Current Management and Therapy of Severe Aortic Stenosis and Future Perspective

Intervention for severe aortic stenosis (AS) has dramatically progressed since the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Decades ago, controversies existed regarding comparing clinical outcomes between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in various risk profiles. Recently, we discussed the durability of transcatheter heart valves and their lifetime management after aortic valve replacement (AVR). Regarding the management of AS, we discuss the appropriate timing of intervention for severe aortic stenosis, especially in asymptomatic patients. In spite of dramatic progression of intervention for AS, there are no established medications available to prevent or slow the progression of AS at present. Basic research and genome studies have suggested several targets associated with the progression of aortic valve calcification. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of medications to prevent AS progression are ongoing, which might lead to new strategies for AS management. In this review, we summarize the current management of AS and the drugs expected to prevent the progression of AS.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with corevalve self-expanding bioprosthesis: Clinical and durability data up to 12 years

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) determined a paradigm shift in the treatment of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis but data on very long-term durability are lacking. We sought to evaluate the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of the CoreValve porcine pericardial self-expanding bioprosthesis at 12-year follow-up.

METHODS

882 inoperable or high-risk patients were treated with the CoreValve bioprosthesis in 8 Italian high-volume centers between 2007 and 2011. The endpoints were 12-year all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and Cumulative Incidence Functions (CIFs) for severe Structural Valve Deterioration (SVD), Bioprosthetic Valve Dysfunction (BVD), Bioprosthetic Valve Failure (BVF), and severe Hemodynamic Valve Deterioration (HVD). VARC-3 definitions were applied.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics included a mean age of 83 ± 6 years, and NYHA class III or IV in 76.3 % of patients. The actuarial risk of death at 12 years after TAVR was 95.5 % (CI 93.5 %- 97.1 %). The actual risk of cardiovascular death, weighted against the risk of non-cardiac death at 12 years was 23.9 % (21.0 %-26.8 %). The 12-year actual risk of BVD was 7.0 % (5.3 %-8.9 %), of SVD was 3.6 % (2.5 %-5.2 %), of BVF was 3.12 % (2.02 %-4.57 %), and of severe HVD was 1.7 % (0.9 %-2.9 %). Mean transaortic gradient significantly decreased after the procedure (52 ± 15 mmHg vs 9 ± 5 mmHg, p < 0.001), and remained stable up to 12 years (12 ± 4 mmHg, P = 0.08 vs. discharge).

CONCLUSIONS

The first-generation CoreValve bioprosthesis showed reassuring clinical and hemodynamic performance at 12-year follow-up.

Durability of transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is now utilised as a less invasive alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) across the whole spectrum of surgical risk. Long-term durability of the bioprosthetic valves has become a key goal of TAVI as this procedure is now considered for younger and lower-risk populations. The purpose of this article is to present a state-of-the-art overview on the definition, aetiology, risk factors, mechanisms, diagnosis, clinical impact, and management of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) and failure (BVF) following TAVI with a comparative perspective versus SAVR. Structural valve deterioration (SVD) is the main factor limiting the durability of the bioprosthetic valves used for TAVI or SAVR, but non-structural BVD, such as prosthesis-patient mismatch and paravalvular regurgitation, as well as valve thrombosis or endocarditis may also lead to BVF. The incidence of BVF related to SVD or other causes is low (<5%) at midterm (5- to 8-year) follow-up and compares favourably with that of SAVR. The long-term follow-up data of randomised trials conducted with the first generations of transcatheter heart valves also suggest similar valve durability in TAVI versus SAVR at 10 years, but these trials suffer from major survivorship bias, and the long-term durability of TAVI will need to be confirmed by the analysis of the low-risk TAVI versus SAVR trials at 10 years.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low-risk young population: A double edge sword?

Since the advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in 2002, it has now become the default interventional strategy for symptomatic patients presenting with severe aortic stenosis, particularly in intermediate to high-surgical risk patients. In 2019, the United States Food and Drug Administration approved TAVR in low-risk patients based on two randomized trials. However, these breakthrough trials excluded patients with certain unfavorable anatomies and odd profiles. While currently there is no randomized study of TAVR in young patients, it may be preferred by the young population given the benefits of early discharge, shorter hospital stay, and expedite recovery. Nonetheless, it is important to ruminate various factors including lifetime expectancy, risk of pacemaker implantation, and the need for future valve or coronary interventions in young cohorts before considering TAVR in these patients. Furthermore, the data on long-term durability (> 10 years) of TAVR is still unknown given most of the procedures were initially performed in the high or prohibitive surgical risk population. Thus, this editorial aims to highlight the importance of considering an individualized approach in young patients with consideration of various factors including lifetime expectancy while choosing TAVR against surgical aortic valve replacement.

Transcatheter aortic valve durability: a contemporary clinical review

Encouraged by randomized controlled trials demonstrating non-inferiority of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) across all surgical risk categories, there has been a dramatic increase in the use of TAVI in a younger patient cohort with severe aortic stenosis, endorsed by both European and American Cardiac Societies. However, the standard use of TAVI in younger, less co-morbid patients with a longer life expectancy can only be supported if there is sound data demonstrating long-term durability of transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs). In this article, we have reviewed available randomized and observational registry clinical data pertaining to TAV long-term durability, placing emphasis on trials and registries using the new standardized definitions of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF). Despite inherent difficulties in interpreting the available data, the determination reached is that the risk of structural valve deterioration (SVD) is potentially lower after TAVI than SAVR at 5 to 10 years, and that the two treatment modalities have a similar risk of BVF. This supports the adoption of TAVI in younger patients evident in current practice. However, the routine use of TAVI in younger patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis should be cautioned due to insufficient long-term TAV durability data in this particular patient population. Finally, we highlight the importance of future research into the unique potential mechanisms that can potentially contribute to TAV degeneration.

TAVR in 2023: Who Should Not Get It?

