Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with a low ejection fraction

Left Ventricular Apex: A "Minimally Invasive Motorway" for Safe Cardiovascular Procedures

Since the advent of TAVR (transcatheter aortic valve replacement), the transapical surgical approach has been affirmed as a safe and effective alternative access for patients with unsuitable peripheral arteries. With the improvement of devices for transfemoral approach and the development of other alternative accesses, the number of transapical procedures has decreased significantly worldwide. The left ventricular apex, however, has proved to be a safe and valid alternative access for various other structural heart procedures such as mitral valve repair, mitral valve-in-valve or valve-in-ring replacement, transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR), transcatheter mitral paravalvular leak repair, and thoracic aorta endovascular repair (TEVAR). We review the literature and our experience of various hybrid transcatheter structural heart procedures using the transapical surgical approach and discuss pros and cons.

Are Sutureless and Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valves a Serious Alternative to TA-TAVI? A Matched-Pairs Analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is a feasible alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement with expanding indication extending to low-risk patients. Sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valves were developed to decrease procedural risks in conventional treatment. This paired-match analysis aims to compare patients undergoing surgical transcatheter aortic valve implantation to sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve implantation.

METHODS

Retrospective database analysis between 2010 and 2016 revealed 214 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedures through surgical access (predominantly transapical) and 62 sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve procedures including 26 patients in need of concomitant coronary artery bypass surgery. After matching, 52 pairs of patients were included and analyzed.

RESULTS

In-hospital death (5.8% vs. 3.8%; p = 0.308) was comparable between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (mean age 77 ± 4.3 years) and sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve implantation groups (mean age 75 ± 4.0 years), including 32 females in each group. The logistic EuroSCORE was similar (19 ± 12 vs. 17 ± 10; p = 0.257). Postoperative renal failure (p = 0.087) and cerebrovascular accidents (p = 0.315) were without significant difference. The incidence of complete heart block requiring permanent pacemaker treatment was relatively low for both groups (1.9% vs. 7.7%; p = 0.169) for TAVI and sutureless and rapid-deployment valves respectively. Intraoperative use of blood transfusion was higher in the sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve implantation group (0.72 U vs. 1.46 U, p = 0.014). Estimated survival calculated no significant difference between both groups after 6 months (transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 74 ± 8% vs. sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve implantation: 92 ± 5%; log rank p = 0.097).

CONCLUSION

Since sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve implantation is as safe and effective as transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation, combining the advantage of standard diseased-valve removal with shorter procedural times, sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement may be considered as an alternative for patients with elevated operative risk considered to be in the "gray zone" between transcatheter aortic valve implantation and conventional surgery, especially if concomitant myocardial revascularization is required.

More in, better out? Successful valve-in-valve procedure of an iatrogenic ventricular septal defect following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a case report

Background

A rare, but serious, complication following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is the occurrence of an iatrogenic ventricular septal defect (VSD).

Case summary

We describe a case of an 80-year-old female who was referred with severe aortic stenosis for TAVR. Following thorough evaluation, the heart team consensus was to proceed with implantation via a transapical approach of an ACURATE neo M 25 mm valve (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA). The valve was deployed harnessing transoesophageal echocardiographic (TOE) guidance under rapid pacing with post-dilation. Directly afterwards a very high VSD close to the aortic annulus was detected. As the patient was haemodynamically stable, the procedure was ended. The next day another TOE revealed a shunt volume (left-to-right ventricle) between 50% and 60%. Because the defect was partly located between the stent struts of the ACURATE valve decision was made to fix this leakage with implantation of a further valve and we chose an EVOLUT Pro 29 mm (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA). The valve-in-valve was implanted 2–3 mm below the lower edge of the first valve, more towards the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) with excellent result: VSD was reduced to a very small residual shunt without any hemodynamic relevance.

Discussion

We suggest that an iatrogenic VSD located near the annulus may be treated percutaneously in a bail-out situation with implantation of a second valve that should be implanted slightly more into the LVOT to cover the VSD.

Clinical value of the 20% logistic EuroSCORE cut-off for selecting TAVI candidates: a single-centre cohort study analysis

Background

A logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (logEuroSCORE) ≥20% is frequently recognised as a finite criteria for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) reimbursement, despite guideline modifications to reflect the appropriacy of TAVI in selected lower-risk patients. The aim was to evaluate the clinical value of this threshold cut-off in TAVI patients and to identify factors associated with mortality in those below this threshold.

Methods

We analysed data from a single-centre, German, observational, TAVI-patient registry, gathered between 2008 and 2016. Patients were stratified by logEuroSCORE (≥ or <20%) for comparisons. Logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of mortality at 1 year, with this analysis used to generate a calculated (‘real’) risk value for each patient.

Results

1679 patients (logEuroSCORE <20%: n=789; logEuroSCORE ≥20%: n=890) were included. LogEuroSCORE <20% patients were significantly younger (80.1 vs 81.6 years; p<0.001) and less comorbid than logEuroSCORE ≥20% patients, with a higher rate of transfemoral TAVI (35.6% vs 26.1%; p<0.001) and predilation (70.0% vs 63.3%; p=0.004). Patients with a logEuroSCORE <20% experienced more vascular complications (3.4% vs 1.5%; p=0.010). One-year survival was 88.3% in the logEuroSCORE <20% and 81.8% in the logEuroSCORE ≥20% group (p=0.005), with the calculated mortality risk falling within 2% of the logEuroSCORE in just 12.9% of patients. In the logEuroSCORE <20% group, only coronary artery disease was significantly predictive of 1-year mortality (OR 2.408; 95% CI 1.361 to 4.262; p=0.003).

Conclusions

At our institution, patients with a logEuroSCORE <20% selected for TAVI have excellent outcomes. The decision not to reimburse TAVI in such patients may be viewed as inappropriate.