Prosthesis-patient mismatch in transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) occurs when the effective orifice area (EOA) of a normally functioning prosthetic valve is too small in relation to the patient's body size. The effect of PPM on outcomes and valve durability have gained credibility, making this an important possibly preventable risk factor. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) generally has a lower incidence of PPM than surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Current surgical literature and randomized trials show an association between severe PPM and mortality in patients with SAVR but there is less evidence for an association with TAVR. Differences in the incidence of PPM may be related to the methods and cutoffs for measuring mismatch. This review will discuss the current state of field and propose standardization of measurement methods which may more accurately risk stratify patients.

What did the transcatheter aortic valve replacement-surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR-SAVR) trials tell us?

Two families of randomized trials comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to surgery for both the Balloon Expandable Valve and the Supra Annular Self-Expanding Valve have been completed to include all surgical risk levels. The result of these trials has led to the approval of TAVR for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis without using risk level as the sole criterion. We have seen an explosion of TAVR in the US to over 98,000 commercial cases in 2022. We have also seen a rapid increase in the use of TAVR in patients less than 65 years of age. With these increases, it is important to ask if they are being driven largely by the data or just the desire for TAVR by both patients and their physicians. Heart team input is a class I indication when deciding between TAVR and surgery. For surgical members of the heart team to appropriately counsel patients, a full understanding of what the TAVR surgery trials tell us as well as what they do not is essential. In this article we will explore those questions.

Implanted size and structural valve deterioration in the Edwards Magna bioprosthesis.

Background: The desire of patients to avoid anticoagulation, together with the potential of valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), have resulted in the increasing use of bioprosthetic valves for aortic valve replacement (AVR). While patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) is known to be an adverse risk after AVR, few studies have addressed the effect of PPM on valve durability. This study evaluates the role of valve size and hemodynamics on long term durability after AVR with a Magna bioprosthesis. Methods: We performed a retrospective, single-center evaluation of patients who underwent a surgical AVR procedure between June 2004 through December 2022 using the Magna bioprosthesis. Perioperative information and long-term follow-up data were sourced from the institution's Society for Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Registry and outcomes database. Cumulative incidence of freedom from reintervention were estimated accounting for competing events. Group comparisons used Gray's test. Results: Among 2,100 patients, the mean patient age was 69 years (range, 22-95 years), of whom 98% had native aortic valve disease, 32.5% had concomitant coronary bypass grafting, and 19% had mitral valve surgery. Median follow-up was 5.8 (1.9-9.4) years, during which 116 reinterventions were performed, including 74 explants and 42 VIV procedures. Nine hundred and twenty-eight patients died prior to reintervention. Incidence of all cause reintervention was 1.2%, 4.5%, and 11.7% at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively. Smaller valve size was associated with worse survival (P<0.001), but not with reintervention. Higher mean gradient at implant was associated with increased late reintervention [sub-distribution hazard ratio: 1.016; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.005 to 1.028; P=0.0047, n=1,661]. Conclusions: While reintervention rates are low for the Magna prosthesis at 15 years, the analysis is confounded by the competing risk of death. PPM, as reflected physiologically by elevated post-operative valve gradients, portends an increased risk of intervention. Further study is necessary to elucidate the mechanism of early stenosis in patients who progress to reintervention.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients at Four or More Years.

INTRODUCTION: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is accepted as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis (AS). Prior studies have shown TAVR has comparable or superior outcomes to SAVR in intermediate and high-risk patients. However, there is paucity of data about outcome of TAVR versus SAVR in low surgical risk patients evaluated at 4 or more years post-procedure. METHODS: A systematic review of all published randomized controlled trials comparing TAVR and SAVR in patients at low-risk patients was completed. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed to study major outcomes including all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and aortic valve re-intervention. RESULTS: 3 randomized trials comprising 2,644 patients (1,371 TAVR and 1,273 SAVR) with mean age of 74.3 ± 5.8 were included in this analysis. There was no significant difference in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and aortic valve reintervention between TAVR and SAVR groups at long-term follow up. TAVR was associated with higher rate of pacemaker implantation, while SAVR was associated with more atrial fibrillation. CONCLUSIONS: At 4 or more years of follow-up, TAVR is safe and has comparable outcomes to SAVR in patients with low surgical risk. Possibility of TAVR and its risks and benefits should be discussed with patients with low surgical risk.

