Search

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

Purpose of Review: Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) has become the preferred treatment approach for many patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis (SsAS), particularly those who are deemed at high surgical risk. However, in low-risk surgical patients (LSRP) with SsAS, the choice between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is often a matter of debate and depends on several clinical and anatomical considerations. Recent Findings: Midterm data show similar clinical outcomes and durability of TAVR and SAVR bioprosthetic valves in LRSP. Data on long term durability and outcomes of TAVR in LRSP remains scarce. Summary: Both TAVR and SAVR are reasonable options in LRSP with SsAS. Nevertheless, many of these LRSP are expected to outlive their bioprosthetic valves and planning for the second aortic valve replacement should begin at the time of the index procedure with special consideration for coronary re-access, risk for coronary obstruction, and prothesis patient mismatch. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This case report details the interdisciplinary care provided to a 48-year-old male patient with severe aortic valve stenosis who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a community hospital setting. Focus is placed on the interdisciplinary team model demonstrated in the care of this patient, including interventional cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery from the outpatient to the inpatient setting. The use of decision-making tools, including the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Risk Calculator, and a collaborative, shared decision-making approach will be discussed. The care and evaluation of the patient will be presented and compared with the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Introduction and objectives: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an alternative and less invasive treatment to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LV-GLS) can reveal changes in left ventricular performance before involvement of ejection fraction. Our aim was to present and evaluate our center’s experience regarding short- and long-term reverse left ventricular remodeling using two-dimensional-speckle tracking echocardiography-derived LV-GLS after TAVI compared with SAVR. Methods: Our multidisciplinary cardiac team carefully evaluated 65 patients for SAVR who presented with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and who had high, intermediate, or low surgical risk. The patients underwent either TAVI with an Evolut-R self-expanding valve or SAVR. Echocardiographic evaluation was performed before, 1 month, and 1 year after the procedure. Results: TAVI was performed in 31 patients and SAVR in 34 patients. The incidence of valvular and paravalvular leak was higher in the TAVI group despite early favorable LV remodeling with a significant decrease in left ventricular mass index and E/e’ shortly after the procedure and an early detectable improvement in LV-GLS from −8.18 ± 1.81 to −14.52 ± 2.52, reaching −16.12 ± 2.69 at 1 year (P

Aortic valve stenosis is a common cardiac condition that requires intervention for symptomatic and/or prognostic reasons. The two most common interventions are surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The ratio of TAVI:SAVR has increased twofold over the past few years and is now being considered in intermediate-risk patients as well. One of the significant benefits of TAVI is that it is less invasive; however, one of the drawbacks is a high paravalvular leaks (PVLs) rate compared to SAVR. To assess the impact of PVLs on survival, progression of heart failure, and the need for re-intervention. We conducted a comprehensive systematic literature search from the conception of TAVI 2002 until December 2022 through Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), Science Direct, and CENTRAL (Wiley). We followed PRISMA guidelines and checklists. Review protocol registration ID in PROSPERO: CRD42023393742. We identified 28 studies that met our eligibility criteria, and only 24 studies were suitable for pooling in a meta-analysis (including their hazard ratio with a confidence interval of 95%) assessing our primary outcome (all-cause mortality). The remaining four studies were narratively synthesised. RevMan V5.4 (Version 5.4. Cochrane Collaboration, 2020) was utilised to pool meta-analysis data to assess effect estimates of PVLs in both intervention arms, using a random effect model for calculation (hazard ratio 1.14 confidence interval 95% 1.08–1.21 [p<0.0001]), with a follow-up duration between 30 days to 5 years. Patients with mild or higher degrees of PVLs in both intervention arms incurred unfavourable outcomes. The incidence of PVLs was significantly higher with TAVI; even a mild degree led to poor quality of life and increased all-cause mortality on long-term follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies comparing transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR and SAVR) for patients with trileaflet aortic stenosis (AS) have found similar or larger effective orifice area (EOA) for TAVR prostheses. To our knowledge, no studies have compared EOA in patients undergoing TAVR versus SAVR for bicuspid AS. We retrospectively compared prosthetic valvular sizing and predicted EOA for patients with bicuspid AS undergoing TAVR or SAVR at our institution between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021. We excluded patients undergoing procedures for indications other than AS and those without a pre-procedural gated Chest CT. Comparisons included demographics, comorbidities, annular size, prosthetic valve size, predicted EOA and prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) for TAVR (N = 78) and SAVR (N = 74) cohorts. TAVR patients had smaller pre-procedural annular area (501.7 mm2 vs. 571.8 mm2, p < 0.05) and annular perimeter (80.6 mm vs. 86.5 mm, p < 0.05), but larger mean implanted prosthetic valve size (26.4 mm vs 24.2 mm, p < 0.001) compared to SAVR patients. No differences were observed in predicted EOA, predicted EOA indexed to patient body surface area (EOAi), or predicted PPM grade between TAVR and SAVR groups, including in cohorts sorted by pre-procedural annular size. For bicuspid AS patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, TAVR achieves similar predicted EOA to SAVR. These data support the use of TAVR in selected patients with bicuspid AS and can inform heart team discussions. • TAVR achieves similar predicted EOA to SAVR for patients with bicuspid AS. • Across annular sizes in bicuspid AS, TAVR and SAVR attain similar prosthesis size. • Rates of predicted PPM are not different for TAVR versus SAVR in bicuspid AS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Evaluation of left and right ventricular (RV) longitudinal systolic function may enhance risk stratification following aortic valve replacement (AVR). The study objective was to evaluate the changes in left and RV longitudinal systolic function and RV–pulmonary artery (RV–PA) coupling from baseline to 30 days and 1 year after AVR. Methods and results Left ventricular (LV) longitudinal strain (LS), tricuspid annulus plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), and RV–PA coupling were evaluated in patients from the PARTNER 2A surgical AVR (SAVR) arm (n = 985) and from the PARTNER 2 SAPIEN 3 registry (n = 719). TAPSE and RV–PA coupling decreased significantly following SAVR, but remained stable following TAVR. Lower LV LS, TAPSE, or RV–PA coupling at baseline was associated with increased risk of the composite of death, hospitalization, and stroke at 5 years [adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for LV LS < 15%: 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05–1.45, P = 0.001; TAPSE < 14 mm: 1.44, 95% CI 1.21–1.73, P < 0.001; RV–PA coupling < 0.55 mm/mmHg: 1.32, 95% CI 1.07–1.63, P = 0.011]. Reduced TAPSE at baseline was the most powerful predictor of the composite endpoint at 5 years. Patients with LV ejection fraction <50% at baseline had increased risk of the primary endpoint with SAVR (HR: 1.34, 95% CI 1.08–1.68, P = 0.009) but not with TAVR (HR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.88–1.42). Lower RV–PA coupling at 30 days showed the strongest association with cardiac mortality. Conclusion SAVR but not TAVR was associated with a marked deterioration in RV longitudinal systolic function and RV–PA coupling. Lower TAPSE and RV–PA coupling at 30 days were associated with inferior clinical outcomes at 5 years. In patients with LVEF < 50%, TAVR was associated with superior 5-year outcomes. [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]

Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) has evolved from a treatment strategy for high-risk patients to an option for low-risk individuals, prompting the need for rigorous comparisons with surgical aortic-valve replacement (SAVR). The German-Austrian Prospective Randomized Trial of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Conventional Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low and Intermediate Risk Patients (DEDICATE) trial compares low- and intermediate-risk patient undergoing SAVR and TAVR. This review outlines the trial design, key findings, strengths, and weaknesses of the study and also highlights the urgent need for standardized definitions of low-risk patients in future trials to ensure accurate comparisons and robust conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The evidence of the long-term advantages of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for aortic stenosis (AS) remains scarce. Methods: Patients with EuroSCORE II

Background: Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR) have different levels of invasiveness which can result in different levels of functional status after the procedure. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to detect studies showing direct comparison between TAVI and SAVR regarding postoperative functional status. The primary endpoint was the incidence of postoperative delirium (POD) after TAVI or SAVR, assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM). Secondary endpoints included 30-day mortality, stroke, major bleeding, and hospital length of stay (LOS). Results: We identified 1,161 manuscripts, of which 10 studies (12,015 patients) were analyzed. TAVI patients had a significantly lower incidence of POD (OR: 0.35, 95 % CI, 0.26–0.48, p

Background There is a paucity of data regarding the relationship between overall hospital volumes for total aortic valve replacement (AVR; transcatheter AVR [TAVR] or surgical AVR [SAVR]) and patient outcomes. Methods and Results We queried the 2019 Nationwide Readmission Database for patients undergoing AVR. Based on procedural volumes of TAVR or SAVR, we classified hospitals as high (≥50th percentile) or low (

Abstract There is limited data on the effect of socioeconomic status (SES) on transcatheter (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) outcomes for aortic stenosis (AS). This study conducted a population-based analysis to assess the influence of SES on valve replacement outcomes. Patients with AS undergoing TAVR or SAVR were identified in National Inpatient Sample from Q4 2015–2020. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to compare in-hospital outcomes between patients living in neighborhoods of income at the lowest and highest quartiles. Of 613,785 AS patients, 9.77% underwent TAVR and 10.13% had SAVR. These rates decline with lower neighborhood income levels, with TAVR/SAVR ratio also declining in lower-income areas. Excluding concomitant procedures, 58,064 patients received isolated TAVR (12,355 low-income and 15,212 high-income) and 43,694 underwent isolated SAVR (10,029 low-income and 10,811 high-income). Low-income patients, in both TAVR and SAVR, were younger but had more comorbid burden. For isolated TAVR, outcomes were similar across income groups. However, for isolated SAVR, low-income patients experienced higher in-hospital mortality (aOR = 1.44, p

