Cardiac Health Assessment Using a Wearable Device Before and After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Prospective Study.

Background: Due to aging of the population, the prevalence of aortic valve stenosis will increase drastically in upcoming years. Consequently, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedures will also expand worldwide. Optimal selection of patients who benefit with improved symptoms and prognoses is key, since TAVI is not without its risks. Currently, we are not able to adequately predict functional outcomes after TAVI. Quality of life measurement tools and traditional functional assessment tests do not always agree and can depend on factors unrelated to heart disease. Activity tracking using wearable devices might provide a more comprehensive assessment. Objective: This study aimed to identify objective parameters (eg, change in heart rate) associated with improvement after TAVI for severe aortic stenosis from a wearable device. Methods: In total, 100 patients undergoing routine TAVI wore a Philips Health Watch device for 1 week before and after the procedure. Watch data were analyzed offline-before TAVI for 97 patients and after TAVI for 75 patients. Results: Parameters such as the total number of steps and activity time did not change, in contrast to improvements in the 6-minute walking test (6MWT) and physical limitation domain of the transformed WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire. Conclusions: These findings, in an older TAVI population, show that watch-based parameters, such as the number of steps, do not change after TAVI, unlike traditional 6MWT and QoL assessments. Basic wearable device parameters might be less appropriate for measuring treatment effects from TAVI.

Angulation and curvature of aortic landing zone affect implantation depth in transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

In transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), final device position may be affected by device interaction with the whole aortic landing zone (LZ) extending to ascending aorta. We investigated the impact of aortic LZ curvature and angulation on TAVI implantation depth, comparing short-frame balloon-expanding (BE) and long-frame self-expanding (SE) devices. Patients (n = 202) treated with BE or SE devices were matched based on one-to-one propensity score. Primary endpoint was the mismatch between the intended (HPre) and the final (HPost) implantation depth. LZ curvature and angulation were calculated based on the aortic centerline trajectory available from pre-TAVI computed tomography. Total LZ curvature ( k L Z , t o t ) and LZ angulation distal to aortic annulus ( α L Z , D i s t a l ) were greater in the SE compared to the BE group (P < 0.001 for both). In the BE group, HPost was significantly higher than HPre at both cusps (P < 0.001). In the SE group, HPost was significantly deeper than HPre only at the left coronary cusp (P = 0.013). At multivariate analysis, α L Z , D i s t a l was the only independent predictor (OR = 1.11, P = 0.002) of deeper final implantation depth with a cut-off value of 17.8°. Aortic LZ curvature and angulation significantly affected final TAVI implantation depth, especially in high stent-frame SE devices reporting, upon complete release, deeper implantation depth with respect to the intended one.

Performance and outcomes of the SAPIEN 3 Ultra RESILIA transcatheter heart valve in the OCEAN-TAVI registry.

BACKGROUND: Data on the performance of the latest-generation SAPIEN 3 Ultra RESILIA (S3UR) valve in patients who undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are scarce. AIMS: We aimed to assess the clinical outcomes, including valve performance, of the S3UR. METHODS: Registry data of 618 consecutive patients with S3UR and of a historical pooled cohort of 8,750 patients who had a SAPIEN 3 (S3) valve and underwent TAVR were collected. The clinical outcomes and haemodynamics, including patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM), were compared between the 2 groups and in a propensity-matched cohort. RESULTS: The incidence of in-hospital death, vascular complications, and new pacemaker implantation was similar between the S3UR and the S3 groups (allp>0.05). However, both groups showed significant differences in the degrees of paravalvular leakage (PVL) (none-trivial: 87.0% vs 78.5%, mild: 12.5% vs 20.5%, ≥moderate: 0.5% vs 1.1%; p<0.001) and the incidence of PPM (none: 94.3% vs 85.1%, moderate: 5.2% vs 12.8%, severe: 0.5% vs 2.0%; p<0.001). The prevalence of a mean pressure gradient ≥20 mmHg was significantly lower in the S3UR group (1.6% vs 6.2%; p<0.001). Better haemodynamics were observed with the smaller 20 mm and 23 mm S3UR valves. The results were consistent in a matched cohort of patients with S3UR and with S3 (n=618 patients/group). CONCLUSIONS: The S3UR has equivalent procedural complications to the S3 but with lower rates of PVL and significantly better valve performance. The better valve performance of the S3UR, particularly in smaller valve sizes, overcomes the remaining issue of balloon-expandable valves after TAVR.

