Imaging for Predicting and Assessing Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Aortic Valve Replacement

Practical guidance and clinical applications of transoesophageal echocardiography. A position paper of the working group of echocardiography of the Hellenic Society of Cardiology

Transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) is a well-established imaging modality, providing more accurate and of higher quality information than transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) for a wide spectrum cardiac and extra-cardiac diseases. The present paper represents an effort by the Echocardiography Working Group (WG) of the Hellenic Cardiology Society to state the essential steps of the typical TOE exam performed in echo lab. This is an educational text, describing the minimal requirements and the preparation of a meticulous TOE examination. Most importantly, it gives practical instructions to obtain and optimize TOE views and analyses the implementation of a combined two-and multi-dimensional protocol for the imaging of the most common cardiac structures during a TOE. In the second part of the article a comprehensive review of the contemporary use of TOE in a wide spectrum of valvular and non-valvular cardiac diseases is provided, based on the current guidelines and the experience of the WG members.

Cardiac computed tomography post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is performed to treat aortic stenosis and is increasingly being utilised in the low-to-intermediate-risk population. Currently, attention has shifted towards long-term outcomes, complications and lifelong maintenance of the bioprosthesis. Some patients with TAVR in-situ may develop significant coronary artery disease over time requiring invasive coronary angiography, which may be problematic with the TAVR bioprosthesis in close proximity to the coronary ostia. In addition, younger patients may require a second transcatheter heart valve (THV) to 'replace' their in-situ THV because of gradual structural valve degeneration. Implantation of a second THV carries a risk of coronary obstruction, thereby requiring comprehensive pre-procedural planning. Unlike in the pre-TAVR period, cardiac CT angiography in the post-TAVR period is not well established. However, post-TAVR cardiac CT is being increasingly utilised to evaluate mechanisms for structural valve degeneration and complications, including leaflet thrombosis. Post-TAVR CT is also expected to have a significant role in risk-stratifying and planning future invasive procedures including coronary angiography and valve-in-valve interventions. Overall, there is emerging evidence for post-TAVR CT to be eventually incorporated into long-term TAVR monitoring and lifelong planning.

Haemodynamic and clinical outcomes at 5 years according to predicted prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Although the impact of predicted prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPMP) on outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement is well established, studies on PPMP in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are limited. This study investigated the effects of PPMp on haemodynamic and 5-year clinical outcomes after TAVR.

METHODS/MATERIALS

We analysed 1733 patients who underwent TAVR. PPMp was defined using two different methods: 1) normal reference values of the effective orifice area for each valve type and size indexed to body surface area (PPMp1; n = 1733) and 2) reference values for aortic annulus area or perimeter assessed with pre-procedural computed tomography indexed to body surface area (PPMp2; n = 1227). The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death and/or rehospitalisation for heart failure at 5 years.

RESULTS

The incidence of PPMp1 was 11.7 % and 0.8 % in moderate and severe cases, respectively. PPMp2 was classified as either moderate (3.8 %) or severe (0 %). Rates of residual mean aortic gradient ≥20 mmHg significantly increased depending on PPMp1 severity (no PPMp1: 3.1 % vs. moderate PPMp1: 26.8 % vs. severe PPMp1: 53.9 %, p < 0.0001) and PPMp2 (no PPMp2: 4.1 % vs. moderate PPMp2: 12.8 %, p = 0.0049). Neither of PPMP methods were associated with the composite outcome in total cohort; however, PPMP1 was significantly related to worse clinical outcomes at 5 years among patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in multivariate analysis (HR: 1.87; 95 % CI: 1.02-3.43).

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of PPMP on TAVR clinical outcomes may not be negligible in patients with low LVEF.

A multimodal approach to predict prosthesis-patient mismatch in patients undergoing valve-in-valve trans-catheter aortic valve implantation

AIMS

The valve-in-valve transcatheter-aortic-valve-implantation (VIV-TAVI) represents an emerging procedure for the treatment of degenerated aortic bio-prostheses, and the occurrence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) after VIV-TAVI might affect its clinical efficacy. This study aimed to test a multimodal imaging approach to predict PPM risk during the TAVI planning phase and assess its clinical predictivity in VIV-TAVI procedures.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing VIV-TAVI procedures at our Institution over 6 years were screened and those treated by self-expandable supra-annular valves were selected. The effective orifice area (EOA) was calculated with a hybrid Gorlin equation combining echocardiographic data with invasive hemodynamic assessment. Severe PPM was defined according to such original multimodality assessment as EOAi≤0.65 cm2/m2 (if BMI < 30 kg/m2) or < 0.55 cm2/m2 (if BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and valve-related re-hospitalization during the clinical follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 40 VIV-TAVI was included in the analysis. According to the pre-specified multimodal imaging modality assessment, 18 patients (45.0 %) had severe PPM. Among all baseline clinical and anatomical characteristics, estimated glomerular filtration rate before VIV-TAVI (OR 0.872, 95%CI[0.765-0.994],p = 0.040), the echocardiographic pre-procedural ≥moderate AR (OR 0.023, 95%CI[0.001-0.964],p = 0.048), the MSCT-derived effective internal area (OR 0.958, 95%CI[0.919-0.999],p = 0.046) and the implantation depth (OR 2.050, 95%CI[1.028-4.086],p = 0.041) resulted as independent predictors of severe PPM at multivariable logistic analysis. At a mean follow-up of 630 days, patients with severe PPM showed a higher incidence of the primary endpoint (9.1%vs.44.4 %;p = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

In VIV-TAVI using self-expandable supra-annular valves, a multimodal imaging approach might improve clinical outcome predicting severe PPM occurrence.

Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Analysis of the PARTNER Trials

BACKGROUND

Our objective was to compare the impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) for 2 years after surgical aortic valve replacement within the prospective, randomized Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trials.

METHODS

Surgical aortic valve replacement patients from the PARTNER 1, 2, and 3 trials were included. PPM was classified as moderate (indexed effective orifice area ≤0.85 cm2/m2) or severe (indexed effective orifice area ≤0.65 cm2/m2). The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death and heart failure rehospitalization at 2 years.

RESULTS

By the predicted PPM method (PPMP), 59.1% had no PPM, 38.8% moderate PPM, and 2.1% severe PPM; whereas by the measured PPM method (PPMM), 42.4% had no PPM, 36.0% moderate, and 21.6% severe. Patients with no PPMP (23.6%) had a lower rate of the primary endpoint compared with patients with moderate (28.2%, P = .03) or severe PPMP (38.8%, P = .02). Using the PPMM method, there was no difference between the no (17.7%) and moderate PPMM groups (21.1%) in the primary outcome (P = .16). However, those with no PPMM or moderate PPMM were improved compared with severe PPMM (27.4%, P < .001 and P = .02, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Severe PPM analyzed by PPMP was only 2.1% for surgical aortic valve replacement patients. The PPMM method overestimated the incidence of severe PPM relative to PPMP, but was also associated with worse outcome. There was higher all-cause mortality in patients with severe PPM, thus surgical techniques to minimize PPM remain critical.

Preprocedural Computed Tomography Planning for Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Selection of transcatheter valve size using preprocedural computed tomography (CT) is standardized and well established. However, valve sizing for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is currently performed intraoperatively by using sizers, which may result in variation among operators and risk for prosthesis-patient mismatch. This study evaluated the usefulness of CT annulus measurement for SAVR valve sizing.

