Doppler Velocity Index Outcomes Following Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in the PARTNER Trials

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the association between Doppler velocity index (DVI) and 2-year outcomes for balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).BackgroundDVI >0.35 is normal for a prosthetic valve, but recent studies suggest that DVI <0.50 is associated with poor outcomes following TAVR.MethodsPatients with severe aortic stenosis enrolled in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) 2 (intermediate surgical risk) or PARTNER 3 (low surgical risk) trial undergoing TAVR (n = 1,450) or SAVR (n = 1,303) were included. Patients were divided into 3 DVI groups on the basis of core laboratory–assessed discharge or 30-day echocardiograms: DVI_LOW (≤0.35), DVI_INTERMEDIATE (>0.35 to ≤0.50), and DVI_HIGH (>0.50). Two-year outcomes were assessed.ResultsFollowing TAVR, there were no differences among the 3 DVI groups in composite outcomes of death, stroke, or rehospitalization or in any individual components of 2-year outcomes (P > 0.70 for all). Following SAVR, there was no difference among DVI groups in the composite outcome (P = 0.27), but there was a significant association with rehospitalization (P = 0.02). Restricted cubic-spline analysis for combined outcomes showed an increased risk with post-SAVR DVI ≤0.35 but no relationship post-TAVR. DVI ≤0.35 was associated with increased 2-year composite outcome for SAVR (HR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.29–2.54; P < 0.001), with no adverse outcomes for TAVR (P = 0.86).ConclusionsIn intermediate- and low-risk cohorts of the PARTNER trials, DVI ≤0.35 predicted worse 2-year outcomes following SAVR, driven primarily by rehospitalization, with no adverse outcomes associated with DVI following TAVR with the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 valve.     

5-Year Outcomes Comparing Surgical Versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare 5-year cardiovascular, renal, and bioprosthetic valve durability outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).BackgroundPatients with severe AS and CKD undergoing TAVR or SAVR are a challenging, understudied clinical subset.MethodsIntermediate-risk patients with moderate to severe CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/m²) from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) 2A trial (patients randomly assigned to SAPIEN XT TAVR or SAVR) and SAPIEN 3 Intermediate Risk Registry were pooled. The composite primary outcome of death, stroke, rehospitalization, and new hemodialysis was evaluated using Cox regression analysis. Patients with and without perioperative acute kidney injury (AKI) were followed through 5 years. A core laboratory–adjudicated analysis of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure was also performed.ResultsThe study population included 1,045 TAVR patients (512 SAPIEN XT, 533 SAPIEN 3) and 479 SAVR patients. At 5 years, SAVR was better than SAPIEN XT TAVR (52.8% vs 68.0%; P = 0.04) but similar to SAPIEN 3 TAVR (52.8% vs 58.7%; P = 0.89). Perioperative AKI was more common after SAVR than TAVR (26.3% vs 10.3%; P < 0.001) and was independently associated with long-term outcomes. Compared with SAVR, bioprosthetic valve failure and stage 2 or 3 structural valve deterioration were significantly greater for SAPIEN XT TAVR (P < 0.05) but not for SAPIEN 3 TAVR.ConclusionsIn intermediate-risk patients with AS and CKD, SAPIEN 3 TAVR and SAVR were associated with a similar risk for the primary endpoint at 5 years. AKI was more common after SAVR than TAVR, and SAPIEN 3 valve durability was comparable with that of surgical bioprostheses.     

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Rheumatic Aortic Stenosis

BackgroundPatients with rheumatic aortic stenosis (AS) were excluded from transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) trials.ObjectivesThe authors sought to examine outcomes with TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with rheumatic AS, and versus TAVR in nonrheumatic AS.MethodsThe authors identified Medicare beneficiaries who underwent TAVR or SAVR from October 2015 to December 2017, and then identified patients with rheumatic AS using prior validated International Classification of Diseases, Version 10 codes. Overlap propensity score weighting analysis was used to adjust for measured confounders. The primary study outcome was all-cause mortality. Multiple secondary outcomes were also examined.ResultsThe final study cohort included 1,159 patients with rheumatic AS who underwent aortic valve replacement (SAVR, n = 554; TAVR, n = 605), and 88,554 patients with nonrheumatic AS who underwent TAVR. Patients in the SAVR group were younger and with lower prevalence of most comorbidities and frailty scores. After median follow-up of 19 months (interquartile range: 13 to 26 months), there was no difference in all-cause mortality with TAVR versus SAVR (11.2 vs. 7.0 per 100 person-year; adjusted hazard ratio: 1.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.84 to 2.79; p = 0.2). Compared with TAVR in nonrheumatic AS, TAVR for rheumatic AS was associated with similar mortality (15.2 vs. 17.7 deaths per 100 person-years (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.87; 95% confidence interval: 0.68 to 1.09; p = 0.2) after median follow-up of 17 months (interquartile range: 11 to 24 months). None of the rheumatic TAVR patients, <11 SAVR patients, and 242 nonrheumatic TAVR patients underwent repeat aortic valve replacement (124 redo-TAVR and 118 SAVR) at follow-up.ConclusionsCompared with SAVR, TAVR could represent a viable and possibly durable option for patients with rheumatic AS.     

