Echocardiography in transcatheter aortic valve implantation—Part 1—Transthoracic echocardiography

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been a revolutionary technique in the treatment of degenerative aortic valve stenosis. Selection of appropriate patients and appropriate valve size is crucial for improved patient outcome. Echocardiographic imaging is a critical component for patient selection and plays an important role in the selection of valve size, procedural guidance, and patient follow‐up. This review discusses role of echocardiography in patient selection, device implantation, and postimplant follow‐up for the first‐generation CoreValve as used in pivotal trial. Same TTE imaging principles apply to the second‐ and third‐generation self‐expandable valves as well as the balloon‐expandable valves. Multiple case examples are used to illustrate imaging principles pre‐ and post‐TAVR. In addition, case examples to demonstrate complications post‐TAVR are shown.     

Reversible thrombotic aortic valve restenosis after valve‐in‐valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Thrombotic aortic valve restenosis following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has not been extensively reported and the rates of TAVR valve thrombosis are not known. We present three cases of valve‐in‐valve (VIV) restenosis following TAVR with the balloon expandable transcatheter heart valves, presumably due to valve thrombosis that improved with anticoagulation. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Complications after Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with a Balloon‐Expandable Prosthesis: The Importance of Preventative Measures and Contingency Planning

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with balloon‐expandable Edwards‐SAPIEN valve was superior to standard therapy in inoperable patients and noninferior to surgical aortic valve replacement in high surgical‐risk, but operable patients, with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis in the randomized controlled PARTNER trial. Since the first case of TAVR with a balloon‐expandable valve in 2002, several groups have reported their experience with balloon‐expandable valves with high‐procedural success. In the United States, the balloon‐expandable Edwards‐SAPIEN valve is the only transcatheter heart valve approved by the FDA for commercial use. Moreover, this is only in high‐risk inoperable patients. Despite increasing experience with the TAVR procedure, it can be associated with complications, which can be technically challenging, even for an experienced operator. Complications associated with TAVR include vascular complications, valve malpositioning, regurgitation, embolization, coronary compromise, conduction abnormalities, stroke/transient ischemic attack, acute kidney injury, cardiac tamponade, and hemodynamic collapse. A thorough understanding of the procedure is essential for pre‐emptive planning for procedural complications and early identification and management of complications are necessary for procedural success. We hereby review our experience of transfemoral TAVR with balloon‐expandable valves, offer practical tips to maximize the likelihood of procedural success, describe pre‐emptive strategies to prevent peri‐procedural complications and bailout measures to manage them, should they occur. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Contemporary transcatheter aortic valve replacement with third‐generation balloon‐expandable versus self‐expanding devices

Objectives

To evaluate balloon‐expandable and self‐expanding third‐generation transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) devices according to patient selection criteria and outcomes.

Background

Two competing third‐generation TAVR technologies are currently commercially available in the US. There are no published head‐to‐head comparisons of the relative performance of these two devices.

Methods

257 consecutive patients undergoing TAVR with a third‐generation balloon‐expandable (Edwards Sapien 3) or self‐expanding device (Medtronic CoreValve Evolut R) at a single US medical center were included. Choice of TAVR device was at the discretion of the multidisciplinary Heart Team. Baseline clinical characteristics, echocardiographic and CT imaging, procedural and 30‐day outcomes were prospectively collected.

Results

74 patients received a self‐expanding valve (SEV) and 183 received a balloon‐expandable valve (BEV). Patients selected for SEV were more frequently women, with lower body surface area and smaller calcified iliofemoral arteries. Three SEV patients required implantation of a second valve to successfully treat paravalvular leak. Only one BEV patient had moderate paravalvular regurgitation. There was no difference in the rate of stroke, major vascular complication or bleeding. Permanent pacemaker implantation rate was significantly higher with SEV (12.7% vs 4.7%, P = 0.49) and hospital length of stay was longer (8.3% vs 6.5%, P = 0.043), but 30‐day mortality was comparable (1.4% vs 1.6%, P = 1.00).

Conclusions

Short‐term outcomes were equivalent between the two technologies. Clinically significant paravalvular regurgitation was rare. SEV were more frequently selected in women and patients with challenging transfemoral access, but were associated with higher permanent pacemaker implantation rate and longer hospital length of stay.

