Clinical Outcomes and Safety of Transfemoral Aortic Valve Implantation Under General Versus Local Anesthesia

Impact of proficiency in the transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedure on clinical outcomes: a single center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

We used transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedure time to investigate the association between surgical team maturity and outcome.

METHODS

Among patients who underwent TAVI between October 2015 and November 2019, those who had Sapien™ implanted with the transfemoral artery approach were included in the analysis. We used TAVI procedure time and surgery number to draw a learning curve. Then, we divided the patients into two groups before and after the number of cases where the sigmoid curve reaches a plateau. We compared the two groups regarding the surveyed factors and investigated the correlation between the TAVI procedure time and survey factors.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine of 149 patients were analysed. The sigmoid curve had an inflection point in 23.2 cases and reached a plateau in 43.0 cases. Patients in the Late group had a shorter operating time, less contrast media, less radiation exposure, and less myocardial escape enzymes than the Early group. Surgical procedure time showed the strongest correlation with the surgical case number.

CONCLUSION

The number of cases required for surgeon proficiency for isolated Sapien™ valve implantation was 43. This number may serve as a guideline for switching the anesthesia management of TAVI from general to local anesthesia.

Acute Mitral Valve Regurgitation Caused by Left Ventricular Pacing Wire During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is quickly becoming the standard of care for patients with severe aortic stenosis thanks to its minimally invasive nature and favorable outcomes. Recently, left ventricular pacing has been proposed as a safer alternative to traditional right heart pacing, which could simplify the transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedure overall, although procedural complications may still occur. This report describes a rare case of left ventricular pacing wire-induced acute severe mitral valve regurgitation during transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

The association between different anesthetic techniques and outcomes in patients undergoing transfemoral aortic valve replacement

Background

There is an increasing number of patients undergoing transfemoral aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with sedation. There is limited data assessing the efficacy and safety of the different types of sedative drugs. The objective was to compare two sedation techniques with regard to the need for vasoactive support, respiratory support, rate of conversion to general anesthesia (GA), common perioperative morbidities, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and in-hospital mortality.

Methods

A retrospective chart review study conducted among patients who underwent TAVR at a specialized cardiac center between January 2016 and December 2019. Data collection included patient diagnosis, preoperative comorbidities, intraoperative outcomes, and postoperative outcomes.

Results

A total of 289 patients received local anesthesia; 210 received propofol infusion and 79 received a mixed propofol-ketamine infusion (Ketofol). The average age was 75.5 ± 8.9 years and 58.1% of the patients were females. Comparing propofol and ketofol groups, 31.2% and 34.2% of the patients required drug support, 7.6% and 6.3% required conversion to GA, 46.7% and 59.5% required respiratory support, respectively. These intraoperative outcomes were not significantly different between groups, P = 0.540, P = 0.707, and P = 0.105, respectively. In-hospital 30-day mortality in propofol and ketofol groups were 1.9% and 3.8%, respectively, P = 0.396. In both groups, the median post-procedure coronary care unit stay was 26 hours while post-procedure hospital stay was 3 days.

Conclusions

There were no significant differences in perioperative or postoperative outcomes in TAVR patients receiving either propofol or ketofol. Propofol infusion, either alone or with ketamine, is reliable and safe, with minimal side effects.

Optimizing Anesthetic Selection in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Striking a Delicate Balance between Efficacy and Minimal Intervention

Patients with severe calcific native aortic valve stenosis (AS) who require valve replacement have two options, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). TAVR was approved in late 2011 for extremely high-risk patients and was subsequently approved for high-risk (2012), intermediate-risk (2016), and low-risk (2019) patients. In 2019, TAVR procedures surpassed SAVR procedures for the first time in the United States. The approach to anesthesia for this procedure has also evolved. Initially, general anesthesia (GA) was preferred, but currently, conscious sedation (CS) is favored. This review aims to clarify the indications and contraindications for both approaches, as well as the advantages of one approach over the other. Recent studies show that conscious sedation has better outcomes in terms of all-cause mortality, procedure complications such as stroke, myocardial infarction, infection requiring antibiotics, acute kidney injury, and the need for inotropes or vasopressors.