Impact of Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the impact of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on survival in patients with each subclass of low-gradient (LG) aortic stenosis (AS) and to compare outcomes following surgical AVR (SAVR) and transcatheter AVR (TAVR).BackgroundLG severe AS encompasses a wide variety of pathophysiology, including classical low-flow, LG (LF-LG), paradoxical LF-LG, and normal-flow, LG (NF-LG) AS, and uncertainty exists regarding the impact of AVR on each subclass of LG AS.MethodsPubMed and Embase were queried through October 2020 to identify studies comparing survival with different management strategies (SAVR, TAVR, and conservative) in patients with LG AS. Pairwise meta-analysis comparing AVR versus conservative management and network meta-analysis comparing SAVR versus TAVR versus conservative management were performed.ResultsThirty-two studies with a total of 6,515 patients and a median follow-up time of 24.2 months (interquartile range: 36.5 months) were included. AVR was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality in classical LF-LG (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36 to 0.48), paradoxical LF-LG (HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.57), and NF-LG (HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.62) AS compared with conservative management. SAVR and TAVR were each associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality in classical LF-LG (HR: 0.46 [95% CI: 0.38 to 0.55] and 0.49 [95% CI: 0.37 to 0.64], respectively), paradoxical LF-LG (HR: 0.42 [95% CI: 0.28 to 0.65] and 0.42 [95% CI: 0.25 to 0.72], respectively), and NF-LG (HR: 0.40 [95% CI: 0.21 to 0.77] and 0.46 [95% CI: 0.26 to 0.84], respectively) AS compared with conservative management. No significant difference was observed between SAVR and TAVR.ConclusionsIn all subclasses of LG AS, AVR was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality regardless of surgical or transcatheter approach.     

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Aortic Valve Replacement in the PARTNER 2 Trial and Registry

ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare incidence and impact of measured prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM_M) versus predicted PPM (PPM_P) after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundTAVR studies have used measured effective orifice area indexed (EOAi) to body surface area (BSA) to define PPM, but most SAVR series have used predicted EOAi. This difference may contribute to discrepancies in incidence and outcomes of PPM between series.MethodsThe study analyzed SAVR patients from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2A trial and TAVR patients from the PARTNER 2 SAPIEN 3 Intermediate Risk registry. PPM was classified as moderate if EOAi ≤0.85 cm²/m² (≤0.70 if obese: body mass index ≥30 kg/m²) and severe if EOAi ≤0.65 cm²/m² (≤0.55 if obese). PPM_M was determined by the core lab–measured EOAi on 30-day echocardiogram. PPM_P was determined by 2 methods: 1) using normal EOA reference values previously reported for each valve model and size (PPM_P1; n = 929 SAVR, 1,069 TAVR) indexed to BSA; and 2) using normal reference EOA predicted from aortic annulus size measured by computed tomography (PPM_P2; n = 864 TAVR only) indexed to BSA. Primary endpoint was the composite of 5-year all-cause death and rehospitalization.ResultsThe incidence of moderate and severe PPM_P was much lower than PPM_M in both SAVR (PPM_P1: 28.4% and 1.2% vs. PPM_M: 31.0% and 23.6%) and TAVR (PPM_P1: 21.0% and 0.1% and PPM_P2: 17.0% and 0% vs. PPM_M: 27.9% and 5.7%). The incidence of severe PPM_M and severe PPM_P1 was lower in TAVR versus SAVR (P < 0.001). The presence of PPM by any method was associated with higher transprosthetic gradient. Severe PPM_P1 was independently associated with events in SAVR after adjustment for sex and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (hazard ratio: 3.18;95% CI: 1.69-5.96; P < 0.001), whereas no association was observed between PPM by any method and outcomes in TAVR.ConclusionsEOAi measured by echocardiography results in a higher incidence of PPM following SAVR or TAVR than PPM based on predicted EOAi. Severe PPM_P is rare (<1.5%), but is associated with increased all-cause death and rehospitalization after SAVR, whereas it is absent following TAVR.     