     

High pacing rates for management of aortic insufficiency after balloon aortic valvuloplasty or transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Aortic insufficiency (AI) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is difficult to manage when associated with congestive heart failure. AI after balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) may be catastrophic, especially in patients who are not candidates for TAVR. We describe the use of urgent temporary pacing, followed by permanent pacing, to increase the heart rate to diminish diastolic filling time for the short term management of AI after BAV or TAVR. The strategy is particularly useful in patients who already have permanent pacemakers, which are common in this population. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Intraprocedural balloon dilation of the direct flow medical transcatheter aortic valve: First United States experience

Optimization of hemodynamics during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using the commercially available balloon expandable and self‐expanding valves is often accomplished through post‐dilation of the valves' metallic frame. The direct flow medical (DFM) valve is a uniquely designed second‐generation TAVR prosthetic without a rigid metallic frame. It is not widely known whether balloon dilation of this valve is beneficial when valve hemodynamics after initial deployment suboptimal due to valve underexpansion. We present the first two US patients who underwent TAVR using the DFM valve who had underexpansion in the setting of bulky leaflet calcification that resulted in elevated valve gradients and were treated successfully using intraprocedural balloon dilation. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Urgent transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe acute aortic regurgitation following open mitral valve surgery

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is not currently approved for pure native valve aortic incompetence, and is typically performed on a compassionate basis in selected patients who are at high risk for conventional surgery. We describe the first use of TAVR to treat iatrogenic severe acute pure aortic incompetence following mitral valve surgery. A 71‐year‐old gentleman developed life‐threatening acute aortic regurgitation (AR) within hours of a very challenging fifth open heart mitral valve replacement. Careful inspection of echocardiographic and computed tomographic imaging identified the cause as a disrupted left coronary cusp at the commissure caused by the surgical mitral annular reconstruction. Medical management with afterload reduction failed with recurrent pulmonary edema, and a sixth open heart surgery was deemed prohibitively high risk. The lack of aortic annular calcium onto which anchors a transcatheter valve was a concern for TAVR. However, we postulated that the struts of the mitral valve bioprosthesis would offer some support to the TAVR valve. We opted for a self‐expanding system because of concerns about potential unfavorable interaction between the balloon onto which balloon‐expandable bioprosthesis is mounted and the struts of the mitral bioprosthesis, and because the Evolut R system has additional anchoring points at the crown which might enhance transcatheter valve stability in the non‐calcified annulus, compared with the Edwards Sapien system. Transfemoral TAVR, performed with a Medtronic Evolut R 34 mm system under general anesthesia and using moderately rapid ventricular pacing, was successful with minimal residual AR. On follow‐up 1 month later the patient was asymptomatic, and the aortic and mitral bioprostheses were functioning normally on echocardiogram.     

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with pure native aortic valve regurgitation: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

This systematic review and meta‐analysis sought to summarize the available evidence on the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with Native Aortic Valve Regurgitation (NAVR) and compare outcomes between first and second generation valves. Owing to the improvements in transcatheter heart valve design and procedural success, TAVR has become increasingly performed in broader aortic valve pathologies. We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases from 2007 to 2018 and performed a systematic review on reports with at least 10 patients with aortic valve regurgitation undergoing TAVR procedure. The main outcome of interest was all‐cause mortality at 30 days. A total of 638 patients across 12 studies were included. Mean age ranged from 68 to 84. Society of Thoracic Surgeons score ranged from 5.4% to 13.1% and Logistic EuroSCORE ranged from 18.2% to 33%. The incidence rate of all‐cause mortality at 30 days was found to be 11% (95% CI 7%‐16%; I² = 20.86%). All‐cause mortality at 30 days for first generation valves had an incidence rate of 15% (95% CI 10%‐20%; I² = 10%) compared to 7% (95% CI 3%‐13%; I² = 37%) in second generation valves with subgroup interaction analysis P = 0.059. Device success incidence rate in second generation valves was 92% (95% CI 83%‐99%; I² = 67%) vs 68% (95% CI 59%‐77%; I² = 53%) in first generation valves with P = 0.001. TAVR appears to be a feasible treatment choice for NAVR patients at high risk for surgical valve replacement. Second generation valves show promising results in terms of short‐term outcomes.     

