaging and surgical techniques over the past 20 years have transformed the management of valvular heart disease. Better understanding of the mechanisms and causes of disease and an increasingly extensive and robust evidence base provide a platform for the delivery of individualised treatment by multidisciplinary heart teams working within networks of diagnostic facilities and specialist heart valve centres. In this Series paper, we aim to provide an overview of the current and future management of valvular heart disease and propose treatment approaches based on an understanding of the underlying pathophysiology and the application of multidisciplinary treatment strategies to individual patients.

Trends and Disparities in Valvular Heart Disease Mortality in the United States From 1999 to 2020

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous heart valve procedures have been increasingly performed over the past decade, yet real-world mortality data on valvular heart disease (VHD) in the United States remain limited.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We queried the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database among patients ≥15 years old from 1999 to 2020. VHD and its subtypes were listed as the underlying cause of death. We calculated age-adjusted mortality rate (AAMR) per 100 000 individuals and determined overall trends by estimating the average annual percent change using the Joinpoint regression program. Subgroup analyses were performed based on demographic and geographic factors. In the 22-year study, there were 446 096 VHD deaths, accounting for 0.80% of all-cause mortality (56 014 102 people) and 2.38% of the total cardiovascular mortality (18 759 451 people). Aortic stenosis recorded the highest mortality of VHD-related death in both male (109 529, 61.74%) and female (166 930, 62.13%) populations. The AAMR of VHD has declined from 8.4 (95% CI, 8.2-8.5) to 6.6 (95% CI, 6.5-6.7) per 100 000 population. Similar decreasing AAMR trends were also seen for the VHD subtypes. Men recorded higher AAMR for aortic stenosis and aortic regurgitation, whereas women had higher AAMR for mitral stenosis and mitral regurgitation. Mitral regurgitation had the highest change in average annual percent change in AAMR.

CONCLUSIONS

The mortality rate of VHD among the US population has declined over the past 2 decades. This highlights the likely efficacy of increasing surveillance and advancement in the management of VHD, resulting in improved outcomes.

The Clinical Challenge of Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis: JACC Focus Seminar 3/4

During the past 6 decades, there have been numerous changes in prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE), currently affecting an older population and increasing in incidence in patients with transcatheter-implanted valves. Significant microbiologic (molecular biology) and imaging diagnostic (fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography) advances have been incorporated into the 2023 Duke-International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases infective endocarditis diagnostic criteria, thus increasing the diagnostic sensitivity for PVE without sacrificing specificity in validation studies. PVE is a life-threatening disease requiring management by multidisciplinary endocarditis teams in cardiac centers to improve outcomes. Novel surgical options are now available, and an increasing set of patients may avoid surgical intervention despite indication. Selected patients may complete parenteral or oral antimicrobial treatment at home. Finally, patients with prosthetic valves implanted surgically or by the transcatheter approach are candidates for antibiotic prophylaxis before invasive dental procedures.

Predictors, clinical impact, and management strategies for conduction abnormalities after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: an updated review

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has increasingly become a safe, feasible, and widely accepted alternative surgical treatment for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. However, the incidence of conduction abnormalities associated with TAVR, including left bundle branch block (LBBB) and high-degree atrioventricular block (HAVB), remains high and is often correlated with risk factors such as the severity of valvular calcification, preexisting conditions in patients, and procedural factors. The existing research results on the impact of post-TAVR conduction abnormalities and permanent pacemaker (PPM) requirements on prognosis, including all-cause mortality and rehospitalization, remain contradictory, with varied management strategies for post-TAVR conduction system diseases across different institutions. This review integrates the latest research in the field, offering a comprehensive discussion of the mechanisms, risk factors, consequences, and management of post-TAVR conduction abnormalities. This study provides insights into optimizing patient prognosis and explores the potential of novel strategies, such as conduction system pacing, to minimize the risk of adverse clinical outcomes.

TransCatheter aortic valve implantation and fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention versus conventional surgical aortic valve replacement and coronary bypass grafting for treatment of patients with aortic valve stenosis and multivessel or advanced coronary disease: The transcatheter valve and vessels trial (TCW trial): Design and rationale

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) frequently present with concomitant obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). In those, current guidelines recommend combined coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) as the preferred treatment option, although this surgical approach is associated with a high rate of clinical events. Combined transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with or without FFR have evolved as a valid alternative for cardiac surgery in patients with AS and multivessel or advanced CAD. To date, no dedicated trial has prospectively evaluated the outcomes of a percutaneous versus surgical treatment for patients with both severe AS and CAD.

AIMS

To investigate whether fractional-flow reserve (FFR)-guided PCI and TAVI is noninferior to combined CABG and SAVR for the treatment of severe AS and multivessel or advanced CAD.

METHODS

The Transcatheter Valve and Vessels (TCW) trial (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT03424941) is a prospective, randomized, controlled, open label, international trial. Patients ≥ 70 years with severe AS and multivessel (≥ 2 vessels) or advanced CAD, deemed feasible by the heart team for both; a full percutaneous or surgical treatment, will be randomised in a 1:1 fashion to either FFR-guided PCI followed by TAVI (intervention arm) vs. CABG and SAVR (control arm). The primary endpoint is a patient-oriented composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, disabling stroke, unscheduled clinically-driven target vessel revascularization, valve reintervention, and life threatening or disabling bleeding at 1 year. The TCW trial is powered for noninferiority, and if met, superiority will be tested. Assuming a primary endpoint rate of 30% in the CABG-SAVR arm, with a significance level α of 5%, a noninferiority limit delta of 15% and a loss to follow-up of 2%, a total of 328 patients are needed to obtain a power of 90%. The primary endpoint analysis is performed on an intention-to-treat basis.

