Search

Bicuspid aortic stenosis is a common pathology, typically seen in patients a decade younger than those with tricuspid valves. Surgical aortic valve replacement has been the mainstay treatment for bicuspid disease, especially considering the prevalence of concomitant aortic aneurysmal pathology. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has shown equivalent results in bicuspid compared to tricuspid pathology in highly selected patient populations in single-arm registries and observational studies. For older patients with favorable bicuspid pathology, TAVR is reasonable. However, as younger patients with longer life expectancy are now being treated with TAVR, what is "best" is a question only answered by a well-designed randomized controlled trial. Herein, we describe the current evidence for treating bicuspid aortic stenosis and provide a framework for future trials. Yet, the question of equipoise remains, and who will we enroll? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has proven to be a safe, effective, and less invasive approach to aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis. In patients who underwent prior aortic valve replacement, transcatheter and surgical bioprosthetic valve dysfunction may occur as a result of structural deterioration or nonstructural causes such as prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM) and paravalvular regurgitation. Valve-in-Valve (ViV) TAVR is a procedure that is being increasingly utilized for the replacement of failed transcatheter or surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves. Data regarding long-term outcomes are limited due to the recency of the procedure's approval, but available data regarding the short- and long-term outcomes of ViV TAVR are promising. Studies have shown a reduction in perioperative and 30-day mortality with ViV TAVR procedures compared to redo surgical repair of failed bioprosthetic aortic valves, but 1-year and 5-year mortality rates are more controversial and lack sufficient data. Despite the reduction in 30-day mortality, PPM and rates of coronary obstruction are higher in ViV TAVR as compared to both redo surgical valve repair and native TAVR procedures. New transcatheter heart valve designs and new procedural techniques have been developed to reduce the risk of PPM and coronary obstruction. Newer generation valves, new procedural techniques, and increased operator experience with ViV TAVR may improve patient outcomes; however, further studies are needed to better understand the safety, efficacy, and durability of ViV TAVR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When using rapid deployment surgical aortic valve replacement (RD SAVR) in treating bicuspid aortic valve morphology (BAV), several challenges are faced due to annular asymmetry. The Sievers classification has been traditionally used for the description of BAV morphology. In this study, we aimed to conduct a retrospective feasibility analysis of RD SAVR in relation to the Sievers classification. From January 2014 to March 2022, 31 patients with BAV morphology (15 patients with Sievers type 0 BAV and 16 with Sievers type 1 BAV) underwent RD SAVR. Specific surgical techniques were applied depending on the BAV morphology. Comparable clinical outcomes were observed. No paravalvular leaks and no valvular re-interventions occurred in either group. CPB and cross-clamping times, as well as the prosthesis sizes used, were also not significantly different. Postoperative mean gradients were comparable in both groups. No significant distinction was found between the groups in terms of postoperative pacemaker indication, postoperative stroke, or death. Annular symmetry can be adequately restored through precise prosthesis sizing and placement according to an individual's valve morphology regardless of the Sievers classification of BAV by choosing a different landmark for the initial suture. RD SAVR seems to be a safe approach for any bicuspid morphology, with good hemodynamic results and time-saving potential in experienced hands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To provide a comprehensive analysis of the current literature comparing the outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis (BAS), with particular attention to BAV morphology in patients undergoing TAVR. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, all relevant articles with no design restrictions from PubMed, CCTR (Cochrane Controlled Trials Register), and Google Scholar were screened for inclusion. Studies were included if they reported clinical endpoints for SAVR and TAVR or, in BAS treated with TAVR, for type 1 and non-type 1 morphology. Odds ratio and Cohen's D were considered as effect size measurements for qualitative and quantitative variables, respectively. Results: A total of eight studies comparing short-term outcomes between SAVR and TAVR and nine studies with outcomes data between type 1 and non-type 1 BAS treated with TAVR were considered for the final analysis. No statistically significant difference was found for what concerns the rates of death, stroke, and acute kidney injury between SAVR and TAVR. In comparison to patients undergoing SAVR, the incidence of PPI (permanent pacemaker implantation) was greater in the TAVR group (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15–0.79, p = 0.01), and the frequency of bleeding events was found to be higher among patients undergoing SAVR (OR 4.3, 95% CI 2.9–6.4, p < 0.001). The probabilities of 30-day mortality, stroke, and any bleeding were not significantly affected by bicuspid valve morphology