Device closure of paravalvular defects following transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the Edwards Sapien valve

Paravalvular aortic insufficiency (AI) is observed in the majority of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). While paravalvular AI is most commonly modest following TAVR, moderate or severe AI was seen in 10.5% and 6.8% of the PARTNER inoperable and high‐risk cohorts at 1 year and has been reportedly associated with dyspnea and diminished survival. We report two cases of transcatheter heart valve (THV) associated paravalvular defects closed using catheter delivered devices. Both patients derived hemodynamic and symptomatic improvement from device closure. Additional research is warranted to define the adverse consequences of THV associated AI, indications for treatment, and risks associated with device closure of these defects. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for treatment of patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses—valve‐in‐valve technique

Background: The management of patients with degeneration of surgical bioprosthetic valve replacement remains a challenge because of the higher risk of re‐do aortic valve replacement. We present a case series of five patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses treated with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Methods: From December 2009 to May 2010, five patients with degenerated aortic valve bioprostheses (aortic valve area < 1 cm² or severe aortic regurgitation), an excessive operative risk (EuroSCORE ≥ 30%), symptoms of heart failure (NYHA ≥ III) and an internal diameter of bioprosthetic aortic valve 20.5 ± 0.5 mm were included. Procedures were performed without hemodynamic support using femoral arteries. Balloon valvuloplasty with a 20‐mm balloon under rapid pacing was carried out before valve implantation. The 26‐mm CoreValve prosthesis, 18‐F‐generation (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) was inserted retrograde under fluoroscopic guidance. Invasive and echocardiographic measurements were done immediately before and after TAVI. Clinical followup and echocardiography were performed after procedure (mean followup 72 days ± 60, range: 176–30 days). Results: In all patients TAVI was successful with immediate decrease of transaortic peak‐to‐peak pressure (P = 0.002). Mild aortic regurgitation occurred in two patients and one patient received a new permanent pacemaker. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events did not arise. NYHA functional class improved in all patients and left ventricular ejection fraction increased (P = 0.019). Conclusion: Our experiences with the valve‐in‐valve technique using the CoreValve prosthesis suggest that transfemoral TAVI is feasible in high risk patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Bioprosthetic aortic valve leaflet disruption with high energy electrocautery to prevent coronary artery obstruction during valve‐in‐valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is well‐established for the treatment of bioprosthetic aortic valve stenosis (AS) in high surgical risk patients. Coronary artery obstruction from displacement of the bioprosthetic valve leaflets during valve‐in‐valve (VIV) TAVR is a rare, but potentially fatal, complication. Recently, the bioprosthetic aortic scallop intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction (BASILICA) procedure was developed as a method for disrupting bioprosthetic leaflets in patients undergoing VIV TAVR at high risk for coronary obstruction. This case describes a successful VIV TAVR utilizing a simplified concept of the BASILICA technique in a patient where the full procedure could not be completed.     

Delivery balloon‐induced ascending aortic dissection: An unusual complication during transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a relatively mature technique that is generally accepted as a promising treatment for inoperable patients and those who are high‐risk candidates for surgical aortic replacement. Although severe complications in the aortic valve complex, such as annular or aortic root rupture, are not frequently observed, these events could easily lead to catastrophic outcomes, and therefore remain major issues during TAVI. However, there remains a paucity of data describing these catastrophic complications because of their low incidence. We encountered the case of an 88‐year‐old woman complicated by a dissection of the ascending aorta during TAVI from an “unusual” cause: injury due to the delivery of a balloon‐expandable valve to a very narrow and heavily calcified sinotubular junction (STJ). This is the first report to demonstrate the mechanism of this complication; even a delivery balloon, not a stent frame, with low inflation pressure might injure a narrow STJ and lead to an aortic dissection. Therefore, the use of oversized delivery balloons should be avoided in patients with a narrow and calcified STJ. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Meta‐analysis of complications in aortic valve replacement: Comparison of Medtronic‐Corevalve,Edwards‐Sapien and surgical aortic valve replacement in 8,536 patients

Background : We sought to establish the complication rates following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in the context of high risk and octogenarian surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in the contemporary literature, and to critically analyze population characteristics and outcomes. Methods : TAVR studies were selected from nonoverlapping series and SAVR studies for comparison if they met similar entry criteria. Bayesian meta‐analytic methods were employed. Results : For the 5024 TAVR and 3512 SAVR patients included in the study, TAVR subjects had greater baseline renal impairment (P < 0.001), a higher incidence of prior myocardial infarction (P = 0.032) and respiratory disease (P = 0.005) and a higher logistic EuroSCORE (P = 0.039). There were no significant differences observed in complications studied in SAVR and TAVR: 30 day mortality (9% vs 8.5%, P = 0.31), 1 year mortality (18.4% vs 22.8%, P = 0.65), 30 day stroke (2.4% vs 2.6%, P = 0.72), new permanent pacemaker (5.9% vs 12.1%, P = 0.055) and dialysis inception (2.4% vs 4.1%, P = 0.70). We also compared demographics and outcomes between the two types of transcatheter valves. Apart from some variation in functional status, there were no significant differences at baseline with different TAVR designs. The only difference in complications was the need for pacemaker insertion, higher with the Medtronic‐Corevalve than with the Edwards‐Sapien design (24.5% vs 5.9% P < 0.0001). Conclusions : Complications for elderly and high risk aortic stenosis patients being treated by TAVR appear comparable to those selected for SAVR in the real‐world. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Balloon aortic valvuloplasty for severe aortic stenosis as a bridge to transcatheter/surgical aortic valve replacement

