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.     

Impact of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement on Risk Profiles of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Patients

BackgroundThe advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has changed which patients undergo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We sought to understand the impact of TAVR on the characteristics of SAVR patients in the United States.MethodsA cohort of 2959 patients who underwent isolated SAVR at 11 US hospitals that perform both TAVR and SAVR from 2013 through 2017 were grouped by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Adult Cardiac Surgery Database version (v)2.73 (2011–2014), v2.81 (2014–2017), and v2.9 (2017) to assess temporal trends in patient characteristics.ResultsOver time, SAVR patients were younger with fewer preoperative comorbidities. There was a significant decrease in median STS predicted risk of mortality (PROM) score (2.0 vs. 1.8 vs. 1.3, p < 0.001, in v2.73 vs. v2.81 vs. v2.9). Specifically, there were fewer high-risk (STS PROM > 8%: 4.3% vs. 4.7% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.03) and intermediate-risk (STS PROM 4% to 8%: 16.3% vs. 11.7% vs. 4.3%, p < 0.001) patients. The proportion of patients with bicuspid aortic valve disease increased significantly (11.2% vs. 26.9% vs. 36.6%, p < 0.001). There were no differences in operative mortality (1.9% vs. 2.1% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.75).ConclusionsThe introduction of TAVR has already impacted the demographics, clinical characteristics and risk profiles of patients undergoing SAVR in the US. Now that TAVR is approved for low-risk patients, SAVR is likely to be reserved for younger patients who are willing to receive a mechanical valve and for patients with aortopathy, coronary artery disease, or concomitant mitral or tricuspid pathology.     

A Review of Alternative Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

With the advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), appropriately selected intermediate-, high-, and extreme-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) are now offered a less invasive option compared to conventional surgery. In contemporary practice, TAVR is performed predominantly via a transfemoral arterial approach, whereby a transcatheter heart valve (THV) is delivered in a retrograde fashion through the iliofemoral arterial system and thoraco-abdominal aorta, into the native aortic valve annulus. While the majority of patients possess suitable anatomy for transfemoral arterial access, there is a subset of patients with extensive peripheral vascular disease that precludes this traditional approach to TAVR. Fortunately, innovation in the field of structural heart disease has led to the refinement of alternative access options for THV delivery. Selection of the most appropriate route of therapy mandates a careful consideration of multiple factors, including patient anatomy, technical feasibility, and equipment specifications. Furthermore, understanding the risks conferred by each access site for valve delivery—notably stroke, vascular injury, and major bleeding—is of paramount importance when selecting the approach that will best optimize the outcome for an individual. In this review, we provide a comprehensive summary of alternative approaches to transfemoral arterial TAVR as well as the available outcome data supporting each of these various techniques.     

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.     

Atrioventricular Conduction After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

AV Conduction After TAVI and SAVR . Introduction: Atrioventricular conduction abnormalities (AVCA) may complicate transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate AVCA after TAVI and SAVR. Methods and Results: Among 50 patients undergoing TAVI and 25 patients undergoing SAVR a continuous 7‐day Holter electrocardiogram (ECG) was recorded after the procedure. ECGs during TAVI and 12‐lead ECGs before and 1 and 7 days after TAVI and SAVR were analyzed. At baseline, TAVI patients were older (mean 82.1 vs 75.4, P < 0.001), had a longer PR interval (median 200 milliseconds vs 175 milliseconds, P = 0.004) and broader QRS width (median 100 milliseconds vs 80 milliseconds, P = 0.007) than SAVR patients. New AVCA were observed among 29 TAVI patients (58%), mostly new left bundle branch block (76%). Predilatation induced new AVCA in 14 TAVI patients (28%). New AVCA resolved within 24 hours in 15 TAVI patients (30%), and persisted in 14 TAVI (28%) and 3 SAVR patients (12%, P = 0.12). Among patients with persistent QRS width <120 milliseconds during the first 24 hours after TAVI, QRS width remained stable during the remainder of the observation period. During Holter monitoring complete AV block was observed in 4 TAVI patients (8%) and 3 SAVR patients (12%; P = 0.68). Conclusions: Almost half of AVCA during TAVI are induced by predilatation, but half of them resolve within 24 hours. Persistent AVCA are more frequently observed after TAVI than SAVR. If QRS width is below 120 milliseconds the first day after TAVI, the risk of late AVCA seems low. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 23 pp. 1115‐1122, October 2012)     

