The impact of mitral stenosis on outcomes of aortic valve stenosis patient undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement or transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Background

The concomitant presence of mitral stenosis (MS) in the setting of symptomatic aortic stenosis represent a clinical challenge. Little is known regarding the outcome of mitral stenosis (MS) patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Therefore, we sought to study the outcome of MS patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR).

Method

Using weighted data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database between 2011 and 2014, we identified patients who were diagnosed with MS. Patients who had undergone TAVR as a primary procedure were identified and compared to patients who had SAVR. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed for the outcomes of in‐hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS), blood transfusion, postprocedural hemorrhage, vascular, cardiac and respiratory complications, permanent pacemaker placement (PPM), postprocedural stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), and discharge to an outside facility.

Results

A total of 4524 patients were diagnosed with MS, of which 552 (12.2%) had TAVR and 3972 (87.8%) had SAVR. TAVR patients were older (79.9 vs 70.0) with more females (67.4% vs 60.0%) and African American patients (7.7% vs 7.1%) (P < 0.001). In addition, the TAVR group had more comorbidities compared to SAVR in term of coronary artery disease (CAD), congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic lung disease, hypertension (HTN), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and peripheral vascular disease (PVD) (P < 0.001 for all). Using Multivariate logistic regression, and after adjusting for potential risk factors, TAVR patients had lower in‐hospital mortality (7.9% vs 8.1% adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR], 0.615; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.392–0.964, P = 0.034), shorter LOS. Also, TAVR patients had lower rates of cardiac and respiratory complications, PPM, AKI, and discharge to an outside facility compared with the SAVR group.

Conclusion

In patients with severe aortic stenosis and concomitant mitral stenosis, TAVR is a safe and attractive option for patients undergoing AVR with less complications compared with SAVR.

     

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.     

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.     

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.

     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common type of valvular heart disease in the elderly. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has been the standard practice for treating severe, symptomatic AS, but recently new treatment options have emerged. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now an established treatment option in patients at high surgical risk. In this review, we focus on recent developments and compare the two treatment methods in specific populations in terms of efficacy and safety (e.g., in patients with history of prior thoracic surgery, type of anesthesia employed, access site used or need for permanent pacing). The impact of comorbidities (pulmonary hypertension, arterial hypertension and obesity paradox), the cost-effectiveness of TAVR vs. SAVR and advances in transcatheter valve technology as well as issues that merit further investigation are further discussed. Moreover, outcomes and complications of TAVR in patients of different risk category (extremely high, high, intermediate and low risk) are analyzed. We strongly believe that during the following years, TAVR may evolve as the treatment of choice in a broader group of patients with symptomatic AS and beyond those with intermediate and high-risk features.     

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement via a transsubclavian approach in a patient with severe aortic stenosis who had previously undergone kidney transplantation: A case report

Rationale:Although the transfemoral approach is the gold standard for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), it is not feasible in a considerable number of patients. We report a case of successful transsubclavian TAVR (TS-TAVR) in a patient with severe aortic stenosis (AS) who was ineligible for transfemoral TAVR because she was a kidney transplant recipient.Patient concerns:A 72-year-old Korean woman, who had previously undergone kidney transplantation in the right iliac fossa for end-stage kidney disease, was admitted to our center with dyspnea. Upon auscultation, grade IV systolic murmurs were detected in both upper sternal borders and the left lower sternal border, suggestive of valvular heart disease.Diagnosis:Two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography revealed heavy calcification of the aortic valve with a high peak velocity (4.54 m/s) and mean pressure gradient (48.49 mm Hg), indicative of severe AS.Interventions:TS-TAVR was performed by a heart team comprised of interventional cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, and anesthesiologists. A self-expandable valve prosthesis (CoreValve^TM Evolut R^TM, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN) was successfully deployed via the left subclavian artery.Outcomes:Post-TAVR 2-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography demonstrated a well-functioning valve with mild paravalvular leakage. The peak velocity had declined from 4.54 m/s to 2.22 to 2.24 m/s, and the mean pressure gradient had declined from 48.49 to 8.57–9.61 mmHg. The patient was discharged successfully and uneventfully.Lessons:Because kidney transplant recipients with severe AS are considered poor candidates for transfemoral TAVR, TS-TAVR is a suitable alternative to consider.     

