Two-year outcomes from the PARTNER 3 trial: where do we stand?

The perspectives of older adults related to transcatheter aortic valve replacement: An integrative review

BACKGROUND

Aortic Stenosis (AS) is a common syndrome in older adults wherein the narrowing of the aortic valve impedes blood flow, resulting in advanced heart failure.1 AS is associated with a high mortality rate (50 % at 6 months if left untreated), substantial symptom burden, and reduced quality of life.1-3 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was approved in 2012 as a less invasive alternative to surgical valve repair, offering a treatment for older frail patients. Although objective outcomes have been widely reported,4 the perspectives of older adults undergoing the TAVR process have never been synthesized.

OBJECTIVES

To contextualize the perspectives and experiences of older adults undergoing TAVR.

METHODS

An integrative review was conducted using Whittemore and Knafl's five-stage methodology.5 Four electronic databases were searched in April 2023. Articles were included if a qualitative methodology was used to assess the perceptions of older adults (>65 years old) undergoing or recovering from TAVR.

RESULTS

Out of 4619 articles screened, 12 articles met the criteria, representing 353 individuals from 10 countries. Relevant themes included the need for an individualized care plan, caregiver and family support, communication and education, persistent psychosocial and physical symptoms, and the unique recovery journey.

CONCLUSION

Older adults with AS undergoing TAVR generally perceive their procedure positively. Improved interdisciplinary and holistic management, open communication, symptom assessment, support, and education is needed.

Results of Four-Stented Biological Aortic Valves and How They Compare to PARTNER-3

OBJECTIVE

According to our nationwide registry, total numbers of surgical aortic valve implantation (sAVR) are constantly declining, while transcathether aortic valve implantation (TAVI) indications are widened toward intermediate- and low-risk patients. So, is there still room for conventionally implanted valves? Can results compete with TAVI or will sAVR be marginalized in the near future?

METHODS

Between 2011 and 2019, 1,034 patients (67.1% male, mean = 72.2 years) were enrolled receiving stented biological valves with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), atrial ablation, or wrapping of the ascending aorta. Odds ratios for the early and late mortality were calculated regarding comorbidities as potential risk factors. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS.

RESULTS

Overall, early mortality (EM) was 6.1%, 1-year mortality was 11.2%, and 5-year mortality was 19.9%. In low-risk patients (EuroSCORE II <4%), it was 1.0, 2.7, and 9.3%. Incidence of EM was significantly increased following decompensation, prosthetic valve, pacemaker carrier, dialysis, and pulmonary hypertension. Postoperative complications, such as systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), sepsis, multiorgan failure, hepatic failure, dialysis, gastrointestinal bleeding, and ileus, also increased EM. Late mortality was significantly increased by dialysis, hepatic cirrhosis, infected port system, aortic valve endocarditis, prosthetic valve carrier, and chronic hemodialysis.

CONCLUSION

Conventionally implanted aortic valves do well early and late. The fate of the patient is dependent on individual risk-factors. Particularly, in low-risk patients, sAVR can compete with TAVI showing overall good early, as well as late results being even superior in some important aspects such as pacemaker implantation rate. Thus, the time is yet not ripe for TAVI to take over primary indications for AVR in low-risk patient.

Modifiable risk factors for permanent pacemaker after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: CONDUCT registry

OBJECTIVE

The onset of new conduction abnormalities requiring permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is still a relevant adverse event. The main objective of this registry was to identify modifiable procedural risk factors for an improved outcome (lower rate of PPI) after TAVI in patients at high risk of PPI.

METHODS

Patients from four European centres receiving a balloon-expandable TAVI (Edwards SAPIEN 3/3 Ultra) and considered at high risk of PPI (pre-existing conduction disturbance, heavily calcified left ventricular outflow tract or short membranous septum) were prospectively enrolled into registry.