Inequity in Access to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Pan-Canadian Evaluation of Wait-Times

BackgroundThere has been an exponential increase in the demand for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Our goal was to examine trends in TAVR capacity and wait-times across Canada.MethodsAll TAVR cases were identified from April 1, 2014, to March 31, 2017. Wait-time was defined as the duration in days from the initial referral to the TAVR procedure. TAVR capacity was defined as the number of TAVR procedures per million population/province/fiscal year. We performed multivariable multilevel Cox proportional hazards modelling of the time to TAVR as the dependant variable and the effect of provinces as random effects. We quantified the variation in wait-times among provinces using the median hazard ratio.ResultsWe identified a total of 4906 TAVR procedures across 9 provinces. Despite a year over year increase in overall capacity, there was a greater than 3-fold difference in capacity between provinces. Crude median wait-times increased over time in all provinces, with marked variation from 71.5 days in Newfoundland to 190.5 and 203 days in Manitoba and Alberta, respectively. This suggests increasing demand outpaced the growth in capacity. We found a median hazard ratio of 1.62, indicating that in half of the possible pairwise comparisons, the time to TAVR for identical patients was at least 62% longer between different provinces.ConclusionWe found substantial geographic inequity in TAVR access. This calls for policy makers, clinicians, and administrators across Canada to address this inequity through revaluation of provincial funding mechanisms, as well as implementation of efficient care pathways.     

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.     

Low-Risk Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in the Era of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Open surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is a viable alternative to transcatheter implantation in low-risk patients. In this light, we evaluated the safety and effectiveness of SAVR performed through conventional and less invasive surgical approaches in a high-volume center.We retrospectively reviewed the records of 395 consecutive patients who underwent open SAVR from January 2019 through December 2019 in our center. We evaluated and compared the operative results and postoperative major adverse outcomes of 3 surgical approaches: full median sternotomy (n=267), upper ministernotomy (ministernotomy) (n=106), and right anterior thoracotomy (minithoracotomy) (n=22).Overall, the 30-day all-cause mortality rate was 0.8% (3 patients). Stroke occurred in 8 patients (2%), disabling stroke in 4 patients (1%), myocardial infarction in 1 (0.2%), and surgical site infection in 13 (3.2%). There was no difference in 30-day mortality rate or incidence of postoperative major adverse events among the 3 surgical groups. Stroke and surgical site infection occurred more frequently, but not significantly so, in the full-sternotomy group. The mean hospital stay was longer after full sternotomy (9.1 ± 5.5 d) than after ministernotomy (7.5 ± 2.9 d) or minithoracotomy (7.4 ± 1.9 d) (P=0.012).Our findings suggest that open SAVR performed in a high-volume center is associated with a low early mortality rate and that less invasive approaches result in faster postoperative recovery and shorter hospital stays.     

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR): Access Planning and Strategies

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has proven to be a viable tool for the high-surgical-risk population with severe aortic valve stenosis. Vascular access complications are not uncommon with TAVR and may increase early and late mortality. Avoiding these serious complications is the goal. With experience and careful screening, we are now able to risk-stratify patients who may be at increased risk of vascular complications. While the traditional iliofemoral access site remains the most common for TAVR, alternate access sites that have proven to be viable and safe alternatives include the transapical, direct-aortic, and subclavian techniques. TAVR teams should be familiar and comfortable with these approaches as each of them has its own advantages and weaknesses. The best option is usually one in which the procedure is tailored to the patient. The present review examines our current access planning and strategies for TAVR.