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 without previous conduction disturbances: The importance of preventing iatrogenic pacemaker implantation

• Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) patients given pacemakers operating in mandatory DDD mode had more ventricular pacing, heart failure hospitalization, and mortality compared with AAI‐DDD or VVI modes.
• AV conduction disturbances are often transient after TAVR. Minimizing ventricular pacing where possible avoids the risk of pacemaker‐induced cardiomyopathy.
• Pacemaker specialists should be consulted for any TAVR patient with mild rhythm abnormalities given the high incidence of AV block.
• Careful stratification of patients with conduction disturbances during TAVR may help identify the patients who will require an early permanent pacemaker implantation strategy.

     

Permanent-temporary pacemakers in the management of patients with conduction abnormalities after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Background

Damage to the cardiac conduction system requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is a known adverse outcome of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). A permanent-temporary pacemaker (PTPM) is a device that involves an active-fixation lead attached to an external pulse generator taped to the skin. We reviewed the utility of PTPMs as a temporary bridge measure after TAVR in patients with conduction abnormalities that do not meet conventional criteria for PPM placement.

Methods

Between January 01, 2013 and December 31, 2015, we analyzed 67 patients who received PTPM after TAVR. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, type and size of the valve, pre-TAVR electrocardiograms (ECGs), post-TAVR ECGs at 1 day, 1 month, and 6 months, and pacemaker interrogation results were reviewed for each patient if available.

Results

The mean age of patients was 80.5?±?9.1 years. PTPM were placed for 2.3?±?2.4 days. Among these patients, 44.8% (n?=?30) received a PPM prior to discharge. Male gender (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.05–7.69, p?=?0.05) and an increase in QRS duration post-TAVR (p?=?0.01) were associated with PPM placement. Pacemaker interrogation data of 11 patients with PPM revealed that 27% (n?=?3) had <?1% V-pacing requirements and <?10% A-pacing requirements.

Conclusions

In post-TAVR patients who develop conduction abnormalities that do not meet conventional PPM implantation indications, PTPM safely provides a time period for further assessment and may prevent unnecessary PPM implantation. Male gender and an increase in QRS duration post-TAVR are associated with PPM implantation. Additionally, some patients may recover from their conduction disturbances and demonstrate low pacemaker utilization.

     

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk surgical patients: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a valid option for patients with high or intermediate surgical risk. However, clinical outcomes of TAVR in low-risk patients are lacking. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-surgical-risk patients.MethodsElectronic database review was conducted for all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared TAVR versus SAVR in low-risk patients. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model.ResultsWe included 3 RCTs totaling 604 patients (310 TAVR and 294 SAVR). Our results showed no significant difference in mortality between TAVR compared with SAVR (RR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.22–2.30; P = 0.56), however, there was a significantly increased risk of pacemaker implantation (RR = 7.28; 95% CI = 3.94–13.42; P < 0.01) and moderate/severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) (RR = 6.74; 95% CI = 1.31–34.65; P = 0.02) with TAVR. Nevertheless, TAVR demonstrated a significantly reduced risk of post-procedural bleeding (RR = 0.40; 95% CI = 0.30–0.54; P < 0.01) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (RR = 0.36; 95% CI = 0.27–0.47; P < 0.01). Other clinical outcomes were not significantly different between the groups and included cardiovascular mortality, stroke, transient ischemic attack, and myocardial infarction.ConclusionsAmong low-risk patients, TAVR offered comparable efficacy outcomes and fewer bleeding events compared with SAVR. There were increased risks of pacemaker implantation and PVL associated with TAVR, though lower atrial fibrillation risks.     