Background: Despite the increasing use of transcatheter aortic valve procedures, many patients still require surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Assessing arterial properties in patients undergoing SAVR for aortic valve stenosis can be challenging, and the existing evidence is inconclusive. Our study aimed to investigate the impact of SAVR on vascular stiffness and the quality of life, as well as the different effects of valve type on arterial properties. Methods: We included 60 patients (mean age 70.25 ± 8.76 years, 65% men) with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who underwent SAVR. Arterial stiffness (cfPWV, baPWV) and vascular parameters (AIx@75, central pressures, SEVR) were measured at baseline, pre-discharge, and 1-year post-operation. The QOL was assessed using the generic questionnaire—short-form health survey 36 (SF-36) pre-operatively and at 1 year. Results: Post-SAVR, cfPWV increased immediately (7.67 ± 1.70 m/s vs. 8.27 ± 1.92 m/s, p = 0.009) and persisted at 1 year (8.27 ± 1.92 m/s vs. 9.29 ± 2.59 m/s, p ≤ 0.001). Similarly, baPWV (n = 55) increased acutely (1633 ± 429 cm/s vs. 2014 ± 606 cm/s, p < 0.001) and remained elevated at 1 year (1633 ± 429 cm/s vs. 1867 ± 408 cm/s, p < 0.001). Acute decrease in Alx@75 (31.16 ± 10% vs. 22.48 ± 13%, p < 0.001) reversed at 1 year (31.16 ± 10% vs. 30.98 ± 9%, p = 0.71). SEVR improved (136.1 ± 30.4% vs. 149.2 ± 32.7%, p = 0.01) and persisted at 1 year (136.1 ± 30.4% vs. 147.5 ± 30.4%, p = 0.01). SV had a greater cfPWV increase at 1 year (p = 0.049). The QOL improved irrespective of arterial stiffness changes. Conclusions: After SAVR, arterial stiffness demonstrates a persistent increase at 1-year, with valve type having a slight influence on the outcomes. These findings remain consistent despite the perceived QOL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Literature regarding outcomes associated with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) among amyloidosis (AM) with aortic stenosis (AS) is limited. We aim to study the mortality and in-hospital clinical outcomes among AM with AS associated with SAVR or TAVR. We performed a retrospective study of all hospitalisation encounters associated with a diagnosis of AM with AS, using the Nationwide Readmissions Database for the years 2012–2019. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, and 30-day readmissions. A total of 4,820 index hospitalisations of AS (mean age 78.35±10.11 years; female 37.76%) among AM were reported. Total 464 patients had mechanical intervention, 251 patients (54.1%) TAVR and 213 patients (45.9%) SAVR. A total of 317 patients (6.77%) with AS died; TAVR 4.4%, SAVR 11.9% (p=0.01) and 6.66% died among the subgroup who did not have any mechanical intervention. Higher complication rates were observed among patients who had SAVR than those who had TAVR including acute kidney injury (39.8% vs 22.4%; p=0.01), septic shock (12.1% vs 4.4%; p=0.05) and cardiogenic shock (22% vs 4.4%; p<0.001). Acute heart failure was higher among patients who had TAVR (40.2% vs 27.5%; p=0.04) than those who had SAVR. All conduction block and ischaemic stroke were similar between the two groups (p=0.09 and p=0.1). The overall 30-day readmission rate among AM with AS encounters was 16.82%, higher among TAVR compared to SAVR subgroups (21.25% vs 11.17%; p=0.001). Among AM with AS hospitalisations, TAVR had mortality benefits compared to SAVR and non-mechanical intervention subgroups. Moreover, higher 30-day mortality rate were observed among SAVR subgroup, which may suggest that TAVR should be strongly considered in AM patients complicated by AS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Aortic regurgitation is distinguished by the backflow of blood from the aorta into the left ventricle. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines recommend surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with symptomatic aortic regurgitation (sAR). This study estimates the difference in mortality, health care use, and costs between patients with sAR who receive SAVR within 12 months of diagnosis versus those who do not. Methods and Results We used the Optum United Healthcare database to identify 132 317 patients diagnosed with sAR from 2016 to 2021 who had at least 6 months of enrollment before sAR and 12 months of enrollment after. Criteria were no history of aortic stenosis or transcatheter aortic valve replacement and ≥2 visits for heart failure, angina, dyspnea, or syncope. Outcomes were all‐cause mortality, health care use, and annualized cost. Baseline differences in demographics and comorbidities were adjusted with inverse propensity score weighting. We modeled survival and estimated health care use and costs using Cox proportional hazards and general linear models, respectively. Of the 132 317 patients, 400 underwent SAVR within 12 months of diagnosis. They were on average younger, more often men, and with a slightly higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index score. After inverse propensity score weighting, patients with sAR who had SAVR had lower mortality, fewer inpatient and emergency department visits, fewer hospital days, and lower annualized cost. Conclusions SAVR performed within 12 months of an sAR diagnosis is associated with improved mortality and lower annualized health care use and costs. These clinical and economic benefits should be considered when managing patients with sAR.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) being currently employed in low surgical risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). The durability and extended outcomes of TAVR as compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-risk patients remains uncertain. Methods: We selected randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing outcomes of TAVR vs. SAVR in low surgical risk patients having severe AS using online databases. The primary outcome was all-cause death. The secondary outcomes were composite of all-cause death & disabling stroke, cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), permanent pacemaker (PPM) placement, new onset atrial fibrillation (AF), valve re-intervention and valve thrombosis. The outcomes were stratified at short- (1-year) and intermediate-term (≤5 years) follow-up. We used a random effect model to report outcomes as relative risk (RR) with a 95 % confidence interval (CI). Results: The analysis consisted of six RCTs comprising 5,122 subjects with a mean age of 75.4 years. At short-term follow up, there was a significant reduction in all-cause death (RR: 0.62, 0.46–0.82, p = 0.001) and composite of all-cause death and disabling stroke (RR: 0.62, 0.45–0.83, p = 0.002) in patients undergoing TAVR. At intermediate-term follow-up, there was no significant difference in survival (RR:0.95, 0.73–1.24, p = 0.71) and composite outcome (RR: 0.95, 0.74–1.22, p = 0.71). TAVR patients had lower incidence of new onset AF, however, higher PPM placement. Conclusion: In patients with severe AS having low-surgical risk, patients undergoing TAVR had improved short-term survival as compared to SAVR. This survival advantage was absent at intermediate-term follow-up. The long-term outcomes remain uncertain.

The Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention-2 (NOTION-2) trial is the first randomized controlled trial to compare transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-risk patients, specifically focusing on relatively younger patients and those with bicuspid valves. It randomized 370 patients (mean age 71 years) to assess outcomes at 1 year. Results indicated a higher composite primary endpoint rate for TAVI (10.2%) compared to SAVR (7.1%) in the overall cohort, with even more pronounced differences in patients with bicuspid valves (14.3% for TAVI vs. 3.9% for SAVR). The risk of death or disabling stroke at 1 year was also three times higher with TAVI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has evolved as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). In addition to full-sternotomy (FS), recent reports have shown successful minimally-invasive SAVR approaches, including mini-sternotomy (MS) and mini-thoracotomy (MT). This network-meta-analysis (NMA) seeks to provide an outcomes comparison based on these different modalities (MS, MT, TAVR) compared with FS as a reference arm for the management of aortic valve disease. A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify studies that compared minimally-invasive SAVR (MS/MT) to conventional FS-SAVR, and/or TAVR. Bayesian NMA was performed using the random effects model. Outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RR) with their 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Our primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), major bleeding, new permanent pacemaker (PPM), and paravalvular leak (PVL). We also assessed long-term mortality at the latest follow-up. A total of 27,117 patients (56 studies) were included; 10,397 patients had FS SAVR, 9523 had MS, 5487 had MT, and 1710 had TAVR. Compared to FS, MS was associated with statistically-significantly lower rates of 30-day mortality (RR, 0.76, 95%CI 0.59–0.98), stroke (RR, 0.84, 95%CI 0.72–0.97), AKI (RR, 0.76, 95%CI 0.61–0.94), and long-term mortality (RR 0.84, 95%CI 0.72–0.97) at a weighted mean follow-up duration of 10.4 years, while MT showed statistically-significantly higher rates of 30-day PVL (RR, 3.76, 95%CI 1.31–10.85) and major bleeding (RR 1.45; 95%CI 1.08–1.94). TAVR had statistically significant lower rates of 30-day AKI (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.31–0.77), but showed statistically-significantly higher PPM (RR 2.50; 95%CI 1.60–3.91) and 30-day PVL (RR 12.85, 95%CI 5.05–32.68) compared to FS. MS was protective against 30-day mortality, stroke, AKI, and long-term mortality compared to FS; TAVR showed higher rates of 30-day PVL and PPM but was protective against AKI. Conversely, MT showed higher rates of 30-day PVL and major bleeding. With the emergence of TAVR, the appropriate benchmarks for SAVR comparison in future trials should be the minimally-invasive SAVR approaches to provide clinical equipoise. [Display omitted] • MS showed lower mortality and stroke compared to FS. • TAVR had higher PVL and pacemakers but was protective against AKI. • MT showed higher rates of PVL and major bleeding. • Future trials should compare minimally invasive-SAVR with TAVR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current recommendation for bioprosthetic valve replacement in severe aortic stenosis (AS) is either surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We evaluated the performance of a machine learning-based predictive model using existing periprocedural variables for valve replacement modality selection. We analyzed 415 patients in a retrospective longitudinal cohort of adult patients undergoing aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. A total of 72 clinical variables including demographic data, patient comorbidities, and preoperative investigation characteristics were collected on each patient. We fit models using LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) and decision tree techniques. The accuracy of the prediction on confusion matrix was used to assess model performance. The most predictive independent variable for valve selection by LASSO regression was frailty score. Variables that predict SAVR consisted of low frailty score (value at or below 2) and complex coronary artery diseases (DVD/TVD). Variables that predicted TAVR consisted of high frailty score (at or greater than 6), history of coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG), calcified aorta, and chronic kidney disease (CKD). The LASSO-generated predictive model achieved 98% accuracy on valve replacement modality selection from testing data. The decision tree model consisted of fewer important parameters, namely frailty score, CKD, STS score, age, and history of PCI. The most predictive factor for valve replacement selection was frailty score. The predictive models using different statistical learning methods achieved an excellent concordance predictive accuracy rate of between 93% and 98%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the SAPIEN 3 device has recently shown significant clinical benefits, compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), in patients at low risk for surgical mortality (PARTNER 3 trial, NCT02675114). Currently in Belgium, TAVI use is restricted to high-risk or inoperable patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (sSAS). This cost-utility analysis aimed to assess whether TAVI with SAPIEN 3 could lead to potential cost-savings compared with SAVR, in the low-risk sSAS population in Belgium. A previously published, two-stage, Markov-based cost-utility model was used. Clinical outcomes were captured using data from PARTNER 3 and the model was adapted for the Belgian context using cost data from the perspective of the Belgian National Healthcare System, indexed to 2022. A lifetime horizon was chosen. The model outputs included changes in direct healthcare costs, survival and health-related quality of life using TAVI versus SAVR. TAVI with SAPIEN 3 provides meaningful clinical and cost benefits over SAVR, in terms of an increase in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.94 and cost-saving of €3 013 per patient. While initial procedure costs were higher for TAVI compared with SAVR, costs related to rehabilitation, disabling stroke, treated atrial fibrillation, and rehospitalization were lower. The cost-effectiveness of TAVI over SAVR remained robust in sensitivity analyses. TAVI with SAPIEN 3 may offer a meaningful alternative intervention to SAVR in Belgian low-risk patients with sSAS, showing both clinical benefits and cost savings associated with post-procedure patient management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Scarce data are available comparing infective endocarditis (IE) following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study aimed to compare the clinical presentation, microbiological profile, management, and outcomes of IE after SAVR versus TAVR. Methods Data were collected from the "Infectious Endocarditis after TAVR International" (enrollment from 2005 to 2020) and the "International Collaboration on Endocarditis" (enrollment from 2000 to 2012) registries. Only patients with an IE affecting the aortic valve prosthesis were included. A 1:1 paired matching approach was used to compare patients with TAVR and SAVR. Results A total of 1688 patients were included. Of them, 602 (35.7%) had a surgical bioprosthesis (SB), 666 (39.5%) a mechanical prosthesis, 70 (4.2%) a homograft, and 350 (20.7%) a transcatheter heart valve. In the SAVR versus TAVR matched population, the rate of new moderate or severe aortic regurgitation was higher in the SB group (43.4% vs 13.5%; P <.001), and fewer vegetations were diagnosed in the SB group (62.5% vs 82%; P <.001). Patients with an SB had a higher rate of perivalvular extension (47.9% vs 27%; P <.001) and Staphylococcus aureus was less common in this group (13.4% vs 22%; P =.033). Despite a higher rate of surgery in patients with SB (44.4% vs 27.3%; P <.001), 1-year mortality was similar (SB: 46.5%; TAVR: 44.8%; log-rank P =.697). Conclusions Clinical presentation, type of causative microorganism, and treatment differed between patients with an IE located on SB compared with TAVR. Despite these differences, both groups exhibited high and similar mortality at 1-year follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundNeurocognitive changes occurring after a surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedure for the correction of severe aortic stenosis (AS) have not been widely addressed and, if addressed, have produced conflicting results. The purpose of this study is to identify the pre-procedural neurocognitive pattern and its determinants in a setting of elderly (>65 years) patients with severe AS undergoing SAVR or TAVI and the changes occurring at a 2–3 month follow-up.MethodsThis was a prospective cohort study included in the Italian Registry on Outcomes in Aortic Stenosis Treatment in Elderly Patients. Patients were assessed both before and after (2–3 months) the procedure using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test. Data on periprocedural demographics, clinical factors, and outcome measures were collected.ResultsBefore the procedure, 70% of the patients demonstrated a MoCA score

