A propensity matched comparison of robotic vs. traditional minimal access approach for mitral valve repair with concomitant cryoablation.

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) occurs frequently in patients with mitral valve disease. Results of cryoablation concomitant with either minimally invasive video-assisted [minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS)] or with robotic-assisted (RMV) mitral valve surgery have previously been separately reported. However, there are up-to-date no studies comparing the two procedures in terms of safety, efficacy, and mid-term follow-up. Methods: Between January 2017 and March 2022, 294 patients underwent MIMVS, and 187 patients underwent RMV at our institution. After 1:1 propensity score matching using 22 preoperative variables, the study included 104 patients. Group 1 (MIMVS) included 52 patients operated on between 2017-2022 using a minimally invasive video-assisted right-sided mini-thoracotomy. Group 2 (RMV) included 52 patients operated on between 2019-2021 using a robotic-assisted approach. Early and mid-term outcomes were assessed, including maintenance of sinus rhythm. Follow-up was 100% complete at a median follow-up of 2 years. Results: For the entire propensity matched cohort, the median EuroSCORE II was 3.14 [interquartile range (IQR), 1.93-4.99], the median age was 68 (IQR, 61-74) years, and two thirds of the patients were male. Most (72.1%) underwent mitral valve surgery, and 26.9% had an additional tricuspid procedure. Only four patients underwent mitral valve replacement (3.8%). The majority (87.5%) received a left-sided atrial Maze and 12.5% a bi-atrial Maze. The left atrial appendage was occluded in 72.1% cases. Overall, there were no significant differences between the two propensity matched groups in baseline demographics or intra-operative characteristics. Similarly, there were no significant differences in the post-operative short and mid-term outcomes between the two groups. There were no in-hospital or 30-day deaths. At the mid-term survival was similar between groups, log-rank test P=0.056. Maintenance of sinus rhythm at follow-up was 76%. Conclusions: Mitral or double valve repair with concomitant cryoablation can be safely performed with either a MIMVS or RMV approach. Both methods demonstrated outstanding early and mid-term outcomes.

Performance of the Edwards Sapien 3 Ultra Transcatheter Aortic Valve System in Patients With Aortic Stenosis and Annulus Diameter in Proximity to Valve Size.

