Impact of mitral stenosis on early and late outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis: a single-center analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of concomitant mitral stenosis (MS) on early and late outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for aortic stenosis.

METHODS

This study involved 952 patients undergoing TAVR for severe tricuspid aortic stenosis. The patients were classified into 3 groups: without MS, with progressive MS, and severe MS (mitral valve area ≤ 1.5 cm2). Clinical outcomes between these groups were compared.

RESULTS

The median age of the overall cohort was 82 years, and patients in the progressive (n = 49) and severe (n = 24) MS groups were more likely to be female than those in the no-MS group (n = 879). Periprocedural mortality rate was lowest in the no-MS group (1.8%) compared with the progressive (4.1%) and severe (4.2%) MS groups, which were not significantly different (P = .20). During 5 years of follow-up (median: 27, range: 0-72 months), there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (log-rank P = .99), a composite of all-cause mortality or rehospitalization for heart failure (log-rank P = .84), or cardiovascular death (log-rank P = .57) between groups. Although crude analysis showed a significant difference in rehospitalization for heart failure in the severe MS group compared with the no-MS group (P = .049), the difference was not significant in the multivariate analysis (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.36 [95% CI, 0.66-2.80], P = .41).

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR can be safely performed in patients with severe tricuspid aortic stenosis and concomitant MS, with early and mid-term outcomes comparable to those in patients without MS.

First-in-Human Implantation of a New Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Replacement System

Therapeutic options for patients with isolated severe to torrential tricuspid regurgitation have been limited. Because a surgical option is often not attractive, new catheter-based therapies are emerging. We report the first-in-human percutaneous transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement with the MonarQ system in a 75-year-old female patient with severely symptomatic torrential tricuspid regurgitation. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

Imaging for Tricuspid Valve Repair and Replacement

Primary or secondary tricuspid regurgitation (TR) represents an important health care burden and challenge which has often been neglected or undertreated in the past. The expansion and reinforcement of the indications for tricuspid valve (TV) intervention in the 2017 editions of the guidelines as well as the introduction of transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention (TTVI) has considerably increased the attention of the community on the TV and the volume of TV interventions in the past years. Depending on the anatomic target, TTVI can be categorized as the following: 1) direct or indirect tricuspid restrictive annuloplasty; 2) direct (edge-to-edge repair) or indirect (coaptation device) restoration of leaflet coaptation; 3) heterotopic tricuspid valve implantation; and 4) transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement. Multimodality imaging has crucial role for the following: 1) patient selection for TTVI and procedure planning; 2) guiding and monitoring the procedure; and 3) assessing and following over time the results of the procedure. The key points for pre-procedural imaging are: 1) accurate quantitation of TR severity; 2) proper identification of the mechanism(s) responsible for the TR; and 3) quantitation of RV dysfunction and pulmonary arterial hypertension. This imaging work-up is essential to select the right type of intervention for the right patient and TV. Transesophageal echocardiography and fluoroscopy imaging is also key for guiding the TTVI procedures and fusion between these 2 modalities may further enhance the quality of procedure guiding.

Interventional Echocardiography of the MV: What the Interventionalist Wants to Know

The past 2 decades have seen a proliferation of transcatheter mitral valve (MV) therapies, which are less invasive and distinct from surgical MV repair or replacement. The commonly used MV transcatheter therapies include (1) percutaneous mitral balloon commissurotomy (PMBC) for rheumatic mitral stenosis; (2) edge-to-edge repair with the MitraClip for mitral regurgitation; (3) valve-in-valve implantation in bioprosthetic MV, native MV, or mitral ring; and (4) closure of paravalvular leaks (PVLs). This article will focus on the use of echocardiography in the diagnosis, patient selection, procedural guidance, and postprocedural follow-up for PMBC, with notes on the role of transesophageal echocardiography in transcatheter interventions for prosthetic valve degeneration and PVL closure.

Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With a Self-Expanding Prosthesis Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Previous studies of the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been based primarily on a single balloon-expandable system.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk.

METHODS

We performed a formal economic analysis on the basis of individual, patient-level data from the CoreValve U.S. High Risk Pivotal Trial. Empirical data regarding survival and quality of life over 2 years, and medical resource use and hospital costs through 12 months were used to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and lifetime medical costs in order to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of TAVR versus SAVR from a U.S.

RESULTS

Relative to SAVR, TAVR reduced initial length of stay an average of 4.4 days, decreased the need for rehabilitation services at discharge, and resulted in superior 1-month quality of life. Index admission and projected lifetime costs were higher with TAVR than with SAVR (differences $11,260 and $17,849 per patient, respectively), whereas TAVR was projected to provide a lifetime gain of 0.32 quality-adjusted life-years ([QALY]; 0.41 LY) with 3% discounting. Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $55,090 per QALY gained and $43,114 per LY gained. Sensitivity analyses indicated that a reduction in the initial cost of TAVR by ∼$1,650 would lead to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

In a high-risk clinical trial population, TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis provided meaningful clinical benefits compared with SAVR, with incremental costs considered acceptable by current U.S.

STANDARDS

With expected modest reductions in the cost of index TAVR admissions, the value of TAVR compared with SAVR in this patient population would become high. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [Medtronic CoreValve U.S. Pivotal Trial]; NCT01240902).

Cost-effectiveness Assessment of Cardiac Interventions: Determining a Socially Acceptable Cost Threshold

Health care is a vital good for which there is an infinite demand. However, societal resources are finite and need to be distributed efficiently to avoid waste. Thus, the relative value of an intervention - cost compared to its effectiveness- needs to be taken into consideration when deciding which interventions to adopt. Cost-effectiveness analysis provides the crucial information which guides these decisions. As the field of medicine and indeed cardiology move forward with innovations which are effective but often expensive, it becomes imperative to employ these cost-effectiveness analytic tools, not with the intention of denying vital health services but to ascertain what the society willing to pay for.

Percutaneous implantation of the CoreValve aortic valve prosthesis in patients at high risk or rejected for surgical valve replacement: Clinical evaluation and feasibility of the procedure in the first 30 patients in the AMC-UvA

Objective. To report the feasibility, safety and efficacy of percutaneous aortic valve implantation (PAVI) with the CoreValve self-expanding aortic valve bioprosthesis in elderly patients with aortic valve stenosis who are rejected for surgery or have a high surgical risk.Methods. PAVI using the CoreValve ReValving System was performed under general anaesthesia in 30 high-risk (surgical) patients with a symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis.Results. The patients had a mean age of 80.5+/-7.7 years, a mean aortic valve area of 0.71+/-0.19 cm(2), a peak transvalvular aortic gradient of 79+/-25 mmHg, as measured with echo Doppler, a logistic EuroSCORE of 15+/-10% and a Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score of 5.2+/-2.9%. Device success was achieved in all patients and acute procedural success in 27 patients (90%). In the surviving patients, there was in a reduction of the peak aortic pressure gradient from 76+/-24 mmHg to 22+/-7 mmHg (n=24, p<0.00001) 30 days after successful device implantation. At 30 days, major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events had occurred in seven patients (23%). This included mortality in six patients (20%), of which one death was cardiovascular. The other five non-cardiovascular deaths involved two patients who died of an exacerbation of severe pre-existent pulmonary disease and three of infectious complications.Conclusions. Percutaneous aortic valve implantation was successfully performed in our centre in highrisk patients, with a 30-day mortality of 20%. When successful, marked haemodynamic improvement and relief of symptoms was achieved. (Neth Heart J 2010;18:18-24.).