Surgical versus trans-catheter aortic valve replacement (SAVR vs TAVR) in patients with aortic stenosis: Experience in a community hospital

Comparison of hemodynamics in biological surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve implantation: An in-silico study

OBJECTIVES

In aortic valve replacement (AVR), the treatment strategy as well as the model and size of the implanted prosthesis have a major impact on the postoperative hemodynamics and thus on the clinical outcome. Preinterventional prediction of the hemodynamics could support the treatment decision. Therefore, we performed paired virtual treatment with transcatheter AVR (TAVI) and biological surgical AVR (SAVR) and compared hemodynamic outcomes using numerical simulations.

METHODS

10 patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI were virtually treated with both biological SAVR and TAVI to compare post-interventional hemodynamics using numerical simulations of peak-systolic flow. Virtual treatment procedure was done using an in-house developed tool based on position-based dynamics methodology, which was applied to the patient's anatomy including LVOT, aortic root and aorta. Geometries were automatically segmented from dynamic CT-scans and patient-specific flow rates were calculated by volumetric analysis of the left ventricle. Hemodynamics were assessed using the STAR CCM+ software by solving the RANS equations.

RESULTS

Virtual treatment with TAVI resulted in realistic hemodynamics comparable to echocardiographic measurements (median difference in transvalvular pressure gradient [TPG]: -0.33 mm Hg). Virtual TAVI and SAVR showed similar hemodynamic functions with a mean TPG with standard deviation of 8.45 ± 4.60 mm Hg in TAVI and 6.66 ± 3.79 mm Hg in SAVR (p = 0.03) while max. Wall shear stress being 12.6 ± 4.59 vs. 10.2 ± 4.42 Pa (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Using the presented method for virtual treatment of AS, we were able to reliably predict post-interventional hemodynamics. TAVI and SAVR show similar hemodynamics in a pairwise comparison.

The application of 3D printing in preoperative planning for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Recently, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been suggested as a less invasive treatment compared to surgical aortic valve replacement, for patients with severe aortic stenosis. Despite the attention, persisting evidence suggests that several procedural complications are more prevalent with the transcatheter approach. Consequently, a systematic review was undertaken to evaluate the application of three-dimensional (3D) printing in preoperative planning for TAVR, as a means of predicting and subsequently, reducing the incidence of adverse events.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Web of Science and Embase were searched to identify studies that utilised patient-specific 3D printed models to predict or mitigate the risk of procedural complications.

RESULTS

13 of 219 papers met the inclusion criteria of this review. The eligible studies have shown that 3D printing has most commonly been used to predict the occurrence and severity of paravalvular regurgitation, with relatively high accuracy. Studies have also explored the usefulness of 3D printed anatomical models in reducing the incidence of coronary artery obstruction, new-onset conduction disturbance and aortic annular rapture.

CONCLUSION

Patient-specific 3D models can be used in pre-procedural planning for challenging cases, to help deliver personalised treatment. However, the application of 3D printing is not recommended for routine clinical practice, due to practicality issues.

Surgical vs Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With a Low Ejection Fraction

Currently, there is no preference for surgical (SAVR) vs transcatheter (TAVR) aortic valve replacement in patients with low ejection fraction (EF). The present study retrospectively compared the outcomes of SAVR vs TAVR in patients with EF ≤40% (70 SAVR and 117 TAVR patients). Study outcomes were survival and the composite endpoint of stroke, aortic valve reintervention, and heart failure readmission. The patients who had TAVR were older (median: 75 (25-75th percentiles: 69-81) vs 51 (39-66) years old; P < .001) with higher EuroSCORE II (4.95 (2.99-9.85) vs 2 (1.5-3.25); P < .001). Postoperative renal impairment was more common with SAVR (8 (12.5%) vs 4 (3.42%); P = .03), and they had longer hospital stay [9 (7-15) vs 4 (2-8) days; P < .001). There was no difference between groups in stroke, reintervention, and readmission (Sub-distributional Hazard ratio: .95 (.37-2.45); P = .92). Survival at 1 and 5 years was 95% and 91% with SAVR and 89% and 63% with TAVR. Adjusted survival was comparable between groups. EF improved significantly (β: .28 (.23-.33); P < 0.001) with no difference between groups ( P = .85). In conclusion, TAVR could be as safe as SAVR in patients with low EF.

All-cause readmission after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a community hospital - Long term follow-up: Readmissions after aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Post-procedure readmissions are associated with lower quality of life and increased economic burden. The study aimed to identify predictors for long-term all-cause readmissions in patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in a community hospital.

METHODS

A Historical cohort study of all adults who underwent TAVR at Cape-Cod hospital between June 2015 and December 2017 was performed and data on readmissions was collected up-to May 2020 (median follow up of 3.3 years). Pre-procedure, procedure and in-hospital post-procedure parameters were collected. Readmission rate was evaluated, and univariate and multivariable analyses were applied to identify predictors for readmission.

RESULTS

The study included 262 patients (mean age 83.7±7.9 years, 59.9% males). The median Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) probability of mortality (PROM) score was 4.9 (IQR, 3.1-7.9). Overall, 120 patients were readmitted. Ten percent were readmitted within 1-month, 20.8% within 3-months, 32.0% within 6-months and 44.5% within 1-year. New readmissions after 1-year were rare. STS PROM 5% or above (HR 1.50, p=0.039), pre-procedure anemia (HR 1.63, p=0.034), severely decreased pre-procedure renal function (HR 1.93, p=0.040) and procedural complication (HR 1.65, p=0.013) were independent predictors for all-cause readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated procedural risk, anemia, renal dysfunction and procedural complication are important predictors for readmission. Pre-procedure and ongoing treatment of the patient's background diseases and completion of treatment for complications prior to discharge may contribute to a reduction in the rate of readmissions.