Impact of left ventricle outflow tract calcification on the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A study‐level meta‐analysis

Single-center real-world data and technical considerations from 100 consecutive patients treated with the Perceval aortic bioprosthesis

Objectives

Although the Perceval sutureless aortic valve bioprosthesis presents a feasible alternative to conventional aortic valve prostheses, the extent of its applicability with respect to technical considerations for a real-world patient collective is still under debate.

Methods

One hundred patients received the Perceval prosthesis [males: 59; age: 72.5 (7.3-79) years] between December 2015 and February 2023 [EuroSCORE II: 2.8 (1.7-5.4)] for an aortic valve replacement (AVR), with additional concomitant procedures, for underlying severe aortic valve stenosis [n = 93 (93)], endocarditis [n = 5 (5)], and redo AVR [n = 7 (7)] including a prior surgical AVR [n = 4 (4)] and a failed transcatheter aortic valve implantation [n = 3 (3)]. Surgery was conducted primarily by median sternotomy [n = 71 (71)] and, alternatively, by the upper hemisternotomy approach [n = 29 (29)].

Results

Over a median follow-up time of 36.5 (16.5-53) months, eight patients (8%) underwent postoperative pacemaker implantation, with five (5%) due to high-grade atrioventricular block, while nine patients experienced a stroke (9%). The median values of maximum and mean gradients across all valve sizes were 22 (18-27.5) mmHg and 10 (13-18) mmHg, respectively. Two patients (2%) had moderate and one (1%) had severe paravalvular leakage, with the latter presenting the only case of underlying valve migration and induced redo AVR with valve explantation 2 days following initial surgery. Thirty-day mortality (and overall mortality) was 5% and 26%, respectively.

Conclusion

The implantation of the Perceval bioprosthesis is feasible for a variety of indications, with excellent hemodynamic results and low complication rates in a real-world high-risk patient collective.

Complications in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A comprehensive analysis and management strategies

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) marks a significant advancement in treating aortic stenosis (AS), especially for patients with high surgical risks. This concise review outlines TAVR's development, its broader application to include lower-risk patients, and innovations in the device and procedural technology. Clinical trials, notably the PARTNER series, affirm TAVR's efficacy, showing it matches or surpasses surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in mortality reduction, hemodynamic benefits, and symptom alleviation, including heart failure. However, TAVR entails complications such as paravalvular leakage (PVL), conduction disorders, and increased cerebrovascular event risks. We evaluate these issues, their prevalence, causative factors, and clinical consequences, emphasizing improvements in valve design and technique that have significantly lowered PVL rates. The role of aortic valve anatomy and calcification in PVL and conduction issues is analyzed, underlining the necessity for meticulous patient selection and procedural planning. Further, the review delves into cerebrovascular event risks, their origins, and preventative strategies, including cerebral protection devices and the judicious use of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapies. TAVR presents a less invasive, promising alternative to SAVR, but requires careful complication management to optimize patient results. Ongoing innovation and research are vital for advancing TAVR's techniques, improving valve designs, and extending its reach, thereby enhancing AS patients' quality of life.

Post-TAVR conduction abnormalities leading to permanent pacemaker implantation: Risk factors, prevention, and management

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) often leads to conduction abnormalities, necessitating pacemaker implantation. This review of 38 meta-analyses identified preexisting right bundle branch block (RBBB), LAHB, and new-onset left bundle branch block as key risk factors, with a higher PPM risk in male and older patients. Procedural factors like transfemoral access and self-expandable valves also increase this risk. Prevention focuses on tailoring TAVR to individual electrophysiological and anatomical profiles. However, there's a lack of consensus in managing these conduction disturbances post-TAVR, highlighting the need for further research and standardized treatment strategies.