Dementia Development during Long-Term Follow-Up after Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement with a Biological Prosthesis in a Geriatric Population.

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with a biological heart valve prosthesis (BHV) is often used as a treatment in elderly patients with symptomatic aortic valve disease. This age group is also at risk for the development of dementia in the years following SAVR. The research question is "what are the predictors for the development of dementia?". In 1500 patients undergoing SAVR with or without an associated procedure, preoperative (demographic, cardiac and non-cardiac comorbid conditions), perioperative (associated procedures, cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass time) and postoperative 30-day adverse events (bleeding, thromboembolism, heart failure, conduction defects, arrhythmias, delirium, renal and pulmonary complications) were investigated for their effect on the occurrence of dementia by univariate analyses. Significant factors were entered in a multivariate analysis. The sum of the individual follow-up of the patients was 10,182 patient-years, with a mean follow-up of 6.8 years. Data for the development of dementia could be obtained in 1233 of the 1406 patients who left the hospital alive. Dementia during long-term follow-up developed in 216/1233 (17.2%) of the patients at 70 ± 37 months. Development of dementia reduced the mean survival from 123 (119-128) to 109 (102-116) months (p < 0.001). Postoperative delirium was the dominant predictor (OR = 3.55 with a 95%CI of 2.41-4.93; p < 0.00), followed by age > 80 years (2.38; 1.78-3.18; p < 0.001); preoperative atrial fibrillation (1.47; 1.07-2.01; p = 0.018); cardiopulmonary bypass time > 120 min (1.34; 1.02-1.78; p = 0.039) and postoperative thromboembolism (1.94; 1.02-3.70; p = 0.044). Postoperative delirium, as a marker for poor condition, and an age of 80 or more were the dominant predictors.

Clinical Profiles and Outcomes of Prosthesis-Specific Infective Endocarditis Subsequent to Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) is a rare but serious complication following aortic valve replacement using either a transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). This study aims to review the profiles and outcomes of PVE after surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Electronic searches were performed on Scopus, EMBASE, and PubMed to retrieve related articles. To be included, study designs had to be randomized controlled trials (RCT) or observational cohort studies (in English) with PVE patients that compared differences based on TAVI or SAVR. This review included data for 13,221 patients with PVE diagnoses. Of those, 2,109 patients had an initial SAVR, and 11,112 patients had an initial TAVI. There was no difference in the incidence of PVE in patients who had initial TAVI versus SAVR (1.05% versus 1.01% per person-year, p=0.98). However, the onset of early PVE was more frequently observed in the TAVI group (risk ratio (RR): 1.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.14, 2.08], p=0.005). Patients in the TAVI group had a lower indication for surgery to treat PVE when compared to SAVR (RR: 0.55, 95%CI [0.44, 0.69], p<0.001). Staphylococcus aureus was more likely to be the source of PVE in patients who had previous TAVI (RR: 1.34, 95%CI [1.17, 1.54], p<0.001). Also, Enterococcus faecalis was more frequently observed as a cause of PVE in the TAVI group (RR: 1.49, 95%CI [1.21, 1.82], p<0.001). Patients who underwent SAVR and TAVI had similar incidences of PVE. However, patients who underwent SAVR had a greater indication for surgery to treat PVE, while those who underwent TAVI had higher comorbidities, a higher likelihood of early PVE, and a trend towards higher one-year mortality.

Rates and Predictors of Structural Valve Degeneration and Failure of Trifecta Bioprosthetic Valve Over a 5-year Follow-up Period: A Single-center Experience.