METHODS

This study included patients who underwent SAVR using Inspiris or Magna Ease and received preoperative electrocardiogram-gated CT imaging. Starting from June 2022, study investigators applied a CT sizing algorithm using CT-derived annulus size to guide minimum SAVR label size. The final decision of valve selection was left to the operating surgeon during SAVR. The study compared the appropriateness of valve selection (comparing implanted size with CT-predicted size) and prosthesis-patient mismatch rates without aortic root enlargement between 2 cohorts: 102 cases since June 2022 (CT sizing cohort) and 180 cases from 2020 to 2021 (conventional sizing cohort).

RESULTS

Implanted size smaller than CT predicted size and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch were significantly lower by CT sizing than by conventional sizing (12% vs 31% [P = .001] and 0% vs 6% [P = .039], respectively). Interoperator variability was a factor associated with implanted size smaller than CT predicted with conventional sizing, whereas it became nonsignificant with CT sizing.

CONCLUSIONS

Applying CT sizing to SAVR led to improved valve size selection, less prosthesis-patient mismatch, and less interoperator variability. CT sizing for SAVR could also be used to predict prosthesis-patient mismatch before SAVR and identify patients who need aortic root enlargement.

Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data of 122 989 Patients With 592 952 Patient-Years

BACKGROUND

It remains controversial whether prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) impacts long-term outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement. We aimed to evaluate the association of PPM with mortality, rehospitalizations, and aortic valve reinterventions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data of studies published by March 2023 (according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). Sixty-five studies met our eligibility criteria and included 122 989 patients (any PPM: 68 332 patients, 55.6%). At 25 years of follow-up, the survival rates were 11.8% and 20.6% in patients with and without any PPM, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16 [95% CI, 1.13-1.18], P<0.001). At 20 years of follow-up, the survival rates were 19.5%, 12.1%, and 8.8% in patients with no, moderate, and severe PPM, respectively (moderate versus no PPM: HR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.06-1.11], P<0.001; severe versus no PPM: HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.24-1.35], P<0.001). PPM was associated with higher risk of cardiac death, heart failure-related hospitalizations, and aortic valve reinterventions over time (P<0.001). Statistically significant associations between PPM and worse survival were observed regardless of valve type (bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves), contemporary PPM definitions unadjusted and adjusted for body mass index, and PPM quantification method (in vitro, in vivo, Doppler echocardiography). Our meta-regression analysis revealed that populations with more women tend to have higher HRs for all-cause death associated with PPM.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study suggest that any degree of PPM is associated with poorer long-term outcomes following surgical aortic valve replacement and provide support for implementation of preventive strategies to avoid PPM after surgical aortic valve replacement.

Association of Valve Size and Hemodynamic Performance With Clinical Outcomes in Aortic Valve Replacement - A Long-Term Follow-up in an Asian Population

BACKGROUND

Studies of the influence of smaller body type on the severity of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after small-sized surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are few, but the issue is particularly relevant for Asian patients.Methods and Results: 695 patients who underwent SAVR with bioprosthetic valves had their hemodynamic valve performance analyzed at 3 months, 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years after operation, and clinical outcomes were assessed. The patients were stratified into 3 valve size groups: 19/21, 23, and 25/27 mm. A smaller valve was associated with higher mean pressure gradients at the 4 time points after operation (P trend <0.05). However, the 3 valve size groups demonstrated no significant differences in the risk of clinical events. At none of the time points did patients with projected PPM show increased mean pressure gradients (P>0.05), whereas patients with measured PPM did (P<0.05). Compared with patients with projected PPM, those with measured PPM demonstrated higher rates of infective endocarditis readmission (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 3.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-10.39) and a higher risk of composite outcomes (aHR 1.45, 95% CI 0.95-2.22, P=0.087).

CONCLUSIONS

Relative to those receiving larger valves, patients receiving small bioprosthetic valves had poorer hemodynamic performance but did not demonstrate differences in clinical events in long-term follow-up.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Failed Surgical or Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Valves: A Comprehensive Review

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has proven to be a safe, effective, and less invasive approach to aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis. In patients who underwent prior aortic valve replacement, transcatheter and surgical bioprosthetic valve dysfunction may occur as a result of structural deterioration or nonstructural causes such as prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and paravalvular regurgitation. Valve-in-Valve (ViV) TAVR is a procedure that is being increasingly utilized for the replacement of failed transcatheter or surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves. Data regarding long-term outcomes are limited due to the recency of the procedure's approval, but available data regarding the short- and long-term outcomes of ViV TAVR are promising. Studies have shown a reduction in perioperative and 30-day mortality with ViV TAVR procedures compared to redo surgical repair of failed bioprosthetic aortic valves, but 1-year and 5-year mortality rates are more controversial and lack sufficient data. Despite the reduction in 30-day mortality, PPM and rates of coronary obstruction are higher in ViV TAVR as compared to both redo surgical valve repair and native TAVR procedures. New transcatheter heart valve designs and new procedural techniques have been developed to reduce the risk of PPM and coronary obstruction. Newer generation valves, new procedural techniques, and increased operator experience with ViV TAVR may improve patient outcomes; however, further studies are needed to better understand the safety, efficacy, and durability of ViV TAVR.

Predicting pressure gradient using artificial intelligence for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Single-Center Experience with the Balloon-Expandable Myval Transcatheter Aortic Valve System in Patients with Bicuspid Anatomy: Procedural and 30-Day Follow-Up

Aims: To report our single-center data regarding the initial 52 consecutive patients with a bicuspid aortic valve who underwent a Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) procedure using the new balloon-expandable MYVAL system. The focus is on reporting procedural details and outcomes over the 30-day postoperative period. Methods: From December 2019 to July 2023, 52 consecutive patients underwent a TAVI procedure with bicuspid anatomy. All patients had moderate to-high surgical risk or were unsuitable for surgical aortic valve replacement based on the Heart Team's decision. Outcomes were analyzed according to the VARC-2 criteria. The results of bicuspid patients were compared to patients with tricuspid anatomy in the overall study group, and further analysis involved a comparison between 52 pairs after propensity score matching. The device performance was evaluated using transthoracic echocardiography. Data collection was allowed by the Local Ethical Committee. Results: The mean age was 71 ± 7.1 years, and 65.4% were male. The mean Euroscore II and STS score were 3.3 ± 3.2 and 5.2 ± 3.3, respectively. Baseline characteristics and echocardiographic parameters were well balanced even in the unmatched comparison. Procedures were significantly longer in the bicuspid group and resulted in a significantly higher ARI index. All relevant anatomic dimensions based on the CT scans were significantly higher in bicuspid anatomy, including a higher implantation angulation, a higher rate of horizontal aorta and a higher proportion of patients with aortopathy. In the unmatched bicuspid vs. tricuspid comparison, postprocedural outcomes were as follows: in-hospital mortality 0% vs. 1.4% (p = 0.394), device success 100% vs. 99.1% (p = 0.487), TIA 1.9% vs. 0% (p = 0.041), stroke 1.9% vs. 0.9% (p = 0.537), major vascular complication 3.8% vs. 2.3% (p = 0.530), permanent pacemaker implantation 34% vs. 30.4% (p = 0.429), and cardiac tamponade 0% vs. 0.5% (p = 0.624). In the propensity-matched bicuspid vs. tricuspid comparison, postprocedural outcomes were as follows: in-hospital mortality 0% vs. 0%, device success 100% vs. 100%, TIA 1.9% vs. 0% (p = 0.315), stroke 1.9% vs. 0.9% (p = 0.315), major vascular complication 3.8% vs. 0% (p = 0.475), permanent pacemaker implantation 34% vs. 24% (p = 0.274), and cardiac tamponade 0% vs. 0%. There was no annular rupture nor need for second valve or severe aortic regurgitation in both the unmatched and matched comparison. The peak and mean aortic gradients did not differ at discharge and at 30-day follow-up between the two groups regardless of whether the comparison was unmatched or matched. There were no paravalvular leakages (moderate or above) in the bicuspid patients. Intermediate and extra sizes of the Myval THV system used a significantly higher proportion in bicuspid anatomy with a significantly higher oversize percentage in tricuspid anatomy. Conclusions: The TAVI procedure using the Myval THV system in patients with significant aortic stenosis and bicuspid aortic valve anatomy is safe and effective. Hemodynamic parameters do not differ between tricuspid and bicuspid patients. However, the permanent pacemaker implantation rate is higher than expected; its relevance on long-term survival is controversial.

