Pacemaker dependency after transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared to surgical aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a standard treatment indicated for severe aortic stenosis in high-risk patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence of pacemaker dependency after permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) following TAVR or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and the risk of mortality at a tertiary center in Korea.In this retrospective study conducted at a single tertiary center, clinical outcomes related to pacemaker dependency were evaluated for patients implanted with pacemakers after TAVR from January 2012 to November 2018 and post-SAVR from January 2005 to May 2015. Investigators reviewed patients’ electrocardiograms and baseline rhythms as well as conduction abnormalities. Pacemaker dependency was defined as a ventricular pacing rate > 90% with an intrinsic rate of <40 bpm during interrogation.Of 511 patients who underwent TAVR for severe AS, 37(7.3%) underwent PPI after a median duration of 6 (3–7) days, whereas pacemakers were implanted after a median interval of 13 (8–28) days post-SAVR in 10 of 663 patients (P < .001). Pacemaker dependency was observed in 36 (97.3%) patients during 7 days immediately post-TAVR and in 25 (64.9%) patients between 8 and 180 days post-TAVR. Pacemaker dependency occurred after 180 days in 17 (50%) patients with TAVR and in 4 (44.4%) patients with SAVR. Twelve (41.4%) patients were pacemaker-dependent after 365 days post-TAVR.Pacemaker dependency did not differ at 6 months after TAVR vs SAVR. In patients undergoing post-TAVR PPI, 58.6% were not pacemaker-dependent at 1 year after the TAVR procedure.     

Simultaneous thoracic aortic endovascular graft and transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a patient with a descending aortic thrombus

Severe descending thoracic and abdominal aortic pathology can deter consideration of transfemoral (TF) access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in adults with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) and may lead to utilization of alternative access sites. We report a case of an 88-year-old frail woman with severe symptomatic AS referred for TAVR with demonstration of a large thrombus in the descending thoracic aorta immediately distal to the left subclavian artery. Given concerns of thrombus embolization with femoral advancement of the transcatheter valve, coverage with a thoracic aortic endograft was planned immediately prior to the TAVR.     

Successful transfemoral aortic valve replacement in a bicuspid aortic stenotic valve: Requirements for a safe implant

Although transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been accepted as an attractive alternative for high‐risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS), patients with congenital bicuspid AS has been typically disqualified for this indication due to an implied risk of device dislocation, distortion, or device malfunctioning. Nonetheless, bicuspid AS is not uncommon and frequently missed by transthoracic echocardiography. We reported an interesting case of a high‐risk patient with severe symptomatic bicuspid AS who underwent successful TAVR and discussed the anatomic requirements for a safe implant in patients with bicuspid AS considered candidates for TAVR. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Single-center experience of 105-minimalistc transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement and its outcome

IntroductionTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) increases worldwide, and indications expand from high-risk aortic stenosis patients to low-risk aortic stenosis. Studies have shown that minimalistic TAVR done under conscious sedation is safe and effective. We report single-operator, the single-center outcome of 105 minimalist transfemoral, conscious sedation TAVR patients, analyzed retrospectively.MethodsAll patients underwent TAVR in cardiac catheterization lab via percutaneous transfemoral, conscious sedation approach. A dedicated cardiac anesthetist team delivered the conscious sedation with a standard protocol described in the main text. The outcomes were analyzed as per VARC-2 criteria and compared with the latest low-risk TAVR trials.ResultsA total of 105 patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement between July 2016 to February 2020. The mean age of the population was 73 years, and the mean STS score was 3.99 ± 2.59. All patients underwent a percutaneous transfemoral approach. Self-expanding valve was used in 40% of cases and balloon-expandable valve in 60% (Sapien3? in 31% and MyVal? in 29%) of cases. One patient required conversion to surgical aortic valve replacement. The success rate was 99 percent. The outcomes were: all-cause mortality: 0.9%, stroke rate 1.9%, New pacemaker rate 5.7%, 87.6% had no paravalvular leak. The mild and moderate paravalvular leak was seen in 2.8% and 1.9%, respectively. The mean gradient decreased from 47.5 mmHg to 9 mmHg. The average ICU stay was 26.4 h, and the average hospital stay was 5.4 days. Our outcomes are comparable with the latest published low-risk trial.ConclusionMinimalist, conscious sedation, transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement when done following a standard protocol is safe and effective.     

