Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement: A propensity score analysis in patients at high surgical risk

Aortic valve replacement in patients over 60: Real-world surgical outcomes

OBJECTIVE

With the advent of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has come an expectation that there will be a decline in surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). This has been fueled by trials comparing outcomes between TAVI and SAVR in lower-risk patients. The aim of this study was to examine outcomes following SAVR in patients over the age of 60.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study observed 1005 patients ≥60 who underwent isolated primary SAVR from January 2015 to December 2018. The cohort was stratified by surgical risk, defined as European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II < 4 versus ≥4. The cohort was also divided by age (60-69, 70-79, ≥80) for additional comparisons. Outcomes included in-hospital complications and patient survival.

RESULTS

The median age and EuroSCORE II were 75 years and 1.6, respectively. The overall 30-day mortality was 1.7% and increased significantly with surgical risk (p = .007). The 30-day mortality of elective patients was 1.1%. Overall, 1- and 2-year survival rates were 94.3% and 91.7%, respectively, which significantly decreased with surgical risk (p < .001) and age (p = .002, p = .003). The rates of postoperative stroke and pacemaker implantations were 1.2% and 3.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

SAVR can be performed in patients ≥60 years old with excellent outcomes, which compare favorably with outcomes from TAVI trials, with their highly selected patient cohorts. SAVR remains a reliable, tried and tested, treatment option in these patients.

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Renal Transplant Patients: A Meta-Analysis

Background

The outcome of transcutaneous aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with kidney transplant is unknown, as majority of these patients were excluded from the major TAVR clinical trials. We sought to compare patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with a history of kidney transplant.

Methods

PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane databases were searched to identify relevant articles. The incidence of all-cause mortality and acute kidney injury (AKI) was calculated using relative risk on a random effect model.

Results

A total of 1,538 patients (TAVR 328, SAVR 1,210) were included in the study. TAVR was associated with lower mortality as compared with SAVR at 30 days from the index procedure (odds ratio (OR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25 - 0.93; P = 0.03). One-year mortality was studied in three studies and showed comparable mortality in patients undergoing TAVR and SAVR (OR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.10 - 5.51; P = 0.78). Compared to SAVR, TAVR carries an identical risk of AKI (OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.10 - 1.90; P = 0.27). A sensitivity analysis performed by exclusion of Voudris et al study showed a non-significant difference in the mortality incidence of two groups at 30 days (OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.27 - 1.91; P = 0.51).

Conclusions

In patients with a history of kidney transplant, TAVR was associated with a comparable risk of mortality and AKI compared to SAVR.

Transcatheter, sutureless and conventional aortic-valve replacement: a network meta-analysis of 16,432 patients

Background

Minimally invasive surgical techniques pose alternatives to conventional surgery for the treatment of aortic stenosis (AS). We present a Bayesian network analysis comparing Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 clinical outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), sutureless (SL-AVR) and conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR).

Methods

Electronic searches of databases were conducted and seven two-arm randomized-controlled trials and 25 propensity-score-matched studies comparing clinical outcomes of TAVI, SL-AVR and CAVR for treatment of AS were identified. Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo modelling was used to analyze clinical outcomes.

Results

The analysis included 16,432 patients who underwent TAVI [7,056], SL-AVR [1,238] or CAVR [8,138]. Compared to CAVR, TAVI and SL-AVR were associated with reduced postoperative major bleeding of 59% (OR 0.41, 95% CI: 0.28-0.59) and 44% (OR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.30-0.99) respectively. TAVI had a 41% reduction in postoperative myocardial infarction (OR 0.59, 95% CI: 0.40-0.86) and SL-AVR had a 40% reduction in postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42-0.86). Compared to TAVI, CAVR and SL-AVR had a reduction in moderate/severe paravalvular regurgitation of 89% (OR 0.11, 95% CI: 0.07-0.16) and 92% (OR 0.08, 95% CI: 0.03-0.17). CAVR had a 67% decreased postoperative permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation compared to TAVI (OR 0.33, 95% CI: 0.24-0.45) and a 63% reduction compared to SL-AVR (OR 0.37, 95% CI: 0.22-0.61). There were no differences in 30-day mortality or postoperative stroke between the groups.

Conclusions

In selected patients, minimally invasive surgical interventions including TAVI and SL-AVR for severe AS are viable alternatives to conventional surgery. However, TAVI is associated with increased paravalvular regurgitation, whereas TAVI and SL-AVR are associated with increased conduction disturbances compared to CAVR.

Oxidation-Reduction Potential in Patients undergoing Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve stenosis has gained increasingly more importance due to its high prevalence in elderly people. More than two decades ago, transcatheter aortic valve replacement emerged for patients who were denied surgery, and its noninferiority has been demonstrated in numerous studies. Oxidative stress has generated great interest because of its sensitivity to cell damage and the possibility of offering early hints of clinical outcomes. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether there is a significant difference between transcatheter (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in terms of the changes in oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) and antioxidant capacity. Therefore, we investigated perioperative oxidative stress levels and their influence on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 72 patients (50% TAVR versus 50% SAVR) were included in the present study. Static oxidation-reduction potential (sORP) and antioxidant capacity were measured using the RedoxSys™ Diagnostic System (Luoxis Diagnostics, USA) in serum samples drawn before and after surgery, as well as on the first postoperative day. In addition, clinical data were obtained to evaluate the clinical outcome of each case.