SUMMARY

The TCW Trial is the first prospective randomized trial that will study if a less invasive percutaneous treatment for severe AS and concomitant advanced CAD (i.e., FFR-guided PCI-TAVI) is noninferior to the guidelines recommended approach (CABG-SAVR).

Transcatheter or surgical aortic valve implantation: 10-year outcomes of the NOTION trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a viable treatment option for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis across a broad range of surgical risk. The Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention (NOTION) trial was the first to randomize patients at lower surgical risk to TAVI or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The aim of the present study was to report clinical and bioprosthesis outcomes after 10 years.

METHODS

The NOTION trial randomized 280 patients to TAVI with the self-expanding CoreValve (Medtronic Inc.) bioprosthesis (n = 145) or SAVR with a bioprosthesis (n = 135). The primary composite outcome was the risk of all-cause mortality, stroke, or myocardial infarction. Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) was classified as structural valve deterioration (SVD), non-structural valve dysfunction (NSVD), clinical valve thrombosis, or endocarditis according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria. Severe SVD was defined as (i) a transprosthetic gradient of 30 mmHg or more and an increase in transprosthetic gradient of 20 mmHg or more or (ii) severe new intraprosthetic regurgitation. Bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) was defined as the composite rate of death from a valve-related cause or an unexplained death following the diagnosis of BVD, aortic valve re-intervention, or severe SVD.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between TAVI and SAVR: age 79.2 ± 4.9 years and 79.0 ± 4.7 years (P = .7), male 52.6% and 53.8% (P = .8), and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score < 4% of 83.4% and 80.0% (P = .5), respectively. After 10 years, the risk of the composite outcome all-cause mortality, stroke, or myocardial infarction was 65.5% after TAVI and 65.5% after SAVR [hazard ratio (HR) 1.0; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7-1.3; P = .9], with no difference for each individual outcome. Severe SVD had occurred in 1.5% and 10.0% (HR 0.2; 95% CI 0.04-0.7; P = .02) after TAVI and SAVR, respectively. The cumulative incidence for severe NSVD was 20.5% and 43.0% (P < .001) and for endocarditis 7.2% and 7.4% (P = 1.0) after TAVI and SAVR, respectively. No patients had clinical valve thrombosis. Bioprosthetic valve failure occurred in 9.7% of TAVI and 13.8% of SAVR patients (HR 0.7; 95% CI 0.4-1.5; P = .4).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe AS and lower surgical risk randomized to TAVI or SAVR, the risk of major clinical outcomes was not different 10 years after treatment. The risk of severe bioprosthesis SVD was lower after TAVR compared with SAVR, while the risk of BVF was similar.

Cost-utility analysis of TAVI compared with surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low risk of surgical mortality in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

There is growing evidence to support the benefits of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (sSAS) who are at high- or intermediate-risk of surgical mortality. The PARTNER 3 trial showed clinical benefits with SAPIEN 3 TAVI compared with SAVR in patients at low risk of surgical mortality. Whether TAVI is also cost-effective compared with SAVR for low-risk patients in the Dutch healthcare system remains uncertain. This article presents an analysis using PARTNER 3 outcomes and costs data from the Netherlands to inform a cost-utility model and examine cost implications of TAVI over SAVR in a Dutch low-risk population.

METHODS

A two-stage cost-utility analysis was performed using a published and validated health economic model based on adverse events with both TAVI and SAVR interventions from a published randomized low risk trial dataset, and a Markov model that captured lifetime healthcare costs and patient outcomes post-intervention. The model was adapted using Netherlands-specific cost data to assess the cost-effectiveness of TAVI and SAVR. Uncertainty was addressed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

TAVI generated 0.89 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a €4742 increase in costs per patient compared with SAVR over a lifetime time horizon, representing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €5346 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses confirm robust results, with TAVI remaining cost-effective across several sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the model results, compared with SAVR, TAVI with SAPIEN 3 appears cost-effective for the treatment of Dutch patients with sSAS who are at low risk of surgical mortality. Qualitative data suggest broader societal benefits are likely and these findings could be used to optimize appropriate intervention selection for this patient population.

Association between social vulnerability index and admission urgency for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are not offered equitably to vulnerable population groups. Adequate levels of insurance may narrow gaps among patients with higher social vulnerability index (SVI). Among a national population of individuals with commercial or Medicare insurance, we sought to determine whether SVI was associated with urgency of receipt of TAVR for aortic stenosis.

Methods and results

Using Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database (CDM), we identified admissions for TAVR with aortic stenosis between January 2018 and March 2022. Admission urgency was identified by CDM claims codes. SVI was cross-referenced to patient zip codes and grouped into quintiles. Generalized linear mixed effects models were used to predict the probability of a TAVR admission being urgent based on SVI quintiles, adjusting for patient and hospital-level covariates.

Results

Among 6680 admissions for TAVR [median age 80 years (interquartile range 75-85), 43.9 % female], 8.5 % (n = 567) were classified as urgent. After adjusting for patient and hospital-level variables, there were no significant differences in the odds of urgent admission for TAVR according to SVI quintiles [OR 5th (greatest social vulnerability) vs 1st quintile (least social vulnerability): 1.29 (95 % CI: 0.90-1.85)].

Conclusions

Among commercial or Medicare beneficiaries with aortic stenosis, SVI was not associated with admission urgency for TAVR. To clarify whether cardiovascular care delivery is improved across SVI with higher paying beneficiaries, future investigation should identify whether relationships between SVI and TAVR urgency vary for Medicaid beneficiaries compared to commercial beneficiaries.