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A novel abdominal transaortic approach

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) via the transfemoral (TF), transapical (TA), or even the transaortic (TAO) approach in high‐risk or inoperable patients is quickly becoming a safe and effective modality for the treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, in this selected group of patients, those with anatomical or physiologic constraints preventing TF, TA, and conventional TAO TAVR, alternative sites of access must be explored. Here, we report a successful TAVR in an inoperable patient with severe AS using a distal abdominal TAO approach via a synthetic graft‐conduit. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Transcatheter vs surgical aortic valve replacement in low to intermediate surgical risk aortic stenosis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is regarded as the most superior alternative treatment approach for patients with aortic stenosis (AS) who are associated with high surgical risk, whereas the effectiveness of TAVR vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low to intermediate surgical risk patients remained inconclusive. This study aimed to determine the best treatment strategies for AS with low to intermediate surgical risk based on published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Hypothesis and MethodsRCTs that compared TAVR vs SAVR in AS patients with low to intermediate surgical risk were identified by PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane library from inception till April 2019. The pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the data collected using random‐effects models.ResultsSeven RCTs with a total of 6929 AS patients were enrolled. We noted that TAVR significantly increased the risk of transient ischemic attack (TIA) (RR: 1.43; 95%CI: 1.04‐1.96; P = .029), and permanent pacemaker implantation (RR: 3.00; 95%CI: 1.70‐5.30; P < .001). However, TAVR was associated with lower risk of post‐procedural bleeding (RR: 0.57; 95%CI: 0.33‐0.98; P = .042), new‐onset or worsening of atrial fibrillation (RR: 0.32; 95%CI: 0.23‐0.45; P < .001), acute kidney injury (RR: 0.40; 95%CI: 0.25‐0.63; P < .001), and cardiogenic shock (RR: 0.34; 95%CI: 0.19‐0.59; P < .001). The risk of aortic‐valve reintervention at 1‐ (RR: 2.63; 95%CI: 1.34‐5.15; P = .005), and 2 years (RR: 3.19; 95%CI: 1.63‐6.24; P = .001) in low to intermediate surgical risk patients who received TAVR was significantly increased than those who received SAVR.ConclusionsThese findings indicated that low to intermediate surgical risk patients who received TAVR had low risk of complications, whereas the risk of TIA, permanent pacemaker implantation, and aortic‐valve reintervention was increased.     

Use and Outcomes of Acute Treatment Strategies in Patients with Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis

Background:This study aimed to evaluate the acute treatment of patients with severe aortic valve stenosis in Germany.Methods and Results:Three treatment strategies in 11,027 patients acutely admitted due to aortic valve stenosis were compared from 2014 until 2018 using German nationwide records: The annual number of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures (1,294 to 1,827) and balloon valvuloplasty (BV only) procedures (170 to 233) in patients acutely admitted increased, but surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) procedures decreased (426 to 316). In comparison to BV only patients (mean age 81.3; EuroSCORE 23.2) SAVR patients were younger and at lower logistic EuroSCORE (mean age 66.9; EuroSCORE 9.4). Patients treated with TAVR were at comparable age and operative risk (mean age 81.3; EuroSCORE 24.4) as those patients treated with BV only. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Reimbursement was considered secondary outcome. After risk adjustment using multivariable logistic and linear regression analyses, SAVR (OR 0.26 [96%CI 0.16;0.45], p < 0.001) and TAVR (OR 0.38 [0.29;0.49], p < 0.001) were associated with lower risk for mortality compared to BV only. Compared to BV only, hospitalization costs of patients undergoing SAVR were reduced by €5,578 ([95%CI €8,023; €3,133], p < 0.001). TAVR procedures were associated with higher hospitalization costs than BV only (risk-adjusted difference €4,143 [€2,330; €5,926], p < 0.001).Conclusions:BV only was associated with a substantially increased risk of in-hospital mortality in acute patients. We conclude that a definitive aortic valve replacement should be preferred as primary treatment in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis causing an acute admission.     

