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.     

Surgical Versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Malignancy

BackgroundPatients with aortic stenosis (AS) and malignancy experience poor clinical outcomes with challenging decisions regarding aortic valve replacement (AVR). We sought to compare the outcomes of transcatheter (TAVR) versus surgical (SAVR) AVR in patients with AS and malignancy.MethodsBased on the Nationwide Readmission Database, we compared all patients with malignancy who underwent isolated SAVR vs. TAVR in 2016 for severe AS. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses for baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes. A total of 2566 patients were included, 1952 (76%) had TAVR and the remaining 614 (24%) had isolated SAVR. Patients who underwent TAVR were older (82 vs 72 years, p < .001), had more metastasis (19 vs 14%, p = .004), heart failure (72% vs 34%, p < .001), coronary artery disease (72% vs 52%, p < .001), anemia (28% vs 22%, p = .006), chronic lung (30% vs 22%, p < .001) and renal disease (35% vs 14%, p < .001), and shorter length of stay (3 vs 7 days, p < .001).ResultsIn multivariate regression, TAVR and SAVR had similar in-patient mortality (HR = 1.08; 95%CI 0.61 ̶ 1.94) and 30-day readmission (HR = 1.26; 95%CI 0.95 ̶ 1.67). TAVR was associated with lower vascular complications (HR = 0.59; 95%CI 0.41 ̶ 0.86), acute deep venous thrombosis (HR = 0.25, 95%CI 0.1 ̶ 0.59), acute kidney injury (HR = 0.24, 95%CI 0.17 ̶ 0.33), blood transfusion (HR = 0.22, 95%CI 0.16 ̶ 0.3), cardiogenic shock (HR = 0.48, 95%CI 0.26 ̶ 0.89), and respiratory complications (HR = 0.26, 95%CI 0.2 ̶ 0.35).ConclusionsIn patients with malignancy, TAVR is a viable and safe option compared to SAVR with better clinical outcomes, especially thromboembolic events.     

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.     

经导管主动脉瓣介入置换

经导管主动脉瓣置换经过几十年的发展,从2002年首次应用于人类后,现在已经取得了明显的进步,目前主要用于外科手术高风险的主动脉瓣狭窄患者,随着操作技巧和瓣膜系统的改进,未来可能会成为传统外科手术的替代方案.     

Commissural Versus Coronary Optimized Alignment During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

ObjectivesThe aims of this study were to determine the rate of noncentered coronary ostia and their risk for coronary overlap (CO) and to develop an improved orientation strategy for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) devices taking into account anatomical cues to identify patients at risk for CO regardless of commissural alignment and compute an alternative, CO-free TAVR rotation angle for those patients.BackgroundCommissural alignment during TAVR reduces CO risk. However, eccentricity of coronary ostia from the center of the sinus of Valsalva may result in CO even after perfect alignment of TAVR commissures.MethodsBaseline computed tomography from TAVR candidates helped identify distance from commissures to the right coronary artery (RCA) and the left coronary artery (LCA). Then, for each case, a virtual valve was simulated with ideal commissural or coronary alignment, and the degree of CO was determined. On the basis of the potential BASILICA (bioprosthetic or native aortic scallop intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction) efficacy, 3 groups were defined: no risk for CO (>35° from neocommissure to coronary ostia), moderate risk (20°-35°), and severe risk (≤20°).ResultsComputed tomographic studies from 107 patients were included. After excluding 7 patients (poor quality or bicuspid valve), 100 patients were analyzed. The RCA showed greater eccentricity compared with the LCA (18.5° [IQR: 3.3°-12.8°] vs 6.5° [IQR: 3.3°-12.8°]; P < 0.001). The mean intercoronary angle was 140.0° ± 18.7° (95% CI: 136.3°-143.7°). Thirty-two patients had moderate to severe risk for CO (≤35°) despite ideal commissural alignment. Greater coronary eccentricity (cutoff for RCA, 24.5°; cutoff for LCA, 19°) and intercoronary angle >147.5° or <103° were associated with greater risk for moderate to severe CO despite commissural alignment (area under the curve: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.91-0.99). If optimal coronary alignment was simulated, this prevented severe CO in all cases and reduced moderate CO from 27% to 5% (P < 0.001).ConclusionsOne third of patients would have CO during TAVR-in-TAVR despite commissural alignment; a 6-fold decrease in this risk was achieved with optimized coronary alignment. Coronary eccentricity and intercoronary angle were the main predictors.     