Objective: This study evaluated interhospital variability and determinants of failure-to-rescue for patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement. Methods: An observational study was conducted among 28,842 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with or without coronary artery bypass grafting between July 2011 and June 2017 across 90 hospitals participating in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database. Postoperative complications were defined as major (stroke, renal failure, reoperation, prolonged ventilation, sternal infection) and overall (major plus 14 other morbidities). Hospital terciles of observed to expected (O/E) mortality were compared on crude rates of major and overall complications, operative mortality, and failure to rescue (among major and overall complications). The correlation between hospital observed and expected failure-to-rescue rates was assessed. Results: Median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database predicted mortality risk was similar across hospital O:E mortality terciles (P = .10). As expected, mortality rates significantly increased across terciles (low O/E tercile: 1.6%, high O/E tercile: 4.7%; P

The NOTION trial, in this 10-year follow-up report, comprehensively compares transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-risk patients. The study reveals similar outcomes in terms of mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction. TAVR demonstrates advantages such as improved effective orifice area and transprosthetic gradients, along with reduced rates of new-onset atrial fibrillation. However, it is associated with higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation and paravalvular leaks. Concerns exist regarding the generalizability of findings and unblinding during outcome assessments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

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

Introduction: Based on European guidelines, transcatheter aortic valve implementation (TAVI) could be the therapy of choice in patients with severe aortic stenosis aged ≥ 75 years. In the Netherlands, there has been a debate between healthcare providers and the National Health Care Institute regarding reimbursement for TAVI, which resulted in an indication document that defines TAVI patients who are eligible for reimbursement. This document has been effective since 1 January 2021. Methods: We extracted data from the Netherlands Heart Registry for patients who underwent biological surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or TAVI in the Netherlands from 2018 through 2021. We compared baseline characteristics and variables from the indication document for the subsequent years and age groups. We also analysed the annual SAVR/TAVI ratio. Results: The total number of patients treated with SAVR or TAVI was constant in 2018–2021. Baseline characteristics of patients treated with TAVI did not differ throughout the years. The SAVR/TAVI ratio shifted towards a higher percentage of TAVI from 2018 to 2019. From 2019 to 2020, the TAVI percentage was constant. Since the implementation of the indication document (in 2021), a change in the SAVR/TAVI ratio was not found either. Conclusion: Since the implementation of the national indication document for AVR in 2021, no major effect was seen for the SAVR versus TAVI landscape in the Netherlands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Recent randomised trials have shown that clinical outcomes with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are non-inferior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis at intermediate to low risk. Health-related quality of life (HrQoL) outcomes in these patient groups remain uncertain. A systematic search of the literature was conducted that included nine trials and 11,295 patients. Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), a heart-failure-specific measure and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) (a generic health status tool) changes were the primary outcomes. New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification was the secondary outcome. Improvement in KCCQ scores was greater with TAVI (mean difference (MD)=13.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.67-15.46, p<0.001) at 1 month, as was the improvement in EQ-5D (MD=0.07, 95% CI 0.05-0.08, p<0.001). There was no difference in KCCQ (MD=1.05, 95% CI -0.11 to 2.21, p=0.08) or EQ-5D (MD=-0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01), p=0.37) at 12 months. NYHA functional class 3/4 was lower in patients undergoing TAVI at 1 month (MD=0.51, 95% CI 0.34-0.78, p=0.002), but there was no difference at 12 months (MD=1.10; 95% CI 0.87-1.38, p=0.43). Overall, TAVI offers early benefit in HRQoL outcomes compared with SAVR, but they are equivalent at 12 months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about mental health following advanced cardiac procedures in the oldest patients. Aims: To study changes in anxiety and depression from baseline to one- and six-month follow-up in older patients following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Methods: Prospective cohort study of patients ≥ 80 years undergoing elective TAVI or SAVR in a tertiary university hospital. Anxiety and depression were assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Differences between TAVI/SAVR were analyzed using Welch's t test or chi-squared. Changes over time