Midterm outcomes of aortic valve replacement using a rapid-deployment valve for aortic stenosis: TRANSFORM trial.

Background: The use of rapid-deployment valves (RDVs) has been shown to reduce the operative time for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Long-term core laboratory-adjudicated data are scarce, however. Here we report final 7-year data on RDV use. Methods: TRANSFORM was a prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter, single-arm trial implanting a stented bovine pericardial valve with an incorporated balloon-expandable sealing frame. A prior published 1-year analysis included 839 patients from 29 centers. An additional 46 patients were enrolled and implanted, for a total of 885 patients. Annual clinical and core laboratory-adjudicated echocardiographic outcomes were collected through 8 years. Primary endpoints were structural valve deterioration (SVD), all-cause reintervention, all-cause valve explantation, and all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included hemodynamic performance assessed by echocardiography. The mean duration of follow-up was 5.0 ± 2.0 years. Results: The mean patient age was 73.3 ± 8.2 years. Isolated AVR was performed in 62.1% of the patients, and AVR with concomitant procedures was performed in 37.9%. Freedom from all-cause mortality at 7 years was 76.0% for isolated AVR and 68.2% for concomitant AVR. Freedom from SVD, all-cause reintervention, and valve explantation at 7 years was 97.5%, 95.7%, and 97.8%, respectively. The mean gradient and effective orifice area at 7 years were 11.1 ± 5.3 mm Hg and 1.6 ± 0.3 cm2, respectively. Paravalvular leak at 7 years was none/trace in 88.6% and mild in 11.4%. In patients undergoing isolated AVR, the cumulative probability of pacemaker implantation was 13.9% at 30 days, 15.5% at 1 year, and 21.8% at 7 years. Conclusions: AVR for aortic stenosis using an RDV is associated with low rates of late adverse events. This surgical pericardial tissue platform provides excellent and stable hemodynamic performance through 7 years.

Influence of surgical volume on outcomes in low-risk patients undergoing isolated surgical aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: Intermediate- and high-risk patients undergoing isolated surgical aortic valve replacement have superior outcomes at higher-volume compared with lower-volume hospitals. This study examines the impact of hospital volume on outcomes in low-risk patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. METHODS: Using data from our 29 North Texas hospital collaborative, we examined 2066 low-risk cases (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality of ≤3%) undergoing aortic valve replacement surgery between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2017. Cases from 3 high-volume hospitals (≥200 aortic valve replacement cases total) and 26 low-volume hospitals (<200 cases total) were examined. RESULTS: Some 53.5% of the cases were at high-volume hospitals. No statistical differences were seen in the Predicted Risk of Mortality or pertinent demographics between the high-volume and low-volume hospitals. Significant differences in outcomes were seen between the 2 groups in operative mortality (2.28% vs 1.19%, P = .007), renal failure (2.14% vs 1.00%, P = .003), and readmission within 30 days (9.72% vs 6.25%, P < .001) when comparing low-volume with high-volume hospitals. In patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, undergoing the procedure in a low-volume hospital was an independent predictor for operative mortality (odds ratio, 1.95; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-3.20; P = .008) and renal failure (odds ratio, 2.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-3.81; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Operative mortality in low-risk patients undergoing aortic valve replacement is higher in low-volume compared with high-volume hospitals. The probability of a major complication, such as renal failure, is also greater in low-volume hospitals. The relationship between volume and outcomes in low-risk patients will require more research to understand the causes and design appropriate interventions.

Five-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: There are scant data on long-term clinical outcomes and bioprosthetic-valve function after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis and intermediate surgical risk. METHODS: We enrolled 2032 intermediate-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at 57 centers. Patients were stratified according to intended transfemoral or transthoracic access (76.3% and 23.7%, respectively) and were randomly assigned to undergo either TAVR or surgical replacement. Clinical, echocardiographic, and health-status outcomes were followed for 5 years. The primary end point was death from any cause or disabling stroke. RESULTS: At 5 years, there was no significant difference in the incidence of death from any cause or disabling stroke between the TAVR group and the surgery group (47.9% and 43.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.25; P = 0.21). Results were similar for the transfemoral-access cohort (44.5% and 42.0%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.20), but the incidence of death or disabling stroke was higher after TAVR than after surgery in the transthoracic-access cohort (59.3% vs. 48.3%; hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.71). At 5 years, more patients in the TAVR group than in the surgery group had at least mild paravalvular aortic regurgitation (33.3% vs. 6.3%). Repeat hospitalizations were more frequent after TAVR than after surgery (33.3% vs. 25.2%), as were aortic-valve reinterventions (3.2% vs. 0.8%). Improvement in health status at 5 years was similar for TAVR and surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with aortic stenosis who were at intermediate surgical risk, there was no significant difference in the incidence of death or disabling stroke at 5 years after TAVR as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01314313.).

