Race-Specific Impact of Conventional Surgical Risk Score on 1-Year Mortality After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

Interracial differences in the distribution and prognostic value of conventional Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score on long-term mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are uncertain.

Objectives

This study aims to compare the impact of STS scores on clinical outcomes at 1-year after TAVR between Asian and non-Asian populations.

Methods

We used the Trans-Pacific TAVR (TP-TAVR) registry, a multinational multicenter, observational registry involving patients undergoing TAVR at 2 major centers in the United States and 1 major center in Korea. Patients were classified into 3 groups (low, intermediate, and high-risk) according to the STS score and compared between STS risk groups and race. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 1-year.

Results

Among 1,412 patients, 581 were Asian and 831 were non-Asian. The distribution of the STS risk score group was different between Asian and non-Asian groups (62.5% low-, 29.8% intermediate-, and 7.7% high-risk in Asian vs 40.6% low-, 39.1% intermediate-, and 20.3% high-risk in non-Asian). In the Asian population, the all-cause mortality at 1-year was substantially higher in the high-risk STS group than in the low- and intermediate-risk groups (3.6% low-risk, 8.7% intermediate-risk, and 24.4% high-risk; log-rank P < 0.001), which was primarily driven by noncardiac mortality. In the non-Asian group, there was a proportional increase in all-cause mortality at 1-year according to the STS risk category (5.3% low-risk, 12.6% intermediate-risk, and 17.8% high-risk; log-rank P < 0.001).

Conclusions

In this multiracial registry of patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR, we identified a differential proportion and prognostic impact of STS score on 1-year mortality between Asian and non-Asian patients (TP-TAVR [Transpacific TAVR Registry]; NCT03826264).

Left ventricular speckle tracking echocardiographic evaluation before and after TAVI

AIMS

To assess left ventricular (LV) function before and after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using conventional echocardiographic parameters and global longitudinal LV strain (GLS) and compare outcomes between Edwards S3 and Evolut R valves.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data were collected for consecutive patients undergoing TAVI at Hammersmith hospital between 2015 and 2018. Of the 303 patients, those with coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation were excluded leading to a total of 85 patients, which constituted our study group. The mean follow-up was 49 ± 39 days. In total, 60% of patients were treated with Edwards S3 and 40% Evolut R. TAVI resulted in an early improvement of GLS (-13.96 to -15.25%, P = 0.01) but not ejection fraction (EF) (47.6 to 50.1%, P = 0.09). LV mass also improved, especially in patients with marked baseline LV hypertrophy (P < 0.001). There were no appreciable differences of LV function improvement and overall LV remodelling after TAVI between the two types of valves used (P = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

TAVI results in reverse remodelling and improvement of GLS, especially in patients with impaired baseline LV function. There were no differences in the extent of LV function improvement between Edwards S3 and Evolut R valves but there was a greater incidence of aortic regurgitation with Evolut R.

Impact of right ventricular volumes on the outcomes of TAVR: a volumetric analysis of preprocedural computed tomography

AIMS

The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic implications of increased right ventricle volume index (RVVI) using cardiac-gated computed tomography angiography (CCTA) data among patients undergoing transcatheter valve replacement (TAVR).

METHODS AND RESULTS

CCTA of 323 patients who underwent TAVR at Stanford University Medical Center (CA, USA) and Tel Aviv Medical Center (Israel) between 2013 and 2016 was analysed by an automatic four-chamber volumetric software and grouped into quartiles according to RVVI. Higher one-year mortality rates were noted for the upper quartiles - 5%, 4.9%, 8.6%, and 16% (p=0.039), in Q1 <59 ml/m2, Q2 59-69 ml/m2, Q3 69-86 ml/m2, and Q4 >86 ml/m2, respectively. However, the differences were not significant after propensity score adjustments. Sub-analyses of Q1 demonstrated an escalating risk for one-year mortality in concordance to RVVI: HR 2.28, HR 2.76, and HR 4.7, for the upper 25th, 15th, and 5th percentiles, respectively (p<0.05 for all comparisons). After propensity score adjustments for clinical and echocardiographic characteristics, only the upper 5th percentiles (RVVI >120 ml/m2) retained statistical significance (HR 2.82, 95% CI: 1.02-7.78, p=0.045). Notably, 68.7% of patients from this group were considered low-intermediate risk for surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiac volumetric data by CCTA performed for procedural planning may help to predict outcome in patients undergoing TAVR.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low risk patients: a review of PARTNER 3 and Evolut low risk trials