Since the first transcatheter delivery of an aortic valve prosthesis was performed by Cribier et al in 2002, the picture of aortic stenosis (AS) therapeutics has changed dramatically. Initiated from an indication of inoperable to high surgical risk, extending to intermediate and low risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now an approved treatment for patients with severe, symptomatic AS across all the risk categories. The current evidence supports TAVR as a frontline therapy for treating severe AS. The crucial question remains concerning the subset of patients who still are not ideal candidates for TAVR because of certain inherent anatomic, nonmodifiable, and procedure-specific factors. Therefore, in this study, we focus on these scenarios and reasons for referring selected patients for surgical aortic valve replacement in 2023.

Long-Term Valve Durability in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

AIMS

To evaluate the long-term incidence of structural valve deterioration (SVD) in patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

METHOD AND RESULTS

Between 2008 and 2018, 693 underwent TAVI at two centres. Four hundred and twenty-one (421) patients (mean age 83.6±6.0 yrs) survived for ≥2 years post TAVI and had at least two consecutive transthoracic echocardiographies (TTEs) with the latest TTE no less than 2 years after TAVI, and were therefore included in the analysis for SVD. Median follow-up was 4.7 (3.6-6.0) years and median echocardiography follow-up 3 (3.0-4.0) years. All-cause mortality was 30.9% (130) with a median time to death of 4.1 (3.0-5.6) years. The cumulative incidence of SVD increased from 1.7% (95% CI, 0.4-2.9) at 3 years to 3.5% (95% CI, 1.5-5.8) at 5 years and 4.7% (95% CI, 1.6-7.9) at 10 years. The overall median time to SVD was 3 (2-4) years. Twelve (12) patients demonstrated SVD stage 2, and 1 patient stage 3. No SVD required re-intervention. All other patients showed no significant changes in valve parameters over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Structural valve deterioration is an uncommon event, occurring in 5% over a total follow-up of 10 years. Most patients show stable valve parameters. However, the analysis is limited by the loss of follow-up (owing to patient mortality), which renders extrapolation of the data to a younger patient population difficult.

Incidence and mechanisms of bioprosthetic dysfunction after transcatheter implantation of a mechanically-expandable heart valve

BACKGROUND

The mechanically-expandable transcatheter valve is no longer commercially available, yet clinical and echocardiographic surveillance is imperative for thousands of patients who received transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with this platform.

AIMS

We aimed to determine the incidence and mechanism of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) following TAVI with mechanically-expandable valves.

METHODS

From 2013 to 2020, all 234 patients who underwent TAVI with the LOTUS valve were included. BVD was categorised as (i) structural valve deterioration (SVD), (ii) non-structural valve dysfunction (NSVD), (iii) clinical valve thrombosis and (iv) endocarditis, according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria.

RESULTS

The mean age was 79±7 years, 60% were male, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 4.2±2.9%. The technical success rate was 94% and the 30-day device success rate was 78%. All-cause mortality at 1 year was 15%; median follow-up duration was 36 (IQR 18-60) months during which 47% of patients died. One hundred and three patients had ≥1 type of BVD (44%), which predominantly consisted of NSVD (39%, mostly because of ≥moderate patient-prosthesis mismatch). BVD during follow-up included endocarditis (3.4%), clinical valve thrombosis (3.4%) and SVD (1.3%). Both endocarditis and clinically apparent valve thrombosis occurred early and late after TAVI and resulted in valve-related deaths in 38% and 13% of patients, respectively. Overall, ≥moderate haemodynamic valve deterioration occurred in 5.5% and bioprosthetic failure in 7.3%, leading to valve-related deaths in 36% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

BVD represents a relevant health issue after TAVI with a mechanically-expandable valve. Serious but reversible causes of BVD include endocarditis and clinically apparent valve thrombosis, both carrying a time-independent hazard post-TAVI.

10-Year Impact of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Leaflet Design (Intra- Versus Supra-Annular) in Mortality and Hemodynamic Performance

Background

The impact of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) leaflet design on long-term device performance is still unknown. This study sought to compare the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of intra- (IA) versus supra-annular (SA) TAVR designs up-to 10-years following implantation.

Methods

Consecutive patients with at least 5-years follow-up following TAVR for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis from June 2007 to December 2016 were included. Bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) and hemodynamic valve deterioration (HVD) were defined according to VARC-3 updated definitions and estimated using cumulative incidence function to account for the competing risk of death.

Results

A total of 604 patients (82 years; 53% female) were analyzed and divided into IA (482) and SA (122) groups. Overall survival rates at 10-years were similar (IA 15%, 95%CI: 10-22; SA 11%, 95%CI: 6-20; p = 0.21). Compared to the SA TAVR, mean transaortic gradients were significantly higher and increased over time in the IA group. IA TAVRs showed higher 10-year cumulative incidences of BVF (IA 8% vs. SA 1%, p = 0.02) and severe HVD (IA 5% vs. SA 1%, p = 0.05). The occurrence of BVF and HVD in the IA group occurred primarily in the smallest TAVR devices (20-23-mm). After excluding these sizes, the cumulative incidences of BVF (IA 5% vs. SA 1%, p = 0.40) and severe HVD (IA 2% vs. SA 1%, p = 0.11) were similar.

Conclusion

In this study, TAVR leaflet design had no impact on survival at 10-years. IA devices showed higher transaortic gradients and cumulative incidences of HVD and BVF predominantly occurring in the smallest valve sizes.

Long-Term Echocardiographic Follow-Up After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation to Assess Structural Valve Deterioration and Bioprosthetic Valve Failure

BACKGROUND

Indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in aortic stenosis are expanding and the life expectancy of patients following TAVI is increasing. Determining the long-term durability of TAVI valves is therefore important. Rates of long-term (≥5 years) structural valve deterioration (SVD) vary widely and there are currently no comparable data from Australia. The aim herein was to determine the incidence of haemodynamic SVD and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) using recently standardised definitions in a Western Australian cohort after at least 5 years.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing TAVI at Royal Perth Hospital between January 2009 and January 2015. Of 211 patients, 55 survived ≥5 years and had echocardiographic data available for review. Median time to the echocardiogram was 5.9 years (max 7.8 years); 49% male, mean age 83 years.

