Search

Racial disparities in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are controversial among African Americans (AA). This study investigated racial disparities comparing AA and Caucasians undergoing aortic valve replacement. Patients who underwent SAVR and TAVR for aortic stenosis were identified in National Inpatient Sample from Q4 2015–2020. In-hospital perioperative outcomes, length of stay, days from admission to operation, and total hospital charge, were compared between AA and Caucasians using multivariable analysis, adjusting for sex, age, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, and hospital characteristics. In TAVR, 51,394 (84.41 %) were Caucasians and 2433 (4.00 %) were AA. In SAVR, there were 50,080 (78.52 %) Caucasians and 3565 (5.59 %) AA. Compared to Caucasians, AA underwent TAVR had a higher risk of complications such as major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.335, p = 0.02)], respiratory complications (aOR = 1.363, p = 0.01), acute kidney injury (AKI) (aOR = 1.468, p < 0.01), pulmonary embolism (aOR = 4.65, p = 0.05), hemorrhage/hematoma (aOR = 1.202, p < 0.01), or superficial wound complication (aOR = 1.414, p = 0.04). AA who underwent SAVR had higher risks of morality (aOR = 1.184, p < 0.05) and surgical complications including MACE (aOR = 1.263, p < 0.01), pericardial complications (aOR = 1.563, p < 0.01), cardiogenic shock (aOR = 1.578, p < 0.01), respiratory complications (aOR = 1.261, p < 0.01), AKI (aOR = 1.642, p < 0.01), venous thromboembolism (aOR = 1.613, p < 0.01), hemorrhage/hematoma (aOR = 1.129, p < 0.01), infection (aOR = 1.234, p < 0.01), superficial wound complications (aOR = 1.756, p < 0.01), vascular complications (aOR = 1.592, p < 0.01), and diaphragmatic paralysis (aOR = 2.181, p = 0.02). In both TAVR and SAVR, AA had longer waiting times from admission to operation (p < 0.01), longer hospital stays (p < 0.01), and higher hospital charges (p < 0.01). AA were underrepresented, especially in TAVR. AA experienced higher in-hospital mortality post-SAVR, but not after TAVR. Furthermore, AA had more complications for both TAVR and SAVR. These findings underscore the pronounced disparities among AA in aortic valve replacement. [Display omitted] • African Americans were underrepresented in both transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), especially in TAVR. • African Americans had higher in-hospital mortality rates post-SAVR but not in TAVR. • African Americans had more complications in both TAVR and SAVR. • African Americans had prolonged hospital stays and increased costs in TAVR and SAVR. • African Americans had more treatment delays for both TAVR and SAVR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) did not receive regulatory approval in Australia until 2013, several years after Europe (2007) and America (2011). Consequently, the uptake of TAVI in Australia initially lagged behind international best practices. This study was undertaken to provide an update on the status of TAVI activity in Australia. A descriptive population-level epidemiological study was performed. Annual activity data for both surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and TAVI were obtained from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) for the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2022. Dynamic contemporaneous population data were obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Trends in absolute activity, population-adjusted activity and age cohort-adjusted activity were examined. Despite the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Australian healthcare system, TAVI activity has continued to increase. Annual TAVI activity now exceeds annual SAVR activity (3,967 vs 3,870), albeit driven by TAVI in patients aged 85+ years. Population-adjusted TAVI activity now exceeds the reported European average (15.3 vs 14.1 per 100,000 persons). The point of equipoise for the choice between SAVR and TAVI is the 75–79 age cohort (50% vs 50%). Australian TAVI activity is now consistent with international best practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) just two decades ago has transformed the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. TAVR has not only extended the option of aortic valve replacement to patients deemed ineligible for surgery, it has also demonstrated similar or better short- and intermediate-term clinical outcomes compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients at all levels of surgical risk. These benefits have been achieved with similar or lower costs compared with SAVR, at least in the first 1–2 years for intermediate- and low-risk patients. Longer-term data will further inform clinical and shared decision-making. In just over two decades, transcatheter aortic valve replacement has emerged as a frontline approach for appropriately selected patients with severe aortic stenosis. A growing body of evidence documents similar or better clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness for transcatheter compared with surgical aortic valve replacement. Whether the mode is transcatheter or surgical, aortic valve replacement remains underutilized in patients with clear indications for intervention. • The TAVR patient population and the procedure itself have changed dramatically. • TAVR has extended aortic valve replacement to patients across all risk groups. • Clinical outcomes similar or better with TAVR vs surgery; overall costs lower. • Despite these advances, aortic valve replacement remains underutilized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There continues to be debate regarding the superiority of transcatheter (TAVR) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with bicuspid aortic valves (BAV). We aimed to compare outcomes during readmissions in elderly patients with BAV who underwent SAVR or TAVR. Patients 65 years or older with BAV who underwent TAVR or isolated SAVR were identified using the National Readmission Database from 2012 through 2018. We compared outcomes during readmissions within 90 days after discharge from the index surgery. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust the baseline differences. During the study period, 8555 and 1081 elderly patients with BAV underwent SAVR and TAVR, respectively. The number of patients who underwent TAVR went up by 179 % from 2012 to 2018. Propensity score matching yielded 573 patients in each group. A total of 111 (19.4 %) in the SAVR group and 125 (21.8 %) in the TAVR group were readmitted within 90 days after the index surgery (p =.31). The mortality during the readmissions within 90 days was equivalent between the two groups (0.9 % in the SAVR group vs. 3.2 % in the TAVR group, p =.22). However, the median hospital cost was approximately doubled in the TAVR group during the readmission (18,250 dollars vs. 9310 dollars in the SAVR group, p <.001). Readmission within 90 days was common in both groups. While the mortality during the readmissions after the surgery was equivalent between the two groups, hospital cost was significantly more expensive in the TAVR group. • Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the elderly with bicuspid valve increased • Mortality was similar between transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement • First readmission rates were also equivalent within 90 days • Hospital costs were significantly higher in the transcatheter group [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Racial disparities in aortic valve replacement outcomes have been established. However, the current literature lacks comprehensive studies that examine the outcomes for Native Americans, probably due to their limited population size. This study aimed to investigate whether disparities in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) also exist for outcomes among Native Americans. Patients who underwent SAVR and TAVR were identified in National Inpatient Sample from the last quarter of 2015 to 2020. A 1:5 propensity score matching was conducted between Native Americans and Caucasians. In-hospital perioperative outcomes, length of stay, wait from admission to operation, and total hospital charge, were compared. In TAVR, 51,394 (84.41 %) were Caucasians and 171 (0.28 %) were Native Americans. In SAVR, there were 50,080 (78.52 %) Caucasians and 279 (0.44 %) Native Americans. After propensity matching, no significant difference was found in post-TAVR outcomes between Native Americans and Caucasians. However, Native Americans have a higher risk of neurological complications (2.88 % vs 0.79 %, p < 0.01) with stroke being the primary contributor (2.52 % vs 0.5 %, p < 0.01), as well as a higher incidence of venous thromboembolism (1.8 % vs 0.57 %, p < 0.05) after SAVR. This study is the first to examine aortic valve replacement outcomes in Native Americans. Native Americans were found to be more likely to undergo SAVR than TAVR. Moreover, Native Americans were found to have five times higher stroke and three times higher VTE after SAVR. These disparities faced by Native Americans underscore the need for increased attention and targeted actions to guarantee health equity. • We examined if disparities in transcatheter (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) exist in Native Americans. • No significant difference was found in TAVR outcomes between Native Americans and Caucasians. • Native Americans had five times higher stroke and three times higher VTE than Caucasians after SAVR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) sustain comparable improvements in health status over 5 years after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or SAVR. Whether a similar long-term benefit is observed among intermediate-risk