Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and Reduced Ejection Fraction: Earlier Recovery of Left Ventricular Systolic Function After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Compared With Surgical Valve Replacement

Surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with reduced ejection fraction. Prevalence and follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Limited information exists on the prevalence and outcomes of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for aortic stenosis (AS) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). This study aims to describe the number of AS patients undergoing SAVR with LVEF less than 55 % and quantify LVEF improvement at follow-up.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We analyzed patients undergoing SAVR with LVEF less than 55 % and the number of patients that improved the LVEF at 6 months. We defined 'improved LVEF' as a 10 % increase of LVEF compared to baseline.

RESULTS

Out of 685 patients, 11.4 % (n = 78) had SAVR with LVEF <55 %. The median pre-surgery LVEF was 45 % [IQR 37-51]. In-hospital mortality was 5.1 % (n = 4). Follow-up data for 69 patients showed 50.7 % (n = 35) had improved LVEF.

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort, 10 % of severe AS patients underwent SAVR with LVEF <55 %, with half showing LVEF improvement at follow-up.

Systolic Heart Failure is Associated with Higher Mortality Among Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Nationwide Analysis

Heart failure (HF) is prevalent among patients with aortic stenosis and presents a poor prognosis. In order to better portray outcomes for HF patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), we evaluated clinical outcomes in patients with systolic vs diastolic heart failure who underwent TAVR in a large nationwide database. We searched the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) for hospitalized adult patients who underwent TAVR with coexisting history of systolic (SHF) or diastolic heart failure (DHF) as a secondary diagnosis using the ICD-10 codes. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, with secondary outcomes of cardiac arrest (CA), cardiogenic shock (CS), respiratory failure (RF), Non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), acute kidney injury (AKI), use of cardiac and respiratory assist device, and health care utilization defined as length of stay, average hospital cost (AHC) and patient charge (APC). Both univariate and multivariate logistic, generalized linear, and Poisson regression analyses were used to evaluate and test the outcomes. A P-value of <0.05 was significant. A total of 106,815 patients were admitted to acute care hospitals for TAVR, and 73% had a secondary diagnosis of heart failure (41% had SHF and 59% DHF). SHF group were older (mean age of 78.9 years [SD ± 8.9] vs 79.9 years [SD ± 8.3]) with more males (61.8% vs 48.2%) and white predominant (whites [85.9% vs 87.9%]). Compared to DHF, SHF had higher inpatient mortality (1.75% vs 1.14%, P = 0.003), CA (1.31% vs 0.81%, P = 0.01), NSTEMI (2.52% vs 1.0%, P = 0.001), RF (10.87% vs 8.01%, P = 0.001), and CS (3.94% vs 1.14%, P = 0.001). In addition, SHF had greater LOS (5.1 days vs. .3.9, P = 0.0001) & AHC ($52,901 vs $48,070, P = 0.0001). HF is common among patients admitted for TAVR. SHF had worse CV outcomes, greater use of hospital resources, and higher acute care hospital mortality compared to those with DHF.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs. surgical aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis in Taiwan: A population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Aortic stenosis (AS) is a heart valve disease characterized by left ventricular outflow fixed obstruction. It can be managed by surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, real-world evidence for TAVI or SAVR outcomes is lacking in Taiwan. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of TAVI and SAVR for treating of AS in Taiwan.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The National Health Insurance Research Database is a nationally representative cohort that contains detailed registry and claims data from all 23 million residents of Taiwan. This retrospective cohort study used this database to compare patients who underwent SAVR (bioprosthetic valves) or TAVI from 2017 to 2019. Survival outcomes and length of hospital stay (LOS) and intensive care unit (ICU) stay between TAVI and SAVR in the matched cohort. A Cox proportional hazards model was performed to identify the effect of treatment type on survival rates while controlling variables including age, gender, and comorbidities.

RESULTS

We identified 475 and 1605 patients who underwent TAVI and SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve, respectively. Patients who underwent TAVI were older (82.19 vs. 68.75 y/o) and more likely to be female (55.79% vs. 42.31%) compared with patients who underwent SAVR. Propensity score matching (PSM) on age, gender, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI) score revealed that 375 patients who underwent TAVI were matched with patients who underwent SAVR. A significant difference was found in survival rates between TAVI and SAVR. The 1-year mortality rate was 11.44% with TAVI and 17.55% with SAVR. Both the mean total LOS (19.86 vs. 28.24 days) and mean ICU stay (6.47 vs. 11.12 days) for patients who underwent TAVI were shorter than those who underwent SAVR.