RESULTS

A total of 300 patients were included: 42 (14.0%) required PPI after TAVI and 258 (86.0%) did not. Patients with PPI had a longer intensive care unit plus intermediate care stay (65.7 vs 16.3 hours, p<0.001), general ward care stay (6.9 vs 5.3 days, p=0.004) and later discharge (8.6 vs 5.0 days, p<0.001). Of the baseline variables, only pre-existing right bundle branch block at baseline (OR 6.8, 95% CI 2.5 to 18.1) was significantly associated with PPI in the multivariable analysis. Among procedure-related variables, oversizing had the highest impact on the rate of PPI: higher than manufacturer-recommended sizing, mean area oversizing as well as the use of the 29 mm valve (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.4 to 8.5, p=0.008) all were significantly associated with PPI. Rates were higher with the SAPIEN 3 (16.1%) vs SAPIEN 3 Ultra (8.5%), although not statistically significant but potentially associated with valve sizing. Implantation depth and postdelivery balloon dilatation also tended to affect PPI rates but without a statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Valve oversizing is a strong procedure-related risk factor for PPI following TAVI. The clinical impact of the valve type (SAPIEN 3), implantation depth, and postdelivery balloon dilatation did not reach significance and may reflect already refined procedures in the participating centres, giving attention to these avoidable risk factors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03497611.

Iatrogenic Strokes and Covert Brain Infarcts After Percutaneous Cardiac Procedures: An Update

Millions of cardiac procedures are performed worldwide each year, making the potential complication of periprocedural iatrogenic stroke an important concern. These strokes can occur intraoperatively or within 30 days of a procedure and can be categorised as either overt or covert, occurring without obvious acute neurologic symptoms. Understanding the prevalence, risk factors, and strategies for preventing overt and covert strokes associated with cardiac procedures is imperative for reducing periprocedural morbidity and mortality. In this narrative review, we focus on the impacts of perioperative ischemic strokes for several of the most common interventional cardiac procedures, their relevance from a neurologic standpoint, and future directions for the care and research on perioperative strokes. Depending on the percutaneous procedure, the rates of periprocedural overt strokes can range from as little as 0.01% to as high as 2.9%. Meanwhile, covert brain infarctions (CBIs) occur much more frequently, with rates for different procedures ranging from 10%-84%. Risk factors include previous stroke, atherosclerotic disease, carotid stenosis, female sex, and African race, as well as other patient- and procedure-level factors. While the impact of covert brain infarctions is still a developing field, overt strokes for cardiac procedures lead to longer stays in hospital and increased costs. Potential preventative measures include screening and vascular risk factor control, premedicating, and procedural considerations such as the use of cerebral embolic protection devices. In addition, emerging treatments from the neurologic field, including neuroprotective drugs and remote ischemic conditioning, present promising avenues for preventing these strokes and merit investigation in cardiac procedures.

Time trends in the epidemiology of nonrheumatic aortic valve disease in Spain, 2003-2018

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The impact of therapeutic improvements in nonrheumatic aortic valve disease (NRAVD) has been assessed at the patient level but not in the whole population with the disease. Our objective was to assess temporal trends in hospitalization rates, treatment and fatality rates in patients with a main or secondary NRAVD diagnosis.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of administrative claims from patients hospitalized with a main or secondary NRAVD diagnosis between 2003 and 2018 in Spain. Time trends in age- and sex-standardized hospitalization and procedure rates, baseline characteristics and case fatality rates by diagnosis type were assessed by Poisson regression and joinpoint analysis.

RESULTS

Hospital admissions in patients with NRAVD increased from 69 213 in 2003 to 136 185 in 2018. The crude in-hospital fatality rate increased from 6.7% to 8.7% (IRR, 1.015; 95%CI, 1.012-1.018; P <.001) without changes after adjustment. Adjusted fatality rates decreased in patients with a main NRAVD diagnosis (5.5% to 3.5%; IRR, 0.953; 95%CI, 0.942-0.964) but increased in those with a secondary diagnosis (8.0% to 8.8%; IRR, 1.005; 95%CI, 1.002-1.009). Aortic valve replacements increased from 10.5 to 17.1 procedures per 100 000 population (IRR, 1.033; 95%CI, 1.030-1.037), mainly driven by transcatheter procedures (IRR, 1.345; 95%CI, 1.302-1.389).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalizations in patients with NRAVD are increasing, with most being secondary diagnoses. The use of aortic valve replacement is increasing with a reduction in fatality rates but only in patients with a main diagnosis.

