Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) use is increasing in patients with longer life expectancy, yet robust data on the durability of transcatheter heart valves (THVs) are limited. Redo-TAVR ...may play a key strategy in treating patients in whom THVs fail.
The authors sought to examine outcomes following redo-TAVR.
The Redo-TAVR registry collected data on consecutive patients who underwent redo-TAVR at 37 centers. Patients were classified as probable TAVR failure or probable THV failure if they presented within or beyond 1 year of their index TAVR, respectively.
Among 63,876 TAVR procedures, 212 consecutive redo-TAVR procedures were identified (0.33%): 74 within and 138 beyond 1 year of the initial procedure. For these 2 groups, TAVR-to-redo-TAVR time was 68 (38 to 154) days and 5 (3 to 6) years. The indication for redo-TAVR was THV stenosis in 12 (16.2%) and 51 (37.0%) (p = 0.002) and regurgitation or combined stenosis–regurgitation in 62 (83.8%) and 86 (62.3%) (p = 0.028), respectively. Device success using VARC-2 criteria was achieved in 180 patients (85.1%); most failures were attributable to high residual gradients (14.1%) or regurgitation (8.9%). At 30-day and 1-year follow-up, residual gradients were 12.6 ± 7.5 mm Hg and 12.9 ± 9.0 mm Hg; valve area 1.63 ± 0.61 cm2 and 1.51 ± 0.57 cm2; and regurgitation ≤mild in 91% and 91%, respectively. Peri-procedural complication rates were low (3 stroke 1.4%, 7 valve malposition 3.3%, 2 coronary obstruction 0.9%, 20 new permanent pacemaker 9.6%, no mortality), and symptomatic improvement was substantial. Survival at 30 days was 94.6% and 98.5% (p = 0.101) and 83.6% and 88.3% (p = 0.335) at 1 year for patients presenting with early and late valve dysfunction, respectively.
Redo-TAVR is a relatively safe and effective option for selected patients with valve dysfunction after TAVR. These results are important for applicability of TAVR in patients with long life expectancy in whom THV durability may be a concern.
Display omitted
IMPORTANCE: Owing to a considerable shift toward bioprosthesis implantation rather than mechanical valves, it is expected that patients will increasingly present with degenerated bioprostheses in the ...next few years. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation is a less invasive approach for patients with structural valve deterioration; however, a comprehensive evaluation of survival after the procedure has not yet been performed. OBJECTIVE: To determine the survival of patients after transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation inside failed surgical bioprosthetic valves. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Correlates for survival were evaluated using a multinational valve-in-valve registry that included 459 patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves undergoing valve-in-valve implantation between 2007 and May 2013 in 55 centers (mean age, 77.6 SD, 9.8 years; 56% men; median Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality prediction score, 9.8% interquartile range, 7.7%-16%). Surgical valves were classified as small (≤21 mm; 29.7%), intermediate (>21 and <25 mm; 39.3%), and large (≥25 mm; 31%). Implanted devices included both balloon- and self-expandable valves. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Survival, stroke, and New York Heart Association functional class. RESULTS: Modes of bioprosthesis failure were stenosis (n = 181 39.4%), regurgitation (n = 139 30.3%), and combined (n = 139 30.3%). The stenosis group had a higher percentage of small valves (37% vs 20.9% and 26.6% in the regurgitation and combined groups, respectively; P = .005). Within 1 month following valve-in-valve implantation, 35 (7.6%) patients died, 8 (1.7%) had major stroke, and 313 (92.6%) of surviving patients had good functional status (New York Heart Association class I/II). The overall 1-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 83.2% (95% CI, 80.8%-84.7%; 62 death events; 228 survivors). Patients in the stenosis group had worse 1-year survival (76.6%; 95% CI, 68.9%-83.1%; 34 deaths; 86 survivors) in comparison with the regurgitation group (91.2%; 95% CI, 85.7%-96.7%; 10 deaths; 76 survivors) and the combined group (83.9%; 95% CI, 76.8%-91%; 18 deaths; 66 survivors) (P = .01). Similarly, patients with small valves had worse 1-year survival (74.8% 95% CI, 66.2%-83.4%; 27 deaths; 57 survivors) vs with intermediate-sized valves (81.8%; 95% CI, 75.3%-88.3%; 26 deaths; 92 survivors) and with large valves (93.3%; 95% CI, 85.7%-96.7%; 7 deaths; 73 survivors) (P = .001). Factors associated with mortality within 1 year included having small surgical bioprosthesis (≤21 mm; hazard ratio, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.14-3.67; P = .02) and baseline stenosis (vs regurgitation; hazard ratio, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.33-7.08; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this registry of patients who underwent transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves, overall 1-year survival was 83.2%. Survival was lower among patients with small bioprostheses and those with predominant surgical valve stenosis.