Introduction: The Trifecta bioprosthetic valve has been commonly used for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Multiple studies have been done to define the rate of structural valve degeneration (SVD) and failure (SVF), but the outcomes are still debatable. Therefore, we aim to conduct this single-center study to estimate the rate and predictors of SVD/SVF. Methodology: This retrospective observational cohort single-center study was conducted between 2014 and 2019 among Trifecta SAVR patients. Data were patient's characteristics collected from electronic medical records at baseline and follow-up (3-5 years). Statistical analysis was performed with a significance level of P ≤ 0.05. Results: A total of 271 eligible patients were identified. Most of our sample were males (57.9%), with a mean age of 71.1 ± 10.6 years. The mean baseline preoperative ejection fraction (EF) was 53.0%, with no change (P = 0.88) in the immediate postoperative EF (53.6%). A most recent follow-up EF revealed a significant increase of EF (55.2%), P = 0.01. Furthermore, there was a significant increase from peak velocity to PVMRE (mean difference [MD] ± standard error of mean (SEM) [0.15 ± 0.04], P < 0.01), an increase in pressure gradient (PGIPE) to PGMRE (MD ± SEM [1.70 ± 0.49], P < 0.01), and a decrease in Doppler velocity index (DVIIPE) to DVIMRE (MD ± SEM [-0.037 ± 0.01], P = 0.01). Regarding the SVF rate, 13 (4.8%) patients had failed valves requiring replacement throughout the study period. Conclusions: Over a 5-year follow-up period, 4.8% had SVF with an SVD of 23.2%, with the majority of SVD not being clinically significant except in six patients. These results corroborate with a previously published study suggesting a bad clinical outcome of Trifecta valve placement.

Transcatheter heart valve explant with infective endocarditis-associated prosthesis failure and outcomes: the EXPLANT-TAVR international registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Surgical explantation of transcatheter heart valves (THVs) is rapidly increasing, but there are limited data on patients with THV-associated infective endocarditis (IE). This study aims to assess the outcomes of patients undergoing THV explant for IE. METHODS: All patients who underwent THV explant between 2011 and 2022 from 44 sites in the EXPLANT-TAVR registry were identified. Patients with IE as the reason for THV explant were compared to those with other mechanisms of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD). RESULTS: A total of 372 patients from the EXPLANT-TAVR registry were included. Among them, 184 (49.5%) patients underwent THV explant due to IE and 188 (50.5%) patients due to BVD. At the index transcatheter aortic valve replacement, patients undergoing THV explant for IE were older (74.3 ± 8.6 vs. 71 ± 10.6 years) and had a lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score [2.6% (1.8-5.0) vs. 3.3% (2.1-5.6), P = .029] compared to patients with BVD. Compared to BVD, IE patients had longer intensive care unit and hospital stays (P < .05) and higher stroke rates at 30 days (8.6% vs. 2.9%, P = .032) and 1 year (16.2% vs. 5.2%, P = .010). Adjusted in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year mortality was 12.1%, 16.1%, and 33.8%, respectively, for the entire cohort, with no significant differences between groups. Although mortality was numerically higher in IE patients 3 years postsurgery (29.6% for BVD vs. 43.9% for IE), Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant differences between groups (P = .16). CONCLUSIONS: In the EXPLANT-TAVR registry, patients undergoing THV explant for IE had higher 30-day and 1-year stroke rates and longer intensive care unit and hospital stays. Moreover, patients undergoing THV explant for IE had a higher 3-year mortality rate, which did not reach statistical significance given the relatively small sample size of this unique cohort and the reduced number of events.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low-risk young population: A double edge sword?

