Search

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is being increasingly performed in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (AS)., Objectives: This study sought to compare the procedural and clinical outcomes in patients with bicuspid versus tricuspid AS from the Bicuspid AS TAVR multicenter registry., Methods: Outcomes of 561 patients with bicuspid AS and 4,546 patients with tricuspid AS were compared after propensity score matching, assembling 546 pairs of patients with similar baseline characteristics. Procedural and clinical outcomes were recorded according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria., Results: Compared with patients with tricuspid AS, patients with bicuspid AS had more frequent conversion to surgery (2.0% vs. 0.2%; p = 0.006) and a significantly lower device success rate (85.3% vs. 91.4%; p = 0.002). Early-generation devices were implanted in 320 patients with bicuspid and 321 patients with tricuspid AS, whereas new-generation devices were implanted in 226 and 225 patients with bicuspid and tricuspid AS, respectively. Within the group receiving early-generation devices, bicuspid AS had more frequent aortic root injury (4.5% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.015) when receiving the balloon-expanding device, and moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak (19.4% vs. 10.5%; p = 0.02) when receiving the self-expanding device. Among patients with new-generation devices, however, procedural results were comparable across different prostheses. The cumulative all-cause mortality rates at 2 years were comparable between bicuspid and tricuspid AS (17.2% vs. 19.4%; p = 0.28)., Conclusions: Compared with tricuspid AS, TAVR in bicuspid AS was associated with a similar prognosis, but lower device success rate. Procedural differences were observed in patients treated with the early-generation devices, whereas no differences were observed with the new-generation devices., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is the most common congenital cardiac abnormality. It has a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations including aortic regurgitation (AR), aortic stenosis, and an associated aortopathy with a small but increased risk of aortic dissection. This review describes current knowledge of BAV, from anatomy and genetics to a discussion of multifaceted strategies utilized in the management of this unique patient population. This review will also highlight critical knowledge gaps in areas of basic and clinical research to enhance further understanding of this clinical entity. Recent Findings: The current knowledge regarding pathophysiologic mechanisms, screening, and surveillance guidelines for BAV and the associated aortopathy is discussed. We also discuss current management techniques for aortic valve repair versus replacement, indications for aortic surgery (root or ascending aorta), and the emergence of the Ross procedure as a viable management option not only in children, but also in adolescents and adults. Summary: The varied clinical phenotype of the BAV, resulting in its specific complex hemodynamic interactions, renders it an entity which is separate and distinct from the tricuspid aortic valve pathologies. While various aortic histopathologic and protein alterations in BAV patients have been described, it remains unclear if these changes are causal or the result of hemodynamic alterations imposed by sheer stress on the intrinsically dysfunctional BAV. Medical management for patients with BAV with AS, AI, or dilated aortic roots/ascending aortas remains challenging and needs further investigation. More than 50% of patients with BAV will undergo AVR during their lifetime, and more than 25% of patients with BAV undergo aortic surgery performed for dilation of the aortic root or ascending aorta, often concurrently with AVR. The search for the ultimate genetic or epigenetic cause of the different bicuspid phenotypes will ultimately be facilitated by the next-generation sequencing tools that allow for study of large populations at low cost. Improvements in diagnostic and stratification criteria to accurately risk assess BAV patients are critical to this process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

TAVI is an established therapy for patients with severe aortic stenosis. Rapid or control pacing is necessary for TAVI, and most centers are familiar with right ventricular (RV) pacing. Although there are several reports on the efficacy and safety of LV pacing, they are still few. In addition, LV pacing has not been studied for different LV guidewires. Our aim is to study the effectiveness of left ventricular (LV) pacing and the thresholds of LV guidewires in patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We retrospectively analyzed 252 consecutive patients who underwent trans-femoral TAVI (TF-TAVI) with LV pacing in our institute between December 2017 and November 2020. We excluded 48 patients from the total cohort due to TAVI with RV pacing, and the remaining 204 patients were analyzed (52 males, mean age 85 ± 5 years). Among them, 202 patients (99.0%) had successful LV pacing. In the two patients with failed LV pacing, SAFARI2™ Small was used. The CONFIDA™ group (n = 34) showed a significantly lower threshold than the SAFARI2™ group (n = 163) (median 3.0 vs. 5.0 V; P = 1.1 × 10–7). LV pacing with Lunderquist® was successful in all patients (n = 7). LV pacing in TAVI was an effective and safe strategy. CONFIDA™ wire may be particularly well suited for LV pacing in TAVI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis (LFLG AS) with reduced left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) is still a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. The aim of this paper is to review the latest evidences about the assessment of the valvular disease, usually difficult because of the low-flow status, and the therapeutic options. Special emphasis is given to the available diagnostic tools for the characterization of LFLG AS without functional reserve at stress echocardiography and to the factors that clinicians should evaluate to choose between surgical aortic valve repair, transcatheter aortic valve implantation, or medical therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the discussion on guidelines summarizing and evaluating available evidence with the aim of assisting health professionals in proposing the best management strategies. Topics include Non-invasive evaluation using three-dimensional (3D) echocardiography, cardiac computed tomography (CCT), cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR); and reinforcing in patients with native valvular disease, except for significant mitral stenosis, and in those with bioprostheses.