Results of streamlining TAVR procedure towards a minimalist approach: a single center experience in Taiwan

Trans-femoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) performed under conscious sedation (LACS) is not yet become routine practice in Taiwan. We aimed to compared the results between patients received general anesthesia (GA) versus LACS. Our cohort was divided into 3 groups: initial 48 patients received TF-TAVR under routine GA (GA group), subsequent 50 patients under routine LACS (LACS group 1), and recent 125 patients under LACS (LACS group 2). The baseline, procedural characteristics and all outcomes were prospectively collected and retrospectively compared. From Sep 2010 to July 2019, a total of 223 patients were included. The procedure time (157.6 ± 39.4 min vs 131.6 ± 30.3 vs 95.2 ± 40.0, < 0.0001), contrast medium consumption (245.6 ± 92.6 ml vs 207.8 ± 77.9 vs 175.1 ± 64.6, < 0.0001), length of intensive care unit (2 [1-5] days vs 2 [1-3] vs 1 [1-1], P = 0.0001) and hospital stay (9 [7-13] days vs 8 [6-11] vs 6 [5-9], P = 0.0001) decreased significantly with LACS, combined with a trend of less hospital acquired pneumonia (12.5% vs 6.0% vs 5.6%, P = 0.427). 1-year survival rate were also different among 3 groups (83.3% vs 90.0% vs 93.6%, P = 0.053). In our single center experience, a "minimalist" approach of TF-TAVR procedure resulted in less medical resources usage, along with more favorable clinical outcomes.

Anesthetic management of Stanford type B acute aortic dissection that occurred during transcatheter aortic valve implantation under monitored anesthesia care: A case report

We report a case involving anesthetic management of Stanford type B acute aortic dissection occurred during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) under monitored anesthesia care (MAC) in a patient with aortic stenosis (AS). An 87-year-old woman was undergoing TAVI under MAC for severe AS. During the surgery, the patient suddenly moved possibly because of pain. This was followed by hemodynamic collapse. She was then transitioned to general anesthesia, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) was initiated. Transesophageal echocardiography revealed a Stanford type B acute aortic dissection, which was safely managed perioperatively with appropriate interventions.

White paper on mitigating risk factors for acute kidney injury in TAVR: A protocol to decrease TAVR-associated AKI

Acute kidney injury (AKI) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) portends a poor prognosis. In the TVT registry, AKI after TAVR occurred in 10% of the patients. The etiology of AKI after TAVR is multifactorial but contrast volume remains one of the few modifiable risk factors. As patients referred for TAVR have multiple touch points within a siloed healthcare system, there remains an unmet clinical need of a well-defined clinical pathway to minimize the risk of AKI from the time of referral for TAVR to the completion of the procedure. This white paper aims to provide such a clinical pathway.

Comparison of Safety and Effectiveness of Local or General Anesthesia after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

It remains controversial to choose anesthesia for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). A meta-analysis of cohort studies was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of local anesthesia (LA) compared to general anesthesia (GA) in TAVI. All relevant studies published from 1 January 2002, to 31 June 2022, were searched in Ovid, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. A total of 34 studies involving 23,480 patients were included in the meta-analysis. TAVI with LA was associated with a significant reduction in hospital stay [WMD = −2.48, 95% CI (−2.80, −2.16), p < 0.00001], operative [WMD = −12.25, 95% CI (−13.73, −10.78), p < 0.00001] and fluoroscopy time [WMD = −3.30, 95% CI (−5.40, −1.19), p = 0.002], and an increased risk of acute kidney injury [OR = 1.31, 95% CI (1.01, 1.69), p = 0.04] and a reduced incidence of major bleeding [OR = 0.59, 95% CI (0.46, 0.75), p < 0.0001] and the use of cardiovascular drugs [OR = 0.17, 95% CI (0.05, 0.57), p = 0.004]. No differences were found between LA and GA for 30-day mortality, procedural success rate, myocardial infarction, permanent pacemaker implantation, paravalvular leak, shock, and cerebrovascular events. Overall, 4.4% of LA converted to GA. Based on current evidence, our results suggested that LA strategies reduced hospital stay, operative time, fluoroscopy time, cardiovascular drug consumption, and major bleeding rates in patients undergoing TAVI but led to increased acute kidney injury rates. Further studies and randomized trials are required to verify the presented findings and to identify patients who might benefit from LA.

A 20-year journey in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Evolution to current eminence

Since the first groundbreaking procedure in 2002, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionized the management of aortic stenosis (AS). Through striking developments in pertinent equipment and techniques, TAVI has now become the leading therapeutic strategy for aortic valve replacement in patients with severe symptomatic AS. The procedure streamlining from routine use of conscious sedation to a single arterial access approach, the newly adapted implantation techniques, and the introduction of novel technologies such as intravascular lithotripsy and the refinement of valve-bioprosthesis devices along with the accumulating experience have resulted in a dramatic reduction of complications and have improved associated outcomes that are now considered comparable or even superior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). These advances have opened the road to the use of TAVI in younger and lower-risk patients and up-to-date data from landmark studies have now established the outstanding efficacy and safety of TAVI in patients with low-surgical risk impelling the most recent ESC guidelines to propose TAVI, as the main therapeutic strategy for patients with AS aged 75 years or older. In this article, we aim to summarize the most recent advances and the current clinical aspects involving the use of TAVI, and we also attempt to highlight impending concerns that need to be further addressed.