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Prosthetic Valve Function With Cardiovascular Imaging: A Report From the American Society of Echocardiography Developed in Collaboration With the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography

In patients with significant cardiac valvular disease, intervention with either valve repair or valve replacement may be inevitable. Although valve repair is frequently performed, especially for mitral and tricuspid regurgitation, valve replacement remains common, particularly in adults. Diagnostic methods are often needed to assess the function of the prosthesis. Echocardiography is the first-line method for noninvasive evaluation of prosthetic valve function. The transthoracic approach is complemented with two-dimensional and three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography for further refinement of valve morphology and function when needed. More recently, advances in computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance have enhanced their roles in evaluating valvular heart disease. This document offers a review of the echocardiographic techniques used and provides recommendations and general guidelines for evaluation of prosthetic valve function on the basis of the scientific literature and consensus of a panel of experts. This guideline discusses the role of advanced imaging with transesophageal echocardiography, cardiac computed tomography, and cardiac magnetic resonance in evaluating prosthetic valve structure, function, and regurgitation. It replaces the 2009 American Society of Echocardiography guideline on prosthetic valves and complements the 2019 guideline on the evaluation of valvular regurgitation after percutaneous valve repair or replacement.

Optimizing Valve Selection in Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Case Study on Addressing Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch and Early Structural Valve Deterioration in a Morbidly Obese Patient

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has increasingly become a fundamental approach for treating aortic valve stenosis (AVS), especially in high surgical risk patients. This case study underscores the criticality of meticulous procedural planning and precise valve selection in patients with severe AVS compounded by obesity. We report a case of a patient who, after receiving a 26 mm Edwards Sapiens 3 valve, presented with worsening exertional dyspnea and a declining indexed effective orifice area (EOAi). This deterioration indicated early structural valve deterioration (SVD), presumably due to patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM). A subsequent valve-in-valve (ViV) TAVR using a 29 mm Medtronic Evolut Fx valve was successfully executed, leading to a notable improvement in EOAi. This case study emphasizes the complexities inherent in valve choice and sizing in TAVR, particularly highlighting the impact of PPM on obese patients and its potential to precipitate early SVD. The report further explores the emerging strategies in addressing TAVR valve dysfunctions via ViV interventions, shedding light on the nuanced and dynamic nature of TAVR management in obese patients. It advocates for tailored treatment strategies in managing such intricate cases, demonstrating the evolving landscape of TAVR procedures.

A case report of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a patient with Sjögren's syndrome and aortic stenosis

Background

The co-existence of Sjögren's syndrome and aortic stenosis (AS) is infrequent, and there lack cases of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for these patients with detailed management decision-making.

Case summary

We report a case of a female patient who had AS and Sjögren's syndrome with leukopaenia and thrombocytopaenia. To overcome co-existing hyper-coagulation and high thrombogenesis risk, difficult lifetime valve management, and high infection risk, we performed TAVR with 3D printing and formulated antithrombotic and antibiotic schemes.

Conclusion

This case provided a successful experience of TAVR in patients with Sjögren's syndrome. Long-term follow-up will be conducted, and optimization of the therapeutic regimen requires further exploration.

One-year clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the latest iteration of self-expanding or balloonexpandable devices: insights from the OPERA-TAVI registry

BACKGROUND

Midterm comparative analyses of the latest iterations of the most used Evolut and SAPIEN platforms for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are lacking.

AIMS

We aimed to compare 1-year clinical outcomes of TAVI patients receiving Evolut PRO/PRO+ (PRO) or SAPIEN 3 Ultra (ULTRA) devices in current real-world practice.

METHODS

Among patients enrolled in the OPERA-TAVI registry, patients with complete 1-year follow-up were considered for the purpose of this analysis. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to compare TAVI patients receiving PRO or ULTRA devices. The primary endpoint was a composite of 1-year all-cause death, disabling stroke and rehospitalisation for heart failure. Five prespecified subgroups of patients were considered according to leaflet and left ventricular outflow tract calcifications, annulus dimensions and angulation, and leaflet morphology.

RESULTS

Among a total of 1,897 patients, 587 matched pairs of patients with similar clinical and anatomical characteristics were compared. The primary composite endpoint did not differ between patients receiving PRO or ULTRA devices (Kaplan-Meier [KM] estimates 14.0% vs 11.9%; log-rank p=0.27). Patients receiving PRO devices had higher rates of 1-year disabling stroke (KM estimates 2.6% vs 0.4%; log-rank p=0.001), predominantly occurring within 30 days after TAVI (1.4% vs 0.0%; p=0.004). Outcomes were consistent across all the prespecified subsets of anatomical scenarios (all pinteraction>0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

One-year clinical outcomes of patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI and receiving PRO or ULTRA devices in the current clinical practice were similar, but PRO patients had higher rates of disabling stroke. Outcomes did not differ across the different anatomical subsets of the aortic root.

Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valves Optimize Transvalvular Hemodynamics Independent of Intra- Versus Supra-Annular Design

This study sought to characterize transvalvular hemodynamics during the first 30 days after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) across various transcatheter heart valves (THVs), while adjusting for annular dimensions. This was an observational study of TAVIs from September 2021 to October 2022. The primary outcome was mean transvalvular pressure gradient (TVPG), measured using transthoracic echocardiography at day 0, day 1, and day 30 post-TAVI, and were compared across 3 THV, including the self-expandable intra-annular Portico (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) valve, the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 Ultra (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California), and the self-expandable supra-annular Evolut Pro+ (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota). A total of 560 patients who underwent TAVI were identified, of which 106 (18.9%) received a Portico THV, 176 (31.4%) received a SAPIEN THV, and 278 (49.6%) received an Evolut THV. For Portico THV, the TVPG on day 0 increased from 6.0 (4.7 to 9.0) to 7.0 (6.0 to 10.0) by day 30 (p = 0.009). For SAPIEN THV, the TVPG on day 0 increased from 6.5 (5.0 to 8.0) to 12.0 (9.0 to 15.0) by day 30 (p <0.001). For Evolut THV, the TVPG on day 0 increased from 6.0 (5.0 to 9.0) to 7.2 (5.0 to 10.0) by day 30 (p = 0.001). Adjusting for time and annular diameter in a multivariable mixed effects model, the SAPIEN group had a significantly greater increase in TVPG over time than the Evolut reference group (p <0.001), while there was no difference in the change of TVPG over time for the Portico group vs. the Evolut group (p = 0.874). In conclusion, compared with balloon-expandable valves, self-expanding THV may optimize transvalvular hemodynamics across all annular diameters, independent of their supra-annular and intra-annular design.