Immune response following transcatheter aortic valve procedure

Aortic valve stenosis is the most common type of heart valve disease in the United States and Europe and calcific aortic stenosis (AS) affects 2-7% of people aged 65 years and older. Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the only effective treatment for individuals with this condition. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) has been widely accepted as a minimally invasive therapeutic approach for addressing symptomatic AS in patients who are considered to have a high risk for traditional surgical intervention. TAVR procedure may have a paradoxical effect on the immune system and inflammatory status. A major portion of these immune responses is regulated by activating or inhibiting inflammatory monocytes and the complement system with subsequent changes in inflammatory cytokines. TAVR has the potential to induce various concurrent exposures, including disruption of the native valve, hemodynamic changes, antigenicity of the bioprosthesis, and vascular damage, which finally lead to the development of inflammation. On the other hand, it is important to acknowledge that TAVR may also have anti-inflammatory effects by helping in the resolution of stenosis.The inflammation and immune response following TAVR are complex processes that significantly impact procedural outcomes and patient well-being. Understanding the underlying mechanisms, identifying biomarkers of inflammation, and exploring therapeutic interventions to modulate these responses are crucial for optimizing TAVR outcomes. Further research is warranted to elucidate the precise immunological dynamics and develop tailored strategies to attenuate inflammation and enhance post-TAVR healing while minimizing complications.

Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and Small Aortic Annulus: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment in patients with severe aortic stenosis and small aortic annulus (SAA) remains to be determined. This study aimed to compare the hemodynamic and clinical outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with a SAA.

METHODS

This prospective multicenter international randomized trial was performed in 15 university hospitals. Participants were 151 patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA (mean diameter <23 mm) randomized (1:1) to TAVR (n=77) versus SAVR (n=74). The primary outcome was impaired valve hemodynamics (ie, severe prosthesis patient mismatch or moderate-severe aortic regurgitation) at 60 days as evaluated by Doppler echocardiography and analyzed in a central echocardiography core laboratory. Clinical events were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants was 75.5±5.1 years, with 140 (93%) women, a median Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality of 2.50% (interquartile range, 1.67%-3.28%), and a median annulus diameter of 21.1 mm (interquartile range, 20.4-22.0 mm). There were no differences between groups in the rate of severe prosthesis patient mismatch (TAVR, 4 [5.6%]; SAVR, 7 [10.3%]; P=0.30) and moderate-severe aortic regurgitation (none in both groups). No differences were found between groups in mortality rate (TAVR, 1 [1.3%]; SAVR, 1 [1.4%]; P=1.00) and stroke (TAVR, 0; SAVR, 2 [2.7%]; P=0.24) at 30 days. After a median follow-up of 2 (interquartile range, 1-4) years, there were no differences between groups in mortality rate (TAVR, 7 [9.1%]; SAVR, 6 [8.1%]; P=0.89), stroke (TAVR, 3 [3.9%]; SAVR, 3 [4.1%]; P=0.95), and cardiac hospitalization (TAVR, 15 [19.5%]; SAVR, 15 [20.3%]; P=0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA (women in the majority), there was no evidence of superiority of contemporary TAVR versus SAVR in valve hemodynamic results. After a median follow-up of 2 years, there were no differences in clinical outcomes between groups. These findings suggest that the 2 therapies represent a valid alternative for treating patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA, and treatment selection should likely be individualized according to baseline characteristics, additional anatomical risk factors, and patient preference. However, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution because of the limited sample size leading to an underpowered study, and need to be confirmed in future larger studies.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03383445.

Simultaneous management of aortic and mitral regurgitation through one-stage transcatheter aortic valve replacement and transcatheter edge-to-edge repair: case report

This case report presents a 72-year-old male patient who presented with exertional dyspnea for over 10 years, which had progressively worsened over the past 4 months. Transthoracic echocardiography revealed severe aortic and mitral regurgitation, with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 37% and a left ventricular end-diastolic diameter of 64 mm. Despite receiving long-term optimal medical management, there was no improvement in symptoms or severity of valvular regurgitation. Given the relatively high surgical risk associated with double valve replacement in this elderly patient and his preference for minimally invasive procedures, a one-stage transapical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter mitral valve repair using the edge-to-edge technique were planned. The patient was discharged 8 days post-procedure without any complications. At 1-month follow-up, the patient's New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class had improved to grade II.

Clinical considerations and challenges in TAV-in-TAV procedures

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a viable treatment for aortic valve disease, including low-risk patients. However, as TAVR usage increases, concerns about long-term durability and the potential for addition interventions have arisen. Transcatheter aortic valve (TAV)-in-TAV procedures have shown promise in selected patients in numerous registries, offering a less morbid alternative to TAVR explantation. In this review, the authors aimed to comprehensively review the experience surrounding TAV-in-TAV, summarize available data, discuss pre-procedural planning, highlight associated challenges, emphasize the importance of coronary obstruction assessment and provide insights into the future of this technique.

Midterm outcomes of aortic valve replacement using a rapid-deployment valve for aortic stenosis: TRANSFORM trial

Background

The use of rapid-deployment valves (RDVs) has been shown to reduce the operative time for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Long-term core laboratory-adjudicated data are scarce, however. Here we report final 7-year data on RDV use.

Methods

TRANSFORM was a prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter, single-arm trial implanting a stented bovine pericardial valve with an incorporated balloon-expandable sealing frame. A prior published 1-year analysis included 839 patients from 29 centers. An additional 46 patients were enrolled and implanted, for a total of 885 patients. Annual clinical and core laboratory-adjudicated echocardiographic outcomes were collected through 8 years. Primary endpoints were structural valve deterioration (SVD), all-cause reintervention, all-cause valve explantation, and all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included hemodynamic performance assessed by echocardiography. The mean duration of follow-up was 5.0 ± 2.0 years.

