Aortic Stenosis and Small Aortic Annulus

Sex Differences in Aortic Stenosis: From the Pathophysiology to the Intervention, Current Challenges, and Future Perspectives

Calcific aortic stenosis (AS) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in high-income countries. AS presents sex-specific features impacting pathophysiology, outcomes, and management strategies. In women, AS often manifests with a high valvular fibrotic burden, small valvular annuli, concentric left ventricular (LV) remodeling/hypertrophy, and, frequently, supernormal LV ejection fraction coupled with diastolic dysfunction. Paradoxical low-flow low-gradient AS epitomizes these traits, posing significant challenges post-aortic valve replacement due to limited positive remodeling and significant risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch. Conversely, men present more commonly with LV dilatation and dysfunction, indicating the phenotype of classical low-flow low-gradient AS, i.e., with decreased LV ejection fraction. However, these distinctions have not been fully incorporated into guidelines for AS management. The only treatment for AS is aortic valve replacement; women are frequently referred late, leading to increased heart damage caused by AS. Therefore, it is important to reassess surgical planning and timing to minimize irreversible cardiac damage in women. The integrity and the consideration of sex differences in the management of AS is critical. Further research, including sufficient representation of women, is needed to investigate these differences and to develop individualized, sex-specific management strategies.

Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Women With Small Annuli at Low or Intermediate Surgical Risk

There are limited data from randomized controlled trials assessing the impact of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgery in women with aortic stenosis and small aortic annuli. We evaluated 2-year clinical and hemodynamic outcomes after aortic valve replacement to understand acute valve performance and early and midterm clinical outcomes. This post hoc analysis pooled women enrolled in the randomized, prospective, multicenter Evolut Low Risk and Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (SURTAVI) intermediate risk trials. Women with severe aortic stenosis at low or intermediate surgical risk who had a computed tomography-measured annular perimeter of ≤72.3 mm were included and underwent self-expanding, supra-annular TAVR or surgery. The primary end point was 2-year all-cause mortality or disabling stroke rate. The study included 620 women (323 TAVR, 297 surgery) with a mean age of 78 years. At 2 years, the all-cause mortality or disabling stroke was 6.5% for TAVR and 8.0% for surgery, p = 0.47. Pacemaker rates were 20.0% for TAVR and 8.3% for surgery, p <0.001. The mean effective orifice area at 2 years was 1.9 ± 0.5 cm2 for TAVR and 1.6 ± 0.5 cm2 for surgery and the mean gradient was 8.0 ± 4.1 versus 12.7 ± 6.0 mm Hg, respectively (both p <0.001). Moderate or severe patient-prothesis mismatch at discharge occurred in 10.9% of patients who underwent TAVR and 33.2% of patients who underwent surgery, p <0.001. In conclusion, in women with small annuli, the clinical outcomes to 2 years were similar between self-expanding, supra-annular TAVR and surgery, with better hemodynamics in the TAVR group and fewer pacemakers in the surgical group.

Self-Expanding or Balloon-Expandable TAVR in Patients with a Small Aortic Annulus

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe aortic stenosis and a small aortic annulus are at risk for impaired valvular hemodynamic performance and associated adverse cardiovascular clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR).

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and an aortic-valve annulus area of 430 mm2 or less in a 1:1 ratio to undergo TAVR with either a self-expanding supraannular valve or a balloon-expandable valve. The coprimary end points, each assessed through 12 months, were a composite of death, disabling stroke, or rehospitalization for heart failure (tested for noninferiority) and a composite end point measuring bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction (tested for superiority).

RESULTS

A total of 716 patients were treated at 83 sites in 13 countries (mean age, 80 years; 87% women; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality, 3.3%). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the percentage of patients who died, had a disabling stroke, or were rehospitalized for heart failure through 12 months was 9.4% with the self-expanding valve and 10.6% with the balloon-expandable valve (difference, -1.2 percentage points; 90% confidence interval [CI], -4.9 to 2.5; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the percentage of patients with bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction through 12 months was 9.4% with the self-expanding valve and 41.6% with the balloon-expandable valve (difference, -32.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -38.7 to -25.6; P<0.001 for superiority). The aortic-valve mean gradient at 12 months was 7.7 mm Hg with the self-expanding valve and 15.7 mm Hg with the balloon-expandable valve, and the corresponding values for additional secondary end points through 12 months were as follows: mean effective orifice area, 1.99 cm2 and 1.50 cm2; percentage of patients with hemodynamic structural valve dysfunction, 3.5% and 32.8%; and percentage of women with bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction, 10.2% and 43.3% (all P<0.001). Moderate or severe prosthesis-patient mismatch at 30 days was found in 11.2% of the patients in the self-expanding valve group and 35.3% of those in the balloon-expandable valve group (P<0.001). Major safety end points appeared to be similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with severe aortic stenosis and a small aortic annulus who underwent TAVR, a self-expanding supraannular valve was noninferior to a balloon-expandable valve with respect to clinical outcomes and was superior with respect to bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction through 12 months. (Funded by Medtronic; SMART ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04722250.).

Three-year outcomes of surgical valve replacement with Dafodil™ pericardial bioprosthesis: Dafodil™-1 trial

Background

The Dafodil™-1 trial was designed to evaluate the clinical safety and performance of Dafodil™ pericardial bioprosthesis for replacing diseased native or prosthetic aortic or mitral valves in patients with advanced valvular heart disease (VHD).

Methods

The Dafodil™-1 trial was a prospective, multicenter, first-in-human clinical trial. Patients were enrolled if they had advanced VHD requiring aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) with or without concomitant valve surgery and having surgical risk scores <4%. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke; and hemodynamics were analyzed.

Results

A total of 136 patients (aortic: 67 and mitral: 69) were enrolled in the trial (with mean age-AVR group: 60.2 ± 8.3 years and MVR group: 49.7 ± 14.4 years). A total of 134 patients (aortic: 66 and mitral: 68) completed the 3-year follow-up (total 300 per 100 patient-years of follow-up). The AVR group demonstrated a significant reduction in the mean pressure gradients from 51.2 ± 24.1 mmHg at baseline to 11.1 ± 6.0 mmHg at the 3-year follow-up (p < 0.0001). The mean effective orifice area (EOA) improved from baseline (0.9 ± 0.6 cm2) to 3-year follow-up (1.8 ± 0.4 cm2) (p < 0.0001). In the MVR group, the mean indexed EOA (iEOA) increased significantly from baseline (0.7 ± 0.4 cm2/m2) to 3-year follow-up (1.1 ± 0.4 cm2/m2) (p < 0.001). There was significant improvement in New York Heart Association functional class and mean SF-12 scores in both groups. At 3-year follow-up, the MACE incidence was 2.3% per 100 patient-years (1.3% strokes per 100 patient-years and 1.3% deaths per 100 patient-years) for AVR group and 4.7% per 100 patient-years (0.6% strokes per 100 patient-years and 4.0% deaths per 100 patient-years) for MVR group. No cases of MI, structural valve deterioration and prosthetic valve endocarditis were reported. The AVR and MVR groups achieved 89.6% and 79.7% MACE-free survival, respectively at 3-year follow-up.