and group differences were established with longitudinal models using generalized least squares. Results: In 143 patients (83.5 ± 2.7 years), 46% (n = 65) received TAVI. Anxiety was identified in 11% of TAVI patients at baseline. One- and six-months later, percentages were 8% and 9%. In SAVR patients, 18% had baseline scores indicating anxiety. One and six-months later, percentages were 11% and 9%. Depression was identified in 15% of TAVI patients. One- and six-months later, percentages were 11% and 17%. At baseline, 11% of SAVR patients had scores indicating depression. One- and six-months after SAVR, percentages were 15% and 12%. Longitudinal analyses showed reductions (P < 0.001) in anxiety from baseline to one-month, and stable scores between one- and six-months for both treatment groups. There was no change over time for depression among treatment groups (P = 0.21). Discussion and conclusions: SAVR or TAVI in patients ≥ 80 years was associated with anxiety reduction between baseline and follow-up. For depression, there was no evidence of change over time in either treatment group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Severe aortic stenosis is often associated with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). Elevated left ventricular mass (LVM) is linked to higher cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Traditionally, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has been the standard treatment, but transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) offers an alternative for high-risk surgical patients. Understanding how these interventions affect left ventricular mass regression is crucial. Materials and methods: This retrospective study analyzed 315 patients treated between December 2014 and December 2022, categorizing them into surgical and transcatheter treatment groups. Clinical and echocardiographic data were collected at baseline and six-month follow-up. Statistical analysis assessed differences between groups and predictors of LV mass reduction. Results: The overall dataset indicated an average percentage reduction in LVM of 10.86%±29.41%. Segmenting the data, the TAVI subgroup exhibited a reduction of 4.28%±30.31%, while the SAVR subgroup highlighted a pronounced decline of 17.92%±26.76%. Preoperative LVMi and mean pressure gradient positively correlated with LVM reduction, while TAVI negatively impacted it. Conclusion: Both TAVI and SAVR interventions yield benefits in reducing left ventricular mass, with SAVR showing a superior outcome. Recognizing predictors of LV mass regression is crucial for optimizing treatment strategies, and early valve replacement should be considered to prevent irreversible LV hypertrophy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Leaflet thrombosis after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be caused by blood flow stagnation in the native and neosinus regions. To date, aortic leaflet laceration has been used to mitigate coronary obstruction following TAVR; however, its influence on the fluid mechanics of the native and neosinus regions is poorly understood. This in vitro study compared the flow velocities and flow patterns in the setting of SAVR vs TAVR with and without aortic leaflet lacerations. Two valves, (23-mm Perimount and 26-mm SAPIEN 3; Edwards Lifesciences) were studied in a validated mock flow loop under physiologic conditions. Neosinus and native sinus fluid mechanics were quantified using particle image velocimetry in the left and noncoronary cusp, with an increasing number of aortic leaflets lacerated or removed. Across all conditions, SAVR had the highest average sinus and neosinus velocities, and this value was used as a reference to compare against the TAVR conditions. With an increasing number of leaflets lacerated or removed with TAVR, the average sinus and neosinus velocities increased from 25% to 70% of SAVR flow (100%). Diastolic velocities were substantially augmented by leaflet laceration. Also, the shorter frame of the SAVR led to higher flow velocities compared with the longer frame of the TAVR, even after complete leaflet removal. Leaflet laceration augmented TAVR native and neosinus flow fields, approaching that of SAVR. These findings may have potential clinical implications for the use of single or multiple leaflet lacerations to reduce leaflet thrombosis and thus potentially improve TAVR durability. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectivesTo compare echocardiographic and invasive mean gradients obtained concomitantly in degenerated bioprosthetic surgical aortic valves (SAVRs).MethodsIn a multicenter study, we compared concomitant echocardiographic and invasive mean gradients of SAVR, obtained before valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement in all patients, patients with primary stenosis (AS), primary aortic regurgitation (AR), and mixed aortic valve disease (MAVD), and in small versus large valves (≤ or >23 mm). Dimensionless index (DI) was calculated in all groups.ResultsIn total, 74 patients were included and data presented as median (interquartile range). Echocardiography-catheterization mean gradient discordance was observed in all patients (invasive = 22 mm Hg [11-34] vs echocardiographic = 32 mm Hg [21-42], P = .013), small valves (invasive = 15 mm Hg [8-34] vs echocardiographic = 28 mm Hg [21-41], P = .013), and large valves (invasive = 20 mm Hg [8.5-27.13] vs echocardiographic = 32 mm Hg [25.5 - 41.5], P