Atrial Fibrillation is Associated with Increased Pacemaker Implantation Rates in the Placement of AoRTic Transcatheter Valve (PARTNER) Trial.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with worse outcomes in many cardiovascular diseases. There are few data examining pacemaker implantation rates and indications in patients with AF who undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). To examine the impact of AF on the incidence of and indications for pacemakers in patients undergoing TAVR, we evaluated data of 1723 patients without pre-existing pacemakers who underwent TAVR in the Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve (PARTNER) trial. Permanent pacemaker implantation rates and indications were compared in groups based on baseline and discharge heart rhythm: sinus rhythm (SR) vs. AF. 1211 patients manifested SR at baseline/SR at discharge (SR/SR), 105 SR baseline/AF discharge (SR/AF), and 407 AF baseline/AF discharge (AF/AF). Patients who developed and were discharged with AF (SR/AF) had the highest rates of pacemaker implantation at 30 days (13.7% SR/AF vs. 5.4% SR/SR, p=0.0008 and 5.9% AF/AF, p=0.008) and 1 year (17.7% SR/AF vs. 7.1% SR/SR, p=0.0002 and 8.1% AF/AF, p=0.0034). Conversion from SR to AF by discharge was an independent predictor of increased pacemaker implantation at 30 days (HR 2.19 vs. SR/SR, 95% CI 1.23-3.93, p=0.008) and 1 year (HR 1.91 vs. SR/SR, 95% CI 1.33-3.80). Pacemaker indications differed between groups, with relatively more implanted in the AF groups for sick sinus syndrome (SSS) versus AV block. In conclusion, conversion to AF is an independent predictor of permanent pacemaker implantation in TAVR patients. Indications differ depending on heart rhythm, with patients in AF manifesting clinically significant tachy-brady syndrome versus AV block.

Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials have shown that among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, survival rates are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic-valve replacement. We evaluated the two procedures in a randomized trial involving intermediate-risk patients. METHODS: We randomly assigned 2032 intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, at 57 centers, to undergo either TAVR or surgical replacement. The primary end point was death from any cause or disabling stroke at 2 years. The primary hypothesis was that TAVR would not be inferior to surgical replacement. Before randomization, patients were entered into one of two cohorts on the basis of clinical and imaging findings; 76.3% of the patients were included in the transfemoral-access cohort and 23.7% in the transthoracic-access cohort. RESULTS: The rate of death from any cause or disabling stroke was similar in the TAVR group and the surgery group (P=0.001 for noninferiority). At 2 years, the Kaplan-Meier event rates were 19.3% in the TAVR group and 21.1% in the surgery group (hazard ratio in the TAVR group, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.09; P=0.25). In the transfemoral-access cohort, TAVR resulted in a lower rate of death or disabling stroke than surgery (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.00; P=0.05), whereas in the transthoracic-access cohort, outcomes were similar in the two groups. TAVR resulted in larger aortic-valve areas than did surgery and also resulted in lower rates of acute kidney injury, severe bleeding, and new-onset atrial fibrillation; surgery resulted in fewer major vascular complications and less paravalvular aortic regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: In intermediate-risk patients, TAVR was similar to surgical aortic-valve replacement with respect to the primary end point of death or disabling stroke. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01314313.).

Atrial Fibrillation Is Associated With Increased Mortality in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve (PARTNER) Trial.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to evaluate the impact of atrial fibrillation (AF) on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were evaluated in 1879 patients with baseline and discharge ECGs who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve (PARTNER) trial. A total of 1262 patients manifested sinus rhythm (SR) at baseline/SR at discharge, 113 SR baseline/AF discharge, and 470 AF baseline/AF discharge. Patients who converted from SR to AF by discharge had the highest rates of all-cause mortality at 30 days (P<0.0001 across all groups; 14.2% SR/AF versus 2.6% SR/SR; adjusted hazard ratio [HR]=3.41; P=0.0002) and over 2-fold difference at 1 year (P<0.0001 across all groups; 35.7% SR/AF versus 15.8% SR/SR; adjusted HR=2.14; P<0.0001). The presence of AF on baseline or discharge ECG was a predictor of 1-year mortality (adjusted HR=2.14 for SR/AF group and HR=1.88 for AF/AF groups; P<0.0001 for both groups versus SR/SR). For patients discharged in AF, those with lower ventricular response (ie, <90 bpm) experienced less 1-year all-cause mortality (HR=0.74; P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: After transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the presence of AF at discharge, and particularly, the conversion to AF by discharge and higher ventricular response are associated with increased mortality. These data underscore the deleterious impact of AF, as well as the need for targeted interventions to improve clinical outcomes, in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00530894.