The safety of early discharge following transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement under general anesthesia

Background

There is growing evidence of the safety of same-day discharge for low-risk conscious sedated TAVR patients. However, the evidence supporting the safety of early discharge following GA-TAVR with routine transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is limited.

Aims

To assess the safety of early discharge following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using General Anesthesia (GA-TAVR) and identify predictors for patient selection.

Materials and methods

We used data from 2,447 TEE-guided GA-TAVR patients performed at Cedars-Sinai between 2016 and 2021. Patients were categorized into three groups based on the discharge time from admission: 24 h, 24–48 h, and >48 h. Predictors for 30-day outcomes (cumulative adverse events and death) were validated on a matched cohort of 24 h vs. >24 h using the bootstrap model.

Results

The >48 h group had significantly worse baseline cardiovascular profile, higher surgical risk, low functional status, and higher procedural complications than the 24 h and the 24–48 h groups. The rate of 30-day outcomes was significantly lower in the 24 h than the >48 h but did not differ from the 24–48 h (11.3 vs. 15.5 vs. 11.7%, p = 0.003 and p = 0.71, respectively). Independent poor prognostic factors of 30-day outcomes had a high STS risk of ≥8 (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.30–2.77, E-value = 3.2, P < 0.001), low left ventricle ejection fraction of <30% (OR 6.0, 95% CI 3.96–9.10, E-value = 11.5, P < 0.001), and life-threatening procedural complications (OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.20–5.89, E-value = 4.7, P = 0.04). Our formulated predictors showed a good discrimination ability for patient selection (AUC: 0.78, 95% CI 0.75–0.81).

Conclusion

Discharge within 24 h following GA-TAVR using TEE is safe for selected patients using our proposed validated predictors.

Update on Minimalist TAVR Care Pathways: Approaches to Care in 2022

Purpose of Review

This review summarizes current data supporting a minimalist TAVR approach and identifies the need for additional study to optimize TAVR care. The authors discuss future directions of the TAVR landscape and how this necessitates evolution of minimalist care pathways.

Recent Findings

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a mainstay in the treatment of aortic stenosis since the initial procedure in 2002. Recently, attention has shifted to TAVR optimization and the minimalist approach with a focus on minimizing procedural sedation, protocolization of perioperative management, and prioritization on early discharge. This approach has been shown to be safe and reduce procedure time, length of stay, and overall cost for hospital systems.

Summary

The minimalist care pathway avoids general anesthesia, shortens procedure time and length of stay, and reduces cost without changing mortality or readmission rates at 30 days. A variety of protocols have been proposed without a clear consensus on specific components or patient eligibility. There is a continued need for data regarding patient risk stratification, valve selection, and discharge strategy as TAVR becomes increasingly common.

Simplified TAVR Procedure: How Far Is It Possible to Go?

Increasing operators’ experience and improvement of the technique have resulted in a drastic reduction in complications following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with lower surgical risk. In parallel, the procedure was considerably simplified, with a routine default approach including local anesthesia in the catheterization laboratory, percutaneous femoral approach, radial artery as the secondary access, prosthesis implantation without predilatation, left ventricle wire pacing and early discharge. Thus, the “simplified” TAVR adopted in most centers nowadays is a real revolution of the technique. However, simplified TAVR must be accompanied upstream by a rigorous selection of patients who can benefit from a minimalist procedure in order to guarantee its safety. The minimalist strategy must not become dogmatic and careful pre-, per- and post-procedural evaluation of patients with well-defined protocols guarantee optimal care following TAVR. This review aims to evaluate the benefits and limits of the simplified TAVR procedure in a current and future vision.

Institutional infrastructural preconditions and current perioperative anaesthesia practice in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a cross-sectional study in German heart centres

OBJECTIVES

Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) is an established therapy for patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis, which requires periprocedural anaesthesia care. In 2015, the German Federal Joint Committee released a directive on minimally invasive heart valve interventions which defines institutional infrastructural requirements in German heart centres. But still generally accepted expert consensus recommendations or national or international guidelines regarding periprocedural anaesthesia management for TF-TAVI are lacking. This nationwide cross-sectional study had two major objectives: first to assess the concordance with existing national regulations regarding infrastructural requirements and second to evaluate the status quo of periprocedural anaesthesia management for patients undergoing TF-TAVI in German heart centres.

DESIGN

Multicentre cross-sectional online study to evaluate the periprocedural anaesthesia management.

SETTING

In this nationwide cross-sectional study, electronic questionnaires were sent out to anaesthesia departments at TF-TAVI-performing centres in Germany in March 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

78 anaesthesia departments of German heart centres.

