Search

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established treatment for severe aortic stenosis across a broad spectrum of patient risk profiles. Preprocedural planning using multislice computed tomography (MSCT) is a fundamental component to ensure acute and long-term procedural success. MSCT can establish the procedural feasibility, the type vascular of approach as well as the device which is more likely to give a good result. Moreover, MSCT is a key tool to estimate the risk of potentially life-threatening complications. In this review, the role of MSCT for preprocedural TAVR planning will be discussed providing a panoramic overview of the key elements that should be considered when performing TAVR. Additionally, the adjunctive role of fluoroscopy and echocardiography to plan and guide a TAVR procedure will also be discussed.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) versus tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis., Background: At present, limited observational data exist supporting TAVR in the context of bicuspid anatomy., Methods: Primary endpoints were 1-year survival and device success. Secondary endpoints included moderate to severe paravalvular leak (PVL) and a composite endpoint of periprocedural complications; incidence rates of individual procedural endpoints were also explored individually., Results: In the main analysis, 17 studies and 181,433 patients undergoing TAVR were included, of whom 6,669 (0.27%) had BAV. A secondary analysis of 7,071 matched subjects with similar baseline characteristics was also performed. Device success and 1-year survival rates were similar between subjects with BAV and those with TAV (97% vs 94% [P = 0.55] and 91.3% vs 90.8% [P = 0.22], respectively). In patients with BAV, a trend toward a higher risk for periprocedural complications was observed in our main analysis (risk ratio [RR]: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.99-1.27; P = 0.07) but not in the matched population secondary analysis (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.81-1.24; P = 0.99). The risk for moderate to severe PVL was higher in subjects with BAV (RR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.29-1.58; P < 0.0001) as well as the incidence of cerebral ischemic events (2.4% vs 1.6%; P = 0.015) and of annular rupture (0.3% vs 0.02%; P = 0.014) in matched subjects., Conclusions: TAVR is a feasible option among selected patients with BAV anatomy, but the higher rates of moderate to severe PVL, annular rupture, and cerebral ischemic events observed in the BAV group warrant caution and further evidence., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) is an emerging alternative to re-do surgery. However, the challenge of coronary access (CA) following ViV-TAVR is a potential limitation as TAVR expands to younger lower-risk populations., Objectives: Using post-implantation computed tomography (CT) scans to evaluate the geometrical relationship between coronary ostia and valve frame in patients undergoing ViV-TAVR with the ACURATE neo valve., Methods: Post-implant CT scans of 18 out of 20 consecutive patients treated with the ACURATE neo valve were analyzed. Coronary ostia location in relation to the highest plane (HP) (highest point of the ACURATE neo or surgical valve) was determined. Ostia located below the highest plan were further subclassified according to the gap available between the transcatheter heart valve frame and ostium (transcatheter-to-coronary [TTC] distance). The impact implantation depth has on these geometrical relationships was evaluated., Results: A total of 21 out of 36 coronary ostia (58%) were located below the level of the HP with the left coronary artery (36%) more likely to be affected than the right (22%). Further sub-classification of these ostia revealed a large (>6 mm), moderate (4-6 mm), and small (<4 mm) TTC distance in 57% (12/21), 38% (8/21), and in 6% (1/18) of cases, respectively. At an implantation depth <4 mm compared to >4 mm, all ostia were located below the HP with no difference in post-procedural mean gradients (14.5 mmHg ± 4.7 vs. 12.6 mmHg ± 5.8; p = .5, 95%CI 3.8-7.5)., Conclusions: CA following ACURATE neo implantation for ViV-TAVR could potentially be challenging in a significant proportion of patients and specific consideration should be given to the implantation depth., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the treatment of choice for high-risk patients presenting with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of second-generation (2G) devices in comparison to first-generation (1G) devices with regard to procedural and short-term clinical outcomes., Methods: Between November 2007 and May 2015, a total of 449 patients treated with 1G TAVI devices (Edwards Sapien XT, Medtronic CoreValve) were propensity matched (1:1) to 179 patients treated with 2G TAVI devices (Edwards Sapien 3, Medtronic Evolut R, Boston Scientific Lotus, Direct Flow Medical). The primary endpoint was 30-day safety according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 (VARC-2) definition., Results: Patients treated with 1G devices suffered more adverse events at 30-day follow-up (freedom of adverse events, 75.3% vs 88.8%; hazard ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.4-4.0; P=.01) and a significantly greater number of minor vascular complications (31.8% vs 10.4%; P<.001) and major vascular complications (3.2% vs 0.6%; P<.001) compared with patients treated with 2G devices. The presence of residual aortic regurgitation ≥2 was also greater in the 1G group (17.5% vs 5.8%; odds ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.13-0.69; P<.001). There were no differences between groups with regard to 30-day all-cause mortality (5.2% vs 3.2%; odds ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.20-1.92; P=.40)., Conclusion: TAVI with contemporary 2G devices was associated with a significant safety benefit at 30 days and reduction of residual moderate or severe paravalvular leak. Longer-term follow-up in more patients is required to determine if these short-term benefits translate into improvements in long-term clinical outcomes.