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement and stroke: a comprehensive review

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVR) has emerged as an alternative, rapidly evolving treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk. Stroke is a devastating complication being confined mainly in the periprocedural and 30-day period following TAVR, with a lower and relatively constant frequency thereafter. Early stroke is mainly due to debris embolization during the procedure, whereas later events are associated with patient specific factors. Despite the fact that the rate of clinical stroke has been constantly decreasing compared to initial TAVR experience, modern neuro-imaging with MRI suggests that new ischemic lesions post-TAVR are almost universal. The impact of the latter is largely unknown. However, they seem to correlate with a reduction in neurocognitive function. Because TAVR is set to expand its indication to lower surgical-risk patients, stroke prophylaxis during and after TAVR becomes of paramount importance. Based on clinical and pathophysiological evidence, three lines of research are actively employed towards this direction: improvement in valve and delivery system technology with an aim to reduce manipulations and contact with the calcified aortic arch and native valve, antithrombotic therapy, and embolic protection devices. Careful patient selection, design of the procedure, and tailored antithrombotic strategies respecting the bleeding risks of this fragile population constitute the main defense against stroke following TAVR.     

Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With New Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Objectives

This study sought to evaluate the long-term clinical impact of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

Comparison of outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement between elderly (65–79 years) and super-elderly (≥80 years) patients

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an effective treatment option for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Nonetheless, there is a paucity of data regarding the differences in the clinical outcomes of TAVR procedures between elderly and super-elderly patients. This study aimed to compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients aged 65 to 79 years and ≥80 years who underwent TAVR for aortic stenosis.The clinical characteristics and outcomes of 134 patients with aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR were analyzed. Patients were categorized into 2 groups: an elderly group (EG; 65–79 years) and a super-elderly group (SEG) (≥80 years). The in-hospital and follow-up clinical outcomes were compared between the 2 groups.The EG tended to be more overweight, obese, and diabetic than the SEG, whereas the SEG had a higher surgical risk but lower creatinine clearance, hematocrit level, and effective orifice area than the EG. However, no difference was found in in-hospital clinical outcomes between the 2 groups, except for atrial fibrillation. In the propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted analyses, these results were similar. All follow-up clinical outcomes were similar, except for rehospitalization, which was statistically attenuated after propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted analyses.TAVR was associated with similar safety outcomes in the EG (65–79 years) and the SEG (≥80 years). Advanced age is not negatively associated with clinical outcomes after the TAVR procedure.     

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.     

Vascular complications post-transcatheter aortic valve procedures

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has rapidly emerged as the standard of care for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis in patients whose comorbidities put them at prohibitive risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Several trials have demonstrated superior outcomes with TAVR compared to medical management alone. TAVR has also shown favorable outcomes in patients at high risk for SAVR. TAVR can be associated with significant vascular complications, which adversely impact outcomes, and operators should be cognizant of their early recognition and appropriate management. In this article, we review the major vascular complications associated with TAVR, along with optimal prevention and management strategies.     

Transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with advanced kidney disease: A propensity score–matched analysis

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative for surgically inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis. Advanced kidney disease may significantly affect outcomes in patients treated with TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

Hypothesis

TAVR is associated with better in‐hospital outcomes compared with SAVR in patients with advanced kidney disease.

Methods

We identified our sample from the National Inpatient Sample between 2012 and 2014, using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. We included patients with chronic kidney disease stages IV and V and end‐stage renal disease as advanced kidney disease patients. We excluded patients with acute kidney injury on admission and patients on dialysis.

Results

After propensity matching, 2485 patients were included in each group. The primary outcome of in‐hospital mortality (12.9% vs 6.2%; P < 0.01) was higher with SAVR as compared with TAVR. Patients who underwent SAVR reported higher acute kidney injury (50.3% vs 33%; P < 0.01) and dialysis requirements (26.8% vs 20.1%; P < 0.01). Other secondary outcomes including blood transfusion, atrial fibrillation, iatrogenic cardiac complications, pericardial complications, perioperative stroke, perioperative infections, and postoperative shock were more common with SAVR. With SAVR, the length of hospitalization and hospitalization costs were significantly higher; however, permanent pacemaker placement was more common with TAVR compared with SAVR.

Conclusions

In patients with advanced kidney disease, SAVR was associated with higher mortality and higher periprocedural complications, as compared with TAVR. Thus, benefits of TAVR could be extended in patients with advanced kidney disease who cannot undergo surgery.

     

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.