Cholesterol Crystal Dissolution Rate of Serum Predicts Outcomes in Patients With Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Aortic stenosis has pathophysiological similarities with atherosclerosis, including the deposition of cholesterol-containing lipoproteins. The resulting cholesterol crystals activate the NLRP3 (NOD-like receptor protein 3) inflammasome, leading to inflammation and cardiovascular diseases. We aimed to investigate the cholesterol crystal dissolution rate (CCDR) of serum in patients with aortic stenosis and to assess the prognostic value of this biomarker.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study included 348 patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. The CCDR was measured using flow cytometry to enumerate cholesterol crystals that were added to a serum solution, at baseline and after 2 hours of incubation. Based on the median CCDR, the cohort was stratified into high and low cholesterol crystal dissolvers. The incidence of the primary end point, a composite of 1-year all-cause mortality and major vascular complication, was significantly lower in the high CCDR group (7.3 per 100 person-years) compared with the low CCDR group (17.0 per 100 person-years, P=0.01). This was mainly driven by a lower 1-year mortality rate in patients with a high CCDR (7.3 versus 15.1 per 100 person-years, P=0.04). Unplanned endovascular interventions were significantly less frequent in high cholesterol crystal dissolvers (12.8 versus 22.6 per 100 person-years, P=0.04). Although low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were comparable in both groups (101.8±37.3 mg/dL versus 97.9±37.6 mg/dL, P=0.35), only patients with a low CCDR showed a benefit from statin treatment. In multivariate analysis, low CCDR (hazard ratio, 2.21 [95% CI, 0.99-4.92], P=0.04) was significantly associated with 1-year mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The CCDR is a novel biomarker associated with outcome in patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. It may provide new insights into patients' anti-inflammatory capacity and additional prognostic information beyond classic risk assessment.

Late outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in bicuspid versus tricuspid valves: Meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data

Based on previous meta-analyses including immediate/1-year results, individuals with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis can undergo TAVI with similar outcomes as those with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV), but with higher rates of periprocedural complications. The widespread belief is that BAV patients would have poor results in comparison with TAV patients after TAVI over time. Therefore, we performed a systematic review with meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data of studies published by January 2022 to compare late outcomes of patients with BAV versus TAV who underwent TAVI. This approach reconstructs individual patient data (IPD) based on the published Kaplan-Meier graphs. Ten studies met our eligibility criteria, including 9,071 patients with BAV and 171,070 patients with TAV. Patients with BAV had a significantly lower risk of mortality (HR 0.70, 95%CI 0.65-0.77, P<0.001), however, this result was driven by populations in which the risk score was statistically significantly lower in the BAV group (HR 0.69, 95%CI 0.63-0.76, P<0.001) and by populations in which the BAV group was statistically significantly younger (HR 0.72, 95%CI 0.64-0.81, P<0.001). In patients with selected BAV anatomy deemed favorable for TAVI, we did not find worse survival over time in comparison with patients with TAV; however, the follow-up beyond 1 year remains limited in the studies and we need more investigation for specific bicuspid anatomies with longer follow-up. Most importantly, randomized controlled trials including exclusively BAV patients treated with TAVI versus SAVR are warranted.

Valve-Related Complications in TAVI Leading to Emergent Cardiac Surgery

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is now a standard procedure for the treatment of symptomatic aortic valve stenosis in many patients. In Germany, according to the annual reports from the German Institute for Quality Assurance and Transparency in Healthcare (Institut für Qualitätssicherung und Transparenz im Gesundheitswesen), the rate of serious intraprocedural complications, such as valve malpositioning or embolization, coronary obstruction, aortic dissection, annular rupture, pericardial tamponade, or severe aortic regurgitation requiring emergency cardiac surgery has decreased markedly in recent years from more than 5.5% in 2012 to 2.0% in 2019. However, with increased use, the total number of adverse events remains about 500 per year, about 100 of which require conversion to sternotomy. These, sometimes, fatal events can occur at any time and are still challenging. Therefore, the interdisciplinary TAVI heart team should be prepared and aware of possible rescue strategies.

Temporal Trends and Contemporary Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Evolut PRO/PRO+ Self-Expanding Valves: Insights From the NEOPRO/NEOPRO-2 Registries

BACKGROUND

In recent years, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) techniques and technology have continuously improved. Data regarding the impact of these advancements on outcomes in large real-world settings are still limited. The aim of this study was to investigate temporal trends and assess contemporary outcomes after TAVR with Evolut PRO/PRO+ supra-annular self-expanding valves.