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a mainstay in treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are considered high-risk surgical candidates. The use of TAVR in low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis is being explored as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Recent results from the Medtronic Evolut Low Risk trial and the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) 3 trial shed light on the use of TAVR in low-risk surgical candidates. The Evolut Low Risk trial compared TAVR with a self-expanding supra-annular bioprosthesis to SAVR in 1468 patients with severe aortic stenosis who were low surgical risk. Patients with a mean age of 74 and a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score of 1.9% were randomized to either TAVR or SAVR groups. Using the composite end point of death or disabling stroke at 24 months, the study found an incidence of 5.3% in the TAVR arm and 6.7% in the surgical arm. The Evolut Low Risk trial thus concluded that TAVR was statistically noninferior but not superior to SAVR (difference, -1.4 percentage points; 95% Bayesian credible interval for the difference, -4.9 to 2.1; posterior probability of noninferiority, >0.999). The PARTNER 3 trial assigned 1,000 patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to either TAVR with transfemoral placement of balloon expandable valve or SAVR. Patients with a mean age of 73 and a mean STS score of 1.9% were randomized to either TAVR or SAVR groups. With respect to the primary endpoint of composite death from any cause, stroke, or rehospitalization, the study found an occurrence of 8.5% in TAVR and 15.1% in SAVR, confirming both noninferiority and superiority in the TAVR group [absolute difference, -6.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval (CI), -10.8 to -2.5; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.79; P=0.001 for superiority]. Both the Evolut low risk trial and the PARTNER 3 trial provide evidence that the use of TAVR extends beyond the scope of high and intermediate risk surgical patients and is at the very least equivalent to SAVR in the treatment low-risk surgical candidates when using a transfemoral approach in patients without bicuspid aortic valves. In this article we provide an extensive review on the Evolute low risk and PARTNER 3 trials, including a discussion on clinically relevant outcomes.

Comparison of Early Outcomes in Patients at Estimated Low, Intermediate and High Risk Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Multicentre Australian Experience

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been shown to be a safe and effective alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in high- and intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. TAVI for patients at lower risk of periprocedural mortality has not been extensively investigated. We aimed to describe outcomes in low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients undergoing TAVI in a multicentre Australian study.

METHODS

We evaluated data from 601 patients who underwent TAVI at two hospitals in Melbourne, from August 2008 to February 2018. Patients were stratified according to low risk (STS <4%), intermediate risk (Society for Thoracic Surgeons [STS] 4.0-7.9%) and high risk (STS >8%). Outcomes were reported according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) criteria.

RESULTS

Mean age was 84±5 years and 49% were female. Two hundred and eighty-five (285) (47%) patients were low-risk, 243 (40%) were intermediate risk and 73 (12%) were high risk. Thirty-day (30-) mortality was low in all three groups (1.1%, 1.7% and 1.4%, respectively, p=0.8). Similarly, patients had a low risk of disabling stroke (0.4%, 1.3%, 0%, p=0.8). Rates of post-procedural permanent pacemaker were also similar (21%, 27%, 26%, p=0.5). At least moderate aortic regurgitation occurred in 9% of patients at discharge with no significant differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large Australian multicentre cohort of TAVI patients, 30-day mortality, and post-procedural outcomes were excellent and similar across the patient-risk spectrum. Our study offers further support for the safety of TAVI in low-risk populations and demonstrates the limitations of the STS score.

Patients at Intermediate Surgical Risk Undergoing Isolated Interventional or Surgical Aortic Valve Implantation for Severe Symptomatic Aortic Valve Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly being used for treatment of severe aortic valve stenosis in patients at intermediate risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Currently, real-world data comparing indications and clinical outcomes of patients at intermediate surgical risk undergoing isolated TAVR with those undergoing SAVR are scarce.

METHODS

We compared clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with intermediate surgical risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 4%-8%) who underwent isolated TAVR or conventional SAVR within the prospective, all-comers German Aortic Valve Registry.

RESULTS

A total of 7613 patients at intermediate surgical risk underwent isolated TAVR (n=6469) or SAVR (n=1144) at 92 sites in Germany between 2012 and 2014. Patients treated by TAVR were significantly older (82.5±5.0 versus 76.6±6.7 years, P<0.001) and had higher risk scores (logistic EuroSCORE [European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation]: 21.2±12.3% versus 14.2±9.5%, P<0.001; Society of Thoracic Surgeons score: 5.6±1.1 versus 5.2±1.0, P<0.001). Multivariable analyses revealed that advanced age, coronary artery disease, New York Heart Association class III/IV, pulmonary hypertension, prior cardiac decompensation, elective procedure, arterial occlusive disease, no diabetes mellitus, and a smaller aortic valve area were associated with performing TAVR instead of SAVR (all P<0.001). Unadjusted in-hospital mortality rates were equal for TAVR and SAVR (3.6% versus 3.6%, P=0.976), whereas unadjusted 1-year mortality was significantly higher in patients after TAVR (17.5% versus 10.8%, P<0.001). After propensity score matching, the difference in 1-year mortality between patients with TAVR and SAVR was no longer significant (17.1% versus 15.7%, P=0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients at intermediate risk undergoing TAVR differ significantly from those treated with SAVR with regard to age and baseline characteristics. Isolated TAVR and SAVR were associated with an in-hospital mortality rate of 3.6%. In the propensity score analysis, there was no significant difference in 1-year mortality between patients with TAVR and SAVR.

