Search

Objective To evaluate outcomes of monitored anesthesia care (MAC) compared with general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Design Secondary analysis from the observational and prospective OBSERVANT (OBservational Study of Effectiveness of avR–taVi procedures for severe Aortic steNosis Treatment) study. Setting Multicenter study, including Italian hospitals performing TAVR interventions. Participants One thousand four hundred ninety-four patients with severe and symptomatic aortic stenosis. Interventions Transfemoral TAVR under general or local anesthesia. Measurements and Main Results A propensity score procedure was applied, and 310 pairs were matched with similar baseline characteristics (EuroSCORE II: local anesthesia 6.6±5.9% v general anesthesia 7.0±7.7%, p = 0.430). MAC was associated with similar 30-day mortality compared with GA (3.9% v 4.8%, p = 0.564). TAVR was performed under MAC without any increased risk of other adverse events. The risk of paravalvular regurgitation≥mild was similar between the study groups (MAC 49.5% v general anesthesia 57.0%, p = 0.858). Two patients receiving on MAC had severe paravalvular regurgitation, whereas this complication was not observed after GA. Permanent pacemaker implantation was 19.1% in the MAC group v 14.8% in the GA group (p = 0.168). Mean intensive care unit stay was 3.5 days for the GA group v 2.9 days for the MAC group (p = 0.086). A similar 3-year survival rate was observed (MAC 69.4% v GA 69.9%, p = 0.966). Conclusions Transfemoral TAVR can be performed under MAC with similar immediate and late outcomes as compared with GA. A possible risk of severe paravalvular regurgitation and pacemaker implantation with TAVR under MAC requires further investigation.

Background: The OBSERVANT study (Observational Study of Effectiveness of SAVR–TAVI Procedures for Severe Aortic Stenosis Treatment) showed that mortality at 1 year is similar after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for real-world propensity-matched patients with aortic stenosis at low and intermediate risk. We report the 5-year outcomes of the Italian OBSERVANT study. Methods and Results: The unadjusted enrolled population (N=7618) between December 2010 and June 2012 included 5707 patients on SAVR and 1911 patients on TAVR. The propensity score method was applied to select 2 groups with similar baseline characteristics. All outcomes were adjudicated through a linkage with administrative databases. The primary end points of this analysis were death from any cause and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 5 years. The matched population had a total of 1300 patients (650 per group). The propensity score method generated a low and intermediate-risk population (mean logistic EuroSCORE 2: 5.1±6.2% versus 4.9±5.1%, SAVR versus transfemoral TAVR; P =0.485). At 5 years, the rate of 5 death from any cause was 35.8% in the surgical group and 48.3% in the transcatheter group (hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12–1.69; P =0.002). Similarly, TAVR was associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events as compared with SAVR (42.5% versus 54.0%; hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.11–1.63; P =0.003). The cumulative incidence of cerebrovascular events, myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularization were similar in the study groups at 5 years. Conclusions: The present results suggest that at 5 years, in a real-world population with severe aortic stenosis and at low and intermediate risk, suggest that SAVR is associated in with lower mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events rates than transfemoral TAVR performed using first-generation devices. These data need to be confirmed in randomized trials using new-generation TAVR devices.

OBJECTIVES We aimed to analyze the baseline features and clinical outcomes of patients younger than 80 years undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) enrolled in the OBservational Study of Effectiveness of SAVR-TAVR procedures for severe Aortic steNosis Treatment (OBSERVANT) real-world study, focusing on variables guiding Heart Team decision toward TAVI. BACKGROUND Patients treated with TAVI, independently of surgical risk score, are mostly older than 80 years. METHODS OBSERVANT is a multicenter, observational, prospective cohort study that enrolled patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) who underwent SAVR or TAVI from December 2010 to June 2012 in 93 Italian participating hospitals. For this analysis, baseline characteristics, therapeutic approach and outcomes up to 5 years of follow-up of 4,801 patients under 80 years of age were collected. Patients were stratified by age classes (