RESULTS

Of the 55 survivors who had echocardiograms available ≥5 years after TAVI, four (9%) had moderate haemodynamic SVD and one (2%) had severe SVD and BVF.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest excellent long-term durability of contemporary TAVI valves in an Australian cohort with very low incidence of SVD and BVF. These findings add confidence to the expanding applications of TAVI valves.

A systematic review on durability and structural valve deterioration in TAVR and surgical AVR

Mechanical valves and bioprosthetic heart valves are widely used for aortic valve replacement (AVR). Mechanical valves are associated with risk of bleeding because of oral anticoagulation, while the durability and structural valve deterioration (SVD) represent the main limitation of the bioprosthetic heart valves. The implantation of bioprosthetic heart valves is increasing precipitously due aging population, and the widespread use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). TAVR has become the standard treatment for intermediate or high surgical risk patients and a reasonable alternative to surgery for low risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Moreover, TAVR is increasingly being used for younger and lower-risk patients with longer life expectancy; therefore it is important to ensure the valve durability for long-term transcatheter aortic valves. Although the results of mid-term durability of the transcatheter heart valves are encouraging, their long-term durability remains largely unknown. This review summarises the definitions, mechanisms, risk factors and assessment of SVD; overviews available data on surgical bioprosthetic and transcatheter heart valves durability.

Durability of Transcatheter Heart Valves: Standardized Definitions and Available Data

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is a well-established alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Currently, this technique is shifting towards younger patient groups with intermediate- and low-risk profile, which raises the question about long-term durability. Despite acceptable results up to 5 years, little is currently known about valve performance beyond 5 years. Since valve deterioration, thrombosis and endocarditis seem to be the main factors affecting valve durability, precise and widely accepted definitions of these parameters were stated by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) in 2017, followed by the Valve in Valve International Data (VIVID) group definitions in 2018 and the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) definitions in 2021. Until the introduction of these definitions, interstudy comparisons were difficult due to missing uniformity. Since the release of these recommendations, an increasing number of studies have reported their data on long-term durability using these new criteria. The aim of the present article is to discuss the current definitions on bioprosthetic valve durability, and to summarize the available data on long-term durability of transcatheter aortic valves.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Younger Patients: A New Challenge

The number of aortic stenosis patients in Western countries is increasing, along with better life conditions and expectancies. Presently, the volume of percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantations (TAVIs) is incessantly increasing, and has already overcome the surgical replacement procedure volume. According to the literature, TAVI is a feasible procedure even among low surgical risk patients, and American guidelines have extended the indications for TAVI, including shifting patient evaluations from high/low STS scores to old/young patients, a "paradigm shift" of aortic stenosis evaluation. As a result, low-risk young (<75 years-old) population management could be the next challenge in cardiology. To manage the life conditions of a 65 year old patient affected by aortic stenosis who is undergoing TAVI, one of the most crucial issue will be bioprosthesis durability and the appropriate intervention to make in cases of valve dysfunction or failure.

TAVI Beyond 3 Years: Durability and Predictors for Survival

The use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has greatly increased over the past 2 decades and now has overtaken surgical aortic valve replacement. We have limited data regarding the long-term durability of TAVI and the predictors of survival. Calcification, inflammation, fibrous tissue deposition, and mechanical stress are important in the structural deterioration of surgical bioprosthetic valves and likely contribute to TAVI durability. However, TAVI has several differences to surgical valve replacement such as valve preparation, valve to native anatomy interaction, and valve sizing which all likely contribute to durability and long-term survival. Most procedures have been performed on older patients and therefore long-term follow-up studies have noted mortality of approximately 50% at 5 years and 75% by 7 years. Current data are limited by the high mortality of patients who have received TAVI often as a result of age, frailty, and other competing comorbidities. TAVI as compared with surgical valve replacement is associated with several differences including higher conduction abnormalities (i.e., need for pacemakers) and paravalvular leak, both of which may affect long-term morbidity and mortality. In this review, we discuss the current status of our knowledge and identify areas that require further investigation.

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Young, Low-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is approved for all patient risk profiles and is an option for all patients irrespective of age. However, patients enrolled in the low- and intermediate-risk trials were in their 70s, and those in the high-risk trials were in their 80s. TAVR has never been systematically tested in young (<65 years), low-risk patients. Unanswered questions remain, including the safety and effectiveness of TAVR in patients with bicuspid aortic valves; future coronary access; durability of transcatheter heart valves; technical considerations for surgical transcatheter heart valve explantation; management of concomitant conditions such as aortopathy, mitral valve disease, and coronary artery disease; and the safety and feasibility of future TAVR-in-TAVR. The authors predict that balancing these questions with patients' clear preference for less invasive treatment will become common. In this paper, the authors consider each of these questions and discuss risks and benefits of theoretical treatment strategies in the lifetime management of young patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Long-Term Outcomes and Valve Performance in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an established method for treating patients with aortic valve stenosis. We sought to determine the long-term clinical outcomes and performance of a self-expanding bioprosthesis beyond 5 years. Consecutive patients scheduled for TAVI were included in the analysis. Primary end points were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, structural valve deterioration (SVD) and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF), based on the VARC-2 criteria and consensus statement by ESC/EAPCI. The study prospectively evaluated 273 patients (80.61 ± 7.00 years old, 47% females) who underwent TAVI with CoreValve/Evolut-R (Medtronic Inc.). The median follow-up duration was 5 years (interquartile range: 2.9 to 6; longest: 8 years). At 1, 5, and 8 years, estimated survival rates were 89.0%, 61.1%, and 56.0%, respectively, while cardiovascular mortality was 8% at the end of follow-up. Regarding valve performance, 5% of patients had early BVF and 1% had late BVF. Concerning SVD, 16 patients (6% of the total population) had moderate SVD (91% had an increase in mean gradient), with no severe SVD cases. Five patients with SVD died during follow-up. Actual analysis of the 8-year cumulative incidence of function of moderate SVD was 5.9% (2.5% to 16.2%). At multivariate analysis, the factor that emerged as an independent predictor for future SVD, was smaller bioprosthetic valve size (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.82, p = 0.002). Long-term evaluation beyond 5 years after TAVI with a self-expanding bioprosthesis demonstrated low rates of cardiovascular mortality and structural valve deterioration. Valve size was an independent predictor for SVD.

