Urgent transcatheter aortic valve replacement may be performed with acceptable long-term outcomes

Mortality Rates in Patients Undergoing Urgent Versus Elective Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-analysis

Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AoS) often present with acute heart failure and compensation, frequently leading to cardiogenic shock. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) has been recently performed as a bailout treatment in such patients. The aim of our meta-analysis is to compare urgent TAVR with elective procedures. We systematically screened three databases searching for studies comparing urgent vs elective TAVR. Primary endpoint is the 30-days mortality. Secondary endpoints included in-hospital mortality, device success, periprocedural vascular complications, 30-days stroke, 30-days acute kidney injury (AKI), permanent pacemaker implantation (PPM), moderate or severe paravalvular leakage, and 30-days bleeding. Seventeen studies were included, with a total of 84,495 patients. Urgent TAVR was associated with an increased risk for 30-days mortality [Risk Ratio (RR): 2.53, 95% Confidence Intervals (CI): 1.81-3.54)], in-hospital mortality (RR: 2.67, 95% CI: 1.94-3.68), periprocedural vascular complications (RR: 1.91, 95% CI: 1.28-2.85) and AKI (RR: 2.83, 95% CI: 1.93-4.14), compared with elective procedure. No differences were observed in the other secondary endpoints. Urgent TAVR was associated with higher in-hospital and 30-days mortality, possibly driven by the increased incidence of AKI and vascular complications in urgent TAVR. The results highlight the importance of early TAVR in stable AoS patients.

Short-term Outcomes of Urgent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis That Requires Emergency Hospital Admission

Objective This study retrospectively compared the outcomes of emergently admitted patients with aortic stenosis (AS) with or without urgent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Methods Patients hospitalized between February 2015 and December 2019 for symptomatic AS were retrospectively analyzed by comparing the received conservative management [continued medical therapy with or without elective surgical transcatheter replacement (SAVR) or TAVR scheduled after the index hospitalization] and urgent TAVR (TAVR during the index hospitalization). Results The cohort comprised 114 patients with symptomatic AS who required emergency admission. Urgent TAVR was performed for 37 patients, while conservative management was provided for 77 patients, including 1 who received urgent SAVR. Urgent TAVR was more likely to be performed in patients with a history of hospitalization for heart failure, high New York Heart Association class scores, a lower clinical frailty scale at admission, and a high aortic valve peak velocity (p=0.01, p<0.001, p<0.01 and p=0.02, respectively). Kaplan-Meier analyses with log-rank test revealed favorable outcomes of urgent TAVR in all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events within 60 days of admission (p<0.01, p<0.01, respectively). Conclusion Urgent TAVR had better short-term outcomes in patients with symptomatic AS who required emergency hospital admission than conservative management. When considering urgent TAVR, patients with typical heart failure symptoms due to AS with a history of heart failure hospitalization and relatively little frailty can be selected.

A Readmission Risk Score for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: An Analysis of 200,000 Patients

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to leverage a national database of TAVR procedures to create a risk model for 30-day readmissions.

METHODS

The National Readmissions Database was reviewed for all TAVR procedures from 2011 to 2018. Previous ICD coding paradigms created comorbidity and complication variables from the index admission. Univariate analysis included any variables with a P-value of ≤0.2. A bootstrapped mixed-effects logistic regression was run using the hospital ID as a random effect variable. By bootstrapping, a more robust estimate of the variables' effect can be generated, reducing the risk of model overfitting. The odds ratio of variables with a P-value <0.1 was turned into a risk score following the Johnson scoring method. A mixed-effect logistic regression was run using the total risk score, and a calibration plot of the observed to expected readmission was generated.

RESULTS

A total of 237,507 TAVRs were identified, with an in-hospital mortality of 2.2 %. A total of 17.4 % % of TAVR patients were readmitted within 30 days. The median age was 82 with 46 % of the population being women. The risk score values ranged from -3 to 37 corresponding to a predicted readmission risk between 4.6 % and 80.4 %, respectively. Discharge to a short-term facility and being a resident of the hospital state were the most significant predictors of readmission. The calibration plot shows good agreement between the observed and expected readmission rates with an underestimation at higher probabilities.

CONCLUSION

The readmission risk model agrees with the observed readmissions throughout the study period. The most significant risk factors were being a resident of the hospital state and discharge to a short-term facility. This suggests that using this risk score in conjunction with enhanced post-operative care in these patients could reduce readmissions and associated hospital costs, improving outcomes.

Urgent versus Non-Urgent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

There are limited data about the outcomes of nonelective transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Some studies suggest that these patients (pts) have worst results. Our purpose was to compare outcomes in pts submitted to urgent versus elective TAVI.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 298 consecutive pts submitted to TAVI between 2018 and 2021 in a single tertiary center. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were collected and compared between elective and nonelective TAVI.

