Search

There were no data comparing the in-hospital outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with those after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in Japan. Among consecutive patients with severe AS between April 2018 and December 2020 in the CURRENT AS Registry-2, we identified 1714 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (TAVI group: 1134 patients, and SAVR group: 580 patients). Patients in the TAVI group were much older (84.4 versus 73.6 years, P < 0.001) and more often had comorbidities than those in the SAVR group. In-hospital death rate was numerically lower in the TAVI group than in the SAVR group (0.6% versus 2.2%). After excluding patients with dialysis, in-hospital death rate was very low and comparable in the TAVI and SAVR groups (0.6% versus 0.8%). The rates of major bleeding and new-onset atrial fibrillation during index hospitalization were higher after SAVR than after TAVI (72% versus 20%, and 26% versus 4.6%, respectively), while the rate of pacemaker implantation was higher after TAVI than after SAVR (8.1% versus 2.4%). Regarding the echocardiographic data at discharge, the prevalence of patient-prosthesis mismatch was lower in the TAVI group than in the SAVR group (moderate: 9.0% versus 26%, and severe: 2.6% versus 4.8%). In this real-world data in Japan, TAVI compared with SAVR was chosen in much older patients with more comorbidities with severe AS. In-hospital death rate was numerically lower in the TAVI group than in the SAVR group., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: There is scarce data evaluating the current practice pattern and clinical outcomes for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), including both those who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and those who were managed conservatively in the TAVI era., Methods and results: The Contemporary outcomes after sURgery and medical tREatmeNT in patients with severe Aortic Stenosis (CURRENT AS) Registry-2 is a prospective, physician-initiated, multicenter registry enrolling consecutive patients who were diagnosed with severe AS between April 2018 and December 2020 among 21 centers in Japan. The rationale for the prospective enrollment was to standardize the assessment of symptomatic status, echocardiographic evaluation, and other recommended diagnostic examinations such as computed tomography and measurement of B-type natriuretic peptide. Moreover, the schedule of clinical and echocardiographic follow up was prospectively defined and strongly recommended for patients who were managed conservatively. The entire study population consisted of 3,394 patients (mean age: 81.6 years and women: 60%). Etiology of AS was degenerative in 90% of patients. AS-related symptoms were present in 60% of patients; these were most often heart failure symptoms. The prevalence of high- and low-gradient AS was 58% and 42%, respectively, with classical and paradoxical low-flow low-gradient AS in 4.6% and 6.7%, respectively., Conclusions: The CURRENT AS Registry-2 might be large and meticulous enough to determine the appropriate timing of intervention for patients with severe AS in contemporary clinical practice.

Background: There are no data comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) outcomes in real clinical practice in Japan., Methods and results: We combined 2 independent registries, the K-TAVI Registry (a 6-center prospective registry of consecutive patients who underwent TAVI) and the CURRENT AS Registry (a large, 27-center registry of 3,815 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis [AS]). In the K-TAVI Registry, 338 patients underwent TAVI with SAPIEN XT balloon-expandable valves from October 2013 to January 2016, whereas in the CURRENT AS Registry 237 patients with severe AS underwent SAVR from January 2003 to December 2011. Propensity score matching was conducted, with final cohort comprising 306 patients. The cumulative 2-year incidence of all-cause death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization did not differ significantly between the TAVI and SAVR groups (13.7% vs. 12.4% [P=0.81] and 7.9% vs 3.9% [P=0.13], respectively). After adjusting for residual confounders, there were no significant differences between the TAVI and SAVR groups in the risk for all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35-1.58; P=0.43) or HF hospitalization (HR 1.27; 95% CI 0.40-4.59; P=0.69)., Conclusions: These findings from 2 independent Japanese registries suggest that the 2-year risk of all-cause mortality and HF does not differ significantly between TAVI and SAVR groups in real-world practice in Japan.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is criticized by some as an expensive treatment in super-elder patients with limited life expectancy. However, there is a knowledge gap regarding the magnitude of clinical benefit provided by TAVI in comparison with conservative management in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) in real clinical practice, which would be important in the decision making for TAVI., Methods: We combined two independent registries, namely CURRENT AS and K-TAVI registries. CURRENT AS was a multicenter registry enrolling 3815 consecutive patients with severe AS irrespective to treatment modalities between January 2003 and December 2011. K-TAVI was a multicenter, prospective registry including 449 consecutive patients with severe AS, who underwent TAVI with SAPIEN XT balloon-expandable valves between October 2013 and June 2016. In these 2 registries, 449 patients received TAVI and 894 patients were managed with conservative strategy. We conducted propensity score matching and finally obtained a cohort of 556 patients (278 patients for each group) for the analysis. The primary outcome measures were all-cause death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization at 2-year., Results: The cumulative 2-year incidences of all-cause death and