Since the advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in 2002, it has now become the default interventional strategy for symptomatic patients presenting with severe aortic stenosis, particularly in intermediate to high-surgical risk patients. In 2019, the United States Food and Drug Administration approved TAVR in low-risk patients based on two randomized trials. However, these breakthrough trials excluded patients with certain unfavorable anatomies and odd profiles. While currently there is no randomized study of TAVR in young patients, it may be preferred by the young population given the benefits of early discharge, shorter hospital stay, and expedite recovery. Nonetheless, it is important to ruminate various factors including lifetime expectancy, risk of pacemaker implantation, and the need for future valve or coronary interventions in young cohorts before considering TAVR in these patients. Furthermore, the data on long-term durability (> 10 years) of TAVR is still unknown given most of the procedures were initially performed in the high or prohibitive surgical risk population. Thus, this editorial aims to highlight the importance of considering an individualized approach in young patients with consideration of various factors including lifetime expectancy while choosing TAVR against surgical aortic valve replacement.

Concomitant Mitral Regurgitation in Severe Aortic Stenosis　- Insights From the CURRENT AS Registry-2.

BACKGROUND: Data on concomitant mitral regurgitation (MR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) are scarce.Methods and Results: We investigated the risk of concomitant MR in patients with severe AS in the CURRENT AS Registry-2 according to initial treatment strategy (transcatheter aortic valve implantation [TAVI], surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR], or conservative). Among 3,365 patients with severe AS, 384 (11.4%) had moderate/severe MR (TAVI: n=126/1,148; SAVR: n=68/591; conservative: n=190/1,626). The cumulative 3-year incidence for death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization was significantly higher in the moderate/severe than no/mild MR group in the entire population (54.6% vs. 34.3%, respectively; P<0.001) and for each treatment strategy (TAVI: 45.0% vs. 31.8% [P=0.006]; SAVR: 31.9% vs. 18.7% [P<0.001]; conservative: 67.8% vs. 41.6% [P<0.001]). The higher adjusted risk of moderate/severe MR relative to no/mild MR for death or HF hospitalization was not significant in the entire population (hazard ratio [HR] 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-1.39; P=0.15); however, the risk was significant in the SAVR (HR 1.92; 95% CI 1.04-3.56; P=0.04) and conservative (HR 1.30; 95% CI 1.02-1.67; P=0.04) groups, but not in the TAVI group (HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.70-1.52; P=0.86), despite no significant interaction (Pinteraction=0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate/severe MR was associated with a higher risk for death or HF hospitalization in the initial SAVR and conservative strategies, while the association was less pronounced in the initial TAVI strategy.

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Aortic stenosis is a common and significant valve condition requiring bioprosthetic heart valves with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) being strongly recommended for high-risk patients or patients over 75 years. This meta-analysis aimed to pool existing data on postprocedural clinical as well as echocardiographic outcomes comparing valve-in-valve (ViV)-TAVR to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement to assess the short-term and medium-term outcomes for both treatment methods. A systematic literature search on Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Medline (PubMed interface) electronic databases from inception to August 2023. We used odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. Twenty-four studies (25,216 patients) were pooled with a mean follow-up of 16.4 months. The analysis revealed that ViV-TAVR group showed a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (OR 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43 to 0.58, p <0.00001), new-onset atrial fibrillation (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.67, p = 0.002), major bleeding event (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.45, p <0.00001) and lower rate of device success (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.53, p = 0.0003). There were no significant differences between either group when assessing 1-year mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, postoperative left ventricular ejection fraction, and effective orifice area. ViV-TAVR cohort showed a significantly increased incidence of paravalvular leaks, aortic regurgitation, and increased mean aortic valve gradient. ViV-TAVR is a viable short-term option for elderly patients with high co-morbidities and operative risks, reducing perioperative complications and improving 30-day mortality with no significant cardiovascular adverse events. However, both treatment methods present similar results on short-term to medium-term complications assessment.