Contemporary real-world outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in 141,905 low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement mandates attention to outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-risk, intermediate-risk, and very high-risk patients. METHODS: The study population included 141,905 patients who underwent isolated primary SAVR from 2002 to 2010. Patients were risk-stratified by Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) predicted risk of mortality (PROM) <4% (group 1, n = 113,377), 4% to 8% (group 2, n = 19,769), and >8% (group 3, n = 8,759). The majority of patients were considered at low risk (80%), and only 6.2% were categorized as being at high risk. Outcomes were analyzed based on two time periods: 2002 to 2006 (n = 63,754) and 2007 to 2010 (n = 78,151). RESULTS: The mean age was 65 years in group 1, 77 in group 2, and 77 in group 3 (p < 0.0001). The median STS PROM for the entire population was 1.84: 1.46% in group 1, 5.24% in group 2, and 11.2% in group 3 (p < 0.0001). Compared with PROM, in-hospital mean mortality was lower than expected in all patients (2.5% vs 2.95%) and when analyzed within risk groups was as follows: group 1 (1.4% vs 1.7%), group 2 (5.1% vs 5.5%), and group 3 (11.8% vs 13.7%) (p < 0.0001). In the most recent surgical era, operative mortality was significantly reduced in group 2 (5.4% vs 6.4%, p = 0.002) and group 3 (11.9% vs 14.4%, p = 0.0004) but not in group 1. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 80% of patients undergoing SAVR have outcomes that are superior to those by the predicted risk models. In the most recent era, early results have further improved in medium-risk and high-risk patients. This large real-world assessment serves as a benchmark for patients with aortic valve stenosis as therapeutic options are further evaluated.

Cardiopulmonary bypass and intra-aortic balloon pump use is associated with higher short and long term mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a PARTNER trial substudy.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the balloon-expandable Sapien transcatheter heart valve improves survival compared to standard therapy in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and is noninferior to surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients at high operative risk. Nonetheless, a significant proportion of patients may require pre-emptive or emergent support with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and/or intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) during TAVR due to pre-existing comorbid conditions or as a result of procedural complications. OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that patients who required CPB or IABP would have increased periprocedural complications and reduced long-term survival. In addition, we sought to determine whether preprocedural variables could predict the need for CPB and IABP. METHODS: The study population included 2,525 patients in the PARTNER Trial (Cohort A and B) and the continuing access registry (CAR). Patients that received CPB or IABP were compared to patients that did not receive either, and then further divided into those that received support pre-TAVR and those that were placed on support emergently. RESULTS: One-hundred sixty-three patients (6.5%) were placed on CPB and/or IABP. The use of CPB or IABP was associated with higher 1 year mortality (49.1% vs. 21.6%, P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, utilization of CPB or IABP was an independent predictor of 30 day (HR 6.95) and 1-year (HR 2.56) mortality. Although mortality was highest in emergent cases, mortality was also greater in planned CPB and IABP cases compared with non-CPB/IABP cases (53.3% and 40.3% vs. 21.6%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that CPB and IABP use in TAVR portends a poor prognosis and its utilization, particularly in the setting of pre-emptive use, needs reconsideration.

