Incidence, treatment, and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction following transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the incidence, treatment, and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) following transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR or SAVR).

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery disease is common in patients who undergo aortic valve replacement. However, little is known about differences in clinical features of post-TAVR or post-SAVR AMI.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified post-TAVR or post-SAVR (including isolated and complex SAVR) patients admitted with AMI using the Nationwide Readmissions Database 2012-2017. Incidence, invasive strategy (coronary angiography or revascularization), and in-hospital outcomes were compared between post-TAVR and post-SAVR AMIs.

RESULTS

The incidence of 180-day AMI was higher post-TAVR than post-SAVR (1.59% vs. 0.72%; p < 0.001). Post-TAVR AMI patients (n = 1315), compared with post-SAVR AMI patients (n = 1344), were older, had more comorbidities and more frequent non-ST-elevation AMI (NSTEMI: 86.6% vs. 78.0%; p < 0.001). After propensity-score matching, there was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between post-TAVR and post-SAVR AMIs (14.7% vs. 16.1%; p = 0.531), but the mortality was high in both groups, particularly in ST-elevation AMI (STEMI: 38.8% vs. 29.2%; p = 0.153). Invasive strategy was used less frequently for post-TAVR AMI than post-SAVR AMI (25.6% vs. 38.3%; p < 0.001). Invasive strategy was associated with lower mortality in both post-TAVR (adjusted odds ratio = 0.40; 95% confidence interval = [0.24-0.66]) and post-SAVR groups (0.60 [0.41-0.88]).

CONCLUSIONS

AMI, albeit uncommon, was more frequent post-TAVR than post-SAVR. Patients commonly presented with NSTEMI, but the mortality of STEMI was markedly high. Further studies are needed to understand why a substantial percentage of patients do not receive invasive coronary treatment, particularly after TAVR, despite seemingly better outcomes with invasive strategy.

Meta-analysis comparing valve-in-valve TAVR and redo-SAVR in patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valve

INTRODUCTION

The comparative efficacy and safety of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) and redo-surgical AVR (redo-SAVR) in patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves remain unknown.

METHOD

Digital databases were searched to identify relevant articles. Unadjusted odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes were calculated using a random effect model. A total of 11 studies comprising 8326 patients (ViV-TAVR = 4083 and redo-SAVR = 4243) were included.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients undergoing ViV-TAVR was older, 76 years compared to 73 years for those undergoing SAVR. The baseline characteristics for patients in ViV-TAVR vs. redo-SAVR groups were comparable. At 30-days, the odds of all-cause mortality (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.30-0.68, p = .0002), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.26-0.73, p = .001) and major bleeding (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.15-0.54, p = .0001) were significantly lower in patients undergoing ViV-TAVR compared to redo-SAVR. There were no significant differences in the odds of cerebrovascular accidents (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.52-1.58, p = .74), myocardial infarction (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.44-1.92, p = .83) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPM) (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.27-1.07, p = .08) between the two groups. During mid to long-term follow up (6-months to 5-years), there were no significant differences between ViV-TAVR and redo-SAVR for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and stroke. ViV-TAVR was, however, associated with higher risk of prosthesis-patient mismatch and greater transvalvular pressure gradient post-implantation.

CONCLUSION

ViV-TAVR compared to redo-SAVR appears to be associated with significant improvement in short term mortality and major bleeding. For mid to long-term follow up, the outcomes were similar for both groups.

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with end stage renal disease

OBJECTIVE

To assess contemporary national trends of comorbidities, outcomes, and health care resource utilization in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR and SAVR).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The National-Inpatient-Sample was used to study trends in patients with AS and ESRD undergoing TAVR and SAVR between January 2012 and December 2017. Of 12,550 patients, 5,735 underwent TAVR and 6,815 underwent SAVR. Over the years, the utilization of SAVR declined (from 82.0 to 37.7%); and increased for TAVR (from 18.0 to 62.3%; p < .001). Patients receiving TAVR were older (74.6 [9.1] vs. 66.8 years [9.1]), had a higher proportion of females (37.1 vs. 32.5%), Caucasians (68.7 vs. 60.9%) and Asian /Pacific Islanders (3.1 vs. 2.7%; p < .001 for all). The TAVR patients, despite having higher comorbidity burden (anemia, coronary artery disease, chronic pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, and peripheral vascular disease) had lower inpatient mortality and complications (ST-elevation myocardial infarction, pneumonia, pneumothorax, pulmonary embolism, cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, and need for mechanical ventilators and vasopressors). The median length of stay (13.9-6.5 days; p < .001) and cost of stay ($311,538.16 to $255,693.40; p < .001) reduced with TAVR; but remained unchanged with SAVR. Higher proportion of patients was discharged home after TAVR vs. SAVR.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with AS and ESRD, despite providing therapy to subjects with higher comorbidity burden, TAVR was associated with lower inpatient mortality, complications, length of stay, cost of care, and higher home disposition rates when compared with SAVR.

Time course of the survival advantage of transcatheter over surgical aortic valve replacement: Interplay between sex and patient risk profile

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to explore the time course of survival advantage of TAVR over SAVR as function of the patients' risk and sex.

BACKGROUND

Women have been reported to have better survival than men undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, scant data on the sex-based survival benefit of TAVR over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are available.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies reporting clinical outcomes of men and women undergoing TAVR or SAVR was performed. Studies were divided into two groups according to average patient's risk score and the interplay of surgical risk and sex on outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Eight studies involving 6,596 women and 7,204 men patients were extracted. Unlike mens, women patients had survival advantage from TAVR over SAVR that became substantial at 1 year from index procedure and persisted at 2-year of follow-up. Moreover, this sex-based TAVR survival advantage was mainly observed in higher surgical risk patients. Men showed a significantly lower rate of residual paravalvular leak after SAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

Women patients had a selective mortality benefit from TAVR compared to SAVR. This sex-based TAVR benefit was mainly observed in high surgical risk patients beyond 1 year from procedure.