OBJECTIVES: The new Sapien 3 Ultra (S3U) transcatheter heart valve (Edwards Lifesciences) was designed with the intention to improve paravalvular sealing. In patients with an annulus size in proximity to the prosthesis size, little or no oversizing of the transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) prosthesis may lead to paravalvular regurgitation. Thus, this study was designed to assess valve performance in such patients. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled 30 consecutive patients with symptomatic high-grade aortic stenosis scheduled for transfemoral TAVI between October 2019 and May 2020. Comprehensive computed tomography angiography for TAVI planning included standard measurements and quantification of calcification of the aortic valve. All patients had an aortic annular size in proximity to the valve size (maximum <15%) and received an S3U valve. Before discharge, paravalvular leakage was assessed via transthoracic echocardiography with an operator blinded to the TAVI results. In addition, 30-day outcome was assessed. RESULTS: The S3U was implanted in all patients without any procedural complications. One patient received a 20 mm S3U valve, 18 received 23 mm S3U valves, and 11 received 26 mm S3U valves; the annular sizes were 19.7 mm, 22.9 ± 0.2 mm, and 25.8 ± 0.2 mm, respectively. Quantification of calcification of the aortic valve revealed significant calcifications with a median Agatston score of 2571 AU (interquartile range, 1685-3467 AU). Postprocedural transthoracic echocardiography showed an excellent result in all but 2 patients. In the latter, aortic insufficiency grade I was seen. Thirty-day survival was 96.7%. CONCLUSIONS: The new S3U valve shows excellent performance in patients with high-grade aortic stenosis and annular size in proximity to the valve size, even in presence of significant valvular calcification.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement- management of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing aortic valve interventions: surgical compared to catheter-based approaches in hybrid procedures.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with poorer outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR). For high-risk patients with complex CAD, combined transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) plus off-pump/minimally-invasive coronary artery bypass (OPCAB/MIDCAB) has been proposed. METHODS: A prospective registry analysis was performed to compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing TAVR+OP/MIDCAB with those undergoing TAVR plus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and surgical AVR plus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) between 2008 and 2015 at a single site in Germany. RESULTS: 464 patients underwent SAVR+CABG, 50 underwent TAVR+OP/MIDCAB, and 112 underwent TAVR+PCI. The mean ages (p < 0.001) and logistic EuroSCOREs (p < 0.001) were similarly higher in TAVR+OP/MIDCAB and TAVR+PCI patients compared to SAVR+CABG patients. Prior cardiac surgery was more common in TAVR+PCI than in TAVR+OP/MIDCAB and SAVR+CABG patients (p < 0.001). Procedural times were shortest (p < 0.001), creatine kinase (muscle brain) levels least elevated (p < 0.001), pericardial tamponade least common (p = 0.027), and length of hospital stay shortest (p = 0.011) in TAVR+PCI, followed by TAVR+OP/MIDCAB and SAVR+CABG patients. In-hospital mortality was highest for TAVR+OP/MIDCAB patients (18.0%) with comparable rates for TAVR+PCI and SAVR+CABG groups (9.0 and 6.9%; p = 0.009). Mortality by 12 months was more probable after TAVR+OP/MIDCAB (HR: 2.17, p = 0.002) and TAVR/PCI (HR: 1.63, p = 0.010) than after SAVR+CABG, with the same true of rehospitalisation (HR: 2.39, p = 0.003 and HR: 1.63, p = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: TAVR+OP/MIDCAB patients share many characteristics with TAVR+PCI patients, with only slightly poorer long-term outcomes. In patients ineligible for SAVR+CABG and TAVR+PCI, hybrid interventions are reasonable second-line options.

Combined David and Frozen Elephant Trunk Procedure in Acute Aortic Dissection.

BACKGROUND: Valve sparing aortic root repair by reimplantation (David procedure) is an established technique in acute aortic dissection Stanford type A involving the aortic root. In DeBakey type I dissection, aortic arch replacement using the frozen elephant trunk (FET) was introduced to promote aortic remodeling of the downstream aorta. The combination of these two complex procedures represents a challenging surgical strategy and was considered too risky so far. METHODS: All patients with acute aortic dissection DeBakey type I undergoing valve sparing aortic root repair by reimplantation technique of David combined with extended aortic repair using the FET at our center between October 2009 and December 2016 were evaluated. Outcomes are compared with patients who underwent prosthetic aortic root replacement and FET for aortic dissection in the same timeframe. RESULTS: A total of 28 patients received combined David and FET procedure, while 20 patients received prosthetic aortic root replacement and FET procedure. Thirty-day mortality was 10.7% (n = 3) for the David group and 20% (n = 4) for the root replacement group (p = 0.43). Postoperative echocardiographic control revealed an excellent aortic valve function with regurgitation grade 0° or maximum grade I° and a mean gradient of 4.3 ± 2.1 mm Hg in all patients in the David group versus 7.2 ± 2.4 mm Hg in the aortic root replacement group, p = 0.003. Computed tomography angiography scan showed positive aortic remodeling in all but three patients (91.9%). Mid-term follow-up survival was 82.1% in the David group and 68.4% in the root replacement group, p = 0.28. There was no need for reintervention at the root or descending aorta. CONCLUSION: Simultaneous application of the David and FET procedure in patients with acute aortic dissection is safe and feasible in experienced hands as compared with standard aortic root replacement plus FET. The mid-term outcomes are encouraging and noninferior to conventional surgery results.

One-stage hybrid aortic repair using the frozen elephant trunk in acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection.