A few studies recently reported controversial results with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) versus transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TA-TAVR), often ...without adequate adjusted analysis for baseline differences. Data on patients who underwent TF-TAVR and TA-TAVR from the Observational Study of Effectiveness of avR–tavI procedures for severe Aortic stenosis Treatment study were analyzed with propensity score 1-to-1 matching. From a cohort of 1,654 patients (1,419 patients underwent TF-TAVR and 235 patients underwent TA-TAVR), propensity score matching resulted in 199 pairs of patients with similar operative risk (EuroSCORE II: TF-TAVR 8.1 ± 7.1% vs TA-TAVR, 8.4 ± 7.3%, p = 0.713). Thirty-day mortality was 8.0% after TA-TAVR and 4.0% after TF-TAVR (p = 0.102). Postoperative rates of stroke (TA-TAVR, 2.0% vs TF-TAVR 1.0%, p = 0.414), cardiac tamponade (TA-TAVR, 4.1% vs TF-TAVR 1.5%, p = 0.131), permanent pacemaker implantation (TA-TAVR, 8.7% vs TF-TAVR 13.3%, p = 0.414), and infection (TA-TAVR, 6.7% vs TF-TAVR 3.6%, p = 0.180) were similar in the study groups but with an overall trend in favor of TF-TAVR. Higher rates of major vascular damage (7.2% vs 1.0%, p = 0.003) and moderate-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation (7.8% vs 5.2%, p = 0.008) were observed after TF-TAVR. On the contrary, TA-TAVR was associated with higher rates of red blood cell transfusion (50.0% vs 30.4%, p = 0.0002) and acute kidney injury (stages 1 to 3: 44.4% vs 21.9%, p <0.0001) compared with TF-TAVR. Three-year survival rate was 69.1% after TF-TAVR and 57.0% after TA-TAVR (p = 0.006), whereas freedom from major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events was 61.9% after TF-TAVR and 50.4% after TA-TAVR (p = 0.011). In conclusion, TF-TAVR seems to be associated with significantly higher early and intermediate survival compared with TA-TAVR. The transfemoral approach, whenever feasible, should be considered the route of choice for TAVR.
Limited data exist about safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with pure native aortic regurgitation (AR).
This study sought to compare the outcomes of TAVR ...with early- and new-generation devices in symptomatic patients with pure native AR.
From the pure native AR TAVR multicenter registry, procedural and clinical outcomes were assessed according to VARC-2 criteria and compared between early- and new-generation devices.
A total of 331 patients with a mean STS score of 6.7 ± 6.7 underwent TAVR. The early- and new-generation devices were used in 119 patients (36.0%) and 212 patients (64.0%), respectively. STS score tended to be lower in the new-generation device group (6.2 ± 6.7 vs. 7.6 ± 6.7; p = 0.08), but transfemoral access was more frequently used in the early-generation device group (87.4% vs. 60.8%; p < 0.001). Compared with the early-generation devices, the new-generation devices were associated with a significantly higher device success rate (81.1% vs. 61.3%; p < 0.001) due to lower rates of second valve implantation (12.7% vs. 24.4%; p = 0.007) and post-procedural AR ≥ moderate (4.2% vs. 18.8%; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in major 30-day endpoints between the 2 groups. The cumulative rates of all-cause and cardiovascular death at 1-year follow-up were 24.1% and 15.6%, respectively. The 1-year all-cause mortality rate was significantly higher in the patients with post-procedural AR ≥ moderate compared with those with post-procedural AR ≤ mild (46.1% vs. 21.8%; log-rank p = 0.001). On multivariable analysis, post-procedural AR ≥ moderate was independently associated with 1-year all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 2.85; 95% confidence interval: 1.52 to 5.35; p = 0.001).
Compared with the early-generation devices, TAVR using the new-generation devices was associated with improved procedural outcomes in treating patients with pure native AR. In patients with pure native AR, significant post-procedural AR was independently associated with increased mortality.