Feasibility of Redo-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Sapien Valves Based on In Vivo Computed Tomography Assessment

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to assess the feasibility of repeat transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) replacement for degenerated Sapien3 (S3) prostheses by simulating subsequent implantation of S3 or Evolut, using in vivo computed tomography-based sizing and the impact on coronary and patient-prosthesis mismatch risks.

METHODS

Computed tomography scans from 356 patients with prior S3 TAV replacement implantation were analyzed. The in vivo sizing for second TAV based on averaged area of 3 levels of outflow, mid (narrowest) and inflow, was compared with in vitro recommendations, that is, same size as index S3 for second S3 and 1 size larger for Evolut. Risks of coronary obstruction and patient-prosthesis mismatch were determined by valve-to-aorta distance and estimated effective orifice area, respectively.

RESULTS

Overall, the majority of patients (n=328; 92.1%) had underexpanded index S3 with an expansion area of 94% (91%-97%), leading to significant differences in size selection of the second TAV between in vivo and in vitro sizing strategies. Expansion area <89% served as a threshold, resulting in 1 size smaller than the in vitro recommendations were selected in 45 patients (13%) for S3-in-S3 and 13 (4%) for Evolut-in-S3, while the remaining patients followed in vitro recommendations (P<0.01, in vivo versus in vitro sizing). Overall, 57% of total patients for S3-in-S3 simulation and 60% for Evolut-in-S3 were considered low risk for coronary complications. Deep index S3 implantation (odds ratio, 0.76 [interquartile range, 0.67-0.87]; P<0.001) and selecting Evolut as the second TAV (11% risk reduction in intermediate- or high-risk patients) reduced coronary risk. Estimated moderate or severe patient-prosthesis mismatch risk was 21% for S3-in-S3 and 1% for Evolut-in-S3, assuming optimal expansion of the second TAV.

CONCLUSIONS

Redo-TAV replacement with S3-in-S3 and Evolut-in-S3 could be feasible with low risk to coronaries in ≈60% of patients, while the remaining 40% will be at intermediate or high risk. The feasibility of redo-TAV replacement is influenced by sizing strategy, type of second TAV, native annular anatomy, and implant depth.

Self-expanding vs. balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves in small aortic annuli

Background

Clinical consequences of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is currently in the focus of clinical research. Patients with small aortic annulus are at higher risk to display PPM. Data on incidence and clinical consequences of PPM after TAVR with either balloon-expandable (BEV) or self-expanding (SEV) transcatheter heart valves in small aortic annulus are sparse.

Methods

Patients with small aortic annulus (perimeter < 72 mm or aortic annulus area < 400 mm2) who underwent BEV or SEV with contemporary transcatheter heart valve types were identified from the institutional TAVR database. Propensity score matching was applied for imbalanced baseline characteristics between patients undergoing BEV or SEV. Echocardiography and clinical follow-up beyond 3 years was reported following VARC-3 recommendations. Primary endpoint was the incidence of pre-discharge PPM and its association with 3-year mortality.

Results

From a total of 507 patients with small aortic annulus, 192 matched patient pairs with SEV or BEV were identified. Mean age was 81 ± 7 (SEV) vs. 81 ± 6 (BEV) years (p = 0.5), aortic annulus perimeter was 69 ± 3 vs.69 ± 3 mm, (p = 0.8), annulus area was 357 ± 27 vs.357 ± 27 mm2 (p = 0.8), and EuroScore II was 5.8 ± 6.6 vs.5.7 ± 7.2 (p = 0.9). SEV resulted in less moderate (20% vs. 31%, p < 0.001) and severe pre-discharge PPM (9% vs.18%, p < 0.001) compared to BEV. At discharge (7 ± 4 vs. 12 ± 9 mmHg, p = 0.003) and at 1-year follow-up (7 ± 5 vs.13 ± 3 mmHg, p < 0.001), SEV displayed lower mean gradients compared to BEV. Estimated survival after SEV was 85% (95% confidence interval (CI): 80%-90%) at 1 year, 80% (95% CI: 75%-86%) at 2 years, and 71% (95% CI: 65%-78%) at 3 years; estimated survival after BEV was 87% (95% CI: 82%-92%) at 1 year, 81% (95% CI: 75%-86%) at 2 years, and 72% (95% CI: 66%-79%) at 3 years, with no significant difference among the groups (p = 0.9) Body surface area (OR: 1.35, p < 0.001), implantation of BEV (odds ratio (OR): 3.32, p < 0.001), and the absence of postdilatation (OR: 2.16, p < 0.001) were independent risk factors for any PPM. At 3 years, patients without PPM had a higher 3-year survival compared with patients with ≥moderate PPM (77% vs. 67%, p = 0.03).

Conclusion

BEV implantation in patients with small annulus was associated with a twofold higher incidence of pre-discharge severe PPM compared to SEV implantation. Survival at 3 years after TAVR was similar after BEV and SEV. However, patients with the absence of pre-discharge PPM had a higher 3-year survival compared to patients with ≥moderate PPM.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Imaging of Bioprosthetic Valve Dysfunction after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the standard of care in elderly high-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Recently, TAVI has been increasingly performed in younger-, intermediate- and lower-risk populations, which underlines the need to investigate the long-term durability of bioprosthetic aortic valves. However, diagnosing bioprosthetic valve dysfunction after TAVI is challenging and only limited evidence-based criteria exist to guide therapy. Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction encompasses structural valve deterioration (SVD) resulting from degenerative changes in the valve structure and function, non-SVD resulting from intrinsic paravalvular regurgitation or patient-prosthesis mismatch, valve thrombosis, and infective endocarditis. Overlapping phenotypes, confluent pathologies, and their shared end-stage bioprosthetic valve failure complicate the differentiation of these entities. In this review, we focus on the contemporary and future roles, advantages, and limitations of imaging modalities such as echocardiography, cardiac computed tomography angiography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography to monitor the integrity of transcatheter heart valves.

Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of Kaplan-Meier-Derived Individual Patient Data

BACKGROUND

It remains controversial whether prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) (in general considered moderate if indexed effective orifice area is 0.65-0.85 cm2/m2 and severe when <0.65 cm2/m2) affects the outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the time-varying effects and association of PPM with the risk of overall mortality.

METHODS

Study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of studies published by December 30, 2021.

RESULTS

In total, 23 studies met our eligibility criteria and included a total of 81,969 patients included in the Kaplan-Meier curves (19,612 with PPM and 62,357 without PPM). Patients with moderate/severe PPM had a significantly higher risk of mortality compared with those without PPM (HR: 1.09 [95% CI: 1.04-1.14]; P < 0.001). In the first 30 months after the procedure, mortality rates were significantly higher in the moderate/severe PPM group (HR: 1.1 [95% CI: 1.05-1.16]; P < 0.001). In contrast, the landmark analysis beyond 30 months yielded a reversal of the HR (0.83 [95% CI: 0.68-1.01]; P = 0.064), but without statistical significance. In the sensitivity analysis, although the authors observed that severe PPM showed higher risk of mortality in comparison with no PPM (HR: 1.25 [95% CI: 1.16-1.36]; P < 0.001), they did not observe a statistically significant difference for mortality between moderate PPM and no PPM (HR: 1.03 [95% CI: 0.96-1.10]; P = 0.398).

