Predictors and outcomes of patient‐prosthesis mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Optimizing Valve Selection in Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Case Study on Addressing Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch and Early Structural Valve Deterioration in a Morbidly Obese Patient

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has increasingly become a fundamental approach for treating aortic valve stenosis (AVS), especially in high surgical risk patients. This case study underscores the criticality of meticulous procedural planning and precise valve selection in patients with severe AVS compounded by obesity. We report a case of a patient who, after receiving a 26 mm Edwards Sapiens 3 valve, presented with worsening exertional dyspnea and a declining indexed effective orifice area (EOAi). This deterioration indicated early structural valve deterioration (SVD), presumably due to patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM). A subsequent valve-in-valve (ViV) TAVR using a 29 mm Medtronic Evolut Fx valve was successfully executed, leading to a notable improvement in EOAi. This case study emphasizes the complexities inherent in valve choice and sizing in TAVR, particularly highlighting the impact of PPM on obese patients and its potential to precipitate early SVD. The report further explores the emerging strategies in addressing TAVR valve dysfunctions via ViV interventions, shedding light on the nuanced and dynamic nature of TAVR management in obese patients. It advocates for tailored treatment strategies in managing such intricate cases, demonstrating the evolving landscape of TAVR procedures.

Sex differences in permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence on the effect of sex on permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The primary objective of this meta-analysis was to determine the role of sex among patients requiring PPMI post-TAVR.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using the SCOPUS, MEDLINE, and CINAHL databases for studies published until October 2022. Eligible studies included published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and Observational Cohort Studies (OCS) articles that reported PPMI as an outcome of pacemaker status following TAVR. This study was performed per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines. Publication bias was estimated using a Funnel plot and Egger's test. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The primary endpoint was the sex difference in PPMI after TAVR, with odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) extracted.

RESULTS

Data was obtained from 63 studies, and a total of 79,655 patients were included. The cumulative PPMI rate was 15.5% (95% CI, 13.6%-17.7%). The pooled analysis revealed that while there were more females than males undergoing TAVR (51.6%, 95% CI 50.4%-52.8%), males have a 14.5% higher risk for post-TAVR PPMI than females (OR 1.145, 95% CI 1.047-1.253, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Males are more likely to experience PPMI after TAVR than females. Further research needs to be done to better explain these observed differences in outcomes.

Comparison of 1-year Follow-up Echocardiographic Outcomes of Sapien 3 Versus Evolut R Bioprosthetic Transcatheter Aortic Valves: A Single-center Retrospective Iranian Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

The current study aimed to compare 1-year echocardiographic outcomes of the new generations of self-expanding (Evolut R) versus balloon-expandable (Sapien 3) bioprosthetic transcatheter aortic valves.

METHODS

In this study, gradients and flow velocities obtained from transthoracic Doppler-echocardiography were retrospectively collected from patients who underwent 2 new generations of transcatheter aortic valve implantation interventions with Sapien 3 and Evolut R valves. Patients underwent echocardiography before the procedure and at discharge, 6 months, and 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Of the 66 patients, 28 received Sapien 3 and 38 received Evolut R valves. Evolut R valve presented a lower mean gradient at all follow-up time points compared with Sapien 3 valves (14.4 mm Hg, 14.9 mm Hg, 15.5 mm Hg compared with 10.1 mm Hg, 11.6 mm Hg, 11.8 mm Hg, respectively; all P -values <0.001). Small valve sizes of Evolut R, including 23 and 26, had higher echocardiographic mean gradient or peak gradient at the time of discharge compared with larger valves, including sizes 29 and 34 (11.1 mm Hg and 11.2 mm Hg vs. 10.2 mm Hg, 9.1 mm Hg) and 1-year follow-up (11.0 mm Hg, 11.0 mm Hg vs. 9.9 mm Hg, 8.4 mm Hg; all P -values = 0.001). Although Sapien 3 valves demonstrated a higher peak gradient in smaller sizes at discharge (18.44 mm Hg in size 23 vs. 17.9 mm Hg, 16.5 mm Hg in size 26 and 29, respectively; P = 0.001), the peak gradients did not show a statistically significant difference in the 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study detected significantly lower mean and peak gradients in Evolut R compared with Sapien 3 at all follow-up time points. Furthermore, smaller valve sizes were associated with significantly higher gradients at all follow-ups, regardless of the valve type.

Surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch on outcomes

BACKGROUND

The hemodynamics of most prosthetic valves are often inferior to that of the normal native valve, and a significant proportion of patients undergoing surgical (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have high residual transaortic pressure gradients due to prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM). As the experience with TAVR has increased and long-term outcomes are reported, a close look at the PPM literature is required in light of new evidence.