BACKGROUND: The extent of emergent surgery for acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection is discussed controversial. The frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique in addition to ascending and arch repair promotes aortic remodelling in the descending aorta and thus may provide superior long-term results in terms of less secondary re-interventions and reduced mortality linked to the downstream aorta. METHODS: Between October 2009 and December 2016, a total of 72 patients underwent emergent hybrid aortic repair using the FET for acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection at our centre. Data were analysed from our prospectively collected database and clinical and imaging mid-term follow-up was obtained. RESULTS: Implant success was 98.6% with an overall 30-day-mortality of 15.3%. New postoperative stroke was seen in 2.8%, new spinal cord injury in 4.2%. In follow-up (mean 37.8±21.2 months) cumulative survival was 75.0% with freedom from distal reintervention in 96.7% and aortic remodelling rate in the descending aorta in 96.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid aortic repair using the FET in acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection does not elevate the perioperative risk of mortality and provides excellent aortic remodelling with low distal re-intervention rate in mid-term follow-up.

Concomitant therapy: off-pump coronary revascularization and transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

OBJECTIVES: Significant coronary artery disease (CAD) is common among patients evaluated for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Only little data exist on outcome of patients undergoing concomitant off-pump coronary revascularization and TAVI. The goal of this study was to analyse the impact of concomitant off-pump revascularization on early clinical outcome and 2-year follow-up of patients undergoing TAVI. METHODS: A total of 70 patients with significant CAD and aortic valve stenosis were included between January 2011 and January 2016. Decision to perform concomitant off-pump coronary revascularization and TAVI was made by the interdisciplinary heart team according to the SYNTAX score. Prospectively assigned data were analysed retrospectively and follow-up was performed up to 2 years. RESULTS: Mean age was 82.2 ± 4.0 years and 43 (61.4%) patients were male. Mean logistic European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation and Society of Thoracic Surgeons European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation score were 35.9 ± 21.9% and 12.2 ± 7.9%, respectively. SYNTAX score was 29.0 ± 12.9. Access site for TAVI was transapical in 60.0% and transaortic in 40.0%. Procedural success was 94.3%. Eighty percent of the patients had none or trace paravalvular leakage after TAVI. Severe complications requiring consecutive surgical aortic valve replacement occurred in 2 patients (2.9%). The use of cardiopulmonary bypass due to haemodynamic instability or conversion to surgical aortic valve replacement was necessary in 7 patients (10.0%). Stroke occurred in 1 patient (1.4%). Re-exploration for bleeding was necessary in 6 patients (8.6%). Thirty-day mortality was 14.3%. Two-year survival was 68.4% (95% confidence interval: 55.7-81.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneously performed complete off-pump coronary revascularization is a feasible and valid option in patients with significant CAD undergoing TAVI.

Feasibility and clinical outcome after minimally invasive valve-sparing aortic root replacement.

Objectives: This study aims to examine the feasibility and clinical course after minimally invasive David procedure compared with those via a conventional median sternotomy. Methods: One hundred and ninety-two consecutive patients who underwent elective valve-sparing aortic root replacement (David procedure) with or without additional cusp repair for aortic regurgitation ( n = 17, 8.9%), dilatation of the aortic root ( n = 95, 49.5%) or a combination of both pathologies ( n = 80, 41.7%) were included. Patients with systemic disorders, such as Marfan's syndrome, and emergency cases were excluded. Assessment of quality of life was performed by modified Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) questionnaire. To minimize baseline differences, a matched pair analysis was conducted. Results: One hundred and seventeen patients (60.9%) received a minimally invasive hemisternotomy (Group 1), 75 patients a conventional median sternotomy (39.1%, Group 2). Patients of Group 1 were significantly younger (56.5 ± 13.6 vs 64.8 ± 11.6, P < 0.001). Understandably, concomitant cardiac procedures were more frequent in Group 2 ( n = 7 [6.0%] vs n = 48 [64.0%], P < 0.001). In hospital, mortality was 0.9% in Group 1 (1/117) and 2.7% in Group 2 (2/75; P = 0.562). Blood loss was significantly less in Group 1 (542.6 ± 441.8 vs 996.7 ± 822.6 ml, P < 0.001). Duration of mechanical ventilation (10.2 ± 21.8 vs 26.9 ± 109.0 h, P < 0.001) and ICU-stay (1.9 ± 3.6 vs 3.2 ± 5.6 days, P < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the minimally invasive group, but this differences did not remain after matching. According to SF-36 questionnaire, patients in the minimally invasive group tend to have a higher quality of life. Conclusions: Minimally invasive valve-sparing aortic root replacement can be done safely via an upper partial sternotomy in experienced hands even if additional cusp repair is required.