CONCLUSION

Patients who had undergone TAVI had better survival outcomes and shorter LOS compared with patients who had undergone SAVR in Taiwan.

The role of TAVR in patients with heart failure: do we have the responses to all questions?

Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is the most prevalent valvular heart disease in developed countries. Heart failure (HF) is a frequent comorbidity of this condition and represents a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. The spectrum of both conditions has become progressively wider in the last decade; HF has been divided in three groups according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and severe AS has been reclassified into four groups according to aortic valve (AV) gradient, AV flow measured by LV stroke index, and LVEF. Although all four AS types may be found in patients with signs and symptoms of HF, low-flow AS with low or normal gradient is the most common type in these patients. Several studies have documented that patients with low-flow severe AS have a higher mortality risk than patients with normal-flow and high-gradient AS not only during the natural progression of the disease, but also after either interventional or surgical AV replacement. Existing data support transcatheter AV replacement (TAVR) in patients with severe AS, irrespective of AV gradient, AV flow, and LVEF. Controversial issues, however, are still present on this topic, which has not been adequately addressed by large studies and trials. This clinical review summarizes the epidemiology of the different HF types in patients with severe AS, as well as the impact of HF and LVEF on clinical outcomes of AS patients either untreated or after AV replacement. In particular, we addressed the influence of AV gradient and AV flow on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in AS patients after TAVR.

Impact of selected comorbidities on the presentation and management of aortic stenosis

Background

Contemporary data regarding the impact of comorbidities on the clinical presentation and management of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) are scarce.

Methods

Prospective registry of severe patients with AS across 23 centres in nine European countries.

Results

Of the 2171 patients, chronic kidney disease (CKD 27.3%), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% (22.0%), atrial fibrillation (15.9%) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (11.4%) were the most prevalent comorbidities (49.3% none, 33.9% one and 16.8% ≥2 of these). The decision to perform aortic valve replacement (AVR) was taken in a comparable proportion (67%, 72% and 69%, in patients with 0, 1 and ≥2 comorbidities; p=0.186). However, the decision for TAVI was more common with more comorbidities (35.4%, 54.0% and 57.0% for no, 1 and ≥2; p<0.001), while the decision for surgical AVR (SAVR) was decreased with increasing comorbidity burden (31.9%, 17.4% and 12.3%; p<0.001). The proportion of patients with planned AVRs that were performed within 3 months was significantly higher in patients with 1 or ≥2 comorbidities than in those without (8.7%, 10.0% and 15.7%; p<0.001). Furthermore, the mean time to AVR was significantly shorter in patients with one (30.5 days) or ≥2 comorbidities (30.8 days) than in those without (35.7 days; p=0.012). Patients with reduced LVEF tended to be offered an AVR more frequently and with a shorter delay while patients with CKD were less frequently treated.

Conclusions

Comorbidities in severe patients with AS affect the presentation and management of patients with severe AS. TAVI was offered more often than SAVR and performed within a shorter time period.

Mortality after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement: an updated meta-analysis of randomised trials

Background

To determine whether transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) improves early (30-day) and midterm (1-year) mortality compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), we performed an updated meta-analysis of all the currently available randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

To identify all RCTs providing both 30-day and 1‑year mortality after TAVI versus SAVR, PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to and including July 2019. A risk difference (RD) and its 95% confidence interval were generated using data of prespecified outcomes in both the TAVI and SAVR groups. Study-specific estimates were pooled using inverse variance-weighted averages of RDs in the random-effects model.

Results

We identified seven eligible high-quality RCTs including a total of 7631 as-treated patients. Pooled analyses demonstrated significantly lower 30-day (RD −0.60%; p = 0.046) and 1‑year all-cause mortality (RD −1.12%; p = 0.03) after TAVI than after SAVR. No funnel plot asymmetry was detected for 30-day and 1‑year mortality. Meta-regression analyses indicated that RDs of 30-day and 1‑year mortality between TAVI and SAVR were not modulated by mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score. Bleeding complications at 30 days and 1 year and stage 2/3 acute kidney injury at 30 days were significantly less frequent after TAVI than after SAVR, whereas major vascular complications and new permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days and 1 year were significantly more frequent after TAVI than after SAVR.