Ten-year experience with transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement in Finland

Aim: We investigated the outcomes of transcatheter (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in Finland during the last decade. Methods: The nationwide FinnValve registry included data from 6463 patients who underwent TAVR or SAVR with a bioprosthesis for aortic stenosis from 2008 to 2017. Results: The annual number of treated patients increased three-fold during the study period. Thirty-day mortality declined from 4.8% to 1.2% for TAVR (p = .011) and from 4.1% to 1.8% for SAVR (p = .048). Two-year survival improved from 71.4% to 83.9% for TAVR (p < .001) and from 87.2% to 91.6% for SAVR (p = .006). During the study period, a significant reduction in moderate-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation was observed among TAVR patients and a reduction of the rate of acute kidney injury was observed among both SAVR and TAVR patients. Similarly, the rate of red blood cell transfusion and severe bleeding decreased significantly among SAVR and TAVR patients. Hospital stay declined from 10.4 ± 8.4 to 3.7 ± 3.4 days after TAVR (p < .001) and from 9.0 ± 5.9 to 7.8 ± 5.1 days after SAVR (p < .001). Conclusions: In Finland, the introduction of TAVR has led to an increase in the invasive treatment of severe aortic stenosis, which was accompanied by improved early outcomes after both SAVR and TAVR. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03385915 Key Messages This study demonstrated that the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement has led to its widespread use as an invasive treatment for severe aortic stenosis. Early and 2-year survival after transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement has improved during past decade. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has fulfilled its previously unmet clinical needs and has surpassed surgical aortic valve replacement as the most common invasive treatment for aortic stenosis.

Why should we extend transcatheter aortic valve implantation to low-risk patients? A comprehensive review

Within the past decade, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become established as the optimal treatment option for elderly, inoperable and high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, and is now recommended by international guidelines. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the non-inferiority of TAVI to open surgery in intermediate-risk patients and, most recently, in low-risk patients. Further randomized controlled trials are underway, but existing studies have already provided reassuring data in this cohort, and TAVI is offered routinely to younger and lower-risk patients in numerous centers. Improvements in the design of devices and delivery systems, accompanied by increased operator experience, have dramatically improved the safety of the procedure, and further expansion into low-risk groups seems inevitable once concerns about valve durability and device cost have been addressed. In this article, we provide a review of the existing literature, and estimate the clinical impact of TAVI in low-risk patients. Abbreviated title: Why should we extend TAVI to low-risk patients?

Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Low Versus Intermediate to High Surgical Risk

Referral of low surgical risk (LSR) patients for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) becomes common in multiple tertiary centers, and clinical trial data for this population are not available to date. We performed a retrospective analysis on an Israeli multicenter registry. LSR and intermediate-high surgical risk (I-HSR) were defined by a Society of Thoracic Surgery score of <4% and ≥4%, respectively. The cohort included 2336 patients (LSR n = 1198, I-HLR n = 1138). As compared with LSR, patients with I-HSR were older and had significantly higher rates of baseline comorbidities. Although devices success rates (94% vs 96%), paravalvular leak (3.5% vs 5.2%), and permanent pacemaker implantation (17.2 vs 18%) were comparable (p >0.05 for all comparisons), the safety outcome at 1 month (12.7% vs 9.8%), procedural mortality (1.9% vs 0.6%), and mortality at 3 years (30.1% vs 16.1%) were higher in patients with I-HSR (p <0.05 for all comparisons). In a subanalysis of patients with very LSR, comparable rates of device success and safety outcomes were observed, whereas mortality at 1 to 3 years was lower. In conclusion, although procedural outcomes were comparable between LSR and I-HSR TAVI patients, the rates of short- and long-term mortality, as well as the safety outcome, were lower in LSR patients.

Updated clinical indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis: expert opinion of the Italian Society of Cardiology and GISE

: The introduction of percutaneous treatment of severe aortic stenosis with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains one of the greatest achievements of interventional cardiology. In fact, TAVI emerged as a better option than either medical therapy or balloon aortic valvuloplasty for patients who cannot undergo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or are at high surgical risk. Recently, increased operator experience and improved device systems have led to a worldwide trend toward the extension of TAVI to low-risk or intermediate-risk patients. In this expert opinion paper, we first discuss the basic pathophysiology of aortic stenosis in different settings then the key results of recent clinical investigations on TAVI in intermediate-risk aortic stenosis patients are summarized. Particular emphasis is placed on the results of the nordic aortic valve intervention, placement of aortic transcatheter valves (PARTNER) 2 and Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Randomized trials. The PARTNER 2 was the first large randomized trial that evaluated the outcome of TAVI in patients at intermediate risk. The PARTNER 2 data demonstrated that TAVI is a feasible and reasonable alternative to surgery in intermediate-risk patients (Society of Thoracic Surgeons 4-8%), especially if they are elderly or frail. There was a significant interaction between TAVI approach and mortality, with transfemoral TAVI showing superiority over SAVR. Moreover, we examine the complementary results of the recently concluded Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation trial. This prospective randomized trial demonstrated that TAVI is comparable with surgery (primary end point 12.6% in the TAVI group vs. 14.0% in the SAVR group) in severe aortic stenosis patients deemed to be at intermediate risk. We review the most relevant clinical evidence deriving from nonrandomized studies and meta-analyses. Altogether, clinical outcome available data suggest that TAVI with a newer generation device might be the preferred treatment option in this patient subgroup. Finally, the differences between the latest European and American Guidelines on TAVI were reported and discussed. The conclusion of this expert opinion article is that TAVI, if feasible, is the treatment of choice in patients with prohibitive or high surgical risk and may lead to similar or lower early and midterm mortality rates compared with SAVR in intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Temporal trends in adoption and outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a SwissTAVI Registry analysis

Aims

To describe temporal trends in adoption and performance of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in Switzerland over a period of 5 years.