Results

The mean patient age was 73.3 ± 8.2 years. Isolated AVR was performed in 62.1% of the patients, and AVR with concomitant procedures was performed in 37.9%. Freedom from all-cause mortality at 7 years was 76.0% for isolated AVR and 68.2% for concomitant AVR. Freedom from SVD, all-cause reintervention, and valve explantation at 7 years was 97.5%, 95.7%, and 97.8%, respectively. The mean gradient and effective orifice area at 7 years were 11.1 ± 5.3 mm Hg and 1.6 ± 0.3 cm2, respectively. Paravalvular leak at 7 years was none/trace in 88.6% and mild in 11.4%. In patients undergoing isolated AVR, the cumulative probability of pacemaker implantation was 13.9% at 30 days, 15.5% at 1 year, and 21.8% at 7 years.

Conclusions

AVR for aortic stenosis using an RDV is associated with low rates of late adverse events. This surgical pericardial tissue platform provides excellent and stable hemodynamic performance through 7 years.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in severe aortic stenosis patients at low surgical mortality risk: a cost-effectiveness analysis in Belgium

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the SAPIEN 3 device has recently shown significant clinical benefits, compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), in patients at low risk for surgical mortality (PARTNER 3 trial, NCT02675114). Currently in Belgium, TAVI use is restricted to high-risk or inoperable patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (sSAS). This cost-utility analysis aimed to assess whether TAVI with SAPIEN 3 could lead to potential cost-savings compared with SAVR, in the low-risk sSAS population in Belgium.

METHODS

A previously published, two-stage, Markov-based cost-utility model was used. Clinical outcomes were captured using data from PARTNER 3 and the model was adapted for the Belgian context using cost data from the perspective of the Belgian National Healthcare System, indexed to 2022. A lifetime horizon was chosen. The model outputs included changes in direct healthcare costs, survival and health-related quality of life using TAVI versus SAVR.

RESULTS

TAVI with SAPIEN 3 provides meaningful clinical and cost benefits over SAVR, in terms of an increase in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.94 and cost-saving of €3 013 per patient. While initial procedure costs were higher for TAVI compared with SAVR, costs related to rehabilitation, disabling stroke, treated atrial fibrillation, and rehospitalization were lower. The cost-effectiveness of TAVI over SAVR remained robust in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

TAVI with SAPIEN 3 may offer a meaningful alternative intervention to SAVR in Belgian low-risk patients with sSAS, showing both clinical benefits and cost savings associated with post-procedure patient management.

Early and mid-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement using a novel tissue bioprosthesis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

While current data show a clear trend towards the use of bioprosthetic valves during aortic valve replacement (AVR), durability of bioprosthetic valves remains the most important concern. We conducted a 1st systematic review of all available evidence that analysed early and mid-term outcomes after AVR using the Inspiris RESILIA™ bioprosthesis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify all relevant studies evaluating early and mid-term outcomes after AVR using the Inspiris RESILIA bioprosthesis and including at least 20 patients with no restriction on the publication date. Subgroup meta-analysis was performed to compare Inspiris RESILIA and PERIMOUNT Magna Ease bioprosthesis and to pool the early postoperative mortality and stroke rates.

RESULTS

A total of 416 studies were identified, of which 15 studies met the eligibility criteria. The studies included a total of 3202 patients with an average follow-up of up to 5.3 years. The average age of patients across the studies was 52.2-75.1 years. Isolated AVR was performed in 39.0-86.4% of patients. In-hospital or 30-day postoperative mortality was 0-2.8%. At the mid-term follow-up, freedom from all-cause mortality was up to 85.4%. Among studies with mid-term follow-up, trace/mild paravalvular leak was detected in 0-3.0%, while major paravalvular leak was found only in up to 2.0% of patients. No statistically significant differences in terms of mortality (P = 0.98, odds ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.36-2.83) and stroke (P = 0.98, odds ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.38-2.73) between the Inspiris RESILIA bioprosthesis and PERIMOUNT Magna Ease bioprosthesis were observed in the subgroup meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Mid-term data on the safety and haemodynamic performance of the novel aortic bioprosthesis are encouraging. Further comparative studies with other bioprostheses and longer follow-up are still required to endorse durability and safety of the novel bioprosthesis.

Limited Access to Aortic Valve Procedures in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Areas

BACKGROUND

To explore how differences in local socioeconomic deprivation impact access to aortic valve procedures and the treatment of aortic valve disease, in comparison to other open and minimally invasive surgical procedures.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Procedure volume data were obtained from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project from 18 states from 2016 to 2019 and merged with area deprivation index data, an index of zip code-level socioeconomic distress. We estimate the relationship between local deprivation ranking and differences in volumes of aortic valve replacement, which include transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery and laparoscopic colectomy (LC). All regressions control for state and year fixed effects and an array of zip code-level characteristics. TAVR procedures have increased over time across all zip codes. The rate of increase is negatively correlated with deprivation ranking, regardless of the higher share of hospitalizations per population in high deprivation areas. Distributional analysis further supports these findings, showing that lower area deprivation index areas account for a disproportionately large share of SAVR, TAVR, and LC procedures in our sample relative to their share of all hospitalizations in our sample. By comparison, the cumulative distribution of coronary artery bypass graft procedures was nearly identical to that of total hospitalizations, suggesting that this procedure is equitably distributed. Regressions show high area deprivation index areas have lower prevalence of SAVR (β=-15.1%, [95% CI, -26.8 to -3.5]), TAVR (β=-9.1%, [95% CI, -18.0 to -0.2]), and LC (β=-19.9%, [95% CI, -35.4 to -4.4]), with no statistical difference in the prevalence of coronary artery bypass graft (β=-2.5%, [95% CI, -12.7 to 7.6]), a widespread and commonly performed procedure. In the population aged ≥80 years, results show high area deprivation index areas have a lower prevalence of TAVR (β=-11.9%, [95% CI, -18.7 to -5.2]) but not SAVR (β=-0.8%, [95% CI, 8.1 to 6.3]), LC (β=-3.5%, [95% CI, -13.4 to -6.4]), or coronary artery bypass graft (β=5.2%, [95% CI, -1.1 to 1.1]).