Conclusions

The Dafodil™-1 trial demonstrated satisfactory outcomes of clinical safety, hemodynamic performance, and quality-of-life metrics. Additionally, no incidence of structural valve deterioration and very low rates of valve thrombosis during the 3-year follow-up period of Dafodil™-1 first-in-human trial indicated acceptable valve durability up to three years and similar outcomes are warranted for longer follow-ups as a primary goal.

Clinical Trial Registration Number

https://www.ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/showallp.php?mid1=18377&EncHid=&userName=CTRI/2017/07/009008, CTRI/2017/07/009008.

Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data of 122 989 Patients With 592 952 Patient-Years

BACKGROUND

It remains controversial whether prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) impacts long-term outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement. We aimed to evaluate the association of PPM with mortality, rehospitalizations, and aortic valve reinterventions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data of studies published by March 2023 (according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). Sixty-five studies met our eligibility criteria and included 122 989 patients (any PPM: 68 332 patients, 55.6%). At 25 years of follow-up, the survival rates were 11.8% and 20.6% in patients with and without any PPM, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16 [95% CI, 1.13-1.18], P<0.001). At 20 years of follow-up, the survival rates were 19.5%, 12.1%, and 8.8% in patients with no, moderate, and severe PPM, respectively (moderate versus no PPM: HR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.06-1.11], P<0.001; severe versus no PPM: HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.24-1.35], P<0.001). PPM was associated with higher risk of cardiac death, heart failure-related hospitalizations, and aortic valve reinterventions over time (P<0.001). Statistically significant associations between PPM and worse survival were observed regardless of valve type (bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves), contemporary PPM definitions unadjusted and adjusted for body mass index, and PPM quantification method (in vitro, in vivo, Doppler echocardiography). Our meta-regression analysis revealed that populations with more women tend to have higher HRs for all-cause death associated with PPM.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study suggest that any degree of PPM is associated with poorer long-term outcomes following surgical aortic valve replacement and provide support for implementation of preventive strategies to avoid PPM after surgical aortic valve replacement.

Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and Small Aortic Annulus: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment in patients with severe aortic stenosis and small aortic annulus (SAA) remains to be determined. This study aimed to compare the hemodynamic and clinical outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with a SAA.

METHODS

This prospective multicenter international randomized trial was performed in 15 university hospitals. Participants were 151 patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA (mean diameter <23 mm) randomized (1:1) to TAVR (n=77) versus SAVR (n=74). The primary outcome was impaired valve hemodynamics (ie, severe prosthesis patient mismatch or moderate-severe aortic regurgitation) at 60 days as evaluated by Doppler echocardiography and analyzed in a central echocardiography core laboratory. Clinical events were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants was 75.5±5.1 years, with 140 (93%) women, a median Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality of 2.50% (interquartile range, 1.67%-3.28%), and a median annulus diameter of 21.1 mm (interquartile range, 20.4-22.0 mm). There were no differences between groups in the rate of severe prosthesis patient mismatch (TAVR, 4 [5.6%]; SAVR, 7 [10.3%]; P=0.30) and moderate-severe aortic regurgitation (none in both groups). No differences were found between groups in mortality rate (TAVR, 1 [1.3%]; SAVR, 1 [1.4%]; P=1.00) and stroke (TAVR, 0; SAVR, 2 [2.7%]; P=0.24) at 30 days. After a median follow-up of 2 (interquartile range, 1-4) years, there were no differences between groups in mortality rate (TAVR, 7 [9.1%]; SAVR, 6 [8.1%]; P=0.89), stroke (TAVR, 3 [3.9%]; SAVR, 3 [4.1%]; P=0.95), and cardiac hospitalization (TAVR, 15 [19.5%]; SAVR, 15 [20.3%]; P=0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA (women in the majority), there was no evidence of superiority of contemporary TAVR versus SAVR in valve hemodynamic results. After a median follow-up of 2 years, there were no differences in clinical outcomes between groups. These findings suggest that the 2 therapies represent a valid alternative for treating patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA, and treatment selection should likely be individualized according to baseline characteristics, additional anatomical risk factors, and patient preference. However, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution because of the limited sample size leading to an underpowered study, and need to be confirmed in future larger studies.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03383445.

Use of Sutureless Valve in Aortic Root Enlargement

AIM

The small aortic annulus is a surgical challenge in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement which may lead to patient prosthesis mismatch. Management options include aortic root enlargement, aortic root replacement, and the use of sutureless valves. In this case series, we report our results with aortic root enlargement, sutureless valve implantation, and benchtop modelling of the radial forces exerted.

METHODS

Five patients underwent aortic root enlargement and insertion of the Perceval valve as part of the management strategy to enlarge their effective orifice area. We further investigate this strategy with a benchtop model to quantify the radial forces exerted by the Perceval valve on the aortic annulus. Radial and hoop forces on the aortic annulus and inner ring of the Perceval valve were recorded using a Mylar force tester.

RESULTS

Five female patients with native annulus between 18mm-20mm underwent root enlargement and insertion of a Perceval S valve. The postoperative course was uncomplicated for all patients except for one who required a permanent pacemaker insertion. Transvalvular pressure gradients remained low at up to 4 years of follow-up (12 mmHg-21 mmHg), with no evidence of paravalvular leak. Benchtop testing demonstrated radial forces exerted at the annulus in all-size Perceval S valves to be within physiological variables, whereas compressive forces required to deform the valves were supraphysiological.

CONCLUSIONS

The deployment of a sutureless valve within a surgical enlarged aortic root is a feasible solution in patients with a small aortic root.

Correlation between measured and predicted mismatch with valve hemodynamics in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A sex-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Data regarding the reliability of predicted effective orifice area indexed (pEOAi) is scarce in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

AIMS

To assess the validity of the pEOAi in TAVR by correlating its value with echocardiography-derived hemodynamic data.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective cohort study of TAVR patients from 2012 to 2021 with available echocardiograms was conducted. Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) was defined based on the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 criteria. The main endpoints were the congruence of measured effective orifice area indexed (EOAi) and pEOAi with the hemodynamic data obtained by echocardiography. The secondary endpoint included a correlation of predicted PPM (pPPM) and measured PPM (mPPM) with postoperative New York Heart Association (NYHA) status.

RESULTS

A total of 318 patients were included. pPPM was more frequent than mPPM (54 [17%]; all moderate PPM vs. 39 [12.3%]: 32 moderate and 7 severe PPM). Predicted and measured EOAi were statistically correlated with postprocedural transvalvular mean gradient and Doppler velocity index (all p < 0.001), including in both sex-based subgroups. The positive predictive value and negative predictive value (NPV) of pPPM for postprocedural transvalvular mean gradient ≥ 20 mmHg were 16% and 97%, respectively. Only pPPM was significantly more prevalent in the group in which NYHA failed to improve than in those with symptom improvement (30.1% vs. 16%, p = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

Predicted PPM has an excellent NPV for postprocedural transvalvular mean gradient ≥ 20 mmHg and seems to be a good predictor of NYHA status evolution as opposed to measured PPM. Predicted EOAi can be used in procedural planning to reduce the risk of PPM in both TAVR male and female patients.