Current Therapeutic Options in Aortic Stenosis

Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease requiring valve replacement. Valve replacement therapies have undergone progressive evolution since the 1960s. Over the last 20 years, transcatheter aortic valve replacement has radically transformed the care of aortic stenosis, such that it is now the treatment of choice for many, particularly elderly, patients. This review provides an overview of the pathophysiology, presentation, diagnosis, indications for intervention, and current therapeutic options for aortic stenosis.

Long-Term Durability of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Self-Expandable Valve System (from a Real-World Registry)

As transcatheter aortic valve Implantation (TAVI) moves to younger and lower risk patients with longer life expectancy, the long-term durability of TAVI is becoming an increasingly relevant issue. We sought to evaluate the long-term clinical outcome and prosthesis performance of the CoreValve self-expandable valve. Clinical registry of 182 patients consecutively treated with TAVI in a tertiary center from January 2009 to July 2017. Of these, 111 died during an average follow-up (FU) of 1,026 ± 812 days (median IQR: 745, 477 to 1,400 days; longest survival 11 years; 61% mortality at Kaplan-Meier analysis). At 1 month, functional profile improved in all survivors, with 93.9% of them achieving NYHA class I or II. At Cox analysis, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (HR: 1.55; p = 0.001), left ventricular ejection fraction <40% (HR: 1.65; p = 0.017) and incident acute kidney injury (HR: 1.96; p = 0.001) were independently associated with all-cause mortality. During FU, echocardiographically assessed mean transprosthetic aortic gradient remained substantially unchanged (from 9.0 ± 2.7 after TAVI to 9.0 ± 5.0 mm Hg at FU; p >0.05). Most patients had none and/or trivial (34%), or mild (58%), fewer had moderate (8%) and none had severe perivalvular leak, without significant change during FU. At 11 years, cumulative incidence of bioprosthetic valve failure and moderate structural valve deterioration (SVD) were 2.9% (95% CI 0.8% to 10%) and 9.3% (95% CI 3.3% to 26.7%), respectively. In conclusion, our registry confirmed that TAVI with the self-expandable CoreValve system was associated with favorable long-term clinical outcomes, with a reassuring low rate of significant bioprosthetic valve failure and moderate SVD.

Long-term and Temporal Outcomes of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic-valve Replacement in Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the 5-year and temporal performance of TAVR versus SAVR.

BACKGROUND

TAVR has become a valuable treatment for severe aortic stenosis but the long-term safety and efficacy remain unclear.

METHODS

Databases were searched until October 6, 2019 for randomized trials with ≥5 years' follow-up. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled with random-effects models.

RESULTS

We included 4 trials with 3,758 patients. TAVR was associated with a significantly higher 5-year all-cause mortality than SAVR (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.37; P = 0.02). Landmark analysis showed no significant difference within 2 years (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79-1.08; P = 0.33) but a statistically higher mortality in TAVR between 2 and 5 years (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14-1.52; P = 0.0002), with significant difference between these 2 temporal phases (P for interaction = 0.001). Similar interaction was found for cardiovascular mortality and several other outcomes. Rates of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke, permanent pacemaker implantation, aortic-valve rehospitalization, and reintervention were higher, but rates of major bleeding and new-onset fibrillation were lower in TAVR at 5 years. The incidences of myocardial infarction, stroke, and transient ischemic attack were not statistically different between TAVR and SAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR was associated with a significantly higher all-cause mortality at 5 years compared with SAVR. Of note, all-cause mortality presented a characteristic temporal pattern showing increased risk between 2 and 5 years but not within 2 years. Longer-term follow-up data are warranted.

Long-term Follow-up After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the standard of care in the majority of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Data on long-term mortality and durability of transcatheter heart valves (THVs) beyond 5 years are limited. Our study aimed to assess elderly and high-risk patients’ long-term outcomes treated with TAVR in a prospective single-centre registry focusing on the durability of THVs.

Methods

We included 795 patients with severe calcific aortic stenosis treated by transfemoral TAVR between 2006 and 2011. Echocardiography was performed at baseline; discharge; 1 year; and afterward, annually, until the longest available follow-up. Mortality rates were estimated for 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 years. The rates of structural valve deterioration (SVD) and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) were assessed in accordance with consensus definitions. Outcome measures were adjudicated according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2).

Results

Median (interquartile range) follow-up time was 1345 (316; 2015) days. One-year, 5-year, 6-year, 7-year, and 8-year overall mortality was 25.4%, 59.0%, 64.6%, 67.9%, and 69.2%, respectively. At 8 years, no significant differences in mortality were found comparing self-expanding vs balloon-expandable valves (69.5% vs 68.0%, P = 0.709) and postdilatation (PD) vs no-PD (69.4% vs 69.2%, P = 0.363). SVD was detected in 26 patients (3.3%), and 19 (2.4%) of the 795 patients had evidence of BVF during follow-up.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates good long-term results for high-risk patients who were alive up to 8 years after TAVR.