Unicuspid aortic valve (UAV) stenosis is a rare condition accounting for 5% of non-rheumatic aortic stenosis. The diagnosis can be difficult to make prior to surgical intervention and transesophageal echocardiography has been demonstrated to be more accurate in making the diagnosis compared to transthoracic echocardiography. The presence of a posteriorly located aortic orifice on the short-axis views, with one or two visible raphe anteriorly; the absence of commissures (acommissural); or the presence of a lone commissure (unicommissural) between the left and noncoronary, or the left and right cusps suggests the diagnosis. Patients with UAV are predominantly males and present with stenosis about a decade earlier than those with the more prevalent bicuspid aortic valves (BAV). They more commonly present with aortic annular dilatation and have fewer comorbidities at presentation compared to patients with BAV. Surgical management of UAV stenosis includes aortic valve replacement through standard open heart surgery or percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), aortic valve repair either by bicuspidization, tricuspidization or trileaflet reconstruction, or the Ross procedure. Patients with UAV stenosis require less concomitant coronary or other cardiac procedures when they need surgical intervention, but are about a decade younger at the time of their death. UAV stenosis is a distinct congenital anomaly with a different natural course than BAV. Surgical management should be individualized based on the patient's age at presentation, aortoannular anatomy, and associated cardiac conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Herz-, Thorax- und Gefaesschirurgie is the property of Springer Nature 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.)