Abstract Background COVID-19 has caused the deferral of millions of elective procedures, likely resulting in a backlog of cases. We estimate the number of postponed surgical aortic valve replacement (sAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures during the first two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Methods Using German national records, all isolated TAVR and sAVR procedures between 2007 and 2020 were identified. Using weekly TAVR and sAVR procedures between 2017 and 2019, we created a forecast for 2020 and compared it with the observed number of procedures in 2020. Results In Germany, a total of 225,398 isolated sAVR and 159,638 isolated TAVR procedures were conducted between 2007 and 2020 that were included in our analysis. The reduction in all AVR procedures (sAVR and TAVR) for the entire year 2020 was 19.07% (95%CI: 15.19–22.95%). During the first wave of the pandemic (week 12–21), the mean weekly reduction was 32.06% (23.44–40.68%) and during the second wave of the pandemic (week 41–52), the mean weekly reduction was 25.58% (14.19–36.97%). The number of sAVR procedures decreased more than the number of TAVR procedures (24.63% vs. 16.42% for the entire year 2020). Conclusion The first year of the COVID-19 pandemic saw a substantial postponing of AVR procedures in Germany. Postponing was higher for sAVR than for TAVR procedures and less pronounced during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the 4-year update of the EVOLUT Low-Risk Trial (NCT02701283), the authors highlight a non-significant improvement in the primary endpoint and a statistically significant, yet clinically irrelevant, enhancement in hemodynamics with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Overlooking the concurrent surgical procedures in SAVR patients, mortality rates remain similar at 4 years. Unaddressed is the substantial increase in permanent pacemaker implantations with TAVR and the fate of patients with paravalvular leaks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been established as a reasonable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis. However, long-term outcomes including valve durability and the need for reintervention are unanswered, especially in younger patients who tend to be low surgical risk. We performed a meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes after TAVI and SAVR over 5 years stratified to low, intermediate, and high surgical risks. We identified propensity score-matched observational studies and randomised controlled trials comparing TAVI and SAVR. Primary outcomes, including all-cause mortality, moderate or severe aortic regurgitation, moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation, pacemaker placement, and stroke, were extracted. Meta-analyses of outcomes after TAVI compared to SAVR were conducted for different periods of follow-up. Meta-regression was also performed to analyse the correlation of outcomes over time. A total of 36 studies consisting of 7 RCTs and 29 propensity score-matched studies were selected. TAVI was associated with higher all-cause mortality at 4–5 years in patients with low or intermediate surgical risk. Meta-regression time demonstrated an increasing trend in the risk of all-cause mortality after TAVI compared with SAVR. TAVI was generally associated with a higher risk of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation, moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation, and pacemaker placement. TAVI demonstrated an increasing trend of all-cause mortality compared with SAVR when evaluated over a long-term follow-up. More long-term data from recent studies using newer-generation valves and state-of-the-art techniques are needed to accurately assign risks. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) was associated with increased all-cause mortality at longer periods of follow-up irrespective of surgical risk. Aortic regurgitation, paravalvular regurgitation, major vascular complications, and pacemaker placement favoured surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) over TAVI. TAVI remained superior to SAVR in major bleeding and renal failure events. Long-term data on newer generation valves and up-to-date implantation techniques may provide better durability and improved outcomes after TAVI. TAVI had higher mortality at longer follow up irrespective of surgical risk. Aortic regurgitation and paravalvular regurgitation favour SAVR over TAVI. Major vascular complications and pacemaker placement also favour SAVR over TAVI. TAVI remains superior to SAVR in major bleeding and renal failure events. Long-term data on newer generation valves and up-to-date techniques are needed. [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]