RESULTS

54 (69.2%) centres returned the questionnaire of which 94.4% stated to hold regular Heart Team meetings, 75.9% to have ready-to-use heart-lung machines available on-site, 77.8% to have cardiac surgeons and 66.7% to have perfusionists routinely attending throughout TF-TAVI procedures. Regarding periprocedural anaesthesia management, 41 (75.9%) of the participating centres reported to predominantly use 'monitored anaesthesia care' and 13 (24.1%) to favour general anaesthesia. 49 (90.7%) centres stated to use institutional standard operating procedures for anaesthesia. Five-lead ECG, central venous lines, capnometry and intraprocedural echocardiography were reported to be routine measures in 85.2%, 83.3%, 77.8% and 51.9% of the surveyed heart centres.

CONCLUSIONS

The concordance with national regulations, anaesthesia management and in-house standards for TF-TAVI vary broadly among German heart centres. According to the opinion of the authors, international expert consensus recommendations and/or guidelines would be helpful to standardise peri interventional anaesthesia care.

Impact of Anesthesia Strategy and Valve Type on Clinical Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

The randomized SOLVE-TAVI (compariSon of secOnd-generation seLf-expandable vs. balloon-expandable Valves and gEneral vs. local anesthesia in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial compared newer-generation self-expanding valves (SEV) and balloon-expandable valves (BEV) as well as local anesthesia with conscious sedation (CS) and general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Both strategies showed similar outcomes at 30 days.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes during 1-year follow-up in the randomized SOLVE-TAVI trial.

METHODS

Using a 2 × 2 factorial design 447 intermediate- to high-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to transfemoral TAVR using either the SEV (Evolut R, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota) or the BEV (Sapien 3, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) as well as CS or GA at 7 sites.

RESULTS

In the valve-comparison strategy, rates of the combined endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, moderate or severe paravalvular leakage, and permanent pacemaker implantation were similar between the BEV and SEV group (n = 84, 38.3% vs. n = 87, 40.4%; hazard ratio: 0.94; 95% confidence interval: 0.70 to 1.26; p = 0.66) at 1 year. Regarding the anesthesia comparison, the combined endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and acute kidney injury occurred with similar rates in the GA and CS groups (n = 61, 25.7% vs. n = 54, 23.8%; hazard ratio: 1.09; 95% confidence interval: 0.76 to 1.57; p = 0.63).

CONCLUSIONS

In intermediate- to high-risk patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR, newer-generation SEV and BEV as well as CS and GA showed similar clinical outcomes at 1 year using a combined clinical endpoint. (SecOnd-generation seLf-expandable Versus Balloon-expandable Valves and gEneral Versus Local Anesthesia in TAVI [SOLVE-TAVI]; NCT02737150).

Patient selection, procedural planning and interventional guidance for transcatheter aortic valve intervention

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established treatment for severe aortic stenosis across a broad spectrum of patient risk profiles. Pre-procedural planning using multislice computed tomography (MSCT) is a fundamental component to ensure acute and long-term procedural success. MSCT can establish the procedural feasibility, the type vascular of approach as well as the device which is more likely to give a good result. Moreover, MSCT is a key tool to estimate the risk of potentially life-threatening complications. In this review, the role of MSCT for pre-procedural TAVR planning will be discussed providing a panoramic overview of the key elements that should be considered when performing TAVR. Additionally, the adjunctive role of fluoroscopy and echocardiography to plan and guide a TAVR procedure will also be discussed.

Impact of early hospital discharge on clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

AIMS

Early discharge after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) may potentially impact post-procedural safety of the patient. The study aim was to compare safety of TAVI in patients planned for fast track hospital stay with patients planned for standard hospital stay.

METHODS AND RESULTS

All-comers patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI between 2011 and 2017 were allocated to two matched groups depending whether the procedure was performed before or after transition from standard to fast track course. Data on vital status and hospitalizations were obtained through national registries. Three hundred and nineteen matched pairs were eligible for analysis. The median length of post-procedural stay was 3 days (IQR: 2-4) for patients in the fast track group compared to 6 days (IQR: 4-8) in the standard approach group (p < .0001). There was no difference in all-cause mortality between groups at 30-day (1.3% vs. 1.9%, p = .52) or 90-day follow-up (2.9% vs. 4.1%, p = .42). There was no difference in the risk of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) in pacemaker naïve patients between groups at 30-day (15.8% vs. 21.2%, p = .16) or 90-day follow-up (15.8% vs. 21.9%, p = .12). There was no difference in the rate of rehospitalization between groups between discharge and 90-day follow-up (2.09 per patient-year vs. 2.09 per patient-year, p = .99).

CONCLUSIONS

Early discharge in an all-comers population undergoing transfemoral TAVI is safe with regards to all-cause mortality, need for PPI, and rehospitalization.