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is now the treatment of choice for patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis who are inoperable or with high surgical risk. Data with regards to contemporary clinical practice and long-term outcomes are sparse. To evaluate temporal changes in TAVI practice and explore procedural and long-term clinical outcomes of patients in a contemporary "real-world" population, outcomes of 829 patients treated from November 2007 to May 2015, at the San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy, were retrospectively analyzed. Median follow-up was 568 days, with the longest follow-up of 2,677 days. Overall inhospital mortality was 3.5%. During the study period, there was a trend toward treating younger, lower risk patients. Overall mortality rates were 3.5% (30 days), 14% (1 year), 22% (2 years), 29% (3 years), 37% (4 years), 47% (5 years), 53% (6 years), and 72% (7 years). The survival probability at 5 years was significantly higher in patients treated through the transfemoral (TF) route compared to other vascular access sites (log rank p <0.001). Non-TF vascular access and residual paravalvular leak ≥2 (after TAVI) were identified as independent predictors for both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. No patient required further aortic valve intervention for TAVI prosthesis degeneration. In conclusion, there is a trend toward treating younger, lower-risk patients. Non-TF vascular access approach and ≥2 PVL after TAVI were identified as independent predictors for both overall and cardiovascular mortality with no cases of prosthesis degeneration suggesting acceptable durability., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To compare the outcomes of trans-subclavian (TS) and transapical (TA) access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)., Background: A considerable proportion of patients undergoing TAVI are not eligible for transfemoral approach. To date, there are few data to guide the choice between alternative vascular access routes., Methods: Among 874 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI, 202 procedures were performed through TA (n = 142, 70.3%) or TS (n = 60, 29.7%) access. Medtronic Corevalve (CV, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) was implanted in 17.3% of the patients, the Edwards-Sapien (ES, Edwards Lifesciences Inc., Irvine, CA) in 81.2% and other prostheses in 0.1%. In-hospital and long-term outcome were assessed using the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 definitions., Results: Mean age was 82 ± 6 years, STS score 9.3 ± 7.9%. The 2 groups showed a relevant imbalance in baseline characteristics. In hospital mortality was 6.4% (1.7% TS vs. 8.4% TA, P = 0.06), stroke 2.0%, acute myocardial infarction 1.0%, acute kidney injury 39.4%, sepsis 4.0% with no significant differences between groups, while bleeding was more frequent in TA patients (53.5% vs. 11.7% TS, P < 0.001). One- and 2-year survival was 85.2% and 73.2% in TS patients, and 83.9% and 74.9% in TA patients (P = ns for both). Access site was not an independent predictor of mortality at multivariable analysis., Conclusion: Transapical compared with trans-subclavian access for TAVI was associated with a nonsignificant trend to increased periprocedural events. However, 1- and 2-year survival appears similar., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an effective therapeutic option for patients with severe aortic stenosis at high risk for surgery. Identification of causes of death after TAVR may help improve patient selection and outcome., Methods: We enrolled 874 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR at 3 centers using all approved bioprostheses and different access routes. Clinical outcomes during follow-up were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 definitions. Causes of deaths were carefully investigated., Results: Mean logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation was 23.5% ± 15.3%; Society of Thoracic Surgery score, 9.0% ± 8.2%. The Corevalve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) was used in 41.3%; the Edwards Sapien (Edwards Lifesciences Inc., Irvine, CA) in 57.3%. Vascular access was transfemoral in 75.7%. In-hospital mortality was 5.0%. Cumulative mortality rates at 1 to 3 years were 12.4%, 23.4%, and 31.5%, respectively. Landmark analysis showed a significantly higher incidence of cardiovascular (CV) death in the first 6 months of follow-up and a significantly higher incidence of non-CV death thereafter. At Cox regression analysis, the independent predictors of in-hospital mortality were acute kidney injury grades 2 to 3 (hazard ratio [HR] 3.41) life-threatening bleeding (HR 4.26), major bleeding (HR 4.61), and myocardial infarction (HR 3.89). The independent predictors of postdischarge mortality were chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR 1.48), left ventricular ejection fraction at discharge (HR 0.98), and glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) (HR 1.64)., Conclusions: Around a third of patients treated with TAVR in daily practice die within the first 3 years of follow-up. Early mortality is predominantly CV, whereas late mortality is mainly non-CV, and it is often due to preexisting comorbidity., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Conduction disorders and permanent pacemaker implantation are common complications in patients who undergo transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and clinical significance of new bundle branch block in patients who underwent TAVI with the Medtronic CoreValve Revalving System (MCRS) or the Edwards SAPIEN valve (ESV). Data from 238 patients with no previous pacemaker implantation, left bundle branch block (LBBB) or right bundle branch block at baseline electrocardiography who underwent TAVI with either MCRS (n = 87) or ESV (n = 151) bioprostheses from 2007 to 2011 were analyzed. New-onset LBBB occurred in 26.5% patients (n = 63): 13.5% with the ESV (n = 20) and 50.0% with the MCRS (n = 43) (p = 0.001). Permanent pacemaker implantation was required in 12.7% of patients (n = 8) because of complete atrioventricular block (ESV n = 2, MCRS n = 4), LBBB and first degree atrioventricular block (MCRS n = 1) and new-onset LBBB associated with sinus bradycardia (MCRS n = 1). At discharge, LBBB persisted in 8.6% of ESV patients (n = 13) and 32.2% of MCRS patients (n = 28) (p = 0.001). On multivariate analysis, the only predictor of LBBB was MCRS use (odds ratio 7.2, 95% confidence interval 2.9 to 17.4, p <0.001). Persistent new-onset LBBB at discharge was not associated with overall (log-rank p = 0.42) or cardiovascular (log-rank p = 0.46) mortality. New-onset right bundle branch block was documented in 4.6% of patients (n = 11), with no statistically significant differences between the ESV and MCRS. In conclusion, new-onset LBBB is a frequent intraventricular conduction disturbance after TAVI with a higher incidence with the MCRS compared with the ESV. LBBB persists in most patients, but in this cohort, it was not a predictor of overall or cardiovascular mortality or permanent pacemaker implantation., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)