Search

Objectives: The aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to assess how the development of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) influenced the characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve procedures., Methods: We reviewed 1395 patients who underwent isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or TAVI in three centres with a high-volume TAVI programme. Patients were divided into two groups: 'Pre-TAVI' (395 patients, 28.3%) and 'Post-TAVI' (1000 patients, 71.7%) operated on before and after the introduction of TAVI into clinical practice. We evaluated age, logistic EuroSCORE I (LES) and hospital mortality according to time periods and the procedure performed, whether SAVR or TAVI., Results: 'Post-TAVI' patients were older (78.2 ± 7.8 vs 76.8 ± 6.7 years; P = 0.002) and with a significantly higher LES (17.8 ± 14.7 vs 9.1 ± 9.2%; P < 0.001) than 'Pre-TAVI' patients. Hospital mortality was not significantly different between groups ('Pre-TAVI' vs 'Post-TAVI': 2 vs 3.4%; P = 0.17). Of the 1000 'Post-TAVI' patients, 605 (60.5%) underwent TAVI and 395 (39.5%), SAVR. Patients undergoing TAVI were older (79.9 ± 7.1 vs 75.5 ± 9.2 years; P < 0.001) and with a higher LES (22.9 ± 15.3 vs 9.7 ± 9.3%; P < 0.001) than 'Post-TAVI' SAVR patients, but their hospital mortality was similar (3.9 vs 2.5%; P = 0.22). LES was similar between 'Pre-TAVI' and 'Post-TAVI' SAVR patients (9.1 ± 9.2 vs 9.7 ± 9.3%; P = 0.26). Furthermore, we did not find significant differences in the overall hospital mortality between SAVR and TAVI patients: 2.3 vs 3.9%, P = 0.08., Conclusions: This analysis shows that the development of TAVI has caused an increase in the preoperative risk profile of patients scheduled for aortic valve procedures (SAVR or TAVI) without increasing hospital mortality.

Objective: The aim of this propensity-matched, multicenter study was to compare early clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients undergoing transapical aortic valve implantation (TA-TAVI) versus patients undergoing sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) for severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis., Methods: We reviewed 468 TA-TAVIs performed in 20 centers from April 2008 to May 2011, and 51 SU-AVRs performed in 3 centers from March to September 2011. Based on a propensity score analysis, 2 groups with 38 matched pairs were created. Variables used in the propensity analysis were age, sex, body surface area, New York Heart Association class, logistic EuroSCORE, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, aortic valve area, mitral regurgitation, and left ventricular ejection fraction., Results: Preoperative characteristics of the 2 groups were comparable. Hospital mortality was 5.3% and 0% in the TA-TAVI and SU-AVR groups, respectively (P = .49). We did not observe stroke or acute myocardial infarction in the 2 groups. Permanent pacemaker implantation was needed in 2 patients of each group (5.3%, P = 1.0). Dialysis was required in 2 patients (5.3%) in the SU-AVR group and in 1 patient (2.7%) in the TA-TAVI group (P = 1.0). Predischarge echocardiographic data showed that the incidence of paravalvular leak (at least mild) was greater in the TA-TAVI group (44.7% vs 15.8%, P = .001), but there were no differences in terms of mean transprosthetic gradient (10.3 ± 5 mm Hg vs 11 ± 3.7 mm Hg, P = .59)., Conclusions: This preliminary experience showed that, in patients at high risk for conventional surgery, SU-AVR is as safe and effective as TA-TAVI and that it is associated with a lower rate of postprocedural paravalvular leak., (Copyright © 2012 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of transapical aortic valve implantation (TA-TAVI) in patients enrolled in the Italian Registry of Trans-Apical Aortic Valve Implantation (I-TA)., Methods: From April 2008 until November 2010, 504 patients from 20 Italian centers were enrolled in the I-TA registry. Mean logistic EuroSCORE and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score were 24% ± 16% and 11% ± 4%, respectively. Mean follow-up was 9.2 ± 6.5 months (range, 1-26 months). Outcomes were analyzed according to intraoperative complications, procedural volume (high-volume centers, >20 cases; low-volume centers, < 20 cases) and learning curve (first 50% cases vs second 50% cases of each center)., Results: All-cause overall mortality was 8.3% (42 patients). Device success was 99% (500/504 patients). Intraoperative severe complications occurred in 24 (4.8%) patients. Overall 2-year survival was 71.5% ± 6.2%. At discharge, peak and mean gradients were 16.4 ± 11.2 and 8.7 ± 4.1 mm Hg, respectively, and effective orifice area was 1.67 cm(2). These values remained stable at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Independent risk factors for mortality after TA-TAVI were as follows: New York Heart Association class III and IV (odds ratio [OR], 4.43; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 1.28-15.40; P = .02); logistic EuroSCORE greater than 20 (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.02-3.29; P = .04); creatinine concentration greater than 200 μmol/L (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.07-6.15; P = .03), and intraoperative complications (OR, 5.80; 95% CI, 2.68-12.55; P < .001). There were no significant differences in outcomes between high- and low-volume centers and between the first and the second 50% of cases., Conclusions: TA-TAVI represents a safe and effective alternative treatment for patients who are inoperable or at high risk for surgery. The occurrence of an intraoperative complication significantly affects survival. Procedural volume and learning curve have no impact on patient survival., (Copyright © 2011 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To critically review the available transcatheter aortic valve implantation techniques and their results, as well as propose recommendations for their use and development., Methods and Results: A committee of experts including European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery and European Society of Cardiology representatives met to reach a consensus based on the analysis of the available data obtained with transcatheter aortic valve implantation and their own experience. The evidence suggests that this technique is feasible and provides haemodynamic and clinical improvement for up to 2 years in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis at high risk or with contraindications for surgery. Questions remain mainly concerning safety and long-term durability, which have to be assessed. Surgeons and cardiologists working as a team should select candidates, perform the procedure, and assess the results. Today, the use of this technique should be restricted to high-risk patients or those with contraindications for surgery. However, this may be extended to lower risk patients if the initial promise holds to be true after careful evaluation., Conclusion: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is a promising technique, which may offer an alternative to conventional surgery for high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. Today, careful evaluation is needed to avoid the risk of uncontrolled diffusion.