Temporal Trends and Outcomes of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to assess the temporal trends of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS), and to compare the outcomes between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in this population.BackgroundRandomized trials comparing TAVR to SAVR in AS with bicuspid valve are lacking.MethodsThe study queried the National Inpatient Sample database (years 2012 to 2016) to identify hospitalizations for bicuspid AS who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement. A propensity-matched analysis was used to compare outcomes of hospitalizations for TAVR versus SAVR for bicuspid AS and TAVR for bicuspid AS versus tricuspid AS.ResultsThe analysis included 31,895 hospitalizations with bicuspid AS, of whom 1,055 (3.3%) underwent TAVR. TAVR was increasingly utilized during the study period for bicuspid AS (p_trend = 0.002). After matching, TAVR and SAVR had similar in-hospital mortality (3.1% vs. 3.1%; odds ratio: 1.00; 95% confidence interval: 0.60 to 1.67). There was no difference between TAVR and SAVR in the rates of cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, acute kidney injury, hemopericardium, cardiac tamponade, or acute stroke. TAVR was associated with lower rates of acute myocardial infarction, post-operative bleeding, vascular complications, and discharge to nursing facility as well as a shorter length of hospital stay. On the contrary, TAVR was associated with a higher incidence of complete heart block and permanent pacemaker insertion. TAVR for bicuspid AS was associated with similar in-hospital mortality compared with tricuspid AS.ConclusionsThis nationwide analysis showed similar in-hospital mortality for TAVR and SAVR in patients with bicuspid AS. TAVR for bicuspid AS was also associated with similar in-hospital mortality compared with tricuspid AS. Further studies are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes of TAVR for bicuspid AS.     

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: An Updated Meta-Analysis

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate early results of valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for structural valve degeneration (SVD).BackgroundViV TAVR has been increasingly used for SVD, but it remains unknown whether it produces better or at least comparable results as redo SAVR.MethodsObservational studies comparing ViV TAVR and redo SAVR were identified in a systematic search of published research. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed, comparing clinical outcomes between the 2 groups.ResultsTwelve publications including a total of 16,207 patients (ViV TAVR, n = 8,048; redo SAVR, n = 8,159) were included from studies published from 2015 to 2020. In the pooled analysis, ViV TAVR was associated with lower rates of 30-day mortality overall (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39 to 0.68; p < 0.001) and for matched populations (OR: 0.419; 95% CI: 0.278 to 0.632; p = 0.003), major bleeding (OR 0.48; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.80; p = 0.013), as well as with shorter hospital stay (OR: ?3.30; 95% CI: ?4.52 to ?2.08; p < 0.001). In contrast, ViV TAVR was associated with higher rates of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (OR: 4.63; 95% CI: 3.05 to 7.03; p < 0.001). The search revealed an important lack of comparative studies with long-term results.ConclusionsViV TAVR is a valuable option in the treatment of patients with SVD because of its lower incidence of post-operative complications and better early survival compared with redo SAVR. However, ViV TAVR is associated with higher rates of myocardial infarction and severe patient-prosthesis mismatch.     

The Effect of Psychosocial Risk Factors on Outcomes After Aortic Valve Replacement

BackgroundPsychosocial risk factors (PSRFs) have emerged as important nontraditional risk factors that are associated with worse surgical outcomes but have not been well-characterized in valvular disease.ObjectivesThis study evaluates the impact of PSRFs on 30-day outcomes following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).MethodsAll adult patients (≥18 years of age) who underwent isolated TAVR or SAVR in the Nationwide Readmissions Database from 2016 to 2018 were included. Patients were classified as having 0 PSRFs vs ≥1 PSRF. PSRFs included limited cognitive understanding, substance use, psychiatric disease, low socioeconomic status, or uninsured status. Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, readmission, and composite morbidity (stroke, pulmonary embolus, pacemaker implantation, bleeding complications, acute kidney injury, myocardial infarction, or new atrial fibrillation).ResultsA nationally weighted total of 74,763 SAVR and 87,142 TAVR patients met inclusion criteria. For SAVR, patients with PSRFs had significantly higher 30-day mortality (4.2% vs 3.7%; P = 0.048) and readmissions (13.1% vs 11.3%; P < 0.001), but there was no difference in composite morbidity. For TAVR, patients with PSRFs had significantly higher 30-day readmission (11.7% vs 10.7%; P = 0.012) but no difference in 30-day mortality or composite morbidity. On risk-adjusted analysis, presence of PSRFs was a significant predictor of higher 30-day readmissions following SAVR (adjusted OR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.02-1.19).ConclusionsThe presence of PSRFs is associated with worse short-term outcomes following SAVR and TAVR, with a more profound impact in SAVR. This study highlights the importance of identifying at-risk patients and suggests that TAVR may be beneficial in patients with less social support.     