Conclusion

The best evidence from the present meta-analysis of all the currently available RCTs suggests that TAVI may reduce 30-day and 1‑year all-cause mortality compared with SAVR.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-020-01378-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Sustained Improvement of Left Ventricular Strain following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Purpose: Left ventricular (LV) mechanics are impaired in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a widespread technique for patients with severe AS considered inoperable or high risk for open surgery. This procedure could have a positive impact in LV mechanics. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of TAVR on LV function recovery, as assessed by myocardial deformation parameters, both immediately and in the long term. Methods: One-hundred nineteen consecutive patients (81.2 ± 6.9 years, 50.4% female) from 10 centres in Europe with severe AS who successfully underwent TAVR with either a self-expanding CoreValve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) or a mechanically expanded Lotus valve (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA) were enrolled in a prospective observational study. A complete echocardiographic examination was performed prior to device implantation, before discharge and 1 year after the procedure, including the assessment of LV strain using standard 2D images. Results: Between baseline and discharge, only a modest but statistically significant improvement in GLS (global longitudinal strain) could be seen (GLS% –14.6 ± 5.0 at baseline; –15.7 ± 5.1 at discharge, p = 0.0116), although restricted to patients in the CoreValve group; 1 year after the procedure, a greater improvement in GLS was observed (GLS% –17.1 ± 4.9, p < 0.001), both in the CoreValve and the Lotus groups. Conclusions: Immediate and sustained improvement in GLS was appreciated after the TAVR procedure. Whether this finding continues to be noted in a more prolonged follow-up and its clinical implications need to be assessed in further studies.

Early Recovery of Left Ventricular Systolic Function after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Background

A lot of studies have shown a positive effect of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Objectives

We aimed to investigate the effect of TAVI on left ventricular function and correlate this phenomenon with hypertrophy degree in an early follow-up.

Materials and Methods

Between August 2015 and July 2016, 250 consecutive patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) underwent TAVI in our institution. Given the aim of this analysis, only patients with an LVEF <50%, no more than moderate mitral valve regurgitation, successful valve implantation, and 1-month follow-up available were included in the study (n = 46). Patients were enrolled in a prospective database, with clinical and echocardiographic evaluations at 1 month after TAVI.

Results

All patients had severe symptomatic AS (mean transaortic pressure gradients: 44.1 ± 13.8 mmHg and mean aortic valve area: 0.66 ± 0.19 cm²). Mean baseline LVEF was 39.3 ± 8.8%. Significant hemodynamic improvement was observed after TAVI. Mean transvalvular aortic gradient decreased significantly from 44.1 ± 13.8 mmHg to 8.9 ± 4.2 mmHg (P < 0.005). A statistically significant improvement in LVEF compared to baseline was observed in the 1^st month of follow-up (39.3 ± 8.8% vs. 44.1 ± 10.1%, P < 0.019). Overall, 52.2% of patients showed an increase in LVEF, 32.6% had no change, while only 2.2% had a decrease in LVEF. Interestingly, we found a significant reverse correlation between LVEF improvement and ventricular hypertrophy measured as diastolic interventricular septum thickness (Pearson index r = -0.42). Patients showing greater improvement in LVEF were those with less than moderate hypertrophy.

Conclusions

Patients with depressed systolic function show a consistent and early LVEF recovery after TAVI. An impaired LVEF recovery is most likely among patients with more than moderate hypertrophy, probably responsible of left ventricular fibrosis that irremediably compromises systolic function.

Calcific Aortic Valve Disease: Part 2-Morphomechanical Abnormalities, Gene Reexpression, and Gender Effects on Ventricular Hypertrophy and Its Reversibility

In part 1, we considered cytomolecular mechanisms underlying calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD), hemodynamics, and adaptive feedbacks controlling pathological left ventricular hypertrophy provoked by ensuing aortic valvular stenosis (AVS). In part 2, we survey diverse signal transduction pathways that precede cellular/molecular mechanisms controlling hypertrophic gene expression by activation of specific transcription factors that induce sarcomere replication in-parallel. Such signaling pathways represent potential targets for therapeutic intervention and prevention of decompensation/failure. Hypertrophy provoking signals, in the form of dynamic stresses and ligand/effector molecules that bind to specific receptors to initiate the hypertrophy, are transcribed across the sarcolemma by several second messengers. They comprise intricate feedback mechanisms involving gene network cascades, specific signaling molecules encompassing G protein-coupled receptors and mechanotransducers, and myocardial stresses. Future multidisciplinary studies will characterize the adaptive/maladaptive nature of the AVS-induced hypertrophy, its gender- and individual patient-dependent peculiarities, and its response to surgical/medical interventions. They will herald more effective, precision medicine treatments.