Comparison of Procedural and 1-Year Clinical Results of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Using Prostheses with Different Design of Support Frame

Our study aimed to investigate whether the frame design of transcatheter heart valve (THV) affects the procedural and clinical results of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).We retrospectively reviewed 163 patients with aortic stenosis who underwent TAVI using different types of THV (Edwards SAPIEN, n = 31; Venus-A, n = 63; and J-Valve, n = 69). The procedural outcomes and follow-up results for 1-year were compared among groups.The patients who underwent TAVI using J-Valve had a higher mean transaortic pressure gradient than those using SAPIEN or Venus-A after TAVI (1-year follow-up; P = 0.017, P < 0.001, respectively), whereas no difference was observed between the patients with SAPIEN and Venus-A prosthesis (P = 0.150). The incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation was highest in patients with Venus-A (19.0%), followed by SAPIEN (9.7%), and lowest in J-Valve (4.3%) (P = 0.025). No difference was observed in the 30-day mortality rate among the groups (P = 1.000). Moreover, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed that there was no significant difference in the 1-year cumulative patient survival rate among three patient cohorts (log-rank, P = 0.850).The frame design of THVs could affect the valve-related hemodynamics and the incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation in TAVI, whereas it did not influence the survival rate of TAVI patients during 1-year follow-up period. All three THVs provided a convincing short-term outcome for TAVI patients.

European heart health survey 2019

Background

Rising life expectancy in the western population is increasing the prevalence of heart valve diseases (HVD).

Hypothesis

The level of awareness and initial screening for HVD should be sufficient. The potential impact of HVD on the daily activities of the elderly population in Europe might affect our society.

Methods and Results

A survey was conducted, including a total of 12 832 people aged ≥ 60 years in 11 European countries. Of all the people surveyed, 5.6% could correctly describe aortic valve stenosis. Most participants (75.0%) claimed they regularly do activities like sports or social activities, 29.2% provide care for a family member, friend or acquaintance. The majority (69.2%) would be prevented from doing these activities by symptoms such as chest pain, fatigue or shortness of breath. Having chest pain (76.5%) and shortness of breath (57.8%) were reasons for most people to arrange an appointment with their GP, whereas only 26.2% would visit a GP for fatigue. 67.6% of respondents claimed to be checked with a stethoscope by their GP occasionally, never, or only when they ask. The preferred treatment option for HVD is a keyhole procedure (45.8%), whereas open heart surgery would only be preferred by 7.0%.

Conclusion

Knowledge about HVD is still low. Neither appointments with a GP driven by symptoms nor regular use of a stethoscope are a reliable guarantee for early diagnosis. With the over 60s in Europe playing an active role in social life, awareness campaigns and regular heart health checks may guarantee early diagnosis and treatment of HVD.

Degeneration of Bioprosthetic Heart Valves: Update 2020

The implantation of bioprosthetic heart valves (BHVs) is increasingly becoming the treatment of choice in patients requiring heart valve replacement surgery. Unlike mechanical heart valves, BHVs are less thrombogenic and exhibit superior hemodynamic properties. However, BHVs are prone to structural valve degeneration (SVD), an unavoidable condition limiting graft durability. Mechanisms underlying SVD are incompletely understood, and early concepts suggesting the purely degenerative nature of this process are now considered oversimplified. Recent studies implicate the host immune response as a major modality of SVD pathogenesis, manifested by a combination of processes phenocopying the long‐term transplant rejection, atherosclerosis, and calcification of native aortic valves. In this review, we summarize and critically analyze relevant studies on (1) SVD triggers and pathogenesis, (2) current approaches to protect BHVs from calcification, (3) obtaining low immunogenic BHV tissue from genetically modified animals, and (4) potential strategies for SVD prevention in the clinical setting.

Midterm Degeneration of Transcatheter Heart Valve Device following Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Requiring Repeat Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

•

ViV-TAVR is an alternative to redo-SAVR in patients with a degenerate surgical bioprosthesis.

•

Optimal TAVR device positioning is crucial in determining procedural durability.

•

TAVR-in-TAVR can be performed to treat a degenerated ViV-TAVR device.

•

Coronary obstruction, limited coronary access, and device thrombosis may occur.

Structural Valve Deterioration after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Using J-Valve: A Long-Term Follow-Up

Purpose: Our study aimed to investigate the structural valve deterioration (SVD) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using J-Valve.

Methods: In all, 14 patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and 4 patients with pure aortic regurgitation (PAR) were available in the study. Four-year follow-up was performed in all patients, and the clinical data and echocardiographic findings were recorded and analyzed.

Results: All patients survived at the 4-year follow-up. There was no evidence of morphological SVD or prosthetic valve thrombosis in enrolled patients. None of the hemodynamic SVD occurred in patients with PAR. Mean gradients decreased from 61.93 ± 15.42 mm Hg (pre-TAVI) to 19.64 ± 9.16 mm Hg (discharge) in patients with AS (p <0.001); subsequently, a slight increase was observed in the mean trans-aortic gradient throughout follow-up (p = 0.967). Overall, in patients with AS, six individuals suffered moderate (3/14, 21.4%) or severe (3/14, 21.4%) hemodynamic SVD at 4-year follow-up.

Conclusions: The limited number of cases provides a preliminary indication of the long-term efficacy of TAVI using J-Valve in patients with PAR. In patients with AS, although the higher rate of SVD was observed, the overall transcatheter heart valve (THV) hemodynamics remained stable over time after prosthetic valve implantation and the long-term durability of J-Valve was convincing.

Performance of the CoreValve Evolut R and PRO in Severely Calcified Anatomy: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

The CoreValve Evolut R and PRO (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) are among the newest-generation of self-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) devices and show excellent results. Treating patients with severely calcified (SC) native aortic valve anatomy may be challenging because of the increased risk of periprocedural complications. This study investigated the performance of Evolut R and PRO in this special patient subset.

METHODS

Patients who underwent TAVR with the CoreValve Evolut R or PRO (n=381) from September 2015 to March 2018 were divided by aortic valve calcification extent. Patients with SC aortic valve anatomy (n=98; men, >2,062 and women, >1,377 Agatston units) were compared with those with non-severely calcified (NCS) aortic valve anatomy after 1:2 propensity score matching. Outcomes were evaluated according to the updated valve academic research consortium criteria.