Methods and results

Between 2011 and 2015, a total of 3493 patients were consecutively included in the SwissTAVI Registry (NCT01368250) and analysed for the purpose of this study. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 1 year after TAVI. Over the 5-year period, a six-fold increase in the number of procedures was observed, whereas the baseline surgical risk estimated by the Society of Thoracic Surgeon (STS) score declined (from 6.8 ± 4.4% to 4.6 ± 3.6, P < 0.001). Overall, 1-year mortality amounted to 12.8%; mortality was highest in the first annual cohorts (14.6%, 14.8%, and 15.9% in 2011, 2012, and 2013, respectively) and decreased to 13.4% in 2014 and 9.7% in 2015. While rates of cerebrovascular events, peri-procedural myocardial infarction, moderate/severe paravalvular regurgitation, and Stage 3 acute kidney injury did not significantly change over time, a significant reduction in life threatening or major bleeding was noted at 30-day follow-up during the latest compared with earlier years of recruitment.

Conclusion

This long-term recruitment analysis of a national TAVI registry showed rapid adoption paralleled by a progressive decrease of patients’ baseline risk profile. Early and late survival significantly improved over time as did the rate of life threatening or major bleeding.

Evolution of transcatheter aortic valve implantation over 7 years: results of a prospective single-centre registry of 2000 patients in a large municipal hospital (TAVIK Registry)

OBJECTIVES

Use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) to treat severe aortic stenosis (AS) has gained popularity, accompanied by an evolution of patient and clinical factors. We aimed to characterise changes and evaluate their impact on outcomes.

SETTING

In this single-centre, German TAVIK registry patients undergoing TAVI between 2008 and 2015 were documented prospectively.

PARTICIPANTS/INTERVENTIONS

2000 consecutive patients with AS undergoing TAVI were divided in four cohorts. 500 patients underwent TAVI in each of the following time bins: April 2008 to July 2010 (cohort I), July 2010 to April 2013 (cohort II), April 2012 to October 2013 (cohort III) and October 2013 to March 2015 (cohort IV).

RESULTS

The mean age was 81.8 years, without significant variation across cohorts. Compared with cohort I, prior MI (5.4%vs11.0%; p<0.001) and New York Heart Association class IV (10.0%vs3.6%; p<0.001) were less common in cohort IV. Across cohorts, there was a fall in EuroSCORE (24.3%-18.7%), frailty (48.4%-17.0%) and use of transapical access (43.6%-29.0%), while transfemoral access increased (56.4%-71.0%; p<0.001 for each). Periprocedurally, there was a fall in moderate/severe aortic regurgitation (3.2%-0.0%) and rate of unplanned cardiopulmonary bypass (4.0%-1.0%; both p<0.001). A similar trend applied to 30-day rate of major vascular complications (5.2%-1.8%; p=0.006), life-threatening bleeding (7.0%-3.0%; p<0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (4.4%-1.8%; p=0.020). One-year post-TAVI, mortality and stroke rates did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

Evolution of TAVI between 2008 and 2015 saw a trend towards its usage in lower risk patients and rapid progression towards improved safety. Evaluation and refinement should now continue to further lessen stroke and pacemaker rates.

Evolution of Length of Stay After Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Over 8 Years in 1,849 Patients >75 Years of Age and Comparison Between Transfemoral and Transsubclavian Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Minimized length of hospitalization (LoS) and lower risk of hospitalization-related complications are key requirements in the treatment of aortic valve disease, mainly in the elderly candidates. Our objective was to evaluate evolution of LoS after surgical (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and its predictors. We enrolled 1,849 elderly (aged >75) patients receiving SAVR or TAVI from 2009 to 2016. In the surgical cohort (n = 1,006) the mean LoS slightly decreased from 13.81 ± 9.27 days (2009) to 10.96 ± 3.77 (2016); in the TAVI cohort (n = 843), LoS passed from 13.33 ± 9.17 (2009) to 6.21 ± 4.30 days (2016). All-cause mortality at 1 month was 3.77 % (SAVR) versus 4.7% (TAVI) (p >0.05). Among Transfemoral TAVI (TF, n = 681), and Transsubclavian TAVI (TS, n = 62), average LoS was comparable (7.38 days ± 7.11 vs 7.31 ± 4.32; median 6.0 and 6.0 days, p = 0.07). Procedural success was reached in 93% (TF) and in 85.4% (TS) (p = 0.20). There were no meaningful differences among TF and TS in terms of VARC-2 postprocedural morbidity, except for the rate of vascular access-related complications; these occurred in 8.8% of cases in the TF group versus 1.6% in the TS group (p = 0.05). In conclusion the present analysis showed a faster improvement in terms of LoS for TAVI compared with SAVR over 8 years of activity. The 2 strategies presented comparable all-causes mortality at 30 days. LoS, rates of procedural success and complications were comparable among TF and TS TAVI; nonetheless, vascular access-related complications were more frequent in the TF cohort. This suggests the validity of the TS route as an alternative to the TF approach.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low risk patients