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Complex Coronary Artery Disease

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare, in a cohort of patients with complex coronary artery disease (CAD) and severe aortic stenosis (AS), the clinical outcomes associated with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (plus percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) (plus coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]).BackgroundPatients with complex CAD were excluded from the main randomized trials comparing TAVR with SAVR, and no data exist comparing TAVR + PCI vs SAVR + CABG in such patients.MethodsA multicenter study was conducted including consecutive patients with severe AS and complex CAD (SYNTAX [Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery] score >22 or unprotected left main disease). A 1:1 propensity-matched analysis was performed to account for unbalanced covariates. The rates of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), including all-cause mortality, nonprocedural myocardial infarction, need for new coronary revascularization, and stroke, were evaluated.ResultsA total of 800 patients (598 undergoing SAVR + CABG and 202 undergoing transfemoral TAVR + PCI) were included, and after propensity matching, a total of 156 pairs of patients were generated. After a median follow-up period of 3 years (interquartile range: 1-6 years), there were no significant differences between groups for MACCE (HR for transfemoral TAVR vs SAVR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.89-1.98), all-cause mortality (HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.81-1.94), myocardial infarction (HR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.41-3.27), and stroke (HR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.13-1.32), but there was a higher rate of new coronary revascularization in the TAVR + PCI group (HR: 5.38; 95% CI: 1.73-16.7).ConclusionsIn patients with severe AS and complex CAD, TAVR + PCI and SAVR + CABG were associated with similar rates of MACCE after a median follow-up period of 3 years, but TAVR + PCI recipients exhibited a higher risk for repeat coronary revascularization. Future trials are warranted.     

Relationship Between Hospital Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Volume and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to examine whether hospital surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) volume was associated with corresponding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) outcomes.BackgroundRecent studies have demonstrated a volume-outcome relationship for TAVR.MethodsIn total, 208,400 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries were analyzed for all aortic valve replacement procedures from 2012 to 2015. Claims for patients <65 years of age, concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting surgery, other heart valve procedures, or other major open heart procedures were excluded, as were secondary admissions for aortic valve replacement. Hospital SAVR volumes were stratified on the basis of mean annual SAVR procedures during the study period. The primary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year post-operative TAVR survival. Adjusted survival following TAVR was assessed using multivariate Cox regression.ResultsA total of 65,757 SAVR and 42,967 TAVR admissions were evaluated. Among TAVR procedures, 21.7% (n = 9,324) were performed at hospitals with <100 (group 1), 35.6% (n = 15,298) at centers with 100 to 199 (group 2), 22.9% (n = 9,828) at centers with 200 to 299 (group 3), and 19.8% (n = 8,517) at hospitals with ≥300 SAVR cases/year (group 4). Compared with group 4, 30-day TAVR mortality risk-adjusted odds ratios were 1.32 (95% confidence interval: 1.18 to 1.47) for group 1, 1.25 (95% confidence interval: 1.12 to 1.39) for group 2, and 1.08 (95% confidence interval: 0.82 to 1.25) for group 3. These adjusted survival differences in TAVR outcomes persisted at 1 year post-procedure.ConclusionsTotal hospital SAVR volume appears to be correlated with TAVR outcomes, with higher 30-day and 1-year mortality observed at low-volume centers. These data support the importance of a viable surgical program within the heart team, and the use of minimum SAVR hospital thresholds may be considered as an additional metric for TAVR performance.     

Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Outside Randomized Trials

BackgroundRecent randomized trials including low-risk patients showed positive results for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), but patients with non-tricuspid aortic valve (NTAV), severe coronary artery disease (SevCAD), and those requiring concomitant mitral/tricuspid valve (CMTV) or concomitant ascending aorta replacement (CAAR) interventions were excluded.ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate the presence and impact of the main clinical variables not evaluated in TAVR versus SAVR trials (NTAV, SevCAD, and CMTV or CAAR intervention) in a large series of consecutive low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (SAS) undergoing SAVR.MethodsSingle-center study including consecutive patients with SAS and low surgical risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of <4%) undergoing SAVR. Baseline, procedural characteristics, and 30-day outcomes were prospectively collected.ResultsOf 6,772 patients with SAS who underwent SAVR between 2000 and 2019, 5,310 (78.4%) exhibited a low surgical risk (mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score: 1.94 ± 0.87%). Of these, 2,165 patients (40.8%) had at least 1 of the following: NTAV (n = 1,468, 27.6%), SevCAD (n = 307, 5.8%), CMTV (n = 306, 5.8%), and CAAR (n = 560, 10.5%). The 30-day mortality and stroke rates for the overall low-risk SAS cohort were 1.9% and 2.4%, respectively. The mortality rate was similar in the SevCAD (2.6%) and CAAR (2.1%) groups versus the rest of the cohort (odds ratio [OR]: 1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85 to 3.75, and OR: 1.64; 95% CI: 0.88 to 3.05, respectively), lower in the NTAV group (0.9%; OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.81), and higher in the CMTV group (5.9%; OR: 2.61; 95% CI: 1.51 to 4.5).ConclusionsIn a real-world setting, close to one-half of the low-risk patients with SAS undergoing SAVR exhibited at least 1 major criterion not evaluated in TAVR versus SAVR randomized trials. Clinical outcomes were better than or similar to those predicted by surgical scores in all groups but those patients requiring CMTV intervention. These results may help determine the impact of implementing the results of TAVR-SAVR trials in real practice and may inform future trials in specific groups.     

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Prior Mediastinal Radiation

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate the trends and outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) among patients with prior mediastinal radiation from a national database.BackgroundThere is a paucity of data about the temporal trends and outcomes of TAVR versus SAVR in patients with prior mediastinal radiation.MethodsThe National Inpatient Sample database years 2012 to 2017 was queried for hospitalizations of patients with prior mediastinal radiation who underwent isolated AVR. Using multivariable analysis, the study compared the outcomes of TAVR versus SAVR. The main study outcome was in-hospital mortality.ResultsThe final analysis included 3,675 hospitalizations for isolated AVR; of whom 2,170 (59.1%) underwent TAVR and 1,505 (40.9%) underwent isolated SAVR. TAVR was increasingly performed over time (p_trend = 0.01), but there was no significant increase in the rates of utilization of SAVR. The following factors were independently associated with TAVR utilization: older age, chronic lung disease, coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease, prior cerebrovascular accidents, prior coronary artery bypass grafting, and larger-sized hospitals, while women were less likely to undergo TAVR. Compared with SAVR, TAVR was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (1.2% vs. 2.0%, adjusted odds ratio: 0.27; 95% confidence interval: 0.09 to 0.79; p = 0.02). TAVR was associated with lower rates of acute kidney injury, use of mechanical circulatory support, bleeding and respiratory complications, and shorter length of hospital stay. TAVR was associated with higher rates of pacemaker insertion.ConclusionsThis nationwide observational analysis showed that TAVR is increasingly performed among patients with prior mediastinal radiation. TAVR provides an important treatment option for this difficult patient population with desirable procedural safety when using SAVR as a benchmark.     

Frailty and Bleeding in Older Adults Undergoing TAVR or SAVR: Insights From the FRAILTY-AVR Study

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to examine the value of frailty to predict in-hospital major bleeding and determine its impact on mid-term mortality following transcatheter (TAVR) or surgical (SAVR) aortic valve replacement.BackgroundBleeding complications are harbingers of mortality and major morbidity in patients undergoing TAVR or SAVR. Despite the high prevalence of frailty in this population, little is known about its effects on bleeding risk.MethodsA post hoc analysis was performed of the multinational FRAILTY-AVR (Frailty Aortic Valve Replacement) cohort study, which prospectively enrolled older adults ≥70 years of age undergoing TAVR or SAVR. Trained researchers assessed frailty using a questionnaire and physical performance battery pre-procedure and ascertained clinical data from the electronic health record. The primary endpoint was major or life-threatening bleeding during the index hospitalization, and the secondary endpoint was units of packed red blood cells transfused.ResultsThe cohort consisted of 1,195 patients with a mean age of 81.3 ± 6.0 years. The incidence of life-threatening bleeding, major bleeding with a clinically apparent source, and major bleeding without a clinically apparent source was, respectively, 3%, 6%, and 9% in the TAVR group and 8%, 10%, and 31% in the SAVR group. Frailty measured using the Essential Frailty Toolset was an independent predictor of major bleeding and packed red blood cell transfusions in both groups. Major bleeding was associated with a 3-fold increase in 1-year mortality following TAVR (odds ratio: 3.40; 95% confidence interval: 2.22 to 5.21) and SAVR (odds ratio: 2.79; 95% confidence interval: 1.25 to 6.21).ConclusionsFrailty is associated with post-procedural major bleeding in older adults undergoing TAVR and SAVR, which is in turn associated with a higher risk for mid-term mortality.     

