Treatment Patterns, Disparities, and Management Strategies Impact Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Symptomatic Severe Aortic Regurgitation

Precision medicine in the management of valvular heart disease

The management of valvular heart disease has undergone a remarkable transformation over the past two decades, which was driven by the advent of catheter-based treatment methods. Whereas medical therapy was the only available treatment option for many older patients deemed unsuitable for conventional surgery until the early 2000s, a wide range of interventional therapies is now available. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement and mitral valve transcatheter edge-to-edge repair evidently provide prognostic advantages over medical therapy for inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis and secondary mitral regurgitation, and they have been demonstrated to be non-inferior to conventional surgery in certain operable patient groups. Although catheter-based therapies of aortic and tricuspid regurgitation have not yet been proven to provide prognostic benefits, these approaches enable substantial and sustainable improvements in symptoms as well as quality of life while demonstrating a favorable safety profile. Given the multitude of available options for the treatment of valvular heart diseases, determining the appropriate indication and selecting the optimal therapeutic approach often pose significant challenges. This review article highlights the latest advancements in valvular heart disease management and explores the patient-centered application of available therapies within the framework of an approach toward precision medicine.

The healthcare burden of isolated aortic valve insufficiency

To analyze and compare the differences in mortality, healthcare utilization, and costs between patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic isolated aortic insufficiency (AI). We utilized Optum United Health Care Database for US patients who had an AI claim between 2017 and 2022, with 12 months of continuous enrollment (baseline period) prior to diagnosis. Exclusion criteria were AVR during the baseline period or a diagnosis of aortic stenosis. Patients were split into two cohorts: those with symptoms (SAI) and those without (AAI). SAI patients had ≥ 2 visits for heart failure, angina, dyspnea, or syncope at baseline. Outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, time to home health, time to SNF, annualized healthcare utilization, and annualized costs. We used the Cox proportional model to estimate mortality and general linear models to estimate healthcare utilization and costs. Outcomes were modeled separately. Of 249,660 patients, 58.23% were symptomatic; they were generally older and sicker than the AAI cohort, and less than 1% received AVR. Almost half of AAI patients were estimated to develop symptoms within 5 years post-diagnosis. SAI outcomes were consistently higher across all measured outcomes. SAI patients have higher mortality, healthcare utilization, and costs than AAI. However, AI can progress quickly from asymptomatic to symptomatic. Early detection and timely interventions to slow the progression or address it surgically should be emphasized to limit the impact of AI.

Meta-Analysis of Dedicated vs Off-Label Transcatheter Devices for Native Aortic Regurgitation

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for high surgical risk patients with severe native aortic regurgitation (AR) presents unique challenges. Dedicated devices such as the JenaValve (JenaValve Technology) and J-Valve (JC Medical Inc) show promising results in addressing these challenges.

OBJECTIVES

This study compares the safety and efficacy of dedicated vs off-label devices among high surgical risk patients with pure native AR.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through July 11, 2024, for studies on TAVR among patients with pure severe native AR. The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were device success, residual AR ≥ moderate, valve embolization/migration, pacemaker implantation, reintervention, and all-cause mortality at 1 year. Summary estimates were constructed using a random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 34 studies encompassing 2,162 patients (mean age 75.4 ± 0.2 years, 42.8% women) were included in the meta-analysis. Patients undergoing TAVR with dedicated devices had a lower all-cause 30-day mortality rate (3% vs 9%; P < 0.01) and higher device success (93% vs 82%; P < 0.01) compared with off-label devices. The risk of AR ≥ moderate (2% vs 5%; P = 0.03), valve embolization/migration (2% vs 8%; P < 0.01), pacemaker implantation (11% vs 20%; P < 0.01), and reintervention (4% vs 10%; P < 0.01) at 30 days and all-cause mortality at 1 year (6% vs 24%; P < 0.01) were lower in the dedicated device group.

CONCLUSIONS

Dedicated TAVR devices for native AR show superior device success and reduced mortality, residual AR, and reintervention rates compared with off-label devices. These findings support the use of dedicated devices as a safer alternative for high-risk patients.

Five-year comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of pure aortic stenosis with pure aortic regurgitation or mixed aortic valve disease in the COMMENCE trial

Objective

To compare outcomes of aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with pure aortic stenosis (Pure AS) and those with pure aortic regurgitation (Pure AR) or mixed AS and AR (MAVD) in the COMMENCE trial.

Methods

Of 689 patients who underwent AVR in the COMMENCE trial, patients with moderate or severe AR with or without AS (Pure AR + MAVD; n = 135) or Pure AS (n = 323) were included. Inverse probability of treatment weighting Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used for time-to-event endpoints, and longitudinal changes in hemodynamics were evaluated using mixed-effects models. Echocardiographic outcomes were assessed by an echo core laboratory and clinical outcomes adjudicated by a clinical events committee. The mean duration of follow-up was 5.3 ± 2.2 years.