Conventional versus Transapical Aortic Valve Replacement: Is It Time for Shift in Indications?

Background The incidence of degenerative aortic valve diseases has increased along with the life expectancy of our population. Although conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the gold standard for symptomatic aortic stenosis, transcatheter procedures have proven to be a valid therapeutic option in high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to compare these procedures in a high-risk cohort. Methods We retrospectively analyzed all symptomatic (dyspnea or angina) high-risk patients (logistic EuroSCORE ≥ 15%) fulfilling the transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) indications. Most of the AVR patients (n = 180) were operated on before the implementation of TAVI. All TAVI procedures (n = 127) were performed transapically (TA). After matching for age, logistic EuroSCORE, and left ventricular ejection fraction, 82 pairs of patients were evaluated. Results When comparing AVR with TA-TAVI, there was no difference between groups in survival after 1 year (Kaplan-Meier analysis, 81.1% [95% CI: 72.5-89.7%] vs. 75.8% [95% CI: 66.2-75.9%], Log tank p = 0.660) and the complication rates (n for AVR vs. TA-TAVI: stroke, 2 vs. 0, p = 0.580; acute renal insufficiency, 8 vs. 12, p = 0.340; atrial fibrillation, 24 vs. 26, p = 0.813; pacemaker implantation, 4 vs. 4, p > 0.999). In addition, quality of life did not differ between groups. Patients in the TA-TAVI group had lower mean valvular gradients postoperatively compared with the AVR group (14.6 ± 6.6 vs. 10.2 ± 4.9 mm Hg, p < 0.001). Conclusion For high-risk patients, the TAVI procedure is comparable with conventional AVR, but is not advantageous. These results do not support the expansion of TAVI to low- or intermediate-risk patients.

Transaortic Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation and Concomitant Off Pump Revascularization.

An increasing number of patients with severe aortic stenosis and concomitant critical coronary artery disease were referred to our hospital. Some of those patients were classified as high-risk patients qualifying for a transcatheter therapy with the additional need for coronary revascularization. As a consequence of their comorbidities, the established transapical as well as transfemoral approach were either not possible or not favored owing to the indispensable need for coronary revascularization. We present 4 successfully combined off-pump procedures consisting of a transcatheter aortic valve implantation (Edwards SAPIEN XT) via the transaortic approach and an off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. All patients were discharged free from stroke, myocardial infarction, or access site complications either to rehabilitation facility or to the referring hospital with none or trace aortic regurgitation and patent grafts. These cases confirm the feasibility of those combined operations and should be considered as realistic alternative for surgical treatment in high-risk patients who are clearly identified to benefit from transcatheter approach to treat aortic stenosis and who have severe concomitant coronary artery disease.

Transapical aortic valve implantation in patients with pre-existing mitral valve prostheses: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has proven to be a valid option for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high perioperative risk, particularly in patients with previous cardiac surgery. Several patients with previous mitral valve surgery were reported to have been successfully treated with TAVI. CASE PRESENTATION: Two patients, one with mechanical and one with biological mitral valve prosthesis, presented with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. After discussion among our multidisciplinary heart team transapical approach and a JenaValve™ prosthesis was used for TAVI. Main reasons were to decrease the perioperative risk, avoid a re-opening of the chest via median sternotomy, and discuss the possible superiority of the JenaValve™ device due to its design. The patients were successfully treated and discharged on the 11th and 14th post-operative day, respectively. Echocardiographic follow up before discharge and up to 2.8 years post-operatively showed excellent results. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, TAVI in patients with preexisting mitral prostheses-mechanical or biological-is feasible, safe, and effective and offers a valid alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement in this particular re-operation scenario. The JenaValve™ device does not interact with the mitral prosthesis and offers therefore due to its unique design a potential advantage.

