Year in review: transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Comparison of Paravalvular Leak in SAPIEN 3 and EVOLUT PRO Valves in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Multicenter Registry

Paravalvular leak (PVL), conduction disturbances, and vascular complications remain the most common complications after TAVR. To address these adverse outcomes, the third generation of transcatheter heart valves has been developed. The last generation prosthesis provides an outer pericardial wrap for enhanced sealing and PVL prevention. This study aimed to compare the incidence and severity of PVL and 1-year survival after TAVR using SAPIEN 3 with those using EVOLUT PRO. An observational retrospective analysis was conducted in 1,481 patients who underwent TAVR for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis in 6 different European centers. The primary end point was to assess the frequency and severity of PVL at 30 days after TAVR. The secondary end point was to compare 1-year survival using EVOLUT PRO with that using SAPIEN 3. SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve was implanted in 78.3% of study participants (n = 1,160) whereas EVOLUT PRO was implanted in 21.7% (n = 321). PVL is more commonly observed in patients treated with EVOLUT PRO at prehospital discharge (55.1% vs 37.3%) and at 1-month (51% vs 41.4%) and 1-year (51.3% vs 39.3%) follow-up. This difference mainly concerns low-grade (mild/trace) PVL. The frequency of high-degree (moderate/severe) PVL was almost similar in both groups throughout the study period (5.3% vs 5.8% before hospital discharge, 4% vs 3.1% at 1 month, and 3.2% vs 4.9% at 1 year). No significant difference in survival over 1 year has been observed (hazard ratio 0.73 [0.33 to 1.63], p = 0.442) (Graphical abstract). In conclusion, the detection rate of PVL after TAVR with third-generation heart valves remains high, and there are no major differences between the devices regarding the frequency of significant (moderate/severe) PVL and survival.

Three-Year Survival after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Findings from the Marshfield Aortic Valve Experience (MAVE) Study

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a rapidly evolving treatment for severe aortic stenosis. However, uncertainties exist for optimal valve selection as there are few long-term studies comparing patient survival by valve type.Objective: We hypothesized that self-expandable valves (SEV) would provide a survival advantage over balloon expandable valves (BEV), as SEV continue to expand and might better accommodate to the anatomy of the aortic valve over time.Methods: We examined outcomes according to valve type from a rural tertiary referral center between 2012 and 2017.Results: Out of 269 patients, 77 deaths (28.6%) occurred over the study period with 6 deaths by 1 month post-TAVR and 37 deaths by 1 year post-TAVR. The median observation time for survivors was 21.5 months. The probability of survival at 3 years was 60.7% and 61.9% for patients who underwent treatment with SEV and BEV, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in overall patient survival with or without adjustment for factors such as age, sex, race, and aortic valve area. Additionally, in a secondary analysis restricted to those patients treated in later years (2015-2017) survival among patients with BEV appeared superior (HR=0.456, P=0.015).Conclusion: Patients who underwent TAVR at a rural medical center with SEV showed similar survival compared to those who received a BEV. Superior survival was observed among those who received BEV versus SEV between 2015 and 2017.

Comparison of Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With 31-mm CoreValve Versus 34-mm Evolut R Bioprostheses from the STS/ACC TVT Registry

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with a bioprosthetic valve of insufficient size is associated with a higher risk of aortic regurgitation (AR). The 31-mm CoreValve and the next generation 34-mm Evolut R bioprostheses were designed to address the need for larger diameter aortic annuli. This analysis examined the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes following commercial transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the 31-mm CoreValve and 34-mm Evolut R in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/the American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. Patients receiving a 31-mm CoreValve or 34-mm Evolut R valve for symptomatic severe native aortic stenosis from January 2014 to September 2017 in the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry underwent propensity score matching using baseline demographics, clinical and frailty measures, and procedural variables. Procedural characteristics, in-hospital and 30-day clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were compared. Of 4545 patients implanted with a 31-mm CoreValve and 3036 patients with a 34-mm Evolut R valve, matching resulted in 1813 patient sets. Most patients were male (>92%), elderly (∼80 years) with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 6.6%. Use of the 34-mm versus 31-mm valve resulted in shorter median procedural time (113.0 [85.0, 150.0] vs 93.0 [71.0, 126.0] min, p <0.001), higher device success (98.1% vs 93.9%, p <0.001), fewer pacemakers (16.7% vs 24.6%, p <0.001), less ≥moderate AR with the 34-mm (5.5% vs 13.7%), p <0.001) and shorter hospital stay (3.0 [2.0, 4.0] vs 4.0 [3.0, 6.0] days, p <0.001). In conclusion, this largest experience with the 34-mm Evolut R valve showed higher device success, reduced hospital stay, lower pacemaker rates and less ≥moderate AR compared with the 31-mm CoreValve bioprosthesis.

