Minimally-invasive versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: systematic review with meta-analysis of propensity-matched studies

BackgroundMinimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MiAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) provide aortic valve replacement (AVR) by less invasive methods than conventional surgical AVR, by avoiding complete sternotomy. This study directly compares and analyses the available evidence for early outcomes between these two AVR methods.MethodsElectronic databases were searched from inception until August 2019 for studies comparing MiAVR to TAVI, according to predefined search criteria. Propensity-matched studies with sufficient data were included in a meta-analysis.ResultsEight studies with 9,744 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Analysis of risk-matched patients showed no difference in early mortality (RR 0.76, 95% CI, 0.37–1.54, P=0.44). MiAVR had a signal towards lower rate of postoperative stroke, although this did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.42, 95% CI, 0.13–1.29, P=0.13). MiAVR had significantly lower rates of new pacemaker (PPM) requirement (OR 0.29, 95% CI, 0.16–0.52, P<0.0001) and postoperative aortic insufficiency (AI) or paravalvular leak (PVL) (OR 0.05, 95% CI, 0.01–0.20, P<0.0001) compared to TAVI, (OR 0.42, 95% CI, 0.13–1.29, P=0.13), while acute kidney injury (AKI) was higher in MiAVR compared to TAVI (11.1% vs. 5.2%, OR 2.28, 95% CI, 1.25–4.16, P=0.007).ConclusionsIn patients of equivalent surgical risk scores, MiAVR may be performed with lower rates of postoperative PPM requirement and AI/PVL, higher rates of AKI and no statistical difference in postoperative stroke or short-term mortality, compared to TAVI. Further prospective trials are needed to validate these results.     

Transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation within a previous bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement

This report documents the first reported case of transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using the CoreValve ReValving system (Medtronic CoreValve System, Luxembourg), within a previous bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. TAVI has become a recognized percutaneous treatment for patients with severe native or bioprosthetic aortic valve stenosis. However, as the number of patients screened for TAVI increases, a number of patients are found with absolutely no option for peripheral arterial access, either from the femoral or subclavian routes. Transaortic CoreValve placement offers an alternate minimally invasive hybrid surgical/interventional technique when peripheral access is not possible. A CoreValve prosthesis was implanted via the transaortic route in an 81‐year‐old woman with severe bioprosthetic aortic valve stenosis (21 mm Mitroflow pericardial valve, peak instantaneous gradient of 99 mmHg, effective valve orifice area (EOA) of 0.3 cm², as ilio‐femoral and left subclavian angiography revealed small calibre vessels (<6 mm). Access was achieved via a mini thoracotomy via the left anterior second intercostal space. The procedure went without complication. Post procedure the patient was transferred directly to the Cardiac Care Unit for recuperation. Post procedure echocardiography showed that the TAVI was well positioned with no para‐valvular leak and a reduction in peak instantaneous gradient to 30 mmHg and an increase in EOA to 1.5 cm². She was discharged on the third post‐procedural day in sinus rhythm with a narrow QRS complex. CoreValve implantation within previous surgical bioprosthesis is now an established treatment. The transaortic approach to transcatheter implantation is a promising recent development, when due to anatomical reasons, transfemoral or subclavian TAVI is not feasible. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Optimal projection for transcatheter aortic valve implantation determined from the reference projection angles

Introduction : An optimal fluoroscopic working view projection (OP) with all three aortic sinuses aligned is crucial during trans‐catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The aim of this study was to identify simple reference projection angles, which would act as a starting point for the operator to help determine OP for patients undergoing TAVI. Methods : During the period under consideration, 50 patients underwent TAVI. Procedural data and outcomes were collected prospectively on a dedicated database. Optimal angiographic deployment angles were achieved for all patients by starting in an anteroposterior caudal 15 degrees projection and then adjusting according to the initial image, with multiple small volume contrast injections undertaken to determine when all three aortic cusps were aligned (OP). Results : OP angles for the 50 cases were plotted on a graph. After normality testing confirmed that all angles were normally distributed, regression analysis enabled a regression line to be calculated. The equation for the regression line was defined as cranial/caudal intercept ?16.4 ± 1.5 (SE of the coefficient), P < 0.0001, slope of regression line LAO/RAO + 0.53 ± 0.1 (SE of the coefficient SE), P < 0.0001). Conclusions : As the regression line and its equation represents an acceptable estimate of the true relationship between Cranial/Caudal and LAO/RAO, to determine OP while remaining close to the regression line we suggest starting in LAO = 8.9, Caudal = ?11.4 (which represent the mean values of these two variables), and then increasing the caudal angle by approximately 0.5 degrees for every increase of 1 degree of the LAO angle or decreasing the caudal angle by 0.53 degrees for every decrease of 1 degree in LAO until all three aortic sinuses are in line which represents OP. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