Background: To assess clinical outcomes of patients with concomitant severe aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD) who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods: Data were extracted from the multicenter OBSERVANT study. For the purposes of the present analysis, we included only patients with established stable CAD meeting any of the following inclusion criteria: 1) TAVI patients with CAD undergoing staged PCI or TAVI and PCI in the same session; 2) SAVR patients undergoing combined SAVR and CABG in the same session. Results: After propensity-score matching, a total of 472 patients (236 per group) were identified. Among TAVI patients, PCI was performed prior to the procedure in 217 patients (92.0%), whereas concomitant TAVI and PCI were performed in 19 patients (8.0%). At 3-year, there was no difference in survival between the two groups (KM estimate of freedom from death for SAVR and TAVI patients of 0.742 and 0.650, respectively; log-rank p-value of 0.105). The rate of MACCE was comparable between the two groups (KM estimate of freedom from MACCE for SAVR and TAVI patients of 0.683 and 0.582, respectively; log-rank p-value of 0.115). Conclusions: In patients with associated severe AS and CAD, percutaneous treatment (TAVR and staged or concomitant PCI) was comparable to surgical treatment (SAVR and concomitant CABG) with respect to the early and mid-term risk of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke and unplanned revascularization.

Background There are scarce data on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with renal failure. Methods We evaluated the impact of renal failure on outcomes after TAVI and SAVR and compared the results of these procedures in patients with chronic kidney disease stages 3b to 5 from the Observational Study of Effectiveness of AVR-TAVI Procedures for Severe Aortic Stenosis Treatment (OBSERVANT) study. Results Chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 3b to 5 was associated with an increased risk of mortality after either TAVI or SAVR compared with CKD stages 1 to 3a. Among 170 propensity score–matched pairs with CKD stages 3b to 5, patients who underwent TAVI had a significantly higher rate of permanent pacemaker implantation, vascular damage, and mild to moderate paravalvular regurgitation, and tended to have a higher 30-day mortality (7.1% versus 2.9%; p = 0.09). Thirty-day mortality after transapical TAVI was 7.1%. SAVR had a significantly higher rate of blood transfusions, stroke, and acute kidney injury. At 2 years, patients undergoing TAVI had somewhat higher all-cause mortality (31.2% versus 23.4%; p = 0.118), major cardiac and cerebrovascular events (37.2% versus 31.0%; p = 0.270), and a lower risk of dialysis (12.4% versus 21.2%; p = 0.052) compared with SAVR. Conclusions CKD stages 3b to 5 increases the risk of mortality after TAVI and SAVR. In this subset of patients, SAVR was associated with somewhat better early and late survival. The risk of acute kidney injury was higher after SAVR. These findings suggest that CKD stages 3b to 5 does not contraindicate SAVR. Strategies to prevent severe acute kidney injury should be implemented with either SAVR or TAVI.

The aim of this study was to analyze procedural and postprocedural outcomes of patients aged ≥80 years treated by transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) as enrolled in the OBservational Study of Effectiveness of SAVR-TAVR procedures for severe Aortic steNosis Treatment (OBSERVANT) Study. TAVI is offered to patients with aortic stenosis judged inoperable or at high surgical risk. Nevertheless, it is common clinical practice to treat elderly (≥80 years) patients by TAVI regardless of surgical risk for traditional SAVR. OBSERVANT is a multicenter, observational, prospective cohort study that enrolled patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who underwent SAVR or TAVI from December 2010 to June 2012 in 93 Italian participating hospitals. Information on demographic characteristics, health status before intervention, therapeutic approach, and intraprocedural and 30-day outcomes was collected. An administrative follow-up was set up to collect data on midterm to long-term outcomes. We reviewed baseline and procedural data of patients aged ≥80 years, looking for different early and late outcome after TAVI or SAVR. Patients treated by TAVI were sicker than SAVR because of higher rate of co-morbidities, advanced illness, frailty, and Logistic EuroSCORE. After propensity matching, early and midterm mortality were comparable between the 2 groups. However, patients treated by TAVI had higher rate of vascular complications (6.0% vs 0.5%; p0.0001), permanent pacemaker implantation (13.4% vs 3.7%; p0.0001), and paravalvular leak (8.9% vs 2.4%; p0.0001). Patients who underwent SAVR had more frequent bleedings needing transfusion (63.2% vs 34.5%; p0.0001) and acute kidney injury (9.6% vs 3.9%; p = 0.0010). In conclusion, patients aged ≥80 years treated by TAVI or SAVR had similar early and midterm mortality.