Reinterventions After CoreValve/Evolut Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Data on valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are limited. OBJECTIVES: The authors compared the 5-year incidence of valve reintervention after self-expanding CoreValve/Evolut TAVR vs SAVR. METHODS: Pooled data from CoreValve and Evolut R/PRO (Medtronic) randomized trials and single-arm studies encompassed 5,925 TAVR (4,478 CoreValve and 1,447 Evolut R/PRO) and 1,832 SAVR patients. Reinterventions were categorized by indication, timing, and treatment. The cumulative incidence of reintervention was compared between TAVR vs SAVR, Evolut vs CoreValve, and Evolut vs SAVR. RESULTS: There were 99 reinterventions (80 TAVR and 19 SAVR). The cumulative incidence of reintervention through 5 years was higher with TAVR vs SAVR (2.2% vs 1.5%; P = 0.017), with differences observed early (≤1 year; adjusted subdistribution HR: 3.50; 95% CI: 1.53-8.02) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.48-2.28). The most common reason for reintervention was paravalvular regurgitation after TAVR and endocarditis after SAVR. Evolut had a significantly lower incidence of reintervention than CoreValve (0.9% vs 1.6%; P = 0.006) at 5 years with differences observed early (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12-0.73) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.21-1.74). The 5-year incidence of reintervention was similar for Evolut vs SAVR (0.9% vs 1.5%; P = 0.41). CONCLUSIONS: A low incidence of reintervention was observed for CoreValve/Evolut R/PRO and SAVR through 5 years. Reintervention occurred most often at ≤1 year for TAVR and >1 year for SAVR. Most early reinterventions were with the first-generation CoreValve and managed percutaneously. Reinterventions were more common following CoreValve TAVR compared with Evolut TAVR or SAVR.

Is Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) Activity in Australia Consistent With International Guidelines?

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) did not receive regulatory approval in Australia until 2013, several years after Europe (2007) and America (2011). Consequently, the uptake of TAVI in Australia initially lagged behind international best practices. This study was undertaken to provide an update on the status of TAVI activity in Australia. METHOD: A descriptive population-level epidemiological study was performed. Annual activity data for both surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and TAVI were obtained from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) for the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2022. Dynamic contemporaneous population data were obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Trends in absolute activity, population-adjusted activity and age cohort-adjusted activity were examined. RESULTS: Despite the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Australian healthcare system, TAVI activity has continued to increase. Annual TAVI activity now exceeds annual SAVR activity (3,967 vs 3,870), albeit driven by TAVI in patients aged 85+ years. Population-adjusted TAVI activity now exceeds the reported European average (15.3 vs 14.1 per 100,000 persons). The point of equipoise for the choice between SAVR and TAVI is the 75-79 age cohort (50% vs 50%). CONCLUSIONS: Australian TAVI activity is now consistent with international best practice.

Quality of Life 5 Years Following Transfemoral TAVR or SAVR in Intermediate Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) sustain comparable improvements in health status over 5 years after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or SAVR. Whether a similar long-term benefit is observed among intermediate-risk AS patients is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess health status outcomes through 5 years in intermediate risk patients treated with a self-expanding TAVR prosthesis or SAVR using data from the SURTAVI (Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial. METHODS: Intermediate-risk patients randomized to transfemoral TAVR or SAVR in the SURTAVI trial had disease-specific health status assessed at baseline, 30 days, and annually to 5 years using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). Health status was compared between groups using fixed effects repeated measures modelling. RESULTS: Of the 1,584 patients (TAVR, n = 805; SAVR, n = 779) included in the analysis, health status improved more rapidly after TAVR compared with SAVR. However, by 1 year, both groups experienced large health status benefits (mean change in KCCQ-Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OS) from baseline: TAVR: 20.5 ± 22.4; SAVR: 20.5 ± 22.2). This benefit was sustained, albeit modestly attenuated, at 5 years (mean change in KCCQ-OS from baseline: TAVR: 15.4 ± 25.1; SAVR: 14.3 ± 24.2). There were no significant differences in health status between the cohorts at 1 year or beyond. Similar findings were observed in the KCCQ subscales, although a substantial attenuation of benefit was noted in the physical limitation subscale over time in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In intermediate-risk AS patients, both transfemoral TAVR and SAVR resulted in comparable and durable health status benefits to 5 years. Further research is necessary to elucidate the mechanisms for the small decline in health status noted at 5 years compared with 1 year in both groups. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System in the Treatment of Severe, Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [SURTAVI]; NCT01586910).