CONCLUSIONS

Severe PPM, but not moderate PPM, was associated with higher risk of mortality following TAVR. These results provide support to implementation of preventive strategies to avoid severe PPM following TAVR.

Comparison of hemodynamics in biological surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve implantation: An in-silico study

OBJECTIVES

In aortic valve replacement (AVR), the treatment strategy as well as the model and size of the implanted prosthesis have a major impact on the postoperative hemodynamics and thus on the clinical outcome. Preinterventional prediction of the hemodynamics could support the treatment decision. Therefore, we performed paired virtual treatment with transcatheter AVR (TAVI) and biological surgical AVR (SAVR) and compared hemodynamic outcomes using numerical simulations.

METHODS

10 patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI were virtually treated with both biological SAVR and TAVI to compare post-interventional hemodynamics using numerical simulations of peak-systolic flow. Virtual treatment procedure was done using an in-house developed tool based on position-based dynamics methodology, which was applied to the patient's anatomy including LVOT, aortic root and aorta. Geometries were automatically segmented from dynamic CT-scans and patient-specific flow rates were calculated by volumetric analysis of the left ventricle. Hemodynamics were assessed using the STAR CCM+ software by solving the RANS equations.

RESULTS

Virtual treatment with TAVI resulted in realistic hemodynamics comparable to echocardiographic measurements (median difference in transvalvular pressure gradient [TPG]: -0.33 mm Hg). Virtual TAVI and SAVR showed similar hemodynamic functions with a mean TPG with standard deviation of 8.45 ± 4.60 mm Hg in TAVI and 6.66 ± 3.79 mm Hg in SAVR (p = 0.03) while max. Wall shear stress being 12.6 ± 4.59 vs. 10.2 ± 4.42 Pa (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Using the presented method for virtual treatment of AS, we were able to reliably predict post-interventional hemodynamics. TAVI and SAVR show similar hemodynamics in a pairwise comparison.

Extent of Left Ventricular Mass Regression and Impact of Global Left Ventricular Afterload on Cardiac Events and Mortality after Aortic Valve Replacement

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) causes a high transvalvular pressure gradient and residual left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, consequently influencing long-term results. This study aimed to find the relationships between hemodynamic parameters and LV mass regression and determine the risk predictors of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) for aortic stenosis. Methods and Results: Preoperative and postoperative Doppler echocardiography data were evaluated for 120 patients after AVR. The patients' mean age was 67.7 years; 55% of the patients were male. Forty-four (37%) patients suffered from MACCE during a mean follow-up period of 3.6 ± 2 years. The following hemodynamic parameters at follow-up were associated with lower relative indexed LV mass (LVMI) regression: lower postoperative indexed effective orifice area, greater mean transvalvular pressure gradient (MPG), greater stroke work loss (SWL), and concentric or eccentric LV remodeling mode. The following hemodynamic parameters at follow-up were associated with a higher risk of MACCE: higher valvuloarterial impedance (Z_VA), greater SWL, greater MPG, greater relative wall thickness, greater LVMI, and hypertrophic LV remodeling mode. Lower relative LVMI regression was associated with a higher risk of MACCE (hazard ratio, 1.01: 95% confidence interval, 1.003-1.03). The corresponding cutoff of relative LVMI regression was -14%. Conclusions: Changes in hemodynamic parameters were independently associated with relative LVMI regression. Impaired reverse remodeling and persistent residual LV hypertrophy were independent risk predictors of MACCE. An LVMI regression lower than 14% indicated higher MACCE. A postoperative Z_VA greater than 3.5 mmHg/mL/m² was an independent risk predictor of cardiac events and mortality after AVR. Preventive strategies should be used at the time of the operation to avoid PPM.

Incidence, Outcomes and Predictors of Aortic Regurgitation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Al Azhar University Hospitals and National Heart Institute, Egypt

Background: Aortic regurgitation (AR), which has ill-defined predictors and an unknown long-term influence on outcomes, is a significant transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) constraint. Objective: this research aimed to assess the prevalence, identify predictors, and evaluate the outcomes of aortic regurgitation following trans catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). 1. To calculate the prevalence of aortic regurgitation in elderly patients receiving trans catheter aortic valve implantation who have severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. 2. To determine aortic regurgitation risk factors after trans catheter aortic valve implantation. Methods: From November 2017 to November 2020, this prospective observational study was done in the National Heart Institute on severe aortic valve stenosis patients above 65 years who were candidates for aortic valve replacement from the outpatient department. Results: LVEF significantly improved. Compared to before TAVI (55.08 ± 9.71), LVEF elevated to 58.9 ± 8.8 (P<0.001). Twenty-five patients (83.3%) showed class III/IV, four patients (13.3%) showed class II, and one patient (3.3%) showed class I before TAVI. While after TAVI, three patients (10%) only showed NYHA class III/IV, six patients (20 %) in class II, and 21 patients (70%) improved to be in class I. The left ventricular mass index mean was 158 ±32.37 before TAVI and 133.50 ±21.96 after TAVI (p<0.001). Compared to before TAVI (0.75 ± 0.2), mean aortic valve area was improved to 2.0 ± 0.2 following TAVI (P<0.001). A significant reduction in the mean pressure gradient from 47 ± 11.08 mmHg across the native valve prior to TAVI to 10.28 ± 3.21 mmHg across the prosthetic valve following TAVI (P <0.001). Expert commentary: The clinical and results of TAVR devices were clearly outlined in literature study. The study showed a high incidence of pacemaker implantation with Core valve and aortic regurgitation. This information strongly supports the need for a randomized trial with sufficient power to compare the most recent self-expandable valve generation to balloon expandable valves. In the 2019 PARTNER 3 prospective randomized trial, it was discovered that, when compared to surgical management, low-risk patients (defined as STS 4%) had a lower risk of the composite outcome of stroke, death, and rehospitalization at 1 year. Additionally, it was shown that TAVR had a lower risk of stroke and required less time in the hospital (3 days as opposed to 7, P0.001) than surgery [1]. In addition, despite an elevated permanent pacemaker implantation rate, the 2019 Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement revealed no inferiority for composite all-cause stroke and death, as well as a statistically significant decrease in the rates of life-threatening bleeding, acute kidney injury and atrial fibrillation, compared with SAVR at 30 days following the procedure [2]. Conclusion: According to the study in high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, TAVI is alternative, viable, safe, and successful therapy compared to traditional open-heart surgery.

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with morbid obesity: a multicentre propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Morbidly obese (MO) patients are increasingly undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the best therapeutic strategy for these patients remains a matter for debate.

AIMS

Our aim was to compare the periprocedural and mid-term outcomes in MO patients undergoing TAVR versus SAVR.

METHODS

A multicentre retrospective study including consecutive MO patients (body mass index ≥40 kg/m², or ≥35 kg/m² with obesity-related comorbidities) from 18 centres undergoing either TAVR (n=860) or biological SAVR (n=696) for severe AS was performed. Propensity score matching resulted in 362 pairs.