RESULTS

TAVR patients had higher preoperative sORP levels compared to the SAVR patients and more severe comorbidities. Unlike the TAVR cohort, patients in the SAVR group showed a significant difference in sORP from the pre- to postoperative levels. Capacity demonstrated higher preoperative levels in the SAVR cohort and also a greater difference postoperatively compared to the TAVR cohort. Regression analysis revealed a significant correlation between pre- and postoperative capacity levels (r = -0.9931, p < 0.0001), providing a method of predicting postoperative capacity levels by knowing the preoperative levels. According to the multivariable analysis, both sORP and antioxidant capacity are dependent on time point, baseline value, and type of surgery, with the largest variations observed for time effect and surgery method.

CONCLUSION

A high preoperative sORP level correlated to more severe illness in the TAVR patients. As the TAVR patients did not show significant differences in their preoperative levels, we assume that there was a smaller production of oxidative agents during TAVR due to the less invasive nature of the procedure. Baseline values and development of antioxidant capacity values strengthen this hypothesis. The significant correlation of pre- and postoperative capacity levels might allow high risk patients to be detected more easily and might provide more adequate and individualized therapy preoperatively. This trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT 02488876.

Meta-Analysis Comparing the Frequency of Stroke After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

Stroke is one of the most feared complications of aortic valve replacement. Although the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) improved substantially over time, concerns remained about a potentially higher incidence of stroke with TAVI compared with surgical replacement (SAVR). However, comparative data are sparse. We performed a meta-analysis comparing the incidence of stroke among patients undergoing TAVI versus SAVR. Of the 5067 studies screened, 28 eligible studies (22 propensity-score matched studies and 6 randomized trials) were analyzed. Primary endpoints were 30-day stroke and disabling stroke. Secondary endpoints were 1-year stroke and disabling stroke. A total of 23,587 patients were included, of whom 47.27% underwent TAVI and 52.72% underwent SAVR. For each endpoint, pooled estimates of odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The pooled estimates for stroke (2.7% vs 3.1%, OR 0.86; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.02; p=0.08) and disabling stroke (2.5% vs 2.9%, OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.62; p=0.89) were comparable following TAVI versus SAVR at 30 days. Similarly, the pooled estimates for stroke (5.0% vs 4.6%, OR 1.01; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.28; p=0.96) and disabling stroke (4.1% vs 4.5%, OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.39; p=0.71) were similar at 1 year. A sensitivity analysis including only RCTs yielded similar results. Our meta-analysis documents comparable rates of strokes and disabling strokes following TAVI or SAVR both at 30 days and 1 year.

Transcatheter vs. surgical aortic valve replacement and medical treatment : Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as the procedure of choice for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and high perioperative risk. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the mortality related to TAVR with medical therapy (MT) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted by two independent investigators from the database inception to 30 December 2014. Relative risk (RR) and odds ratio (OR) were calculated and graphically displayed in forest plots. We used I ² for heterogeneity (meta-regression) and Egger's regression test of asymmetry (funnel plots).

RESULTS

We included 24 studies (n = 19 observational studies; n = 5 randomized controlled trials), with a total of 7356 patients in this meta-analysis. Mean age had a substantial negative impact on the long-term survival of AS patients (OR = 1.544; 95% CI: 1.25-1.90). Compared with MT, TAVR showed a statistically significant benefit for all-cause mortality at 12 months (OR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.49-0.95). Both TAVR and SAVR were associated with better outcomes compared with MT. TAVR showed lower all-cause mortality over SAVR at 12 months (OR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.68-0.97). The comparison between SAVR and TAVR at 2 years revealed no significant difference (OR = 1.09; 95% CI: 1.01-1.17).

CONCLUSION

In AS, both TAVR and SAVR provide a superior prognosis to MT and, therefore, MT is not the preferred treatment option for AS. Furthermore, our data show that TAVR is associated with lower mortality at 12 months compared with SAVR. Further studies are warranted to compare the long-term outcome of TAVR versus SAVR beyond a 2-year follow-up period.

Direct and adjusted indirect comparisons of perioperative mortality after sutureless or rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation

OBJECTIVES

To determine which procedure, aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a sutureless or rapid-deployment prosthesis (SL-AVR) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), achieves better perioperative survival for severe aortic stenosis (AS), we conducted direct-comparison meta-analyses (DC-MAs) and an adjusted indirect-comparison meta-analysis (IDC-MA).

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through April 2016. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies. We performed a DC-MA-[A] of SL-AVR versus TAVI, a DC-MA-[B] of SL-AVR versus conventional AVR (C-AVR), and a DC-MA-[C] TAVI versus C-AVR. Then, we computed a IDC-MA-[A'] of TAVI versus SL-AVR from the results of the DC-MA-[B] and the DC-MA-[C].

RESULTS

We identified 6 RCTs and 30 PSM studies enrolling a total of 15,887 patients. The 3 DC-MAs demonstrated significantly lower perioperative (30-day or in-hospital) all-cause mortality after SL-AVR than after TAVI (odds ratio [OR], 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28 to 0.80; p=0.005) and no significant differences between SL-AVR and C-AVR (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.94; p=0.81) and between TAVI and C-AVR (1.07; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.27; p=0.45). The computed IDC-MA-[A'] indicated no significant difference in mortality between SL-AVR and TAVI (1.01; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.86). Combining the results of the DC-MA-[A] and IDC-MA [A'] showed significantly lower mortality after SL-AVR than after TAVI (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.97; p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with severe AS, SL-AVR may achieve better perioperative survival than TAVI.

Utilization and 1-Year Mortality for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in New York Patients With Aortic Stenosis: 2011 to 2012

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to investigate changes in the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) relative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and to examine relative 1-year TAVR and SAVR outcomes in 2011 to 2012 in a population-based setting.

BACKGROUND

TAVR has become a popular option for patients with severe aortic stenosis, particularly for higher-risk patients.

METHODS

New York's Cardiac Surgery Reporting System was used to identify TAVR and SAVR volumes and to propensity match TAVR and SAVR patients using numerous patient risk factors contained in the registry to compare 1-year mortality rates. Mortality rates were also compared for different levels of patient risk.