HF hospitalization were significantly lower in the TAVI group than in the conservative group (16.8% versus 36.6%, P<0.001, and 10.7% versus 37.2%, P<0.001). After adjusting the residual confounders, TAVI reduced the risks of all-cause death (HR, 0.46; 95%CI, 0.32-0.69; P = 0.0001) and HF hospitalizations (HR, 0.25; 95%CI, 0.16-0.40; P<0.0001) compared with conservative strategy. There was no difference in the cumulative incidence of non-cardiovascular death between the 2 groups., Conclusions: TAVI in the early Japanese experience was associated with striking risk reduction for all-cause death as well as HF hospitalization as compared with the historical cohort of patients with severe AS who were managed conservatively just before introduction of TAVI in Japan., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background Data are scarce on the role of aortic valve area (AVA) to identify those patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) who are at high risk of adverse events. We sought to explore the prognostic impact of AVA in asymptomatic patients with severe AS in a large observational database. Methods and Results Among 3815 consecutive patients with severe AS enrolled in the CURRENT AS (Contemporary Outcomes After Surgery and Medical Treatment in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis) registry, the present study included 1309 conservatively managed asymptomatic patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%. The study patients were subdivided into 3 groups based on AVA (group 1: AVA >0.80 cm 2 , N=645; group 2: 0.8 cm 2 ≥AVA >0.6 cm 2 , N=465; and group 3: AVA ≤0.6 cm 2 , N=199). The prevalence of very severe AS patients (peak aortic jet velocity ≥5 m/s or mean aortic pressure gradient ≥60 mm Hg) was 2.0%, 5.8%, and 26.1% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The cumulative 5-year incidence of AVR was not different across the 3 groups (39.7%, 43.7%, and 39.9%; P=0.43). The cumulative 5-year incidence of the primary outcome measure (a composite of aortic valve-related death or heart failure hospitalization) was incrementally higher with decreasing AVA (24.1%, 29.1%, and 48.1%; P<0.001). After adjusting for confounders, the excess risk of group 3 and group 2 relative to group 1 for the primary outcome measure remained significant (hazard ratio, 2.21, 95% CI, 1.56-3.11, P<0.001; and hazard ratio, 1.34, 95% CI, 1.01-1.78, P=0.04, respectively). Conclusions AVA ≤0.6 cm 2 would be a useful marker to identify those high-risk patients with asymptomatic severe AS, who might benefit from early AVR. Clinical Trial Registration URL: www.umin.ac.jp . Unique identifier: UMIN000012140.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS)., Background: The prognostic impact of LVEF in severe AS remains controversial., Methods: Among 3,815 consecutive patients with severe AS enrolled in the CURRENT AS (Contemporary Outcomes After Surgery and Medical Treatment in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis) registry, the present study population consisted of 3,794 patients after excluding 21 patients without LVEF data. Patients were divided into 4 groups according to LVEF at index echocardiography (<50%, 50% to 59%, 60% to 69%, and ≥70%; conservative strategy: n = 388, n = 390, n = 1,025, and n = 800; initial aortic valve replacement strategy: n = 206, n = 170, n = 375, and n = 440). Echocardiographic data were site reported, and there was no echocardiography core laboratory., Results: In the conservative group, the cumulative 5-year incidence of the primary outcome measure (a composite of aortic valve-related death or heart failure hospitalization) was significantly higher in patients with LVEFs <50% and 50% to 59% than in those with LVEFs 60% to 69% and ≥70% (72.3%, 58.4%, 38.7%, and 35.0%, respectively, p < 0.001), whereas in the initial aortic valve replacement group, the negative effect of low LVEF was markedly attenuated (20.2%, 20.3%, 17.7%, and 12.4%, respectively, p = 0.03). After adjusting for confounders, LVEF <50% (hazard ratio: 1.82; 95% confidence interval: 1.44 to 2.28; p < 0.001) and 50% to 59% (hazard ratio: 1.77; 95% confidence interval: 1.42 to 2.20; p < 0.001) but not 60% to 69% (hazard ratio: 1.14; 95% confidence interval: 0.94 to 1.39; p = 0.17) were independently associated with poorer outcomes compared with LVEF ≥70% (reference) in the conservative group. In the initial aortic valve replacement group, the adjusted risk for the primary outcome measure was not significantly different across the 4 LVEF groups., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that survival in patients with severe AS is impaired when LVEF is <60%, and these findings have implications for decision making with regard to the timing of surgical intervention., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) has played a limited role in the management of patients with severe aortic stenosis. However, BAV is being performed more frequently these days with the emergence of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We previously described a technique named "looped Inoue balloon technique" to simplify the antegrade transvenous BAV by making a loop in the left atrium using two stylets. We present a case in which the looped Inoue balloon technique was successfully applied. The patient was an 83-year-old woman with progressive dyspnea due to severe aortic stenosis. The aortic valve area was 0.39 cm(2) with a mean transvalvular gradient of 46 mmHg. The patient was deemed high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement or TAVI in view of the multiple comorbidities and frailty. Antegrade BAV using the looped Inoue balloon technique was performed. The procedure was successful without any complications. The post procedural aortic valve area increased to 1.15 cm(2) with a mean pressure gradient of 23 mmHg. This is the first report of clinical use of the looped Inoue balloon technique for antegrade BAV.