RESULTS

Patients with SC anatomy were older (83 years vs 80 years, p<0.001) and had a smaller aortic valve area (0.63 cm² vs 0.70 cm², p=0.028). Pre-dilatation was more often performed (30.6% vs 15.8%, p=0.003) and a permanent pacemaker implantation was more often necessary (32.9% vs 8.8%, p<0.001) in the SC group. None/mild aortic regurgitation (AR) was evenly distributed (SC, 96.9% vs NCS, 99.5%, p=0.109); moderate AR was present in 3.1% of SC patients and in 0.5% of NSC patients. Severe AR was not observed.

CONCLUSION

The CoreValve Evolut R and PRO showed good clinical safety profiles and excellent haemodynamic results in patients with SC anatomy and who more often required permanent pacemaker implantation.

Assessment of Long-Term Structural Deterioration of Transcatheter Aortic Bioprosthetic Valves Using the New European Definition

BACKGROUND

The durability of transcatheter aortic bioprosthetic valves is a crucial issue, but data are scarce, especially beyond 5 years of follow-up. We aimed to assess long-term (7 years) structural valve deterioration (SVD) and bioprosthetic valve failure of transcatheter aortic bioprosthetic valves.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients with at least 5-year follow-up available undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation from April 2002 to December 2011 in 5 French centers were included. Incidence of SVD and bioprosthetic valve failure were defined according to newly standardized criteria of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions/European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery and reported as cumulative incidence function to account for the competing risk of death. One thousand four hundred three consecutive patients were included with a mean age of 82.6±7.5 years and with a mean logistic EuroSCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation) of 21.3±7.5%. A balloon-expandable valve was used in 83.7% of cases. Survival rates were 83.5% (95% CI, 81.4%-85.5%) and 18.6% (95% CI, 15.3%-21.8%) at 1 and 7 years, respectively. Median duration of follow-up was 3.9 years. Bioprosthetic valve failure occurred in 19 patients with a 7-year cumulative incidence of 1.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.4%). SVD occurred in 49 patients (moderate, n=32; severe, n=17) with a 7-year cumulative incidence of moderate and severe SVD of 7.0% (95% CI, 5.6%-8.4%) and 4.2% (95% CI, 2.9%-5.5%), respectively. Five patients had aortic valve reintervention (1.0%; 95% CI, 0.4%-1.6%) including 1 case of surgical aortic valve replacement and 4 redo-transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The incidences of SVD and bioprosthetic valve failure were not significantly different between balloon and self-expandable prostheses.

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term assessment of transcatheter aortic bioprosthetic valves durability is limited by the poor survival of our population beyond 5 years. Further studies are warranted, particularly in younger and lower-risk patients.

5-Year Outcomes After TAVR With Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expanding Valves: Results From the CHOICE Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical and echocardiographic outcome data of the CHOICE (Randomized Comparison of Transcatheter Heart Valves in High Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis: Medtronic CoreValve Versus Edwards SAPIEN XT) trial at 5 years.

BACKGROUND

The CHOICE trial was designed to compare device performance of a balloon-expandable (BE) transcatheter heart valve (THV) versus a self-expanding (SE) THV.

METHODS

The CHOICE trial is an investigator-initiated trial that randomized 241 high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and an anatomy suitable for treatment with both BE and SE THVs to transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with either device. The primary endpoint was device success. Patients were followed up to 5 years, with assessment of clinical outcomes, and echocardiographic evaluation of valve function and THV durability.

RESULTS

After 5 years, there were no statistically significant differences between BE and SE valves in the cumulative incidence of death from any cause (53.4% vs. 47.6%; p = 0.38), death from cardiovascular causes (31.6% vs. 21.5%; p = 0.12), all strokes (17.5% vs. 16.5%; p = 0.73), and repeat hospitalization for heart failure (28.9% vs. 22.5%; p = 0.75). SE patients had larger prosthetic valve area (1.6 ± 0.5 cm² vs. 1.9 ± 0.5 cm²; p = 0.02) with a lower mean transprosthetic gradient (12.2 ± 8.7 mm Hg vs. 6.9 ± 2.7 mm Hg; p = 0.001) at 5 years. No differences were observed in the rates of paravalvular regurgitation. Clinical valve thrombosis occurred in 7 BE patients (7.3%) and 1 SE patient (0.8%; p = 0.06), and moderate or severe structural valve deterioration in 6 BE patients (6.6%) and no SE patient (0%; p = 0.018). The rate of bioprosthetic valve failure was low and not significantly different between both groups (4.1% vs. 3.4%; p = 0.63).

CONCLUSIONS

Five-year follow-up of patients in the CHOICE trial revealed clinical outcomes after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with early-generation BE and SE valves that were not statistically significantly different, with limited statistical power. Forward flow hemodynamics were significantly better with the SE valve. Moderate or severe structural valve deterioration was uncommon but occurred more frequently with the BE valve. (A Comparison of Transcatheter Heart Valves in High Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: The CHOICE Trial [CHOICE]; NCT01645202).

Comparison of Valve Durability and Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis and Less-Than-High-Risk for Surgery

This study aimed to investigate the rate of severe structural valve deterioration (SVD) and long-term outcomes of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Propensity score matched analysis of patients who underwent TAVI (n = 216) and SAVR (n = 216) between 2008 and 2012. Long-term echocardiographic parameters and clinical outcomes were assessed after more than 6 years after TAVI/SAVR. Rate of severe SVD was 10.5% versus 4.5% in the TAVI and SAVR groups, respectively, but the difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR] 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7 to 8.3; p = 0.159). This was largely driven by higher rates of mean transprosthetic gradient ≥40 mm Hg (7.0 vs 3.4%; p = 0.327) and aortic regurgitation (4.7% vs 0%; p = 0.058). TAVI patients had lower survival rates at 6 years than SAVR patients (40.7% vs 59.6%, respectively, p <0.001, HR 2.15; 95% CI 1.45 to 3.20). Rate of cardiovascular events (14.4% TAVI vs 18.2% SAVR, HR 0.8; 95% CI 0.4 to 1.3; p = 0.347) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI; 16.0% TAVI vs 9.2% SAVR, p = 0.234) was similar between the 2 groups. In conclusion, incidence of moderate and severe SVD was not statistically different between TAVI and SAVR. Rate of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation was significantly higher in the TAVI group with predominant use of first-generation valves. Reintervention rate was low in both groups. Survival rate was lower after TAVI, probably because of higher frailty index, but incidence of cardiovascular events, PPI, and SVD was similar in both groups.