General Versus Local Anesthesia With Conscious Sedation in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Background:

In clinical practice, local anesthesia with conscious sedation (CS) is performed in roughly 50% of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. However, no randomized data assessing the safety and efficacy of CS versus general anesthesia (GA) are available.

Methods:

The SOLVE-TAVI (Comparison of Second-Generation Self-Expandable Versus Balloon-Expandable Valves and General Versus Local Anesthesia in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial is a multicenter, open-label, 2×2 factorial, randomized trial of 447 patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement comparing CS versus GA. The primary efficacy end point was powered for equivalence (equivalence margin 10% with significance level 0.05) and consisted of the composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, infection requiring antibiotic treatment, and acute kidney injury at 30 days.

Results:

The primary composite end point occurred in 27.2% of CS and 26.4% of GA patients (rate difference, 0.8 [90% CI, −6.2 to 7.8]; P equivalence =0.015). Event rates for the individual components were as follows: all-cause mortality, 3.2% versus 2.3% (rate difference, 1.0 [90% CI, −2.9 to 4.8]; P equivalence <0.001); stroke, 2.4% versus 2.8% (rate difference, −0.4 [90% CI, −3.8 to 3.8]; P equivalence <0.001); myocardial infarction, 0.5% versus 0.0% (rate difference, 0.5 [90% CI, −3.0 to 3.9]; P equivalence <0.001), infection requiring antibiotics 21.1% versus 22.0% (rate difference, −0.9 [90% CI, −7.5 to 5.7]; P equivalence =0.011); acute kidney injury, 9.0% versus 9.2% (rate difference, −0.2 [90% CI, −5.2 to 4.8]; P equivalence =0.0005). There was a lower need for inotropes or vasopressors with CS (62.8%) versus GA (97.3%; rate difference, −34.4 [90% CI, −41.0 to −27.8]).

Conclusions:

Among patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement, use of CS compared with GA resulted in similar outcomes for the primary efficacy end point. These findings suggest that CS can be safely applied for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Registration:

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02737150.

Transcatheter vs surgical aortic valve replacement in low to intermediate surgical risk aortic stenosis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is regarded as the most superior alternative treatment approach for patients with aortic stenosis (AS) who are associated with high surgical risk, whereas the effectiveness of TAVR vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low to intermediate surgical risk patients remained inconclusive. This study aimed to determine the best treatment strategies for AS with low to intermediate surgical risk based on published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Hypothesis and Methods

RCTs that compared TAVR vs SAVR in AS patients with low to intermediate surgical risk were identified by PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane library from inception till April 2019. The pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the data collected using random‐effects models.

Results

Seven RCTs with a total of 6929 AS patients were enrolled. We noted that TAVR significantly increased the risk of transient ischemic attack (TIA) (RR: 1.43; 95%CI: 1.04‐1.96; P = .029), and permanent pacemaker implantation (RR: 3.00; 95%CI: 1.70‐5.30; P < .001). However, TAVR was associated with lower risk of post‐procedural bleeding (RR: 0.57; 95%CI: 0.33‐0.98; P = .042), new‐onset or worsening of atrial fibrillation (RR: 0.32; 95%CI: 0.23‐0.45; P < .001), acute kidney injury (RR: 0.40; 95%CI: 0.25‐0.63; P < .001), and cardiogenic shock (RR: 0.34; 95%CI: 0.19‐0.59; P < .001). The risk of aortic‐valve reintervention at 1‐ (RR: 2.63; 95%CI: 1.34‐5.15; P = .005), and 2 years (RR: 3.19; 95%CI: 1.63‐6.24; P = .001) in low to intermediate surgical risk patients who received TAVR was significantly increased than those who received SAVR.

Conclusions

These findings indicated that low to intermediate surgical risk patients who received TAVR had low risk of complications, whereas the risk of TIA, permanent pacemaker implantation, and aortic‐valve reintervention was increased.

Current Anesthetic Care of Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Europe: Results of an Online Survey

OBJECTIVES

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become an alternative treatment for patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis not eligible for surgical valve replacement due to a high periprocedural risk or comorbidities. However, there are several areas of debate concerning the pre-, intra- and post-procedural management. The standards and management for these topics may vary widely among different institutions and countries in Europe.

DESIGN

Structured web-based, anonymized, voluntary survey.