A few studies recently reported controversial results with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) versus transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TA-TAVR), often without adequate adjusted analysis for baseline differences. Data on patients who underwent TF-TAVR and TA-TAVR from the Observational Study of Effectiveness of avR-tavI procedures for severe Aortic stenosis Treatment study were analyzed with propensity score 1-to-1 matching. From a cohort of 1,654 patients (1,419 patients underwent TF-TAVR and 235 patients underwent TA-TAVR), propensity score matching resulted in 199 pairs of patients with similar operative risk (EuroSCORE II: TF-TAVR 8.1 ± 7.1% vs TA-TAVR, 8.4 ± 7.3%, p = 0.713). Thirty-day mortality was 8.0% after TA-TAVR and 4.0% after TF-TAVR (p = 0.102). Postoperative rates of stroke (TA-TAVR, 2.0% vs TF-TAVR 1.0%, p = 0.414), cardiac tamponade (TA-TAVR, 4.1% vs TF-TAVR 1.5%, p = 0.131), permanent pacemaker implantation (TA-TAVR, 8.7% vs TF-TAVR 13.3%, p = 0.414), and infection (TA-TAVR, 6.7% vs TF-TAVR 3.6%, p = 0.180) were similar in the study groups but with an overall trend in favor of TF-TAVR. Higher rates of major vascular damage (7.2% vs 1.0%, p = 0.003) and moderate-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation (7.8% vs 5.2%, p = 0.008) were observed after TF-TAVR. On the contrary, TA-TAVR was associated with higher rates of red blood cell transfusion (50.0% vs 30.4%, p = 0.0002) and acute kidney injury (stages 1 to 3: 44.4% vs 21.9%, p

Risk stratification tools used in patients with severe aortic stenosis have been mostly derived from surgical series. Although specific predictors of early mortality with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been identified, the prognostic impact of their combination is unexplored. We sought to develop a simple score, using preprocedural variables, for prediction of 30-day mortality after TAVR. A total of 1,878 patients from a national multicenter registry who underwent TAVR were randomly assigned in a 2:1 manner to development and validation data sets. Baseline characteristics of the 1,256 patients in the development data set were considered as candidate univariate predictors of 30-day mortality. A bootstrap multivariate logistic regression process was used to select correlates of 30-day mortality that were subsequently weighted and integrated into a scoring system. Seven variables were weighted proportionally to their respective odds ratios for 30-day mortality (glomerular filtration rate45 ml/min [6 points], critical preoperative state [5 points], New York Heart Association class IV [4 points], pulmonary hypertension [4 points], diabetes mellitus [4 points], previous balloon aortic valvuloplasty [3 points], and left ventricular ejection fraction40% [3 points]). The model showed good discrimination in both the development and validation data sets (C statistics 0.73 and 0.71, respectively). Compared with the logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation in the validation data set, the model showed better discrimination (C statistic 0.71 vs 0.66), goodness of fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow p value 0.81 vs 0.00), and global accuracy (Brier score 0.054 vs 0.073). In conclusion, the risk of 30-day mortality after TAVR may be estimated by combining 7 baseline clinical variables into a simple risk scoring system.

Background Few studies have yielded information on comparative effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) procedures in a real-world setting. The aim of this analysis is to describe procedural and post-procedural outcomes in a TAVI/SAVR intermediate risk propensity-matched population. Methods OBSERVANT is an observational prospective multicenter cohort study, enrolling AS patients undergoing SAVR or TAVI. Propensity score method was applied to analyze procedural and post-procedural outcomes. Pairs of patients with the same probability score were matched (caliper matching). Results The unadjusted enrolled population (N=2108) comprises 1383 SAVR patients, 602 transarterial-TAVI patients and 123 transapical-TAVI patients. Matched population comprised a total of 266 patients (133 patients for each group). A relatively low risk population was selected (mean logistic EuroSCORE 9.4±10.4% vs 8.9±9.5%, SAVR vs TAVI; p=0.650). Thirty-day mortality was 3.8% for both SAVR and TAVI (p=1.000). The incidence of stroke (1.5% SAVR and 0.0% TAVI; p=0.156) and myocardial infarction (0.8% SAVR and 0.8% TAVI; p=1.000) was not statistically different between groups, whereas a higher requirement for blood transfusion was reported across the surgical cohort (49.6% vs 36.1%; p=0.026). A higher incidence of major vascular damage (5.3% vs. 0.0%; p=0.007) and pacemaker implantation(0.8% vs 12.0%; p=0.001) were reported in the TAVI group. Conclusions Patients undergoing transcatheter and surgical treatment of severe aortic stenosis are still extremely distinct populations. In the relatively low-risk propensity-matched population analyzed, despite similar procedural and 30-day mortality, SAVR was associated with a higher risk for blood transfusion, whereas TAVI showed a significantly increased rate of vascular damage, permanent AV block and residual aortic valve regurgitation.