Comparison of postprocedural new-onset atrial fibrillation between transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on 16 randomized controlled trials

Background:Presently, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as an effective and convenient intervention has been adopted extensively for patients with severe aortic disease. However, after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and TAVR, the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is prevalently found. This meta-analysis was designed to comprehensively compare the incidence of NOAF at different times after TAVR and 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 TAVR and SAVR in the treatment of severe aortic disease. The primary outcomes were the incidence of NOAF with early, midterm and long term follow-up. The secondary outcomes included permanent pacemaker (PM) implantation, myocardial infarction (MI), cardiogenic shock, as well as mortality and other complications. Two reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted the data independently. All statistical analyses were performed using the standard statistical procedures provided in Review Manager 5.2.Results:A total of 16 studies including 13,310 patients were identified. The pooled results indicated that, compared with SAVR, TAVR experienced a significantly lower incidence of 30-day/in-hospital, 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year NOAF, with pooled risk ratios (RRs) of 0.31 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23–0.41; 5725 pts), 0.30 (95% CI 0.24–0.39; 6321 pts), 0.48 (95% CI 0.38–0.61; 3441 pts), and 0.45 (95% CI 0.37–0.55; 2268 pts) respectively. In addition, TAVR showed lower incidence of MI (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.40–0.97) and cardiogenic shock (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.19–0.59), but higher incidence of permanent PM (RR 3.16; 95% CI 1.61–6.21) and major vascular complications (RR 2.22; 95% CI 1.14–4.32) at 30-day/in-hospital. At 1- and 2-year after procedure, compared with SAVR, TAVR experienced a significantly higher incidence of neurological events, transient ischemic attacks (TIA), permanent PM, and major vascular complications, respectively. At 5-year after procedure, compared with SAVR, TAVR experienced a significantly higher incidence of TIA and re-intervention respectively. There was no difference in 30-day, 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year all-cause or cardiovascular mortality as well as stroke between TAVR and SAVR.Conclusions:Our analysis showed that TAVR was superior to SAVR in decreasing the both short and long term postprocedural NOAF. TAVR was equal to SAVR in early, midterm and long term mortality. In addition, TAVR showed lower incidence of 30-day/in-hospital MI and cardiogenic shock after procedure. However, pooled results showed that TAVR was inferior to SAVR in reducing permanent pacemaker implantation, neurological events, TIA, major vascular complications, and re-intervention.     

Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Mixed Aortic Valve Disease

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with pure aortic stenosis (AS) (i.e., no or trivial associated aortic regurgitation [AR]) with those in patients with AS and mild or more severe AR (i.e., mixed aortic valve disease [MAVD]).BackgroundTAVR is indicated in treating patients with severe AS. Limited data exist regarding the outcomes of TAVR in patients with MAVD.MethodsA total of 1,133 patients who underwent TAVR between January 2014 and December 2017 were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The comparison was adjusted to account for post-TAVR AR development in both groups. The secondary outcomes included composite endpoints of early safety and clinical efficacy as specified in the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. Variables were compared using Mann-Whitney, chi-square, and Fisher exact tests, while Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to compare survival.ResultsA total of 688 patients (61%) had MAVD (median age 83 years , 43% women). Among these, 17% developed mild, 2% moderate, and <1% severe post-TAVR AR. Overall, patients with MAVD had better survival compared with patients with pure AS (p = 0.03). Among patients who developed post-TAVR AR, those in the MAVD group had better survival (p = 0.04). In contrast, in patients who did not develop post-TAVR AR, pre-TAVR AR did not improve survival (p = 0.11).ConclusionsPatients with MAVD who underwent TAVR had better survival compared with patients with pure AS. This is explained by the better survival of patients with MAVD who developed post-TAVR AR, likely due to left ventricular adaptation to AR.     

Effect of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement on Right Ventricular–Pulmonary Artery Coupling