RESULTS

The total number of aortic valve replacement patients increased from 2,291 in 2011 to 2,899 in 2012, an increase of 27%. The volume of SAVR patients increased by 7.1% from 1,994 to 2,135 and the volume of TAVR patients increased 157% from 297 to 764. The percentage of SAVR patients that were at higher risk (≥3% New York State [NYS] score, equivalent to a Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of about 8%) decreased from 27% to 23%, and the percentage of TAVR patients that were at higher risk decreased from 83% to 76%. There was no significant difference in 1-year mortality between TAVR and SAVR patients (15.6% vs. 13.1%; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.30 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89 to 1.92]). There were no differences among patients with NYS score <3% (12.5% vs. 10.2%; HR: 1.42 [95% CI: 0.68 to 2.97]) or among patients with NYS score ≥3% (17.1% vs. 14.5%; HR: 1.27 [95% CI: 0.81 to 1.98]).

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR has assumed a much larger share of all aortic valve replacements for severe aortic stenosis, and the average level of pre-procedural risk has decreased substantially. There are no differences between 1-year mortality rates for TAVR and SAVR patients.

Phase of Care Mortality Analysis: A Unique Method for Comparing Mortality Differences Among Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Patients

The objective of this study is based on the phase of care mortality analysis (POCMA), an effective tool to evaluate the root cause of in-hospital mortality in cardiac surgery patients. POCMA has not been used to compare operative mortalities among transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) populations, and may provide insight that could affect patient safety initiatives and improve outcomes in aortic valve surgery. We included patients who underwent TAVR or isolated SAVR between 2011 and March 31, 2015 and did not survive the index hospitalization. A multidisciplinary heart team made POCMA assignments as part of the weekly morbidity and mortality conference, pinpointing the phase of care and subcategory that directly caused or had the greatest effect on each mortality. During the study period, 240 patients underwent TAVR and 530 underwent SAVR. Unadjusted mortality rates were significantly higher in the TAVR group, 5.0% (n = 12) compared with SAVR, 1.9% (n = 10) (P = 0.016). TAVR deaths by phase of care are as follows: 0 for preoperative, 9 (72.8%) for intraoperative, 2 (18.2%) for postoperative intensive care unit, and 1 (9.1%) for postoperative floor. By comparison, 4 (40%) SAVR deaths had a root cause in the preoperative phase, 1 (10%) in the intraoperative phase, and 5 (50%) in the postoperative intensive care unit phase. POCMA is a novel method of categorizing in-hospital mortalities. Our single institution review revealed that patients who underwent TAVR more often expired because of intraoperative technical issues, whereas SAVR deaths were typically the result of patient selection or postoperative complications.

Thirty-Day Readmissions After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis in New York State

BACKGROUND

Several studies have compared short-term and medium-term mortality rates for patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), but no studies have compared short-term readmission rates for the 2 procedures.

METHODS AND RESULTS

New York's Cardiac Surgery Reporting System was used to propensity match 617 TAVI and 1981 SAVR patients using numerous patient risk factors contained in the registry. The 389 propensity-matched pairs were then used to analyze differences in readmission rates between the 2 groups. TAVI and SAVR readmission rates were also compared for patients with a history of congestive heart failure and for patients aged ≥80. Also, reasons for readmission for TAVI and SAVR patients were examined and compared. Readmission rates were not statistically different for all propensity-matched TAVI and SAVR patients (respective rates, 18.8% and 19.3%; P=0.86). After further adjustment using a logistic regression model, there was still no significant difference (adjusted odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [0.68-1.39]). For patients aged ≥80, the 30-day readmission rates were 19.9% and 22.0% (P=0.59), and when further adjusted using the logistic regression model, adjusted odds ratio=0.89 (0.55-1.45). For patients with a history of congestive heart failure, the respective rates were 22.8% and 20.4% (P=0.56), and with further adjustment, adjusted odds ratio became 1.15 (0.72-1.82).

CONCLUSIONS

There are no statistically significant differences between TAVI and SAVR patients in short-term readmission rates.

Incidence and causes of silent and symptomatic stroke following surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a comprehensive review

Stroke associated with aortic valve replacement in calcific aortic stenosis, either via transcatheter implantation (TAVR) or via surgical replacement (SAVR), is one of the most devastating complications. However, data concerning the clinical impact and incidence of clinical and silent stroke complicating SAVR and TAVR are varying. This comprehensive review of the literature explores the genuine incidence of neurological events after these procedures. Additionally, potential factors responsible for the discrepancies in stroke rates in the current literature are analysed and a lack of uniform neurological definitions and standardized neurological assessments revealed. Current stroke rates after TAVR show a decline from 7 to 1.7-4.8% in recent studies. Randomized studies comparing TAVR with SAVR yielded initially a significantly higher stroke rate after TAVR procedures as opposed to SAVR. Recently published data showed opposite results with strokes being higher following SAVR. Current data concerning stroke after surgical valve replacement report significantly higher rates of clinical strokes (17%) than previously mentioned in the literature (≤4.9%). Silent cerebral lesions were detected in 68-93% after TAVR and 38-54% after SAVR. A broader application of cerebral protection devices may help to reduce embolic cerebral events.

Late survival and heart failure after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Short-term survival in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation is favorable. Our aim was to evaluate late survival and composite clinical endpoints specified by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2, including rehospitalization for congestive heart failure.

METHODS

Between January 2008 and April 2014, 166 consecutive patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis underwent 168 transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedures at our facility. This cohort was compared with propensity score-matched aortic valve replacement patients. Event rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Cox regression analysis was performed to determine predictors of outcome.