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a relatively new technology that has grown exponentially over the past decade. Although it was initially restricted to elderly patients at very high or prohibitive surgical risk, it is currently being evaluated as a treatment option in younger and lower risk patients. The increasing experience of the Heart Teams, along with the continued refinement of transcatheter valve technology has resulted in TAVR achieving results comparable to those of surgery for treating intermediate-risk patients. Furthermore, promising preliminary results have been obtained from observational and propensity matched studies in low risk patients, and a small randomized trial showed the non-inferiority of TAVR vs. SAVR regarding early and late (up to 6 years) outcomes. Three ongoing randomized trials will provide the definite response about the safety and efficacy of TAVR for treating low risk patients with severe aortic stenosis in the near future. The (expected) positive results of these studies would establish the basis for TAVR as the preferred treatment for the majority of patients with aortic stenosis. However, continuous research efforts for better determining valve durability among TAVR recipients, as well as reducing some of the genuine and frequent complications of TAVR (e.g. conduction disturbances) are important in this final effort for making TAVR the default treatment for aortic stenosis.

Efficacy and safety of new-generation transcatheter aortic valves: insights from the Israeli transcatheter aortic valve replacement registry

AIM

To compare procedural outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) patients treated with new-generation valves.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis on an Israeli multicenter registry comprised of four tertiary centers, comparing patient outcomes implanted with the Edwards SAPIEN S3 (ES3) vs. the Medtronic Evolut R (MER) valves.

RESULTS

The study population included 735 patients (ES3 n = 223; MER n = 512). The use of MER was significantly associated (p < 0.05) with higher rates of post-dilatation (35% vs. 10%), and the need for a second valve (2.7% vs. 0.5%). Procedural device success was comparable between groups (97% vs. 98%, p = 0.76); however, moderate angiographic paravalvular leak was higher (3.3% vs. 0.5%, p = 0.027) for MER vs. ES3, respectively. As compared to MER, 1 month echocardiography revealed higher peak and mean aortic valve gradients for ES3 (12/6 vs. 17/10 mmHg, p < 0.001, respectively). While the safety outcome at 1 month was lower for MER (8.8% vs. 13.9%, p = 0.035), similar 1-month, 1-year, and 3-year all-cause mortality were observed (1.9% vs. 1.3%; 8% vs. 8.5%, and 9.7 vs. 10.3%, for MER vs. ES3, respectively). In a propensity score matching analysis, there was no difference in major outcomes between the groups, including device success and the 1 month safety outcome.

CONCLUSION

Although favorable efficacy and safety clinical outcomes were observed in this large contemporary registry for both new-generation devices used, some procedural and post-procedural outcomes differ significantly between the two valves.

Learning Curve for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Under a Controlled Introduction System - Initial Analysis of a Japanese Nationwide Registry

BACKGROUND

The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) into Japan was strictly controlled to optimize patient outcomes. The goal of this study was to assess if increasing experience during the introduction of this procedure was associated with outcomes.Methods and Results:The initial 1,752 patients registered in the Japanese national TAVI registry were included in the study. The association between operator procedure number and incidence of the early safety endpoint at 30 days (ESE30) as defined in the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document was evaluated. Patients were divided into 4 groups by quartiles of procedure count (Groups I-IV in order of increasing number of procedures). Median patient age was 85 years, and 30.5% were male. The 30-day mortality rate was 1.4% (n=24), and 78 patients (7.9%) experienced 95 ESE30. Among the variables included in the model, ESE30 was associated with non-transfemoral approach (P=0.004), renal dysfunction (Cr >2.0 mg/dL) (P=0.01) and NYHA class III/IV (P=0.04). ESE30 incidence was not significantly different between Groups I-III and Group IV. Spline plots demonstrated that experience of 15-20 cases in total was needed to achieve a consistent low risk of ESE30.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing experience was associated with better outcomes, but to a lesser degree than in previous reports. Our findings suggested that the risks associated with the learning curve process were appropriately mitigated.

Association of Clinical and Economic Outcomes With Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

IMPORTANCE

The literature is inconsistent regarding the impact of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate clinical and economic outcomes in patients who required permanent pacemaker implantation during the index hospitalization after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective, population-based cohort study using data from a multicenter registry included patients who underwent a transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedure from April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2015, in Ontario, Canada, with follow-up to March 31, 2017. Patients who had a previously implanted permanent pacemaker or who died during the index hospitalization were excluded. Inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score was used to adjust for baseline differences between the pacemaker and nonpacemaker groups.

EXPOSURES

Patients received a permanent pacemaker during the index hospitalization after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

All-cause mortality, readmission, readmission for heart failure, emergency department visits, and cumulative 1-year health care costs.

RESULTS

The study cohort consisted of 1263 patients (mean [SD] age, 82.3 [7.2] years; 595 [47.1%] female; 137 [10.8%] rural), of whom 186 (14.7%) required permanent pacemaker insertion during the index hospitalization after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Mean follow-up was 990 days. After propensity score weighting, over the entire follow-up period, pacemaker implantation was associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality (43.9% vs 31.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.40; 95% CI, 1.01-1.94; P = .04), all-cause readmission (80.9% vs 70.6%; HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.15-1.43; P < .001), and emergency department visits (95.5% vs 87.3%; HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.52; P = .004). Pacemaker implantation was also associated with significantly greater readmission for heart failure (33.9% vs 19.1%; HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.53-2.36; P < .001). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in adjusted cumulative health care costs 1 year after discharge.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

New permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement was associated with significantly greater morbidity and mortality at long-term follow-up. However, this did not translate to a difference in cumulative health care costs after hospital discharge.

Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing as a Key Component of the Value Platform: A Pilot Analysis of Colonoscopy, Aortic Valve Replacement and Carpal Tunnel Release Procedures

Background

Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) is a methodology that calculates the costs of healthcare resources consumed as a patient moves along a care process. Limited data exist on the application of TDABC from the perspective of an anesthesia provider. We describe the use of TDABC, a bottom-up costing strategy and financial outcomes for three different medical-surgical procedures.

Methods

In each case, a multi-disciplinary team created process maps describing the care delivery cycle for a patient encounter using the TDABC methodology. Each step in a process map delineated an activity required for delivery of patient care. The resources (personnel, equipment and supplies) associated with each step were identified. A per minute cost for each resource expended was generated, known as the capacity cost rate, and multiplied by its time requirement. The total cost for an episode of care was obtained by adding the cost of each individual resource consumed as the patient moved along a clinical pathway.

Results

We built process maps for colonoscopy in the gastroenterology suite, calculated costs of an aortic valve replacement by comparing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) techniques, and determined the cost of carpal tunnel release in an operating room versus an ambulatory procedure room.

Conclusions

TDABC is central to the value-based healthcare platform. Application of TDABC provides a framework to identify process improvements for health care delivery. The first case demonstrates cost-savings and improved wait times by shifting some of the colonoscopies scheduled with an anesthesiologist from the main hospital to the ambulatory facility. In the second case, we show that the deployment of an aortic valve via the transcatheter route front loads the costs compared to traditional, surgical replacement. The last case demonstrates significant cost savings to the healthcare system associated with re-organization of staff required to execute a carpal tunnel release.

[Serious adverse events in clinical trials with TAVR and SAVR]

BACKGROUND

The expansion of the transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) indication towards patients with intermediate surgical risk (Ref. Society of Thoracic Surgeons, STS, score) was analyzed. The aim was to investigate if the complication rates particularly with respect to TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) concerning patients with intermediate risk are comparable.

METHODS

An analysis of serious adverse events (SAEs) and complication rates in clinical trials with TAVR and SAVR of these patients in comparison with high surgical risk patients was performed with the scientific literature and in the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte, BfArM) database (2012-2017).

RESULTS

In several studies for intermediate-risk TAVR patients the published data showed that some complication rates (e. g. mortality) are comparable or better than for intermediate-risk SAVR patients. The analysis of the BfArM database in study 1 (TAVR) resulted in a lower all-cause mortality for intermediate-risk patients (0.9% at 30 days and 7.3% at 1 year post-procedure) than concerning high-risk patients (5.2% at 30 days and 15.7% at 1 year post-procedure). In study 1 the cardiovascular mortality was altogether 11.5% at 4 years post-procedure (9.2% for intermediate and 13.4% for high-risk patients), in study 2 (patients with high-risk) at 4 years it was 15.5% in the TAVR group with slightly lower cardiovascular mortality for SAVR patients with 14.8%.

CONCLUSION

In the analysis TAVR interventions have favorable incidences concerning mortality (all-cause and cardiovascular) for intermediate-risk patients. Recently, a transcatheter aortic heart valve with this expanded risk indication received a CE label for the first time in Europe; however, the results of larger clinical studies are relevant for the evaluation (e. g. long-term function over more than 5 years) of TAVR valves for intermediate-risk patients.

Two-Year Outcomes in Patients With Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis Randomized to Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: The All-Comers Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention (NOTION) trial was the first to randomize all-comers with severe native aortic valve stenosis to either transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the CoreValve self-expanding bioprosthesis or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), including a lower-risk patient population than previous trials. This article reports 2-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes from the NOTION trial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two-hundred eighty patients from 3 centers in Denmark and Sweden were randomized to either TAVR (n=145) or SAVR (n=135) with follow-up planned for 5 years. There was no difference in all-cause mortality at 2 years between TAVR and SAVR (8.0% versus 9.8%, respectively; P=0.54) or cardiovascular mortality (6.5% versus 9.1%; P=0.40). The composite outcome of all-cause mortality, stroke, or myocardial infarction was also similar (15.8% versus 18.8%, P=0.43). Forward-flow hemodynamics were improved following both procedures, with effective orifice area significantly more improved after TAVR than SAVR (effective orifice area, 1.7 versus 1.4 cm(2) at 3 months). Mean valve gradients were similar after TAVR and SAVR. When patients were categorized according to Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) (<4% versus ≥4%), there was no statistically significant difference for TAVR and SAVR groups in the composite outcome for low-risk (14.7%, 95% confidence interval, 8.3-21.2 versus 16.8%; 95% confidence interval, 9.7-23.8; P=0.58) or intermediate-risk patients (21.1% versus 27.1%; P=0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

Two-year results from the NOTION trial demonstrate the continuing safety and effectiveness of TAVR in lower-risk patients. Longer-term data are needed to verify the durability of this procedure in this patient population.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01057173.