Outcomes Following Shock Aortic Valve Replacement: Transcatheter Versus Surgical Approaches

ObjectivesTo compare transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients in shock.BackgroundThere are minimal data on the clinical and echocardiographic outcomes for patients in shock that undergo TAVR and no data comparing these outcomes to similar patients undergoing SAVR.MethodsThis is a single center, retrospective cohort study of patients having Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)-defined urgent or emergent AVR for aortic stenosis with clinical signs and symptoms of shock. Inclusion criteria were based on the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) shock consensus statement and included: the need for inotropic or vasopressor agents, mechanical ventilation, continuous renal replacement therapy or newly initiated hemodialysis, and/or utilization of mechanical hemodynamic support. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes for TAVR and SAVR were compared.ResultsThirty-seven patients met the inclusion criteria for this study (17 TAVR, 20 SAVR). TAVR patients had a higher STS Predicted Risk of Mortality (PROM) score of 22.3% compared to 11.8% for SAVR patients (p = 0.001). No significant differences were found in baseline echocardiographic results. TAVR procedures required less procedure room time (185.9 min TAVR, 348.5 min SAVR, p < 0.001) and fewer intraoperative packed red blood cell (pRBC) transfusions (0.2 units TAVR, 3.4 units SAVR, p < 0.001). TAVR patients also had lower rates of prolonged postoperative ventilation compared to SAVR patients (38.5% TAVR, 75.0% SAVR, p = 0.047). TAVR and SAVR had similar rates of mortality at discharge (2 TAVR, 1 SAVR, p = 0.584), 30-days (2 TAVR, 1 SAVR, p = 0.584), and 1-year (8 TAVR, 5 SAVR, p = 0.149).ConclusionsDespite a higher risk TAVR group, patients in shock undergoing either TAVR or SAVR have similar 30-day mortality. At one year, SAVR patients have a numerically better, though not statistically significant, survival. These findings support the use of TAVR for patients in shock with aortic stenosis.     

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.     

Conscious Sedation Versus General Anesthesia for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Variation in Practice and Outcomes

ObjectivesThe aims of this study were to examine variation in the use of conscious sedation (CS) for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) across hospitals and over time and to evaluate outcomes of CS compared with general anesthesia (GA) using instrumental variable analysis, a quasi-experimental method to control for unmeasured confounding.BackgroundDespite increasing use of CS for TAVR, contemporary data on utilization patterns are lacking, and existing studies evaluating the impact of sedation choice on outcomes may suffer from unmeasured confounding.MethodsAmong 120,080 patients in the TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry who underwent transfemoral TAVR between January 2016 and March 2019, the relationship between anesthesia choice and TAVR outcomes was evaluated using hospital proportional use of CS as an instrumental variable.ResultsOver the study period, the proportion of TAVR performed using CS increased from 33% to 64%, and CS was used in a median of 0% and 91% of cases in the lowest and highest quartiles of hospital CS use, respectively. On the basis of instrumental variable analysis, CS was associated with decreases in in-hospital mortality (adjusted risk difference: 0.2%; p = 0.010) and 30-day mortality (adjusted risk difference: 0.5%; p < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (adjusted difference: 0.8 days; p < 0.001), and more frequent discharge to home (adjusted risk difference: 2.8%; p < 0.001) compared with GA. The magnitude of benefit for most endpoints was less than in a traditional propensity score–based approach, however.ConclusionsIn contemporary U.S. practice, the use of CS for TAVR continues to increase, although there remains wide variation across hospitals. The use of CS for TAVR is associated with improved outcomes (including reduced mortality) compared with GA, although the magnitude of benefit appears to be less than in previous studies.     

Balloon-Expandable Valve Geometry After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis

BackgroundProspective bicuspid low-risk transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) registries' data demonstrated encouraging short-term results. Detailed data on transcatheter heart valve (THV) geometry after deployment using contemporary devices are lacking. This study sought to examine valve geometry after TAVR in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS).MethodsThe study population was patients from the LRT (Low Risk TAVR) trial who underwent TAVR using the SAPIEN 3 THV for bicuspid and tricuspid AS. THV geometry measured on 30-day computed tomography (CT) included valve height, angle, depth, and eccentricity. Additionally, THV hemodynamics and outcomes post-TAVR were compared among patients with bicuspid and tricuspid AS.ResultsA total of 107 patients from the LRT trial using the SAPIEN 3 THV were included in our analysis. On 30-day CT, the valve height ratio (1.07 vs. 1.07; p = 0.348), depths (right [5.6 mm vs. 6.2 mm; p = 0.223], left [5.3 mm vs. 4.4 mm; p = 0.082] and non [4.8 mm vs. 4.5 mm; p = 0.589] coronary cusps), eccentricities (1.08 vs. 1.07; p = 0.9550), and angles (except the right [3.9 degrees vs. 6.3 degrees; p = 0.003] and left [3.6 degrees vs. 6.0 degrees; p = 0.007]) were similar between bicuspid and tricuspid patients. Hemodynamics, stroke, and mortality were similar at 1 year.ConclusionDespite challenging bicuspid anatomy of the aortic valve, our comprehensive CT analysis supports similar THV geometry between patients with bicuspid and tricuspid AS undergoing TAVR using the SAPIEN 3 THV in low-risk patients. This translated to excellent short-term clinical outcomes and THV hemodynamics in both aortic valve morphologies.Trial registryNCT02628899, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02628899.