AS patients is unknown. The purpose of this study was to assess health status outcomes through 5 years in intermediate risk patients treated with a self-expanding TAVR prosthesis or SAVR using data from the SURTAVI (Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial. Intermediate-risk patients randomized to transfemoral TAVR or SAVR in the SURTAVI trial had disease-specific health status assessed at baseline, 30 days, and annually to 5 years using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). Health status was compared between groups using fixed effects repeated measures modelling. Of the 1,584 patients (TAVR, n = 805; SAVR, n = 779) included in the analysis, health status improved more rapidly after TAVR compared with SAVR. However, by 1 year, both groups experienced large health status benefits (mean change in KCCQ-Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OS) from baseline: TAVR: 20.5 ± 22.4; SAVR: 20.5 ± 22.2). This benefit was sustained, albeit modestly attenuated, at 5 years (mean change in KCCQ-OS from baseline: TAVR: 15.4 ± 25.1; SAVR: 14.3 ± 24.2). There were no significant differences in health status between the cohorts at 1 year or beyond. Similar findings were observed in the KCCQ subscales, although a substantial attenuation of benefit was noted in the physical limitation subscale over time in both groups. In intermediate-risk AS patients, both transfemoral TAVR and SAVR resulted in comparable and durable health status benefits to 5 years. Further research is necessary to elucidate the mechanisms for the small decline in health status noted at 5 years compared with 1 year in both groups. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System in the Treatment of Severe, Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [SURTAVI]; NCT01586910) [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data on valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are limited. The authors compared the 5-year incidence of valve reintervention after self-expanding CoreValve/Evolut TAVR vs SAVR. Pooled data from CoreValve and Evolut R/PRO (Medtronic) randomized trials and single-arm studies encompassed 5,925 TAVR (4,478 CoreValve and 1,447 Evolut R/PRO) and 1,832 SAVR patients. Reinterventions were categorized by indication, timing, and treatment. The cumulative incidence of reintervention was compared between TAVR vs SAVR, Evolut vs CoreValve, and Evolut vs SAVR. There were 99 reinterventions (80 TAVR and 19 SAVR). The cumulative incidence of reintervention through 5 years was higher with TAVR vs SAVR (2.2% vs 1.5%; P = 0.017), with differences observed early (≤1 year; adjusted subdistribution HR: 3.50; 95% CI: 1.53-8.02) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.48-2.28). The most common reason for reintervention was paravalvular regurgitation after TAVR and endocarditis after SAVR. Evolut had a significantly lower incidence of reintervention than CoreValve (0.9% vs 1.6%; P = 0.006) at 5 years with differences observed early (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12-0.73) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.21-1.74). The 5-year incidence of reintervention was similar for Evolut vs SAVR (0.9% vs 1.5%; P = 0.41). A low incidence of reintervention was observed for CoreValve/Evolut R/PRO and SAVR through 5 years. Reintervention occurred most often at ≤1 year for TAVR and >1 year for SAVR. Most early reinterventions were with the first-generation CoreValve and managed percutaneously. Reinterventions were more common following CoreValve TAVR compared with Evolut TAVR or SAVR. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Racial disparities in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) outcomes have been established, but research has predominantly focused on African Americans and Hispanics, leaving a gap in Asian Americans. This study aimed to investigate disparities in aortic valve replacement outcomes among Asian Americans. Patients who underwent SAVR and TAVR were identified in National Inpatient Sample from the last quarter of 2015–2020. A 1:2 propensity score matching was applied to Asian Americans and Caucasians. In-hospital perioperative outcomes, length of stay, days from admission to operation, and total hospital charge, were compared. In TAVR, 51,394 (84.41 %) were Caucasians and 795 (1.31 %) were Asian Americans. In SAVR, there were 50,080 (78.52 %) Caucasians and 1233 (1.93 %) Asian Americans. No significant difference was found in post-TAVR complications. However, Asian Americans experienced longer waiting time until operation (p = 0.03) and higher costs (p < 0.01) in TAVR. In SAVR, Asian Americans had higher risks of in-hospital mortality (3.91 % vs 2.39 %, p = 0.01), cardiogenic shock (8.71 % vs 6.74 %, p = 0.03), respiratory complications (14.08 % vs 11.2 %, p = 0.01), mechanical ventilation (13.83 % vs 9.09 %, p < 0.01), acute kidney injury (25.47 % vs 20.13 %, p < 0.01), and hemorrhage/hematoma (72.01 % vs 62.95 %, p < 0.01). Additionally, Asian Americans underwent SAVR had longer lengths of stay (p < 0.01) and higher costs (p < 0.01). Asian Americans were underrepresented in aortic valve replacement. Asian Americans, while having similar post-TAVR outcomes to Caucasians, faced greater risks of post-SAVR mortality and surgical complications. These disparities among Asian Americans call for targeted actions to ensure equitable health outcomes. [Display omitted] • Racial disparities in TAVR and SAVR have been established, but there is a scarcity of literature examining Asian Americans. • This study is the first to comprehensively examined racial disparities in TAVR and SAVR among Asian Americans. • Asian Americans had similar post-TAVR outcomes to Caucasians but faced higher risks of post-SAVR mortality and complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We evaluated the impact of the 2020 COVID-19 lockdown on AVR and outcomes. • Fewer AVRs (including TAVRs and SAVRs) were performed in 2020. • No sex disproportionate differences in the number or proportion of AVRs in 2020. • Increased proportion of TAVRs in young patients (aged < 75 years) in 2020. • Patient characteristics followed similar declining trends to previous years. • Characteristics were age, Charlson Comorbidity Index and hospitalization duration. • In-hospital mortality was slightly higher than expected during 2020. The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic lockdowns limited access to medical care. The impact on surgical (SAVR) and transcatheter (TAVR) aortic valve replacement (AVR) has been poorly described. We sought to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the number and modalities of AVR, patient demographics and in-hospital outcomes at the nationwide level. Using the French nationwide administrative hospital discharge database, we compared projected numbers and proportions of AVR and hospital outcomes, obtained using linear regressions derived from 2015–2019 trends, with those observed in 2020. In 2020, 21,382 AVRs were performed (13,051 TAVRs, 5706 isolated SAVRs and 2625 SAVRs combined with other cardiac surgery). Compared with the 2020 projected number of AVRs (24,586, 95% confidence interval [CI] 23,525–25,646), TAVRs (14,866, 95% CI 14,164–15,568), isolated SAVRs (6652, 95% CI 6203–7100) and SAVRs combined with other cardiac surgery (3069, 95% CI 2822–3315), there were reductions of 13.0%, 12.2%, 14.2% and 14.5%, respectively. These trends were similar regardless of sex or age. In 2020, the mean age, Charlson Comorbidity Index and hospital admission duration continued to decline, and the proportion of females remained constant, following 2015–2019 trends. Overall, 2020 in-hospital mortality was higher than projected (2.0% observed vs. 1.7% projected; 95% CI 1.5–1.9%), with no increased pacemaker implantation, but more acute kidney injury and cerebrovascular accidents in some surgical subsets. During the COVID-19 pandemic, fewer TAVR and SAVR procedures were performed, with increased in-hospital mortality and periprocedural complications. Extended follow-up will be important to establish the long-term effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient management and outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The small aortic annulus is a surgical challenge in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement which may lead to patient prosthesis mismatch. Management options include aortic root enlargement, aortic root replacement, and the use of sutureless valves. In this case series, we report our results with aortic root enlargement, sutureless valve implantation, and benchtop modelling of the radial forces exerted. Five patients underwent aortic root enlargement and insertion of the Perceval valve as part of the management strategy to enlarge their effective orifice area. We further investigate this strategy with a benchtop model to quantify the radial forces exerted by the Perceval valve on the aortic annulus. Radial and hoop forces on the aortic annulus and inner ring of the Perceval valve were recorded using a Mylar force tester. Five female patients with native annulus between 18mm–20mm underwent root enlargement and insertion of a Perceval S valve. The postoperative course was uncomplicated for all patients except for one who required a permanent pacemaker insertion. Transvalvular pressure gradients remained low at up to 4 years of follow-up (12 mmHg–21 mmHg), with no evidence of paravalvular leak. Benchtop testing demonstrated radial forces exerted at the annulus in all-size Perceval S valves to be within physiological variables, whereas compressive forces required to deform the valves were supraphysiological. The deployment of a sutureless valve within a surgical enlarged aortic root is a feasible solution in patients with a small aortic root. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Severe aortic stenosis is the most common acquired valvular disorder. Balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) is considered for patients who are not suitable for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve insertion (TAVI). The American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology recommend BAV as a bridging procedure for SAVR and TAVI due to the significant morbidity and mortality associated with it. We aim to investigate the morbidity and mortality associated with BAV only, BAV bridged to TAVI and TAVI-only patients over 3 years in Epworth Richmond, a tertiary hospital in Victoria, Australia. We divided patients into three groups including BAV only, BAV bridged to TAVI and TAVI only and assessed the baseline demographics, procedural complications, and mortality between the groups. Of 438 patients, 26 patients underwent BAV only, 36 patients bridged to TAVI post-BAV and 376 patients underwent TAVI directly. All patients had significant reductions in their mean AV pressure gradient (p<0.01). There was no significant difference in periprocedural morbidity and mortality between the groups. At 6-month follow-up, the mortality in patients undergoing only BAV was 31%, compared with 8.3% in BAV bridged to TAVI and 1.9% in TAVI-only group (p<0.01). The 12-month follow-up demonstrated a similar pattern; 42.3% vs 13.9% vs 4.5% (p<0.01). This study suggests no significant difference in inpatient and periprocedural morbidity and mortality between the three groups but a significant mortality benefit at 6-month and 12-month post valve insertion, either directly or post BAV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Española de Cardiología (18855857) is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Previous studies demonstrated transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with an earlier generation balloon-expandable valve to be noninferior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for death and disabling stroke in intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic, severe aortic stenosis at 5 years. However, limited long-term data are available with the more contemporary SAPIEN 3 (S3) bioprosthesis. The aim of this study was to compare 5-year risk-adjusted outcomes in intermediate-risk patients undergoing S3 TAVR vs SAVR. Propensity score matching was performed to account for baseline differences in intermediate-risk patients undergoing S3 TAVR in the PARTNER 2 (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) S3 single-arm study and SAVR in the PARTNER 2A randomized clinical trial. The primary composite endpoint consisted of 5-year all-cause death and disabling stroke. A total of 783 matched pairs of intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis were studied. There were no differences in the primary endpoint between S3 TAVR and SAVR at 5 years (40.2% vs 42.7%; HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.74-1.03; P = 0.10). The incidence of mild or greater paravalvular regurgitation was more common after S3 TAVR. There were no differences in structural valve deterioration–related stage 2 and 3 hemodynamic valve deterioration or bioprosthetic valve failure. In this propensity-matched analysis of intermediate-risk patients, 5-year rates of death and disabling stroke were similar between S3 TAVR and SAVR. Rates of structural valve deterioration–related hemodynamic valve deterioration were similar, but paravalvular regurgitation was more common after S3 TAVR. Longer-term follow-up is needed to further evaluate differences in late adverse clinical events and bioprosthetic valve durability. (PII S3i [PARTNER II Trial: Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves II – S3 Intermediate], NCT03222128 ; PII A (PARTNER II Trial: Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves II – XT Intermediate and High Risk], NCT01314313) [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To compare the rate of structural valve degeneration (SVD) following surgical aortic valve replacement associated with the Trifecta (TF) valve (St Jude Medical) versus other bioprosthetic valves. A systematic literature search was conducted for studies comparing durability of the TF prosthesis to other valve types, including Perimount (Edwards Lifesciences), Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna Ease (ME) (Edwards Lifesciences), and Mitroflow (LivaNova USA) after surgical aortic valve replacement. Random effect pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed to compare the incident rate ratio of the composite primary outcome of SVD or reintervention due to SVD. Ten studies with 31,029 patients were included, of whom 6832 received TF, 19,023 received Perimount, 3514 received ME, and 713 received Mitroflow. When compared with TF, ME was associated with lower rates of SVD or reintervention for SVD (incident rate ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.02-0.92; P =.04). Similarly, at network meta-analysis, when compared with TF, only ME was associated with significantly lower rates of SVD or reintervention for SVD (incident rate ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.02-0.97). ME (incident rate ratio, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.07-0.47) and PM (incident rate ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.12-0.98) were associated with significantly lower rate of all-cause reintervention when compared with TF. No differences in the other secondary outcomes were found. The TF valve is associated with significantly higher rates of SVD or reintervention for SVD than the ME valve, but not the Mitroflow valve. The TF valve was also associated with higher rates of all-cause reintervention than ME and Perimount valves. The underlying mechanism(s) of these findings warrant further investigation. [Display omitted] Summary of the findings of the study. In total 31,029 patients were included across 10 selected studies. The primary outcome of the analysis was structural valve degeneration (SVD) and/or reoperation due to SVD. We found that the Magna Ease (ME) valve (Edwards Lifesciences) is associated with lower rates of the primary outcomes when compared with the Trifecta valve (TF) (St Jude Medical). IRR , Incidence rate ratio; CI , confidence interval; MF , Mitroflow valve (LivaNova USA); PM , Perimount valve (Edwards Lifesciences). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Randomized data comparing outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with surgery in low–surgical risk patients at time points beyond 2 years is limited. This presents an unknown for physicians striving to educate patients as part of a shared decision-making process. The authors evaluated 3-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes from the Evolut Low Risk trial. Low-risk patients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular valve or surgery. The primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke and several secondary endpoints were assessed at 3 years. There were 1,414 attempted implantations (730 TAVR; 684 surgery). Patients had a mean age of 74 years and 35% were women. At 3 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 7.4% of TAVR patients and 10.4% of surgery patients (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.49-1.00; P = 0.051). The difference between treatment arms for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke remained broadly consistent over time: −1.8% at year 1; −2.0% at year 2; and −2.9% at year 3. The incidence of mild paravalvular regurgitation (20.3% TAVR vs 2.5% surgery) and pacemaker placement (23.2% TAVR vs 9.1% surgery; P < 0.001) were lower in the surgery group. Rates of moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation for both groups were <1% and not significantly different. Patients who underwent TAVR had significantly improved valve hemodynamics (mean gradient 9.1 mm Hg TAVR vs 12.1 mm Hg surgery; P < 0.001) at 3 years. Within the Evolut Low Risk study, TAVR at 3 years showed durable benefits compared with surgery with respect to all-cause mortality or disabling stroke. (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients; NCT02701283) [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aortic stenosis treatment should consider risks and benefits for lifetime management. Although the feasibility of redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains unclear, concerns are emerging regarding reoperation after TAVR. The authors sought to define comparative risk of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) after prior TAVR or SAVR. Data on patients undergoing bioprosthetic SAVR after TAVR and/or SAVR were extracted from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database (2011-2021). Overall and isolated SAVR cohorts were analyzed. The primary outcome was operative mortality. Risk adjustment using hierarchical logistic regression as well as propensity score matching for isolated SAVR cases were performed. Of 31,106 SAVR patients, 1,126 had prior TAVR (TAVR-SAVR), 674 had prior SAVR and TAVR (SAVR-TAVR-SAVR), and 29,306 had prior SAVR (SAVR-SAVR). Yearly rates of TAVR-SAVR and SAVR-TAVR-SAVR increased over time, whereas SAVR-SAVR was stable. The TAVR-SAVR patients were older, with higher acuity, and with greater comorbidities than other cohorts. The unadjusted operative mortality was highest in the TAVR-SAVR group (17% vs 12% vs 9%, respectively; P < 0.001). Compared with SAVR-SAVR, risk-adjusted operative mortality was significantly higher for TAVR-SAVR (OR: 1.53; P = 0.004), but not SAVR-TAVR-SAVR (OR: 1.02; P = 0.927). After propensity score matching, operative mortality of isolated SAVR was 1.74 times higher for TAVR-SAVR than SAVR-SAVR patients (P = 0.020). The number of post-TAVR reoperations is increasing and represent a high-risk population. Yet even in isolated SAVR cases, SAVR after TAVR is independently associated with increased risk of mortality. Patients with life expectancy beyond a TAVR valve and unsuitable anatomy for redo-TAVR should consider a SAVR-first approach. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) failure has not been studied in detail. The authors sought to determine outcomes of TAVR surgical explantation (TAVR-explant) vs redo-TAVR because they are largely unknown. From May 2009 to February 2022, 396 patients in the international EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR registry underwent TAVR-explant (181, 46.4%) or redo-TAVR (215, 54.3%) for transcatheter heart valve (THV) failure during a separate admission from the initial TAVR. Outcomes were reported at 30 days and 1 year. The incidence of reintervention after THV failure was 0.59% with increasing volume during the study period. Median time from index-TAVR to reintervention was shorter in TAVR-explant vs redo-TAVR (17.6 months [IQR: 5.0-40.7 months] vs 45.7 months [IQR: 10.6-75.6 months]; P < 0.001], respectively. TAVR-explant had more prosthesis–patient mismatch (17.1% vs 0.5%; P < 0.001) as the indication for reintervention, whereas redo-TAVR had more structural valve degeneration (63.7% vs 51.9%; P = 0.023), with a similar incidence of ≥moderate paravalvular leak between groups (28.7% vs 32.8% in redo-TAVR; P = 0.44). There was a similar proportion of balloon-expandable THV failures (39.8% TAVR-explant vs 40.5% redo-TAVR; P = 0.92). Median follow-up was 11.3 (IQR: 1.6-27.1 months) after reintervention. Compared with redo-TAVR, TAVR-explant had higher mortality at 30 days (13.6% vs 3.4%; P < 0.001) and 1 year (32.4% vs 15.4%; P = 0.001), with similar stroke rates between groups. On landmark analysis, mortality was similar between groups after 30 days (P = 0.91). In this first report of the EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR global registry, TAVR-explant had a shorter median time to reintervention, with less structural valve degeneration, more prosthesis–patient mismatch, and similar paravalvular leak rates compared with redo-TAVR. TAVR-explant had higher mortality at 30 days and 1 year, but similar rates on landmark analysis after 30 days. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Patients with concomitant AS and CAD can be treated by catheter or surgery. • Patients treated by catheter have a higher co-morbidity burden. • The surgical approach is associated with a higher rate of procedural complications. • Patients treated by catheter have similar late outcomes to those treated by surgery. Two therapeutic strategies are available when aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease coexist: a transcatheter approach, with percutaneous coronary intervention followed by transcatheter aortic valve replacement; and a surgical approach, consisting of surgical aortic valve replacement combined with coronary artery bypass graft. We sought to compare the outcomes of these two strategies. The study population consisted of 241 patients who benefited from aortic valve replacement and coronary revascularization (transcatheter, n = 150; surgery, n = 91). Patients in the transcatheter population were older (83.5 vs. 71.8 years; P < 0.001) and had a higher Logistic EuroSCORE (11.1% vs. 5.7%; P < 0.001). At 30 days postprocedure, patients who had surgery exhibited more life-threatening bleedings (12.1% vs 4.5%; P = 0.034), acute kidney injury (12.1% vs. 1.3%; P < 0.001) and atrial fibrillation (55.6% vs. 8.7%; P < 0.001). After a median follow-up of 27 months, the risk of major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events did not differ significantly between the two strategies (hazard ratio [HR] 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97–2.04; P = 0.07), whereas estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min (HR 2.22, 95% CI 1.58–3.12; P < 0.001), peripheral artery disease (HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.37–2.91; P < 0.001) and left ventricular ejection fraction < 50% (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.12–2.55; P = 0.012) were associated with a negative prognosis. In our study, patients with aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease treated by catheter were older and had a higher co-morbidity burden than those treated by surgery. The surgical strategy was associated with a higher rate of 30-day complications, but long-term outcomes were similar between the two strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been widely adopted for management of aortic stenosis. The purpose of this study was to examine regional access to and outcomes following TAVR in California. Patients undergoing TAVR or isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) from 2008 to 2019 in California were identified in the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development database. California was divided into seven regions: Northern California, San Francisco Bay Area, Central California, Los Angeles, Inland Empire, Orange, and San Diego. Regional TAVR volumes were normalized to Medicare beneficiaries or isolated SAVR volume. Outcomes included risk-adjusted 30-day mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE). Trends were studied using non-parametric tests, and regional outcomes using logistic regression. TAVR volume increased annually since 2011, with 7148 cases performed in California in 2019. After normalization, variation in utilization of TAVR was evident, with the least performed in Central California. TAVR to SAVR ratios in 2019 were greatest in Northern California, Los Angeles, and San Diego, and least in the Inland Empire. After risk adjustment, there were no significant regional differences in 30-day mortality, but lower 30-day MACCE in the San Francisco Bay Area. Regional differences in TAVR utilization exist, with limited access in Central California and the Inland Empire, but risk-adjusted outcomes are similar. Efforts to reach underserved areas through existing program expansion or regional referrals may distribute transcatheter technology more equitably across California. There was significant growth of TAVR programs and volume in California, with a lesser decline in isolated SAVR caseload. Regional variation in access to TAVR exists in California, although regional outcomes were similar in 2017–2018. [Display omitted] • Adoption of TAVR across California is geographically disparate. • Non-metropolitan areas adopted TAVR later and remain underserved. • Outcomes following TAVR have improved over time and are similar across the state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is an indicated treatment for severe aortic stenosis. Although mechanical valves are typically more durable, tissue SAVR valves do not require lifetime anticoagulation monitoring and may have lower rates of expensive sequelae. This economic evaluation estimates payer costs to the 3 largest Thai health insurance mechanisms for tissue versus mechanical SAVR. A deterministic and Monte Carlo simulation model based on literature and expert opinion estimated total payer costs for tissue and mechanical valves over a 25-year duration for 3 separate age cohorts (45, 55, and 65 years). Reimbursements levels for hospitalization services were from the Thai Diagnosis Related Groups. Separate models are generated for the 3 main Thai health insurance mechanisms. The discounted expected 25-year reduction in payer savings associated with tissue SAVR are $2540, $2529, and $2311 per surgery for patients aged 45, 55, and 65 years, respectively, for the largest Thai insurer. Expected cost reductions associated with tissue SAVR are larger for each of the other schemes and generally decrease with patient age. Most savings accrue within 10 years of surgery. Reoperation costs are larger with tissue valves, but reductions in complications and anticoagulation monitoring more than offset these expenditures. Results are robust to multiple sensitivity and scenario analyses. Coverage and reimbursement of tissue valves can financially benefit Thai insurers and reduce expenditures in the Thai health system compared with mechanical valves. As tissue valve technology evolves and reoperation rates decline, the financial benefit associated with tissue valves will increase. • The clinical trade-offs between tissue and mechanical valves have been studied, but the long-run financial implications, particularly for publicly funded insurers in budget-constrained countries such as Thailand, are unclear. • Our economic model shows a substantive reduction in the expected 25-year payer costs associated with use of tissue valves relative to mechanical valves for each of the 3 main Thai insurance schemes. • The magnitude of the long-run discounted savings ($2300-$4500 depending on age of patient and insurer) supports reimbursement or insurance coverage of tissue valves, particularly newer surgical valve technologies that may reduce the likelihood of reoperation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative therapeutic modality to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). In the current analysis, we compare the characteristics and outcomes of AVR procedures in patients <60 years of age.Methods: We queried the Nationwide Readmissions Database for all AVR hospitalizations in patients 18-59 years of age between January 2012 and December 2017. We performed a propensity score matching analysis (1:1) and compared baseline characteristics, procedural