Transcatheter aortic valve durability: a contemporary clinical review

Degenerated Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Investigation and Management Options

With the expansion of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to younger and lower-surgical-risk patients, many younger and less comorbid patients will be treated with TAVR and are expected to have a life expectancy that will exceed the durability of their transcatheter heart valve. Consequently, the number of patients requiring reintervention will undoubtedly increase in the near future. Redo-TAVR and TAVR explantation followed by surgical aortic valve replacement are the different therapeutic options in the event of bioprosthetic valve failure and the need for reintervention. Patients often anticipate being able to benefit from a redo-TAVR in the event of bioprosthetic valve failure after TAVR, despite the lack of long-term data and the risk of unfavourable anatomy. Our understanding of the feasibility of redo-TAVR is constantly improving thanks to bench test studies and growing worldwide experience. However, much remains unknown. In clinical practice, one of the heart team's objectives is to anticipate the need to reaccess the coronary arteries and implant a second or even a third valve when life expectancy may exceed the durability of the transcatheter heart valve. In this review, we address key definitions in the diagnosis of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure, as well as patient selection and procedural planning for redo-TAVR to reduce periprocedural risk, optimise hemodynamic performance, and maintain coronary access. We describe the bench testing and literature in the redo-TAVR and TAVR explantation fields.

Contemporary guideline-directed management of patients with severe aortic valve stenosis

BACKGROUND

Both surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are Class Ia recommended therapies for specific subgroups of severe aortic stenosis (AS) patients in the latest 2021 European guidelines.

AIMS

We aimed to report on the multidisciplinary Heart Team evaluation process and real-world practice of treating severe symptomatic AS in East Denmark in the context of the latest European guideline recommendations.

METHODS

All consecutive patients with severe AS referred for intervention in 2021 (N=672) were discussed in a multidisciplinary Heart Team meeting. All patients (100%) had a cardiac computed tomography (CT) analysis prior to the meeting. Baseline characteristics, Heart Team decision-making, final treatment and 30-day clinical outcomes were prospectively recorded.

RESULTS

The majority of severe AS patients (N=456, 68%) were referred for TAVI following discussion in the Heart Team. Ultimately, 94% of patients (N=632) received the Heart Team-recommended treatment. Patients undergoing TAVI (N=439) were significantly older (78.4±6.7 vs 67.2±8.3 years; p<0.001) and more comorbid than patients undergoing SAVR (N=189). The overall 30-day clinical outcomes were satisfactory for both treatment groups (overall 30-day mortality: 1.1%). The mean index hospitalisation length was markedly longer in the SAVR group (8.6±8.3 days) as compared to the TAVI group (1.8±3.2 days).

CONCLUSIONS

TAVI was routinely performed in low surgical risk patients in 2021 with two-thirds of all severe AS patients undergoing TAVI, thereby applying the latest European guidelines. A dedicated Heart Team meeting, including CT evaluation for all AS patients, is needed to make individualised management decisions in this new era of aortic valve interventions.

Transcatheter aortic valve durability, predictors of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction, longer-term outcomes - a review

INTRODUCTION

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is one of the most significant inventions in cardiology, as it provides a viable minimally invasive treatment option for patients with aortic stenosis, the most common valvular disease in the developed world and one with a poor prognosis when left untreated. Using data available to date, this review aims to discuss and identify possible predictors of TAVI valve durability - an essential requirement for the device's wide-spread use, especially in younger patients.

AREAS COVERED

This article explores the main causes of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) based on pathophysiology and available data, and reviews possible predictors of BVD including prosthesis-related, procedure-related, and patient-related factors. An emphasis is made on affectable predictors, which could potentially be targeted with prevention management and improve valve durability. A literature search of online medical databases was conducted using relevant key words and dates; significant clinical trials were identified. A brief overview of important randomized controlled trials with mid to long-term follow-up is included in this article.

EXPERT OPINION

Identifying modifiable predictors of valve dysfunction presents an opportunity to enhance and predict valve durability - a necessity as patients with longer life-expectancies are being considered for the procedure.

Comparison of middle-term valve durability between transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs

Background

This study aims to compare valve durability between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was structural valve deterioration (SVD). Secondary outcomes were bioprosthetic valve failure, reintervention, effective orifice area (EOA), mean pressure gradient, and moderate-severe aortic regurgitation (AR, transvalvular and/or paravalvular).

Results

Twenty-five publications from seven RCTs consisting of 7,970 patients were included in the analysis with follow-up ranges of 2-8 years. No significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to SVD [odds ratio (OR) 0.72; 95% CI: 0.25-2.12]. The TAVI group was reported to exhibit a statistically significant higher risk of reintervention (OR 2.03; 95% CI: 1.34-3.05) and a moderate-severe AR (OR 6.54; 95% CI: 3.92-10.91) compared with the SAVR group. A trend toward lower mean pressure gradient in the TAVI group [(mean difference (MD) -1.61; 95% CI: -3.5 to 0.28)] and significant higher EOA (MD 0.20; 95% CI: 0.08-0.31) was noted.

Conclusion

The present data indicate that TAVI provides a comparable risk of SVD with favorable hemodynamic profile compared with SAVR. However, the higher risk of significant AR and reintervention was demonstrated.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO (CRD42022363060).