RESULTS

After matching, periprocedural complications, including blood transfusion (14.1% versus 48.1%; p<0.001), stage 2-3 acute kidney injury (3.99% versus 10.1%; p=0.002), hospital-acquired pneumonia (1.7% versus 5.8%; p=0.005) and access site infection (1.5% versus 5.5%; p=0.013), were more common in the SAVR group, as was moderate to severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM; 9.9% versus 39.4%; p<0.001). TAVR patients more frequently required permanent pacemaker implantation (14.4% versus 5.6%; p<0.001) and had higher rates of ≥moderate residual aortic regurgitation (3.3% versus 0%; p=0.001). SAVR was an independent predictor of moderate to severe PPM (hazard ratio [HR] 1.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25-2.59; p=0.002), while TAVR was not. In-hospital mortality was not different between groups (3.9% for TAVR versus 6.1% for SAVR; p=0.171). Two-year outcomes (including all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and readmissions) were similar in both groups (log-rank p>0.05 for all comparisons). Predictors of all-cause 2-year mortality differed between the groups; moderate to severe PPM was a predictor following SAVR (HR 1.78, 95% CI: 1.10-2.88; p=0.018) but not following TAVR (p=0.737).

CONCLUSIONS

SAVR and TAVR offer similar mid-term outcomes in MO patients with severe AS, however, TAVR offers some advantages in terms of periprocedural morbidity.

Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Hemodynamics: Definitions, Outcomes, and Evidence Gaps: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

A virtual workshop was organized by the Heart Valve Collaboratory to identify areas of expert consensus, areas of disagreement, and evidence gaps related to bioprosthetic aortic valve hemodynamics. Impaired functional performance of bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement is associated with adverse patient outcomes; however, this assessment is complicated by the lack of standardization for labelling, definitions, and measurement techniques, both after surgical and transcatheter valve replacement. Echocardiography remains the standard assessment methodology because of its ease of performance, widespread availability, ability to do serial measurements over time, and correlation with outcomes. Management of a high gradient after replacement requires integration of the patient's clinical status, physical examination, and multimodality imaging in addition to shared patient decisions regarding treatment options. Future priorities that are underway include efforts to standardize prosthesis sizing and labelling for both surgical and transcatheter valves as well as trials to characterize the consequences of adverse hemodynamics.

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

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

Prosthesis-patient mismatch following transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerated transcatheter aortic valves: the TRANSIT-PPM international project

Background

A severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is associated with adverse outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for de novo aortic stenosis or a failed surgical bioprosthesis. The impact of severe PPM in patients undergoing TAV-in-TAVR is unknown.

Aim

We sought to investigate the incidence and 1-year outcomes of different grades of PPM in patients undergoing TAV-in-TAVR.

Materials and methods

The TRANSIT-PPM is an international registry, including cases of degenerated TAVR treated with a second TAVR. PPM severity, as well as in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year outcomes were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 (VARC-3) criteria.

Results

Among 28 centers, 155 patients were included. Severe PPM was found in 6.5% of patients, whereas moderate PPM was found in 14.2% of patients. The rate of severe PPM was higher in patients who underwent TAV-in-TAVR with a second supra-annular self-expanding (S-SE) TAVR (10%, p = 0.04). Specifically, the rate of severe PPM was significantly higher among cases of a SE TAVR implanted into a balloon-expandable (BE) device (19%, p = 0.003). At 1-year follow-up, the rate of all-cause mortality, and the rate of patients in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV were significantly higher in the cohort of patients with severe PPM (p = 0.016 and p = 0.0001, respectively). Almost all the patients with a severe PPM after the first TAVR had a failed &lt; 23 mm BE transcatheter heart valve (THV): the treatment with an S-SE resolved the severe PPM in the majority of the cases.

Conclusion

After TAV-in-TAVR, in a fifth of the cases, a moderate or severe PPM occurred. A severe PPM is associated with an increased 1-year all-cause mortality.

Clinical trial registration

[https://clinicaltrials.gov], identifier [NCT04500964].

Balloon Fracturing Valve-in-Valve: How to Do It and a Case Report of TAVR in a Rapid Deployment Prosthesis

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to treat degeneration of bioprosthetic heart valves (BHVs), called as valve-in-valve (ViV), is becoming a key feature since the number of BHVs requiring intervention is increasing and many patients are at high risk for a redo cardiac surgery. However, a TAVR inside a small previous cardiac valve may lead to prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and not be as effective as we hoped for. An effective option to decrease the chance of PPM is to fracture the previous heart valve implanted using a high-pressure balloon. By performing a valve fracture, the inner valve ring of small BHVs can be opened up by a single fracture line, allowing subsequent implantation of a properly sized transcatheter heart valve, without increasing substantially the procedure risk. In this article, we provide a step-by-step procedure on how to safely and properly fracture a BHV and report a case of a TAVR in a degenerated rapid deployment valve.

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch in Small Aortic Annuli: Self-Expandable vs. Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Prosthesis−patient mismatch (PPM) is associated with worse outcomes following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). PPM has been identified in a significant proportion of TAVR, particularly in patients with small aortic annuli. Our objective was to evaluate the hemodynamic performances of balloon-expandable (BE) (Sapiens 3TM) versus two different self-expandable (SE) (Evolut ProTM, Accurate NeoTM) TAVR devices in patients with small aortic annulus defined by a computed tomography aortic annulus area (AAA) between 330 and 440 mm2. We enrolled 131 consecutive patients corresponding to 76 Sapiens 3 23 mm (58.0%), 26 Evolut Pro (19.9%) and 29 Accurate Neo (22.1%). Mean age was 82.5 ± 7.06 years, 22.9% of patients were male and mean Euroscore was 4.0%. Mean AAA was 374 ± 27 mm2 for Sapiens 3, 383 ± 29 mm2 for Corevalve Evolut Pro and 389 ± 25 mm2 for Accurate Neo. BE devices were associated with significantly higher rates of PPM (39.5%) as compared to SE devices (15.4% for Corevalve Evolut Pro and 6.9% for Accurate Neo) (p < 0.0001). Paravalvular leaks ≥ 2/4 were more often observed in SE devices (15.4% for Corevalve Evolut Pro and 17.2% for Accurate Neo) than in BE devices (2.6%) (p = 0.007). In conclusion, SE TAVR devices did achieve better hemodynamic results despite higher rates of paravalvular leaks. Therefore, SE TAVI devices could be considered as first choice in small aortic anatomy.

Patient Prosthesis Mismatch After SAVR and TAVR

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) remains one out of many factors to be considered during decision-making for the treatment of aortic valve pathologies. The idea of adequate sizing of a prosthetic heart valve was established by Rahimtoola already in 1978. In this article, the author described the phenomenon that the orifice area of a prosthetic heart valve may be too small for the individual patient. PPM is assessed by measurement or projection of the prosthetic effective orifice area indexed to body surface area (iEOA), while it is recommended to use different cut point values for non-obese and obese patients for the categorization of moderate and severe PPM. Several factors influence the accuracy of both the projected and the measured iEOA for PPM assessment, which leads to a certain number of false assignments to the PPM or no PPM group. Despite divergent findings on the impact of PPM on clinical outcomes, there is consensus that PPM should be avoided to prevent sequelae of increased prosthetic gradients after aortic valve replacement. To prevent PPM, it is required to anticipate the iEOA of the prosthesis prior to the procedure. The use of adequate reference tables, derived from echocardiographically measured mean effective orifice area (EOA) values from preferably large numbers of patients, is most appropriate to predict the iEOA. Such tables should be used also for transcatheter heart valves in the future. During the decision-making process, all available options should be taken into account for the individual patient. If the predicted size and type of a surgical prosthesis cannot be implanted, additional surgical procedures, such as annular enlargement with the Manougian technique, or alternative procedures, such as transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) can prevent PPM. PPM prevention for TAVI patients is a new field of interest and includes anticipation of the iEOA, prosthesis selection, and procedural strategies.

