Modified implantation height of the Sapien3™ transcatheter heart valve

Hemodynamic Performance of Transcatheter Aortic Valves: A Comprehensive Review

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a widely adopted treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis. Its popularity has grown significantly in recent years due to advancements in technology and imaging. As TAVI use is increasingly expanded to younger patients, the need for long-term assessment and durability becomes paramount. This review aims to provide an overview of the diagnostic tools to evaluate the hemodynamic performance of aortic prosthesis, with a special focus on the comparison between transcatheter and surgical aortic valves and between self-expandable and balloon-expandable valves. Moreover, the discussion will encompass how cardiovascular imaging can effectively detect long-term structural valve deterioration.

Non-Inferiority of Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement in the TAVR Era: David versus Goliath

BACKGROUND

The rapid development of transcatheter treatment methods has made transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) a feasible alternative to conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Recently, indications for TAVR have been expanded to intermediate- and low-risk patients, although there still remains a portion of ineligible patients. We sought to evaluate and compare our experience with sutureless SAVR and transapical TAVR in the "grey-area" of patients unsuitable for transfemoral access.

METHODS

Between April 2018 and June 2021, 248 consecutive patients underwent a sutureless SAVR (SU-SAVR) or TA-TAVR at our institution. We performed a pair-matched analysis and identified 56 patient pairs based on the EuroSCORE II. All transcatheter procedures were performed using SAPIEN XT/3™ prostheses, while all surgical procedures deployed the Perceval (LivaNova) aortic valve.

RESULTS

All patients presented with multiple comorbidities as reflected by the median EuroSCORE-II of 3.1% (IQR 1.9-5.3). Thirty-four patients from the surgical group (60.7%) underwent a concomitant myocardial revascularization. There was no significant difference in major adverse events, pacemaker implantation or postoperative mortality during follow-up. Both interventions demonstrated technical success with similar mean postoperative pressure gradients at follow-up and no cases of paravalvular leakage.

CONCLUSIONS

Sutureless aortic valve replacement constitutes a feasible treatment alternative for patients with aortic valve disease who are ineligible for transfemoral access route and/or require concomitant coronary revascularization. With its excellent hemodynamic performance, similar survival compared to TA-TAVR, and high cost-efficiency without compromising the postoperative outcomes and in-hospital length of stay SU-AVR might be considered for patients in the "grey-area" between TAVR and SAVR.

Alternative access in high-risk patients in the era of transfemoral aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of transapical and transaortic transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in high-risk patients who were not suitable for transfemoral access and had a logistic EuroSCORE-I ≥ 25% and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score >6%. 'STS/ACC TAVR In-Hospital Mortality Risk App' was evaluated.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between January 2016 and May 2020, 126 patients at very high risk for aortic valve replacement underwent transapical (n = 121) or transaortic (n = 5) transcatheter aortic valve replacement. TAVR was performed using SAPIEN 3™ or ACURATE TA™ prosthesis.

RESULTS

The logistic EuroSCORE-I was 40.6 ± 14.0%, the STS-score 7.9 ± 4.6%, and STS/ACC-score 8.4 ± 3.4%. Valve implantation was successful in all patients. Operative, in-hospital and 30-days mortality, were 0, 7.9, and 13.5%, respectively. Survival was 72% at one year and 48% at four years. Expected/observed in-hospital mortality was 1.0 for the STS-score and 1.06 for the STS/ACC-score. Renal failure, low ejection fraction, and postoperative acute kidney injury, hemorrhage, and vascular complications were identified as independent predictors for 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Transapical and transaortic TAVR in high-risk patients unsuitable for transfemoral access is still a reasonable alternative in these patients. STS and STS/ACC-score appear to be highly accurate in predicting in-hospital mortality in high-risk patients undergoing TAVR.