Contemporary outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in patients referred for a transcatheter approach.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to examine which patients referred to our structural valve clinic for potential transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are receiving surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) whether due to unsuitable anatomy for TAVR versus other reasons. METHODS: Individuals referred for TAVR from January 2019 to March 2022, who ultimately underwent SAVR were examined, retrospectively. Patients were divided into 2 surgical groups: TAVR was technically unsuitable (SAVR-TU) and those in which TAVR was technically feasible (SAVR-TF). RESULTS: 215 patients referred for TAVR underwent SAVR with 61 (28.4%) patients in the SAVR-TU group and 154 (71.6%) in the SAVR-TF group. The SAVR-TU group were more commonly female (52.5% vs 23.4%, p < 0.0001), had a higher incidence of stroke at baseline (9.8% vs 2.0%, p = 0.017) were frailer (5-m gait 5.2 s vs 4.7 s, p = 0.0035), and had a higher Society of Thoracic Surgery risk score (2.2 vs 1.7, p = 0.04). In the SAVR-TU group, unsuitability for TAVR was due to inadequate aortic root anatomy (86.9%), and poor peripheral access (6.6%). In the SAVR-TF group, the most common reasons for SAVR referral were concomitant coronary artery disease (42.9%), bicuspid aortic valve disease (16.9%), and concomitant aortic aneurysm (10.4%). Overall, in-hospital mortality was 1.4% with no difference between both groups. One-year survival was 96.7%. CONCLUSION: Despite a higher trend of aortic stenosis being treated with TAVR, higher risk patients unsuitable for TAVR can have SAVR with excellent outcomes. Moreover, patients with AS and concomitant other pathology should be evaluated for cardiac surgery.

Clinical Outcomes after Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in 681 Octogenarians: A Single-Center Real-World Experience Comparing the Old Patients with the Very Old Patients.

Aortic valve disease is a lethal condition, once it becomes symptomatic. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has, for a long time, been the only treatment option. In patients aged 85 and older, the consequences of SAVR have rarely been investigated. A total of 681 octogenarian patients were subdivided into a group with patients between 80 and 84 years (n = 527) and a group with patients aged 85 or older (n = 154). For each group, the temporal referral pattern, preoperative comorbid profile, operative data, postoperative need for resources, and adverse postoperative events including 30-day mortality and long-term survival were determined using the chi-squared test, Student's t-test, and log-rank test. For both age groups, the predictors for mortality were identified using a logistic regression analysis. In the oldest patient group, there were significantly more prior episodes of heart failure (75/154 vs. 148/527) and a greater need for urgent SAVR (45/150 vs. 109/515). The operative data and the need for postoperative resources were comparable, but the 30-day mortality was almost twice as high (24/154 vs. 45/527). The need for urgent SAVR was twice as high in the oldest group (odds ratio of 3.12 vs. 6.64). A logistic regression analysis for all 681 patients showed that age over 85 ranked fourth of six predictors for 30-day mortality. Five-year survival was favorable for both groups (67.8 ± 2.1% vs. 60.0 ± 4.3%). A Cox proportional hazard analysis failed to identify an age over 85 as a predictor for long-term mortality. Aortic valve disease and its effect on the left ventricle seemed to be more advanced in the highest age group. The mortality rate was almost double the need for urgent SAVR. This can be avoided by obtaining an earlier referral.

[Catheter-based and surgical treatment for aortic valve diseases]. / Katheterbasierte und operative Therapie bei Aortenvitien.