RESULTS

Although 30-day mortality rates following both procedures were similar (4.2% and 4.8%; p = 0.81), significant differences were seen in corresponding rates of survival (51.7% ± 5.8% vs. 72.3% ± 4.3%; p < 0.001) and cumulative rehospitalization for congestive heart failure (41.3% ± 7.2% vs. 23% ± 4.3%; p = 0.006). New York Heart Association functional class IV preoperative status was an independent risk factor for rehospitalization due to congestive heart failure (p = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the merit of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, although late survival proved inferior to that of aortic valve replacement in propensity score-matched subjects. Early safety was excellent for both treatment groups, however, patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation had a higher incidence of rehospitalization for congestive heart failure and myocardial infarction during follow-up. Patients with severe congestive heart failure should be carefully monitored and aggressively treated to improve outcomes.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation via Right Carotid Artery Route for Severe Aortic Regurgitation Management in a Patient with Chronic Operated Type A Aortic Dissection

<p><b>Background:</b> Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) technique is now widely accepted as an alternative for the treatment of very high-risk patients in cases of aortic stenosis. However, use of this technique in cases of pure native aortic regurgitation (AR) remains discussed.</p><p><b>Case Report:</b> We report the case of a 68-year-old patient with severe AR referred to our hospital 10 years after a supracoronary ascending aorta replacement surgery for acute type A aortic dissection. Because of respiratory contraindication to redo sternotomy, we treated this patient with the implantation of a CoreValve prosthesis inserted via right carotid access. We discuss the TAVI strategy in the case of severe AR and the possibility to use alternative vascular access.</p><p><b>Conclusion:</b> In very high-risk patients, TAVI can be discussed and considered as an alternative treatment for severe AR, with right carotid access proven as feasible.</p>

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised trials

Introduction

Many patients deemed inoperable for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) have been treated successfully by transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR). This meta-analysis is designed to evaluate the performance of TAVR in comparison with SAVR.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Current Contents Connect, the Cochrane library, Google Scholar, Science Direct and Web of Science. Original data were abstracted from each study and used to calculate a pooled OR and 95% CI.

Results

Among three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), differences between the two cohorts were not statistically significant for the frequency of stroke (OR=1.94, 95% CI=0.813 to 4.633), incidence of myocardial infarction (MI), (OR=0.765, 95% CI=0.05 to 11.76) 30-day mortality rate, 1-year mortality rate (0.82, 95% CI=0.62 to 1.09) and acute kidney injury incidence rate. The non-RCTs demonstrated that the TAVR group had an amplified frequency aortic regurgitation at discharge (OR=5.465, 95% CI=3.441 to 8.680). While differences between the two cohorts were not statistically significant for the incidence of MI (OR=0.697, 95% CI=0.22 to 2.21), stroke (OR=0.575, 95% CI=0.263 to 1.259), acute renal failure requiring haemodialysis (OR=0.943, 95% CI=0.276 to 3.222), 30-day mortality (OR=0.869, 95% CI=0.621 to 1.216) and the need for a pacemaker (OR=1.832, 95% CI=0.869 to 3.862), a lower incidence of patients needing transfusion (OR=0.349, 95% CI=0.121 to 1.005) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (OR=0.296, 95% CI=0.124 to 0.706) was seen in the TAVR group.

Conclusions

Randomised and observational evidence adjusted on the baseline patient’s characteristics finds a similar risk for 30 days mortality, 1-year mortality, stroke, MI and acute kidney injury in TAVR and SAVR.

Advanced age and the clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Aortic valve stenosis (AS) is common in the elderly. Although surgical replacement of the valve has been the gold standard of management, many patients have been excluded from surgery because they were very old, frail, or had co-morbidities that increased operative risks. In the last decade, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a new treatment option suitable for these patients. This article reviews the available literature on the role of TAVI in elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis. Published studies showed that elderly individuals who underwent TAVI experienced better in-hospital recovery, and similar short and mid-term mortality compared to those underwent surgical treatment of AS. However, long-term outcomes of TAVI in elderly patients are still unknown. The available data in the literature on the effect of advanced age on clinical outcomes of TAVI are limited, but the data that are available suggest that TAVI is a beneficial and tolerable procedure in very old patients. Some of the expected complications after TAVI are reported more in the oldest patients such as vascular injures. Other complications were comparable in TAVI patients regardless of their age group. However, very old patients may need closer monitoring to avoid further morbidities and mortality.

Comparing post-operative resource consumption following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and conventional aortic valve replacement in the UK

OBJECTIVE

To define the in-hospital and 6-month post-discharge resource use, following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) and conventional Aortic Valve Replacement (AVR) surgery within a single UK hospital.

METHODS

A local service evaluation of patients undergoing TAVI or AVR between January 2011 and May 2012 captured data until 6-months post-procedure, collected from hospital records and via a General Practitioner questionnaire. The main end-points were mortality, time in ITU/HDU, hospital length of stay (LoS), discharge destination, re-admission, and post-discharge primary/secondary care resource use. Sub-group analyses were performed for AVR patients aged ≥80 (AVR ≥ 80) and with EuroSCORE of ≥10 (AVR ES ≥ 10) to allow more direct comparison with 'TAVI type' patients.

RESULTS

Results are given as means (standard deviation) for TAVI (n = 51), AVR (n = 188), AVR ≥ 80 (n = 48), and AVR ES ≥ 10 (n = 47), respectively, unless otherwise stated. Age in years was 83.0 (8.1), 71.2 (13.1), 84.1 (2.7), 79.4 (7.1); EuroSCORE was 24.7 (11.9), 8.1 (6.4), 12.0 (6.0), and 16.5 (6.6); post-operative LoS (days) was 11.5 (11.2), 10.9 (10.8), 14.3 (16.7), and 15.2 (17.7). For discharged patients, 0%, 7%, 13%, and 9% had unplanned cardiac-related re-admissions within 30-days of discharge. Time to first readmission was 74.6 (34.0), 35.0 (34.2), 20.8 (9.7), and 22.6 (14.3) days.