Systematic review and meta-analysis to compare outcomes between intermediate- and high-risk patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Aims

Recent studies have reported non-inferior outcomes for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in intermediate-risk patients. However, a comparison of outcomes among TAVI patients depending upon the surgical risk score has not been performed in a large study. Our aim was to compare the outcomes of TAVI in low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients, to ascertain if the morbidity and mortality is related to the patient's risk profile or the procedure itself.

Methods and results

A thorough computer-based search was performed using Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and PubMed databases. We included original research studies reporting data on TAVI in the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups. Patients in intermediate-risk group were compared to the high-risk cohort for device success, mortality, and complications. A total of 2414 patients in the intermediate-risk group were compared with 1597 high-risk patients. On meta-analysis, intermediate-risk group demonstrated similar device success [odds ratio (OR) 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87-1.90, I2 = 0%, P = 0.2) but a lower 30-day mortality OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34-0.86, I2 = 49%, P = 0.009). There was no difference in the incidence of stroke (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.80-1.71, I2 = 36%, P = 0.42) or permanent pacemaker implantation between the two groups (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82-1.32, I2 = 41%, P = 0.74).

Conclusion

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in intermediate-risk patients carries a low mortality and high success. Incidence of pacemaker and stroke remains high in the lower risk group.

Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in bicuspid aortic valve patients

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (AS).

METHODS

From April 2012 and December 2016, 108 patients with bicuspid AS underwent TAVR using the Sapien XT (34 patients) and Sapien 3 (74 patients) valves. Procedural and clinical outcomes were assessed according to VARC-2 criteria and compared between the two devices.

RESULTS

In the overall cohort, the majority of patients were male (71.3%) with an intermediate surgical risk and a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score of 5.2%. Compared to the Sapien XT group, the Sapien 3 group had a significantly lower STS score (3.3%±2.0% vs. 6.7%±3.6%; P=0.001). Compared to the Sapien XT group, the Sapien 3 group had a significantly lower rate of moderate or severe paravalvular leak (2.7% vs. 14.7%; P=0.03) and higher device success (97.3% vs. 82.4%; P=0.006). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of 30-day all-cause mortality, stroke, life-threatening bleeding, major vascular complication and acute kidney injury (stage 2 or 3). Cumulative all-cause mortality at 1-year follow-up was 6.9%. There were no significant differences in cumulative event rates for all-cause mortality at 1-year follow-up between the two groups (9.4% vs. 4.6%; log-rank P=0.47). By univariate analysis, major vascular complication was significantly associated with overall all-cause mortality [hazard ratios (HR): 7.57; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.51-37.86; P=0.014].

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR using the balloon-expandable valves provided acceptable procedural and clinical outcomes in patients with bicuspid AS. The new-generation Sapien 3 valves showed improved procedural outcomes compared to the early-generation Sapien XT valves.

High-pitch versus conventional cardiovascular CT in patients being assessed for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a real-world appraisal

Objective

High-pitch protocols are increasingly used in cardiovascular CT assessment for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), but the impact on diagnostic image quality is not known.

Methods

We reviewed 95 consecutive TAVI studies: 44 (46%) high-pitch and 51 (54%) standard-pitch. Single high-pitch scans were performed regardless of heart rate. For standard-pitch acquisitions, a separate CT-aortogram and CT-coronary angiogram were performed with prospective gating, unless heart rate was ≥70 beats/min, when retrospective gating was used. The aortic root and coronary arteries were assessed for artefact (significant artefact=1; artefact not limiting diagnosis=2; no artefact=3). Aortic scans were considered diagnostic if the score was >1; the coronaries, if all three epicardial arteries scored >1.

Results

There was no significant difference in diagnostic image quality for either the aorta (artefact-free high-pitch: 31 (73%) scans vs standard-pitch: 40 (79%), p=0.340) or the coronary tree as a whole (10 (23%) vs 15 (29%), p=0.493). However, proximal coronary arteries were less well visualised using high-pitch acquisitions (16 (36%) vs 30 (59%), p=0.04). The median (IQR) radiation dose was significantly lower in the high-pitch cohort (dose-length product: 347 (318–476) vs 1227 (1150–1474) mGy cm, respectively, p<0.001), and the protocol required almost half the amount of contrast.

Conclusions

The high-pitch protocol significantly reduces radiation and contrast doses and is non-inferior to standard-pitch acquisitions for aortic assessment. For aortic root assessment, the high-pitch protocol is recommended. However, if coronary assessment is critical, this should be followed by a conventional standard-pitch, low-dose, prospectively gated CT-coronary angiogram if the high-pitch scan is non-diagnostic.

Mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) and mid-regional pro-atrial natriuretic peptide (MR-proANP) in severe aortic valve stenosis: association with outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the association of mid-regional (MR) pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) and MR-pro-A-type natriuretic peptide (MR-proANP) in comparison to N-terminal pro-natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) with outcome in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) treated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

METHODS

One hundred consecutive TAVI patients were included in this prospective study. Association of preinterventional levels of MR-proADM, MR-proANP, NT-proBNP, C-reactive protein (CrP), and high-sensitive cardiac Troponin T (hsTN) with 30-day and 1-year outcome was analyzed.

RESULTS

There was no association with 30-day outcome, but all markers were associated with 1-year cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. The combined biomarker analysis further improved risk prediction.