The novel coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created uncertainty in the management of patients with severe aortic stenosis. This population experiences high mortality from delays in treatment of valve disease but is largely overlapping with the population of highest mortality from COVID-19. The authors present strategies for managing patients with severe aortic stenosis in the COVID-19 era. The authors suggest transitions to virtual assessments and consultation, careful pruning and planning of necessary testing, and fewer and shorter hospital admissions. These strategies center on minimizing patient exposure to COVID-19 and expenditure of human and health care resources without significant sacrifice to patient outcomes during this public health emergency. Areas of innovation to improve care during this time include increased use of wearable and remote devices to assess patient performance and vital signs, devices for facile cardiac assessment, and widespread use of clinical protocols for expedient discharge with virtual physical therapy and cardiac rehabilitation options.

BackgroundRight ventricular function (RVF) is an independent predictor of prognosis for patients undergoing aortic valve replacement: transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The effect of transfemoral aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) on RVF is uncertain. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of the effect of TF-TAVR on RVF in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and compare the effect of TF-TAVR with SAVR.MethodsWe searched relevant studies from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases, and Web of Science. Furthermore, two reviewers (Wang AQ and Cao YS) extracted all relevant data, which were then double checked by another two reviewers (Zhang M and Qi GM). We used the forest plot to present results. Tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) was the primary outcome.ResultsThis meta-analysis included 11 studies. There were 353 patients who underwent TF-TAVR, and 358 patients who were subjected to SAVR. There was no significant difference in TAPSE at 1 week and 6 months as well as right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) at

Objective: In this study we sought to evaluate whether disparate use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) among non-White patients has decreased over time, and if unequal access to TAVR is driven by unequal access to high-volume hospitals. Methods: From 2013 to 2017, we used the State Inpatient Database across 8 states (Ariz, Colo, Fla, Md, NC, NM, Nev, Wash) to identify 51,232 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement. Hospitals were categorized as low- (100 per year) according to total valve procedures (TAVR + surgical aortic valve replacement). Multivariable logistic regression models with interactions were performed to determine the effect of race, time, and hospital volume on the utilization of TAVR. Results: Non-White patients were less likely to receive TAVR than White patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.83). However, utilization of TAVR increased over time (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.73-1.80) for the total population, with non-White patients’ TAVR use growing faster than for White patients (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.00-1.12), time × race interaction, P = .034. Further, an adjusted volume-stratified time trend analysis showed that utilization of TAVR at high volume hospitals increased faster for non-White patients versus White patients by 8.6% per year (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.16) whereas use at low- and medium-volume hospitals did not contribute to any decreasing utilization gap. Conclusions: This analysis shows initial low rates of TAVR utilization among non-White patients followed by accelerated use over time, relative to White patients. This narrowing gap was driven by increased TAVR utilization by non-White patients at high-volume hospitals.