Current Key Issues in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Undergoing a Paradigm Shift

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in a Patient With Criss-Cross Heart

This paper presents the first transcatheter management of severe aortic regurgitation in a 77-year-old woman with a criss-cross heart—an extremely rare and complex congenital heart disease. The procedure achieved an elimination of aortic regurgitation and resulted in a remarkable improvement of the patient’s physical condition. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.)

Time Course and Risk Factors of New-Onset Complete Atrioventricular Block After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

In this study, we aimed to investigate the time course of new-onset complete atrioventricular block (CAVB) and its reversibility after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We analyzed 206 consecutive patients without baseline CAVB who underwent successful TAVI. The incidence of new-onset CAVB was determined to be 12.6% (26/206). Among these patients, 14 recovered from CAVB within 2 weeks (6.8%, 14/206), while the remaining 12 (5.8%, 12/206) underwent permanent pacemaker (PPM) insertion. Among the 12 patients who received the PPM, 4 were able to recover from CAVB within 4 months. Thus, only 8 among 206 patients (3.8%) showed persistent CAVB. Early-onset CAVB on the day of the procedure was the strongest predictor of PPM implantation (OR = 127). The electrocardiographic changes that occurred after TAVI were mostly recovered after 1 month. The most critical procedural factor that predicts CAVB and PPM insertion is the deep implantation (>4 mm) of a big valve (oversizing index >5.9%). In conclusion, the incidence of CAVB after TAVI was estimated to be at 12.6%. Two-thirds of these patients recovered from CAVB within 3 days, resulting in a final rate of persistent CAVB of 4%. To prevent CAVB, we have to implant an appropriate valve type with an optimal size and depth.

State of the Art Management of Aortic Valve Disease in Ankylosing Spondylitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiac involvement in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) generally manifests itself as aortic insufficiency, aortitis, disturbance in cardiac conduction, and myocardial dysfunction. We have used a case-based approach to review the current state of the art knowledge regarding the diagnosis and management of aortic valve disease and aortitis in patients with AS.

RECENT FINDINGS

The risk for aortic valve disease and aortic valve replacement or repair is significantly higher than in people without AS, and this risk increases with age. Echocardiography, cardiac MRI, and CT can serve as effective tools for screening and follow-up. Surgical repair/replacement remains the mainstay of therapy for aortic insufficiency and aortic dilation, whereas transcatheter-based techniques may be favorable in the setting of aortic stenosis. Aortic valve and atrioventricular conduction abnormalities contribute to overall cardiovascular burden in AS. Optimal timing and therapeutic technique are dependent on assessment of overall risk and serial follow-up.

Comparison of surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement for patients with aortic stenosis at low-intermediate risk

Background

To compare safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients at low-intermediate risk, given the paucity of robust data.

Methods

We performed an aggregate data meta-analysis of 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 6,778 patients comparing TAVR with SAVR for aortic stenosis (AS) in low-intermediate risk patients (Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk-score ≤8%) using the random-effects model. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30-day, 1-year and 2-year of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included cardiac-mortality, stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), atrial fibrillation (AF), permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, major-bleeding, moderate-severe paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) and rehospitalization.

Results

All-cause mortality, cardiac-mortality and stroke were comparable between the two groups. AF was higher with SAVR at 30-day [odds ratio (OR) 0.17, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.12-0.24] thorough to 2-year (OR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.21-0.55), while PPM implantation was higher with TAVR (30-day: OR 3.31, 95% CI: 1.64-6.66, 2-year: OR 3.17, 95% CI: 1.02-9.86). Moderate-severe PVR was more prevalent with TAVR at all follow-ups. On inter-group comparison, patients in the low-risk group had an even lower risk of AF, but a higher risk of PPM implantation as compared to the patients in the intermediate-risk group undergoing TAVR.

Conclusions

Compared to SAVR, TAVR had comparable all-cause mortality and stroke, lower-risk of AF, but was associated with a higher risk of PPM implantation and moderate-severe PVR in low-intermediate-risk patients. Thus, highlighting the need for longer-term follow-up before robust inferences are drawn.