Shone's complex and aortic dissection: case report and review of a rare, underdiagnosed congenital heart disease

BACKGROUND

Shone's complex is a rare congenital heart disease consisting of a variety of left ventricular inflow and outflow tract lesions. Patients typically present in childhood requiring early surgical intervention; however, with improved surgical techniques, these patients are surviving later into adulthood. This increased survival comes with a new set of medical complications that providers need to be aware of.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 27 year old man with a complex cardiac history including an incomplete Shone's complex and persistent symptomatic atrial flutter presented with sharp chest pain radiating to his back. He was found to have type A aortic dissection on imaging in the setting of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch. He had multiple valvular surgeries in childhood. The patient was being followed-up as an outpatient for an enlarging chronic aortic aneurysm and was non-compliant with his medications. He was taken emergently to the operating room for a skirted Bentall procedure, aortic valve replacement, and right sided MAZE.

CONCLUSIONS

Shone's complex is a rare congenital heart disease associated with significant morbidities including atrial flutter, patient-prosthesis mismatch, and aortic dissection. As patients continue to live longer into adulthood with this disease, it is important to raise awareness of this rare syndrome for providers and highlight its potential complications. Further research is needed to determine appropriate guidelines for when to intervene on aortopathy-associated CHD.

Patient–Prosthesis Mismatch in Contemporary Small-Size Mechanical Prostheses Does Not Impact Survival at 10 Years

Background: The effect of PPM in mechanical prostheses on long-term survival is not well-established. Methods: Patients who received a 21 mm or smaller aortic valve between 2000 and 2011 were retrospectively analyzed (n = 416). Propensity matching was used in order to account for baseline differences in patient subgroups (PPM vs. no PPM; severe PPM vs. no severe PPM). Results: Five- and ten-year survival was 78 ± 3.52% and 64.51 ± 4.51% in patients with PPM, versus 83.3 ± 3.12% and 69.37 ± 4.36% in patients without (p = 0.28) when analyzed at 10.39 ± 5.25 years after the primary procedure. Independent risk factors for impaired survival, after matching, were age, serum creatinine, and severe pulmonary hypertension. Five- and ten-year survival in patients with severe PPM was 73.34 ± 6.01% and 61.76 ± 8.17%, respectively, versus 74.72 ± 5.68% and 67.50 ± 7.09% in those without (p = 0.49), at 8.82 ± 5.17 years after SAVR. Age was the only independent variable that influenced long-term survival when severe PPM was added to the model. Conclusions: PPM or severe PPM does not impact long-term survival up to 10 years in mechanical valve recipients when matching for preoperative variables.

Why Does the NOTION Trial Show Poorer Than Expected Outcomes in the Surgical Arm?

The NOTION trial compares transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients. Looking carefully at the outcomes of this trial, there is no doubt that the transcatheter aortic valve implantation results were outstanding. The same thing cannot be said for the results of the surgery. We tried to understand the reason for that.

Stress exercise haemodynamic performance and opening reserve of a stented bovine pericardial aortic valve bioprosthesis

OBJECTIVES

Despite unusual high rates of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM), excellent midterm clinical outcomes have been reported after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with the Avalus™ bioprosthetic valve (Medtronic). To elucidate this "PPM conundrum," the Avalus valve haemodynamics were assessed during exercise testing.

METHODS

Of the 148 patients who had undergone SAVR with the Avalus valve at our institution, 30 were randomly selected among those in whom stress test was deemed feasible and underwent a resting transthoracic echocardiography immediately followed by exercise echocardiography. Severe PPM was defined as indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) ≤ 0.65 cm² /m² and moderate PPM as iEOA > 0.65 and ≤ 0.85 cm² /m² . Measured PPM was determined with the use of the measured iEOA at rest or stress, while the estimated PPM was based on the estimated iEOA, derived from the mean EOA reported for each valve size in the manufacturer chart.

RESULTS

Measured EOA significantly increased from rest to peak exercise in all PPM groups (p < .05) and the rates of moderate and severe measured PPM decreased from 40% and 20% to 27% and 0%, respectively. The patients with low-flow state (flow < 250 ml/s) had significantly lower measured rest EOA (p = .03). On the basis of the estimated iEOA, there was no severe PPM and 19 patients had moderate PPM (63.3%), with a significantly lower opening reserve than the patients without estimated PPM (p = .04). The estimated iEOA was more reliably correlated to the measured iEOA at maximal stress than the measured iEOA at rest, especially in patients with a low-flow state.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the concept of an opening reserve of the Avalus valve to explain the PPM conundrum and promotes the use of exercise Doppler-echocardiography to complete the assessment of mismatch, especially in patients with a low-flow state. Published estimated EOA seems reliable to predict the haemodynamic performance of the Avalus valve, whether the flow conditions at rest.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database: 2021 Update on Echocardiography

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (ACSD) is the world's premier clinical outcomes registry for adult cardiac surgery and a driving force for quality improvement in cardiac surgery. Echocardiographic data provide a wealth of hemodynamic, structural, and functional data and have been part of STS ACSD data collection since its inception. An increasing body of evidence suggests that the use of echocardiography in patients undergoing cardiac surgery has a positive impact on postoperative outcomes. In this report, we describe and summarize the type and rate of reporting of echocardiography-related variables in the STS ACSD, including the Adult Cardiac Anesthesiology Module, from July 2017 to December 2019 for the most frequently performed cardiac surgical procedures. With this review, we aim to increase awareness of the importance of collecting accurate and consistent echocardiography data in the STS ACSD and to highlight opportunities for growth and improvement.

Aortic closure signal length on doppler echocardiography differentiates aortic patient-prosthesis mismatch from prosthetic stenosis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the diagnostic potential of the aortic closure (A2) signal length on Doppler echocardiography in distinguishing aortic patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) from prosthetic stenosis among patients with elevated gradients over bioprosthetic valves.

METHODS

The A2 signal length was retrospectively measured for 150 patients with bioprosthetic aortic valves (50 with PPM, 50 with prosthetic stenosis, and 50 with normally functioning valves) from transthoracic echocardiograms performed at NYU Langone Health between 01/01/2012 and 08/01/2018.

RESULTS

Mean A2 signal length was shorter among patients with PPM (11.1 ms ± 5.2 ms), than among those with prosthetic stenosis (21.1 ms ± 6.0 ms), P < .001 and controls (21.7 ms ± 7.4 ms), P < .001. There was no difference in A2 signal length between prosthetic stenosis and controls. The A2 signal length yielded an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI 0.82-0.95) for predicting PPM over prosthetic stenosis.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with bioprosthetic aortic valves, the length of the A2 signal on Doppler echocardiography is shorter in PPM than in prosthetic stenosis and normally functioning valves. The A2 signal length may represent a novel metric to distinguish PPM from prosthetic stenosis.

