Rapid-deployment or transcatheter aortic valves in intermediate-risk patients?

Minimally Invasive Versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: An Updated Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has arisen as a viable alternative to surgery. Similarly, minimally invasive surgical aortic valve replacement (mini-SAVR), such as ministernotomy and minithoracotomy, have also gained interest. We conducted a pairwise meta-analysis to further investigate the efficacy of TAVR versus mini-SAVR.

METHODS

Medical databases were comprehensively searched for studies comparing TAVR with a mini-SAVR modality, defined as minimally invasive aortic surgery, ministernotomy, minithoracotomy, or rapid-deployment or sutureless SAVR. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted using the generic inverse variance method. Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, midterm mortality, 30-day stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), paravalvular leak (PVL), new permanent pacemaker (PPM), new-onset atrial fibrillation, and postintervention mean and peak valve pressure gradients and were pooled as risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 5,071 patients (2,505 mini-SAVR vs 2,566 TAVR) from 12 studies were pooled. Compared with TAVR, mini-SAVR showed significantly lower rates of both 30-day (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.96, P = 0.03) and midterm mortality at 4 years of follow-up (HR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.87, P < 0.001). Furthermore, mini-SAVR was protective against 30-day PVL (RR = 0.07, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.13, P < 0.001) and new PPM (RR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.57, P < 0.001). Conversely, TAVR was protective against 30-day AKI (RR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.20 to 2.32, P = 0.002) and postinterventional mean gradients (MD = 1.65, 95% CI: 0.25 to 3.05, P = 0.02). No difference was observed for 30-day stroke (RR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.24, P = 0.38), new-onset atrial fibrillation (RR = 1.79, 95% CI: 0.93 to 3.44, P = 0.08), or postinterventional peak gradients (MD = 3.24, 95% CI: -1.10 to 7.59, P = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with TAVR, mini-SAVR was protective against 30-day and midterm mortality, 30-day PVL, and new permanent pacemaker, while TAVR patients had lower 30-day AKI. Future randomized trials comparing the efficacy of mini-SAVR approaches with TAVR are needed.

The hemodynamic performance of balloon-expandable aortic bioprostheses in the elderly: a comparison between rapid deployment and transcatheter implantation

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve replacement with a rapid deployment valve (RDV) is a relatively recent treatment option. Aim of this study was to compare the hemodynamic performance of balloon-expandable (BE)-RDVs and BE-transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in a high surgical risk and frail-elderly population.

METHODS

BE-THVs and BE-RDVs were respectively implanted in 138 and 47 patients, all older than 75 years and with a Canadian Study of Health and Aging category of 5 or above. Echocardiographic assessment was performed at discharge and at six months.

RESULTS

At discharge, transprosthetic pressure gradients and indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) were similar in both cohorts. At six-month follow-up, BE-RDV showed lower peak (14.69 vs 20.86 mmHg; p <0.001) and mean (7.82 vs 11.83 mmHg; p <0.001) gradients, as well as larger iEOA (1.05 vs 0.84 cm²/m²; p <0.001). Similar findings were also shown considering only small sized valves. Moderate-to-severe paravalvular leakage was more prevalent in BE-THVs at discharge (14.49 vs 0.00%; p=0.032) and, considering exclusively small prostheses, at six months too (57.69 vs 15.00%; p=0.014). Nevertheless, BE-THVs determined amelioration in left ventricular ejection fraction (53.79 vs 60.14%; p <0.001), pulmonary artery systolic pressure (35.81 vs 33.15 mmHg; p=0.042) and tricuspid regurgitation severity (40.58 vs 19.57%; p=0.031) from discharge to mid-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

BE-RDVs showed better hemodynamic performance, especially when implanted in small annulus. Despite their worse baseline conditions, transcatheter patients still exhibited a greater improvement of their echocardiographic profile at mid-term follow-up.

