Reflections on the era of valvular intervention—The perspective of surgeons / 中国胸心血管外科临床杂志

@#In recent years, the number of interventions for valvular heart disease has been increasing day by day, and it has become a hot topic in the field of cardiovascular surgery. Given the aging global population and trends in the prevalence of valvular disease and the broadening of indications for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), a breakthrough of 130 000 TAVR procedures is expected by 2026. In the new technology development period, the development potential and technical advantages of heart valve interventional therapy should be faced squarely. This paper focuses on key issues such as comparison of outcomes after TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), prosthetic valve endocarditis after TAVR, and broadening of indications for TAVR, as well as recommendations on how surgeons face the era of TAVR. We hope that this article will help and attract the attention of cardiac surgeons.

Comparison of 1-year clinical results of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using prostheses with two different frame designs in 124 patients in a single center / 中国胸心血管外科临床杂志

@#Objective    To compare and analyze the clinical effects of two kinds of frame design valves after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Methods    We retrospectively reviewed 124 patients who underwent TAVR and were followed up for 1 year. There were 71 males and 53 females aged 75.57±6.21 years. These patients were treated with Venus-A or Edwards Sapien aortic valves. The hemodynamics and cardiac function of these two kinds of transcatheter aortic valves (THV) were evaluated by echocardiography. The 30-day mortality and 1-year clinical effect of the patients were calculated. Results    Eight-one patients used Venus-A valve and 43 patients used Edwards Sapien valve. The aortic valve transaortic pressure gradient was reduced and the rate of perivalvular leakage was low (both 2.6%) in both groups, and there was no statistical difference between the two groups. The implantation rate of permanent pacemaker was 17.3% and 11.6%, respectively. The 1-month survival (94.0% and 93.0%) and 1-year survival (94.0% and 91.0%) rates were not statistically different. Conclusion    The two groups of THV with different stent structures have good short-term clinical effect and low implantation rate of permanent pacemaker.

The 1-year follow-up results of intraprocedural valve-in-valve deployment for treatment of aortic regurgitation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in a single center / 中国胸心血管外科临床杂志

@#Objective    To evaluate the efficiency and safety of intraprocedural valve-in-valve deployment for treatment of aortic regurgitation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Methods    Consecutive patients (n=333) who diagnosed with severe aortic stenosis and underwent TAVR in Zhongshan Hospital affiliated to Fudan University from October 3rd, 2010 to April 21st, 2021 were included. There were 208 males and 125 females aged 76.0±7.0 years. There were 316 patients underwent simple TAVR (simple TAVR group) and 17 patients underwent intraprocedural valve-in-valve deployment following TAVR (valve-in-valve group). Their clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were evaluated and compared. Results    There was no significant difference between the two groups of patients at postoperative 30 d and 1 year in all-cause mortality (4.4% vs. 0, P=1.000; 6.3% vs. 0, P=1.000), incidence of pacemaker implantation (10.4% vs. 17.6%, P=1.000; 11.8% vs. 17.6%, P=1.000), incidence of ischemic stroke (1.3% vs. 0, P=1.000; 1.3%  vs. 0, P=1.000), mean trans-aortic pressure gradient (11.4±6.4 mm Hg vs. 8.9±4.9 mm Hg, P=0.099; 10.5±7.6 mm Hg vs. 11.2±5.2 mm Hg, P=0.432), left ventricular ejection fraction (62.0%±9.0% vs. 57.0%±12.0%, P=0.189; 63.0%±7.0% vs. 60.0%±8.0%, P=0.170), and incidence of mitral valve dysfunction (0.6% vs. 5.9%, P=1.000; 0.6% vs. 5.9%, P=1.000). Conclusion    It is feasible to treat perivalvular leakage with valve-in-valve technology in the procedure of TAVR, and the short and medium-term effects are satisfied.

An interpretation of the 2-year follow-up results of Evolut Low Risk research / 中国胸心血管外科临床杂志

@#Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a well-established treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis. At present, TAVR has already shown noninferiority and even superiority to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients deemed at high or intermediate risk for SAVR. However, the long-term follow-up results of the randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety between TAVR and SAVR are still lacking in those patients who are at low risk for SAVR. This paper gives an overview and reviews results of the Evolut Low Risk trial and interprets its implications for transcatheter therapy in aortic valve diseases.