A Pilot Analysis of the Association Between Types of Monitored Anesthesia Care Drugs and Outcomes in Transfemoral Aortic Valve Replacement Performed Without General Anesthesia

OBJECTIVE

The types of agents used for monitored anesthesia care (MAC) and their possible differential effects on outcomes have received less study despite increased use over general anesthesia (GA) in transfemoral aortic valve replacements (TAVRs). In this pilot analysis of patients undergoing TAVR using MAC, the authors described the anesthetic agents used and sought to investigate the possible association of anesthetic agent choice with outcomes and the extent to which total weight and time-adjusted doses of anesthetics declined with increasing 10-year age increments.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING

Tertiary teaching hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Ninety-three participants scheduled to undergo TAVR, with a primary plan of conscious sedation between November 2014 and June 2016, were included.

INTERVENTION

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Types of MAC were divided into 4 primary groups, but 2 groups were focused: propofol (n = 39) and dexmedetomidine plus propofol (n = 34). Conversion to GA occurred in 6 participants (6.45%) and was not associated with the type of sedation received. The authors also compared patients who received dexmedetomidine with those who did not in accordance with their a priori analytic plan. There were no associations between the use of dexmedetomidine and postoperative delirium or intensive care unit/hospital length of stay. No significant trends in medication dose adjustments were seen across increasing 10-year age increments.

CONCLUSIONS

A wide breadth of MAC medications is in use among TAVR patients and does not support differences in outcomes. Despite recommendations to reduce anesthetic drug dosing in the elderly, no significant trends in dose reduction with increasing age were noted.

Insights on mid-term TAVR performance: 3-year clinical and echocardiographic results from the CoreValve ADVANCE study

BACKGROUND

Extensive evidence relating to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has accumulated in recent years, but mid-term outcomes are less reported. We investigated 996 patients after implantation of the CoreValve prosthesis for severe aortic stenosis in a real-world setting.

OBJECTIVE

To report clinical and echocardiographic 3-year results from the ADVANCE study.

METHODS

ADVANCE is a prospective, multicenter, fully monitored, nonrandomized clinical study. This analysis assessed valve-related events, predictors of early and mid-term mortality after TAVR, and systolic and diastolic prosthesis performance over 3 years.

RESULTS

Three years after TAVR, the rate of major adverse cardiac/cerebrovascular events was 38.5%. All-cause mortality was 33.7%; cardiovascular mortality, 22.3%; VARC-1 stroke, 6.5%; and New York Heart Association class III/IV, 19.5%. Mean effective orifice area was consistently 1.7 cm² from discharge to 3 years, and average mean aortic valve gradient remained ≤10 mmHg. At 3 years, 12.6% of patients had moderate and none had severe paravalvular regurgitation. Multivariable analysis identified Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score, device migration, prior atrial fibrillation, and major vascular complication as predictors of early mortality. Predictors of mid-term mortality included male gender, STS score, history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, history of cancer, stroke, life-threatening/disabling or major bleeding, and valve deterioration.

CONCLUSIONS

Our 3-year data demonstrate significant hemodynamic benefits and durable symptom relief after CoreValve prosthesis implantation. Postprocedural patient management should be carefully considered, since postprocedural valve-related events were identified as independent predictors of mid-term mortality.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01074658.