CONCLUSIONS

People living in high deprivation areas have less access to life-saving technologies, such as SAVR, and even moreso to device-intensive minimally invasive procedures such as TAVR and LC.

Self-expanding and balloon-expandable valves in low risk TAVR patients

BACKGROUND

Recent randomized studies have broadened the indication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to also include low-surgical-risk patients. However, the data on self-expanding (SE) and balloon-expandable (BE) valves in low-risk patients remain sparse.

METHODS

The current study is a post hoc analysis of combined data from both LRT 1.0 and 2.0 trials comparing BE and SE transcatheter heart valves.

RESULTS

A total of 294 patients received a BE valve, and 102 patients received an SE valve. The 30-day clinical outcomes were similar across both groups except for stroke (4.9% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.014) and permanent pacemaker implantation (17.8% vs. 5.8%, p < 0.001), which were higher in the SE cohort than the BE cohort. No difference was observed in terms of paravalvular leak (≥moderate) between the groups (0% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.577). SE patients had higher aortic valve area (1.92 ± 0.43 mm2 vs. 1.69 ± 0.45 mm2, p < 0.001) and lower mean gradient (8.93 ± 3.53 mmHg vs. 13.41 ± 4.73 mmHg, p < 0.001) than BE patients. In addition, the rate of subclinical leaflet thrombosis was significantly lower in SE patients (5.6% vs. 13.8%, p = 0.038).

CONCLUSION

In this non-randomized study assessing SE and BE valves in low-risk TAVR patients, SE valves are associated with better hemodynamics and lesser leaflet thrombosis, with increased rates of stroke and permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days; however, this could be due to certain patient-dependent factors not fully evaluated in this study. The long-term implications of these outcomes on structural valve durability remain to be further investigated.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY

LRT 1.0: NCT02628899 LRT 2.0: NCT03557242.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (from inception to standard treatment): a single-center observational study

Background

Treatment of severe aortic stenosis with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) was introduced in 2002. Since then, TAVI has become the primary treatment approach worldwide for advanced-age patients and younger patients with severe comorbidities. We aimed to evaluate the changes in patient demographics, complications, and mortality rates within 13 years.

Methods

This retrospective observational study included 867 patients who underwent TAVI at the University Hospital of North Norway in Tromsø from 2008 to 2021. The 13-year period was divided into period 1 (2008-2012), period 2 (2013-2017), and period 3 (2018-2021). The primary objective was to evaluate the changes in periprocedural (30 days), early (30-365 days), and late mortality rates (>365 days) between the periods. The secondary objective was to evaluate late mortality rates by sex and age groups: <70 years, 70-79 years, 80-89 years, and ≥90 years.

Results

The periprocedural mortality rates for periods 1, 2, and 3 were 10.3%, 2.9%, and 1.2%, respectively (P < 0.001). The early mortality rates were 5.6%, 5.8%, and 6.5%, respectively. No significant differences were observed in late mortality by sex or age group (<70, 70-79, and 80-89 years) with a median survival of 5.3-5.6 years. The median survival in patients aged ≥90 years was 4.0 years (P = 0.018).

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that most patients are octogenarians, and the burden of their comorbidities should be highly considered compared to their age when evaluating the procedural outcomes. As the incidence of most complications related to TAVI has decreased, the rates of permanent pacemaker implantation remain high. Important advancements in diagnostics, valve technology, and procedural techniques have improved the periprocedural mortality rates; however, early mortality remains unchanged and poses a clinical challenge that needs to be addressed in the future.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Current Status and Future Indications

In the past two decades, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has transformed the management of aortic stenosis and has become the standard of care regardless of surgical risk levels. Advances in transcatheter valve design across newer generations, improved imaging, greater operator expertise, and technical enhancements have collectively contributed to increased safety and a decline in procedural complications over this timeframe. The application of TAVR has progressively expanded to include younger patients with lower risks, who have longer life expectancies. This article offers an up-to-date review of the latest innovations in transcatheter delivery systems, devices, and its possible future indications.

Transcatheter aortic valve durability, predictors of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction, longer-term outcomes - a review

INTRODUCTION

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is one of the most significant inventions in cardiology, as it provides a viable minimally invasive treatment option for patients with aortic stenosis, the most common valvular disease in the developed world and one with a poor prognosis when left untreated. Using data available to date, this review aims to discuss and identify possible predictors of TAVI valve durability - an essential requirement for the device's wide-spread use, especially in younger patients.

AREAS COVERED

This article explores the main causes of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) based on pathophysiology and available data, and reviews possible predictors of BVD including prosthesis-related, procedure-related, and patient-related factors. An emphasis is made on affectable predictors, which could potentially be targeted with prevention management and improve valve durability. A literature search of online medical databases was conducted using relevant key words and dates; significant clinical trials were identified. A brief overview of important randomized controlled trials with mid to long-term follow-up is included in this article.

EXPERT OPINION

Identifying modifiable predictors of valve dysfunction presents an opportunity to enhance and predict valve durability - a necessity as patients with longer life-expectancies are being considered for the procedure.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in aortic stenosis patients at low- and intermediate-surgical risk in Japan

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using the SAPIEN 3 (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low- and intermediate-risk patients from a Japanese public healthcare payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model cost-effectiveness analysis was developed. Clinical and utility data were extracted from a systematic literature review. Cost inputs were obtained from analysis of the Medical Data Vision claims database and supplemented with a targeted literature search. The robustness of the results was assessed using sensitivity analyses. Scenario analyses were performed to determine the impact of lower mean age (77.5 years) and the effect of two different long-term mortality hazard ratios (TAVI versus SAVR: 0.9-1.09) on both risk-level populations. This analysis was conducted according to the guidelines for cost-effectiveness evaluation in Japan from Core 2 Health.