Preoperative ß-blocker use in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: national database analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Use of preoperative ß-blockers has been associated with a reduction in perioperative mortality for patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery in observational research studies, which led to the adoption of preoperative ß-blocker therapy as a national quality standard. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether preoperative ß-blocker use within 24 hours of CABG surgery is associated with reduced perioperative mortality in a contemporary sample of patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Adult Cardiac database for 1107 hospitals performing cardiac surgery in the United States from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2012. Participants included 506,110 patients 18 years and older undergoing nonemergent CABG surgery who had not experienced a myocardial infarction in the prior 21 days or any other high-risk presenting symptom. We used logistic regression and propensity matching with a greedy 5-to-1 digit-matching algorithm to examine the association between ß-blocker use and the main outcomes of interest. EXPOSURES: Preoperative ß-blocker use. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Incidence of perioperative mortality, permanent stroke, prolonged ventilation, any reoperation, renal failure, deep sternal wound infection, and atrial fibrillation. RESULTS: Among the 506,110 patients undergoing CABG surgery who met the inclusion criteria, 86.24% received preoperative ß-blockers within 24 hours of surgery. In propensity-matched analyses that included 138,542 patients, we found no significant difference between patients who did and did not receive preoperative ß-blockers in rates of operative mortality (1.12% vs 1.17%; odds ratio [OR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.87-1.06]; P = .38), permanent stroke (0.97% vs 0.98%; OR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.89-1.10]; P = .81), prolonged ventilation (7.01% vs 6.86%; OR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.98-1.07]; P = .26), any reoperation (3.60% vs 3.69%; OR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.92-1.03]; P = .35), renal failure (2.33% vs 2.24%; OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.97-1.11]; P = .30), and deep sternal wound infection (0.29% vs 0.34%; OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.71-1.04]; P = .12). However, patients who received preoperative ß-blockers within 24 hours of surgery had higher rates of new-onset atrial fibrillation when compared with patients who did not (21.50% vs 20.10%; OR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.06-1.12]; P < .001). Results of logistic regression analyses were broadly consistent. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Preoperative ß-blocker use among patients undergoing nonemergent CABG surgery who have not had a recent myocardial infarction was not associated with improved perioperative outcomes.

The relative performance characteristics of the logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves trial.

OBJECTIVES: The logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (LES) score and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score are validated to predict 30-day outcomes following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with or without coronary artery bypass grafting. Their performance when applied to patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is controversial. METHODS: We compared predicted and observed 30-day/in-hospital and 1-year mortality of patients undergoing TAVR in the first Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves trial and continued access registry (N = 2466). The performance of the LES and STS scores (prospectively calculated) was evaluated using standard assessments of discrimination and calibration. Performance of STS and LES scores among 307 patients undergoing SAVR from the high-risk cohort of the randomized trial were also examined. RESULTS: In patients undergoing TAVR, the observed 30-day/in-hospital mortality was 6.5%, whereas the predicted 30-day mortality was higher by both STS score (11.4% ± 3.9%) and LES score (26.6% ± 16.2%). The discrimination for both scores was poor for 30-day/in-hospital and 1-year mortality. Calibration was better for STS score than for LES at 1 year but poor for both at 30 days among TAVR cohort. These results were consistent among the subgroups of patients undergoing transfemoral and transapical access; however, the STS score had better performance among the high-risk patients who underwent SAVR at 30 days but not 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: The STS and LES surgical risk scores overestimated 30-day/in-hospital mortality and were poor discriminators of post-TAVR mortality, but the calibration of the STS score was better in these high-risk patients. These data highlight the need for TAVR-specific risk models to optimize patient selection.

Mesenchymal precursor cells as adjunctive therapy in recipients of contemporary left ventricular assist devices.

BACKGROUND: Allogeneic mesenchymal precursor cells (MPCs) injected during left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation may contribute to myocardial recovery. This trial explores the safety and efficacy of this strategy. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this multicenter, double-blind, sham-procedure controlled trial, 30 patients were randomized (2:1) to intramyocardial injection of 25 million MPCs or medium during LVAD implantation. The primary safety end point was incidence of infectious myocarditis, myocardial rupture, neoplasm, hypersensitivity reaction, and immune sensitization (90 days after randomization). Key efficacy end points were functional status and ventricular function while temporarily weaned from LVAD support (90 days after randomization). Patients were followed up until transplant or 12 months after randomization, whichever came first. Mean age was 57.4 (±13.6) years, mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 18.1%, and 66.7% were destination therapy LVADs. No safety events were observed. Successful temporary LVAD weaning was achieved in 50% of MPC and 20% of control patients at 90 days (P=0.24); the posterior probability that MPCs increased the likelihood of successful weaning was 93%. At 90 days, 3 deaths (30%) occurred in control patients, and none occurred in MPC patients. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction after successful wean was 24.0% (MPC=10) and 22.5% (control=2; P=0.56). At 12 months, 30% of MPC patients and 40% of control patients were successfully temporarily weaned from LVAD support (P=0.69), and 6 deaths (30%) occurred in MPC patients. Donor-specific HLA sensitization developed in 2 MPC and 3 control patients and resolved by 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary trial, administration of MPCs appeared to be safe, and there was a potential signal of efficacy. Future studies will evaluate the potential for higher or additional doses to enhance the ability to wean LVAD recipients off support. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01442129.