METHODS

For this review, we searched the Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases from 2000 to 2022. Articles reporting PPM as an outcome following aortic valve replacements were identified and reviewed.

RESULTS

The impact of PPM on clinical outcomes in aortic valve replacement has not been clear as multiple studies failed to report PPM incidence. However, the PPM outcomes after SAVR vary more widely than after TAVR, ranging from 8% to 80% in SAVR and from 24% to 35% in TAVR. Incidence of severe PPM following redo SAVR ranges from 2% to 9% and following valve-in-valve TAVR is from 14% to 33%, however, while PPM is higher in valve-in-valve TAVR, patients had better survival rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The gap between valve performance and clinical outcomes in SAVR and TAVR could be reduced by carefully selecting patients for either treatment option. Understanding predictors of PPM can add to the safety, effectiveness, and increased survival benefit of both SAVR and TAVR.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), first described in 1978, occurs when a prosthetic valve functions normally, but has an effective orifice area that is too small relative to the patient's body surface area. It results in residual left ventricular afterload and higher transvalvular pressure gradient, which has been considered to impair prognosis. PPM following surgical aortic replacement is reportedly associated with worse clinical outcomes, such as high mortality. However, the impact of PPM on clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains unclear. There is conflicting evidence on the impact of PPM following TAVI due to differences across studies in terms of follow-up period, methods, patient populations, and type of bioprosthetic valve. The present review summarizes the most recent evidence on PPM after TAVI.

Biomechanics of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Complications and Computational Predictive Modeling

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a rapidly growing field enabling replacement of diseased aortic valves without the need for open heart surgery. However, due to the nature of the procedure and nonremoval of the diseased tissue, there are rates of complications ranging from tissue rupture and coronary obstruction to paravalvular leak, valve thrombosis, and permanent pacemaker implantation. In recent years, computational modeling has shown a great deal of promise in its capabilities to understand the biomechanical implications of TAVR as well as help preoperatively predict risks inherent to device-patient-specific anatomy biomechanical interaction. This includes intricate replication of stent and leaflet designs and tested and validated simulated deployments with structural and fluid mechanical simulations. This review outlines current biomechanical understanding of device-related complications from TAVR and related predictive strategies using computational modeling. An outlook on future modeling strategies highlighting reduced order modeling which could significantly reduce the high time and cost that are required for computational prediction of TAVR outcomes is presented in this review paper. A summary of current commercial/in-development software is presented in the final section.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Risk Factors, Incidence, and Outcomes of Patients With Versus Without Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Current guidelines on the management of patients with aortic valvular disease have widened the use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with an emphasis on avoidance of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM). This study sought to examine the incidence, risk factors, and all-cause mortality of PPM after TAVI. Medline and Embase databases were searched from inception to August 10, 2021. Patients were compared along 2 arms: (1) any degree of PPM and those without PPM, (2) severe PPM, and nonsevere PPM. A total of 22 articles involving 115,442 patients after TAVI were included. Pooled incidence for any degree of PPM was 30.1% and 10.7% in severe PPM. Incidence was significantly higher (p <0.001) for any degree of PPM in Europe (33.1%) and North America (34.4%) compared with Asia (10.4%). Incidence of severe PPM was higher (p = 0.015) in older generation (13.6%) compared with current-generation valves (6.3%). Severe PPM increased the risk of all-cause mortality relative to nonsevere PPM (hazard ratio: 1.86, 95% confidence interval: 1.05 to 3.29, p = 0.034). Patients of younger age, increased body surface area, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and classified New York Heart Association Class III/IV were at greater risk of both any degree and severe PPM. Smaller prosthesis size increased the risk of any degree of PPM, whereas postdilation and larger prostheses were protective factors. In conclusion, all-cause mortality was significantly affected in severe PPM compared with nonsevere cases, whereas this excess mortality was not observed between those with any degree of PPM and those without. Closer attention to patient and bioprosthetic valve factors is required to minimize the occurrence of severe PPM.

Predictors for the risk of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a less invasive treatment than surgery for severe aortic stenosis. However, its use is restricted by the fact that many patients eventually require permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI). This meta-analysis was performed to identify predictors of post-TAVR PPMI.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched. Relevant studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in the pooling analysis after quality assessment.