Aortic prosthetic size predictor in aortic valve replacement

Background

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) is a major concern in aortic valve replacement (AVR) and leads to perioperative morbidity and rehospitalization. Predicting aortic annulus diameter pre-procedurally is crucial to managing patients with high-risk of PPM.

Objectives

To compare preoperative measurements of aortic annulus from echocardiography and CT scan with surgical sizing and develop an imaging-based algorithm to predict PPM.

Methods

From January 2017 to December 2020, patients underwent AVR at a teaching hospital were examined. The relationship between imaging measurements with operative values was assesed using scatter plots and Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Univariable linear regression was then used to build the predictive model.

Results

A total of 144 patients underwent AVR during the study period. Suture types and surgical approaches were not significantly associated with prosthesis size. CT scan-based measurements showed strong correlation with prosthesis size: mean diameter (R = 0.79), perimeter-derived diameter (R = 0.76), and area-derived diameter (R = 0.75). Mechanical valve and tissue valve shared similar correlation coefficients. Prosthesis size predictive models based on CT scan were 12.89 + 0.335 × d for mean diameter, 13.275 + 0.315 × d for perimeter-derived diameter and 13.626 + 0.309 × d for area-derived diameter.

Conclusions

Preoperative CT scan measurements are a reliable predictor of aortic prosthesis size. Transthoracic echocardiography is a possible alternative, though it is highly performer-dependent and unable to represent the aortic annulus fully. Together, these two imaging modalities can be used to quantitatively anticipate PPM preoperatively.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Doppler Velocity Index Outcomes Following Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in the PARTNER Trials

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the association between Doppler velocity index (DVI) and 2-year outcomes for balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

BACKGROUND

DVI >0.35 is normal for a prosthetic valve, but recent studies suggest that DVI <0.50 is associated with poor outcomes following TAVR.

METHODS

Patients with severe aortic stenosis enrolled in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) 2 (intermediate surgical risk) or PARTNER 3 (low surgical risk) trial undergoing TAVR (n = 1,450) or SAVR (n = 1,303) were included. Patients were divided into 3 DVI groups on the basis of core laboratory-assessed discharge or 30-day echocardiograms: DVI_LOW (≤0.35), DVI_INTERMEDIATE (>0.35 to ≤0.50), and DVI_HIGH (>0.50). Two-year outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Following TAVR, there were no differences among the 3 DVI groups in composite outcomes of death, stroke, or rehospitalization or in any individual components of 2-year outcomes (P > 0.70 for all). Following SAVR, there was no difference among DVI groups in the composite outcome (P = 0.27), but there was a significant association with rehospitalization (P = 0.02). Restricted cubic-spline analysis for combined outcomes showed an increased risk with post-SAVR DVI ≤0.35 but no relationship post-TAVR. DVI ≤0.35 was associated with increased 2-year composite outcome for SAVR (HR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.29-2.54; P < 0.001), with no adverse outcomes for TAVR (P = 0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

In intermediate- and low-risk cohorts of the PARTNER trials, DVI ≤0.35 predicted worse 2-year outcomes following SAVR, driven primarily by rehospitalization, with no adverse outcomes associated with DVI following TAVR with the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 valve.

Balloon post-dilatation improves long-term valve performance after balloon-expandable valve implantation

BACKGROUND

The impact of balloon post-dilatation (BPD) on short- and long-term valve performance after Sapien 3 (S3) implantation is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of balloon post-dilatation (BPD) on short- and long-term valve performance after the implantation of S3.

METHODS

A total of 846 patients implanted with S3 from the OCEAN-TAVI registry were included in this study. The patients were divided into BPD and non-BPD groups. The clinical outcomes and valve functions were compared.

RESULTS

The BPD group included 173 (20.4%) patients and the non-BPD group comprised 673 (79.6%) patients. The prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) rates were significantly lower in the BPD group than in the non-BPD group before and after propensity score matching at in-hospital follow-up (before matching: 12 [7.1%] vs. 108 [16.3%], p = 0.002; after matching: 8 [6.3%] vs. 19 [14.8%], p = 0.027) and at 1-year follow-up (before matching: 14 [12.5%] vs. 112 [23.6%], p = 0.010; after matching: 9 [10.5%] vs. 19 [22.1%], p = 0.039). The rates of acute kidney injury, cardiac tamponade, and in-hospital cardiovascular death were significantly higher in the BPD group than in the non-BPD group (acute kidney injury: 22 [12.7%] vs. 33 [4.9%], p < 0.001; cardiac tamponade: 3 [1.7%] vs. 2 [0.3%], p = 0.028; in-hospital cardiovascular death: 4 [2.3%] vs. 3 [0.4%], p = 0.016). After matching, these clinical outcomes were similar between the BPD and non-BPD groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The BPD group demonstrated better short- and long-term valve performance. Caution is needed to avoid procedure-related complications in patients undergoing BPD.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid valves: The synergistic effects of eccentric and incomplete stent deployment

Bicuspid aortic valve is a congenital cardiac anomaly and common etiology of aortic stenosis. Given the positive outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low-risk patients, TAVR will become more prevalent in the future in the treatment of severe bicuspid valve stenosis. However, asymmetrical bicuspid valve anatomy and calcification can prevent the circular and complete expansion of transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs). In previous studies, examining the impact of elliptical TAV deployment on leaflet stress distribution, asymmetric expansion of balloon-expandable intra-annular devices was studied up to an ellipticity index (long/short TAV diameter) of 1.4. However, such a high degree of eccentricity has not been observed in clinical studies with balloon-expandable devices. High degrees of stent eccentricity have been observed in self-expanding TAVs, such as CoreValve. However, CoreValve is a supra-annular device, and it was not clear if eccentric and incomplete stent deployment at the annulus would alter leaflet stress and strain distributions. This study aimed to assess the effects of eccentric and incomplete stent deployment of CoreValves in bicuspid aortic valves and compare the results to that of SAPIEN 3. Leaflet stress distribution and leaflet kinematics of 26-mm CoreValve and 26-mm SAPIEN 3 devices in bicuspid valves were obtained in a range that was observed in previous clinical studies. The results indicated that elliptical and incomplete stent deployment of TAVs increase leaflet stress and impair leaflet kinematics. The changes were more pronounced in CoreValve than SAPIEN 3. Increased leaflet stress can reduce long-term valve durability, and impaired leaflet kinematics can potentially increase blood stasis on the TAV leaflets. The study provides complementary insights into the mechanics of TAVs in bicuspid aortic valves.

Clinical and Technical Challenges of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is present when the effective area of a prosthetic valve inserted into a patient is inferior to that of a normal human valve; the hemodynamic consequence of a valve too small compared with the size of the patient's body is the generation of higher than expected transprosthetic gradients. Despite evidence of increased risk of short- and long-term mortality and of structural valve degeneration in patients with PPM after surgical aortic valve replacement, its clinical impact in patients subject to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is yet unclear. We aim to review and update on the definition and incidence of PPM after TAVI, and its prognostic implications in the overall population and in higher-risk subgroups, such as small aortic annuli or valve-in-valve procedures. Last, we will focus on the armamentarium available in order to reduce risk of PPM when planning a TAVI procedure.