RESULTS

In intermediate-risk patients, TAVI was a dominant procedure (TAVI had lower cost and higher effectiveness). In low-risk patients, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) for TAVI was ¥750,417/quality-adjusted-life-years (QALY), which was below the cost-effectiveness threshold of ¥5 million/QALY. The ICER for TAVI was robust to all tested sensitivity and scenario analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVI was dominant and cost-effective compared to SAVR in intermediate- and low-risk patients, respectively. These results suggest that TAVI can provide meaningful value to Japanese patients relative to SAVR, at a reasonable incremental cost for patients at low surgical risk and potentially resulting in cost-savings in patients at intermediate surgical risk.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Past, present, and future

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a ground-breaking, minimally invasive alternative to traditional open-heart surgery, primarily designed for elderly patients initially considered unsuitable for surgical intervention due to severe aortic stenosis. As a result of successful large-scale trials, TAVR is now being routinely applied to a broader spectrum of patients. In deciding between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement, clinicians evaluate various factors, including patient suitability and anatomy through preprocedural imaging, which guides prosthetic valve sizing and access site selection. Patient surgical risk is a pivotal consideration, with a multidisciplinary team making the ultimate decision in the patient's best interest. Periprocedural imaging aids real-time visualization but is influenced by anaesthesia choices. A comprehensive postprocedural assessment is critical due to potential TAVR-related complications. Numerous trials have demonstrated that TAVR matches or surpasses surgery for patients with diverse surgical risk profiles, ranging from extreme to low risk. However, long-term follow-up data, particularly in low-risk cases, remains limited, and the applicability of published results to younger patients is uncertain. This review delves into key TAVR studies, pinpointing areas for potential improvement while delving into the future of this innovative procedure. Furthermore, it explores the expanding role of TAVR technology in addressing other heart valve replacement procedures.

Survival After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients: A Contemporary Trial Benchmark

BACKGROUND

The use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis in low-risk patients necessitates an evaluation of contemporary long-term, real-world outcomes of similar patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in a national cohort.

METHODS

All patients undergoing primary, isolated SAVR in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) database between 2011 and 2019 were examined. The study population of 42,586 adhered to the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) 3 and Evolut Low Risk randomized trials. Patients were further stratified by STS predicted risk of mortality (PROM), age, and left ventricular ejection fraction. The primary end-point was all-cause National Death Index mortality. Unadjusted survival to 8 years was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Mean age was 74.3 ± 5.7 years and mean STS PROM was 1.9% ± 0.8%. The overall Kaplan-Meier time to event analysis for all-cause mortality at 1, 3, 5, and 8 years was 2.6%, 4.5%, 7.1%, and 12.4%, respectively. In subset analyses, survival was significantly better for (1) lower STS PROM (P < .001), (2) younger vs older age (P < .001), and (3) higher vs lower left ventricular ejection fraction (P < .001). When STS PROM was below 1% or the patient age was below age 75 years, the 8-year survival after SAVR was 95%.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this national study confirm that long-term survival after SAVR remains excellent, at 92.9% at 5 years. These contemporary longitudinal data serve to aid in the balanced interpretation of current and future trials comparing SAVR and transcatheter aortic valve replacement and may assist in the clinical decision-making process for patients of lower surgical risk.

First transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation with Acurate Neo: case report and technical recommendations

Background

In more than 90%, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is performed via transfemoral access. Alternative access routes are necessary for patients with unfavourable femoral arteries.

Case summary

We report of a 68-year-old female with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis in whom surgical aortic valve replacement was prohibited due to her severe co-morbidities. Both femoral arteries and both subclavian arteries were unsuitable for TAVI access. Surgical aortic valve replacement and transapical TAVI were deferred due to extremely high operative risk and very low originating left coronary artery of 7 mm from the annulus. Hence, we decided to implant a self-expanding TAVI device with a low risk of coronary obstruction (Acurate Neo 2 prosthesis) via transaortic approach, which to our knowledge is the first case worldwide.

Conclusion

The present case demonstrates the feasibility of implanting the Acurate Neo 2 system via transaortic approach when certain key points are respected. Transaortic TAVI with the Acurate Neo 2 offers a minimally invasive treatment of high operative risk patients with low originating coronary arteries.

Long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived data

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is as an alternative treatment to surgical AVR, but the long-term outcomes of TAVR remain unclear.

AIMS

This study aimed to analyze long-term outcomes following TAVR using meta-analysis.

METHODS

A literature search was performed with MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar through November 2022; studies reporting clinical outcomes of TAVR with follow-up periods of ≥8 years were included. The outcomes of interest were overall survival and/or freedom from structural valve deterioration (SVD). Surgical risk was assessed with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) predicted risk of mortality (PROM) score. A subgroup analysis was conducted for intermediate-/high-surgical risk patients only.

RESULTS

Eleven studies including 5458 patients were identified and analyzed. The mean age was 82.0 ± 6.5 years, and mean STS PROM score ranged from 2.9 to 10.6%. Survival rate at 5 and 10 years was 47.7% ± 1.4% and 12.1 ± 2.0%. Five studies including 1509 patients were analyzed for SVD. Freedom from SVD at 5 and 8 years was 95.5 ± 0.7% and 85.1 ± 3.1%. Similar results for survival and SVD were noted in the subgroup analysis of intermediate-/high-risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Following TAVR, approximately 88% of patients died within 10 years, whereas 85% were free from SVD at 8 years. These date suggest that baseline patient demographic have the greatest impact on survival, and SVD does not seem to have a prognostic impact in this population. Further investigations on longer-term outcomes of younger and lower-risk patients are warranted.