Left ventricular hypertrophy in valvular aortic stenosis: mechanisms and clinical implications

Valvular aortic stenosis is the second most prevalent adult valve disease in the United States and causes progressive pressure overload, invariably leading to life-threatening complications. Surgical aortic valve replacement and, more recently, transcatheter aortic valve replacement effectively relieve the hemodynamic burden and improve the symptoms and survival of affected individuals. However, according to current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease, the indications for aortic valve replacement, including transcatheter aortic valve replacement, are based primarily on the development of clinical symptoms, because their presence indicates a dismal prognosis. Left ventricular hypertrophy develops in a sizeable proportion of patients before the onset of symptoms, and a growing body of literature demonstrates that regression of left ventricular hypertrophy resulting from aortic stenosis is incomplete after aortic valve replacement and associated with adverse early postoperative outcomes and worse long-term outcomes. Thus, reliance on the development of symptoms alone without consideration of structural abnormalities of the myocardium for optimal timing of aortic valve replacement potentially constitutes a missed opportunity to prevent postoperative morbidity and mortality from severe aortic stenosis, especially in the face of the quickly expanding indications of lower-risk transcatheter aortic valve replacement. The purpose of this review is to discuss the mechanisms and clinical implications of left ventricular hypertrophy in severe valvular aortic stenosis, which may eventually move to center stage as an indication for aortic valve replacement in the asymptomatic patient.

Efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with aortic stenosis and reduced LVEF. A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is safe and effective for patients with aortic stenosis (AS) who have a high operative risk. However, there is still debate on the effect of TAVI in AS patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (REF). The objective of the review is to clarify the efficacy of TAVI and the impact of REF on the 30-day and midterm mortality in these patients.

METHODS

Studies on TAVI were searched in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases and were included in this review following predefined criteria. Data were extracted and pooled risk ratios (RR) were synthesized to explore the relationship between REF and 30-day plus midterm mortality.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies comprising 14,099 patients were included in the analysis of the association of REF with the prognosis of patients after TAVI. An average increase in left ventricular ejection fraction of 8-10 % was observed among these patients after TAVI. REF was not related to the 30-day mortality [RR = 1.90, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 0.80-4.47]; however, it was related to the midterm mortality (RR = 1.49, 95 %CI = 1.14-1.93) of patients undergoing TAVI. Patients with low-flow and low-gradient AS had a higher 30-day mortality (RR = 1.54, 95 %CI = 1.11-2.13) and midterm mortality rate (RR = 1.69, 95 %CI = 1.33-2.14) compared with AS patients without these characteristics. The mortality of TAVI patients was significantly lower than that of those undergoing conservative therapy, and was similar to that of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement.

CONCLUSION

REF was not associated with 30-day mortality, but it was associated with the midterm mortality of TAVI patients. Patients with REF could benefit from TAVI compared with conservative therapy.

Effect of severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction on hospital outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation or surgical aortic valve replacement: results from a propensity-matched population of the Italian OBSERVANT multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

Despite demonstration of the superior outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus optimal medical therapy for severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction, studies comparing TAVI and surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in this high-risk group have been lacking.

METHODS

We performed propensity matching for age, gender, baseline comorbidities, previous interventions, priority at hospital admission, frailty score, New York Heart Association class, EuroSCORE, and associated cardiac diseases. Next, the 30-day mortality and procedure-related morbidity of 162 patients (81 TAVI vs 81 AVR) with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction ≤ 35%) were analyzed at the Italian National Institute of Health.

RESULTS

The 30-day mortality was comparable (P = .37) between the 2 groups. The incidence of periprocedural acute myocardial infarction (P = .55), low output state (P = .27), stroke (P = .36), and renal dysfunction (peak creatinine level, P = .57) was also similar between the 2 groups. TAVI resulted in significantly greater postprocedural permanent pacemaker implantation (P = .01) and AVR in more periprocedural transfusions (P < .01) despite a similar transfusion rate per patient (2.8 ± 3.7 for TAVI vs 4.4 ± 3.8 for AVR; P = .08). The postprocedural intensive care unit stay (median, 2 days after TAVI vs 3 days after AVR; P = .34), intermediate care unit stay (median, 0 days after both TAVI and AVR; P = .94), and hospitalization (median, 11 days after TAVI vs 14 days after AVR; P = .51) were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction, both TAVI and AVR are valid treatment options, with comparable hospital mortality and periprocedural morbidity. Comparisons of the mid- to long-term outcomes are mandatory.