Paravalvular Regurgitation after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Comparing Transthoracic versus Transesophageal Echocardiographic Guidance

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly being performed in cardiac catheterization laboratories using transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) to guide valve deployment. The risk of paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) remains a concern.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 454 consecutive patients (mean age, 82 ± 8; 58% male) who underwent transfemoral TAVR at Emory Healthcare from 2007 to 2014. Two hundred thirty-four patients underwent TAVR in the cardiac catheterization laboratory with TTE guidance (TTE-TAVR; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, 10%), while 220 patients underwent the procedure in the hybrid operating room with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) guidance (TEE-TAVR; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, 11%). All patients received an Edwards valve (SAPIEN 55%, SAPIEN-XT 45%). Clinical and procedural characteristics, echocardiographic parameters, and incidence of PVR were compared.

RESULTS

The incidence of at least mild PVR at discharge was comparable between TTE-TAVR and TEE-TAVR (33% vs 38%, respectively; P = .326) and did not differ when stratified by valve type. However, in the TTE-TAVR group, there was a higher incidence of second valve implantation (7% vs 2%; P = .026) and postdilation (38% vs 17%; P < .001) during the procedure. Although not independently associated with PVR at discharge (odds ratio = 1.12; 95% CI, 0.69-1.79), TTE-TAVR was associated with PVR-related events: the combined outcome of mild PVR at discharge, intraprocedural postdilation, and second valve insertion (odds ratio = 1.58; 95% CI, 1.01-2.46). There were no significant differences in PVR at 30 days, 6 months, and 1 year between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

TTE-TAVR in a high-risk group of patients was associated with increased incidence of intraprocedure PVR-related events, although it was not associated with higher rates of PVR at follow-up. Multicenter randomized trials are required to confirm the cost-effectiveness and safety of TTE-TAVR.

International Expert Consensus on Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Valves in Aortic Valve Replacement Using Minimally Invasive Approaches

Objective

To define the benefit of sutureless and rapid deployment valves in current minimally invasive approaches in isolated aortic valve replacement.

Methods

A panel of 28 international experts with expertise in both minimally invasive aortic valve replacement and rapid deployment valves was constituted. After thorough literature review, the experts rated evidence-based recommendations in a modified Delphi approach.

Results

No guideline could be retrieved. Thirty-three clinical trials and 9 systematic reviews could be identified for detailed text analysis to obtain a total of 24 recommendations. After rating by the experts 12, final recommendations were identified: preoperative computed tomographic scan as well as intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography are highly recommended. Suitable annular sizes are 19 to 27 mm. There is a contraindication for bicuspid valves only for type 0 and for annular abscess or destruction due to infective endocarditis. The use of sutureless and rapid deployment valves reduces extracorporeal circulation and aortic cross-clamp time and leads to less early complications as prolonged ventilation, blood transfusion, atrial fibrillation, pleural effusions, paravalvular leakages and aortic regurgitation, and renal replacement therapy, respectively. These clinical outcomes result in reduced intensive care unit and hospital stay and reduced costs. The use of sutureless and rapid deployment valves will lead to a higher adoption rate of minimally invasive approaches in aortic valve replacement. Respect should be taken to a necessary short learning curve for both sutureless and minimally invasive programs.

Conclusions

Sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement together with minimally invasive approaches offers an attractive option in aortic valve placement for patients requiring biological valve replacement.

Prevalence and Prognostic Significance of Right Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Background—

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) can provide important structural information in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Although CMR is considered the standard of reference for measuring ventricular volumes and mass, the relationship between CMR findings of right ventricular (RV) function and outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation has not previously been reported.

Methods and Results—

A total of 190 patients underwent 1.5 Tesla CMR before transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Steady-state free precession sequences were used for aortic valve planimetry and to assess ventricular volumes and mass. Semiautomated image analysis was performed by 2 specialist reviewers blinded to patient treatment. Patient follow-up was obtained from the Office of National Statistics mortality database. The median age was 81.0 (interquartile range, 74.9–85.5) years; 50.0% were women. Impaired RV function (RV ejection fraction ≤50%) was present in 45 (23.7%) patients. Patients with RV dysfunction had poorer left ventricular ejection fractions (42% versus 69%), higher indexed left ventricular end-systolic volumes (96 versus 40 mL), and greater indexed left ventricular mass (101 versus 85 g/m 2 ; P <0.01 for all) than those with normal RV function. Median follow-up was 850 days; 21 of 45 (46.7%) patients with RV dysfunction died, compared with 43 of 145 (29.7%) patients with normal RV function ( P =0.035). After adjustment for significant baseline variables, both RV ejection fraction ≤50% (hazard ratio, 2.12; P =0.017) and indexed aortic valve area (hazard ratio, 4.16; P =0.025) were independently associated with survival.

Conclusions—

RV function, measured on preprocedural CMR, is an independent predictor of mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. CMR assessment of RV function may be important in the risk stratification of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.