The Evolving Role of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in the Era of Transcatheter Valvular Procedures

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has long been the standard treatment for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). However, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative; it was initially intended for high-risk patients and has now expanded its use to patients of all risk groups. While TAVR has demonstrated promising outcomes in diverse patient populations, uncertainties persist regarding its long-term durability and potential complications, raising the issue of the ideal lifetime management strategy for patients with AS. Therefore, SAVR continues to play an important role in clinical practice, particularly in younger patients with longer life expectancies, those with complex aortic anatomy who are unsuitable for TAVR, and those requiring concomitant surgical procedures. The choice between TAVR and SAVR warrants personalized decision-making, considering patient characteristics, comorbidities, anatomical considerations, and overall life expectancy. A multidisciplinary approach involving an experienced heart team is crucial in the preoperative evaluation process. In this review, we aimed to explore the current role of surgical management in addressing aortic valve stenosis amidst the expanding utilization of less invasive transcatheter procedures.

Pitfalls and Tips in the Assessment of Aortic Stenosis by Transthoracic Echocardiography

Aortic stenosis (AS) is a valvular heart disease that significantly contributes to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality worldwide. The condition is characterized by calcification and thickening of the aortic valve leaflets, resulting in a narrowed orifice and increased pressure gradient across the valve. AS typically progresses from a subclinical phase known as aortic sclerosis, where valve calcification occurs without a transvalvular gradient, to a more advanced stage marked by a triad of symptoms: heart failure, syncope, and angina. Echocardiography plays a crucial role in the diagnosis and evaluation of AS, serving as the primary non-invasive imaging modality. However, to minimize misdiagnoses, it is crucial to adhere to a standardized protocol for acquiring echocardiographic images. This is because, despite continuous advances in echocardiographic technology, diagnostic errors still occur during the evaluation of AS, particularly in classifying its severity and hemodynamic characteristics. This review focuses on providing guidance for the imager during the echocardiographic assessment of AS. Firstly, the review will report on how the echo machine should be set to improve image quality and reduce noise and artifacts. Thereafter, the review will report specific emphasis on accurate measurements of left ventricular outflow tract diameter, aortic valve morphology and movement, as well as aortic and left ventricular outflow tract velocities. By considering these key factors, clinicians can ensure consistency and accuracy in the evaluation of AS using echocardiography.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with extra-small aortic annuli

BACKGROUND

A small aortic annulus (SAA) is a risk factor for prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) in patients undergoing surgical or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Data regarding TAVI in patients with extra-SAA are scarce.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to analyse the safety and efficacy of TAVI in patients with extra-SAA.

METHODS

A multicentre registry study including patients with extra-SAA (defined as an aortic annulus area <280 mm2 and/or perimeter <60 mm) undergoing TAVI was established. Primary efficacy and safety endpoints were defined as device success and early safety at 30 days, respectively, using the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria, and were analysed according to valve type: self-expanding (SEV) versus balloon-expandable (BEV).

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients were included, of which 139 (92.7%) were women, and 110 (73.3%) received an SEV. Intraprocedural technical success was 91.3%, with a higher rate in patients receiving an SEV (96.4% vs 77.5% with BEV; p=0.001). Overall, 30-day device success was 81.3%, (85.5% with SEV vs 70.0% with BEV; p=0.032). The primary safety endpoint occurred in 72.0% of patients (with no difference between groups; p=0.118). Severe PPM occurred in 12% (9.0% with SEV and 24.0% with BEV; p=0.039), with no impact on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or heart failure readmission at 2-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVI is a safe and feasible treatment in patients with extra-SAA with a high rate of technical success. The use of SEV was associated with a lower rate of intraprocedural complications, higher device success at 30 days and better haemodynamic outcomes compared to BEV.

Managing the challenge of a small aortic annulus in patients with severe aortic stenosis

INTRODUCTION

Small aortic annulus (SAA) poses a challenge in the management of patients with severe aortic stenosis requiring aortic valve replacement - both surgical and transcatheter - since it has been associated with worse clinical outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to comprehensively summarize the available evidence regarding the management of aortic stenosis in patients with SAA and discuss the current controversies as well as future perspectives in this field.

EXPERT OPINION

It is paramount to agree in a common definition for diagnosing and properly treating SAA patients, and for that purpose, multidetector computer tomography is essential. The results of recent trials led to the expansion of transcatheter aortic valve replacement among patients of all the surgical-risk spectrum, and the choice of treatment (transcatheter, surgical) should be based on patient comorbidities, anatomical characteristics, and patient preferences.

Gender Disparities after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with Newer Generation Transcatheter Heart Valves: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Previous studies have demonstrated gender disparities in mortality and vascular complications after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with early generation transcatheter heart valves (THVs). It is unclear, however, whether gender-related differences persist with the newer generation THVs. We aim to assess gender disparities after TAVR with newer generation THVs. The MEDLINE and Embase databases were thoroughly searched from inception to April 2023 to identify studies that reported gender-specific outcomes after TAVR with newer generation THVs (Sapien 3, Corevalve Evolut R, and Evolut Pro). The outcomes of interest included 30-day mortality, 1-year mortality, and vascular complications. In total, 5 studies (4 databases) with a total of 47,933 patients (21,073 females and 26,860 males) were included. Ninety-six percent received TAVR via the transfemoral approach. The females had higher 30-day mortality rates (odds ratio (OR) = 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31-1.79, p-value (p) < 0.001) and vascular complications (OR = 1.43, 95% CI 1.23-1.65, p < 0.001). However, one-year mortality was similar between the two groups (OR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.61-1.00, p = 0.28). The female gender continues to be associated with higher 30-day mortality rates and vascular complications after TAVR with newer generation transcatheter heart valves, while there was no difference in 1-year mortality between the genders. More data is needed to explore the causes and whether we can improve TAVR outcomes in females.

Three-Year Outcomes of Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation According to Annular Size

Data on the association between annular size and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) outcomes beyond 1 year are limited. The present study assessed the association between the aortic annulus size and TAVI clinical and hemodynamic outcomes at 3 years of follow-up. Patients were classified according to the aortic annulus size as having small, intermediate, and large annuli (size <400, 400 to 574, and ≥575 mm², respectively). The co-primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization. Further, the changes in hemodynamic outcomes over the follow-up period (median 37, interquartile range: 26 to 45 months) were assessed. The present analysis included 850 patients, with 182 patients (21.4%), 538 patients (63.3%), and 130 patients (15.3%) in the small, intermediate, and large-sized aortic annulus groups, respectively. The groups had comparable age and pre-TAVI pressure gradients; however, patients with small annuli had higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk scores. Adjusted Cox regression analysis showed that compared to patients with intermediate-sized annuli, patients with small and large annuli had similar all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72 to 1.69 and HR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.16, respectively) and heart failure hospitalization rates (HR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.69 and HR = 1.26, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.17, respectively). However, patients with small annuli had consistently higher mean and peak pressure gradients and a higher risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch. The risks of moderate-to-severe regurgitation and structural valve deterioration were similar between the three groups. In conclusion, although patients with small annuli had higher transvalvular gradients, there was no significant association between the aortic annulus size and TAVI clinical outcomes at 3 years of follow-up. Future studies should compare the performance of transcatheter valve types in patients with different aortic annulus sizes.