METHODS

This study included patients enrolled in the multicenter NEOPRO (A Multicenter Comparison of Acurate NEO Versus Evolut PRO Transcatheter Heart Valves) and NEOPRO-2 (A Multicenter Comparison of ACURATE NEO2 Versus Evolut PRO/PRO+ Transcatheter Heart Valves 2) registries who underwent transfemoral TAVR with Evolut PRO/PRO+. Procedural dates (August 2017 through November 2021) were stratified in quartiles (Q) and used to investigate temporal trends in TAVR outcomes. Predischarge, 30-day Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 defined, and 1-year outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

In total, 1616 patients from 28 centers were included. Over time, patients had lower Society of Thoracic Surgeon-Predicted Risk of Mortality score (Q1-4, 4.1% [2.8-6.3%], 3.7% [2.6-5.3%], 3.3% [2.4-4.9%], 2.9% [2.2-4.3%]; P<0.001) and more moderate or heavy valve calcification (Q1-4, 80%, 80%, 82%, 88%; P=0.038). Overall Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 technical success was 94.1%, with 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality of 2.4% and 10%, respectively. Throughout the study period, procedures were associated with higher rates of 30-day device success (Q1-4, 81.2%, 82.2%, 82.0%, 88.0%; Cochran-Armitage P=0.023) and early safety (Q1-4, 66.8%, 67.5%, 74.0%, 77.6%; Cochran-Armitage P<0.001), with fewer permanent pacemaker implantations (Q1-4: 15.3%, 20.0%, 12.1%, 11.6%; Cochran-Armitage P=0.023) and residual mild or greater paravalvular leaks (Q1-4, 50.4%, 42.1%, 36.5%, 35.8%; Cochran-Armitage P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR with Evolut PRO/PRO+ self-expanding valve is safe and effective. Despite the treatment of heavier calcified anatomies, procedural outcomes are improving over time with less need for pacemaker implantation and less significant paravalvular leaks.

Immediate and late outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in bicuspid valves: Meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data

BACKGROUND

Outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with aortic stenosis and bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) must be better investigated.

METHODS

A meta-analysis including studies published by January 2022 reporting immediate outcomes (in-hospital death, stroke, acute kidney injury [AKI], major bleeding, new permanent pacemaker implantation [PPI], paravalvular leakage [PVL]), mortality in the follow-up (with Kaplan-Meier curves for reconstruction of individual patient data).

RESULTS

Five studies met our eligibility criteria. No statistically significant difference was observed for in-hospital death, stroke, AKI, and PVL. TAVI was associated with lower risk of major bleeding (odds ratio [OR]: 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.12-0.69; p = .025), but higher risk of PPI (OR: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.05-3.77; p = .041). In the follow-up, mortality after TAVI was significantly higher in the analysis with the largest samples (HR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.01-1.53, p = .043), but no statistically significant difference was observed with risk-adjusted populations (HR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.86-1.32, p = .57). Landmark analyses suggested a time-varying risk with TAVI after 10 and 13 months in both largest and risk-adjusted populations (HR: 2.13, 95% CI: 1.45-3.12, p < .001; HR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.11-2.61, p = .015, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Considering the immediate outcomes and comparable overall survival observed in risk-adjusted populations, TAVI can be used safely in selected BAV patients. However, a time-varying risk is present (favoring SAVR over TAVI at a later timepoint). This finding was likely driven by higher rates of PPI with TAVI.

Early and late outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement with sutureless and rapid-deployment valves versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data of matched studies

Sutureless/rapid-deployment (SURD) valves are options different from the stented prostheses included in the pivotal trials comparing surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We performed a meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data of matched studies published by November 2021 to compare SURD-AVR and TAVI. Primary endpoints were 30-day mortality and overall survival in the follow-up. Secondary endpoints included: 30-day stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), major bleeding, permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), paravalvular leak (PVL), prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), postoperative aortic valve area (AVA), and mean gradients. Ten studies met our eligibility criteria, including a total of 5134 patients (2567 underwent SURD-AVR and 2567 underwent TAVI). Pooled risk of 30-day mortality did not favor any group (odds ratio [OR]: 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31-1.53; p = 0.360). Patients undergoing SURD-AVR had lower risk of PVL (OR: 0.09; 95% CI: 0.05-0.17; p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed for 30-day stroke, AKI, major bleeding, PPI, PPM, and postoperative AVA. In the follow-up, we observed a higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.26-2.40; p < 0.001) with TAVI. Patients who underwent SURD-AVR experienced better survival, however, the interpretation of these results warrant caution due to the fact that SURD-AVR patients tended to be younger than TAVI patients. Structural heart surgeons and interventional cardiologists should consider initial risk and life expectancy when referring patients for one approach over the other.