LIMITATIONS

This was a single-center retrospective evaluation, not prospectively powered to confirm differences in outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite TAVI being performed in an older, higher risk population, LoS was similar to AVR. Most strikingly there were no cardiac-related re-admissions within 30-days for TAVI and time to first re-admission was significantly longer. This evaluation suggests that TAVI is clinically appropriate and provides economic advantages in both the hospital and post-discharge setting in this high risk group. Many patients undergoing TAVI are considered unfit for surgery and, hence, TAVI offers a treatment that delivers similar results to traditional AVR without the high risk associated with surgery.

Aortic valve reconstruction using autologous pericardium for ages over 80 years

Background

We performed original aortic valve reconstruction using autologous pericardium; the feasibility for elderly patients is reviewed.

Methods

From April 2007 through September 2011, aortic valve reconstruction was carried out in 86 patients over the age of 80 years. Twenty-seven patients were male and 59 were female. Mean age was 82.9 ± 2.5 years. Seventy-two patients had aortic stenosis and 14 had aortic regurgitation. Mean preoperative surgical annular diameter was 19.5 ± 2.5 mm. There were 80 (90.7%) cases of small aortic annulus. Mean preoperative logistic EuroSCORE was 22.9 ± 15.8.

Results

Isolated aortic valve reconstructions were performed in 51 patients. Concomitant procedures included coronary artery bypass grafting in 6, hemiarch aortic replacements in 6, 9 maze procedures, and some combinations. No conversion to valve replacement was required. Mean follow-up was 1243 days. There were 3 hospital deaths due to noncardiac causes. No reoperation was needed. Survival at 56 months was 87.0%. No thromboembolic event occurred. Echocardiography 3.5 years after surgery revealed an average peak pressure gradient of 14.6 ± 3.8 mm Hg. No moderate or severe regurgitation was recorded.

Conclusions

Aortic valve reconstruction is feasible for patients older than 80 years, resulting in good hemodynamics and a better quality of life, without anticoagulation.

Relative amplitude index: a new tool for hemodynamic evaluation of periprosthetic regurgitation after transcatheter valve implantation

OBJECTIVE

The impact of paravalvular aortic regurgitation (PAR) on hemodynamic performance after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains disputable. Common parameters such as the diastolic blood pressure or the blood pressure amplitude do not provide reproducible results. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of PAR on hemodynamics and outcome using the relative amplitude index (RAI).

METHODS

PAR was prospectively evaluated by echocardiography before discharge in 110 patients. The RAI was calculated according to the formula: RAI = [(Post-TAVI BP amplitude)/(Post-TAVI SBP) - (Pre-TAVI BP amplitude)/(Pre-TAVI SBP)] × 100%, where BP is blood pressure and SBP is systolic blood pressure. Correlations of increased RAI with perioperative outcome were investigated and factors influencing mortality were isolated.

RESULTS

The incidence of moderate and severe PAR after TAVI was 9% and 1%, respectively. Diastolic pressure or post-TAVI amplitude did not correlate to perioperative outcome. RAI increased from 2 when PAR was <2+ to 7 when PAR was ≥2+ (P = .006). A cut-off value of RAI ≥14 was associated with increased perioperative mortality (29 vs 5%; P = .013) and acute renal injury requiring dialysis (71 vs 18%; P = .001). RAI ≥14 was also associated with higher follow-up mortality at 1 year (57 vs 16%; P = .007). RAI ≥14 (odds ratio [OR], 3.390; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-7.194; P = .00146), PAR ≥2+ (OR, 4.717; 95% CI, 1.828-12.195; P = .00135), and perioperative renal replacement therapy (OR, 12.820; 95% CI, 5.181-31.250; P = .00031) were found to be independent predictors of mortality at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

The RAI is a useful tool to predict perioperative and 1-year outcome in patients with PAR after TAVI.

Effect of severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction on hospital outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation or surgical aortic valve replacement: results from a propensity-matched population of the Italian OBSERVANT multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

Despite demonstration of the superior outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus optimal medical therapy for severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction, studies comparing TAVI and surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in this high-risk group have been lacking.

METHODS

We performed propensity matching for age, gender, baseline comorbidities, previous interventions, priority at hospital admission, frailty score, New York Heart Association class, EuroSCORE, and associated cardiac diseases. Next, the 30-day mortality and procedure-related morbidity of 162 patients (81 TAVI vs 81 AVR) with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction ≤ 35%) were analyzed at the Italian National Institute of Health.

RESULTS

The 30-day mortality was comparable (P = .37) between the 2 groups. The incidence of periprocedural acute myocardial infarction (P = .55), low output state (P = .27), stroke (P = .36), and renal dysfunction (peak creatinine level, P = .57) was also similar between the 2 groups. TAVI resulted in significantly greater postprocedural permanent pacemaker implantation (P = .01) and AVR in more periprocedural transfusions (P < .01) despite a similar transfusion rate per patient (2.8 ± 3.7 for TAVI vs 4.4 ± 3.8 for AVR; P = .08). The postprocedural intensive care unit stay (median, 2 days after TAVI vs 3 days after AVR; P = .34), intermediate care unit stay (median, 0 days after both TAVI and AVR; P = .94), and hospitalization (median, 11 days after TAVI vs 14 days after AVR; P = .51) were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction, both TAVI and AVR are valid treatment options, with comparable hospital mortality and periprocedural morbidity. Comparisons of the mid- to long-term outcomes are mandatory.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high risk for surgical complications: summary assessment of the California Technology Assessment Forum

