Transcatheter-based aortic valve replacement vs. isolated surgical aortic valve replacement in 2020.

BACKGROUND: Based on the results of several recent randomized trials, European and American guidelines on valvular heart disease management have substantially expanded the indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We present an all-comer data on peri-operative risk profile and in-hospital outcomes from Germany for patients treated by TAVI or isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (iSAVR) in 2020, providing an opportunity to compare study data with data from daily clinical practice. METHODS: Data concerning all isolated aortic valve procedures performed in Germany in 2020 were retrieved from the mandatory nationwide quality control program. Expected mortality was calculated with the annually revised German Aortic valve score (AKL-score) based on the data of either catheter-based (AKL-CATH) or isolated surgical (AKL-CHIR) aortic valve replacement in Germany from the previous year (2019). RESULTS: In 2020 21,903 TAVI procedures (20,810 transvascular (TV; vs. 2019: 22.973; - 9.4%), 1093 transapical (TA; vs. 2019: 1413; - 22.6%)) and 6144 (vs. 2019 7905; - 22.5%) iSAVR were performed in Germany. Patients who received TAVI showed a significantly higher perioperative risk profile than patients undergoing iSAVR based on older age and more severe co-morbidities. While in-hospital mortality after TAVI (2.3%) was numerically lower than in 2019 (2.5%), this difference was not significant (p = 0.11). In-hospital mortality after iSAVR was identical in 2020 and 2019 (2.8%) and thus higher than after TAVI (p = 0.003), resulting in an observed expected mortality ratio of 1.02 after TAVI and 1.05 after iSAVR. After exclusion of the emergency procedures, in-hospital mortality did not differ significantly between the groups (TAVI 2.2% vs. iSAVR 1.9%, p = 0.26). CONCLUSION: Total numbers of both iSAVR and TAVI in Germany were lower in 2020 than in 2019, most likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the relative number of patients treated by TAVI as compared to iSAVR continues to increase. Despite older age and more severe comorbidities compared to patients undergoing iSAVR the in-hospital mortality after TAVI continued to decrease in 2020 and remains significantly lower than after iSAVR.

Changes to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) services during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: A single centre experience from United Kingdom tertiary hospital.

AIMS: COVID-19 had a devastating impact on patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Like many cardiac procedures, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) services were suspended during the first wave of COVID-19. We took the opportunity to evaluate the clinical outcomes and identify any delays at different stages of the TAVR pathway during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Prospectively collected data on 210 consecutive TAVR patients between March 2019 and March 2021 were analysed. We compared the clinical outcomes and 30-day mortality rates of TAVR cases pre-pandemic and during the pandemic. We also looked to identify any time lags from the initial referral to respective stages of the TAVR workup. RESULTS: A total of 134 patients underwent TAVR prior to the national lockdown (March 2019-March 2020), compared to 76 patients during COVID-19 (April 2020-April 2021). Success rates of TAVR were similar (99% prior to the pandemic and 97.4% during COVID-19). The 30-day survival rates were 98.6% and 94.7%, respectively. Median length of stay post TAVR was 2 days during COVID-19 and 2.5 days prior to the pandemic (p = 0.064). Patients were seen quicker in clinic (median of 33 days) during COVID-19, compared to 51 days before COVID-19 (p = 0.044). No significant difference in times from referral to discussion at TAVR multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings, CT Aortogram and TAVR implantation, in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Reconfiguring the patient pathway during COVID-19 allowed TAVR to be performed safely, with a similar success rate and no excess complications or increased 30-day mortality. There proved to be no delay in the respective stages of patient TAVR workup, during the pandemic.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation during COVID-19 pandemic: An optimized model to relieve healthcare system overload.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic upset healthcare systems and their logistics worldwide. We sought to assess safety and effectiveness of an optimized logistics for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) pathway developed during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis. An optimized TAVI logistics based on performing TAVI work-up and procedure during the same hospitalization was used during the COVID-19 pandemic. In-hospital and 30-day outcomes of patients treated during the pandemic were compared with an historical cohort of patients undergoing TAVI with staged work-up before the pandemic within an homogeneous timeframe. RESULTS: Of 536 patients, 227 (42.4%) underwent TAVI during the COVID-19 pandemic with a reduction of 26.5% compared to the pre-pandemic period (n = 309). The median age was 81 (77-85) years and STS score was 3.4 (2.2-5.6)%. Lower rates of in-hospital major vascular complications (2.2% vs. 8.7%; p < 0.01) and life-threatening bleeding (0.4% vs. 4.2%; p = 0.01) were reported in the COVID-19 period, whereas no difference in acute kidney injury (7.0% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.85) rate was reported between COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 periods. No difference in 30-day rates of all-cause death (4.0 vs. 4.5, p = 0.75) and of major adverse cardiovascular events (4.0 vs. 6.1, p = 0.26) were reported between COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 periods. CONCLUSIONS: The use of optimized single-hospitalization logistics for TAVI workup and procedure developed during the COVID-19 pandemic, showed to be as safe and effective as the two-stage TAVI pathway previously adopted, allowing the minimization of potential exposure to COVID-19 infection and shortening times to treatment for severely symptomatic patients.