Current issues in transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease worldwide. With transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) being increasingly expanded to lower-risk populations, several challenging issues remain to be solved. The present review aims at discussing modern approaches to such issues as well as the current status of TAVR. TAVR has undergone several developments in the recent years: an increased use of transfemoral access, the development of prostheses in order to adapt to challenging anatomies, improved delivery systems with repositioning features, and outer skirts aiming at reducing paravalvular leak. The indication of TAVR is increasingly being expanded to patients with lower surgical risk. The main clinical trials supporting such expansion are reviewed and the latest data on low-risk patients are discussed. A number of challenges need still to be addressed and are also reviewed in this paper: the need for updated international guidelines including the latest evidence; a reduction of main complications such as permanent pacemaker implantation, paravalvular leak, and stroke (and its potential prevention by using anti-embolic protection devices); the appropriate role of TAVR in patients with concomitant cardiac ischemic disease; and durability of bio-prosthetic implanted valves. Finally, the future perspectives for TAVR use and next device developments are discussed.

Durability of transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A translational review

Until recently, transcatheter aortic valve implantation was restricted to high-risk and inoperable patients. The updated 2017 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines has widened the indication to include intermediate-risk patients, based on two recently published trials (PARTNER 2 and SURTAVI). Moreover, two other recent trials (PARTNER 3 and EVOLUT LOW RISK) have demonstrated similar results with transcatheter aortic valve implantation in low-risk patients. Thus, extension of transcatheter aortic valve implantation to younger patients, who are currently treated by surgical aortic valve replacement, raises the crucial question of bioprosthesis durability. In this translational review, we propose to produce a state-of-the-art overview of the durability of transcatheter aortic valve implantation by integrating knowledge of the basic science of bioprosthesis degeneration (pathophysiology and biomarkers). After summarising the new definition of structural valve deterioration, we will present what is known about the pathophysiology of aortic stenosis and bioprosthesis degeneration. Next, we will consider how to identify a population at risk of early degeneration, and how basic science with the help of biomarkers could identify and predict structural valve deterioration. Finally, we will present data on the differences in durability of transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with surgical aortic valve replacement.

Long-term clinical outcome and performance of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with a self-expandable bioprosthesis

Aims 

In the last decade, transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) replacement determined a paradigm shift in the treatment of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Data on long-term TAV performance are still limited. We sought to evaluate the clinical and haemodynamic outcomes of the CoreValve self-expandable valve up to 8-year follow-up (FU).

Methods and results 

Nine hundred and ninety inoperable or high-risk patients were treated with the CoreValve TAV in eight Italian Centres from June 2007 to December 2011. The median FU was 4.4 years (interquartile range 1.4–6.7 years). Longest FU reached 11 years. A total of 728 died within 8-year FU (78.3% mortality from Kaplan–Meier curve analysis). A significant functional improvement was observed in the majority of patients and maintained over time, with 79.3% of surviving patients still classified New York Heart Association class ≤ II at 8 years. Echocardiographic data showed that the mean transprosthetic aortic gradient remained substantially unchanged (9 ± 4 mmHg at discharge, 9 ± 5 mmHg at 8 years, P = 0.495). The rate of Grade 0/1 paravalvular leak was consistent during FU with no significant change from post-procedure to FU ≥5 years in paired analysis (P = 0.164). Structural valve deterioration (SVD) and late bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) were defined according to a modification of the 2017 EAPCI/ESC/EACTS criteria. In cumulative incidence functions at 8 years, moderate and severe SVD were 3.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1–4.3%] and 1.6% (95% CI 0.6–3.9%), respectively, while late BVF was 2.5% (95% CI 1.2–5%).

Conclusion 

While TAVs are questioned about long-term performance and durability, the results of the present research provide reassuring 8-year evidence on the CoreValve first-generation self-expandable bioprosthesis.

Developments in transcatheter aortic bioprosthesis durability

Introduction: Valve durability represents a main concern, as the target population for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) evolves to include lower risk and younger patients who are likely to survive for a number of years after the procedure.Areas covered: The purpose of this review article is to provide an overview of potential mechanisms and rates of structural valve deterioration (SVD) of transcatheter bioprostheses.Expert opinion: Recently the standardized definitions of SVD proposed by European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) have permitted for the first time, an objective evaluation of existing and novel TAVI prostheses, and to compare their longevity versus surgical bioprostheses. Although the results of midterm durability of the transcatheter bioprostheses are encouraging, our knowledge concerning the clinical outcomes of TAVI beyond 5 years is still limited. Evidence of longer-term durability is mandatory before replacing surgery with TAVI, particularly in younger and lower-risk patients.

Postimplant biological aortic prosthesis degeneration: challenges in transcatheter valve implants

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is highly effective and can be achieved with relatively low risk in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Bioprostheses have been used most frequently during the past 60 years. However, the function of biological valves usually declines after 10-15 years from implant when structural valve degeneration occurs often mandating a reoperation once valve dysfunction becomes haemodynamically significant. Known for many years by surgeons and cardiologists taking care of patients with SAVR, the issue of postimplant structural valve degeneration has been recently highlighted also in patients with transcatheter aortic valve implant (TAVI). There is growing concern that TAVI valves exhibit structural valve degeneration due to inherent challenges of the deployment mode. The impact on postimplant degeneration of TAVI valves compared to SAVR has still to be understood and defined. Based on the ongoing process of expanding TAVI indications, several potential shortcomings and caveats, learned during the last 60 years of SAVR experience, should be taken into consideration to refine this technique.