Feasibility and Outcome of Transjugular Intracardiac Echocardiography-Guided Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

There are limited data on the impact of intracardiac echocardiography (ICE)-guided transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) on the new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI) rate.

Objectives

This study investigated the feasibility and outcome of transjugular ICE (TJ-ICE) -guided TAVR, by visualizing the relationship between the membranous septum (MS) and the transcatheter aortic valve (TAV).

Methods

Among patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR between February 2017 and June 2020, this study enrolled a total of 163 patients with TJ-ICE-guided TAVR. MS length was measured by ICE. The primary endpoint of this study was the incidence of new PPMI at 30 days.

Results

The mean age of the patients in this study was 84.9 ± 4.6 years, and 71.2% of the patients were female. Device success was 96.3% with TJ-ICE guidance. A TJ-ICE-related complication occurred in 1 case (0.6%). The median length of the MS was 5.8 mm (IQR: 5.0-6.9 mm). Excellent intraobserver (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]: 0.94; 95% CI:0.79-0.98; P < 0.001) and interobserver (ICC: 0.93; 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.98; P < 0.001) agreements were shown. The new PPMI rate was 6.7% at 30 days without a significant difference between balloon-expandable valves and self-expandable valves (3.4% vs 8.7%; P = 0.226). Patients with a TAV implantation depth less than MS length had a significantly lower incidence of new PPMI compared with patients with a TAV implantation depth greater than MS length (2.1% vs 13.4%; P = 0.005), regardless of baseline right bundle branch block presence (6.7% vs 66.7%; P = 0.004) or absence (1.2% vs 8.2%; P = 0.041).

Conclusions

TJ-ICE-guided TAVR demonstrated remarkable feasibility and safety. The TJ-ICE-guided final TAV position had a significant impact on the new PPMI rate. (Tokai Valve Registry; UMIN000036671).

Anatomical characteristics of aortic valve diseases: Implications for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Background

The etiology of aortic stenosis (AS) significantly impacts transcatheter heart valve (THV) implantation, with rheumatic etiology posing challenges. The concept of valve anchoring during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for patients with aortic regurgitation (AR) remains unclear.

Objective

This study aims to investigate the clinical and CT anatomical characteristics of various aortic valve diseases.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on consecutive patients who underwent CT for severe aortic diseases between April 2019 and February 2023. CT analysis was performed in eight anatomical landmarks: left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT), aortic annulus, sinus of Valsalva (SOV), sinotubular junction (STJ), ascending aorta (AAO), coronary height, aortic angle, and aortic valve calcification volume.

Results

121 patients with severe aortic valve disease were included, divided into AS (71 cases, 59%) and AR (50 cases, 41%) groups. In patients with AR, the absolute diameters of the annulus, LVOT, SOV, STJ, and AAO, as well as the heights of SOV and STJ and the cardiac angle, are larger than those in patients with AS (all P < 0.05). In normalized aortic root dimensions, the AR group had a higher SOV and STJ diameter-to-annulus ratio than the AS group (STJ-SOV-annulus: 1.51-1.44-1.00 vs 1.33-1.28-1.00). The bicuspid and rheumatic AS groups had smaller sinuses (STJ-SOV-annulus:1.27-1.35-1.00, 1.17-1.30-1.00, respectively), necessitating the downsizing of the THV. For 74% of AR patients, the sinotubular junction could not be used as a second anchoring zone, and anchoring relied primarily on the annulus.

Conclusions

Patients with rheumatic etiology require smaller valves, and anchoring in AR patients depends on the valve annulus. These structural characteristics will influence TAVR selection.

Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients at Five Years

BACKGROUND

A previous analysis in this trial showed that among patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, the rate of the composite end point of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year was significantly lower with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) than with surgical aortic-valve replacement. Longer-term outcomes are unknown.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either TAVR or surgery. The first primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization related to the valve, the procedure, or heart failure. The second primary end point was a hierarchical composite that included death, disabling stroke, nondisabling stroke, and the number of rehospitalization days, analyzed with the use of a win ratio analysis. Clinical, echocardiographic, and health-status outcomes were assessed through 5 years.

RESULTS

A total of 1000 patients underwent randomization: 503 patients were assigned to undergo TAVR, and 497 to undergo surgery. A component of the first primary end point occurred in 111 of 496 patients in the TAVR group and in 117 of 454 patients in the surgery group (Kaplan-Meier estimates, 22.8% in the TAVR group and 27.2% in the surgery group; difference, -4.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.9 to 1.3; P = 0.07). The win ratio for the second primary end point was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.51; P = 0.25). The Kaplan-Meier estimates for the components of the first primary end point were as follows: death, 10.0% in the TAVR group and 8.2% in the surgery group; stroke, 5.8% and 6.4%, respectively; and rehospitalization, 13.7% and 17.4%. The hemodynamic performance of the valve, assessed according to the mean (±SD) valve gradient, was 12.8±6.5 mm Hg in the TAVR group and 11.7±5.6 mm Hg in the surgery group. Bioprosthetic-valve failure occurred in 3.3% of the patients in the TAVR group and in 3.8% of those in the surgery group.

CONCLUSIONS

Among low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR or surgery, there was no significant between-group difference in the two primary composite outcomes. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02675114.).

Early offering transcatheter aortic valve replacement to patients with moderate aortic stenosis: quantifying costs and benefits - a Markov model-based simulation study

OBJECTIVE

Aortic stenosis (AS) is one of the most common acquired cardiac valvular diseases. The success of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe AS has led to increasing interest in its use to earlier disease-moderate AS (MAS).