Objectives : This study aimed to determine success‐ and complication rates after balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) and the outcome of BAV as a standalone therapy versus BAV as a bridge to transcatheter/surgical aortic valve replacement (T/SAVR). Background : The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has led to a revival in BAV as treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis. Methods : A cohort of 472 patients underwent 538 BAV procedures. The cohort was divided into two groups: BAV alone 387 (81.9%) and BAV as a bridge 85 (18.1%) to (n = 65, TAVR; n = 20, surgery). Clinical, hemodynamic, and follow‐up mortality data were collected. Results : There was no significant difference between the two groups in mean age (81.7 ± 8.3 vs. 83.2 ± 10.9 years, P = 0.18), society of thoracic surgeons score (13.1 ± 6.2 and 12.4 ± 6.4, P = 0.4), logistic EuroSCORE (45.4 ± 22.3 vs. 46.9 ± 21.8, P = 0.43), and other comorbidities. The mean increase in aortic valve area was 0.39 ± 0.25 in the BAV alone group and 0.42 ± 0.26 in the BAV as a bridge group, P = 0.33. The decrease in mean gradient was 24.1 ± 13.1 in the BAV alone group vs. 27.1 ± 13.8 in the BAV as a bridge group, P = 0.06. During a median follow up of 183 days [54–409], the mortality rate was 55.2% (n = 214) in the BAV alone group vs. 22.3% (n = 19) in the BAV as a bridge group during a median follow‐up of 378 days [177–690], P < 0.001. Conclusion : In high‐risk patients with aortic stenosis and temporary contraindications to SAVR/TAVR, BAV may be used as a bridge to intervention with good mid‐term outcomes. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

A novel approach to extraction of a large thrombus on the intraventricular guide‐wire during transcatheter aortic valve replacement

For appropriate patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis with a prohibitively high surgical risk, trans‐catheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now established as a viable option. Thrombosis on the intra‐ventricular guide‐wire during TAVR is a recognized complication (Wiper et al., Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2014). There is an obvious potential for embolization with particular concern for stroke in this situation. We describe a case in which a >1cm thrombus was noted on the intra‐ventricular guide‐wire by trans‐esophageal echocardiogram (TEE) during a TAVR procedure. Balloon aortic valvuloplasty was still performed and an Edwards Sapien valve was deployed. After valve deployment a multi‐purpose guiding catheter was advanced with continuous suction. The guide‐wire and thrombus were withdrawn inside the guiding catheter. The guide‐wire and catheter were removed as a single unit, allowing the thrombus to be safely retrieved. We believe that this is a novel technique of aspiration thrombectomy in this potentially hazardous clinical circumstance. As our experience with TAVR increases, so does our experience with the complications. In the PARTNER trial there was a higher rate of neurological events in TAVR patients than those who had open aortic valve replacement (Smith et al. N Engl J Med 2011;364:2187–2198.). This may be related to peri‐procedural formation of thrombus and subsequent embolization. We report a case where a large guide‐wire thrombus identified during TAVR was successfully removed using a novel approach, preventing a potentially major stroke in this high‐risk patient. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

First report of a simultaneous transcatheter mitral valve‐in‐valve and aortic valve replacement in a left ventricular assist device patient

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is standard of care for patients with severe aortic stenosis at high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement. Although not intended for treatment of primary aortic insufficiency, several transcatheter aortic valve prostheses have been used to treat patients with severe aortic insufficiency (AI), including patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD), in whom significant AI is not uncommon. Similarly, transcatheter valve replacements have been used for valve‐in‐valve treatment, in the pulmonary, aortic, and mitral positions, either via a retrograde femoral approach or antegrade transseptal approach (mitral valve‐in‐valve). In this case report, we report an LVAD patient with severe aortic insufficiency and severe bioprosthetic mitral prosthetic stenosis, in whom we successfully performed transfemoral aortic valve replacement and transfemoral mitral valve‐in‐valve replacement via a transseptal approach. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement thrombosis in patient supported with durable left ventricular assist device

Aortic insufficiency (AI) is a frequent problem after continuous‐flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation and results in increased morbidity and mortality. Advances in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) technology have resulted in this being discussed as a potential option for LVAD patients with AI. While small case series have been published, we report the first case of TAVR thrombosis in an LVAD patient. This case highlights a major diagnostic and management dilemma that should become more present if this strategy becomes more widespread.     