In the 16 years since the first pioneering procedure, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has come of age and become a routine strategy for aortic valve replacement, increasingly performed under conscious sedation via transfemoral access. Simplification of the procedure, accumulation of clinical experience, and improvements in valve design and delivery systems have led to a dramatic reduction in complication rates. These advances have allowed transition to lower risk populations, and outcome data from the PARTNER 2A and SURTAVI trials have established a clear evidence base for use in intermediate risk patients. Ongoing studies with an expanding portfolio of devices seem destined to expand indications for TAVI towards lower risk, younger and asymptomatic populations. In this article, we outline recent advances, new devices and current guidelines informing the use of TAVI, and describe remaining uncertainties that need to be addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown safe and feasible in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) morphology. Evaluation of inter-ethnic differences in valve morphology and function and aortic root dimensions in patients with BAV is important for the worldwide spread of this therapy in this subgroup of patients. Comparisons between large European and Asian cohorts of patients with BAV have not been performed, and potential differences between populations may have important implications for TAVR. Aim The present study evaluated the differences in valve morphology and function and aortic root dimensions between two large cohorts of European and Asian patients with BAV. Methods and results Aortic valve morphology was defined on transthoracic echocardiography according to the number of commissures and raphe: type 0 = no raphe and two commissures, type 1 = one raphe and two commissures, type 2 = two raphes and one commissure. Aortic stenosis and regurgitation were graded according to current recommendations. For this study, aortic root dimensions were manually measured on transthoracic echocardiograms at the level of the aortic annulus, sinus of Valsalva (SOV), sinotubular junction (STJ), and ascending aorta (AA). Of 1427 patients with BAV (45.2± 18.1 years, 71.9% men), 794 (55.6%) were Europeans and 633 (44.4%) were Asians. The groups were comparable in age and proportion of male sex. Asians had higher prevalence of type 1 BAV with raphe between right and non-coronary cusps than Europeans (19.7% vs. 13.6%, respectively; P < 0.001), whereas the Europeans had higher prevalence of type 0 BAV (two commissures, no raphe) than Asians (14.5% vs. 6.8%, respectively; P < 0.001). The prevalence of moderate and severe aortic regurgitation was higher in Europeans than Asians (44.2% vs. 26.8%, respectively; P < 0.001) whereas there were no differences in BAV with normal function or aortic stenosis. After adjusting for demographics, comorbidities and valve function, the dimensions of the aortic annulus [mean difference 1.17 mm/m2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96-1.39], SOV (mean difference 1.86 mm/m2, 95% CI 1.47-2.24), STJ (mean difference 0.52 mm/m2, 95% CI 0.14-0.90) and AA (mean difference 1.05 mm/m2, 95% CI 0.57-1.52) were significantly larger among Asians compared with Europeans. Conclusions This large multicentre registry reports for the first time that Asians with BAV showed more frequently type 1 BAV (with fusion between right and non-coronary cusp) and have larger aortic dimensions than Europeans. These findings have important implications for prosthesis type and size selection for TAVR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the last decade, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), a disruptive technology, has revolutionized the therapy of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and current guidelines state that the recommendations for TAVI and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are equivalent in patients at high-risk. Increased operator experience, technical advances in the new generation of transcatheter heart valves (THV) and excellent TAVI results in recently published randomized controlled trials have led to the expansion of TAVI indication as an alternative to SAVR in intermediate-risk subjects, given appropriate patient selection. The time is opportune to examine the role of TAVI in low-risk patients, currently the objective of on-going randomized trials. This review aims to summarize the available knowledge on TAVI in low- to intermediate-risk patients and to discuss the potential advantages and pitfalls TAVI will face in this clinical setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Bicuspid aortic valve may be associated with increased complications during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)., Aims: Compare balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve (THV) safety and efficacy in severe tricuspid (TAV) and bicuspid (BAV) aortic stenosis., Methods: Transfemoral TAVI was performed in 743 patients (Jan 2014-June 2019) using the SAPIEN 3 THV. Aortic valve morphology was determined using computed tomography. Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) derived safety and efficacy endpoints at 1 year were evaluated., Results: BAV patients (n = 78), were younger (77 [72, 81] vs. 81 [78, 85] years, p < 0.001) with lower surgical risk (EuroSCORE II 2.96% vs. 4.51% p < 0.001). Bicuspid valves were more calcified (BAV 1308mm 3 , TAV 848mm 3 p < 0.001) with more asymmetric calcification (BAV 63/78 (81%), TAV 239/665 (36%), p < 0.001). Device success (BAV 94%, TAV 90%, p = 0.45) and major vascular complications (BAV 6%, TAV 9%, p = 0.66) were comparable. At 1 year, there was a trend toward lower combined all-cause mortality and rehospitalization for congestive heart failure in BAV patients (BAV 7%, TAV 13%, p = 0.08) with significantly lower all-cause mortality in this cohort (BAV 1%, TAV 9%, p = 0.020). VARC-2 time-related valve safety (BAV 22%, TAV 20%, p = 0.60) was comparable; however, bioprosthetic valve thrombosis remained more common in BAV patients (BAV 7%, TAV 2%, p = 0.010, Hazard ratio 3.57 [95% confidence interval 1.26, 10.10]). After propensity score matching, only bioprosthetic valve thrombosis remained significantly different., Conclusions: Safety and efficacy of the SAPIEN 3 balloon-expandable THV in BAV is comparable with TAV. Higher rates of bioprosthetic valve thrombosis require further investigation., (© 2021. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

View large Download slide View large Download slide [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Saleh N, Svane B, Velander M, Nilsson T, Hansson L-O, Tornvall P (Karolinska Hospital, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden). C-reactive protein and myocardial infarction during percutaneous coronary intervention. J Intern Med 2004; 255: 33–39. To evaluate the prognostic information of preprocedural C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in serum to predict myocardial infarction during percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Prospective study. University hospital. A total of 400 consecutive patients with normal serum troponin T levels (≤0.03 μg L−1) presenting with stable or unstable angina pectoris. PCI. C-reactive protein levels in serum measured by a high sensitive method. Myocardial infarction defined as a serum troponin T elevation the day after PCI to a level >0.05 μg L−1. Eighty-three patients (21%) experienced a myocardial infarction during PCI. The median value of CRP before the procedure was 1.83 (0.12–99.7) mg L−1. No difference was seen in CRP levels before PCI between patients without or with myocardial infarction during PCI. Multivariate analysis identified stent implantation (OR 2.68, 95% CI 1.18–7.28, P = 0.03), procedure time (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.28–3.67, P < 0.005) and complications during the procedure (OR 3.62, 95% CI 1.72–7.58, P < 0.001) as independent predictors of myocardial infarction during PCI. Increased CRP levels in serum before PCI were not associated with myocardial infarction during the procedure. Furthermore, patients with an expected long procedure and a high probability of stent implantation have an increased risk of developing myocardial infarction during PCI. This finding may be useful to help the operator to decide the antithrombotic regime before, during and after the procedure and the need for observation after the procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]