超声心动图在主动脉瓣狭窄经导管主动脉瓣植入术中的应用价值

目的探讨超声心动图在主动脉瓣狭窄患者经导管主动脉瓣植入术中的作用。方法3例重度主动脉瓣瓣膜狭窄患者接受经导管主动脉瓣人工瓣膜植入术。使用PhilipS iE33型彩色多普勒超声诊断仪,配备经胸探头S5—1和经食道探头S7—2,X7—2t。超声观察内容包括明确主动脉瓣膜病变范围和程度,测量主动脉瓣环前后径,人工瓣膜植入术后瓣膜功能等。结果3例患者经导管主动脉瓣植入术均取得了成功,人工瓣膜位置稳定,常规超声心动图3例患者术前经胸超声心动图与术中经食管超声心动图诊断相符,跨瓣压差较术前明显下降,主动脉瓣瓣上流速明显下降,瓣周漏瞬时反流量平均约1．2mL。结论经导管主动脉瓣人工瓣膜植入术在治疗严重主动脉瓣瓣膜狭窄中方法可行,效果良好;超声心动图在这项工作中具有重要的辅助作用。     

Preferential short cut or alternative route: the transaxillary access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has gained widespread acceptance as a treatment option for patients at high risk for conventional aortic valve replacement. The most commonly used access site for TAVI is the common femoral artery. Yet, in a significant number of patients the transfemoral access is not suitable due to peripheral vascular disease of the lower extremity. In these cases the transaxillary approach can serve as an alternative implantation route. By considering the anatomical requirements and providing an adequate endovascular “safety-net” during the procedure the transaxillary TAVI approach results in excellent procedural and clinical outcome. However, whether the transaxillary access for TAVI is superior to other non-transfemoral approaches (e.g., transapical or direct aortic) needs to be studied in the future in a prospective randomized trial.     

Sedation or general anesthesia for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)

Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is nowadays a routine therapy for elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and high perioperative risk. With growing experience, further development of the devices, and the expansion to “intermediate-risk” patients, there is increasing interest in performing this procedure under conscious sedation (TAVI-S) rather than the previously favoured approach of general anesthesia (TAVI-GA). The proposed benefits of TAVI-S include; reduced procedure time, shorter intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, reduced need for intraprocedural vasopressor support, and the potential to perform the procedure without the direct presence of an anesthetist for cost-saving reasons. To date, no randomized trial data exists. We reviewed 13 non-randomized studies/registries reporting data from 6,718 patients undergoing TAVI (3,227 performed under sedation). Patient selection, study methods, and endpoints have differed considerably between published studies. Reported rates of in-hospital and longer-term mortality are similar for both groups. Up to 17% of patients undergoing TAVI-S require conversion to general anesthesia during the procedure, primarily due to vascular complications, and urgent intubation is frequently associated with hemodynamic instability. Procedure related factors, including hypotension, may compound preexisting age-specific renal impairment and enhance the risk of acute kidney injury. Hypotonia of the hypopharyngeal muscles in elderly patients, intraprocedural hypercarbia, and certain anesthetic drugs, may increase the aspiration risk in sedated patients. General anesthesia and conscious sedation have both been used successfully to treat patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI with similar reported short and long-term mortality outcomes. The authors believe that the significant incidence of complications and unplanned conversion to general anesthesia during TAVI-S mandates the start-to-finish presence of an experienced cardiac anesthetist in order to optimize patient outcomes. Good quality randomized data is needed to determine the optimal anesthetic regimen for patients undergoing TAVI.     

The noninferiority of transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared to surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic disease: Evidence based on 16 randomized controlled trials

Background:Currently, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) as an effective and convenient intervention has been adopted extensively for patients with severe aortic disease. However, the efficacy and safety of TAVI have not yet been well evaluated and its noninferiority compared with traditional surgical aortic valve replacement (sAVR) still lack sufficient evidence. This meta-analysis was designed to comprehensively compare the noninferiority of TAVI with sAVR for patients with severe aortic disease.Methods:A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to October 1, 2020 was conducted for relevant studies that comparing TAVI and sAVR in the treatment of severe aortic disease. The primary outcomes were early, midterm and long term mortality. The secondary outcomes included early complications and other late outcomes. Two reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted the data independently. All statistical analyzes were performed using the standard statistical procedures provided in Review Manager 5.2.Results:A total of 16 studies including 14394 patients were identified. There was no difference in 30-day, 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year all-cause or cardiovascular mortality as well as stroke between TAVI and sAVR. Regarding to the 30-day outcomes, compared with sAVR, TAVI experienced a significantly lower incidence of myocardial infarction (risk ratio [RR] 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40–0.97; 5441 pts), cardiogenic shock (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.19–0.59; 1936 pts), acute kidney injury (AKI) > stage 2 (RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.25–0.54; 5371 pts), and new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) (RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.24–0.35; 5371 pts) respectively, but higher incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (RR 3.16; 95% CI 1.61–6.21; 5441 pts) and major vascular complications (RR 2.22; 95% CI 1.14–4.32; 5371 pts). Regarding to the 1- and 2-year outcomes, compared with sAVR, TAVI experienced a significantly lower incidence of NOAF, but higher incidence of neurological events, transient ischemic attacks (TIA), permanent pacemaker and major vascular complications respectively. Regarding to the 5-year outcomes, compared with sAVR, TAVI experienced a significantly lower incidence of NOAF, but higher incidence of TIA and reintervention respectively.Conclusions:Our analysis shows that TAVI was equal to sAVR in early, midterm and long term mortality for patients with severe aortic disease. In addition, TAVI may be favorable in reducing the incidence of both early, midterm and long term NOAF. However, pooled results showed superiority of sAVR in reducing permanent pacemaker implantation, neurological events, TIA, major vascular complications and reintervention.