Reoperation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: An Analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database

ObjectivesThis study sought to report the largest series of patients receiving a surgical reoperation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Adult Cardiac Surgery Database.BackgroundTAVR has become an effective means of treating aortic stenosis. As TAVR is used in progressively lower-risk cohorts, management of device failure will become increasingly important.MethodsThe STS Adult Cardiac Surgery Database was queried for patients with a history of prior TAVR undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement from 2011 to 2015. Observed-to-expected (O/E) mortality ratios were determined to facilitate comparison across reoperative indications and timing from index TAVR procedure.ResultsA total of 123 patients met inclusion criteria (median age 77 years) with an STS Predicted Risk of Mortality of 4%, 4% to 8%, and >8% in 17%, 24%, and 59%, respectively. Median time to reoperation was 2.5 (interquartile range: 0.7 to 13.0) months, and the operative mortality rate was 17.1%. Common indications for reoperation included early TAVR device failures such as paravalvular leak (15%), structural prosthetic deterioration (11%), failed repair (11%), sizing or position issues (11%), and prosthetic valve endocarditis (10%). All pre-operative risk categories were associated with an increased O/E mortality ratio (Predicted Risk of Mortality <4%: O/E 5.5; 4% to 8%: O/E 1.7; >8%: O/E 1.2).ConclusionsSAVR following early failure of TAVR, while rare, is associated with worse-than-expected outcomes as compared with similar patients initially undergoing SAVR. Continued experience with this developing technology is needed to reduce the incidence of early TAVR failure and further define optimal treatment of failed TAVR prostheses.     

Infective Endocarditis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BackgroundInfective endocarditis may affect patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to provide detailed information on incidence rates, types of microorganisms, and outcomes of infective endocarditis after TAVR.MethodsBetween February 2011 and July 2018, consecutive patients from the SwissTAVI Registry were eligible. Infective endocarditis was classified into early (peri-procedural [<100 days] and delayed-early [100 days to 1 year]) and late (>1 year) endocarditis. Clinical events were adjudicated according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 endpoint definitions.ResultsDuring the observational period, 7,203 patients underwent TAVR at 15 hospitals in Switzerland. During follow-up of 14,832 patient-years, endocarditis occurred in 149 patients. The incidence for peri-procedural, delayed-early, and late endocarditis after TAVR was 2.59, 0.71, and 0.40 events per 100 person-years, respectively. Among patients with early endocarditis, Enterococcus species were the most frequently isolated microorganisms (30.1%). Among those with peri-procedural endocarditis, 47.9% of patients had a pathogen that was not susceptible to the peri-procedural antibiotic prophylaxis. Younger age (subhazard ratio [SHR]: 0.969; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.944 to 0.994), male sex (SHR: 1.989; 95% CI: 1.403 to 2.818), lack of pre-dilatation (SHR: 1.485; 95% CI: 1.065 to 2.069), and treatment in a catheterization laboratory as opposed to hybrid operating room (SHR: 1.648; 95% CI: 1.187 to 2.287) were independently associated with endocarditis. In a case-control matched analysis, patients with endocarditis were at increased risk of mortality (hazard ratio: 6.55; 95% CI: 4.44 to 9.67) and stroke (hazard ratio: 4.03; 95% CI: 1.54 to 10.52).ConclusionsInfective endocarditis after TAVR most frequently occurs during the early period, is commonly caused by Enterococcus species, and results in considerable risks of mortality and stroke. (NCT01368250)     

Outcomes 2 Years After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients at Low Surgical Risk