BACKGROUND

The California Technology Assessment Forum is dedicated to assessment and public reporting of syntheses of available data on medical technologies. In this assessment, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was evaluated for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) who are at high risk for complications.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this assessment, 5 criteria were used: Regulatory approval, sufficient scientific evidence to allow conclusions on effectiveness, evidence that the technology improves net health outcomes, evidence that the technology is as beneficial as established methods, and availability of the technology outside investigational settings. In this assessment, all 5 criteria were judged to have been met. The primary benefit of TAVR is the ability to treat AS in patients who would otherwise be ineligible for surgical aortic valve replacement. It may also be useful for patients at high surgical risk by potentially reducing periprocedural complications and avoiding the morbidity and recovery from undergoing heart surgery. Potential harms include the need for conversion to an open procedure, perioperative death, myocardial infarction, stroke, bleeding, valve embolization, aortic regurgitation, heart block that requires a permanent pacemaker, renal failure, pulmonary failure, and major vascular complications such as cardiac perforation or arterial dissection. Potential long-term harms include death, stroke, valve failure or clotting, and endocarditis. As highlighted at the February 2012 California Technology Assessment Forum meeting, the dispersion of this technology to new centers across the United States must proceed with careful thought given to training and proctoring multidisciplinary teams to become new centers of excellence.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR is a potentially lifesaving procedure that may improve quality of life for patients at high risk for surgical AVR. However, attention needs to be paid to appropriate patient selection, their preoperative evaluation, surgical techniques, and postoperative care to preserve and improve on the results attained in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve trial. Specialty societies are collaborating to ensure that this happens in a rational and comprehensive manner.

Patient experiences of recovery after heart valve replacement: suffering weakness, struggling to resume normality

Background

Heart valve disease is becoming a public health problem due to increasing life expectancy and new treatment methods. Patients are at risk of developing depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder after heart valve surgery. To better plan proper care, describing and understanding patients’ perception of recovery after heart valve replacement is essential. The objective was to describe the experience of recovery at home after heart valve replacement.

Methods

Qualitative interviews were conducted with 10 patients representing the population and these were later transcribed. The analysis was inspired by Ricoeur’s theory of interpretation, which consists of three levels: naive reading, structured analysis, and critical interpretation and discussion.

Results

The overall concept that emerged was suffering weakness and struggling to resume normality. Patients all struggled to resume normal living, both in regaining physical strength and in reestablishing balance in overall living. The overall concept can be interpreted in terms of the following themes: Disturbed network: Invaluable relatives, Contact with healthcare staff, Rehabilitation. Disturbed body: Stressful complications, Bodily attention, Physically affected, Physical capability. Recovery: Interrupted living, Suffering weakness, Gradual recovery, Achieving normality. Reflections: Thoughts about the procedure and Feeling sad and fragile.

Conclusion

The study presents the main themes of network, body, recovery and reflection for ten patients after heart valve replacement. These main themes can overall be summarized as suffering weakness and struggling to resume normality. Patients felt weak with a changed body, but after a long recovery process regained vitality and returned to their daily life.

A meta-analysis of mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events following transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare postprocedural mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic stenosis. Seventeen studies (n = 4,659) comparing TAVI (n = 2,267) and SAVR (n = 2,392) were included. End points were baseline logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, and major bleeding events. Mean differences or risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were computed, and p values <0.05 were considered significant. The population was matched for risk between the 2 groups on the basis of logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score for all outcomes except 30-day all-cause mortality, which had a high-risk population in the TAVI group (p = 0.02). There was no significant difference found in all-cause mortality at 30 days (p = 0.97) and at an average of 85 weeks (p = 0.07). There was no significant difference in cardiovascular mortality (p = 0.54) as well as the incidence of myocardial infarction (p = 0.59), stroke (p = 0.36), and transient ischemic attack (p = 0.85) at averages of 86, 72, 66, and 89 weeks, respectively. Compared with patients who underwent TAVI, those who underwent SAVR had a significantly higher frequency of major bleeding events (p <0.0001) at mean follow-up of 66 weeks. In conclusion, TAVI has similar cardiovascular and all-cause mortality to SAVR at early and long-term follow-up. TAVI is superior to SAVR for major bleeding complications and noninferior to SAVR for postprocedural myocardial infarctions and cerebrovascular events. TAVI is a safe alternative to SAVR in selected high-risk elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Surgical aortic valve replacement in very elderly patients aged 80 years and over: evaluation of early clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of very elderly patients aged ≥80 years will require aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe aortic stenosis (AS). Many are classified as high-risk surgical candidates. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been proposed as an alternative to surgical AVR (SAVR) for high-risk patients. We evaluated early clinical outcomes of very elderly patients undergoing SAVR to optimise TAVI candidate selection.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective case review of 132 consecutive patients aged ≥80 years undergoing isolated SAVR (49 patients) or combined SAVR/CABG (83 patients) during February 2002-January 2010 at a single tertiary referral hospital. Risk for cardiac surgery was calculated using the logistic EuroSCORE (ES(log)). Mortality and morbidity data were collected for the 30-day postoperative period.

RESULTS

Thirty-day mortality rate was 8.3% for patients undergoing SAVR (6.1% for isolated SAVR and 9.6% for SAVR/CABG). Permanent stroke occurred in 3.8% and renal insufficiency in 7.6% of the cohort. Thirty-five percent of patients had left ventricular ejection fraction <50%, 67% had advanced symptoms (NYHA class III or IV), and 42% of patients were stratified as high-risk (ES(log)≥20%).

CONCLUSIONS

SAVR can be performed in very elderly patients with acceptable operative morbidity and mortality. The outcomes at our institution are comparable to contemporary SAVR and TAVI outcomes.