A word of caution using self‐expanding transcatheter aortic valve‐frame infolding

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has become a mainstay alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at high and intermediate surgical risk. Two commercially approved valves are available in the United States: balloon‐expandable and self‐expanding. We report here a rare complication of a self‐expanding Evolut PRO (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) valve failing to expand due to nitinol frame infolding. This results in a malopposed valve with a severe paravalvular leak, even though treated successfully with balloon valvuloplasty. It is important to recognize the characteristic angiographic signature of this complication—the “straight line” sign—and how to avoid this potentially serious complication by balloon valvuloplasty or by recapture and deployment of a new valve.     

Prognostic benefit of transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with medical therapy in patients with inoperable aortic stenosis

Objectives : To compare survival in patients with inoperable aortic stenosis who undergo transcatheter aortic valve implantation against those managed medically. Background : Without surgical correction, survival of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis is poor. It is unknown whether patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have a better prognosis than similar patients who are treated with medical management. Methods : Survival rates were compared in consecutive patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who either underwent TAVI or continued on medical management following multidisciplinary team assessment. All patients had been turned down, or considered at unacceptably high risk, for conventional aortic valve surgery. Patients were reviewed in clinic or by telephone six monthly. Mortality data was obtained from the United Kingdom Office of National Statistics. Results : The study group included 85 patients aged 81 ± 7 years (range 62–94), of whom 48 were male. Thirty eight patients underwent TAVI while 47 patients were deemed unsuitable based on echocardiographic, angiographic, or clinical criteria and remained on medical therapy. The calculated EuroSCORE for the TAVI group was 11 ± 2 and for the medical group 9 ± 2 (P < 0.001). TAVI‐related procedural mortality was 2.6%, and 30‐day mortality was 5.2%. Among the medically‐treated patients, 14 (30%) underwent palliative balloon aortic valvuloplasty, with a trend toward improved survival (P = 0.06). During overall follow‐up of 215 ± 115 days there were a total of 18 deaths; TAVI N = 5 (13%); Medical N = 13 (28%) (P = 0.04). Conclusions : Patients with severe aortic valve disease who are not suitable for surgical aortic valve replacement have an improved prognosis if treated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation rather than continuing on medical management alone. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Background : Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a rapidly evolving strategy for therapy of aortic stenosis. We describe the effect of the learning curve from the first 270 high‐risk patients in Vancouver, Canada. Methods : Patients underwent TAVI by transfemoral (63%) or transapical (37%) routes using balloon expandable valves. The experience was divided into the first half (FH, patients 1–135) and second half (SH, patients 136–270). Results : The mean age was 83.2 ± 8 years (FH 83 ± 12 vs. SH 81 ± 7 years, P = 0.12). The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Score (STS) was 9.5% ± 5.2%‐ FH 10.5 vs. SH 8.5% (P = 0.01). The overall procedural success rate in the FH was 92.6%, improving to 97.8% in the SH (P = 0.05). The transfemoral procedural success improved—FH 89.3% to SH 98.8% (P = 0.01). The transapical procedural success remained high—FH 98.0% to SH 96.1% (P = 0.53). The overall 30‐day mortality was 9.6%, improving from FH 13.3% to SH 5.9% (P = 0.04). In the transfemoral cases, 30‐day mortality decreased by 56% [10.7–4.7%, P = 0.14], and similarly in transapical cases [17.6–7.8%, P = 0.14]. In‐hospital stroke occurred in 3.3% (FH 3.7% vs. SH 2.9%, P = 0.74). The overall need for a new permanent pacemaker was 5.9% (FH 5.9% vs. SH 5.9%, P = 1). The overall major vascular injury rate was 6.7% (FH 8.1% vs. SH 5.2%, P = 0.33). The overall incidence of coronary vessel occlusion was 1.1% (FH 1.5 % vs. SH 0.7%, P = 0.56). Device embolization or failure to cross the valve was rare and largely seen in the FH only. Procedural experience (>135 procedures) was an independent predictor of 30‐day survival (HR: 6.7, 95% CI: 1.2–18.1, P = 0.03). Conclusion : TAVI outcomes improve with experience and device development. While overall complication rates are low, scope remains to further reduce procedural adverse events.© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.