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that the acute left ventricular (LV) unloading effect of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) would improve right ventricular (RV) function and RV–pulmonary artery (PA) coupling in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).BackgroundRV dysfunction is an ominous prognostic marker in patients undergoing TAVR, suggesting that relief of obstruction might be less beneficial in this cohort. However, the left ventricle and right ventricle influence each other through ventricular interaction, which could lead to improved RV function through LV unloading.MethodsProspective invasive hemodynamic measurements with simultaneous echocardiography were performed in symptomatic patients with severe AS before and immediately after TAVR.ResultsForty-four patients (mean age 81 ± 8 years, 27% women) with severe AS underwent TAVR. At baseline, right atrial, PA mean (27 ± 7 mm Hg), and pulmonary capillary wedge (16 ± 4 mm Hg) pressures were mildly elevated, with a low normal cardiac index (2.3 l/min/m²). Pulmonary vascular resistance was mildly elevated (222 ± 133 dynes · s/cm⁵) and PA compliance mildly reduced (3.4 ± 01.4 ml/mm Hg). Following TAVR, aortic valve area increased (from 0.8 ± 0.3 to 2.7 ± 1.1 cm²; p < 0.001) with a reduction in mean aortic gradient (from 37 ± 11 to 7 ± 4 mm Hg; p < 0.001) and an increase in cardiac index (from 2.3 ± 0.5 to 2.5 ± 0.6 l/min/m²; p = 0.03). LV stroke work, end-systolic wall stress, and systolic ejection period decreased by 23% to 27% (p < 0.001 for all), indicating substantial LV unloading. RV stroke work (from 16 ± 7 to 18 ± 7 mm Hg · ml; p = 0.04) and tricuspid annular systolic velocities (from 9.5 ± 2.0 to 10.4 ± 3.5 cm/s; p = 0.01) increased, along with a decrease in PVR (194 ± 113 dynes · s/cm⁵; p = 0.03), indicating improvement in RV-PA coupling. Increased RV stroke work following TAVR directly correlated with the magnitude of increase in aortic valve area (r = 0.58; p < 0.001).ConclusionsAcute relief in obstruction to LV ejection with TAVR is associated with improvements in RV function and RV-PA coupling. These findings provide new insights into the potential benefits of LV unloading with TAVR on RV dysfunction in patients with severe AS.     

Salvaging lowermost deployment of an acurate device during transcatheter aortic valve replacement with balloon and lasso pull techniques

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), also known as transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), is being used with increasing frequency in patients with severe aortic stenosis at high or prohibitive surgical risk. A number of devices are becoming available for TAVR, and competence in using them is mandatory to maximize the safety and efficacy of TAVR, while individualizing device selection in keeping with patient features. The ACURATE TF is a novel promising device for transfemoral TAVR. However, its peculiar features may require additional maneuvers in case of complications. We hereby report the case of a patient undergoing transfemoral TAVR with the ACURATE TF device, in whom lowermost deployment was complicated by massive aortic regurgitation. With two separate remedial actions, the balloon pull and lasso techniques, we were able to pull back the device and significantly reduce post‐TAVR aortic regurgitation. Awareness of this complication and the possible use of these two techniques may increase the safety and efficacy of TAVR with this and other new devices. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Long-term outlook for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) revolutionized the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). TAVR is increasingly offered for lower-risk patients. The role and place of TAVR in the future treatment of AS is not clear yet. In this review, we discuss the long-term outlook for TAVR, its challenges and its relationship to conventional surgical aortic valve replacement.     

Non-Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Approach is Associated with a Higher Risk of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BackgroundNew-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is a frequent arrhythmic complication following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Choice of access routes for TAVR could be a factor that determines the risk of NOAF although the data is still not well-characterised. We aimed to assess the association between different access routes for TAVR (transfemoral versus non-transfemoral) and the risk of NOAF.MethodsA comprehensive literature review was performed through September 2018 using EMBASE and Medline. Eligible studies must compare the incidence of NOAF in patients without pre-existing atrial fibrillation who underwent TAVR. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted from each study and combined together using the random-effects model, generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird.ResultsSeven (7) retrospective studies with 18,425 patients who underwent TAVR (12,744 with the transfemoral approach and 5,681 with the non-transfemoral approach) met the eligibility criteria. After the procedures, 2,205 (12.0%) patients developed NOAF (656 [5.1%] patients in the transfemoral group and 1,549 [27.3%] patients in the non-transfemoral group). There was a significant association between the non-transfemoral approach and an increased risk of NOAF with the pooled RR of 2.94 (95%CI, 2.53–3.41; p < 0.00001). Subgroup analysis showed the highest risk of NOAF in the transapical subgroup with the pooled RR of 3.20 (95% CI, 2.69–3.80; I² 33%).ConclusionsA significantly increased risk of NOAF following TAVR among those who underwent a non-transfemoral approach compared with transfemoral approach was observed in this meta-analysis.     

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.     

