Long-term results after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: what do we know today?

A European update on transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in the COVID era

Minimally invasive approaches for aortic valve replacement are now at the forefront of pathological aortic valve treatment. New trials show comparability of these devices to existing therapies, not only in high-risk surgical cohorts but also in low-risk and intermediate-risk cohorts. This review provides vital clinical and anatomical background to aortic valvular disease treatment guidelines, while also providing an update on transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) devices in Europe, their interventional trials and associated complications.

Twelve-month outcomes of transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis

Introduction

Transapical access (TA) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) (TA-TAVI) represents one of the possible routes in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) who are not suitable for transfemoral access.

Aim

To assess early- and mid-term clinical outcomes after TA-TAVI.

Material and methods

Patients with severe symptomatic AS undergoing TA-TAVI from November 2008 to December 2019 were enrolled. Clinical and procedural characteristics as well as clinical outcomes including all-cause mortality during 12-month follow-up were assessed.

Results

Sixty-one consecutive patients underwent TA-TAVI for native AS. Patients were elderly with median age of 80.0 (76.0-84.0) years; 55.7% were males. Median baseline EuroSCORE I and STS scores were 18.2% (11.6-27.7) and 4.8% (3.3-8.2), respectively. The procedural success rate was 96.7%. In-hospital, 30-day and 12-month mortality rates were 9.8%; 18.0% and 24.6%, respectively. The main periprocedural and in-hospital complications were bleeding complications (14.8%). The following factors were associated with 12-month mortality: previous cerebrovascular event (CVE), glomerular filtration rate (GFR), aortic valve area (AVA), right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) and serum level of N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) (RR for CVE 3.17, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.15-8.76: p = 0.026; RR for AVA per 0.1 cm² 1.28, 95% CI: 1.03-1.55: p = 0.024; RR for GFR per 1 ml/min 0.96: 95% CI: 0.94-0.99: p = 0.007; RR for NT-proBNP per 1000 pg/ml 1.07: 95% CI: 1.01-1.17: p = 0.033; RR for RVSP per 1 mm Hg 1.07: 95% CI 1.02-1.16: p = 0.011).

Conclusions

Transapical TAVI in high-risk patients provides good hemodynamic results with acceptable outcomes.

Transcatheter versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement after Previous Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Aim

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with prior cardiac surgery might be challenging. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers a promising alternative in such patients. We therefore aimed at comparing the outcomes of patients with aortic valve diseases undergoing TAVR versus those undergoing surgical AVR (SAVR) after previous cardiac surgery.

Methods and Results

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register were searched. Seven relevant studies were identified, published between 01/2011 and 12/2015, enrolling a total of 1148 patients with prior cardiac surgery (97.6% prior CABG): 49.2% underwent TAVR, whereas 50.8% underwent SAVR. Incidence of stroke (3.8 versus 7.9%, p=0.04) and major bleeding (8.3 versus 15.3%, p=0.04) was significantly lower in the TAVR group. Incidence of mild/severe paravalvular leakage (14.4/10.9 versus 0%, p < 0.0001) and pacemaker implantation (11.3 versus 3.9%, p=0.01) was significantly higher in the TAVR group. There were no significant differences in the incidence of acute kidney injury (9.7 versus 8.7%, p=0.99), major adverse cardiovascular events (8.7 versus 12.3%, p=0.21), 30-day mortality (5.1 versus 5.5%, p=0.7), or 1-year mortality (11.6 versus 11.8%, p=0.97) between the TAVR and SAVR group.

Conclusions

TAVR as a redo procedure offers a safe alternative for patients presenting with aortic valve diseases after previous cardiac surgery especially those with prior CABG.

Results of surgical aortic valve replacement and transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the results of aortic valve replacement through sternotomic approach in redo scenarios (RAVR) vs transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), in patients in the eighth decade of life or older already undergone previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

METHODS

One hundred and twenty-six patients undergoing RAVR were compared with 113 patients undergoing TaTAVR in terms of 30-day mortality and Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 outcomes. The two groups were also analysed after propensity-matching.

RESULTS

TaTAVR patients demonstrated a higher incidence of 30-day mortality (P = 0.03), stroke (P = 0.04), major bleeding (P = 0.03), worse 'early safety' (P = 0.04) and lower permanent pacemaker implantation (P = 0.03). TaTAVR had higher follow-up hazard in all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 3.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28-6.62; P < 0.01] and cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.02-4.88; P = 0.04). Propensity-matched patients showed comparable 30-day outcome in terms of survival, major morbidity and early safety, with only a lower incidence of transfusions after TaTAVR (10.7% vs RAVR: 57.1%; P < 0.01). A trend towards lower Acute Kidney Injury Network Classification 2/3 (3.6% vs RAVR 21.4%; P = 0.05) and towards a lower freedom from all-cause mortality at follow-up (TaTAVR: 44.3 ± 21.3% vs RAVR: 86.6 ± 9.3%; P = .08) was demonstrated after TaTAVR, although cardiovascular mortality was comparable (TaTAVR: 86.5 ± 9.7% vs RAVR: 95.2 ± 4.6%; P = 0.52). Follow-up freedom from stroke, acute heart failure, reintervention on AVR and thrombo-embolisms were comparable (P = NS). EuroSCORE II (P = 0.02), perioperative stroke (P = 0.01) and length of hospitalization (P = 0.02) were the determinants of all-cause mortality at follow-up, whereas perioperative stroke (P = 0.03) and length of hospitalization (P = 0.04) impacted cardiovascular mortality at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Reported differences in mortality and morbidity after TaTAVR and RAVR reflect differences in baseline risk profiles. Given the lower trend for renal complications, patients at higher perioperative renal risk might be better served by TaTAVR.

Advances in the management of severe aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

Recent developments in the management of severe aortic stenosis have resulted in a paradigm shift in the way we view the condition. Patients previously denied intervention in the form of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are now candidates for transcatheter aortic valve implantation and the risk and age profiles of those undergoing SAVR are rising with the ageing population. This review article is designed to provide an overview of developments in the surgical management of severe aortic stenosis. We also discuss the expanding role of minimally invasive surgical approaches to outline the current techniques available to treat patients with severe aortic stenosis.

METHODS

PubMed was searched using the terms 'severe aortic stenosis', 'surgical aortic valve replacement', 'transcatheter aortic valve replacement', 'mechanical aortic valve replacement' and 'sutureless aortic valve replacement'. Selection of articles was based on peer review, journal and relevance. Where possible articles from high-impact factor peer review journals were included.

RESULTS

Minimally invasive operative approaches include mini-sternotomy and mini-thoracotomy. Sutureless aortic prostheses reduce aortic cross-clamp time and cardiopulmonary bypass time; however, long-term follow-up data are unavailable at this time. Mechanical prostheses are advised for those under 60.

CONCLUSION

Multiple advances in the surgical management of aortic stenosis have occured in the past decade. An evolving spectrum of surgical and transcatheter interventions is now available depending on patient age and operative risk.