Display omitted
Abstract
Aims
There are limited data on coronary obstruction following transcatheter valve-in-valve (ViV) implantation inside failed aortic bioprostheses. The objectives of this study were to ...determine the incidence, predictors, and clinical outcomes of coronary obstruction in transcatheter ViV procedures.
Methods and results
A total of 1612 aortic procedures from the Valve-in-Valve International Data (VIVID) Registry were evaluated. Data were subject to centralized blinded corelab computed tomography (CT) analysis in a subset of patients. The virtual transcatheter valve to coronary ostium distance (VTC) was determined. A total of 37 patients (2.3%) had clinically evident coronary obstruction. Baseline clinical characteristics in the coronary obstruction patients were similar to controls. Coronary obstruction was more common in stented bioprostheses with externally mounted leaflets or stentless bioprostheses than in stented with internally mounted leaflets bioprostheses (6.1% vs. 3.7% vs. 0.8%, respectively; P < 0.001). CT measurements were obtained in 20 (54%) and 90 (5.4%) of patients with and without coronary obstruction, respectively. VTC distance was shorter in coronary obstruction patients in relation to controls (3.24 ± 2.22 vs. 6.30 ± 2.34, respectively; P < 0.001). Using multivariable analysis, the use of a stentless or stented bioprosthesis with externally mounted leaflets odds ratio (OR): 7.67; 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.14–18.7; P < 0.001 associated with coronary obstruction for the global population. In a second model with CT data, a shorter VTC distance predicted this complication (OR: 0.22 per 1 mm increase; 95% CI: 0.09–0.51; P < 0.001), with an optimal cut-off level of 4 mm (area under the curve: 0.943; P < 0.001). Coronary obstruction was associated with a high 30-day mortality (52.9% vs. 3.9% in the controls, respectively; P < 0.001).
Conclusion
Coronary obstruction following aortic ViV procedures is a life-threatening complication that occurred more frequently in patients with prior stentless or stented bioprostheses with externally mounted leaflets and in those with a short VTC.
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is being increasingly performed in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (AS).
This study sought to compare the procedural and clinical outcomes ...in patients with bicuspid versus tricuspid AS from the Bicuspid AS TAVR multicenter registry.
Outcomes of 561 patients with bicuspid AS and 4,546 patients with tricuspid AS were compared after propensity score matching, assembling 546 pairs of patients with similar baseline characteristics. Procedural and clinical outcomes were recorded according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria.
Compared with patients with tricuspid AS, patients with bicuspid AS had more frequent conversion to surgery (2.0% vs. 0.2%; p = 0.006) and a significantly lower device success rate (85.3% vs. 91.4%; p = 0.002). Early-generation devices were implanted in 320 patients with bicuspid and 321 patients with tricuspid AS, whereas new-generation devices were implanted in 226 and 225 patients with bicuspid and tricuspid AS, respectively. Within the group receiving early-generation devices, bicuspid AS had more frequent aortic root injury (4.5% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.015) when receiving the balloon-expanding device, and moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak (19.4% vs. 10.5%; p = 0.02) when receiving the self-expanding device. Among patients with new-generation devices, however, procedural results were comparable across different prostheses. The cumulative all-cause mortality rates at 2 years were comparable between bicuspid and tricuspid AS (17.2% vs. 19.4%; p = 0.28).
Compared with tricuspid AS, TAVR in bicuspid AS was associated with a similar prognosis, but lower device success rate. Procedural differences were observed in patients treated with the early-generation devices, whereas no differences were observed with the new-generation devices.