SETTING

Distribution of the survey via email among members of the European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesiology working in European centers performing TAVR between September and December 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

Physicians.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The survey consisted of 25 questions, including inquiries regarding number of TAVR procedures, technical aspects of TAVR, medical specialities present, preoperative evaluation of TAVR candidates, anesthesia regimen, as well as postoperative management. Seventy members participated in the survey. Reporting members mostly performed 151-to-300 TAVR procedures per year. In 90% of the responses, a cardiologist, cardiac surgeon, cardiothoracic anesthesiologist, and perfusionist always were available. Sixty-six percent of the members had a national curriculum for cardiothoracic anesthesia. Among 60% of responders, the decision for TAVR was made preoperatively by an interdisciplinary heart team with a cardiothoracic anesthesiologist, yet in 5 countries an anesthesiologist was not part of the decision-making. General anesthesia was employed in 40% of the responses, monitored anesthesia care in 44%, local anesthesia in 23%, and in 49% all techniques were offered to the patients. In cases of general anesthesia, endotracheal intubation almost always was performed (91%). It was stated that norepinephrine was the vasopressor of choice (63% of centers). Transesophageal echocardiography guiding, whether performed by an anesthesiologist or cardiologist, was used only ≤30%. Postprocedurally, patients were transferred to an intensive care unit by 51.43% of the respondents with a reported nurse-to-patient ratio of 1:2 or 1:3, to a post-anesthesia care unit by 27.14%, to a postoperative recovery room by 11.43%, and to a peripheral ward by 10%.

CONCLUSION

The results indicated that requirements and quality indicators (eg, periprocedural anesthetic management, involvement of the anesthesiologist in the heart team, etc) for TAVR procedures as published within the European guideline are largely, yet still not fully implemented in daily routine. In addition, anesthetic TAVR management also is performed heterogeneously throughout Europe.

General Anesthesia or Conscious Sedation for Transfemoral Aortic Valve Replacement with the SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve

Differences in the benefits of conscious sedation (CS) and general anesthesia (GA) during transfemoral aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are unclear.We aimed to assess differences in procedural and clinical outcomes based on the type of anesthesia received during TAVI.We analyzed SOURCE 3 Registry data for patients who received the SAPIEN 3 valve by type of anesthesia used during TAVI.Of the 1694 TAVI patients, 1027 received CS and 667 received GA. Patients were similar at baseline (81.5 years; Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score 7.0). Compared with the GA group, the CS group had fewer intra-procedural transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and post implantation dilatations performed, and less contrast medium was used. The CS group had significantly less kidney injury at 7 days post-procedure than the GA group (0.4% versus 1.5%, P = 0.014). Moderate paravalvular leaks (PVL) occurred more frequently in the CS group versus the GA group (2.2% versus 0.8%; P = 0.041). No severe PVL were reported. Median total hospital length of stay (LOS) after TAVI was 10 days in the CS group and 11 days in the GS group. At 30 days, all-cause death was 2.1% in CS and 1.7% in GS (P = 0.47), and myocardial infarction was 0.2% in CS and 0.1% in GS (P = 0.83).Our analyses found no significant major outcome differences between CS and GA during TAVI.

Real-Time Monitoring of von Willebrand Factor in the Catheterization Laboratory: The Seatbelt of Mini-Invasive Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement?

Significant paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) remains a relatively frequent (4% to 9%) and deleterious complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), even with the latest generation of bioprosthesis. Although mini-invasive TAVR without general anesthesia or transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is progressively becoming the predominant approach, identification and grading of PVR in the catheterization laboratory remain an important and challenging clinical issue. The authors discuss how a recently reported blood biomarker reflecting the von Willebrand factor activity, that is, the closure time with adenosine diphosphate, can be successfully applied during the TAVR procedure to detect and monitor PVR in real time, with an excellent negative predictive value. This point-of-care testing performed directly in the catheterization laboratory may improve the diagnosis of PVR and rationalize the decision of whether or not to perform corrective measures. They further discuss how such a test could be a substitute for the multimodal approach combining TEE, hemodynamics, and cine-angiography, and help to secure the transition to the mini-invasive approach and facilitate the expanding indications of less invasive procedures to lower-risk patients without jeopardizing procedural and clinical outcomes.

[TAVI simplification: A focus]

After a first procedure carried out in 2002 by Pr Cribier's, Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement or TAVR revolutionized the management of aortic stenosis with a constant increase in the number of procedures performed worldwide. Experience of operators and teams and evolution of the technique has been accompanied by a drastic reduction in complications in patients at lower surgical risk. In parallel, the procedure was considerably simplified, carried out more and more under local anesthesia, with percutaneous femoral approach, secondary radial approach, prosthesis implantation without predilatation, rapid pacing on left ventricle wire and early discharge. Thus, the "simplified" TAVR adopted in most centers nowadays is a real revolution of the technique. However, simplified TAVR must be accompanied upstream by a rigorous selection of patients who can benefit from a minimalist procedure in order to guarantee its safety.