BackgroundIn low surgical risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, the PARTNER 3 (Safety and Effectiveness of the SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve in Low Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis) trial demonstrated superiority of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgery for the primary endpoint of death, stroke, or re-hospitalization at 1 year.ObjectivesThis study determined both clinical and echocardiographic outcomes between 1 and 2 years in the PARTNER 3 trial.MethodsThis study randomly assigned 1,000 patients (1:1) to transfemoral TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve versus surgery (mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score: 1.9%; mean age: 73 years) with clinical and echocardiography follow-up at 30 days and at 1 and 2 years. This study assessed 2-year rates of the primary endpoint and several secondary endpoints (clinical, echocardiography, and quality-of-life measures) in this as-treated analysis.ResultsPrimary endpoint follow-up at 2 years was available in 96.5% of patients. The 2-year primary endpoint was significantly reduced after TAVR versus surgery (11.5% vs. 17.4%; hazard ratio: 0.63; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 0.88; p = 0.007). Differences in death and stroke favoring TAVR at 1 year were not statistically significant at 2 years (death: TAVR 2.4% vs. surgery 3.2%; p = 0.47; stroke: TAVR 2.4% vs. surgery 3.6%; p = 0.28). Valve thrombosis at 2 years was increased after TAVR (2.6%; 13 events) compared with surgery (0.7%; 3 events; p = 0.02). Disease-specific health status continued to be better after TAVR versus surgery through 2 years. Echocardiographic findings, including hemodynamic valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure, were similar for TAVR and surgery at 2 years.ConclusionsAt 2 years, the primary endpoint remained significantly lower with TAVR versus surgery, but initial differences in death and stroke favoring TAVR were diminished and patients who underwent TAVR had increased valve thrombosis. (Safety and Effectiveness of the SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve in Low Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis [PARTNER 3]; NCT02675114)     

Transcatheter Versus Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement: A Propensity-Matched Analysis From the German Aortic Valve Registry

ObjectivesThis study sought to compare patient characteristics, procedural outcomes, and valve hemodynamics of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with current-generation rapid-deployment valves (RDVs) versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with current-generation transcatheter heart valves (THVs).BackgroundThe patient population currently treated with RDVs may have potential similarities with the current TAVR population, but comparative studies in a large patient population remain scarce.MethodsA total of 16,473 patients who underwent isolated SAVR using current-generation RDVs or isolated transfemoral TAVR with current-generation THVs between 2011 and 2017 were enrolled into the German Aortic Valve Registry. Baseline, procedural, and in-hospital outcome parameters were analyzed for RDVs and THVs before and after 1:1 propensity score matching. Furthermore, RDVs and THVs with similar design characteristics were compared with each other.ResultsA total of 1,743 patients received SAVR with an RDV, whereas 14,730 patients were treated with transfemoral TAVR. Patients treated with TAVR were significantly older and had higher surgical risk scores. Following valve replacement, patients treated with an RDV had a significantly higher rate of disabling stroke (1.7% vs. 1.1%; p = 0.03), need for transfusion of >4 red blood cell units (8.5% vs. 1.4%; p < 0.001), and new onset renal replacement therapy (1.9% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.01), whereas the need for a new permanent pacemaker was lower (8.4% vs. 14.9%; p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was similar (1.6% vs. 1.8%; p = 0.62). These findings persisted after 1:1 propensity score matching, but in-hospital mortality was significantly higher after RDVs (1.7% vs. 0.6%; p = 0.003). Balloon-expandable (BE) RDVs had significantly lower residual gradients compared with BE-THVs, while self-expanding (SE)-RDVs had significantly higher residual gradients compared with SE-THVs.ConclusionsIn a large all-comers’ registry, TAVR with current-generation THVs was associated with improved in-hospital outcomes compared with SAVR with current-generation RDVs. The pacemaker rate is significantly higher with TAVR. Post-procedural hemodynamic function varied between individual RDVs and THVs.     

Cardiac Damage and Quality of Life After Aortic Valve Replacement in the PARTNER Trials