Surgical Technique And Clinical Implications Of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Bioprosthesis Explantation.

There has been a worldwide rapid adoption of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis. Currently, more TAVR explants with SAVRs are performed than TAVR-in TAV. TAVR explantation is a technically hazardous procedure mainly due to significant aortic neo-endothelialization which incorporates the TAVR valve. Surgical techniques for TAVR explantation are not well established and surgeon experience at present is limited. In this manuscript, we describe our technique for surgical explantation of transcatheter aortic bioprosthesis. Familiarity with the procedure and its clinical implications is essential for all cardiac surgeons.

Predicting mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement using preprocedural CT.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a widely used intervention for patients with severe aortic stenosis. Identifying high-risk patients is crucial due to potential postprocedural complications. Currently, this involves manual clinical assessment and time-consuming radiological assessment of preprocedural computed tomography (CT) images by an expert radiologist. In this study, we introduce a probabilistic model that predicts post-TAVR mortality automatically using unprocessed, preprocedural CT and 25 baseline patient characteristics. The model utilizes CT volumes by automatically localizing and extracting a region of interest around the aortic root and ascending aorta. It then extracts task-specific features with a 3D deep neural network and integrates them with patient characteristics to perform outcome prediction. As missing measurements or even missing CT images are common in TAVR planning, the proposed model is designed with a probabilistic structure to allow for marginalization over such missing information. Our model demonstrates an AUROC of 0.725 for predicting all-cause mortality during postprocedure follow-up on a cohort of 1449 TAVR patients. This performance is on par with what can be achieved with lengthy radiological assessments performed by experts. Thus, these findings underscore the potential of the proposed model in automatically analyzing CT volumes and integrating them with patient characteristics for predicting mortality after TAVR.

A review regarding the article 'Local versus General Anaesthesia for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI): A systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis of randomised and propensity-score matched studies'.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a promising treatment strategy for high-risk surgical patients, and trials investigating its effectiveness in intermediate- and lower-risk patients are underway. Data are inconsistent regarding the superiority of using local anesthesia with conscious sedation alone versus general anesthesia (GA) as the anesthesia management of choice for elderly frail patients. Historically, TAVI procedure is performed under GA with transesophageal echocardiography. This approach gives operators stable hemodynamic control of the patient and helps decrease the risk of many of the operation's documented complications, including paravalvular leak and valve malpositioning. However, some studies have criticized the dependence of GA on mechanical ventilation and an increased need for catecholamine and/or vasopressor agents. Alternatively, to further capitalize on the minimally invasive nature of TAVI, some authors have advocated for the use of local anesthesia (LA) and/or conscious sedation approach, which would decrease procedure time, length of hospital stay, and minimize the need for postoperative inotropes. Ultimately and at present, the choice of anesthesia is based on the personal experience and preference of the Heart Team involved in the TAVI procedure, which will dictate the best possible management plan for each patient. Many patients currently undergoing TAVI are elderly and have multiple comorbidities, making their care complex. Anesthetic care is shifting from GA to sedation and regional block, but life-threatening complications are still relatively common and safety during planning and conduct of these procedures by the heart team, with the anesthesiologist at the center, is paramount.