5-Year Outcomes With Self-Expanding vs Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Small Annuli

BACKGROUND

Self-expanding transcatheter heart valves (THVs) are associated with better echocardiographic hemodynamic performance than balloon-expandable THVs and are considered preferable in patients with small annuli.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare 5-year outcomes between self-expanding vs balloon-expandable THVs in severe aortic stenosis (AS) patients with small annuli.

METHODS

Consecutive severe AS patients with an aortic valve annulus area <430 mm² who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with either the CoreValve Evolut (Medtronic) or SAPIEN (Edwards Lifesciences) THV between 2012 and 2021 were enrolled from the Bern TAVI registry. A 1:1 propensity-matched analysis was performed to account for baseline differences between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 723 patients were included, and propensity score matching resulted in 171 pairs. Technical success was achieved in over 85% of both groups with no significant difference. Self-expanding THVs were associated with a lower transvalvular gradient (8.0 ± 4.8 mm Hg vs 12.5 ± 4.5 mm Hg; P < 0.001), a larger effective orifice area (1.81 ± 0.46 cm² vs 1.49 ± 0.42 cm²; P < 0.001), and a lower incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (19.7% vs 51.8%; P < 0.001) than balloon-expandable THVs. At 5 years, there were no significant differences in mortality (50.4% vs 39.6%; P = 0.269) between groups. Disabling stroke occurred more frequently in patients with a self-expanding THV than those with a balloon-expandable THV (6.6% vs 0.6%; P = 0.030). Similar results were obtained using inverse probability of treatment weighting in the Bern TAVI registry and the nationwide Swiss TAVI registry.

CONCLUSIONS

The echocardiographic hemodynamic advantage of self-expanding THVs was not associated with better clinical outcomes compared with balloon-expandable THVs up to 5 years in patients with small annuli. (Swiss TAVI Registry; NCT01368250).

Prosthesis Tailoring for Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has risen over the past 20 years as a safe and effective alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for treatment of severe aortic stenosis, and is now a well-established and recommended treatment option in suitable patients irrespective of predicted risk of mortality after surgery. Studies of numerous devices, either newly developed or reiterations of previous prostheses, have been accruing. We hereby review TAVI devices, with a focus on commercially available options, and aim to present a guide for prosthesis tailoring according to patient-related anatomical and clinical factors that may favor particular designs.

Impact of aortic annular size and valve type on haemodynamics and clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Introduction: Data on patients with small aortic annuli (SAA) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are limited. We aim to describe the impact of aortic annular size, particularly SAA and TAVI valve type on valve haemodynamics, durability and clinical outcomes. Method: All patients in National Heart Centre Singapore who underwent transfemoral TAVI for severe symptomatic native aortic stenosis from July 2012 to December 2019 were included. Outcome measures include valve haemodynamics, prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), structural valve degeneration (SVD) and mortality. Results: A total of 244 patients were included. The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 6.22±6.08, with 52.5% patients with small aortic annulus (<23mm), 33.2% patients with medium aortic annulus (23–26mm) and 14.3% patients with large aortic annulus (>26mm). There were more patients with self-expanding valve (SEV) (65.2%) versus balloon-expandable valve (BEV) (34.8%). There were no significant differences in indexed aortic valve area (iAVA), mean pressure gradient (MPG), PPM, SVD or mortality across all aortic annular sizes. However, specific to the SAA group, patients with SEV had larger iAVA (SEV 1.19±0.35cm2/m2 vs BEV 0.88±0.15cm2/m2, P<0.01) and lower MPG (SEV 9.25±4.88 mmHg vs BEV 14.17±4.75 mmHg, P<0.01) at 1 year, without differences in PPM or mortality. Aortic annular size, TAVI valve type and PPM did not predict overall mortality up to 7 years. There was no significant difference in SVD between aortic annular sizes up to 5 years. Conclusion: Valve haemodynamics and durability were similar across the different aortic annular sizes. In the SAA group, SEV had better haemodynamics than BEV at 1 year, but no differences in PPM or mortality. There were no significant differences in mortality between aortic annular sizes, TAVI valve types or PPM. Keywords: Aortic stenosis, small aortic annulus, transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Hemodynamics: Definitions, Outcomes, and Evidence Gaps: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

A virtual workshop was organized by the Heart Valve Collaboratory to identify areas of expert consensus, areas of disagreement, and evidence gaps related to bioprosthetic aortic valve hemodynamics. Impaired functional performance of bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement is associated with adverse patient outcomes; however, this assessment is complicated by the lack of standardization for labelling, definitions, and measurement techniques, both after surgical and transcatheter valve replacement. Echocardiography remains the standard assessment methodology because of its ease of performance, widespread availability, ability to do serial measurements over time, and correlation with outcomes. Management of a high gradient after replacement requires integration of the patient's clinical status, physical examination, and multimodality imaging in addition to shared patient decisions regarding treatment options. Future priorities that are underway include efforts to standardize prosthesis sizing and labelling for both surgical and transcatheter valves as well as trials to characterize the consequences of adverse hemodynamics.

Evolving Devices and Material in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: What to Use and for Whom

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the treatment of aortic stenosis, providing a viable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients deemed to be at prohibitive surgical risk, but also for selected patients at intermediate or low surgical risk. Nonetheless, there still exist uncertainties regarding the optimal management of patients undergoing TAVR. The selection of the optimal bioprosthetic valve for each patient represents one of the most challenging dilemmas for clinicians, given the large number of currently available devices. Limited follow-up data from landmark clinical trials comparing TAVR with SAVR, coupled with the typically elderly and frail population of patients undergoing TAVR, has led to inconclusive data on valve durability. Recommendations about the use of one device over another in given each patient’s clinical and procedural characteristics are largely based on expert consensus. This review aims to evaluate the available evidence on the performance of different devices in the presence of specific clinical and anatomic features, with a focus on patient, procedural, and device features that have demonstrated a relevant impact on the risk of poor hemodynamic valve performance and adverse clinical events.

Impact of Small Valve Size on 1-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Women (from the WIN-TAVI Registry)

Although most patients with small aortic annulus are women, there is paucity of data on the prognostic impact of small aortic prosthesis in women who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the impact of small valve size on 1-year clinical outcomes after TAVI in women. The Women's INternational Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation is an all-women registry evaluating patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVI. Based on the size of the aortic bioprosthesis implanted, women were stratified into small (≤23 mm) and nonsmall (>23 mm) valve. The primary efficacy endpoint was the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 composite of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for valve-related symptoms or heart failure or valve-related dysfunction at 1-year follow-up. Of 934 women who underwent TAVI, 388 (41.5%) received a small valve. Women with a small valve size had a lower body mass index, lower surgical risk scores, were less likely to suffer from atrial fibrillation, less often required postdilation and had a lower rate of residual aortic regurgitation grade ≥2. The occurrence of the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 efficacy endpoint was similar between women treated with small and nonsmall valve (16.0% vs 16.3%, p = 0.881; adjusted hazard ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 2.00). Likewise, there were no significant differences in the occurrence of other secondary endpoints after multivariable adjustment. In conclusion, women with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVI with the implantation of a small valve bioprosthesis had similar 1-year outcomes as those receiving a nonsmall bioprosthesis.