CONCLUSIONS

In TAVI patients MR-proADM, MR-proANP, and NT-proBNP are promising predictors of adverse events within 1 year. Integration of these biomarkers into decision pathways may help to identify patients at higher risk.

Rapid Deployment Aortic Replacement (RADAR) Registry in Spain: a protocol

INTRODUCTION

Rapid deployment valves (RDV) represent a newly introduced approach to aortic valve replacement which facilitates surgical implantation and minimally invasive techniques, shortens surgical times and shows excellent haemodynamic performance. However, evidence on their safety, efficacy and potential complications is mostly fitted with small-volume and retrospective studies. Moreover, no current guidelines exist. To improve our knowledge on this technology, The Rapid Deployment Aortic Replacement (RADAR) Registry will be established across Spain with the aim of assessing RDV outcomes in the real-world setting.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The RADAR Registry is designed as a product registry that would provide information on its use and outcomes in clinical practice. This multicentre, prospective, national effort will initially involve 4 centres in Spain. Any patient undergoing cardiac surgery for aortic valve replacement and receiving an RDV as an isolated operation or in combination with other cardiac procedures may be included. Participation is voluntary. Data collection is equal to information obtained during standard care and is prospectively entered by the participating physicians perioperatively and during subsequent follow-up visits. The primary outcome assessed is in-hospital and up to 5 years of follow-up, prosthetic valve functioning and clinical status. Secondary outcomes are to perform subgroup analysis, to compare outcomes with other existing approaches and to develop future clinical guidelines. The follow-up assessments are timed with routine clinical appointments. Dissociated data will be extracted and collectively analysed. Initial target sample size for the registry is 500 participants entered with complete follow-up information. Different substudies will be implemented within the registry to investigate specific populations undergoing aortic valve replacement.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol is approved by all local institutional ethics committees. Findings will be shared by the participant hospitals, policymakers and the academic community to promote quality monitoring and efficient use of this technology.

Predictors of Health-Related Quality of Life Decline after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Older Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) has been shown to improve survival and quality of life in patients with severe aortic stenosis. However, one-third of patients have poor outcome as death, functional decline or quality of life (QoL) decline. The aim of this study was to determine cardiac and geriatric predictors of physical and mental QoL decline 6 months after a TAVI procedure in patients aged 75 and older.

METHODS

Between January 2013 and June 2014, we did a prospective and multicenter study including patients ≥ 75 years old referred for TAVI. The primary outcome was the measure of QoL, assessed by the Short Form 36 survey (SF-36), before and 6 months after the intervention. Association between QoL decline and baseline characteristics including cardiac and geriatric factors was analysed by logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Mean age of the 150 patients studied was 83.7 years old and 56% were men. The primary end point, mean SF-36 physical summary score, significantly improved between baseline and 6-month (33.6 vs. 36.4, p=0.003) whereas mental component score significantly decreased (48.2 vs. 36.4, p-value<0.001). However, patients with presence of depressive symptoms before the intervention had mental QoL improvement at six months (OR 0.04 [0.01-0.19], p-value<0.001) and no significant geriatric predictors were associated with physical QoL decline.

CONCLUSION

The mental QoL significantly decreased and patients with preoperative depressive symptoms had mental QoL improvement at six months. Researches are needed to confirm that mental QoL of patients with depressive symptoms can be improved by TAVI.

A Glimpse into the Future: In 2020, Which Patients will Undergo TAVI or SAVR?

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has evolved into a safe and effective procedure to treat symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), with predictable and reproducible results. Rates of important complications such as vascular complications, strokes and paravalvular leaks are lower than ever, because of improved patient selection, systematic use of multidector computer tomography, increasing operator experience and device iteration. Accumulating data suggest that transfemoral TAVI with newer generation transcatheter heart valves and delivery systems is superior to conventional surgical aortic valve replacement among intermediate- and high-risk patients with severe symptomatic AS with regard to all-cause mortality and stroke. One can anticipate that by 2020, the majority of patients with severe symptomatic AS will undergo TAVI as first line therapy, regardless of surgical risk.

In Vitro Hydrodynamic Assessment of a New Transcatheter Heart Valve Concept (the TRISKELE)

This study presents the in vitro hydrodynamic assessment of the TRISKELE, a new system suitable for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), aiming to mitigate the procedural challenges experienced with current technologies. The TRISKELE valve comprises three polymeric leaflet and an adaptive sealing cuff, supported by a novel fully retrievable self-expanding nitinol wire frame. Valve prototypes were manufactured in three sizes of 23, 26, and 29 mm by automated dip-coating of a biostable polymer, and tested in a hydrodynamic bench setup in mock aortic roots of 21, 23, 25, and 27 mm annulus, and compared to two reference valves suitable for equivalent implantation ranges: Edwards SAPIEN XT and Medtronic CoreValve. The TRISKELE valves demonstrated a global hydrodynamic performance comparable or superior to the controls with significant reduction in paravalvular leakage. The TRISKELE valve exhibits enhanced anchoring and improved sealing. The valve is currently under preclinical investigation.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Review of Current Indications, Approaches, Future Insights, and Alternatives

The use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation is increasing worldwide, with rapid development of new generations of valves and the search for alternative access for implantation. The aim of this review is to summarise current approaches and indications, and to discuss some of the controversies surrounding this procedure.