The Role of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis: A Feasibility Analysis

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the current treatment of choice for good surgical candidates with moderate to severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). As transcatheter aortic valvular replacement (TAVR) has shown an improved one and two-year all-cause mortality, it has been chosen for moderately symptomatic severe AS patients. The purpose of this review was to perform a clinical comparison of TAVR vs. SAVR and to analyze the Health Index Factor (HIF) that makes TAVR a treatment of choice in asymptomatic AS patients. 

An extensive literature search of PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases was performed using the keywords “Aortic stenosis”, “SAVR”, “TAVR”, and “Asymptomatic”. A total of 45 prospective randomized clinical trials in the English language that were published from the year 2000 onwards were included in the final analysis. It has been found that 59.3% of asymptomatic AS patients are likely to die in the next five years without proactive treatment. Multiple studies have proven that early intervention with aortic valve replacement is superior to conservative treatment in severe asymptomatic AS; however, the choice between SAVR and TAVR is not well established. The NOTION Trial, SURTAVI Trail, and PARTNER 3 study have shown the non-inferiority of TAVR over SAVR, during one-year follow-up for low surgical risk patients. Evolut Low-Risk study and Early TAVR are the only two prospective studies performed to date that have enrolled patients with asymptomatic severe AS. The Evolut Trial demonstrated no difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days (1.3% vs. 4.8%. p=0.23), and 12 days (1.3% vs. 6.5%, p=0.11). Additionally, TAVR also decreases the risk of post-procedural atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury (AKI), and rehospitalization, and leads to significant improvement in the mean trans-aortic pressure gradient. TAVR also showed marked improvement in the 30-day Quality of Life (QOL) index, where SAVR did not report any significant change in the QOL index. However, the official recommendations of Early TAVR are still awaited. TAVR has consistently shown a statistically non-significant difference in case mortality, risk of stroke, and rehospitalization with moderate to high surgical risk patients whereby recent initial trials have shown significant improvement in the QOL index and hemodynamic index for patients with asymptomatic disease. More extensive studies are required to prove the risk stratifications, long-term outcomes, and clinical characteristics that would make TAVR a preferred intervention in asymptomatic patients.

Clinical outcomes and cumulative healthcare costs of TAVR vs. SAVR in Asia

Objectives

This study compared transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in terms of short- and long-term effectiveness.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study based on nationwide National Health Insurance claims data and Cause of Death data focused on adult patients (n = 3,643) who received SAVR (79%) or TAVR (21%) between 2015 and 2019. Propensity score overlap weighting was applied to account for selection bias. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality (ACM), hospitalization for heart failure, and a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Secondary outcomes included medical utilization, hospital stay, and total medical costs at index admission for the procedure and in various post-procedure periods. The Cox proportional-hazard model with competing risk was used to investigate survival and incidental health outcomes. Generalized estimation equation (GEE) models were used to estimate differences in the utilization of medical resources and overall costs.

Results

After weighting, the mean age of the patients was 77.98 ± 5.86 years in the TAVR group and 77.98 ± 2.55 years in the SAVR group. More than half of the patients were female (53.94%). The incidence of negative outcomes was lower in the TAVR group than in the SAVR group, including 1-year ACM (11.39 vs. 17.98%) and 3-year ACM (15.77 vs. 23.85%). The risk of ACM was lower in the TAVR group (HR [95% CI]: 0.61 [0.44–0.84]; P = 0.002) as was the risk of CV death (HR [95% CI]: 0.47 [0.30–0.74]; P = 0.001) or MACE (HR [95% CI]: 0.66 [0.46–0.96]; P = 0.0274). Total medical costs were significantly higher in the TAVR group than in the SAVR in the first year after the procedure ($1,271.89 ± 4,048.36 vs. $887.20 ± 978.51; P = 0.0266); however, costs were similar in the second and third years after the procedure. The cumulative total medical costs after the procedure were significantly higher in the TAVR group than in the SAVR group (adjusted difference: $420.49 ± 176.48; P = 0.0172).

Conclusion

In this real-world cohort of patients with aortic stenosis, TAVR proved superior to SAVR in terms of clinical outcomes and survival with comparable medical utilization after the procedure.