Significance of echocardiographic evaluation for transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is widely accepted as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS). Existing scientific evidence demonstrates that TAVI is superior to SAVR, and it is expected that indications for the clinical applications of TAVI will be expanded in the future. Echocardiography plays a key role in perioperative assessment of patients undergoing TAVI. Preprocedural echocardiographic evaluation is important to determine the severity of AS in addition to patients' anatomical suitability for TAVI. Furthermore, echocardiography is essential for intraoperative guidance, assessment of complications, postoperative evaluation, and prognostic prediction. Inaccurate echocardiographic measurements and evaluation can lead to less-than-optimal/inappropriate treatment strategies in patients with AS. Therefore, a thorough understanding of the limitations of echocardiographic evaluation is important. This review summarizes the role of echocardiographic evaluation in patients undergoing TAVI.

Propensity Matched Analysis Comparing Conscious Sedation Versus General Anesthesia in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Conscious sedation (CS) has been increasingly utilized in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We aim to compare safety, efficacy, efficiency, and direct cost outcomes of patients who underwent TAVI with general anesthesia (GA) to those with CS. Records for all adult patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI at our institution between February 2012 and September 2018 were retrospectively screened. Patients were grouped by anesthesia treatment (GA or CS) and propensity matched. Safety (in-hospital and 30-day mortality, in-hospital and 30-day stroke, cardiac arrest, need for permanent pacemaker, and composite bleed/vascular adverse events), efficacy (follow-up echocardiographic findings), efficiency (procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, hospital length-of-stay, and discharge to home), and direct cost outcomes were compared. A total of 589 patients met our inclusion criteria. Propensity matching yielded 154 GA patients and 154 CS patients. There were no differences in the safety outcomes of in-hospital or 30-day mortality, in-hospital or 30-day stroke, cardiac arrest, and need for permanent pacemaker between GA and CS groups. There was a significant reduction in composite bleeding/vascular events in the CS group (8.4% vs 19.5%, p < 0.01). There were no differences in the follow-up echocardiograms with respect to aortic valve area, left ventricular ejection fraction, and incidence of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation. The CS group had shorter procedural fluoroscopy times and radiation dose, shorter length-of-stay and ICU stay, with similar procedural duration. CS patients were more likely to be discharged to home (59.7% vs 74.7%, p < 0.01). Total direct costs for CS were decreased in almost every departmental category, with a mean 10.4% reduction in overall direct costs (p < 0.001). In conclusion, TAVI with CS is associated with less bleeding and vascular events, lower procedural radiation exposure, reduced length of hospitalization and ICU stay, and lower direct costs in comparison with TAVI with GA. These outcomes occur without sacrificing procedural efficacy or safety.

Anaesthesia-related complications and side-effects in TAVI: a retrospective study in Germany

OBJECTIVES

This study was performed to analyse anaesthesia-related complications and side effects in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) under general anaesthesia.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

The study was performed as a single-centre study in a hospital of tertiary care in Germany.

PARTICIPANTS

All 853 patients, who underwent TAVI at the Universitätsklinikum Regensburg between January 2009 and July 2015, were included. 52.5% were female patients.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

We gathered information, such as recent illness, vital parameters and medication administered during the intervention and postoperatively for 12 hours. We analysed all anaesthesia-related complications and anaesthesia-related side effects that occurred during the intervention and entire hospital stay.

RESULTS

We analysed all 853 TAVI procedures. The mean patient age was 79 ± 6 years. In 99.5% of cases, we used volatile-based anaesthesia. 2.8% (n=24; transfemoral (TF): n=19 [3.8%]; transapical (TA): n=5 [1.4%]) of all cases suffered from anaesthesia-related complications. 819 (TF: n=447; TA: n=372) anaesthesia-related side effects occurred in 586 (68.7%, TF: n=325 [64.2%], TA: n=261 [75.2%]) patients. Neither the complications nor the side effects had any serious consequences. Intraoperative hypothermia in 44% of cases (TF: n=202 [39.9%]; TA: n=173 [49.9%]) and postoperative nausea and vomiting in 27% (n=232; TF: n=131 [25.9%], TA: n=101 [29.1%]) of cases were the most common anaesthesia-related side effects.

CONCLUSION

In this study, serious anaesthesia-related complications were rarely seen, and non-critical anaesthesia-related side effects could have been avoided through consistent prophylaxis and management. Therefore, despite their high anaesthetic risk, general anaesthesia is justifiable in patients who underwent TAVI.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: General anesthesia using transesophageal echocardiography does not decrease the incidence of paravalvular leaks compared to sedation alone

Background:

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a valid option for patients with severe aortic stenosis judged to be at high surgical risk. For this procedure, there is no agreement on the appropriate type of anesthesia. Sedation offers several advantages, but general anesthesia (GA) leads to less paravalvular leaks (PVLs) probably because of the transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) guidance. The objective was to compare the incidence of PVL among patients receiving conscious sedation (TAVI-S) and patients receiving GA (TAVI-GA). We made the hypothesis that a referral center does not necessitate TAVI-GA to reduce the incidence of moderate-to-severe PVL.