RESULTS

Pts submitted to urgent TAVI (79 pts) had worse baseline characteristics, with higher EuroScore risk (9.26 vs. 5.17%, p < 0.0001), STS score (7.09 vs. 4.4%, p < 0.0001), and NT pro-natriuretic peptide B (10,168 vs. 3,241 pg/mL, p = 0.001), lower left ventricle ejection fraction (45 vs. 52%, p = 0.003), more diabetes (46.8 vs. 32.4%, p = 0.0.22), peripheral artery disease (21.5 vs. 6.8%, p < 0.0001), and poor vascular accesses (18.4 vs. 7.4%, p = 0.007). Urgent TAVI was associated with higher mortality (25.3 vs. 15.1%, p = 0.043), 30-day cardiovascular mortality (17.5 vs. 4%, p = 0.001), life-threatening bleeding (11.5 vs. 4.1%, p = 0.018), vascular complications (11.5 vs. 4.6%, p = 0.031), and longer hospital stay (28 vs. 12 days, p < 0.0001), but not with intensive care unit or post-TAVI hospital stay (5 vs. 4 days, p = 0.197 and 11 vs. 10 days, p = 0.572). When adjusted to differences in baseline characteristics, urgent TAVI was only associated with longer hospital stay (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Pts submitted to urgent TAVI have worse short-term outcomes, but this seems to be attributable to the worse baseline characteristics instead of the urgent nature of the procedure.

In-hospital Outcomes and the Impact of Transfer Status in Nonelective vs Elective Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

Nonelective transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) requires additional research to be fully understood.

Methods

Using the National Inpatient Sample database (2016-2019), we conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing nonelective vs elective TAVR. The primary outcome of interest was the in-hospital mortality rate among patients undergoing nonelective TAVR, compared to that among patients undergoing elective TAVR. We matched patients in a greedy nearest-neighbor 1:1 model and multivariable logistic regression, which was adjusted for demographics, hospital factors, and comorbidities, and was used to compare mortality in our matched cohort.

Results

Each cohort had 4389 patients in each cohort. When adjusted for age, race, sex, and comorbidities, nonelective TAVR patients had 1.99 times higher odds of suffering in-hospital mortality compared to elective admissions (adjusted odds ratio 1.99, 95% confidence interval: 1.42-2.81; P < 0.001). When separated by transfer status, nonelective patients admitted as regular hospital admissions or transferred from other acute-care centres also had higher odds of suffering in-hospital mortality compared to elective admissions.

Conclusions

Our findings illustrate that nonelective TAVR patients are a vulnerable population that require additional medical support in the acute-care setting. As the demand for TAVR increases, further discussions regarding access to healthcare in underserved regions, the national physician shortage, and the future of the TAVR industry are imperative.

Acute advanced aortic stenosis

Acute decompensation often represents the onset of symptoms associated with severe degenerative aortic stenosis (AS) and usually complicates the clinical course of the disease with a dismal impact on survival and quality of life. Several factors may derange the faint balance between left ventricular preload and afterload and precipitate the occurrence of symptoms and signs of acute heart failure (HF). A standardized approach for the management of this condition is currently lacking. Medical therapy finds very limited application in this setting, as drugs usually indicated for the control of acute HF might worsen hemodynamics in the presence of AS. Urgent aortic valve replacement is usually performed by transcatheter than surgical approach whereas, over the last decades, percutaneous balloon valvuloplasty gained renewed space as bridge to definitive therapy. This review focuses on the pathophysiological aspects of acute advanced AS and summarizes current evidence on its management.

Outcomes of Adults with Severe Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Urgent or Emergent vs. Elective Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Within an Integrated Health Care Delivery System

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be used to urgently or emergently treat severe aortic stenosis, but outcomes for this high-risk population have not been well-characterized. We sought to describe the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients undergoing urgent or emergent vs. elective TAVR.

Methods

We identified all adults who received TAVR for primary aortic stenosis between 2013 and 2019 within an integrated health care delivery system in Northern California. Elective or urgent/emergent procedure status was based on standard Society of Thoracic Surgeons definitions. Data were obtained from electronic health records, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons-American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry, and state/national reporting databases. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models were performed.

Results

Among 1564 eligible adults that underwent TAVR, 81 (5.2%) were classified as urgent/emergent. These patients were more likely to have heart failure (63.0% vs. 47.4%), reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (21.0% vs. 11.8%), or a prior aortic valve balloon valvuloplasty (13.6% vs. 5.0%) and experienced higher unadjusted rates of 30-day and 1-year morbidity and mortality. Urgent/emergent TAVR status was independently associated with non-improved quality of life at 30-days (hazard ratio, 4.87; p < 0.01) and acute kidney injury within 1-year post-TAVR (hazard ratio, 2.11; p = 0.01). There was not a significant difference in adjusted 1-year mortality with urgent/emergent TAVR.

Conclusions

Urgent/emergent TAVR status was uncommon and associated with high-risk clinical features and higher unadjusted rates of short- and long-term morbidity and mortality. Procedure status may be useful to identify patients less likely to experience significant short term improvement in health-related quality of life post-TAVR.