Validation study to determine the accuracy of central blood pressure measurement using the SphygmoCor XCEL cuff device in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Central aortic blood pressure could be helpful in the evaluation of patients with aortic stenosis (AS). The SphygmoCor XCEL device estimates central blood pressure (BP) measurement with its easy‐to‐use, operator‐independent procedure. However, this device has not been properly validated against invasive measurement in patients with severe AS. We evaluated the relationship between cuff‐brachial BP, transfer function‐estimated and invasively measured central aortic pressure in patients with severe AS before and after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Agreement between techniques was analyzed and, according to the ARTERY Society recommendations, the minimum acceptable error was a mean difference ± SD ≤5 ± ≤8 mm Hg. A total of 94 patients with AS undergoing TAVR had simultaneous non‐invasive and invasive measurements of central BP before and after the procedure. Before TAVR central systolic BP was in average slightly underestimated, though with wide variability, when using the default calibration of brachial‐cuff SBP (mean difference ± SD, −3 ± 15 mm Hg), and after TAVR the degree of underestimation increased (mean difference ± SD, −9 ± 13 mm Hg). The agreement tended to improve for those patients with low aortic gradient stenosis compared to those with high gradient at baseline (mean difference ± SD, −2 ± 11 mm Hg vs. −4 ± 17, respectively, p = .3). The cuff‐brachial systolic BP yielded numerically lower degree of agreement and weaker correlation with invasive measurements than SphygmoCor XCEL. In patients with severe AS the SphygmoCor XCEL cuff device, despite showing strong correlation, does not meet the ARTERY Society accuracy criteria for non‐invasive measurement of central SBP.     

Influence of coronary artery disease and percutaneous coronary intervention on mid‐term outcomes in patients with aortic valve stenosis treated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BackgroundA high frequency of coronary artery disease (CAD) is reported in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) who undergo transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, the optimal management of CAD in these patients remains unknown.HypothesisWe hypothesis that AS patients with TAVI complicated by CAD have poor prognosis. His study evaluates the prognoses of patients with CAD and severe AS after TAVI.MethodsWe divided 186 patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI into three groups: those with CAD involving the left main coronary (LM) or proximal left anterior descending artery (LAD) lesion (the CAD[LADp] group), those with CAD not involving the LM or a LAD proximal lesion (the CAD[non‐LADp] group), and those without CAD (Non‐CAD group). Clinical outcomes were compared among the three groups.ResultsThe CAD[LADp] group showed a higher incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) and all‐cause mortality than the other two groups (log‐rank p = .001 and p = .008, respectively). Even after adjustment for STS score and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) before TAVI, CAD[LADp] remained associated with MACCE and all‐cause mortality. However, PCI for an LM or LAD proximal lesion pre‐TAVI did not reduce the risk of these outcomes.ConclusionsCAD with an LM or LAD proximal lesion is a strong independent predictor of mid‐term MACCEs and all‐cause mortality in patients with severe AS treated with TAVI. PCI before TAVI did not influence the outcomes.     

Effect of transcatheter aortic valve replacement on P-wave duration, P-wave dispersion and left atrial size

Background P-wave dispersion (PWD), a measure of heterogeneity of atrial refractoriness, is defined as the difference between the maximum and minimum P-wave duration. In patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), P-wave duration and PWD were shown to be increased, indicating atrial electrical remodeling. However, the effect of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) on P-wave morphology has not been established yet. The aim of this study is to assess the short and long-term effects of TAVR with two types of bioprosthetic valves on P-wave duration and PWD in association with left atrial (LA) size. Methods Fifty-two (36 female) eligible patients in sinus rhythm who underwent transfemoral TAVR between June 01, 2012 and July 31, 2014 with either a Medtronic CoreValve (MCV) (n = 32) or an Edwards SAPIEN XT Valve (n = 20) were enrolled. Standard 12-lead electrocardiogram and echocardiographic evaluations were performed pre-procedurally, post-TAVR day one and 6 months post-TAVR. P-wave duration and PWD were measured and correlation analyses with echocardiographic variables were performed. Results P-wave duration and PWD were significantly decreased on post-TAVR day one (P < 0.05). They continued to decrease during the six month follow-up period, but were not significantly different from short-term values (P > 0.05). The decrease of LA diameter was found significant at the sixth-months of follow-up (P < 0.05). These changes were independent from the types of bioprosthetic valves implanted (P > 0.05). A positive correlation was detected between minimum P-wave duration and maximum aortic valve gradients at post-TAVR day one (r = 0.297, P = 0.032). Conclusions P-wave duration and PWD were significantly reduced early after TAVR indicating early reverse atrial electrical remodeling. Moreover, structural reverse remodeling of atrium was detected at the 6-months of follow-up. The effects of two types of bioprosthetic valves on atrial remodeling were similar.     