Implications of five-year outcomes of COMMENCE (SAVR) trial for aortic valve surgery in China / 中国胸心血管外科临床杂志

@#The advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has brought up a new treatment option for patients with severe aortic valve disease. However, with the continuous expansion of surgical indications, problems such as structural valve deterioration caused by biological prosthesis have become increasingly prominent. In the newly announced 5-year follow-up results of COMMENCE (SAVR) trial, the aortic bioprosthesis using the new RESILIA biotissue material demonstrated extraordinary clinical safety, efficacy and durability with zero structural valve deterioration and excellent hemodynamic evaluation results. As a result, patients with valvular heart disease have more diverse therapeutic options. However, the choice between surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and TAVR, biological prosthesis and mechanical prosthesis, etc, has become more and more prominent, which brings more difficulties to clinicians. This paper reviews the research background, 5-year follow-up results of COMMENCE trial and the implications for aortic valve surgery in China.

Safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement through different approaches: A systematic review and meta-analysis / 中国胸心血管外科临床杂志

@#Objective    To evaluate the early and mid-term safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement via transfemoral (TF), transapical (TAp) and transsubclavian (TSc) approaches by meta-analysis. Methods    We systematically searched the clinical comparative trials published from inception to June 2019 from PubMed, Web of Science, EMbase and The Cochrane Library, to evaluate the safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement through TF, TAp or TSc approaches. The information of all-cause mortality at 30 days, 1 year, 2 years and the incidence of common complications at 30 days after operation (including pacemaker-dependent block, major vascular complications, severe bleeding events, acute renal injury and stroke) were exacted, and a meta-analysis was conducted by RevMan 5.3 software. Results    This study included 11 literatures, with a total of 7 833 patients, among whom 5 348 patients were treated by TF TAVR, 1 796 patients by TAp TAVR and 689 patients by TSc TAVR. The results of the meta-analysis were as follows: (1)  at 30 days after operation, the mortality of TF and TSc approaches were lower than that of the TAp approach (TF vs. TAp:OR=0.57, 95%CI 0.39-0.84, P=0.004; TSc vs. TAp: OR=4.12, 95%CI 1.93-8.79, P=0.000 3). There was no statistical difference between the TF and TSc approaches (TF vs. TSc: OR=0.98, 95%CI 0.38-2.51, P=0.97); at 1 year, there was no statistical difference in mortality among the three approaches (P>0.05); at 2 years, there was no statistical difference between TSc and TF or TAp approaches (TF vs. TSc: OR=1.21, 95%CI 0.95-1.54, P=0.13; TSc vs. TAp: OR=1.02, 95%CI 0.76-1.36, P=0.91). (2) The incidence of acute kidney injury after TF approach was lower than that of the TAp approach (OR=0.30, 95%CI 0.22-0.41, P<0.000 01). (3) There was no statistical difference in major vascular complications between TSc and TF or TAp approaches (TF vs. TSc: OR=0.75, 95%CI 0.38-1.49, P=0.41; TSc vs. TAp: OR=1.37, 95%CI 0.56-3.32, P=0.49). (4) There was no statistical difference in severe bleeding events between TF and TSc (OR=0.97, 95%CI 0.53-1.76, P=0.92). (5) There was no statistical difference in the incidence of postoperative stroke, pacemaker dependent block among the three approaches (P>0.05). Conclusion    TAp and TSc approaches are safe and effective. They are not only an alternative to TF approach, but also the first choice in some patients with poor condition of iliofemoral artery.

Efficacy and safety of transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the treatment of aortic regurgitation in patients with large aortic annulus / 中国胸心血管外科临床杂志

@#Objective    To investigate the feasibility and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) through apical approach for aortic regurgitation of large annulus. Methods    From November 2019 to May 2020, 10 male patients aged 64.50±4.20 years with aortic valve insufficiency (AI) underwent TAVR in the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Xijing Hospital. The surgical instruments were 29# J-valveTM modified and the patients underwent TAVR under angiography. The preoperative and postoperative cardiac function, valve regurgitation, complications and left ventricular remodeling were summarized by ultrasound and CT before and after TAVR. Results    A total of 10 valves were implanted in 10 patients. Among them, 1 patient was transferred to the aortic arch during the operation and was transferred to surgical aortic valve replacement; the other 9 patients were successfully implanted with J-valve, with 6 patients of cardiac function (NYHA) class Ⅱ, 4 patients of grade Ⅲ. And there was a significant difference between preoperation and postoperation in left ventricular ejection fraction (44.70%±8.78% vs. 39.80%±8.48%, P<0.05) or aortic regurgitation (1.75±0.72 mL vs. 16.51±8.71 mL, P<0.05). After 3 months, the patients' cardiac function was good. Conclusion    TAVR is safe and effective in the treatment of severe valvular disease with AI using J-valve.