Natural Polymers in Heart Valve Tissue Engineering: Strategies, Advances and Challenges

In the history of biomedicine and biomedical devices, heart valve manufacturing techniques have undergone a spectacular evolution. However, important limitations in the development and use of these devices are known and heart valve tissue engineering has proven to be the solution to the problems faced by mechanical and prosthetic valves. The new generation of heart valves developed by tissue engineering has the ability to repair, reshape and regenerate cardiac tissue. Achieving a sustainable and functional tissue-engineered heart valve (TEHV) requires deep understanding of the complex interactions that occur among valve cells, the extracellular matrix (ECM) and the mechanical environment. Starting from this idea, the review presents a comprehensive overview related not only to the structural components of the heart valve, such as cells sources, potential materials and scaffolds fabrication, but also to the advances in the development of heart valve replacements. The focus of the review is on the recent achievements concerning the utilization of natural polymers (polysaccharides and proteins) in TEHV; thus, their extensive presentation is provided. In addition, the technological progresses in heart valve tissue engineering (HVTE) are shown, with several inherent challenges and limitations. The available strategies to design, validate and remodel heart valves are discussed in depth by a comparative analysis of in vitro, in vivo (pre-clinical models) and in situ (clinical translation) tissue engineering studies.

Patient–Prosthesis Mismatch in Contemporary Small-Size Mechanical Prostheses Does Not Impact Survival at 10 Years

Background: The effect of PPM in mechanical prostheses on long-term survival is not well-established. Methods: Patients who received a 21 mm or smaller aortic valve between 2000 and 2011 were retrospectively analyzed (n = 416). Propensity matching was used in order to account for baseline differences in patient subgroups (PPM vs. no PPM; severe PPM vs. no severe PPM). Results: Five- and ten-year survival was 78 ± 3.52% and 64.51 ± 4.51% in patients with PPM, versus 83.3 ± 3.12% and 69.37 ± 4.36% in patients without (p = 0.28) when analyzed at 10.39 ± 5.25 years after the primary procedure. Independent risk factors for impaired survival, after matching, were age, serum creatinine, and severe pulmonary hypertension. Five- and ten-year survival in patients with severe PPM was 73.34 ± 6.01% and 61.76 ± 8.17%, respectively, versus 74.72 ± 5.68% and 67.50 ± 7.09% in those without (p = 0.49), at 8.82 ± 5.17 years after SAVR. Age was the only independent variable that influenced long-term survival when severe PPM was added to the model. Conclusions: PPM or severe PPM does not impact long-term survival up to 10 years in mechanical valve recipients when matching for preoperative variables.

Why Does the NOTION Trial Show Poorer Than Expected Outcomes in the Surgical Arm?

The NOTION trial compares transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients. Looking carefully at the outcomes of this trial, there is no doubt that the transcatheter aortic valve implantation results were outstanding. The same thing cannot be said for the results of the surgery. We tried to understand the reason for that.

Rationale and design of the SMall Annuli Randomized To Evolut or SAPIEN Trial (SMART Trial)

BACKGROUND

The SMall Annuli Randomized To Evolut or SAPIEN (SMART) Trial was designed to compare the performance of the two most widely available commercial transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) devices in patients with symptomatic severe native aortic stenosis with a small aortic valve annulus undergoing transfemoral TAVR. Patients with small aortic valve annuli are typically female and are often underrepresented in clinical trials.

METHODS

The SMART Trial is an international, prospective, multi-center, randomized controlled, post-market trial. The trial will be conducted in approximately 700 subjects at approximately 90 sites globally. Inclusion criteria include severe aortic stenosis, aortic valve annulus area of ≤430 mm² based on multi-detector computed tomography, and appropriate anatomy for both the Medtronic Evolut PRO/PRO+ self-expanding and Edwards SAPIEN 3/3 Ultra balloon-expandable devices. The primary clinical outcome composite endpoint is defined as mortality, disabling stroke or heart failure rehospitalization at 12 months. The co-primary valve function composite endpoint is defined as bioprosthetic valve dysfunction at 12 months which includes hemodynamic structural valve dysfunction, defined as a mean gradient ≥20 mmHg, non-structural valve dysfunction, defined as severe prothesis-patient mismatch or ≥moderate aortic regurgitation, thrombosis, endocarditis, and aortic valve re-intervention. Powered secondary endpoints will be assessed hierarchically.

CONCLUSIONS

The SMART trial will be the largest head-to-head comparative trial of transfemoral TAVR using the two most widely available contemporary TAVR devices in the setting of small aortic annuli and the largest trial to enroll primarily women.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov, Unique identifier: NCT04722250.

Lifetime management of aortic valve disease: Aligning surgical and transcatheter armamentarium to set the tone for the present and the future

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has already received the green light for high-, intermediate- and low-risk profiles and is an alternative for all patients regardless of age. It is clear that there has been a push towards the use of TAVR in younger and younger patients (<65 years), which has never been formally tested in randomized controlled trials but seems inevitable as TAVR technology makes steady progress. Lifetime management as a concept will set the tone in the field of the structural heart. Some subjects in this scenario arise, including the importance of optimized prosthetic hemodynamics for lifetime care; surgical procedures in the aortic root; management of structural valve degeneration with valve-in-valve procedures (TAVR-in-surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR] and TAVR-in-TAVR) and redo SAVR; commissural alignment and cusp overlap for TAVR; the rise in the number of surgical procedures for TAVR explantation; and the renewed interest in the Ross procedure. This article reviews all these issues which will become commonplace during heart team meetings and preoperative conversations with patients in the coming years.

What Can We Learn from the Past by Means of Very Long-Term Follow-Up after Aortic Valve Replacement?

Background: Studies on very long-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement are sparse. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, long-term outcomes during 25.1 ± 2.8 years of follow-up were determined in 673 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass surgery for severe aortic stenosis and/or regurgitation. Independent predictors of decreased long-term survival were determined. Cumulative incidence rates of major adverse events in patients with a mechanical versus those with a biologic prosthesis were assessed, as well as of major bleeding events in patients with a mechanical prosthesis under the age of 60 versus those above the age of 60. Results: Impaired left ventricular function, severe prosthesis–patient mismatch, and increased aortic cross-clamp time were independent predictors of decreased long-term survival. Left ventricular hypertrophy, a mechanical or biologic prosthesis, increased cardiopulmonary bypass time, new-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation, and the presence of symptoms did not independently predict decreased long-term survival. The risk of major bleeding events was higher in patients with a mechanical in comparison with those with a biologic prosthesis. Younger age (under 60 years) did not protect patients with a mechanical prosthesis against major bleeding events. Conclusions: Very long-term outcome data are invaluable for careful decision-making on aortic valve replacement.