Acute Decompensated Aortic Stenosis: State of the Art Review

Aortic stenosis (AS) is a progressive disease that carries a poor prognosis. Patients are managed conservatively until satisfying an indication for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) based on AS severity and the presence of symptoms or adverse impact on the myocardium. Up to 1 in 3 TAVIs are performed for patients with acute symptoms of dyspnoea at rest, angina, and/or syncope - termed acute decompensated aortic stenosis (ADAS) and require urgent aortic valve replacement. These patients have longer hospital length of stay, undergo physical deconditioning, have a higher rate of acute kidney injury and mortality compared to stable patients with less severe symptoms. There is an urgent need to prevent ADAS and to deliver pathways to manage and improve ADAS-related outcomes. We provide here a contemporary review on epidemiological and pathophysiological aspects of ADAS, with a focus on the impact of ADAS from clinical and economic perspectives. We will offer also a global overview of the available evidence for treatment of ADAS and with priorities suggested for addressing current gaps in the literature and unmet clinical needs to improve outcomes for AS patients.

Balloon aortic valvuloplasty: current status and future prospects

INTRODUCTION

Balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) improves hemodynamic and clinical status of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) for a limited period of 6-12 months. However, there is a high number of procedures performed worldwide and an upward trend over the last decades.

AREAS COVERED

Epidemiology of AS and the advent of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) contribute to the extensive referral of patients. The expansion of recommendations for TAVI has occasionally led to financial reimbursement-related problems that do not exist for BAV. BAV is indicated as a bridge to valve replacement, to decision in complex cases, and to extracardiac surgery. BAV may play a role in preparing for TAVI and optimizing procedural results. The minimalist approach and reduced complication rate make it applicable in fragile patients.

EXPERT OPINION

In the near future, BAV will continue to be a useful asset in managing patients with AS given the multiple indications, broad applicability, safety profile, low cost, and repeatability. Specific studies are necessary to explore technical solutions, stronger indications, the finest technique, and to standardize the procedural result. Pending the development of potential competitive devices, the role that BAV plays will remain closely intertwined with the one played by TAVI.

Transfemoral Versus Subclavian Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to compare outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) performed through subclavian access with those performed through transfemoral access.

METHODS

This was an observational study utilizing an institutional TAVR database from 2010 to 2018. All patients undergoing a TAVR via a transfemoral (TF-TAVR) or subclavian (SC-TAVR) approach were included in the study. The groups were analyzed for differences in operative mortality and postoperative outcomes. Multivariable Cox analysis was performed to identify variables associated with long-term survival after TAVR.

RESULTS

Of the 1,095 patients identified, 133 patients underwent SC-TAVR and 962 patients underwent TF-TAVR. Patients who underwent SC-TAVR were younger, more likely to have chronic lung disease and peripheral vascular disease, had higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality scores, and were more likely to have self-expanding valves placed (P < 0.05). Operative mortality was similar between the TF-TAVR (2.7%) and SC-TAVR (3.8%) groups. There were no significant differences in stroke, length of stay, 30-day readmission, blood transfusions, acute kidney injury, need for permanent pacemaker, paravalvular leak, or major vascular complications between the groups (P > 0.05). The unadjusted Kaplan-Meier survival estimate for TF-TAVR was significantly higher than for SC-TAVR (P = 0.009, log-rank). However, on multivariable Cox analysis, subclavian access was not significantly associated with an increased hazard of death as compared with transfemoral access (P = 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes of SC-TAVR are comparable to those of TF-TAVR. Subclavian access may be a favorable alternative approach when TF-TAVR is contraindicated.

Efficacy and Safety of Emergent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients with Acute Decompensated Aortic Stenosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of emergent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with decompensated aortic stenosis (AS) by comparing the clinical outcomes with the patients who had received the elective TAVI.

Methods

By searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, we obtained the studies comparing the clinical outcomes of emergent TAVI and elective TAVI. Finally, 14 studies were included.

Results

A total of 14 eligible articles with 73,484 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Emergent TAVI was associated with a higher mortality during hospitalization (HR 2.09, 95% CI [1.39 to 3.14]), 30 days (HR 2.29, 95% CI [1.69 to 3.10]), and 1 year (HR 1.96, 95% CI [1.55 to 2.49]). Consistently, the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) (RR 2.48, 95% CI [1.85 to 3.32]), dialysis (RR 2.37, 95% CI [1.95 to 2.88]), bleeding (RR 1.62, 95% CI [1.27 to 2.08]), major bleeding (RR 1.05, 95% CI [1.00 to 1.10]), and 30-day rehospitalization (RR 1.30, 95% CI [1.07, 1.58]) were more common in patients receiving emergent TAVI. No statistical differences were found in the occurrence rate of vascular complications (RR 1.11, 95% CI [0.90, 1.36]), major vascular complications (RR 1.14, 95% CI [0.52, 2.52]), permanent pacemaker (PPM) placement (RR 1.05, 95% CI [0.99, 1.11]), cerebrovascular events (RR 1.11, 95% CI [0.98, 1.25]), moderate to severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) (RR 1.23, 95% [CI 0.94 to 1.61]), and device success (RR 0.99, 95% CI [0.97, 1.01]).

Conclusion

Emergent TAVI is associated with some postoperative complications and increased mortality compared with elective TAVI. Emergent TAVI should be implemented cautiously and individually.