Search

ObjectivesThis study was undertaken to compare the hemodynamic performance of a percutaneous bioprosthesis to that of surgically implanted (stented and stentless) bioprostheses for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis.MethodsFifty patients who underwent percutaneous aortic valve implantation (PAVI) with the Cribier-Edwards or Edwards SAPIEN bioprosthetic valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Inc., Irvine, California) were matched 1:1 for sex, aortic annulus diameter, left ventricular ejection fraction, body surface area, and body mass index, with 2 groups of 50 patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with a stented valve (Edwards Perimount Magna [SAVR-ST group]), or a stentless valve (Medtronic Freestyle, Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota [SAVR-SL group]). Doppler echocardiographic data were prospectively obtained before the intervention, at discharge, and at 6- to 12-month follow-up.ResultsMean transprosthetic gradient at discharge was lower (p < 0.001) in the PAVI group (10 ± 4 mm Hg) compared with the SAVR-ST (13 ± 5 mm Hg) and SAVR-SL (14 ± 6 mm Hg) groups. Aortic regurgitation (AR) occurred more frequently in the PAVI group (mild: 42%, moderate: 8%) compared with the SAVR-ST (mild: 10%, moderate: 0%) and SAVR-SL (mild: 12%, moderate: 0%) groups (p < 0.0001). At follow-up, the mean gradient in the PAVI group remained lower (p < 0.001) than that of the SAVR-ST group, but was similar to that of the SAVR-SL group. The incidence of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was significantly lower (p = 0.007) in the PAVI group (6%) compared with the SAVR-ST (28%) and SAVR-SL (20%) groups. However, the incidence of AR remained higher (p < 0.0001) in the PAVI group compared with the 2 other groups.ConclusionsPAVI provided superior hemodynamic performance compared with the surgical bioprostheses in terms of transprosthetic gradient and prevention of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch, but was associated with a higher incidence of AR.

Background We reported the first case of successful transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation in a human subject in 2005 and have now completed a 12-month follow-up on our first 26 patients. This is, to date, the longest follow-up of patients undergoing transapical aortic valve implantation. Methods Between October 2005 and January 2007, 26 patients (13 female) underwent transcatheter transapical aortic valve implantation with either 23- or 26-mm Edwards Lifesciences transcatheter bioprostheses. All patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis were declined for conventional aortic valve replacement because of unacceptable operative risks and were not candidates for transfemoral aortic valve implantation because of poor arterial access. Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up was performed before discharge and at 1, 6, and 12 months. Data from the 17 patients who survived over 12 months were used for comparisons of the baseline and follow-up results. Results The mean age was 80 ± 9 years, and the predicted operative mortality was 37% ± 20% by using logistic EuroSCORE and 11% ± 6% by using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Risk Calculator. Valves were successfully implanted in all patients. Six patients died within 30 days (30-day mortality, 23%), and 3 patients died from noncardiovascular causes after 30 days (late mortality, 12%). Among patients who survived at least 30 days, 12-month survival was 85%. There were no late valve-related complications. New York Heart Association functional class improved significantly. The aortic valve area and mean gradient remained stable at 12 months (1.6 ± 0.3 cm 2 and 9.6 ± 4.8 mm Hg, respectively). Conclusion Our 1-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes suggest that transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation is a viable alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement in selected high-risk patients.

Objectives Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR) is a promising approach to aortic valve disease. The implications of this new therapy are not entirely known. We describe the potential for the development of new atrioventricular (AV) block. Background Atrioventricular block is a known complication of conventional surgical AVR. Block is presumed to occur as a consequence of surgical trauma to the cardiac conduction tissue during excision of the diseased aortic valve and debridement of the calcified annulus. Whether AV block might occur as a consequence of nonsurgical implantation of an aortic stent valve is unknown. Methods We reviewed our experience with patients undergoing transcatheter AVR using both the percutaneous transarterial and the open-chest direct left ventricular apical ventriculotomy approaches. Patients were considered at high risk for conventional surgery because of comorbidities. Continuous arrhythmia monitoring was performed for at least 48 h after the valve implantation procedure. Patients who developed apparently new, clinically significant AV block were identified. Results Transcatheter AVR was successfully performed in 123 patients. Seventeen of these patients (13.8%) had pre-existing permanent pacemakers. Two patients (1.6%) required pacemaker implantation because of pre-existing intermittent bradycardia. Seven patients (5.7%) developed new and sustained complete AV block requiring pacemaker implantation. An additional 4 patients (3.3%) developed new and sustained left bundle branch block but did not require pacemaker implantation. Conclusions As with conventional AVR surgery, transcatheter AVR may result in impaired atrioventricular conduction. Physicians and patients should be aware of the potential for AV block and pacemaker dependence.