Results

At 5 years, adjusted safety endpoints were not statistically different between groups; no structural valve deterioration (SVD) event occurred in either group. After adjustment, the Pure AR + MAVD group had a greater change in body surface area-corrected left ventricular (LV) mass reduction (P = .03) compared to the Pure AS patients. Those patients with a baseline LV ejection fraction (LVEF) >55% continued to demonstrate preserved contractility compared to patients with an LVEF ≤55% at baseline (P < .0001). No significant difference in mean gradient (P = .07) or effective orifice area (P = .96) at 5 years was evident between the groups.

Conclusions

Patients with Pure AR + MAVD demonstrated similar clinical safety and freedom from SVD at 5 years compared to those with Pure AS. There was a significant difference in LV reverse remodeling in the Pure AR + MAVD group compared to the Pure AS group at 5 years. These favorable outcomes in patients with AR may reinforce the need for treatment before irreversible changes occur.

Aortic regurgitation: from mechanisms to management

Aortic regurgitation (AR) is a common clinical disease associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Investigations based largely on non-invasive imaging are pivotal in discerning the severity of disease and its impact on the heart. Advances in technology have contributed to improved risk stratification and to our understanding of the pathophysiology of AR. Surgical aortic valve replacement is the predominant treatment. However, its use is limited to patients with an acceptable surgical risk profile. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is an alternative treatment. However, this therapy remains in its infancy, and further data and experience are required. This review article on AR describes its prevalence, mechanisms, diagnosis and treatment.

Quantitative Aortography Analysis of JenaValve's Trilogy Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation System in Patients With Aortic Regurgitation or Stenosis

Background

JenaValve's Trilogy transcatheter heart valve (THV) (JenaValve Inc, Irvine, CA) is the only conformité européenne-marked THV system for the treatment of aortic regurgitation (AR) or aortic stenosis (AS). However, its efficacy has not been quantitatively investigated pre- and post-implantation using video-densitometric analysis.

Methods

Using the CAAS-A-Valve 2.1.2 software (Pie Medical Imaging, Maastricht, the Netherlands), an independent core lab retrospectively analyzed the aortograms of 88 consecutive patients (68 severe AR; 20 severe AS) receiving the JenaValve THV in three European centers. Video-densitometric AR was categorized by the regurgitant fraction (RF) as none/trace AR (RF ≤ 6%), mild (6% < RF ≤ 17%), and moderate/severe AR (RF > 17%).

Results

Pre- and post-THV aortograms were analyzable in 17 (22.4%) and 47 (54.0%) patients, respectively. The main reasons preventing analysis were the descending aorta overlap of the outflow tract (30%) and insufficient frame count (6%). The median RF pre- and post-THV implant was 31.0% (interquartile range 21.5-38.6%) and 5.0% (interquartile range 1.0-7.0%, p < 0.001), respectively. The post-THV incidence of none/trace AR was 72.3%, and of mild AR, 27.7%, with no cases of moderate/severe AR. Video-densitometry analysis of the 12 AR cases with paired pre- and post-THV showed a reduction in the RF of 21.8% ± 8.1%.

Conclusions

Quantitative aortography confirms the low rates of AR and the large reduction in RF following the implantation of Jenavalve's Trilogy THV, irrespective of implant indication. However, these limited data need corroborating in prospective studies using standardized acquisition protocols.

Performance of Purpose-Built vs Off-Label Transcatheter Devices for Aortic Regurgitation: The PURPOSE Study

BACKGROUND

Severe pure aortic regurgitation (AR) carries a high mortality and morbidity risk, and it is often undertreated because of the inherent surgical risk. Transcatheter heart valves (THVs) have been used off-label in this setting with overall suboptimal results. The dedicated "purpose-built" Jena Valve Trilogy (JVT, JenaValve Technology) showed an encouraging performance, although it has never been compared to other THVs.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of our study was to assess the performance of the latest iteration of THVs used off-label in comparison to the purpose-built JVT in inoperable patients with severe AR.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter, retrospective registry with 18 participating centers worldwide collecting data on inoperable patients with severe AR of the native valve. A bicuspid aortic valve was the main exclusion criterion. The primary endpoints were technical and device success, 1-year all-cause mortality, and the composite of 1-year mortality and the heart failure rehospitalization rate.

