Clinical outcomes following balloon aortic valvuloplasty

The various perioperative issues of structural heart diseases and cardiogenic shock

Up to 20 % of patients presenting with acute heart failure and cardiogenic shock have a structural etiology. Despite efforts in timely management, mortality rates remain alarmingly high, ranging from 50 % to 80 %. Surgical intervention is often the definitive treatment for structural heart disease; however, many patients are considered high risk or unsuitable candidates for such procedures. Consequently, there has been a paradigm shift towards the development of novel percutaneous management strategies and temporizing interventions. This article aims to provide a comprehensive review of the pathophysiology of valvular and structural heart conditions presenting in cardiogenic shock, focusing on the evolving landscape of mechanical circulatory support devices and other management modalities.

Considering alternatives to transcatheter heart valves for managing patients with severe aortic valve stenosis

INTRODUCTION

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is becoming the standard of care for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). Yet, some patients with AS are not indicated/eligible for TAVI. Several noninvasive, catheter-based or surgical alternatives exist, and other therapeutic options are emerging.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides an overview of non-TAVI options for severe AS. Non-invasive, transcatheter, and alternative surgical strategies are discussed, emphasizing their backgrounds, techniques, and outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

Alternative therapies to TAVI, whether device-based or non-device-based, continue to evolve or emerge and provide either alternative treatments or a bridge to TAVI, for patients not meeting indications for, or having contraindications to TAVI.Although TAVI and SAVR are the current dominant therapies, there are still some patients that could benefit in the future from other alternatives.Data on alternative options for such patients are scarce. Many advantages and disadvantages arise when selecting a specific treatment strategy for individual patients.Head-to-head comparison studies could guide physicians toward better patient selection and procedural planning. Awareness of therapeutic options, indications, techniques, and outcomes should enable heart teams to achieve optimized patient selection. Furthermore, it can increase the use of these alternatives to optimize the management of AS among different patient populations.

The Positive Impact of Early Frailty Levels on Mortality in Elderly Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Transcatheter/Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

Background: Frailty is highly common in older patients (pts) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), and it is associated with poor outcomes. The selection of patients who can benefit from this procedure is necessary and challenging. The aim of the present study is to evaluate outcomes in older severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) pts, selected by a multidisciplinary approach for surgical, clinical, and geriatric risk and referred to treatment, according to frailty levels. Methods: A total of 109 pts (83 ± 5 years; females, 68%) with AS were classified by Fried's score in pre-frail, early frail, and frail and underwent surgical aortic valve replacement SAVR/TAVR, balloon aortic valvuloplasty, or medical therapy. We evaluated geriatric, clinical, and surgical features and detected periprocedural complications. The outcome was all-cause mortality. Results: Increasing frailty was associated with the worst clinical, surgical, geriatric conditions. By using Kaplan-Meier analysis, the survival rate was higher in pre-frail and TAVR groups (p < 0.001) (median follow-up = 20 months). By using the Cox regression model, frailty (p = 0.004), heart failure (p = 0.007), EF% (p = 0.043), albumin (p = 0.018) were associated with all-cause mortality. Conclusions: According to tailored frailty management, elderly AS pts with early frailty levels seem to be the most suitable candidates for TAVR/SAVR for positive outcomes because advanced frailty would make each treatment futile or palliative.

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.

Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty for Severe Aortic Stenosis as Rescue or Bridge Therapy

The study aimed to assess procedural complications, patient flow and clinical outcomes after balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) as rescue or bridge therapy, based on data from our registry. A total of 382 BAVs in 374 patients was performed. The main primary indication for BAV was a bridge for TAVI (n = 185, 49.4%). Other indications included a bridge for AVR (n = 26, 6.9%) and rescue procedure in hemodynamically unstable patients (n = 139, 37.2%). The mortality rate at 30 days, 6 and 12 months was 10.4%, 21.6%, 28.3%, respectively. In rescue patients, the death rate raised to 66.9% at 12 months. A significant improvement in symptoms was confirmed after BAV, after 30 days, 6 months, and in survivors after 1 year (p < 0.05 for all). Independent predictors of 12-month mortality were baseline STS score [HR (95% CI) 1.42 (1.34 to 2.88), p < 0.0001], baseline LVEF <20% [HR (95% CI) 1.89 (1.55-2.83), p < 0.0001] and LVEF <30% at 1 month [HR (95% CI) 1.97 (1.62-3.67), p < 0.0001] adjusted for age/gender. In everyday clinical practice in the TAVI era, there are still clinical indications to BAV a standalone procedure as a bridge to surgery, TAVI or for urgent high risk non-cardiac surgical procedures. Patients may improve clinically after BAV with LV function recovery, allowing to perform final therapy, within limited time window, for severe AS which ameliorates long-term outcomes. On the other hand, in patients for whom an isolated BAV becomes a destination therapy, prognosis is extremely poor.