Complex Cusp Repair in Patients Undergoing the David Procedure: Is It Worth It?

BACKGROUND: Valve-sparing aortic root replacement has already proven its excellent long-term results, with low valve-related complications comparable with conventional aortic valve replacement. The aim of this study was to investigate whether additional expanded cusp repair is an alternative with comparable results. METHODS: Data of 192 elective patients undergoing valve-sparing aortic root replacement were prospectively recorded: 58 patients (30.2%) received an isolated aortic root replacement (group I, isolated David), and 134 patients (69.8%) received additional cusp repair (group II, complex David), such as plication of the free margin (n = 77), decalcification (n = 45), or pericardial patch (n = 39). Cumulative follow-up was 480 patient-years, with a mean of 2.5 ± 1.5 years. RESULTS: Mean age was 60 years, and 76.6% were men. In hospital mortality was 3.4% in group I and 0.0% in group II. Freedom from cardiac death at 5 years (by Kaplan-Meier estimation) was 83% vs 98% (p = 0.058). Freedom from moderate or severe aortic insufficiency at 5 years was 100% in group I vs 93% (95% confidence interval, 86% to 97%) in group II (p = 0.110). Seven patients required reoperation for aortic insufficiency or stenosis: repeat repair (n = 3), Ross procedure (n = 2), and biologicical aortic valve replacement (n = 2). Freedom from reoperation at 5 years was 96% (95% confidence interval, 76% to 99%) in group I vs 89% (95% confidence interval, 71% to 96%) in group II (p = 0.305). CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival and freedom from reoperation after valve-sparing aortic root replacement, even with additional complex cusp repair, provides excellent midterm results. Low risk of valve-related complications and absence of anticoagulation therapy are distinctive advantages of this complex procedure.