in TAVR patients. PPI or development of new conduction anomalies was found to be more frequent in type 1 anatomies (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.30–0.70, p <0.001). Mildly lower post-procedural transprothesic gradients were found in patients with type 1 morphology. Conclusions: In BAS patients, TAVR has comparable short-term outcomes rates with SAVR, but higher PPI rates and lower incidence of bleeding events. In patients undergoing TAVR, type 1 BAS is associated with lower postoperative transvalvular gradients but higher PPI rates and conduction abnormalities [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Due to the selective criteria and short-term follow-up of previous transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) trials, the coronary revascularization incidence after TAVI has been difficult to determine. This study investigated the epidemiology of coronary revascularization after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and TAVI in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS), with and without coronary artery disease (CAD), in a mid-term follow-up, single-center, real-world setting. Methods: Between 2010 to 2020, 1486 patients with AS underwent SAVR or TAVI with balloon-expandable Edwards® transcatheter heart valves (THVs). Using hospital discharge records, we could estimate for each patient resident in Emilia Romagna the rate of ischemic events treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). A subgroup without CAD was also analyzed. Results: The 5-year overall survival was 78.2%. Freedom from PCI after AVR and TAVI at 5 years was 96.9% and 96.9%, respectively, with previous PCI as a predictor (HR 4.86, 95% CI 2.57–9.21 p < 0.001). The freedom from PCI curves were not significantly different. Conclusions: Notwithstanding the aged population, the revascularization incidence was only 2.4%, requiring further evaluation even in younger patients with longer follow-up. Despite the profile frame raise due to the evolution of Edwards® balloon-expandable THVs, PCI or coronarography feasibility were not compromised in our population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) use is gaining momentum as the mainstay for the treatment of aortic stenosis compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Unfortunately, TAVR-related infective endocarditis (TAVR-IE) is expected to be detected more and more as a result of the ever-expanding indications in younger patients. Given the overall poor prognosis of TAVR-IE, it is imperative that clinicians familiarize themselves with common presentations, major risk factors, diagnostic pitfalls, therapeutic approaches, and the prevention of TAVR-IE. Herein, we review all of the above in detail with the most updated available literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recently, the use of surgically implanted aortic bioprostheses has been favoured in younger patients. We aimed to analyse the long-term survival and postoperative MACCE (Major Adverse Cardiovascular and Cerebral Event) rates in patients after isolated aortic valve replacement. Methods: We conducted a single-centre observational retrospective study, including all consecutive patients with isolated aortic valve replacement. 1:1 propensity score matching of the preoperative baseline characteristics was performed. Results: A total of 2172 patients were enrolled in the study. After propensity score matching the study included 428 patients: 214 biological vs. 214 mechanical prostheses, divided into two subgroups: group A < 60 years and group B > 60 years. The mean follow-up time was 7.6 ± 3.9 years. Estimated survival was 97 ± 1.9% and 89 ± 3.4% at 10 years for biological and mechanical prosthesis, respectively in group A (p = 0.06). In group B the survival at 10 years was 79.1 ± 5.8% and 69.8 ± 4.4% for biological and mechanical prosthesis, respectively (p = 0.83). In group A, patients with a bioprosthesis exhibited a tendency for higher cumulative incidence MACCE rates compared to patients with a mechanical prosthesis, p = 0.83 (bio 7.3 ± 5.3% vs. mech 4.6 ± 2.2% at 10 years). In group B, patients with a mechanical prosthesis showed a tendency for higher cumulative incidence MACCE rates compared to patients with bioprosthesis, p = 0.86 (bio 4.3 ± 3.1% vs. mech 9.1 ± 3.1% at 10 years). Conclusions: Long-term survival after surgical aortic valve replacement is similar in patients with a biological and mechanical prosthesis, independent of the patients' age. Moreover, younger patients (<60 years) with bioprosthesis showed a survival benefit, compared to patients with mechanical prosthesis in this age group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers a novel treatment option for patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis, particularly for patients who are unsuitable candidates for surgical intervention. However, high therapeutical costs, socio-economic considerations, and numerous comorbidities make it necessary to target and allocate available resources efficiently. In the present study, we aimed to identify risk factors associated with futile treatment following transfemoral (TF) and transapical (TA) TAVR. Five hundred and thirty-two consecutive patients (82 ± 9 years, female 63%) who underwent TAVR between June 2009 and December 2016 at the Vienna Heart Center Hietzing were retrospectively analyzed to identify predictors of futility, defined as all-cause mortality at one year following the procedure for the overall patient cohort, as well as the TF and TA cohort. Out of 532 patients, 91 (17%) did not survive the first