Hemodynamic performance and outcome of percutaneous versus surgical stentless bioprostheses for aortic stenosis with anticipated patient-prosthesis mismatch

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to compare the performance and midterm survival of transcutaneous aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgically implanted stentless aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic stenosis in patients anticipated to have patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of 86 and 49 consecutive TAVR and SAVR patients with severe aortic stenosis and calculated minimal effective orifice area larger than the best projected effective orifice area. Cox hazard analyses were used to assess the effect of TAVR versus SAVR on outcome.

RESULTS

The peak and mean transprosthetic gradient at discharge were lower (P < .001 for both) in the TAVR group. Mild or greater aortic regurgitation was more frequent in the TAVR group (61% vs 7%; P < .0001). At 3 months of follow-up, the mean gradient in the TAVR group was similar to that of the SAVR group but the prevalence of aortic regurgitation was still higher. The unadjusted 3-year survival rate was superior in the SAVR versus TAVR group (91.6% ± 4% vs 67.0% ± 7%; P = .01). Adjustments for both age and comorbidity resulted in loss of the difference in mortality between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with anticipated PPM, TAVR offers an immediate lower incidence of PPM than SAVR but a greater prevalence of aortic regurgitation. The differences in transaortic gradients became nonsignificant 3 months postoperatively. The question of whether TAVR is a suitable substitute for SAVR in patients with anticipated PPM, in particular, those who are older and sicker, warrants additional investigation.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an acceptable treatment modality for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are deemed inoperable by conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). However, the role of TAVI in patients who are potential surgical candidates remains controversial.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using five electronic databases, identifying all relevant studies with comparative data on TAVI versus AVR. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. A number of periprocedural outcomes were also assessed according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium endpoint definitions.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were quantitatively assessed and included for meta-analysis, including two randomized controlled trials and eleven observational studies. Results indicated no significant differences between TAVI and AVR in terms of all-cause and cardiovascular related mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction or acute renal failure. A subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials identified a higher combined incidence of stroke or transient ischemic attacks in the TAVI group compared to the AVR group. TAVI was also found to be associated with a significantly higher incidence of vascular complications, permanent pacemaker requirement and moderate or severe aortic regurgitation. However, patients who underwent AVR were more likely to experience major bleeding. Both treatment modalities appeared to effectively reduce the transvalvular mean pressure gradient.

CONCLUSIONS

The available data on TAVI versus AVR for patients at a higher surgical risk showed that major adverse outcomes such as mortality and stroke appeared to be similar between the two treatment modalities. Evidence on the outcomes of TAVI compared with AVR in the current literature is limited by inconsistent patient selection criteria, heterogeneous definitions of clinical endpoints and relatively short follow-up periods. The indications for TAVI should therefore be limited to inoperable surgical candidates until long-term data become available.

Transapical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis: results from the nonrandomized continued access cohort of the PARTNER trial

BACKGROUND

Transapical (TA) aortic valve replacement was an integral part of the Placement of Transcatheter Aortic Valves (PARTNER) trial. Enrollment during the randomized trial included 104 transapical (premarket approval TA [PMA-TA]) and 92 surgical aortic valve replacements (SAVR) within the TA cohort. On completion of the trial, enrollment continued in a nonrandomized continued access (NRCA) program. We compared the outcomes of NRCA-TA procedures with those of PMA-TA and SAVR.

METHODS

In 22 centers, 975 patients underwent TA aortic valve replacement as part of the NRCA registry. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were unchanged from the previously reported PARTNER trial. All patients were followed up for at least 1 year.

RESULTS

Thirty-day or in-hospital mortality was 8.8% for the NRCA-TA cohort, compared with 10.6% and 12.0% for the PMA-TA and SAVR patients, respectively (p = 0.54). One-year mortality in the NRCA-TA cohort was 22.1%, not significantly lower than the mortality in PMA-TA and SAVR patients at 29.0% and 25.3%, respectively (p = 0.27). Thirty-day or in-hospital stroke was 2.2% among NRCA-TA patients in contrast to the 6.7% stroke rate observed in the PMA-TA group and 5.4% in SAVR patients (p = 0.008). Lower rates of neurologic adverse events in the NRCA-TA group persisted at 1 year compared with the PMA-TA and SAVR patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the 975 patients in the NRCA-TA cohort, rates of major outcomes including death and stroke compared favorably with outcomes of PMA-TA and SAVR patients enrolled in the PARTNER trial. This trend toward improved outcomes may be attributed to improved patient selection, individual centers surmounting the procedural learning curve, and refinements in surgical technique.

Contemporary strategy for aortic valve stenosis in octogenarians

The number of patients with aortic stenosis (AS) has been increasing over recent decades with the longer life expectancy of the general population. AS is life-threatening without surgery and since many elderly patients have a variety of comorbid conditions, 30-40 % of those with severe AS have been denied surgery. However, recent data on standard aortic valve replacement (AVR) for octogenarians have revealed excellent outcomes, with 2.4-6.8 % early mortality and similar survival rates of octogenarians who undergo AVR vs. the general population. The reported incidences of postoperative stroke, dialysis, and pacemaker implantation were 2.4, 2.6, and 4.6 %, respectively. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is the alternative therapy for patients who are not able to undergo standard AVR and it is developing rapidly. The placement of aortic transcatheter valves (PARTNER) trial showed acceptable early outcomes. The mortality rates from any cause were 3.4 % in the TAVR group and 6.5 % in the AVR group at 30 days, 24.2 and 26.8 % at 1 year, and 33.9 and 35.0 % at 2 years, respectively. Stroke rate was higher in the TAVR group than in the AVR group (3.4 vs. 1.9 %). Vascular complications and paravalvular leakage are frequent procedure-related complications, which must be addressed because they are associated with increased mortality.