Display omitted
Risk stratification tools used in patients with severe aortic stenosis have been mostly derived from surgical series. Although specific predictors of early mortality with transcatheter aortic valve ...replacement (TAVR) have been identified, the prognostic impact of their combination is unexplored. We sought to develop a simple score, using preprocedural variables, for prediction of 30-day mortality after TAVR. A total of 1,878 patients from a national multicenter registry who underwent TAVR were randomly assigned in a 2:1 manner to development and validation data sets. Baseline characteristics of the 1,256 patients in the development data set were considered as candidate univariate predictors of 30-day mortality. A bootstrap multivariate logistic regression process was used to select correlates of 30-day mortality that were subsequently weighted and integrated into a scoring system. Seven variables were weighted proportionally to their respective odds ratios for 30-day mortality (glomerular filtration rate <45 ml/min 6 points, critical preoperative state 5 points, New York Heart Association class IV 4 points, pulmonary hypertension 4 points, diabetes mellitus 4 points, previous balloon aortic valvuloplasty 3 points, and left ventricular ejection fraction <40% 3 points). The model showed good discrimination in both the development and validation data sets (C statistics 0.73 and 0.71, respectively). Compared with the logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation in the validation data set, the model showed better discrimination (C statistic 0.71 vs 0.66), goodness of fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow p value 0.81 vs 0.00), and global accuracy (Brier score 0.054 vs 0.073). In conclusion, the risk of 30-day mortality after TAVR may be estimated by combining 7 baseline clinical variables into a simple risk scoring system.
Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel and aspirin is a widely accepted strategy in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), but this approach is not evidence ...based. The goal of the present study was to determine whether DAPT in patients undergoing TAVI is associated with improved outcomes compared to aspirin alone. From May 2009 to August 2010, consecutive patients were randomized to receive a 300-mg loading dose of clopidogrel on the day before TAVI followed by a 3-month maintenance daily dose of 75 mg plus aspirin 100 mg lifelong (DAPT group) or aspirin 100 mg alone (ASA group). The primary end point was the composite of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, defined as death from any cause, myocardial infarction, major stroke, urgent or emergency conversion to surgery, or life-threatening bleeding. The cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 30 days and 6 months was 14% and 16%, respectively. No significant differences between the DAPT and ASA groups were noted at both 30 days (13% vs 15%, p = 0.71) and 6 months (18% vs 15%; p = 0.85). In conclusion, the strategy of adding clopidogrel to aspirin for 3 months after TAVI was not found to be superior to aspirin alone. These results must be confirmed in a larger randomized trial.
IMPORTANCE: Limited data exist on clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients who had infective endocarditis after undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). OBJECTIVE: To ...determine the associated factors, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients who had infective endocarditis after TAVR. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Infectious Endocarditis after TAVR International Registry included patients with definite infective endocarditis after TAVR from 47 centers from Europe, North America, and South America between June 2005 and October 2015. EXPOSURE: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for incidence of infective endocarditis and infective endocarditis for in-hospital mortality. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Infective endocarditis and in-hospital mortality after infective endocarditis. RESULTS: A total of 250 cases of infective endocarditis occurred in 20 006 patients after TAVR (incidence, 1.1% per person-year; 95% CI, 1.1%-1.4%; median age, 80 years; 64% men). Median time from TAVR to infective endocarditis was 5.3 months (interquartile range IQR, 1.5-13.4 months). The characteristics associated with higher risk of progressing to infective endocarditis after TAVR was younger age (78.9 years vs 81.8 years; hazard ratio HR, 0.97 per year; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99), male sex (62.0% vs 49.7%; HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13-2.52), diabetes mellitus (41.7% vs 30.0%; HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.29), and moderate to severe aortic regurgitation (22.4% vs 14.7%; HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.28-3.28). Health care–associated infective endocarditis was present in 52.8% (95% CI, 46.6%-59.0%) of patients. Enterococci species and Staphylococcus aureus were the most frequently isolated microorganisms (24.6%; 95% CI, 19.1%-30.1% and 23.3%; 95% CI, 17.9%-28.7%, respectively). The in-hospital mortality rate was 36% (95% CI, 30.0%-41.9%; 90 deaths; 160 survivors), and surgery was performed in 14.8% (95% CI, 10.4%-19.2%) of patients during the infective endocarditis episode. In-hospital mortality was associated with a higher logistic EuroSCORE (23.1% vs 18.6%; odds ratio OR, 1.03 per 1% increase; 95% CI, 1.00-1.05), heart failure (59.3% vs 23.7%; OR, 3.36; 95% CI, 1.74-6.45), and acute kidney injury (67.4% vs 31.6%; OR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.42-5.11). The 2-year mortality rate was 66.7% (95% CI, 59.0%-74.2%; 132 deaths; 115 survivors). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients undergoing TAVR, younger age, male sex, history of diabetes mellitus, and moderate to severe residual aortic regurgitation were significantly associated with an increased risk of infective endocarditis. Patients who developed endocarditis had high rates of in-hospital mortality and 2-year mortality.
PDF