Outcomes in patients with aortic stenosis and severely reduced ejection fraction following surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction demonstrate improvement in left ventricular injection fraction (LVEF) after aortic valve replacement (AVR). The timing and magnitude of recovery in patients with very low LVEF (≤ 25%) in surgical or transcatheter AVR is not well studied. OBJECTIVE: Determine clinical outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve repair (SAVR) in the subset of patients with severely reduced EF ≤ 25%. METHODS: Single-center, retrospective study with primary endpoint of LVEF 1-week following either procedure. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality and delayed postprocedural LVEF. T-test was used to compare variables and linear regression was used to adjust differences among baseline variables. RESULTS: 83 patients were enrolled (TAVR = 56 and SAVR = 27). TAVR patients were older at the time of procedure (TAVR 77.29 ± 8.69 vs. SAVR 65.41 ± 10.05, p < 0.001). One week post procedure, all patients had improved LVEF after both procedures (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in LVEF between either group (TAVR 33.5 ± 11.77 vs. SAVR 35.3 ± 13.57, p = 0.60). Average LVEF continued to rise and increased by 101% at final follow-up (41.26 ± 13.70). 30-day mortality rates in SAVR and TAVR were similar (7.4% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.91). CONCLUSION: Patients with severe AS and LVEF ≤ 25% have a significant recovery in post-procedural EF following AVR regardless of method. LVEF doubled at two years post-procedure. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality or mean EF recovery between TAVR and SAVR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Indiana University institutional review board granted approval for above study numbered 15,322.

Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes of Nonhome Discharge Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Multicenter Australian Experience-The NHD TAVI Study.

Patients who undergo transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) commonly experience nonhome discharge (NHD), a phenomenon associated with increased health care expenditure and possibly poorer outcomes. Despite its clinical relevance in TAVI, the incidence and predictors of NHD and its impact on the quality of life remain poorly characterized. Also unknown is the proportion of patients who undergo TAVI that require long-term residential care after initial NHD. Therefore, we aimed to address these questions using a large, multicenter Australian cohort. A total of 2,229 patients who underwent TAVI from 2010 to 2023 included in the Alfred-Cabrini-Epworth TAVI Registry were analyzed. The median age was 82 (interquartile range 78 to 86) years and 41% were women. A total of 257 patients (12%) were not discharged home after TAVI, with the incidence falling over time (R2 = 0.636, p <0.001). A multivariable logistic regression model for NHD prediction was developed with excellent calibration and discrimination (C-statistic = 0.835). The independent predictors of NHD were postprocedural stroke (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 11.05), procedure at a private hospital (aOR 3.01), living alone (aOR 2.35), vascular access site complications (aOR 2.09), frailty (aOR 1.89), age >80 years (aOR 1.82), hypoalbuminemia (aOR 1.76), New York Heart Association III to IV (aOR 1.74), and hospital length of stay (aOR 1.13) (all p <0.05). NHD was not associated with mortality at 30 days and <1% of all patients required longer-term residential care. In conclusion, although common after TAVI, NHD does not predict short-term mortality, most patients successfully return home within 30 days, and when used appropriately, NHD may serve as a brief and effective method of optimizing functional status without compromising long-term independence.

Acute Mitral Valve Regurgitation Caused by Left Ventricular Pacing Wire During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is quickly becoming the standard of care for patients with severe aortic stenosis thanks to its minimally invasive nature and favorable outcomes. Recently, left ventricular pacing has been proposed as a safer alternative to traditional right heart pacing, which could simplify the transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedure overall, although procedural complications may still occur. This report describes a rare case of left ventricular pacing wire-induced acute severe mitral valve regurgitation during transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Transcatheter or Surgical Treatment of Aortic-Valve Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Among low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who are eligible for both transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic-valve replacement (SAVR), data are lacking on the appropriate treatment strategy in routine clinical practice. METHODS: In this randomized noninferiority trial conducted at 38 sites in Germany, we assigned patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low or intermediate surgical risk to undergo either TAVI or SAVR. Percutaneous- and surgical-valve prostheses were selected according to operator discretion. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause or fatal or nonfatal stroke at 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 1414 patients underwent randomization (701 to the TAVI group and 713 to the SAVR group). The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 74±4 years; 57% were men, and the median Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was 1.8% (low surgical risk). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the primary outcome at 1 year was 5.4% in the TAVI group and 10.0% in the SAVR group (hazard ratio for death or stroke, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.79; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The incidence of death from any cause was 2.6% in the TAVI group and 6.2% in the SAVR group (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.73); the incidence of stroke was 2.9% and 4.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.06). Procedural complications occurred in 1.5% and 1.0% of patients in the TAVI and SAVR groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe aortic stenosis at low or intermediate surgical risk, TAVI was noninferior to SAVR with respect to death from any cause or stroke at 1 year. (Funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and the German Heart Foundation; DEDICATE-DZHK6 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03112980.).

[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.

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.