This study aims to establish parameters for identifying normal function for each of the 3 iterations of balloon-expandable valves and 2 iterations of self-expanding valves.
Expected transthoracic ...echocardiographic Doppler-derived hemodynamic data for transcatheter aortic valves inform pre-implant decision-making and post-implanted monitoring of longitudinal valve function.
We collected the echocardiography core Lab measured mean gradients and effective orifice area (EOA) from discharge or 30-day echocardiograms from randomized trials; the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trials for the balloon-expandable valves and the Medtronic CoreValve US Pivotal trial and Medtronic CoreValve Evolut R United States IDE Clinical Study for the self-expanding valves.
For all SAPIEN (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) valve sizes, mean EOA is 1.70 ± 0.49 cm2 with a mean gradient of 9.36 ± 4.13 mm Hg. For all SAPIEN XT valve sizes, mean EOA is 1.67 ± 0.46 cm2 with a mean gradient of 9.52 ± 3.64 mm Hg. For all SAPIEN 3 valve sizes, the mean EOA is 1.66 ± 0.38 cm2 with a mean gradient of 11.18 ± 4.35 mm Hg. For all CoreValve valve sizes, the mean EOA is 1.88 ± 0.56 cm2 with a mean gradient of 8.85 ± 4.14 mm Hg. For all Evolut R valve sizes, the mean EOA is 2.01 ± 0.65 cm2 with a mean gradient of 7.52 ± 3.19 mm Hg. The SAPIEN 3 post-implant EOA was progressively larger for each quintile of baseline annular area by computed tomography (p < 0.001). Similarly, for the Evolut R valve, post-implantation EOA was significantly larger for each quintile of baseline annular perimeter (p < 0.001).
Tables of expected mean transcatheter aortic valve hemodynamics by valve type and size are essential in evaluating the function of these transcatheter prosthetic valves. Tables of expected EOA by the native annular anatomy may be useful for pre-implantation decision making. Criteria for defining structural valve dysfunction are proposed.
Display omitted
It is unknown whether transcatheter valves will have similar durability as surgical bioprosthetic valves. Definitions of structural valve deterioration (SVD), based on valve related reintervention or ...death, underestimate the incidence of SVD.
This study sought to determine and compare the 5-year incidence of SVD, using new standardized definitions based on echocardiographic follow-up of valve function, in intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis given transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2A trial and registry.
In the PARTNER 2A trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive either TAVR with the SAPIEN XT or SAVR, whereas in the SAPIEN 3 registry, patients were assigned to TAVR with the SAPIEN 3. The primary endpoint was the incidence of SVD, that is, the composite of SVD-related hemodynamic valve deterioration during echocardiographic follow-up and/or SVD-related bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) at 5 years.
Compared with SAVR, the SAPIEN-XT TAVR cohort had a significantly higher 5-year exposure adjusted incidence rates (per 100 patient-years) of SVD (1.61 ± 0.24% vs. 0.63 ± 0.16%), SVD-related BVF (0.58 ± 0.14% vs. 0.12 ± 0.07%), and all-cause (structural or nonstructural) BVF (0.81 ± 0.16% vs. 0.27 ± 0.10%) (p ≤ 0.01 for all). The 5-year rates of SVD (0.68 ± 0.18% vs. 0.60 ± 0.17%; p = 0.71), SVD-related BVF (0.29 ± 0.12% vs. 0.14 ± 0.08%; p = 0.25), and all-cause BVF (0.60 ± 0.15% vs. 0.32 ± 0.11%; p = 0.32) in SAPIEN 3 TAVR were not significantly different to a propensity score matched SAVR cohort. The 5-year rates of SVD and SVD-related BVF were significantly lower in SAPIEN 3 versus SAPIEN XT TAVR matched cohorts.
Compared with SAVR, the second-generation SAPIEN XT balloon-expandable valve has a higher 5-year rate of SVD, whereas the third-generation SAPIEN 3 has a rate of SVD that was not different from SAVR. (The PARTNER II Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves - PII A PARTNERII A; NCT01314313; The PARTNER II Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves II - PARTNER II - PARTNERII - S3 Intermediate PARTNERII S3i; NCT03222128)
Display omitted
This executive summary of the clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in ...adult patients.
A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. These guidelines present an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.
Fabry disease is a lysosomal storage disease with a variety of cardiac manifestations. Although not specific for a diagnosis of Fabry disease, certain cardiac imaging findings may be highly ...suggestive of the diagnosis of Fabry disease in previously undiagnosed patients or cardiac involvement for patients with a known diagnosis of Fabry disease. In this review, we explore the current applications of multimodality cardiac imaging in the diagnosis and monitoring of patients with Fabry disease. Additionally, data regarding tissue characterization by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and novel nuclear imaging techniques and their role in evaluating phenotype development is discussed.
This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.
A ...comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.
Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The “2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain” provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.
There is significant disparity in the reported incidence of moderate and severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation (PAR) between the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) I and PARTNER II ...trials, which may be related to the echocardiographic methodologies used by separate core laboratories. To further explore the variability in echocardiographic interpretation of PAR, agreement between the grading of PAR by the core laboratory of PARTNER IIB was compared with that by a consortium of echocardiography core laboratory directors.
The PARTNER IIB core laboratory reevaluated patients using primarily the circumferential extent of the regurgitant jet for PAR. A consortium of echocardiography core laboratory directors was formed to evaluate the echocardiographic images and to grade PAR and central and total aortic regurgitation in a randomly chosen subset of the randomized patients in the PARTNER IIB trial using a multiwindow, multiparametric approach. Both a four-class scale (none or trace, mild, moderate, and severe) and a seven-class (none, trace, mild, mild to moderate, moderate, moderate to severe, and severe) scale were used. Levels of grading agreement between the consortium and original core laboratory in both scales were determined using weighted κ statistics.
Only 87 patients assessed for PAR by the consortium could be paired with readings by the PARTNER IIB core laboratory. Using the four-class grading scheme the weighted κ statistic for PAR was 0.481 (95% confidence limits, 0.367, 0.595). Using the seven-class scale, the weighted κ statistic for PAR was 0.517 (95% confidence limits, 0.431, 0.607). For either grading scheme, 15.9% of patients graded by the PARTNER IIB core laboratory as having moderate PAR would have been graded as having mild PAR using the multiparametric approach. Similar results were seen for central and total aortic regurgitation assessments.
Using primarily the circumferential extent criteria, the PARTNER IIB core laboratory overestimated the severity of PAR compared to the consortium using a multi-parametric approach. Although a more granular classification scheme for PAR may slightly improve concordance between core laboratories, differences in the incidence of moderate or severe PAR are likely related to differences in grading methodology. A multiparametric approach is advocated, and other echocardiographic methods for assessing PAR deserve further study.
PDF
