Infections after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement: mid-term results of 200 consecutive patients

Clinical Profiles and Outcomes of Prosthesis-Specific Infective Endocarditis Subsequent to Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) is a rare but serious complication following aortic valve replacement using either a transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). This study aims to review the profiles and outcomes of PVE after surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Electronic searches were performed on Scopus, EMBASE, and PubMed to retrieve related articles. To be included, study designs had to be randomized controlled trials (RCT) or observational cohort studies (in English) with PVE patients that compared differences based on TAVI or SAVR. This review included data for 13,221 patients with PVE diagnoses. Of those, 2,109 patients had an initial SAVR, and 11,112 patients had an initial TAVI. There was no difference in the incidence of PVE in patients who had initial TAVI versus SAVR (1.05% versus 1.01% per person-year, p=0.98). However, the onset of early PVE was more frequently observed in the TAVI group (risk ratio (RR): 1.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.14, 2.08], p=0.005). Patients in the TAVI group had a lower indication for surgery to treat PVE when compared to SAVR (RR: 0.55, 95%CI [0.44, 0.69], p<0.001). Staphylococcus aureus was more likely to be the source of PVE in patients who had previous TAVI (RR: 1.34, 95%CI [1.17, 1.54], p<0.001). Also, Enterococcus faecalis was more frequently observed as a cause of PVE in the TAVI group (RR: 1.49, 95%CI [1.21, 1.82], p<0.001). Patients who underwent SAVR and TAVI had similar incidences of PVE. However, patients who underwent SAVR had a greater indication for surgery to treat PVE, while those who underwent TAVI had higher comorbidities, a higher likelihood of early PVE, and a trend towards higher one-year mortality.

Budget impact analysis of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low, intermediate, and high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis in Saudi Arabia

AIMS

A budget impact analysis (BIA) comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with SAPIEN 3 and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis among patients of low, intermediate, and high surgical risk from the perspective of the public and private sectors in Saudi Arabia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov model was developed with six states to calculate the budget impact from time of either TAVR or SAVR intervention up to 5 years. We compared the budget effects of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), new onset atrial fibrillation (AF), major/disabling stroke (MDS), and surgical site infections (SSI). One-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) were performed on cost and probability inputs.

RESULTS

Analysis of the base case parameters suggests TAVR vs. SAVR is budget saving among intermediate- and high-risk patients at 5 years. TAVR vs. SAVR for low surgical risk reaches budget neutrality at 5 years. TAVR is associated with higher costs for PPI and budget savings for MDS, AF, and SSI. TAVR also results in savings for non-device costs due to fewer human resource uses and shorter procedure durations. Similarly, TAVR is associated with cost savings due to shorter hospital intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU stays. The OWSA consistently revealed that SAVR non-device theater costs were the leading cost driver across all surgical risk levels.

LIMITATIONS

This is the first budget impact analysis of its kind in Saudi Arabia and future research is needed on costing TAVR and SAVR procedures, the economic impact of SSI, and corroborating estimates for the public and private sectors.

CONCLUSIONS

Payers, providers, and policymakers increasingly turn to results of BIA to inform technologies affordability decisions. TAVR with SAPIEN 3 appears to generate savings vs. SAVR from a budget impact perspective across various surgical risk levels in Saudi Arabia.

Impact of Non-Valvular Non-Coronary Concomitant Procedures on Outcomes of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate Risk Patients

Introduction: advanced age and concomitant procedures could increase the risk of perioperative complications during surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We aimed to evaluate results of elderly patients undergoing SAVR and evaluate the impact of concomitant non-valvular, non-coronary procedures on the outcomes. Methods: A retrospective single-centre study, evaluating 464 elderly patients (mean age = 75.6 ± 4 years) undergoing either isolated-SAVR (I-SAVR = 211) or combined-SAVR (C-SAVR = 253) between 01/2007 and 12/2017. Combined-SAVR involved non-valvular, non-coronary procedures. Study endpoints are postoperative results concerning the VARC-II criteria, valve dysfunction, long-term freedom from redo-AVR and survival. Results: males were 52.8%. Patients had an intermediate risk profile (mean EuroSCORE-II (%) 5.2 ± 5). Postoperative results reported no significant differences in incidence of re-exploration for bleeding (6.6% vs. 6.7%, p = 1.0), stroke (0.9% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.59), dialysis (6.2% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.23) and pacemaker implantation (3.3% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.79) between I-SAVR and C-SAVR groups. Thirty-day (2.4% vs. 7.1% p = 0.03), one-year (5.7% vs. 13.8%, p = 0.003) and overall mortality (24.6% vs. 37.5%, p = 0.002) were lower in the isolated-SAVR group. Re-AVR was indicated in 1.7% of patients due to endocarditis. Conclusions: SAVR in elderly patients offers good outcomes with increased life quality and rare re-operation for structural valvular deterioration. Mortality rates were significantly higher when SAVR was combined with another “non-valvular, non-coronary” procedure.

Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement With Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

We aimed to compare the outcomes of combined surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to concurrent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in a large U.S. population sample. The National Inpatient Sample was queried for all patients diagnosed with aortic valve stenosis who underwent SAVR with CABG or TAVR with PCI during the years 2016 to 2017. Study outcomes included all-cause in-hospital mortality, acute stroke, pacemaker insertion, vascular complications, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, sepsis, non-home discharge, length of stay and cost. Outcomes of hospitalization were modeled using logistic regression for binary outcomes and generalized linear models for continuous outcomes. Overall, 31,205 patients were included (TAVR + PCI = 2,185, SAVR + CABG = 29,020). In reference to SAVR + CABG, recipients of TAVR + PCI were older with mean age 82 versus 73 years, effect size (d) = 0.9, had higher proportions of females 47.6% versus 26.6%, d = 0.4 and higher prevalence of congestive heart failure and chronic renal failure. On multivariable analysis, TAVR + PCI was associated with lowers odds for mortality adjusted OR: 0.32 (95% CI: 0.17 to 0.62) p = 0.001, lower odds for acute kidney injury, sepsis, non-home discharge, shorter length of stay and higher odds for vascular complications, need for pacemaker insertion and higher cost. The occurrence of stroke was similar between both groups. In conclusion, results from real-world observational data shows less rates of mortality and periprocedural complications in TAVR + PCI compared to SAVR + CABG.

Infective Endocarditis After Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A State of the Art Review

Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) after surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) carries significant morbidity/mortality. Our review aims to compare incidence, predisposing factors, microbiology, diagnosis, management, and outcomes of PVE in surgical aortic valve replacement/TAVR patients. We searched PubMed and Embase to identify published studies from January 1, 2015 to March 13, 2020. Key words were indexed for original reports, clinical studies, and reviews. Reports were evaluated by 2 authors against a priori inclusion/exclusion criteria. Studies were included if they reported incidence and outcomes related to surgical aortic valve replacement/TAVR PVE and excluded if they were published pre-2015 or included a small population. We followed the Cochrane methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for all stages of the design and implementation. Study quality was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Thirty-three studies with 311 to 41 025 patients contained relevant information. The majority found no significant difference in incidence of surgical aortic valve replacement/TAVR PVE (reported as 0.3%-1.2% per patient-year versus 0.6%-3.4%), but there were key differences in pathogenesis. TAVR has a specific set of infection risks related to entry site, procedure, and device, including nonstandardized protocols for infection control, valve crimping injury, paravalvular leak, neo-leaflet stress, intact/calcified native leaflets, and intracardiac hardware. With the expansion of TAVR to lower risk and younger patients, a better understanding of pathogenesis, patient presentation, and guideline-directed treatment is paramount. When operative intervention is necessary, mortality remains high at 20% to 30%. Unique TAVR infection risks present opportunities for PVE prevention, therefore, further investigation is imperative.

Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis in Patients Undergoing TAVR Compared to SAVR: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The risk of prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) in patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is presumed to be high.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched to identify articles comparing the rate of PVE in post-TAVR and post-surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) patients. Pooled adjusted odds ratio (OR) was computed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies consisting of 84,288 patients, were identified. There was no significant difference in the odds of PVE between patients undergoing TAVR and SAVR, at 30-day (OR 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20-1.92, p = 0.41), 1-year (OR 0.99 95% CI 0.89-1.11, p = 0.84), 2-year (OR 1.02 95% CI 0.68-1.54, p = 0.92) and 5-year (OR 1.03 95% CI 0.80-1.33, p = 0.81). A subgroup sensitivity analysis also showed no significant inter-group differences in the rate of PVE at all time points, when stratified by the study design (clinical trial vs. observational), type of TAVR valves used (self-expanding bioprosthetic valves vs. balloon expanded bioprosthetic valves) and surgical risk of patients (high vs. intermediate vs. low). There was no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%) in the outcomes of the included studies at 30-day, 1-year and 2-year, while the heterogeneity in studies at 5-year was minimal (I2 = 22%).

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to SAVR, both short and long-term risk of prosthetic valve endocarditis appears to be identical in patients undergoing TAVR. This risk is unaffected by the type of valve, duration of follow-up, study design and surgical risk of the patients.

Early mobilisation after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation: results of the MobiTAVI trial

Background

Immobilisation of patients after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) is the standard of care, mostly to prevent vascular complications. However, immobilisation may increase post-operative complications such as delirium and infections. In this trial, we determine whether it is feasible and safe to implement early ambulation after TF-TAVI.

Methods

We prospectively included TF-TAVI patients from 2016 to 2018. Patients were assessed for eligibility using our strict safety protocol and were allocated (based on the time at which the procedure ended) to the EARLY or REGULAR group.

Results

A total of 150 patients (49%) were deemed eligible for early mobilisation, of which 73 were allocated to the EARLY group and 77 to the REGULAR group. The overall population had a mean age of 80 years, 48% were male with a Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) score of 3.8 ± 1.8. Time to mobilisation was 4 h 49 min ± 31 min in the EARLY group versus 20 h 7 min ± 3 h 6 min in the REGULAR group (p < 0.0001). There were no differences regarding the primary endpoint. No major vascular complications occurred and a similar incidence of minor vascular complications was seen in both groups (4/73 [5.5%] vs 6/77 [7.8%], p = 0.570). The incidence of the combined secondary endpoint was lower in the EARLY group (p = 0.034), with a numerically lower incidence for all individual outcomes (delirium, infections, pain and unplanned urinary catheter use).

Conclusion

Early mobilisation (ambulation 4–6 h post-procedure) of TF-TAVI patients is feasible and safe. Early ambulation decreases the combined incidence of delirium, infections, pain and unplanned urinary catheter use, and its adoption into contemporary TAVI practice may therefore be beneficial.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-020-01374-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Meta-Analysis Comparing the Incidence of Infective Endocarditis Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

Infective endocarditis (IE) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is a rare but life-threatening complication. Paravalvular regurgitation, compression of native leaflets, and space between transcatheter valve prosthesis and native valves could dispose TAVI recipients at increased risk of IE compared with SAVR. To assess the comparative risk of IE between TAVI and SAVR, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. A literature search of PUBMED and EMBASE was performed to identify randomized controlled trials that reported the event rate of IE in both TAVI and SAVR. A Mantel-Haenszel method and a random-effects model was used to calculate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The studied outcomes were early (at 1-year), late (>1-year), and overall IE (postprocedure to longest follow-up) in TAVI versus SAVR. We performed subgroup analysis based on valve-type (self or balloon-expandable) and surgical risk (high or intermediate). A total of 4 studies with 3,761 (1,895 TAVI and 1,866 SAVR) patients were included. The incidence of early IE, (3 studies, 0.86% vs 0.73%, OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.65, p = 0.71, I² = 0%), late IE (mean follow-up 2.0 years) (3 studies, 1.3% vs 0.6%, OR 1.85, 95% CI 0.81 to 4.20, p = 0.42, I² = 0%), and overall IE (mean follow-up 3.4 years) (4 studies, 2.0% vs 1.3%, OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.43, p = 0.18, I² = 0%) was similar between TAVI and SAVR. Subgroup analysis suggested that in intermediate surgical risk cohort, there was a trend toward increased risk of overall IE in TAVI (2.3% in TAVI and 1.2% in SAVR, OR 1.92, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.72, p = 0.05 I² = 0%). In this meta-analysis, we did not find an increased risk of IE in TAVI compared with SAVR. Appropriate preventative measure and early recognition of IE in these cohorts are important.