RESULTS

After pooling 67 studies on post-TAVR PPMI risk in 97,294 patients, balloon-expandable valve use was negatively correlated with PPMI risk compared with self-expandable valve (SEV) use (odds ratio [OR]: 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37-0.53). Meta-regression analysis revealed that history of coronary artery bypass grafting and higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score increased the risk of PPMI with SEV utilization. Patients with pre-existing cardiac conduction abnormalities in 28 pooled studies also had a higher risk of PPMI (OR: 2.33, 95% CI: 1.90-2.86). Right bundle branch block (OR: 5.2, 95% CI: 4.37-6.18) and first-degree atrioventricular block (OR: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.38-2.79) also increased PPMI risk. Although the trans-femoral approach was positively correlated with PPMI risk, the trans-apical pathway showed no statistical difference to the trans-femoral pathway. The approach did not increase PPMI risk in patients with STS scores >8. Patient-prosthesis mismatch did not influence post-TAVR PPMI risk (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.67-1.16). We also analyzed implantation depth and found no difference between patients with PPMI after TAVR and those without.

CONCLUSIONS

SEV selection, pre-existing cardiac conduction abnormality, and trans-femoral pathway selection are positively correlated with PPMI after TAVR. Pre-existing left bundle branch block, patient-prosthesis mismatch, and implantation depth did not affect the risk of PPMI after TAVR.

Prevalence and Significance of Patient Prosthesis Mismatch Following Edwards SAPIEN XT and SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

Severe patient prosthesis mismatch (sPPM) after surgical aortic valve replacement is associated with worse outcomes. Limited data exists on the impact of sPPM on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), especially regarding the newer generation valves. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence, determinants, and outcomes of sPPM in patients undergoing TAVR with Edwards SAPIEN XT (ES XT) and Edwards SAPIEN 3 (ES3) valves (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 366 patients who underwent TAVR with ES XT (n = 114) or ES3 (n = 252) valves between July 2012 and June 2018. sPPM was defined as indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) <0.65 cm²/m². Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were used to determine outcomes.

Results

Multivariate linear regression analysis was utilized to determine potential independent effects of PPM on outcomes. sPPM was present in 40 (11%) of the patients [8 (7%) ES XT and 32 (13%) ES3] and was associated with female sex, smaller left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) diameter and aortic valve annular area, absence of prior coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, shorter height, higher body mass index, and smaller pre-TAVR valve area (all p < 0.05). Among those with ES3 valves, the incidence of sPPM was inversely proportional to the valve size (50%, 25%, 5% and 3% for 20-, 23-, 26- and 29-mm valve sizes, respectively; p < 0.001). At a mean follow-up period of 3.5 ± 1.5 years, there was no difference in all-cause mortality (22.5% vs. 25.6%, p = 0.89) or a composite endpoint of heart failure, arrhythmias, stroke, and myocardial infarction (30% vs. 34%, p = 0.24) in those with or without sPPM.

Conclusion

ES3 was associated with a higher incidence of sPPM, particularly with smaller valve sizes. However, the presence of sPPM as defined by iEOA was not an independent predictor of adverse outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR within an intermediate follow-up period.

Clinical and Technical Challenges of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is present when the effective area of a prosthetic valve inserted into a patient is inferior to that of a normal human valve; the hemodynamic consequence of a valve too small compared with the size of the patient's body is the generation of higher than expected transprosthetic gradients. Despite evidence of increased risk of short- and long-term mortality and of structural valve degeneration in patients with PPM after surgical aortic valve replacement, its clinical impact in patients subject to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is yet unclear. We aim to review and update on the definition and incidence of PPM after TAVI, and its prognostic implications in the overall population and in higher-risk subgroups, such as small aortic annuli or valve-in-valve procedures. Last, we will focus on the armamentarium available in order to reduce risk of PPM when planning a TAVI procedure.

Outcomes of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Following Supra-Annular Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: From the STS/ACC TVT Registry

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the outcomes of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) in the TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry in patients undergoing supra-annular transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for de novo stenosis or failed surgical bioprostheses (transcatheter aortic valve [TAV]-in-surgical aortic valve [SAV]).

BACKGROUND

Severe PPM has been associated with adverse outcomes following TAVR, yet the clinical outcome of severe PPM after supra-annular TAVR is largely unknown.

METHODS

Supra-annular TAVR was performed in patients enrolled in the TVT Registry with de novo stenosis (n = 42,174) or TAV-in-SAV (n = 5,446). Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria were used to define severe PPM. The clinical impact of severe PPM on 1-year mortality and valve-related readmission was assessed using multivariate regression. A generalized linear mixed model was used to evaluate predictors of severe PPM.