A meta-analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Our preliminary meta-analysis suggests that transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) may not reduce the 30-day mortality rate over surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). We performed an updated formal meta-analysis of TAVI vs AVR for reduction not only of early but also of late all-cause mortality in AS.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through October 2012. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials or adjusted observational comparative studies of TAVI vs AVR enrolling individuals with AS and reporting early (30-day or in-hospital) or late all-cause mortality, or both, as an outcome. Odds ratios or hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (adjusted odds ratios or hazard ratios in case of observational studies) were abstracted from each study.

RESULTS

We identified two randomized trials and 15 adjusted observational studies enrolling 4,873 patients with severe AS. Pooled analysis suggested no significant difference in early (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.70 to 1.19) and midterm (3-month to 3-year) total mortality (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.17) among patients assigned to TAVI vs AVR. Exclusion of any single study from the analysis did not substantively alter the overall result of our analysis. No evidence of significant publication bias was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis of data of approximately 5,000 patients from 17 studies showed that TAVI is likely ineffective in reducing early and midterm all-cause mortality vs AVR in high-risk patients with AS.

Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs conventional aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with previous cardiac surgery: a propensity-score analysis

OBJECTIVES

The present analysis compared clinical and mid-term outcomes of patients with previous cardiac surgery undergoing transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with propensity-matched patients undergoing conventional redo aortic valve replacement (cAVR).

METHODS

Since 2008, 508 patients were treated with TAVI. Fifty-three of these patients presented with a history of cardiac surgery and underwent transapical TAVI using the Edwards SAPIEN bioprosthesis. A propensity-matched control group of 53 patients receiving cAVR was generated out of the hospital's database. The mean age for all the patients was 77.8 ± 4.5 years. The logistic EuroSCORE was 28.4 ± 13.6% in mean, and mean EuroSCORE II was 8.56 ± 3.93%. The mean follow-up time was 245 ± 323 days, which equated to a total of 700 patient-months.

RESULTS

The observed hospital mortality did not differ significantly between TAVI and cAVR (TAVI: 9.4% and cAVR: 5.7%; P = 0.695). Six-month survival was 83.0% for the TAVI and 86.8% for the cAVR patients (P = 0.768). Postoperative bleedings (TAVI: 725 ± 1770 ml and cAVR: 1884 ± 6387; P = 0.022), the need for transfusion (TAVI: 1.7 ± 5.3 vs cAVR: 6.2 ± 13.7 units packed red blood cells (PRBC); P = 0.030), consecutive rethoracotomy (TAVI: 1.9% vs cAVR: 16.9%; P = 0.002) and postoperative delirium (TAVI: 11.5% vs cAVR: 28.3%; P = 0.046) were more common in the cAVR patients. The TAVI patients suffered more frequently from respiratory failure (TAVI: 11.3% vs cAVR: 0.0%; P = 0.017) and mean grade of paravalvular regurgitation (TAVI: 0.8 ± 0.2 vs cAVR: 0.0; P = 0.047). Although primary ventilation time (P = 0.020) and intensive care unit stay (P = 0.022) were shorter in the TAVI patients, mean hospital stay did not differ significantly (P = 0.108).

CONCLUSIONS

Transapical TAVI as well as surgical aortic valve replacement provided good clinical results. The pattern of postoperative morbidity and mortality was different for both entities, but the final clinical outcome did not differ significantly. Both techniques can be seen as complementary approaches by means of developing a tailor-made and patient-orientated surgery.

Prognostic utility of biomarkers in predicting of one-year outcomes in patients with aortic stenosis treated with transcatheter or surgical aortic valve implantation

Objectives

The aim of the work was to find biomarkers identifying patients at high risk of adverse clinical outcomes after TAVI and SAVR in addition to currently used predictive model (EuroSCORE).

Background

There is limited data about the role of biomarkers in predicting prognosis, especially when TAVI is available.

Methods

The multi-biomarker sub-study included 42 consecutive high-risk patients (average age 82.0 years; logistic EuroSCORE 21.0%) allocated to TAVI transfemoral and transapical using the Edwards-Sapien valve (n = 29), or SAVR with the Edwards Perimount bioprosthesis (n = 13). Standardized endpoints were prospectively followed during the 12-month follow-up.

Results

The clinical outcomes after both TAVI and SAVR were comparable. Malondialdehyde served as the best predictor of a combined endpoint at 1 year with AUC (ROC analysis) = 0.872 for TAVI group, resp. 0.765 (p<0.05) for both TAVI and SAVR groups. Increased levels of MDA, matrix metalloproteinase 2, tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase (TIMP1), ferritin-reducing ability of plasma, homocysteine, cysteine and 8-hydroxy-2-deoxyguanosine were all predictors of the occurrence of combined safety endpoints at 30 days (AUC 0.750–0.948; p<0.05 for all). The addition of MDA to a currently used clinical model (EuroSCORE) significantly improved prediction of a combined safety endpoint at 30 days and a combined endpoint (0–365 days) by the net reclassification improvement (NRI) and the integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) (p<0.05).

Cystatin C, glutathione, cysteinylglycine, asymmetric dimethylarginine, nitrite/nitrate and MMP9 did not prove to be significant. Total of 14.3% died during 1-year follow-up.

Conclusion

We identified malondialdehyde, a marker of oxidative stress, as the most promising predictor of adverse outcomes during the 30-day and 1-year follow-up in high-risk patients with symptomatic, severe aortic stenosis treated with TAVI. The development of a clinical “TAVIscore” would be highly appreciated. Such dedicated scoring system would enable further testing of adjunctive value of various biomarkers.