Minimally Invasive Extracorporeal Bypass in Minimally Invasive Heart Valve Operations: A Prospective Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation (MECC) is predominantly used in coronary operations. Data supporting the benefits of MECC in minimally invasive valve operations are still absent. METHODS: Patients undergoing either isolated minimally invasive mitral or aortic valve procedures were prospectively randomized to a minimally invasive group (MECC; n = 101) or a conventional extracorporeal circulation group (CECC; n = 99). The procedural and postoperative outcomes were compared, including the levels of inflammation factors (procalcitonin, interleukin [IL]-6, IL-8, and IL-10), tumor necrosis factor-α [TNF-α], and interferon-gamma [IFN-γ]). RESULTS: The demographics were comparable between the groups regarding age (MECC versus CECC, 70.5 ± 10.2 years versus 73.1 ± 8.9 years; P = 0.086), left ventricular function (59.2% ± 13.4% versus 62.1% ± 14.0%; p = 0.302), EuroSCORE (7.4% ± 7.9% versus 6.8% ± 4.0%; p = 0.256), and other comorbidities. Hospital mortality (n = 1 versus n = 3; p = 0.339) and other complications were similar. However, hemoglobin level (111.9 ± 19.0 g/L versus 103.8 ± 14.6 g/L; p = 0.001), the number of packed red blood cells (PRBCs) (1.1 ± 1.9 versus 1.7 ± 1.8; p = 0.003), the levels of ILs (IL-6, 194.0 ± 131.8 pg/mL versus 289.2 ± 62.5 pg/mL; p = 0.020; IL-8, 38.1 ± 27.3 pg/mL versus 45.8 ± 43.4 pg/mL; p = 0.012; IL-10, 29.0 ± 123.9 pg/mL versus 49.9 ± 85.6 pg/mL; p = 0.012), TNF-α (3.8 ± 6.7 ng/mL versus 10.8 ± 47.7 ng/mL; p = 0.049), and IFN-γ (1.9 ± 1.9 pg/mL versus 4.5 ± 2.7 pg/mL; p = 0.027) were in favor of patients in the MECC group. Additionally, those patients had shorter postoperative ventilation time (7.7 ± 8.4 hours versus 9.3 ± 12.9 hours; p = 0.010) and intensive care unit (ICU) stay (1.2 ± 1.2 days versus 2.2 ± 3.8 days; p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: The intraprocedural data were excellent and comparable in the groups, but postoperative outcomes were better in the MECC group. Thus MECC is preferable to CECC even for minimally invasive valve procedures. These findings strongly support a combined strategy of minimally invasive valve operations and minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients at Extremely High Risk of Perioperative Mortality.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Transcatheter procedures are considered the therapy of choice for high-risk patients who are not eligible for surgical aortic valve replacement. Although its utility is debated, the logistic EuroSCORE I is still the most frequently used risk calculator for cardiac surgery in Europe, and was used in the present study to identify patients with an extremely high risk of predicted perioperative mortality. METHODS: This single-centre study included 319 consecutive patients who underwent transapical or transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) between September 2008 and December 2012. Combined hybrid procedures and transfemoral TAVI patients were excluded. Those patients predicted to have an excessively high risk of perioperative mortality (EuroSCORE >40%, n = 90) were compared to those with a lower calculated risk (EuroSCORE <40%, n = 229) with respect to perioperative complications, short-term-mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events. RESULTS: The 30-day mortality was 12.2% (n = 11) in the extremely high-risk group, and 6.6% (n = 15) in the lower-risk group (p = 0.08). There were no significant differences in the stroke rate (3.3% versus 0.4%, p = 0.07) or the incidence of acute kidney injury stage 3 (11.1% versus 5.2%, p = 0.32). The establishment of cardiopulmonary bypass (3.9% versus 11.1%, p = 0.02), conversion to sternotomy (1.3% versus 5.6%, p = 0.04), mean ventilation time (15.2 h versus 43.5 h, p = 0.007) and length of intensive care unit stay (2.9 days versus 6.8 days, p <0.001) were all significantly lower in the lower-risk group. CONCLUSION: The data acquired verified that TAVI is a safe procedure, even in patients with an extremely high predicted risk of perioperative mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events. Furthermore, the analysis substantiated the need for individualized risk evaluation.

Transapical aortic valve implantation and minimally invasive off-pump bypass surgery.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has gained increasing popularity for high-risk patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. A concomitant coronary artery disease leads to a complicated management and an increased perioperative risk. This case report describes the successful total arterial coronary revascularization of the left anterior descending and the left marginal branch of the circumflex artery utilizing the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) and left radial artery in off-pump technique in combination with the transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation via minimally invasive anterolateral access in the fifth intercostal space.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: does kidney function affect outcome?

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease is a significant risk factor for mortality as well as acute kidney injury in cardiac surgery. The impact of contrast agent application on outcome is not well described in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. METHODS: We analyzed data of 270 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) between September 2008 and March 2012. Acute kidney injury was defined according to modified risk, injury, failure, loss and end-stage renal failure criteria. Patients on chronic hemodialysis were analyzed separately (n = 15). In 129 (47.8%) patients chronic kidney disease was apparent preoperatively. On average, 83.7 (± 32.4) mL of contrast agent were used per patient. RESULTS: Postoperatively, 41 patients (15.2%) developed acute kidney injury. In 19 patients (7.1%) transient renal replacement therapy was necessary; no chronic hemodialysis was required. Thirty-day-mortality did not differ between patients with or without chronic kidney disease (7.0% vs 7.1%, p = 0.97). Additionally, chronic kidney disease had no influence on the incidence of postoperative acute kidney injury (12.8% vs 20.2%, p = 0.07) or postoperative hemodialysis (5.0% vs 10.5%, p = 0.08). No correlation between the amount of contrast agent applied and the incidence of acute kidney injury could be verified (p = 0.57). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative chronic kidney disease does not increase the risk of mortality and acute kidney injury after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Acute kidney injury after TAVI is associated with an elevated risk of mortality. The amount of contrast agent applied intra-procedurally does not affect the risk of acute kidney injury.