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: The year in review 2016

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) continued to make major strides in 2016, simultaneously expanding its application to lower risk patients as well as more technically challenging subsets of patients with aortic stenosis (AS). The two major accomplishments this year were the establishment of TAVR as the preferred treatment strategy over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in intermediate risk patients, and initial signals that TAVR and SAVR may be clinically equivalent in low‐risk populations. Meanwhile, there is continued expansion of TAVR to challenging clinical subsets (bicuspid aortic valve [BAV], patients with concomitant advanced coronary artery disease [CAD], and failed surgical bioprostheses), and encouraging initial experiences with newer transcatheter heart valve systems. This paper summarizes the major research studies published on TAVR in 2016.

     

TAVR in Low-Risk Patients: 1-Year Results From the LRT Trial

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate clinical outcomes and transcatheter heart valve hemodynamics at 1 year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low-risk patients.BackgroundEarly results from the LRT (Low Risk TAVR) trial demonstrated that TAVR is safe in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who are at low risk for surgical valve replacement.MethodsThe LRT trial was an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicenter study and was the first Food and Drug Administration–approved Investigational Device Exemption trial to evaluate feasibility of TAVR in low-risk patients. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 30 days. Secondary endpoints included clinical outcomes and valve hemodynamics at 1 year.ResultsThe LRT trial enrolled 200 low-risk patients with symptomatic severe AS to undergo TAVR at 11 centers. Mean age was 73.6 years and 61.5% were men. At 30 days, there was zero mortality, zero disabling stroke, and low permanent pacemaker implantation rate (5.0%). At 1-year follow-up, mortality was 3.0%, stroke rate was 2.1%, and permanent pacemaker implantation rate was 7.3%. Two (1.0%) subjects underwent surgical reintervention for endocarditis. Of the 14% of TAVR subjects who had evidence of hypoattenuated leaflet thickening at 30 days, there was no impact on valve hemodynamics at 1 year, but the stroke rate was numerically higher (3.8% vs. 1.9%; p = 0.53).ConclusionsTAVR in low-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis appears to be safe at 1 year. Hypoattenuated leaflet thickening, observed in a minority of TAVR patients at 30 days, did not have an impact on valve hemodynamics in the longer term.     

Successful minimal approach transcatheter aortic valve replacement in an allograft heart recipient 19 years post transplantation for severe aortic stenosis: A case report

BACKGROUND Aortic stenosis is one of the rare valvular complications in a transplanted heart.Over the past 8 years, transcatheter approach for aortic valve replacement(TAVR) has been slowly evolving to be the preferred approach in these patient population when compared to the surgical approach. We report a second case in the United States with successful transfemoral minimal approach with minimal sedation for TAVR in a heart transplant recipient 19 years post transplantation for severe symptomatic calcified aortic stenosis.CASE SUMMARY We present a case of 73-year-old male who has undergone successful minimal approach transcatheter aortic valve replacement in an allograft heart. Patient had received orthotopic heart transplantation 19 years ago for non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. Follow up transthoracic echocardiograms as per routine protocol did not show any aortic valve disease until 15 years post transplantation.Aortic valve was noted to be mildly sclerotic at that time and gradually progressed to severe symptomatic aortic stenosis over the next 4 years. Patient had complaints of worsening shortness of breath that limited his functional capacity. Overall his post heart transplantation period has been mostly uneventful except for allograft non occlusive vasculopathy and aortic stenosis.His Society of Thoracic Surgery risk score was 12.205% and he was considered to be a high-risk surgical candidate by surgeon. Decision was made to undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement.CONCLUSION With the improved survival of these patients, we think it is time to look intopathophysiology of valvular disease in transplant heart recipients. Some other unanswered questions include, underlying donor and recipient risk factors for valvular diseases in heart transplant recipients.