Long-Term Functional and Structural Durability of Bioprosthetic Valves Placed in the Aortic Valve Position via Percutaneous Rout in Israel

There is limited organized "real life" data regarding the long-term structural and functional durability of transcatheter aortic valve implants, a topic of major importance. We assessed the 5-year structural and functional integrity outcomes following trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with both self-expandable and balloon-expandable prosthetic valve devices. This study included 450 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) between September 2008 and December 2011. Data were acquired from a multicenter Israeli registry and the median follow up time was 5.6 years. In 184 patients (40.9%) who survived 5 years, prostheses displayed sustained hemodynamic performance, with average peak and mean aortic valve gradients of 16.2 ± 8.9 and 9.2 ± 6.6 mm Hg, respectively. Late structural valve deterioration was found in 22 (12.3%) patients. Of these, 16 (8.9%) experienced valve deterioration and 6 (3.3%) experienced valve failure. Among the 6 patients with bioprosthetic valve failure, only 3 underwent re-interventions. Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction occurred more frequently in patients with small valves (23 mm) and high peak and mean transvalvular gradients at baseline. In conclusion, a relatively low rate of valve deterioration or failure was noted in our long-term follow-up study after TAVI procedures with both the catheter-based self-expandable and balloon-expandable prosthetic valves.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Procedure and Outcomes

Initially, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was only used in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and prohibitive risk for surgical aortic valve replacement. Subsequently, TAVR was extended to patients with high and intermediate surgical risk. Recently, the results of randomized trials in low-surgical-risk patients showed superiority or noninferiority of TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement in this population. Procedural outcomes have been improved. Long-term durability of transcatheter heart valves remains to be confirmed. This article presents the evolution and current status of TAVR, with respect to the different types of devices and procedures as well as its outcomes.

Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Dysfunction: What We Know So Far

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established alternative to surgical valve replacement for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and increased surgical risk. On the basis of the favorable outcomes of recent randomized clinical trials conducted in intermediate and low risk populations, TAVR is expected in the near future to be offered to patients not only at lower surgical risk, but also with longer life expectancy. In this particular subset, the long-term durability of the bioprosthetic valve is of critical importance. The European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) recently introduced standardized criteria to define structural valve deterioration (SVD) and valve failure of transcatheter and surgical aortic bioprosthesis-this with the aim to generate uniformity in data reporting in future studies assessing long-term durability of aortic bioprosthesis. On this background, the aim of this article is to review the definition, incidence and predictors of transcatheter bioprosthetic valve dysfunction, including structural and non-structural valve deterioration (SVD/NSVD), valve thrombosis, and endocarditis.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: clinical safety and performance data

Introduction: Patients with severe aortic stenosis and regurgitation who are inoperable or at high-risk for surgery can be treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature of TAVR and reported clinical and performance outcomes. Areas covered: A total of 16 devices, described in 204 articles describing clinical and performance outcomes, were included. The most frequently observed outcome was 30-day mortality, ranging between 0-23%. Other commonly reported clinical outcomes were 30-day stroke, ranging between 0-14.3% and pacemaker implantation, ranging from 0-44.9%. The most common valve performance outcome was aortic valve regurgitation, however, mostly reported at 7 days follow-up. Next to a follow-up period of 30 days, numerous articles reported outcomes at 6 months and 1 year. The numbers of articles describing outcomes with a longer follow-up as well as including intermediate and low-risk patients were limited. Expert commentary: This literature review provided a clear overview of the reported clinical and performance outcomes of TAVR devices. Despite the frequently used VARC-2 definitions, we identified a huge variation across studies. Future studies using standardized definitions of study set-ups and outcomes are essential and might lead to better insights of TAVR.

Long-Term Durability of Transcatheter Heart Valves: Insights From Bench Testing to 25 Years

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed the long-term durability of nominally deployed transcatheter heart valves (THV) to 1 billion cycles (equivalent to 25 years) and non-nominal (overexpansion, underexpansion, and elliptical) THV deployments to 200 million cycles (equivalent to 5 years) with accelerated wear testing.

BACKGROUND

The long-term durability of THVs is currently unknown. As transcatheter aortic valve replacement expands to lower-risk patients, durability will be of increasing importance.

METHODS

SAPIEN 3 THVs, sized 20, 23, 26, and 29 mm were assessed. Nominally deployed THVs underwent hydrodynamic performance and mechanical durability as assessed with accelerated wear testing to 1 billion cycles. Magna Ease surgical valves were used as comparators. Durability of non-nominal THV deployments was tested to 200 million cycles. Valves were tested to International Standards Organization 5840:2013 standard.

RESULTS

THV durability was excellent for both the nominal and non-nominal THV deployments to 1 billion and 200 million cycles, respectively. At 1 billion cycles the regurgitant fraction for the 20-, 23-, 26-, and 29-mm SAPIEN 3 was 0.92 ± 0.47%, 1.29 ± 0.04%, 1.73 ± 0.46%, and 2.47 ± 0.15%, respectively. There was also excellent durability in the comparator Magna Ease valves. The regurgitant fraction of non-nominal overexpanded (20 mm, 4.36 ± 0.53; 23 mm, 7.68 ± 1.39; 26 mm, 6.80 ± 1.17; 29 mm, 9.00 ± 0.37), underexpanded (20 mm, 3.06 ± 0.28; 23 mm, 4.46 ± 0.45; 26 mm, 7.72 ± 0.48; 29 mm, 8.65 ± 2.01), and elliptical (20 mm, 3.30 ± 0.38; 23 mm, 6.13 ± 0.94; 26 mm, 6.77 ± 1.22; 29 mm, 8.72 ± 0.24) THVs were excellent at 200 million cycles.

CONCLUSIONS

Nominal SAPIEN 3 THVs demonstrated excellent durability, to an equivalent of 25-years wear. THV durability was similar to the comparator surgical valves tested. Non-nominal (overexpansion, underexpansion, and elliptical) THV deployments also had excellent durability to an equivalent of 5 years wear.