Randomized trial of surgical cutdown versus percutaneous access in transfemoral TAVR.

OBJECTIVES: To compare iliofemoral arterial complications with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) utilizing surgical cutdown versus percutaneous access with closure devices in a randomized trial. BACKGROUND: Major vascular complications following TAVR are a significant risk of the procedure. There are no randomized data comparing whether access method in TF-TAVR influences the risk of such complications. METHODS: From June to December 2011, 30 consecutive patients undergoing TF-TAVR were randomized to either surgical cutdown (C) or percutaneous (P) access. Subjects underwent preoperative CT scans, pre- and post-operative bilateral femoral arterial ultrasound and angiography. The primary endpoint was the composite of major and minor vascular complications at 30 days, as defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2. Multivariate predictors of vascular complications were identified. RESULTS: Of the 30 subjects enrolled, 27 were treated with the randomized method of access as randomized. Iliofemoral complications were observed in eight patients (26.7%; C = 4, P = 4), all of which were dissections and/or stenoses that required percutaneous and/or surgical intervention. There were two (13.3%) major and two (13.3%) minor complications in each group. Two covariates that were significantly associated with vascular complications included female sex and baseline femoral arterial velocity on ultrasound. CONCLUSIONS: While surgical cutdown in TF-TAVR is the recommended access for new centers initiating a TAVR program, this small randomized pilot study suggests the lesser invasive percutaneous method in an experienced center is equivalent in safety to the surgical method. Doppler ultrasound may be useful in predicting complications prior to the procedure.

Clinical implications of new-onset left bundle branch block after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: analysis of the PARTNER experience.

AIMS: Cardiac conduction disturbances, including a left bundle branch block (LBBB), occur frequently following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and may be associated with adverse clinical events. This analysis examines the incidence and implications of new onset, persistent LBBB in patients undergoing TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients undergoing TAVR in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial and continued access registries with baseline and discharge/7-day electrocardiograms were included. Prior permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) and baseline intraventricular conduction abnormalities were exclusion criteria. Predictors of new LBBB were identified and outcomes compared between patients with and without new LBBB. New LBBB occurred in 121 of 1151 (10.5%) patients and persisted in more than half at 6 months to 1 year. The only predictor of new LBBB was prior coronary artery bypass grafting. New LBBB was not associated with significant differences in 1-year mortality, cardiovascular mortality, repeat hospitalization, stroke, or myocardial infarction. However, it was associated with increased PPI during hospitalization (8.3 vs 2.8%, P = 0.005) and from discharge to 1 year (4.7 vs. 1.5%, P = 0.01). The ejection fraction failed to improve after TAVR in patients with new LBBB and remained lower at 6 months to 1 year (52.8 vs. 58.1%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Persistent, new-onset LBBB occurred in 10.5% of patients without intraventricular baseline conduction who underwent TAVR in the PARTNER experience. New LBBB was not associated with death, repeat hospitalization, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 1 year, but was associated with a higher rate of PPI and failure of left ventricular ejection fraction to improve.

Transapical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis: results from the nonrandomized continued access cohort of the PARTNER trial.

BACKGROUND: Transapical (TA) aortic valve replacement was an integral part of the Placement of Transcatheter Aortic Valves (PARTNER) trial. Enrollment during the randomized trial included 104 transapical (premarket approval TA [PMA-TA]) and 92 surgical aortic valve replacements (SAVR) within the TA cohort. On completion of the trial, enrollment continued in a nonrandomized continued access (NRCA) program. We compared the outcomes of NRCA-TA procedures with those of PMA-TA and SAVR. METHODS: In 22 centers, 975 patients underwent TA aortic valve replacement as part of the NRCA registry. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were unchanged from the previously reported PARTNER trial. All patients were followed up for at least 1 year. RESULTS: Thirty-day or in-hospital mortality was 8.8% for the NRCA-TA cohort, compared with 10.6% and 12.0% for the PMA-TA and SAVR patients, respectively (p = 0.54). One-year mortality in the NRCA-TA cohort was 22.1%, not significantly lower than the mortality in PMA-TA and SAVR patients at 29.0% and 25.3%, respectively (p = 0.27). Thirty-day or in-hospital stroke was 2.2% among NRCA-TA patients in contrast to the 6.7% stroke rate observed in the PMA-TA group and 5.4% in SAVR patients (p = 0.008). Lower rates of neurologic adverse events in the NRCA-TA group persisted at 1 year compared with the PMA-TA and SAVR patients. CONCLUSIONS: Among the 975 patients in the NRCA-TA cohort, rates of major outcomes including death and stroke compared favorably with outcomes of PMA-TA and SAVR patients enrolled in the PARTNER trial. This trend toward improved outcomes may be attributed to improved patient selection, individual centers surmounting the procedural learning curve, and refinements in surgical technique.