BackgroundThe extent of extravalvular cardiac damage is associated with increased risk of adverse events among patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR).ObjectivesThe goal was to describe the association of cardiac damage on health status before and after AVR.MethodsPatients from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2 and 3 trials were pooled and classified by echocardiographic cardiac damage stage at baseline and 1 year as previously described (stage 0-4). We examined the association between baseline cardiac damage and 1-year health status (assessed by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Score [KCCQ-OS]).ResultsAmong 1,974 patients (794 surgical AVR, 1,180 transcatheter AVR), the extent of cardiac damage at baseline was associated with lower KCCQ scores both at baseline and at 1 year after AVR (P < 0.0001) and with increased rates of a poor outcome (death, KCCQ-OS <60, or a decrease in KCCQ-OS of ≥10 points) at 1 year (stages 0-4: 10.6% vs 19.6% vs 29.0% vs 44.7% vs 39.8%; P < 0.0001). In a multivariable model, each 1-stage increase in baseline cardiac damage was associated with a 24% increase in the odds of a poor outcome (95% CI: 9%-41%; P = 0.001). Change in stage of cardiac damage at 1 year after AVR was associated with the extent of improvement in KCCQ-OS over the same period (mean change in 1-year KCCQ-OS: improvement of ≥1 stage +26.8 [95% CI: 24.2-29.4] vs no change +21.4 [95% CI: 20.0-22.7] vs deterioration of ≥1 stage +17.5 [95% CI: 15.4-19.5]; P < 0.0001).ConclusionsThe extent of cardiac damage before AVR has an important impact on health status outcomes, both cross-sectionally and after AVR. (PARTNER II Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves II - XT Intermediate and High Risk (PII A), NCT01314313; The PARTNER II Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves - PII B [PARTNERII B], NCT02184442; PARTNER 3 Trial: Safety and Effectiveness of the SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve in Low Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis [P3], NCT02675114)     

Sex Difference in Outcomes Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Bicuspid Aortic Stenosis

BackgroundIt is unknown whether the sex difference whereby female transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) candidates had a lower risk profile, a higher incidence of in-hospital complications, but more favorable short- and long-term survival observed in tricuspid cohorts undergoing TAVR would persist in patients with bicuspid aortic valves (BAVs).ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to reexamine the impact of sex on outcomes following TAVR in patients with BAVs.MethodsIn this single-center study, patients with BAVs undergoing TAVR for severe aortic stenosis from 2012 to 2021 were retrospectively included. Baseline characteristics, aortic root anatomy, and in-hospital and 1-year valve hemodynamic status and survival were compared between sexes.ResultsA total of 510 patients with BAVs were included. At baseline, women presented with fewer comorbidities. Men had a greater proportion of Sievers type 1 BAV, higher calcium volumes (549.2 ± 408.4 mm³ vs 920.8 ± 654.3 mm³; P < 0.001), and larger aortic root structures. Women experienced more vascular complications (12.9% vs 4.9%; P = 0.002) and bleeding (11.1% vs 5.3%; P = 0.019) and higher residual gradients (16.9 ± 7.7 mm Hg vs 13.2 ± 6.4 mm Hg; P < 0.001), while men were more likely to undergo second valve implantations during index TAVR (6.3% vs 15.9%; P = 0.001). Death at 1 year was not significantly different between sexes (HR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.56-2.35; P = 0.70). Bleeding (adjusted HR: 4.62; 95% CI: 1.51-14.12; P = 0.007) was the single independent predictor of 1-year death for women.ConclusionsIn patients with BAVs undergoing TAVR, women presented with fewer comorbidities, while men had a greater proportion of type 1 BAV, more calcification, and larger aortic roots. In-hospital outcomes favored men, with fewer complications except for the need for second valve implantation, but 1-year survival was comparable between sexes.     

Impact of Right Ventricle-Pulmonary Artery Coupling on Clinical Outcomes in the PARTNER 3 Trial

BackgroundPhysiologic right ventricle–pulmonary artery (RV-PA) coupling may be impaired in patients with aortic stenosis (AS).ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess the incidence and prognostic significance of impaired RV-PA coupling in low-risk patients with symptomatic severe AS undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement.MethodsRV-PA coupling was measured by transthoracic echocardiography as the ratio of tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) to pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) in patients in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) 3 trial. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, and rehospitalization at the 2-year follow-up.ResultsAmong 570 low-risk patients included in the analysis, RV-PA uncoupling was defined by a TAPSE/PASP ratio ≤ 0.55 mm/mm Hg. At baseline, 222 of 570 (38.9%) patients had RV-PA uncoupling. At 2 years, patients with baseline RV-PA uncoupling had an increased incidence of the primary endpoint (19.1% vs 9.9%, P = 0.002), all-cause mortality (5.9% vs 0.6%, P < 0.001), cardiovascular mortality (4.1% vs 0.6%, P = 0.003), and rehospitalization (13.5% vs 7.3%, P = 0.018). On multivariable analysis, baseline RV-PA uncoupling remained an independent predictor of the primary endpoint at 2 years (HR: 1.92; 95% CI: 1.04-3.57; P = 0.038).ConclusionsIn patients with symptomatic severe AS at low surgical risk undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement, baseline RV-PA uncoupling defined by TAPSE/PASP ≤ 0.55 mm Hg was associated with adverse clinical outcomes at 2 years, including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and rehospitalization.