Long-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement using a 19-mm bioprosthesis

OBJECTIVES

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is known to be associated with improved haemodynamics in patients with aortic stenosis and a small aortic annulus. However, limited benchmark data are available regarding the long-term outcomes in patients treated with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We investigated the long-term outcomes of SAVR using a 19-mm bioprosthesis.

METHODS

This study included consecutive patients who underwent SAVR using a 19-mm bioprosthesis at our hospital between 2008 and 2012.

RESULTS

In a total of 132 patients, moderate and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch occurred in 36 (27.3%) and 7 patients (5.3%), respectively. The median follow-up period was 7.7 years. The overall 5- and 10-year survival rates were 79.4% and 52.9%, respectively. The 5- and 10-year freedom from major adverse valve-related events rates were 89.6% and 74.2%, respectively. Neither moderate nor severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was associated with late mortality, major adverse valve-related events or heart failure. Follow-up echocardiographic data were obtained at a median interval of 4.8 years in 80% of patients who survived ≥6 months postoperatively. Follow-up echocardiographic data showed a significantly increased left ventricular ejection fraction, decreased mean transvalvular/transprosthetic pressure gradients and a decreased mean left ventricular mass. At follow-up, we observed moderate or severe haemodynamic structural valve deterioration in 17 patients; however, structural valve deterioration did not affect late survival or freedom from major adverse valve-related events rates, or heart failure.

CONCLUSIONS

SAVR using the 19-mm bioprosthesis was associated with satisfactory long-term clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch affects late survival after valve surgery for severe aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

The effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) on late survival after aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patient with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) remains unclear. Also, late follow-up in previous studies is confined to only one decade. We aimed to determine the effect of PPM on late survival after isolated AVR for symptomatic severe AS during 25 years of follow-up.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to determine late survival in 404 consecutive patients with moderate PPM (N.=86), severe (N.=11), or no/mild PPM (N.=307) after isolated AVR for symptomatic severe AS during a mean follow-up of 25.0±2.9 years. Moderate, severe, and no/mild PPM were defined as indexed effective orifice area of >0.65≤0.85, ≤0.65, and >0.85 cm2/m2, respectively. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify possible independent predictors of decreased late survival, including moderate or severe PPM.

RESULTS

Late survival of patients with severe PPM was worse in comparison with those with no/mild PPM: 7.4±2.6 (95% confidence interval 2.2-12.5) vs. 13.6±0.5 (95% confidence interval 12.6-14.6) years, respectively; P=0.020. Late survival of patients with moderate PPM was similar to those with no/mild PPM. Severe PPM was an independent predictor of decreased late survival: hazards ratio 4.002 (95% confidence interval 1.869-8.569); P<0.001. Moderate PPM was not an independent predictor of decreased late survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe PPM was independently associated with decreased late survival after isolated AVR for symptomatic severe AS during a mean follow-up of 25.0±2.9 years. Therefore, severe PPM should be prevented as much as possible.

Two-Year Results of the 17-mm Avalus Aortic Valve in the PERIGON Japan Trial

BACKGROUND

The PERIcardial SurGical AOrtic Valve ReplacemeNt (PERIGON) Japan Trial was developed to assess the safety and effectiveness of the 17-mm Avalus bioprosthesis (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement.Methods and Results:The primary endpoint in the trial was the percentage of patients achieving the composite of at least 1 class improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class at 1 year compared with baseline and effective orifice area index (EOAI) of 0.6 cm²/m²or greater at 1-year after implantation, compared with a performance goal of 60%. The present study reports outcomes through 2 years. Eleven patients were implanted (10 [91%] female, median age 78.3 years). From baseline to 1 year, 10 subjects (91%) showed an improvement in NYHA classification. At 1 year, mean (±SD) EOAI was 0.82±0.17 cm²/m², with 10 patients (91%) having an EOAI ≥0.6 cm²/m². As such, 9 of 11 patients (82%) successfully met the primary endpoint. One death occurred between the 1- and 2-year follow-up visits, unrelated to the valve. There were no valve reinterventions, explants, or device deficiencies through 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The PERIGON Japan Trial met its primary endpoint. Surgical implantation of the 17-mm Avalus aortic bioprosthesis can be performed with an acceptable incidence of device-related adverse events, and the valve performs effectively based on echocardiographic findings.

An ex vivo evaluation of two different suture techniques for the Ozaki aortic neocuspidization procedure

 

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the Ozaki procedure using a single interrupted suture technique (SST) and compared this with the standard continuous suture technique (CST) with regard to hydrodynamic valve performance. In addition, both techniques were compared with the native aortic valve (NAV).

METHODS

Effective orifice area, mean pressure gradient and leakage volume were evaluated in the NAV as well as after an Ozaki procedure using SST or CST in fresh swine aortic roots using a mock circulation loop. The NAV, SST and CST were evaluated under 4 defined hydrodynamic conditions.

RESULTS

Both suture techniques resulted in a similar effective orifice area under all conditions [for stroke volume of 70 ml: SST: 1.50 (1.35-1.87) vs CST: 1.57 (1.41-1.72) cm2, P = 0.8] and there were no significant differences between both suture techniques and the NAV (P > 0.05). Regarding mean pressure gradient, the Ozaki procedure with SST and CST showed no significant differences [7.23 (5.53-8.91) vs 7.04 (6.65-7.60) mmHg, P = 0.72] and there was no significant difference between both suture techniques and the NAV (P > 0.1). In leakage volume, there was no significant difference between SST and CST [4.49 (3.91-4.99) vs CST: 4.23 (3.58-4.87) ml/stroke, P = 0.34].

CONCLUSIONS

The Ozaki procedure with SST performed similarly to that with CST with regard to hydrodynamic performance. Our results suggest that the Ozaki procedure can be performed with SST instead of CST, which may be useful in patients with limited surgical exposure, such as a small annulus.

Increased utilization of bioprosthetic aortic valve technology:Trends, drivers, controversies and future directions

Introduction: Bioprosthetic valves (BPV) implanted surgically or by transcatheter valve implantation (TAVI) comprise an overwhelming majority of substitute aortic valves implanted worldwide.Areas Covered: Prominent drivers of this trend are: 1) BPV patients have generally better outcomes than those with a mechanical valve, and remain largely free of anticoagulation and its consequences; 2) BPV durability has improved over the years; and 3) the expanding use of TAVI and valve-in-valve (VIV) procedures permitting interventional management of structural valve degeneration (SVD). Nevertheless, key controversies exist: 1) optimal anticoagulation regimens for surgical and TAVI BPVs; 2) the incidence, mechanisms and mitigation strategies for SVD; 3) the use of VIV for treatment of SVD, and 4) valve selection recommendations for difficult cohorts, (e.g. patients 50-70 years, patients <50, childbearing age women). This communication reviews trends in and drivers of BPV utilization, current controversies, and future directions affecting BPV use.Expert Opinion: Long-term data are needed in several areas related to aortic BPV use, including anticoagulation/antiplatelet therapy, especially following TAVI. TAVI and especially VIV durability and optimal use warrant will benefit greatly from long-term data. Certain populations may benefit from such high-quality data on multi-year outcomes, particularly younger patients.