DESIGN

Model-based study using a Markov microsimulation technique to evaluate the long-term costs and benefits associated with 'early' TAVI. Key data inputs were sourced from the international literature and costs were obtained from Australian sources.

SETTING

Australian health care system perspective.

PARTICIPANTS

10 000 hypothetical MAS patients with or without left ventricular diastolic dysfunction or impaired left ventricular ejection fraction.

INTERVENTION

Comparing early TAVI to medical management over a life time horizon for MAS patients aged >65 years. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of offering early TAVI in five scenarios (10%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 90% take-up rates).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure is quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). Secondary outcomes are life-years gained and the number of heart failure case avoided.

RESULTS

Offering early TAVI for MAS patients resulted in both higher healthcare costs and greater benefits (an increase of 3.02 QALYs or 3.99 life-years) per person treated. The ICUR was around $A10 867 and $A11 926 per QALY gained for all five scenarios, with the total cost of early TAVI to the healthcare system being anticipated to be up to $A3.66 billion. Sensitivity analyses indicated a 100% probability of being cost-effective with a willingness to pay threshold of $A50 000/QALY. The benefits remained, even with assumptions of high levels of repeat valve replacement after TAVI.

CONCLUSION

While ongoing randomised controlled trials will define the benefit of TAVI to MAS patients, these results suggest that this intervention is likely to be cost-effective.

Two-Year Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Using New-Generation Transcatheter Devices Compared With Redo-SAVR

Few studies have compared the clinical outcomes between valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) with new-generation valves and re-operative surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SAVR). We compared the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent ViV-TAVR with those of patients who underwent Redo-SAVR at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center between 2015 and 2021. New-generation valves were used for ViV-TAVR. A propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics. The primary end point was all-cause mortality at 30 days and 2 years. In-hospital procedural and clinical outcomes were also compared between the groups. A total of 256 patients (140 who underwent ViV-TAVR and 116 who underwent Redo-SAVR) were eligible for PSM. In the unmatched cohort, patients in the ViV-TAVR group were older and had more co-morbidities than those in the Redo-SAVR group. After PSM, there were no significant differences in all-cause death between the ViV-TAVR and Redo-SAVR groups at 30 days (3.9% vs 2.6%, p = 0.65) or 2 years (6.5% vs 7.8%, p = 0.75). The incidences of stroke and heart failure rehospitalization were similar at 30 days and 2 years. The cumulative complication rates during hospitalization were significantly lower in the ViV-TAVR group than in the Redo-SAVR group (11.7% vs 28.6% p = 0.015). The long-term outcomes of ViV-TAVR using new-generation valves were similar to those of Redo-SAVR, although ViV-TAVR was associated with lower rates of in-hospital complications.

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.

Bayesian interpretation of non-inferiority in transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The concept of non-inferiority is widely adopted in randomized trials comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, uncertainty exists regarding the long-term outcomes of TAVR, and non-inferiority may be difficult to assess. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing TAVR and SAVR, with a specific emphasis on the non-inferiority margin for 5-year all-cause mortality.

METHODS

A systematic search was applied to 3 electronic databases. Randomized trials comparing TAVR and SAVR were included. Bayesian methods were implemented to evaluate the posterior probability of non-inferiority at different trial non-inferiority margins under either a vague, Cauchy, or a literature-based prior. Primary outcomes were 5-year actuarial all-cause mortality, and the probability of non-inferiority at various transformed trial non-inferiority margins. Secondary outcomes were long-term survival and 1- and 2-year actuarial survival.

RESULTS

Eight trials (n = 8698 patients) were included. Kaplan-Meier-derived 5-year survival was 61.6% (95% CI 59.8-63.5%) for TAVR, and 63.7% (95% CI 61.9-65.6%) for SAVR. Six trials (n = 6370 patients) reported all-cause mortality at 5-year follow-up. Under a vague prior, the posterior median relative risk for all-cause mortality of TAVR was 1.14, compared to SAVR (95% credible interval 1.06-1.22, probability of relative risk <1.00 = 0.01%, I2 = 0%). Similar results in terms of point estimate and uncertainty measures were obtained using frequentist methods. Based on the various trial non-inferiority margins, the results of the analysis suggest that non-inferiority at 5 years is no longer likely.

CONCLUSIONS

It is unlikely that TAVR is still non-inferior to SAVR at 5 years in terms of all-cause mortality.

Health-related quality of life following TAVI or cardiac surgery in patients at intermediate and low risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Recent randomised trials have shown that clinical outcomes with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are non-inferior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis at intermediate to low risk. Health-related quality of life (HrQoL) outcomes in these patient groups remain uncertain. A systematic search of the literature was conducted that included nine trials and 11,295 patients. Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), a heart-failure-specific measure and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) (a generic health status tool) changes were the primary outcomes. New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification was the secondary outcome. Improvement in KCCQ scores was greater with TAVI (mean difference (MD)=13.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.67-15.46, p<0.001) at 1 month, as was the improvement in EQ-5D (MD=0.07, 95% CI 0.05-0.08, p<0.001). There was no difference in KCCQ (MD=1.05, 95% CI -0.11 to 2.21, p=0.08) or EQ-5D (MD=-0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01), p=0.37) at 12 months. NYHA functional class 3/4 was lower in patients undergoing TAVI at 1 month (MD=0.51, 95% CI 0.34-0.78, p=0.002), but there was no difference at 12 months (MD=1.10; 95% CI 0.87-1.38, p=0.43). Overall, TAVI offers early benefit in HRQoL outcomes compared with SAVR, but they are equivalent at 12 months.