Effect of intensive versus limited monitoring on clinical trial conduct and outcomes: A randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Regulatory agencies have endorsed more limited approaches to clinical trial site monitoring. However, the impact of different monitoring strategies on trial conduct and outcomes is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a patient-level block-randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of intensive versus limited monitoring on cardiovascular clinical trial conduct and outcomes nested within the CoreValve Continued Access and Expanded Use Studies. Intensive monitoring included complete source data verification of all critical datapoints whereas limited monitoring included automated data checks only. This study's endpoints included clinical trial outcome ascertainment as well as monitoring action items, protocol deviations, and adverse event ascertainment. RESULTS: A total of 2,708 patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and were randomized to either intensive monitoring (n = 1,354) or limited monitoring (n = 1,354). Monitoring action items were more common with intensive monitoring (52% vs 15%; P < .001), but there was no difference in the percentage of patients with any protocol deviation (91.6% vs 90.4%; P = .314). The reported incidence of trial outcomes between intensive and limited monitoring was similar for mortality (30 days: 4.8% vs 5.5%, P = .442; 1 year: 20.3% vs 21.3%, P = .473) and stroke (30 days: 2.8% vs 2.4%, P = .458), as well as most secondary trial outcomes with the exception of bleeding (intensive: 36.3% vs limited: 32.0% at 30 days, P = .019). There was a higher reported incidence of cardiac adverse events reported in the intensive monitoring group at 1 year (76.7% vs 72.4%; P = .019). CONCLUSIONS: Tailored limited monitoring strategies can be implemented without influencing the integrity of TAVR trial outcomes.

'Valve for Life': tackling the deficit in transcatheter treatment of heart valve disease in the UK.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a proven treatment for life-threatening aortic valve disease, predominantly severe aortic stenosis. However, even among developed nations, access to TAVI is not uniform. The Valve for Life initiative was launched by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions in 2015 with the objective of improving access to transcatheter valve interventions across Europe. The UK has been identified as a country with low penetration of these procedures and has been selected as the fourth nation to be included in the initiative. Specifically, the number of TAVI procedures carried out in the UK is significantly lower than almost all other European nations. Furthermore, there is substantial geographical inequity in access to TAVI within the UK. As a consequence of this underprovision, waiting times for TAVI are long, and mortality among those waiting intervention is significant. This article reviews these issues, reports new data on access to TAVI in the UK and presents the proposals of the UK Valve for Life team to address the current problems in association with the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) outcomes during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have not been fully evaluated and some structural programs in the world have been suspended during this period. We sought to evaluate and compare clinical outcomes in patients undergoing TAVI in pandemic versus nonpandemic era. In a single center, we compared 198 TAVI patients performed during 2019 to 59 patients performed during the COVID-19 pandemic period (March 1st to June 30th, 2020). Primary outcome was procedural success according to VARC criteria and 30-day mortality rates. VARC-defined procedural success was high in both groups (93.3% vs 96.6%; p = 0.53). There were no differences in any vascular complications (26% vs 19%; p = 0.3), permanent pacemaker implantation (11.8% vs 15.3%; p = 0.63), and length of hospital stay (5.2 vs 4.2 days; p = 0.29). Thirty-day mortality was similar (3% vs 3.4%; p = 1.0). We had no documented COVID-19 disease in our patients during follow up. In conclusion, TAVI procedures can be performed effectively and safely during the COVID-9 pandemic, using a minimalist approach, early discharge, and by maintaining proper use of personal protective equipment.