Real world outcomes using 20 mm balloon expandable SAPIEN 3/ultra valves compared to larger valves (23, 26, and 29 mm)-a propensity matched analysis

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND

Small balloon expandable valves have higher echocardiographic transvalvular gradients and rates of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) compared to larger valves. However, the impact of these echocardiographic findings on clinical outcomes is unknown. We sought to determine the clinical outcomes of 20 mm SAPIEN 3 (S3 BEV) compared to larger S3 BEV in relation to echocardiographic hemodynamics.

METHODS

Using the STS/ACC transcatheter valve registry, we performed a propensity-matched comparison of patients undergoing treatment of native aortic valve stenosis using transfemoral, balloon-expandable implantation of 20 mm and ≥ 23 mm S3 BEVs. Baseline and procedure characteristics, echocardiographic variables and survival were analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of 1-year mortality.

RESULTS

After propensity matching of the 20 mm and ≥ 23 mm SAPIEN 3 valves, 3,931 pairs with comparable baseline characteristics were identified. Small valves were associated with significantly higher echocardiographic gradients at discharge (15.7 ± 7.1 mmHg vs. 11.7 ± 5.5 mmHg, p < 0.0001) and severe PPM rates (21.5% vs. 9.7%, p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in 1-year all-cause mortality (20 mm: 13.0% vs. ≥23 mm: 12.7%, p = 0.72) or other major adverse event rates and outcomes between the two cohorts. Based on a multivariable analysis, elevated discharge mean gradient (>20 mmHg), severe PPM and the use of 20 mm versus ≥23 mm were not independent predictors of 1-year mortality.

CONCLUSION

SAPIEN 3 20 mm valves were associated with higher echocardiographic gradients, and severe PPM rates compared to larger valves but these factors were not associated with significant differences in 1-year all-cause mortality or rehospitalization.

Long-Term Results (up to 20 Years) of 19 mm or Smaller Prostheses in the Aortic Position. Does Size Matter? A Propensity-Matched Survival Analysis

Background: The long-term performance of prostheses in the small aortic root is still unclear. Methods: Patients who received a 21 mm or smaller aortic valve between 2000–2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity matching was used in order to account for baseline differences in 19 mm vs. 21 mm valve subgroups. Results: Survival at 10 years was 55.87 ± 5.54% for 19 mm valves vs. 57.17 ± 2.82% for 21 mm ones in the original cohort (p = 0.37), and 58.69 ± 5.61% in 19 mm valve recipients vs. 53.60 ± 5.66% for 21 mm valve subgroups in the matched cohort (p = 0.55). Smaller valves exhibited significantly more patient–prothesis mismatch (PPM) than larger ones (87.30% vs. 57.94%, p < 0.01). All-cause mortality was affected by PPM at 10 years (52.66 ± 3.28% vs. 64.38 ± 3.87%, p = 0.04) in the unmatched population. This difference disappeared, however, after matching: survival at 10 years was 51.82 ± 5.26% in patients with PPM and 63.12 ± 6.43% in patients without PPM. (p = 0.14) Conclusions: There is no survival penalty in using 19 mm prostheses in the small aortic root in the current era. Although PPM is more prevalent in smaller sized valve recipients, this does not translate into reduced survival at 10 years of follow-up.

Assessing the Impact of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation on Cardiac Catheterisation: A Multicentric Study

BACKGROUND

The success rate of coronary angiography (CA) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is variable. Our aim was to investigate CA difficulty, outcomes, and predictors of difficult CA after TAVI.

METHOD

This was an international multicentric retrospective cohort study that included patients with TAVI and subsequent CA between January 2010 and December 2019. Difficulty with CA was graded as 1 (normal), 2 (partial engagement, complete vessel opacification), 3 (partial engagement, incomplete vessel opacification), and 4 (unsuccessful angiography). Patients were grouped as (a) "easy" (grade 1 for left and right) or (b) "difficult" (grade >1 for either). We compared baseline characteristics and outcomes, and performed multivariate logistic regression for predictors of difficult CA.

RESULTS

Of 96 patients included (mean age 77.4±8.7 years, 48 [50%] male), 88 (92%) had successful CA. Right CA was successful in 80 (83%) patients and left CA in 91 (95%) (p<0.0001). The "difficult" group (n=41 [43%]) had higher Society of Thoracic Surgery (STS) scores (7.6±4.9 vs 5.4±4.0; p=0.022), smaller annulus perimeters (72.4±5.4 mm vs 76.2±9.4 mm; p=0.049), greater use of self-expanding valves (83% vs 18%; p<0.0001), increased valve size (26.8±2.1 mm vs 25.6±3.0 mm; p=0.032), and increased oversizing for area (44.3%±17.4% vs 23.6%±22.0%; p=0.0002) and perimeter (17.5%±8.2% vs 7.1%±10.8%; p<0.0001). There was no difference in outcomes except for increased major bleeding (7.3% vs 0.0%; p=0.042). The strongest predictor for "difficult" CA was self-expanding valves when compared to balloon-expandable valves (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 15.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.27-102.40). Society of Thoracic Surgery score was borderline predictive (aOR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.52).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that after TAVI, CA success rate is high, right CA is more difficult than left, self-expanding valves predispose to difficult CA, and STS score weakly predicts difficult CA. This study is hypothesis-generating and more research is required to confirm these findings.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With a Small Annulus - From the Japanese Nationwide Registry (J-TVT)

BACKGROUND

The details and consequences of a small aortic annulus among transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) patients remain uncertain. This study investigated the short-term outcomes in patients with small annular size and compared the 30-day outcome between intra- and supra-annular devices, with similar outer casing diameter in this subgroup.Methods and Results:Cases registered in the Japanese national TAVR registry between August 2013 and December 2017 were analyzed. Among a total of 5,870 registered patients, 647 (11.0%) had small annulus (area ≤314 mm²) measured by multi-detector computed tomography. Patients with a small annulus had a significantly smaller indexed effective orifice area (iEOA, 1.10 cm²/m²[0.92-1.35] vs. 1.16 cm²/m²[0.96-1.39], P<0.001) and higher mean pressure gradient (mPG, 10.0 mmHg [6.9-14.2] vs. 8.5 mmHg [6.0-11.5], P<0.001) compared with a normal-sized annulus. Among patients with a small annulus, those receiving a 20 mm intra-annular device had a smaller iEOA (0.94 cm²/m²[0.78-1.06] vs. 1.07 cm²/m²[0.8-1.24], P=0.001) and higher mPG (14.0 mmHg [10.0-18.5] vs. 11.0 [7.0-14.0], P<0.001) compared with those receiving a 23-mm supra-annular device, although the incidence of paravalvular leakage (≥moderate) was similar (14.4% vs. 16.5%, P=0.69).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a small annulus were associated with less hemodynamic improvement. A supra-annular device is associated with better echocardiographic improvement in patients with a small annulus, without increasing paravalvular leakage.