complications, and outcomes between TAVR and SAVR patients.Results: A total of 72,356 hospitalizations for AVR were identified in patients <60 years of age. Compared to their SAVR counterparts, TAVR patients were older (52.5 ± 7.6) vs. 48.8 ± 9.6, p < 0.001), more likely to be women (37.9% vs. 28.0%, p < 0.001), and have history of prior radiation (8.3% vs. 0.7%, p < 0.001). After propensity score matching, TAVR patients had lower procedural complications, but a similar mortality rate compared to SAVR patients (2.9% vs. 3.0%, p = 0.77). TAVR was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay [4 [2-9] vs. 6 [5-11], p < 0.001), but no significant difference in the 30-day readmission rate was noted (16.2% vs. 16.8%, p-value = 0.49).Conclusion: Our study demonstrates favorable short-term outcomes in younger patients undergoing TAVR, which improved over time. Further investigation of long-term outcomes in TAVR performed younger patients is warranted to draw a comprehensive picture of TAVR safety and efficacy in low-risk patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Severe aortic stenosis (sAS) is associated with acquired von Willebrand syndrome (AVWS) by loss of high-molecular-weight multimers (HMWM) of von Willebrand factor (VWF), potentially resulting in perioperative bleeding. Analysis of VWF multimers remains challenging. Recently, the new, rapid Hydragel 5 assay has been developed, using electrophoretic protein separation for dividing VWF-multimers into low (LMWM), intermediate (IMWM), and HMWM, the hemostatically active part of VWF. Here, we evaluated its impact on predicting blood loss in presence of AVWS after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We prospectively examined 52 patients (age: 68 ± 7 years; 54 % male) admitted to SAVR. They were divided in two groups (A: normal VWF, n = 28; B: abnormal VWF, n = 24, defined as VWF-activity/antigen (VWF:Ac/Ag)-ratio < 0.7 and/or HMWM loss). Blood samples and echocardiographic data were collected before, seven days and three months after SAVR. Blood loss and transfusions were recorded. Baseline characteristics and clinical data were similar in both groups. HMWM loss was present in 38.5 % of all patients. HMWM, the VWF:Ac/Ag- and HMWM/(IMWM+LMWM)-ratios were significantly decreased preoperatively in group B but normalized after SAVR. Bleeding, re-thoracotomy and transfusion rates were comparable. HMWM loss was inversely correlated with the peak aortic gradient (Pmax) and positively with the aortic valve area (AVA), while HMWM/(IMWM+LMWM)-ratio negatively correlated with the mean aortic gradient (Pmean). HMWM and HMWM/(IMWM+LMWM)-ratio inversely correlate with severity of AS and normalize after SAVR. The Hydragel-5 assay's might be valuable for routine diagnostics to assess bleeding risk and postoperative normalization of AS and VWF abnormalities in SAVR patients. • Preoperative HMWM loss did not affect post-SAVR bleeding. • HMWM, VWF:Ac/Ag- and HMWM/(IMWM+LMWM)-ratios normalized after SAVR. • HMWM and HMWM/(IMWM+LMWM)-ratio correlated with the severity of aortic stenosis. • Patients with aortic stenosis should be screened for AVWS before and after AVR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, although phase-specific survival and cause of death are implicated following these procedures. Herein, we conducted a phase-specific meta-analysis to compare outcomes after TAVR versus SAVR. A systematic search of databases was performed from inception through December 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials that compared outcomes of TAVR and SAVR. For each trial, the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) of outcomes of interest was extracted for the following each specific phase: the very short-term (0-1 years after the procedure), short-term (1-2 years), and mid-term (2-5 years). Phase-specific HRs were separately pooled using the random-effects model. Our analysis included 8 randomized controlled trials, which enrolled a total of 8885 patients with a mean age of 79 years. The survival after TAVR compared with SAVR was greater in the very short-term periods (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.98; P =.02) but similar in the short-term periods. In contrast, lower survival was observed in the TAVR group compared with the SAVR group in the mid-term periods (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.29; P =.02). Similar temporal trends favoring SAVR in the mid-term were present for cardiovascular mortality and rehospitalization rates. In contrast, the rates of aortic valve reinterventions and permanent pacemaker implantations were initially greater in the TAVR group, although SAVR's superiority eventually disappeared in the mid-term. Our analysis demonstrated phase-specific outcomes following TAVR and SAVR. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has demonstrated dramatic growth in the past decade. This study aims to investigate implications of post-TAVR reoperation from our 10-year experience. Between 2011 and 2022, 66 post-TAVR patients underwent a reoperation, consisting of 42 (63.6%) patients with native TAVR and 24 (36.4%) patients with valve-in-valve TAVR (VIV-TAVR) after surgical aortic valve replacement. The aggregate proportion of patients belonging to the low-/intermediate-risk group at the time of TAVR exceeded that of the high-/extreme-risk cohort in 2021. The native TAVR group received a larger TAVR valve, whereas more frequent low-risk status at the time of TAVR than the VIV-TAVR group. Concurrent procedures were highly common during reoperation and isolated surgical aortic valve replacement represented only 18.2% of the entire cohort. The native TAVR group demonstrated significantly higher TAVR explant difficulty index score (2.0 vs 1.0 points; P <.001) and operative mortality (14.2% vs 0%; P =.079) compared with the VIV-TAVR group. The 8-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was 1.9% and 14.1% (subdistribution hazard ratio, 8.0; 95% CI, 4.1-15.9; P <.001) in the native and VIV-TAVR group, respectively. Furthermore, cumulative incidence of valve reintervention, combining reoperations and redo TAVRs, was 3.3% and 19.0% (subdistribution hazard ratio, 6.2; 95% CI, 3.6-10.9; P <.001). Low-/intermediate-risk patients are emerging as the predominant group necessitating reoperations. Native TAVR was associated with lower postimplant reintervention rates, albeit with higher reoperative technical difficulty and mortality. Conversely, VIV-TAVR was associated with higher reintervention, but demonstrated lower technical difficulty and mortality for reoperation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study is to examine which patients referred to our structural valve clinic for potential transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are receiving surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) whether due to unsuitable anatomy for TAVR versus other reasons. Individuals referred for TAVR from January 2019 to March 2022, who ultimately underwent SAVR were examined, retrospectively. Patients were divided into 2 surgical groups: TAVR was technically unsuitable (SAVR-TU) and those in which TAVR was technically feasible (SAVR-TF). 215 patients referred for TAVR underwent SAVR with 61 (28.4%) patients in the SAVR-TU group and 154 (71.6%) in the SAVR-TF group. The SAVR-TU group were more commonly female (52.5% vs 23.4%, p < 0.0001), had a higher incidence of stroke at baseline (9.8% vs 2.0%, p = 0.017) were frailer (5-m gait 5.2 s vs 4.7 s, p = 0.0035), and had a higher Society of Thoracic Surgery risk score (2.2 vs 1.7, p = 0.04). In the SAVR-TU group, unsuitability for TAVR was due to inadequate aortic root anatomy (86.9%), and poor peripheral access (6.6%). In the SAVR-TF group, the most common reasons for SAVR referral were concomitant coronary artery disease (42.9%), bicuspid aortic valve disease (16.9%), and concomitant aortic aneurysm (10.4%). Overall, in-hospital mortality was 1.4% with no difference between both groups. One-year survival was 96.7%. Despite a higher trend of aortic stenosis being treated with TAVR, higher risk patients unsuitable for TAVR can have SAVR with excellent outcomes. Moreover, patients with AS and concomitant other pathology should be evaluated for cardiac surgery. • Surgical outcomes for patients with contraindications to TAVR trials are unknown. • Limited data exists on TAVR durability. • Less data exists on TAVR durability when it is implanted inside a bioprosthesis. • Most patients (87%) were ineligible for TAVR due to inadequate aortic root anatomy. • Our high-risk patients unsuitable for TAVR had SAVR with excellent outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Physiologic right ventricle–pulmonary artery (RV-PA) coupling may be impaired in patients with aortic stenosis (AS). This study aimed to assess the incidence and prognostic significance of impaired RV-PA coupling in low-risk patients with symptomatic severe AS undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement. RV-PA coupling was measured by transthoracic echocardiography as the ratio of tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) to pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) in patients in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) 3 trial. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, and rehospitalization at the 2-year follow-up. Among 570 low-risk patients included in the analysis, RV-PA uncoupling was defined by a TAPSE/PASP ratio ≤ 0.55 mm/mm Hg. At baseline, 222 of 570 (38.9%) patients had RV-PA uncoupling. At 2 years, patients with baseline RV-PA uncoupling had an increased incidence of the primary endpoint (19.1% vs 9.9%, P = 0.002), all-cause mortality (5.9% vs 0.6%, P < 0.001), cardiovascular mortality (4.1% vs 0.6%, P = 0.003), and rehospitalization (13.5% vs 7.3%, P = 0.018). On multivariable analysis, baseline RV-PA uncoupling remained an independent predictor of the primary endpoint at 2 years (HR: 1.92; 95% CI: 1.04-3.57; P = 0.038). In patients with symptomatic severe AS at low surgical risk undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement, baseline RV-PA uncoupling defined by TAPSE/PASP ≤ 0.55 mm Hg was associated with adverse clinical outcomes at 2 years, including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and rehospitalization. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Death in high- and intermediate-risk patients after self-expanding transcatheter (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (surgery) differed in mechanisms and timing. In both risk groups, 1-year all-cause mortality was lower in TAVR than in surgery patients. The differences in mechanism and timing of death in low-risk patients has not been studied. This report explores the mechanisms of death during 3 time periods; 0 to 30 days (early), 31 to 120 days (recovery), and 121 to 365 days (late).Methods: We retrospectively examined the mechanisms and timing of death following TAVR or surgery in the randomized Evolut Low Risk Trial. Patients were enrolled between March 2016 and November 2018 from 86 designated TAVR centers. Mechanisms of death were categorized as due to technical reasons, failure to repair, complications linked to death, failure to recover or other.Results: All-cause mortality at 1 year was 2.2% for TAVR and 2.8% for surgery, p = 0.44. Early deaths included 3 TAVR patients, all due to technical reasons, and 8 surgery patients (1 technical, 5 complications and 2 failed to recover). Recovery period deaths included 6 TAVR patients (4 complications, 1 failed to recover and 1 other), and 1 surgery patient from complications of valve endocarditis. Late period deaths included 6 TAVR patients and 9 surgery patients, primarily due to complications.Conclusions: In this low-risk study cohort, no patient died from failure to repair the valve; reduction in procedural complications in the TAVR and surgery groups remain opportunities for further improvement in outcomes. Clinical Trial Registrations (clinicaltrials.gov): NCT02701283 (Evolut Low Risk). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While aortic valve replacement (AVR) is indicated for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS), the appropriate management of asymptomatic severe AS remains unclear. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of surgical AVR (SAVR) versus conservative treatment in patients with asymptomatic severe AS.Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar for studies comparing outcomes of SAVR versus conservative treatment in asymptomatic severe AS. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each individual study. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality, 30-day operative mortality, sudden cardiac death (SCD), heart failure hospitalization (HFH), myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke.Results: A total of 8 studies with 2685 patients were included. The mean age was above 60 years, and the median follow-up duration was 4 years. Compared to conservative treatment, SAVR was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.23-0.64) and HFH rates (RR 0.18; 95% CI 0.05-0.71). There were no significant differences in cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.24; 95% CI 0.03-1.67), non-cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.23-1.03), 30-day operative mortality (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.10-2.32), SCD (RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.05-2.89), MI (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.04-5.52), and stroke rates (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.35-4.11) between the two strategies.Conclusions: In patients with asymptomatic severe AS, SAVR is associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality and HFH compared to conservative treatment. While SAVR is a promising option for asymptomatic severe AS, most studies were observational and nonrandomized; randomized trials are needed to establish a clear benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Among patients that undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), options for valve failure include TAVR explant with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or TAV-in-TAV • In younger patients that elect to undergo SAVR, options for bioprosthetic failure are TAV-in-SAV or redo SAVR. • This review discusses how options for future therapies affects the decision of SAVR vs TAVR in younger patients A shift to lifetime management has gained more focus with the approval of low-risk transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This paper is therefore focused on the different approaches for lifetime management. Herein we discuss the procedural safety, durability, performance, and future options for each lifetime management strategy. In younger patients that elect to undergo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), options for bioprosthetic failure are TAV-in-SAV or redo SAVR. Among patients that undergo TAVR, options for valve failure include TAVR explant with SAVR or TAV-in-TAV. Additionally, there are patients who may require a third valvular intervention. The initial therapy may limit re-intervention options down the road. This review discusses how options for future therapies affect the decision of SAVR vs TAVR in younger patients. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite current valve guidelines recommending both transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR and SAVR, respectively) in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS), TAVR has recently become the preferred treatment over SAVR, driven by its minimal invasiveness, faster recovery and earlier improvement in quality of life. However, several limitations and unresolved issues remain with TAVR, including stroke, conduction system disorder, durability, bicuspid anatomy, coronary reaccess and lifetime management with aortic valve reintervention. Our review aims to highlight the above issues and discuss them in depth, to demonstrate the complementary role of TAVR and SAVR in the treatment of AS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The clinical and cost-saving benefits of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high or intermediate risk of surgical mortality are supported by a growing evidence base. The PARTNER 3 trial (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial) demonstrated clinical benefits with SAPIEN 3 TAVI compared with SAVR in selected patients at low risk of surgical mortality. This study uses PARTNER 3 outcomes in combination with a French national hospital claim database to inform a cost-utility model and examine the cost implications of TAVI over SAVR in a low-risk population.Methods: A 2-stage cost-utility analysis was developed to estimate changes in both direct healthcare costs and health-related quality of life using TAVI with SAPIEN 3 compared with SAVR. Early adverse events associated with TAVI were captured using the PARTNER 3 data set. These data fed into a Markov model that captured longer-term outcomes of patients, after TAVI or SAVR intervention.Results: TAVI with SAPIEN 3 offers meaningful benefits over SAVR in providing both cost saving (€12 742 per patient) and generating greater quality-adjusted life-years (0.89 per patient). These results are robust with TAVI with SAPIEN 3 remaining dominant across several scenarios and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.Conclusions: This model demonstrated that TAVI with SAPIEN 3 was dominant compared with SAVR in the treatment of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who are at low risk of surgical mortality. These findings should help policy makers in developing informed approaches to intervention selection for this patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the rapid growth of aortic valve replacement (AVR) for aortic stenosis (AS), limited data suggest symptomatic severe AS remains undertreated.Objectives: This study sought to investigate temporal trends in AVR utilization among patients with a clinical indication for AVR.Methods: Patients with severe AS (aortic valve area <1 cm2) on transthoracic echocardiograms from 2000 to 2017 at 2 large academic medical centers were classified based on clinical guideline indications for AVR and divided into 4 AS subgroups: high gradient with normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (HG-NEF), high gradient with low LVEF (HG-LEF), low gradient with normal LVEF (LG-NEF), and low gradient with low LVEF (LG-LEF). Utilization of AVR was examined and predictors identified.Results: Of 10,795 patients, 6,150 (57%) had an indication or potential indication for AVR, of whom 2,977 (48%) received AVR. The frequency of AVR varied by AS subtype with LG groups less likely to receive an AVR (HG-NEF: 70%, HG-LEF: 53%, LG-NEF: 32%, LG-LEF: 38%, P < 0.001). AVR volumes grew over the 18-year study period but were paralleled by comparable growth in the number of patients with an indication for AVR. In patients with a Class I indication, younger age, coronary artery disease, smoking history, higher hematocrit, outpatient index transthoracic echocardiogram, and LVEF ≥0.5 were independently associated with an increased likelihood of receiving an AVR. AVR was associated with improved survival in each AS-subgroup.Conclusions: Over an 18-year period, the proportion of patients with an indication for AVR who did not receive AVR has remained substantial