The pathophysiology of aortic valve diseases is of predominantly degenerative nature, characterized by calcific aortic valve stenosis, which is associated with a reduction in prognosis. The prevalence of aortic valve insufficiency also increases with advancing age. Timely causal treatment is crucial in the management of aortic valve diseases. Following the indication for intervention, the heart team plays a central role in evaluating the results and making therapeutic decisions that consider the patient's preferences. In the assessment of treatment options, considerations regarding the long-term perspective are particularly crucial, especially in younger patients. The most common therapeutic approach for aortic valve diseases is the introduction of a new valve prosthesis. In the majority of cases, this is now achieved through catheter-based implantation of a bioprosthetic heart valve, known as transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Open surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) is favored in younger patients with low surgical risk or in the case that TAVI is not feasible. In AVR, both biological and the longest-lasting mechanical prosthesis types are used. Surgical repair techniques are primarily applied in cases of aortic valve regurgitation. Notably, TAVI, as well as surgical procedures for the treatment of aortic valve diseases, have undergone significant advancements in recent years, including expanded indications for TAVI and, on the surgical side, in particular the development of minimally invasive surgical techniques.

Evaluation of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve in Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal functional evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) has not been established. The objective of the study was to evaluate the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) in patients with and without severe AS. METHODS: We retrospectively investigated 395 lesions in 293 patients with severe AS and 2257 lesions in 1882 patients without severe AS between 2010 and 2022 from a subgroup of the Interventional Cardiology Research In-Cooperation Society FFR Registry. All patients had FFR values, and iFR was analyzed post hoc using dedicated software only in lesions with adequate resting pressure curves (311 lesions in patients with severe AS and 2257 lesions in patients with nonsevere AS). RESULTS: The incidence of iFR ≤0.89 was 66.6% and 31.8% (P<0.001), while the incidence of FFR ≤0.80 was 45.3% and 43.9% (P=0.60) in the severe AS group and the nonsevere AS group, respectively. In the severe AS group, most lesions (95.2%) with iFR >0.89 had FFR >0.80, while 36.2% of lesions with iFR ≤0.89 had FFR >0.80. During a median follow-up of 2 years, FFR ≤0.80 was significantly associated with deferred lesion failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.71 [95% CI, 1.08-6.80]; P=0.034), while iFR ≤0.89 showed no prognostic value (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 0.47-3.60]; P=0.60) in the severe AS group. Lesions with iFR ≤0.89 and FFR >0.80, in particular, were not associated with a higher rate of deferred lesion failure at 3 years compared with lesions with iFR >0.89 (15.4% versus 17.0%; P=0.58). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggested that FFR appears to be less affected by the presence of severe AS and is more associated with prognosis. iFR may overestimate the functional severity of coronary artery disease without prognostic significance, yet it can be useful for excluding significant stenosis in patients with severe AS.

Travel distance and outcomes after surgical aortic valve among veterans.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between travel distance and postoperative length of stay (LOS) and discharge disposition among veterans undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing SAVR, with or without coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) at VA Boston Healthcare (January 1, 2005-December 31, 2015). STUDY DESIGN: Postoperative LOS and discharge disposition were compared for SAVR patients based on travel distance to the facility: <100 miles or ≥100 miles. Multivariable regression was performed to ascertain factors associated with LOS and home discharge. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Data were collected via chart review. All patients undergoing SAVR at our institution who primarily resided within the defined region were included. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Of 597 patients studied, 327 patients underwent isolated SAVR; 270 patients underwent SAVR/CABG. Overall median (IQR) distance between the patient's residence and the hospital was 49.95 miles (27.41-129.94 miles); 190 patients (32%) resided further than 100 miles away. There were no differences in the proportion of patients with diabetes, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cerebrovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, or prior myocardial infarction between groups. Overall LOS (IQR) was 9 (7-13) days and did not differ between groups (p = 0.18). The proportion of patients discharged home was higher among patients who resided more than 100 miles from the hospital (71% vs. 58%, p = 0.01). On multivariable analysis, residing further than 100 miles from the hospital was independently associated with home discharge (OR = 1.64, 95% CI: 1.09-2.48). Travel distance was not associated with LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our institutional experience, potential concerns of longer hospital stay or discharge to other inpatient facilities for geographically distanced patients undergoing SAVR do not appear supported. Continued examination of the drivers underlying the marked shift of veterans to the private sector appears warranted.