year after TAVR. A multivariate logistic model identified cerebrovascular disease, home oxygen dependency, wheelchair dependency, periinterventional myocardial infarction, and postinterventional renal replacement therapy as the factors independently associated with an increased one-year mortality. Our findings underscore the significance of a precise preinterventional evaluation, as well as illustrating the subtle differences in baseline characteristics in the TF and TA cohort and their impact on one-year mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Younger patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis are a particularly challenging collective with regard to the choice of intervention. High-risk patients younger than 75 years of age are often eligible for both the transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and the isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (iSAVR). Data on the outcomes of both interventions in this set of patients are scarce. Methods: One hundred and forty-four propensity score-matched patients aged 75 years or less who underwent TAVR or iSAVR at the Hietzing Heart Center in Vienna, Austria, were included in the study. The mean age was 68.9 years (TAVR 68.7 vs. SAVR 67.6 years; p = 0.190) and the average EuroSCORE II was 5.4% (TAVR 4.3 [3.2%] vs. iSAVR 6.4 (4.3%); p = 0.194). Results: Postprocedural adverse event data showed higher rates of newly acquired atrial fibrillation (6.9% vs. 19.4%; p = 0.049), prolonged ventilation (2.8% vs. 25.0%; p < 0.001) and multi-organ failure (0% vs. 6.9%) in the surgical cohort. The in-hospital and 30-day mortality was significantly higher for iSAVR (1.4% vs. 13.9%; p = 0.012; 12.5% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.009, respectively). The long-term survival (median follow-up 5.0 years (2.2–14.1 years)) of patients treated with the surgical approach was superior to that of patients undergoing TAVR (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Although the survival analysis revealed a higher in-hospital and 30-day survival rate for high-risk patients aged ≤75 years who underwent TAVR, iSAVR was associated with a significantly higher long-term survival rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past decade, indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have progressed rapidly—procedural numbers now exceed those of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in many countries, and TAVI is now a realistic and attractive alternative to SAVR in low-risk patients. Neurocognitive outcomes after TAVI and SAVR remain an issue and sit firmly under the spotlight as TAVI moves into low-risk cohorts. Cognitive decline and stroke carry a significant burden and predict future functional decline, reduced mobility, poor quality of life and increased mortality. Early TAVI trials used varying neurocognitive definitions, and outcomes differed significantly as a result. Recent international consensus statements defining endpoints following TAVI and SAVR have standardised neurological outcomes and facilitate interpretation and comparison between trials. The latest TAVI and SAVR trials have demonstrated more consistent and favourable neurocognitive outcomes for TAVI patients, and cerebral embolic protection devices offer the prospect of further refinement and improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, two randomized trials, the PARTNER 3 and the Evolut Low Risk Trial, independently demonstrated that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is non-inferior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in patients at low surgical risk, paving the way to a progressive extension of clinical indications to TAVR. We designed a meta-analysis to compare TAVR versus SAVR in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low surgical risk. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019131125). Randomized studies comparing one-year outcomes of TAVR or SAVR were searched for within Medline, Scholar and Scopus electronic databases. A total of three randomized studies were selected, including nearly 3000 patients. After one year, the risk of cardiovascular death was significantly lower with TAVR compared to SAVR (Risk Ratio (RR) = 0.56; 95% CI 0.33–0.95; p = 0.03). Conversely, no differences were observed between the groups for one-year all-cause mortality (RR = 0.67; 95% CI 0.42–1.07; p = 0.10). Among the secondary endpoints, patients undergoing TAVR have lower risk of new-onset of atrial fibrillation compared to SAVR (RR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.17–0.39; p < 0.00001), major bleeding (RR = 0.30; 95% CI 0.14–0.65; p < 0.002) and acute kidney injury stage II or III (RR = 0.28; 95% CI 0.14–0.58; p = 0.0005). Conversely, TAVR was associated to a higher risk of aortic regurgitation (RR = 3.96; 95% CI 1.31–11.99; p = 0.01) and permanent pacemaker implantation (RR = 3.47; 95% CI 1.33–9.07; p = 0.01) compared to SAVR. No differences were observed between the groups in the risks of stroke (RR= 0.71; 95% CI 0.41–1.25; p = 0.24), transient ischemic attack (TIA; RR = 0.98; 95% CI 0.53–1.83; p = 0.96), and MI (RR = 0.75; 95% CI 0.43–1.29; p = 0.29). In conclusion, the present meta-analysis, including three randomized studies and nearly 3000 patients with severe aortic stenosis at low surgical risk, shows that TAVR is associated with lower CV death compared to SAVR at one-year follow-up. Nevertheless, paravalvular aortic regurgitation and pacemaker implantation still represent two weak spots that should be solved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]