RESULTS

Overall, 256 patients were enrolled. THVs used off-label were used in 168 cases (66%), whereas JVT was used in 88 (34%). JVT had higher technical (81% vs 98%; P < 0.001) and device success rates (73% vs 95%; P < 0.001), primarily driven by significantly lower incidences of THV embolization (15% vs 1.1%; P < 0.001), the need for a second valve (11% vs 1.1%; P = 0.004), and moderate residual AR (10% vs 1.1%; P = 0.007). The permanent pacemaker implantation rate was comparable and elevated for both groups (22% vs 24%; P = 0.70). Finally, no significant difference was observed at the 1-year follow-up in terms of mortality (HR: 0.99; P = 0.980) and the composite endpoint (HR: 1.5; P = 0.355).

CONCLUSIONS

The JVT platform has a better acute performance than other THVs when used off-label for inoperable patients with severe AR. A longer follow-up is conceivably needed to detect a possible impact on prognosis.

Clinical journey for patients with aortic regurgitation: A retrospective observational study from a multicenter database

BACKGROUND

Data using real-world assessments of aortic regurgitation (AR) severity to identify rates of Heart Valve Team evaluation and aortic valve replacement (AVR), as well as mortality among untreated patients, are lacking. The present study assessed these trends in care and outcomes for real-world patients with documented AR.

METHODS

Using a deidentified data set (January 2018-March 2023) representing 1,002,853 patients >18 years of age from 25 US institutions participating in the egnite Database (egnite, Inc.) with appropriate permissions, patients were classified by AR severity in echocardiographic reports. Rates of evaluation by the Heart Valve Team, AVR, and all-cause mortality without AVR were examined using Kaplan-Meier estimates and compared using the log-rank test.

RESULTS

Within the data set, 845,113 patients had AR severity documented. For moderate-to-severe or severe AR, respectively, 2-year rates (95% confidence interval) of evaluation by the Heart Valve Team (43.5% [41.7%-45.3%] and 65.4% [63.3%-67.4%]) and AVR (19.4% [17.6%-21.1%] and 46.5% [44.2%-48.8%]) were low. Mortality at 2 years without AVR increased with greater AR severity, up to 20.7% for severe AR (p < 0.001). In exploratory analyses, 2-year mortality for untreated patients with left ventricular end-systolic dimension index > 25 mm/m2 was similar for moderate (34.3% [29.2%-39.1%]) and severe (37.2% [24.9%-47.5%]) AR.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate or greater AR is associated with poor clinical outcomes among untreated patients at 2 years. Rates of Heart Valve Team evaluation and AVR were low for those with moderate or greater AR, suggesting that earlier referral to the Heart Valve Team could be beneficial.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for Severe Chronic Aortic Regurgitation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionised the management of aortic valve disease, offering a less invasive alternative to traditional surgical valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis (AS). TAVI for pure aortic regurgitation (AR) is less well established, and, in fact, it was previously labelled as a relative contraindication. However, TAVI has been utilised for selected cases of pure or predominant AR. The primary limitations regarding the use of TAVI in AR are related to the absence of anatomical factors seen in patients with AS that have contributed to the safe and stable functioning of current-generation prostheses. These include aortic root dilatation, mobile valve leaflets and labile blood pressure within the aortic root, which may further increase the risk of valve migration and periprosthetic leak after deployment. Furthermore, patients with AR have more heterogeneous aortic root anatomies when compared to the population of patients with calcific or degenerative AS. This review article describes the current evidence for the off-label use of TAVI in pure AR and the various clinical syndromes associated with AR where there may be specific challenges in the application of TAVI.

Unique Aspects of Women's Valvular Heart Diseases: Impact for Diagnosis and Treatment

Valvular heart diseases (VHDs) are a major cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality worldwide. As degenerative and functional mechanisms represent the main etiologies in high-income countries are degenerative and functional, while in low income countries etiologie is mostly rheumatic. Although therapeutic options have evolved considerably in recent years, women are consistently diagnosed at later stages of their disease, are delayed in receiving surgical referrals, and exhibit worse postoperative outcomes, compared to men. This difference is a result of the historical underrepresentation of women in studies from which current guidelines were developed. However, in recent years, important research, including more female patients, has been conducted and has highlighted substantial sex-specific differences in the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of VHDs. Systematic consideration of these sex-specific differences in VHD patients is crucial for providing equitable healthcare and optimizing clinical outcomes in both female and male patients. Hence, this review aims to explore implications of sex-specific particularities for diagnosis, treatment options, and outcomes in women with VHDs.