Safety of same-day discharge after uncomplicated, minimalist transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the COVID-19 era.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the safety, efficacy and feasibility of same-day discharge after uncomplicated, minimalist TAVR. BACKGROUND: At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, we created a same-day discharge (SDD) pathway after conscious sedation, transfemoral (minimalist) TAVR to help minimize risk of viral transmission and conserve hospital resources. Studies support that next-day discharge (NDD) for carefully selected patients following minimalist TAVR is safe and feasible. There is a paucity of data regarding the safety of SDD after TAVR. METHODS: In-hospital and 30 day outcomes of consecutive patients meeting pre-specified criteria for SDD after minimalist TAVR at our institution between March and July of 2020 were reviewed. Outcomes were compared to a NDD cohort from July 2018 through July 2020 that would have met SDD criteria. Primary endpoints were mortality, delayed pacemaker placement, stroke and cardiovascular readmission at 30 days. RESULTS: Twenty nine patients were discharged via the SDD pathway after TAVR. 128 prior NDD patients were identified who met all criteria for SDD. The STS scores were similar between the two groups (SDD 2.6% ±1.5 vs. NDD 2.3% ± 1.2). There were no deaths at 30 days in either group. There was no significant difference in delayed pacemaker placement (SDD 0% vs. NDD 0.8%, p > .99) or cardiovascular readmission (SDD 0% vs. NDD 5.5%, p = .35) at 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Same day discharge following uncomplicated, minimalist TAVR in selected patients appears to be safe, achieving similar 30 day outcomes as a cohort of next day discharge patients.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement during the COVID-19 pandemic-A Dutch single-center analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put an enormous strain on healthcare systems and intensive care unit (ICU) capacity, leading to suspension of most elective procedures, including transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, deferment of TAVR is associated with significant wait-time mortality in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. Conversely, there is currently no data available regarding the safety and feasibility of a continued TAVR program during this unprecedented crisis. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of patients undergoing TAVR during the COVID-19 pandemic in our center, with specific emphasis on COVID-19 related outcomes. METHODS: All patients who underwent TAVR in our center between February 27, 2020, and June 30, 2020, were evaluated. Clinical outcomes were described in terms of Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 definitions. Patient follow-up was done by chart review and telephone survey. RESULTS: A total of 71 patients have undergone TAVR during the study period. Median age was 80 years, 63% were men, and 25% were inpatients. Procedural success was 99%. After TAVR, 30% involved admission to the ICU, and 94% were ultimately discharged to the cardiac care unit on the same day. Two patients (3%) had confirmed COVID-19 a few days after TAVR, and both died of COVID-19 pneumonia within 2 weeks after hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: A continued TAVR program during the COVID-19 pandemic is feasible despite limited hospital resources. However, COVID-19 related mortality after TAVR is of concern.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a young patient with a suspected COVID-19 infection: a surgical dilemma in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic.

We report on a case of a 57-year-old male patient, who underwent full root replacement in 2005 and now presented with high grade aortic insufficiency. On admission, the patient underwent a computed tomography scan which demonstrated interstitial infiltration in the left lung, highly suspicious for a COVID-19 infection that could not be confirmed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. As there usually is a delay between infection and positive RT-PCR test results, the initial decision was to perform additional testing. However, the patient deteriorated quickly in spite of optimal medical therapy making urgent aortic valve replacement necessary. We decided to perform transcatheter aortic valve replacement to avoid cardiopulmonary bypass with shorter operative times, presumably shorter ventilation times and duration of intensive care unit stay, and thus a lesser risk for pulmonary complications.

Managing Severe Aortic Stenosis in the COVID-19 Era.

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.