RESULTS

Severe PPM was found in 5.3% of patients undergoing de novo TAVR and 27.0% of patients undergoing TAV-in-SAV. The presence of severe PPM was not significantly associated with 1-year mortality or valve-related readmissions in both groups. Mean aortic gradients were higher in patients with severe PPM than in those without severe PPM at 1 month (9.7 ± 5.7 mm Hg vs. 7.3 ± 4.0 mm Hg; p < 0.001) and 1 year (10.2 ± 6.4 mm Hg vs. 8.0 ± 4.3 mm Hg; p < 0.001). Pre-procedural factors, including a <20-mm aortic annulus, were positive predictors of severe PPM in patients undergoing de novo TAVR (area under the curve = 0.795) and TAV-in-SAV (area under the curve = 0.764).

CONCLUSIONS

Severe PPM after supra-annular TAVR was not associated with increased 1-year mortality or valve-related readmissions. Longer-term follow-up is needed to determine if higher residual gradients in patients with severe PPM predict long-term outcomes. (STS/ACC Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry [TVT Registry]; NCT01737528).

Incidence and predictors of prosthesis-patient mismatch after TAVI using SAPIEN 3 in Asian: differences between the newer and older balloon-expandable valve

Background

The balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 (S3) is superior to the older-generation balloon-expandable SAPIEN XT (XT) in a lower incidence of paravalvular aortic regurgitation, lower complication rates and better survival in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM) more frequently occurs in S3 than XT. Further, little information is available on PPM after TAVI using S3 in Asians. This study aims to determine the incidence and predictors of PPM in S3 by focusing on the difference between S3 and XT using data from a Japanese multicentre registry.

Methods

From the Optimised transCathEter vAlvular iNtervention-TAVI (OCEAN-TAVI) registry, 2134 patients undergoing TAVI using S3 or XT were included. PPM was defined as moderate if ≧0.65 but ≦0.85 cm²/m² or severe if <0.65 cm²/m² at the indexed effective orifice area by postprocedural echocardiography.

Results

The incidence of moderate and severe PPM in S3 was 13.3% and 1.3%, respectively. The 20 mm transcatheter heart valve (THV) was more frequently used in S3 than XT (7.4% vs 2.4%, p<0.0001). PPM was more frequently observed in S3 than XT (14.7% vs 8.8%, p<0.0001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed S3 predicted PPM (OR 1.92 (95% CI 1.35 to 2.74), p=0.0003). The mutual predictors for PPM between S3 and XT were younger age, larger body surface area, smaller aortic valve area, no balloon postdilatation and the use of 20 mm and 23 mm THV. When comparing 23 mm, 26 mm and 29 mm S3, the ORs of 20 mm S3 were 5.67 (95% CI 2.88 to 11.12), 19.24 (95% CI 8.13 to 46.86) and 51.03 (95% CI 12.28 to 280.77), respectively.

Conclusions

The incidence of PPM after TAVI using S3 was 14.6% overall in this Asian population. PPM was more frequently observed in S3 than XT. A considerable number of patients were treated by the 20 mm S3 in an Asian cohort. The 20 mm THV was identified as a strong predictor for PPM.

Aortic Annular Enlargement in the Elderly: Short and Long-Term Outcomes in the United States

BACKGROUND

Patient prosthesis mismatch is associated with significant long-term morbidity and mortality after aortic valve replacement, but the role and outcomes of annular enlargement (AE) remain poorly defined. We hypothesized that increasing rates of AE may lead to improved outcomes for patients at risk for severe patient prosthesis mismatch.

METHODS

Patients over age 65 years undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement with or without coronary artery bypass grafting from 2008-2016 in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database with matching Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data were included (n=189,268). Univariate, multivariate, and time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the association between AE and early and late outcomes. Patients were stratified by projected degree of patient prosthesis mismatch based on calculated effective orifice area index.

RESULTS

A total of 5412 (2.9%) patients underwent AE. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database-predicted mortality was similar between AE and non-AE groups (2.97% vs 2.99%, P = .052). Patients undergoing AE had higher risk-adjusted rates of 30-day complications and death (5.4% vs 3.4%, P < .0001), but no differences in long-term rates of stroke, heart failure re-hospitalization,s or aortic valve reoperation. Survival analysis demonstrated a higher risk of mortality with AE during the first 3 years, after which the survival curves cross, favoring AE.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that annular enlargement during surgical aortic valve replacement is associated with increased short-term risk in a Medicare population. Survival curves crossed after 3 years, which may portend a benefit in select patients. However, annular enlargement is still only performed in the minority of patients who are at risk for patient prosthesis mismatch.