A heart valve dedicated for aortic regurgitation: Review of technology and early clinical experience with the transfemoral Trilogy system

Aortic regurgitation (AR) is associated with morbidity and premature mortality. Surgical aortic valve replacement is not an option for many patients due to an adverse surgical risk profile, whilst transcatheter aortic valve implantation with most available prostheses has demonstrated suboptimal implantation success and outcomes. The JenaValve Trilogy™ system provides an attractive solution for such patients as it utilizes clips that directly attach onto the native valve leaflets to anchor. Initially designed for transapical delivery, the current transfemoral delivery system is under investigation in the United States and approved for aortic stenosis and regurgitation in Europe. We present an expert review on the technical aspects of the Trilogy system, provide a guide for implantation, discuss the available evidence for the technology and provide illustrative case examples.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Isolated Aortic Regurgitation Using a New Self-Expanding TAVR System

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe aortic regurgitation (AR) are often not considered for surgery because of increased surgical risk. Because of unique anatomical characteristics among patients with AR, interventional treatment options are limited, and implantation results are inconsistent compared with those among patients with aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVES

The authors describe the initial commercial experience of the first Conformité Européenne-marked transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement system (JenaValve Trilogy [JV]) for the treatment of patients with AR.

METHODS

This multicenter registry included 58 consecutive patients from 6 centers across Germany. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement was performed with the JV system for isolated severe and symptomatic AR. Patient characteristics, primary implantation outcomes, and valve performance up to 30 days were analyzed using Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 definitions.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 76.5 ± 9 years, with a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 4.2% ± 4.3%. Device success was achieved in 98% of patients. The mean gradient was 4.3 ± 1.6 mm Hg, and no moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation occurred. No conversion to open heart surgery or valve embolization was reported. There were no major vascular complications or bleeding events. The rate of new permanent pacemaker implantation was 19.6%. At 30 days, 92% of the patients were in NYHA functional class I or II, and the 30-day mortality rate was 1.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of patients with severe symptomatic AR using the transfemoral JV system is safe and effective. Given its favorable hemodynamic performance and low complication rates, this system may offer a new treatment option for patients with AR not suitable for surgery.

Die Aortenklappeninsuffizienz – können wir mit interventionellen Therapieoptionen mehr Patienten helfen?

Die hochgradige, symptomatische Aortenklappeninsuffizienz ist häufig nicht einfach zu diagnostizieren und bei einem relevanten Anteil der Patienten noch nicht ausreichend gut behandelt. Dabei können auch Patienten mit höherem operativen Risiko von einem Aortenklappenersatz profitieren. Durch das Fortschreiten der interventionellen Therapieoptionen stellt die Transkatheter-Aortenklappenimplantation (TAVI) mittlerweile eine ebenfalls zu berücksichtigende Therapieoption dar. Dadurch kann es möglich werden, auch ältere und kränkere Patienten einer adäquaten und notwendigen Therapie der Aortenklappeninsuffizienz zuzuführen.

Impact of Managing Provider Type on Severe Aortic Stenosis Management and Mortality

Background Many patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis do not undergo aortic valve replacement (AVR) despite clinical guidelines. This study analyzed the association of managing provider type with cardiac specialist follow-up, AVR, and mortality for patients with newly diagnosed severe aortic stenosis (sAS). Methods and Results We identified adults with newly diagnosed sAS per echocardiography performed between January 2017 and March 2019 using Optum electronic health record data. We then selected from those meeting all eligibility criteria patients managed by a primary care provider (n=1707 [25%]) or cardiac specialist (n=5039 [75%]). We evaluated the association of managing provider type with cardiac specialist follow-up, AVR, and mortality, as well as the independent association of cardiac specialist follow-up and AVR with mortality, within 1 year of echocardiography detecting sAS. A subgroup analysis was limited to patients with symptomatic sAS. Patient characteristics and comorbidities at baseline were used for covariate-adjusted cause-specific and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models assessing group differences in outcomes by managing provider type. An adjusted Cox proportional hazard model with additional time-dependent covariates for follow-up and AVR was used to assess these practices' association with mortality. Within 1 year of echocardiography detecting sAS, data revealed that primary care provider management was associated with lower rates of cardiac specialist follow-up (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47 [95% CI, 0.43-0.50], P<0.0001) and AVR (HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.53-0.64], P<0.0001) and with higher 1-year mortality (HR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.26-1.66], P<0.0001). Cardiac specialist follow-up and AVR were independently associated with lower mortality (follow-up: HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.48-0.63], P<0.0001; AVR: HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.60-0.83], P<0.0001). Results were similar for patients with symptomatic sAS. All analyses were adjusted for baseline patient characteristics and comorbidities. Conclusions For patients newly diagnosed with sAS, we observed differences in rates of cardiac specialist follow-up and AVR and risk of mortality between primary care provider- versus cardiologist-managed patients with sAS. In addition, a lower likelihood of receiving follow-up and AVR was independently associated with higher mortality.