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

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

Outcomes of sutureless aortic valve replacement versus conventional aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement, updated systematic review, and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SuAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study compares the effectiveness of SuAVR to SAVR and TAVR.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to July 2021 for studies evaluating SuAVR, SAVR, and TAVR in adults with aortic stenosis. We performed screening, full-text assessment, data collection, and risk of bias evaluation independently and in duplicate. We evaluated risk of bias using by Cochrane and CLARITY's tools, and certainty in evidence using the GRADE framework. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

We identified one randomized and 78 observational studies (n = 60,689; SuAVR vs. SAVR = 39,171, vs. TAVR = 21,518). All studies were at high or unclear risk of bias, with very-low certainty in effect estimates. Compared to TAVR, SuAVR demonstrates no significant difference in mortality at 30-days (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI: 0.85, 1.16], I²  = 0%), but decreased odds at 2-years (OR: 0.39, 95% CI [0.17, 0.88], I²  = 0%). SuAVR also reduced odds of mild paravalvular regurgitation (OR: 0.11, 95% CI [0.06, 0.21], I²  = 50%). Compared to SAVR, SuAVR was associated with a similar mortality at 30-days (OR: 0.99, 95% CI [0.85, 1.16], I²  = 0%) and 2-years (OR: 0.99, 95% CI [0.43-2.30], I²  = 7%). SuAVR significantly increased odds of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR: 2.5, 95% CI [2.25, 2.77], I²  = 0%). Pooled effect estimates were consistent with results from the randomized trial comparing SuAVR and SAVR.

CONCLUSION

Based on very-low quality evidence, SuAVR is associated with similar short- and midterm outcomes compared to TAVR and SAVR. Comparative randomized data with long-term follow-up are required to clarify the role of SuAVR.

Short-term outcome of the intuity rapid deployment prosthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Limited access aortic valve replacement is an alternative approach for the treatment of calcified aortic valve disease. To facilitate limited access aortic valve replacement, rapid deployment valve prostheses have been developed aiming to reduce surgical impact. This systematic review gives an overview of current literature regarding the INTUITY or INTUITY Elite rapid deployment biological valve prosthesis.

METHODS

Cochrane, Embase and MEDLINE were searched to identify relevant studies. All studies reporting on patients who underwent isolated or combined surgical aortic valve replacement with the INTUITY or INTUITY Elite valve prosthesis were considered eligible. Primary end points were technical success rate, 30-day mortality, cerebrovascular accident, paravalvular leak and permanent pacemaker implantation. Secondary end points included procedural data such as aortic cross-clamping time, cardiopulmonary bypass time and procedural approach.

RESULTS

A total of 16 articles fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria and comprised 4.184 patients. Thirty-day mortality was 2.7% (1.9-3.7%), cerebrovascular accident 2.6% (1.4-4.7%), permanent pacemaker implantation 7.9% (6.6-9.5%) and severe postoperative paravalvular leak requiring a reintervention 3.3% (1.7-6.1%). Technical success rate varied between 93.9% and 100%. Conventional median sternotomy was most commonly performed, ranging from 21.7% to 89.6%. Upper hemi-sternotomy was performed more often than anterior right thoracotomy, ranging from 10.4% to 63.3% and 2.2% to 26.1%. The mean transvalvular pressure gradient ranged between 9.0 and 10.3 mmHg at 1 year postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates that the technical success rate of the INTUITY or INTUITY Elite rapid deployment valve system is high, also in limited access aortic valve replacement. Mortality and cerebrovascular accident rates are low, but the need for postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation and reintervention rate for paravalvular leakage is increased.

Minimally invasive surgery versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has recently been approved for use in patients who are at intermediate and low surgical risk. Moreover, recent years have witnessed a renewed interest in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (miAVR). The present meta-analysis compared the outcomes of TAVR and miAVR in the management of aortic stenosis (AS). We conducted an electronic search across six databases from 2002 (TAVR inception) to December 2019. Data from relevant studies regarding the clinical and length of hospitalisation outcomes were extracted and analysed using R software. We identified a total of 11 cohort studies, of which seven were matched/propensity matched. Our analysis demonstrated higher rates of midterm mortality (≥1 year) with TAVR (risk ratio (RR): 1.93, 95% CI: 1.16 to 3.22), but no significant differences with respect to 1 month mortality (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.55 to 1.81), stroke (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.40 to 2.87) and bleeding (RR: 1.45, 95% CI: 0.56 to 3.75) rates. Patients undergoing TAVR were more likely to experience paravalvular leakage (RR: 14.89, 95% CI: 6.89 to 32.16), yet less likely to suffer acute kidney injury (RR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.69) compared with miAVR. The duration of hospitalisation was significantly longer in the miAVR group (mean difference: 1.92 (0.61 to 3.24)). Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessment revealed ≤moderate quality of evidence in all outcomes. TAVR was associated with lower acute kidney injury rate and shorter length of hospitalisation, yet higher risks of midterm mortality and paravalvular leakage. Given the increasing adoption of both techniques, there is an urgent need for head-to-head randomised trials with adequate follow-up periods.