Impact of Non-Valvular Non-Coronary Concomitant Procedures on Outcomes of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate Risk Patients

Introduction: advanced age and concomitant procedures could increase the risk of perioperative complications during surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We aimed to evaluate results of elderly patients undergoing SAVR and evaluate the impact of concomitant non-valvular, non-coronary procedures on the outcomes. Methods: A retrospective single-centre study, evaluating 464 elderly patients (mean age = 75.6 ± 4 years) undergoing either isolated-SAVR (I-SAVR = 211) or combined-SAVR (C-SAVR = 253) between 01/2007 and 12/2017. Combined-SAVR involved non-valvular, non-coronary procedures. Study endpoints are postoperative results concerning the VARC-II criteria, valve dysfunction, long-term freedom from redo-AVR and survival. Results: males were 52.8%. Patients had an intermediate risk profile (mean EuroSCORE-II (%) 5.2 ± 5). Postoperative results reported no significant differences in incidence of re-exploration for bleeding (6.6% vs. 6.7%, p = 1.0), stroke (0.9% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.59), dialysis (6.2% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.23) and pacemaker implantation (3.3% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.79) between I-SAVR and C-SAVR groups. Thirty-day (2.4% vs. 7.1% p = 0.03), one-year (5.7% vs. 13.8%, p = 0.003) and overall mortality (24.6% vs. 37.5%, p = 0.002) were lower in the isolated-SAVR group. Re-AVR was indicated in 1.7% of patients due to endocarditis. Conclusions: SAVR in elderly patients offers good outcomes with increased life quality and rare re-operation for structural valvular deterioration. Mortality rates were significantly higher when SAVR was combined with another “non-valvular, non-coronary” procedure.

Transapical transcatheter mitral valve implantation in patients with degenerated mitral bioprostheses or failed ring annuloplasty

Background

We sought to evaluate the outcomes of transapical transcatheter mitral valve replacement in patients with degenerated mitral bioprostheses or failed mitral ring annuloplasty and high surgical risk for redo mitral valve procedure.

Methods

Between August 2012 and December 2020, 41 consecutive high-risk patients underwent transcatheter mitral 'valve-in-valve' (TM-ViV, n=25) or 'valve-in-ring' (TM-ViR, n=16) implantation at our institution. All procedures were performed in a hybrid operating theater using the SAPIEN XT/3™ or the DIRECT FLOW MEDICAL™ prostheses. Data was collected prospectively according to MVARC criteria.

Results

The logistic EuroSCORE-I was 42.3%±20.5% (mean ± SD), the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score was 11.9%±10.8%, and the STS/ACC-score was 7.6%±4.2%. Transcatheter mitral valve implantations were successful in all patients (100%). Early echocardiographic examinations showed no obstruction of the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT), no paravalvular leakage, and only trace transvalvular leakage in eight patients. There was no operative mortality; thirty-day mortality was 9.8%. Survival was 72% at one year and 63% at three years. At two-year follow-up, transvalvular mean pressure gradients were 4.6±1.4 mmHg.

Conclusions

Transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve or valve-in-ring implantation represents a true minimally invasive alternative to surgical redo procedures, especially in high-risk patients with failed bioprosthetic mitral valves or annuloplasty and favorable anatomy.

Carotid versus femoral access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: comparable results in the current era

OBJECTIVES

The carotid approach for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown to be feasible and safe. The goal of this study was to compare the 30-day outcomes of trans-carotid (TC) and transfemoral (TF) TAVR.

METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled 500 consecutive patients treated by TC-TAVR (n = 100) or TF-TAVR (n = 400) with percutaneous closure between January 2018 and January 2020 at the Nantes University Hospital. The primary end-point was the occurrence of cardiovascular death and cerebrovascular events at 30 days.

RESULTS

The mean age was 79.9 ± 8.1 in the TC group and 81.3 ± 6.9 (P = 0.069) in the TF group. The TC group had more men (69% vs 50.5%; P = 0.001) and more patients with peripheral vascular disease (86% vs 14.8%; P < 0.0001). Cardiac characteristics were similar between the groups, and the EuroSCORE II was 3.8 ± 2.6% vs 4.6 ± 6.0%, respectively (P = 0.443). The 30-day mortality was 2% in the TC group versus 1% in the TF group (P = 0.345). TC-TAVR was not associated with an increased risk of stroke (2% vs 2.5%; P = 0.999) or major vascular complications (2% vs 4%; P = 0.548). More permanent pacemakers were implanted in the TF group (14.9% vs 5.6%; P = 0.015), and no moderate or severe aortic regurgitation was observed in the TC group (0 vs 3.3%; P = 0.08). TC-TAVR was not associated with an increased risk of mortality or stroke at 30 days (odds ratio 1.32; 95% confidence interval 0.42-4.21; P = 0.63) in the multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

No statistically significant differences between TC-TAVR and TF-TAVR were observed; therefore, TC-TAVR should be the first alternative in patients with anatomical contraindications to the femoral route.