Aortic root widening: “pro et contra”

In patients with a small aortic annulus, the clinical benefits of aortic valve replacement depend on avoidance of patient-prosthesis mismatch as it is associated with reduced overall survival. Aortic root widening or enlargement is a useful technique to implant larger valve prosthesis to prevent patient-prosthesis mismatch. Posterior annular enlargement is the commonest technique used for aortic root enlargement. Consistent enlargement of the aortic root requires more extensive procedures like Manouguian or Konno-Rastan techniques. The patients commonly selected are younger patients with good life expectancy. However, caution is advised in applying this procedure in elderly patients, patients with heavily calcified annulus and when performing concomitant procedures. There is no definitive conclusion on the best material to use for the reconstruction of aortic annulus and aorta in aortic root enlargement procedures.

Implantation of a Sutureless Valve Into a Surgically Enlarged Aortic Root: A Bailout Option

Sutureless bioprostheses such as the Sorin Perceval Valve (SPV; Sorin Group, Srl, Saluggia, Italy) have been proposed for replacing stenotic native valves within small aortic roots of geriatric patients with significant comorbidity. Their use seems as safe as that of stented bioprostheses and enables significantly reduced length of surgery. Low transprosthetic pressure gradients have been measured. Because of the radial force of its self-expandable nitinol stent, aortic annulus interruption could be a relative contraindication to SPV use. Off-label implantation of the SPV into a surgically enlarged ascending aorta was first reported in this study, as a bailout option in the presence of a tiny aortic root.

Predictors of high residual gradient after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis

OBJECTIVES

To define the incidence of high residual gradient (HRG) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in BAVs and their impact on short term outcome and 1-year mortality.

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter heart valves (THVs) offer good performance in tricuspid aortic valves with low rate of HRG. However, data regarding their performance in bicuspid aortic valves (BAV) are still lacking.

METHODS

The BEAT (Balloon vs Self-Expandable valve for the treatment of bicuspid Aortic valve sTenosis) registry included 353 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR (Evolut R/PRO or Sapien 3 valves) in BAV between June 2013 and October 2018. The primary endpoint was device unsuccess with post-procedural HRG (mean gradient ≥ 20 mmHg). The secondary endpoint was to identify the predictors of HRG following the procedure.

RESULTS

Twenty patients (5.6%) showed HRG after TAVR. Patients with HRG presented higher body mass index (BMI) (30.7 ± 9.3 vs. 25.9 ± 4.8; p < 0.0001) and higher baseline aortic mean gradients (57.6 ± 13.4 mmHg vs. 47.7 ± 16.6, p = 0.013) and more often presented with BAV of Sievers type 0 than patients without HRG. At multivariate analysis, BMI [odds ratio (OR) 1.12; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.20, p = 0.001] and BAV type 0 (OR 11.31, 95% CI 3.45-37.06, p < 0.0001) were confirmed as independent predictors of high gradient.

CONCLUSION

HRG following TAVR in BAVs is not negligible and is higher among patients with high BMI and with BAV 0 anatomy.

Comparison of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement between Self-Expanding versus Balloon-Expandable Valves in Patients with Small Aortic Annulus

Background and Objectives

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been reported as a good alternative for surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with small aortic annulus. Head-to-head comparisons of different transcatheter aortic valves in these patients are insufficient. We compared the outcomes after TAVR between two different types of recent transcatheter aortic valves (self-expanding vs. balloon-expandable) in patients with small aortic annulus.

Methods

A total of 70 patients with severe aortic stenosis and small annulus (mean diameter ≤23 mm or minimal diameter ≤21 mm on computed tomography) underwent TAVR with either a self-expanding valve with supra-annular location (n=45) or a balloon-expandable valve with intra-annular location (n=25). The echocardiographic hemodynamic parameters after TAVR and 1-year follow-up were compared.

Results

Between the self-expanding and balloon-expandable valve-treated patients, the clinical outcomes including permanent pacemaker implantation (11.1% vs. 8.0%), acute kidney injury stage 2 or 3 (4.4% vs. 4.0%), and major vascular complication (4.4% vs. 0.0%) were similar without all-cause mortality, stroke, and life-threatening bleeding during 30-day follow-up. Compared with the balloon-expandable valve-treated patients, the self-expanding valve-treated patients presented larger effective orifice area (EOA) (1.46±0.28 vs. 1.75±0.42 cm², p=0.002) and indexed EOA (0.95±0.21 vs. 1.18±0.28 cm²/m², p=0.001), whereas mean aortic valve gradient (11.7±2.9 vs. 8.9±5.2 mmHg, P=0.005) and incidence of ≥moderate prosthesis-patient mismatch (36.0% vs. 8.9%, p=0.009) were lower. These hemodynamic differences were maintained at 1-year follow-up.

Conclusions

TAVR with self-expanding valves was associated with superior hemodynamic outcomes compared with balloon-expandable valves in patients with small aortic annulus.

The benefit of fibrosa layer stripping technique during minimally invasive aortic valve replacement for calcified aortic valve stenosis-A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Fibrosa layer stripping (FLS) technique is a new approach to remove the calcified aortic valve. In this study, we aimed to assess the effectiveness of the FLS technique by comparing it with the conventional technique in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR).

METHODS

A prospective, single-center, randomized controlled trial was conducted at Beijing Anzhen Hospital. Seventy patients diagnosed with severe calcific aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to undergo FLS (n = 35) or conventional (n = 35) technique to debride calcified aortic valve. Preoperative profile, procedural parameters, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed in the preoperative profile between the two groups. Compared with the conventional technique, the FLS technique had a significantly higher indexed effective orifice area and lower mean gradient. Moreover, the FLS technique was associated with significantly reduced aortic cross-clamp time (41 [38-44] vs. 56 [51-60] min, p < .001), cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time (63 [56-69] vs. 81 [75-84] min, p < .001), and operative time (148 [141-156] vs. 173 [169-180] min, p < .001). Lastly, the length of intensive care unit stay (1.2 ± 0.4 vs. 1.5 ± 0.8 days, p = .041) and hospital stay (5.3 ± 0.6 vs. 6.0 ± 1.4 days, p = .020) was significantly reduced in the FLS group compared with those in the conventional group.

CONCLUSIONS

FLS technique is effective in removing calcified tissue during MIAVR and is associated with shorter cross-clamp time and CPB time, and better hemodynamic performance than the conventional technique.

Expansion of TAVR into Low-Risk Patients and Who to Consider for SAVR

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS) over the last decade. The results of the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) 3 and Evolut Low Risk trials demonstrated the safety and efficacy of TAVR in low-surgical-risk patients and led to the approval of TAVR for use across the risk spectrum. Heart teams around the world will now be faced with evaluating a deluge of younger, healthier patients with severe AS. Prior to the PARTNER 3 and Evolut Low Risk studies, this heterogenous patient population would have undergone surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). It is unlikely that TAVR will completely supplant SAVR for the treatment of severe AS in patients with a low surgical risk, as SAVR has excellent short- and long-term outcomes and years of durability data. In this review, we outline the critical role that SAVR will continue to play in the treatment of severe AS in the post-PARTNER 3/Evolut Low Risk era.