Pulmonary function tests overestimate chronic pulmonary disease in patients with severe aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary dysfunction is an important risk factor for postoperative complications after cardiac surgery, and severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is considered a relative contraindication to aortic valve replacement. Pulmonary function tests may mistakenly diagnose patients as having COPD, when in fact they have pulmonary dysfunction due to heart failure that potentially will improve with valve replacement. METHODS: Between January 2009 and July 2011, 214 consecutive patients underwent pulmonary function testing as part of their preoperative screening. Based on the testing, 143 patients were identified as having COPD (52 mild, 42 moderate, and 49 severe), according to The Society of Thoracic Surgery definition. A total of 71 patients had follow-up tests performed at 6 to 12 months postprocedure. RESULTS: A recent smoking history was present in 55 of 214 (25.7%) patients. Aortic valve replacement was performed in 13.6% (29 of 214) of patients by a conventional surgical approach, in 39.3% (84 of 214) by a transfemoral approach, and in 47.2% (101 of 214) by a transapical approach. Mortality was not significantly different in patients with COPD (12 of 71, 16.9%) compared with patients without COPD (37 of 143, 25.9%), p = 0.141. Logistic regression analyses failed to identify preoperative COPD severity category (p = 0.332) as a predictor for mortality. Comparison of pre- and postprocedure tests revealed that 42% (30 of 71) of patients with COPD showed improvement of one COPD severity category or more, including 40% (12 of 30) of patients in the mild group, 43% (9 of 21) of patients in the moderate group, and 45% (9 of 20) of patients in the severe category. CONCLUSIONS: Abnormal pulmonary function improves in a significant number of patients with severe aortic stenosis after valve replacement.

Long-term fate of patients discharged to extended care facilities after cardiovascular surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons predictive algorithms can be used to help patients understand the risks in having a surgical procedure. However, elderly patients are frequently more concerned about the quality of their remaining life and whether they will return home. Currently, we have no predictors of which patients are likely to return to independent living after surgery. We followed patients discharged home or to an extended care facility to determine which patients were most likely to return home and be alive at one year. METHODS: This single-hospital, retrospective study followed 590 cardiac surgery patients (January 2008 to December 2009) for at least 1 year after discharge. Follow-up data were collected by contacting facilities, patients, and families, and Social Security Death Index searches. RESULTS: At hospital discharge, 84.4% went home, 3.7% to rehab, 7.5% to skilled nursing facilities (SNF), and 4.4% to a long-term acute care facility (LTAC). Predictors for facility discharge include increasing age, female, dialysis, emergent status, procedures other than CAB, preoperative stroke, and moderate to severe tricuspid insufficiency. The most significant predictors of dying or still being in a facility at 1 year include being on dialysis, right heart failure, and having chronic lung disease. Considering perioperative complications, requiring prolonged ventilation decreases the odds of being home and alive at 1 year by 67%: one-year survival at home, 95.4%; rehabilitation, 63.6%; SNF, 52.3%; and LTAC, 30.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients discharged to extended care do not return to their previous lifestyle; only 30.8% of those requiring care in a LTAC facility are alive at home at 1 year.

Aortic valve and ascending aorta guidelines for management and quality measures: executive summary.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines are intended to assist physicians and other health care providers in clinical decision making by describing a range of generally acceptable approaches for the diagnosis, management, or prevention of specific diseases or conditions. These guidelines should not be considered inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed at obtaining the same results. Moreover, these guidelines are subject to change over time, without notice. The ultimate judgment regarding the care of a particular patient must be made by the physician in light of the individual circumstances presented by the patient.