despite the rapid growth of AVR volumes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There were gaps between guidelines and practice when surgery was the only treatment for aortic stenosis (AS).Objectives: This study analyzed the decision to intervene in patients with severe AS in the EORP VHD (EURObservational Research Programme Valvular Heart Disease) II survey.Methods: Among 2,152 patients with severe AS, 1,271 patients with high-gradient AS who were symptomatic fulfilled a Class I recommendation for intervention according to the 2012 European Society of Cardiology guidelines; the primary end point was the decision for intervention.Results: A decision not to intervene was taken in 262 patients (20.6%). In multivariate analysis, the decision not to intervene was associated with older age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.34 per 10-year increase; 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.61; P = 0.002), New York Heart Association functional classes I and II versus III (OR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.16 to 2.30; P = 0.005), higher age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index (OR: 1.09 per 1-point increase; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.17; P = 0.03), and a lower transaortic mean gradient (OR: 0.81 per 10-mm Hg decrease; 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.92; P < 0.001). During the study period, 346 patients (40.2%, median age 84 years, median EuroSCORE II [European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II] 3.1%) underwent transcatheter intervention and 515 (59.8%, median age 69 years, median EuroSCORE II 1.5%) underwent surgery. A decision not to intervene versus intervention was associated with lower 6-month survival (87.4%; 95% CI: 82.0 to 91.3 vs 94.6%; 95% CI: 92.8 to 95.9; P < 0.001).Conclusions: A decision not to intervene was taken in 1 in 5 patients with severe symptomatic AS despite a Class I recommendation for intervention and the decision was particularly associated with older age and combined comorbidities. Transcatheter intervention was extensively used in octogenarians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent trends, including survival beyond 30 days, in aortic valve replacement (AVR) following the expansion of indications for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are not well-understood.Objectives: The authors sought to characterize the trends in characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing AVR.Methods: The authors analyzed Medicare beneficiaries who underwent TAVR and SAVR in 2012 to 2019. They evaluated case volume, demographics, comorbidities, 1-year mortality, and discharge disposition. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the annual change in outcomes.Results: Per 100,000 beneficiary-years, AVR increased from 107 to 156, TAVR increased from 19 to 101, whereas SAVR declined from 88 to 54. The median [interquartile range] age remained similar from 77 [71-83] years to 78 [72-84] years for overall AVR, decreased from 84 [79-88] years to 81 [75-86] years for TAVR, and decreased from 76 [71-81] years to 72 [68-77] years for SAVR. For all AVR patients, the prevalence of comorbidities remained relatively stable. The 1-year mortality for all AVR decreased from 11.9% to 9.4%. Annual change in the adjusted odds of 1-year mortality was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.92-0.94) for TAVR and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.97-0.99) for SAVR, and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.93-0.95) for all AVR. Patients discharged to home after AVR increased from 24.2% to 54.7%, primarily driven by increasing home discharge after TAVR.Conclusions: The advent of TAVR has led to about a 60% increase in overall AVR in older adults. Improving outcomes in AVR as a whole following the advent of TAVR with increased access is a reassuring trend. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to compare, in a cohort of patients with complex coronary artery disease (CAD) and severe aortic stenosis (AS), the clinical outcomes associated with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (plus percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) (plus coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]). Patients with complex CAD were excluded from the main randomized trials comparing TAVR with SAVR, and no data exist comparing TAVR + PCI vs SAVR + CABG in such patients. A multicenter study was conducted including consecutive patients with severe AS and complex CAD (SYNTAX [Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery] score >22 or unprotected left main disease). A 1:1 propensity-matched analysis was performed to account for unbalanced covariates. The rates of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), including all-cause mortality, nonprocedural myocardial infarction, need for new coronary revascularization, and stroke, were evaluated. A total of 800 patients (598 undergoing SAVR + CABG and 202 undergoing transfemoral TAVR + PCI) were included, and after propensity matching, a total of 156 pairs of patients were generated. After a median follow-up period of 3 years (interquartile range: 1-6 years), there were no significant differences between groups for MACCE (HR for transfemoral TAVR vs SAVR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.89-1.98), all-cause mortality (HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.81-1.94), myocardial infarction (HR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.41-3.27), and stroke (HR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.13-1.32), but there was a higher rate of new coronary revascularization in the TAVR + PCI group (HR: 5.38; 95% CI: 1.73-16.7). In patients with severe AS and complex CAD, TAVR + PCI and SAVR + CABG were associated with similar rates of MACCE after a median follow-up period of 3 years, but TAVR + PCI recipients exhibited a higher risk for repeat coronary revascularization. Future trials are warranted. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Within the last two decades, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the management of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS). Newer generations of transcatheter valve design, optimized imaging planning, growing operator experience, and technical refinements have driven enhancements in safety and reduction of procedural complications over time. These improvements have allowed expansion to lower risk patients, in which TAVR confirmed favorable outcomes compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Based on current evidence, the 2020 AHA/ACC guidelines provided updated recommendations on indications for TAVR, with several clinical indications remain with SAVR. As TAVR expands to younger, low-risk patients with longer life expectancies, different issues of utmost importance have emerged, such as long-term durability, bioprosthetic valve performance, coronary reaccess, prognostic impact of conduction disturbances and paravalvular leak, reintervention after TAVR, and optimal pharmacological management after the procedure. In this review, we provide an update of recent clinical guidelines and available data from clinical trials and registries, and highlight novel strategies to further reduce procedural complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical characteristics, mechanisms of failure, and outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) explantation. Surgical explantation following TAVR may be required for structural valve degeneration, paravalvular leak, infection, or other reasons. However, in-depth data on indications and outcomes are lacking. Data from a multicenter, international registry (EXPLANT-TAVR) of patients who underwent TAVR explantation were reviewed retrospectively. Explantations performed during the same admission as initial TAVR were excluded. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were evaluated. Median follow-up duration was 6.7 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.0-18.8 months) after TAVR explantation and was 97.7% complete at 30 days and 86.1% complete at 1 year. From November 2009 to September 2020, 269 patients across 42 centers with a mean age of 72.7 ± 10.4 years underwent TAVR explantation. About one quarter (25.9%) were deemed low surgical risk at index TAVR, and median Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk at TAVR explantation was 5.6% (IQR: 3.2%-9.6%). The median time to explantation was 11.5 months (IQR: 4.0-32.4 months). Balloon-expandable and self-expanding or mechanically expandable valves accounted for 50.9% and 49.1%, respectively. Indications for explantation included endocarditis (43.1%), structural valve degeneration (20.1%), paravalvular leak (18.2%), and prosthesis-patient mismatch (10.8%). Redo TAVR was not feasible because of unfavorable anatomy in 26.8% of patients. Urgent or emergency cases were performed in 53.1% of patients, aortic root replacement in 13.4%, and 54.6% had concomitant cardiac procedures. Overall survival at last follow-up was 76.1%. In-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year mortality rates were 11.9%, 13.1%, and 28.5%, respectively, and stroke rates were 5.9%, 8.6%, and 18.7%, respectively. The EXPLANT-TAVR registry reveals that surgical risks associated with TAVR explantation are not negligible and should be taken into consideration in the lifetime management of aortic stenosis. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV TAVR) is approved by the FDA in patients at high surgical risk and increasingly utilized by heart teams as an alternative to reoperation for failing surgical tissue valves. Optimizing transcatheter heart valve (THV) expansion and decreasing the risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch are important concerns when performing VIV TAVR, particularly in small surgical valves. Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) and bioprosthetic valve remodeling (BVR) are techniques to facilitate VIV TAVR in which a high-pressure inflation with a non-compliant balloon is performed to either fracture or stretch the surgical valve ring allowing for a more optimal expansion of the THV and reducing the potential for high residual transvalvular gradients. This article, along with the supplemental video, will provide a practical guide to performing BVF and BVR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Frailty status and patient-reported outcomes are especially pertinent in octogenarians following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) to guide treatment decisions and promote patient-centred care.Aim: We aimed to determine if frailty changed 6 months after aortic valve replacement (AVR) in octogenarians, and to describe changes in self-rated health according to frailty status in patients who underwent TAVI or SAVR.Method: In a prospective cohort study, frailty and self-rated health were measured one day prior to and 6 months after AVR. Frailty status was measured with the Study of Osteoporotic Fracture index. Self-rated health was measured comprehensively with the disease-specific Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, the generic Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-12 questionnaire (SF-12), and two global questions from The World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument Abbreviated.Results: Data were available for 143 consecutive patients (mean age 83±2.7 years, 57% women; 45% underwent TAVI). At baseline, 34% were robust, 27% prefrail, and 39% frail. Overall, there was no change in the distribution of frailty status 6 months after baseline (p=0.13). However, on an individual level 65 patients changed frailty status after AVR (40 patients improved and 25 declined). Improvement in frailty status was common in prefrail (33%; n=13) and frail patients (48%; n=27). Patients had improved self-rated health after AVR, with significant differences between frailty states both at baseline (SF-12 physical: 37.4 [robust], 33.1 [prefrail], 31.6 [frail], p=0.03); SF-12 mental: 51.9 [robust], 50.8 [prefrail], 44.5 [frail], p<0.001); and at the 6-month follow-up (SF-12 physical: 45.4 [robust], 38.3 [prefrail], 32.1 [frail], p<0.001); SF-12 mental: 54.9 [robust], 49.6 [prefrail], 46.8 [frail], p=0.002).Conclusions: Advanced treatment performed in a high-risk population allowed people to improve their self-rated health. Although frailty is associated with poor self-rated health, frailty status does not equal negative outcomes. The frail patients were those who improved most in self-rated physical and mental health. They had the lowest baseline self-rated health scores and had therefore the most to gain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and prognostic impact of early and late postoperative atrial fibrillation or flutter (POAF) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). There is an ongoing controversy regarding the incidence, recurrence rate, and prognostic impact of early (in-hospital) POAF and late (postdischarge) POAF in patients with AS undergoing TAVR or SAVR. In the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) 3 trial, patients with severe AS at low surgical risk were randomized to TAVR or SAVR. Analyses were performed in the as-treated population excluding patients with preexistent atrial fibrillation or flutter. Among 781 patients included in the analysis, early POAF occurred in 152 (19.5%) (18 of 415 [4.3%] and 134 of 366 [36.6%] following TAVR and SAVR, respectively). Following discharge, 58 new or recurrent late POAF events occurred within 1 year following the index procedure in 55 of 781 patients (7.0%). Early POAF was not an independent predictor of late POAF following discharge (odds ratio: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.52-2.08; P = 0.90). Following adjustment, early POAF was not an independent predictor of the composite outcome of death, stroke, or rehospitalization (hazard ratio: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.64-1.92; P = 0.72), whereas late POAF was associated with an increased adjusted risk for the composite outcome (hazard ratio: 8.90; 95% CI: 5.02-15.74; P < 0.0001), irrespective of treatment modality. In the PARTNER 3 trial, early POAF was more frequent following SAVR compared with TAVR. Late POAF, but not early POAF, was significantly associated with worse outcomes at 2 years, irrespective of treatment modality. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to assess the association between Doppler velocity index (DVI) and 2-year outcomes for balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). DVI >0.35 is normal for a prosthetic valve, but recent studies suggest that DVI <0.50 is associated with poor outcomes following TAVR. Patients with severe aortic stenosis enrolled in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) 2 (intermediate surgical risk) or PARTNER 3 (low surgical risk) trial undergoing TAVR (n = 1,450) or SAVR (n = 1,303) were included. Patients were divided into 3 DVI groups on the basis of core laboratory–assessed discharge or 30-day echocardiograms: DVI LOW (≤0.35), DVI INTERMEDIATE (>0.35 to ≤0.50), and DVI HIGH (>0.50). Two-year outcomes were assessed. Following TAVR, there were no differences among the 3 DVI groups in composite outcomes of death, stroke, or rehospitalization or in any individual components of 2-year outcomes (P > 0.70 for all). Following SAVR, there was no difference among DVI groups in the composite outcome (P = 0.27), but there was a significant association with rehospitalization (P = 0.02). Restricted cubic-spline analysis for combined outcomes showed an increased risk with post-SAVR DVI ≤0.35 but no relationship post-TAVR. DVI ≤0.35 was associated with increased 2-year composite outcome for SAVR (HR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.29–2.54; P < 0.001), with no adverse outcomes for TAVR (P = 0.86). In intermediate- and low-risk cohorts of the PARTNER trials, DVI ≤0.35 predicted worse 2-year outcomes following SAVR, driven primarily by rehospitalization, with no adverse outcomes associated with DVI following TAVR with the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 valve. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The goal is to assess the feasibility of conducting unattended (type II) sleep studies before surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) to examine the relationship between baseline sleep measures and postoperative delirium. This single-site study recruited 18 of 20 study referrals with aortic stenosis undergoing first lifetime SAVR. Subjects completed a home-based type II sleep study. Delirium was assessed postoperative days 1–5. Exact logistic regression was used to determine whether sleep efficiency or apnea/hypopnea index predicts delirium. Of 18 study participants, 15 successfully completed a home sleep study (mean age: 71.7 +/− 8.1 years old; 10 male subjects). Five subjects (33.3%) developed delirium. Preliminary analyses found that greater sleep efficiency was associated with a large reduction in delirium odds but was not statistically significant (OR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.06, 1.03, p = 0.057). The point estimate of the relationship between apnea/hypopnea index and delirium was not similarly sizeable (OR 1.10, 95% CI: 0.35, 3.37, p = 0.85). Our findings suggest that home type II sleep studies before SAVR are feasible, and they support adequately powered studies investigating type II home sleep studies as a predictor of postoperative delirium and other important postsurgical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We evaluated whether there is equitable distribution across sexes of treatment and outcomes for aortic valve replacement (AVR), via surgical (SAVR) or transcatheter (TAVR) methods, in symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (ssAS) patients.Methods: Using de-identified data, we identified 43,822 patients with ssAS (2008-2016). Multivariate competing risk models were used to determine the likelihood of any AVR, while accounting for the competing risk of death. Association between sex and 1-year mortality, stratified by AVR status, was evaluated using multivariate Cox regression models with AVR as a time-dependent variable.Results: Among patients with ssAS, 20,986 (47.9%) were female. Females were older (median age 81 vs. 78, P<0.001), more likely to have body mass index <20 (8.5% vs. 3.5%), and home oxygen use (4.4% vs. 3.4%, P<0001 for all). Overall, 12,129 (27.7%) patients underwent AVR for ssAS. Females were less likely to undergo AVR compared with males (24.1% vs. 31.0%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.83), but when treated, were more likely to undergo TAVR (37.9% vs. 30.9%, adjusted HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.15-1.27). Untreated females and males had similarly high rates of mortality at 1 year (31.1% vs. 31.3%, adjusted HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94-1.03). Among those undergoing AVR, females had significantly higher mortality (10.2% vs. 9.4%, adjusted HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.10-1.41), driven by increased SAVR-associated mortality (9.0% vs. 7.6%, adjusted HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.21-1.69).Conclusions: Treatment rates for ssAS patients remain suboptimal with disparities in female treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]