Aim:

The primary outcome was the incidence of moderate-to-severe PVL at 30 days after the implantation.

Design and Setting:

This study design was a retrospective observational trial in a university hospital.

Methods:

The TAVI-S group underwent the procedure under conscious sedation. In the TAVI-GA group, an endotracheal tube and a TEE probe were inserted. After the valve deployment, PVL was assessed by hemodynamic and fluoroscopic measurements in the TAVI-S group. TEE was also used in the TAVI-GA group to evaluate the presence of PVL. When PVL was moderate or severe according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria.

Results:

TAVI-S and TAVI-GA were accomplished in 168 (67.5%) and 81 (32.5%) patients, respectively. Our results show no difference between the two groups regarding the incidence and grade of PVL.

Conclusion:

Performing TAVI under GA with TEE guidance is not associated with a lower incidence of moderate and severe PVL.

Assessing the level of radiation experienced by anesthesiologists during transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation and protection by a lead cap

OBJECTIVE

Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) has become a standard therapy for patients with aortic valve stenosis. Fluoroscopic imaging is essential for TAVI with the anesthesiologist's workplace close to patient's head side. While the use of lead-caps has been shown to be useful for interventional cardiologists, data are lacking for anesthesiologists.

METHODS

A protective cap with a 0.35 lead-equivalent was worn on 15 working days by one anesthesiologist. Six detectors (three outside, three inside) were analyzed to determine the reduction of radiation. Literature search was conducted between April and October 2018.

RESULTS

In the observational period, 32 TAVI procedures were conducted. A maximum radiation dose of 0.55 mSv was detected by the dosimeters at the outside of the cap. The dosimeters inside the cap, in contrast, displayed a constant radiation dose of 0.08 mSv.

CONCLUSION

The anesthesiologist's head is exposed to significant radiation during TAVI and it can be protected by wearing a lead-cap.

Sedation versus general anesthesia for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

There is currently significant controversy regarding the best anesthesia management for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Some institutions primarily use general anesthesia (GA) but many institutions primarily use moderate sedation. Much of the controversy is due to the limited evidence base available to inform this decision and the strong feelings and pre-conceived notions about the optimal anesthesia technique which exist amongst anesthesiologists, cardiologists, and cardiac surgeons. In this article and in the context of TAVR, we will define the salient differences between GA and sedation, review the results and limitations of the currently available data, and discuss the priority questions for future research.

TAVI: Simplification Is the Ultimate Sophistication

Since its introduction in 2002, TAVI has evolved dramatically and is now standard of care for intermediate risk patients when the femoral approach can be implemented safely. The development of innovative transcatheter heart valves (THVs) and refinement of technical skills have contributed to the decrease in complication rates associated with TAVI⁴. Increased experience, smaller sheaths, rigorous pre-procedural planning and improved vascular closing techniques have resulted in markedly lower rates of vascular complications. The next step is the simplification of the procedure, which should contribute to a further decrease in complications, and also reduce procedural time, hospital stay as well as staff workload and costs. Moving to conscious sedation, no predilatation, no temporary pace maker and use of the radial approach as the contralateral approach are all instrumental in achieving this ultimate refinement.

Complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation using transfemoral and transapical approach in general anaesthesia

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a minimally invasive procedure used to treat degenerative heart valve disease. The implantation requires a highly specific and interdisciplinary management approach. Currently, TAVI is performed with the patient under local or general anaesthesia.

Methods

This study was a retrospective analysis of all TAVI procedures performed at the University Hospital of Regensburg between January 2009 and July 2015. All pre-, intra and postoperative data focusing on perioperative complications were recorded.

Results

A total of 853 transfemoral- and transapical-TAVI patients were included in the study. All patients underwent general anaesthesia. The ASA classifications were primarily 3–4. The average logistic EuroScores for the transfemoral- and transapical-TAVI patients were 18 ± 12% and 21 ± 15% (p = 0.002), respectively. The anaesthesia coverage time was 170 ± 49 min., including 37 ± 12 minutes for anaesthetic management. Overall, 458 complications were recorded; with pneumonia, acute renal failure, indication for a permanent pacemaker and non-extubation in the operating theatre the most frequently recorded complications.

Conclusion

In the present study, we showed that our patients’ outcomes are comparable to those reported in the available literature. Compared to TF, TA patients show an overall worse physical condition as well as a higher perioperative morbidity and mortality. Consequently TA patients need additional care and should only be operated in appropriately experienced medical centres.