Search

Background: Although the prognosis and management of severe aortic stenosis has been extensively studied, the risk stratification and outcomes of patients with moderate aortic stenosis remain elusive., Methods: This study included 674 patients from the Cleveland Clinic Health System with moderate aortic stenosis (aortic valve area, 1-1.5 cm 2 ; mean gradient, 20-40 mm Hg; and peak velocity <4 m/s) and an NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) level within 3 months of index diagnosis. The primary outcome of major adverse cardiovascular events (defined as the composite outcome of progression to severe aortic stenosis requiring aortic valve replacement, heart failure hospitalization, or death) was extracted from the electronic medical record., Results: The mean age was 75.3±12 years, and 57% were men. During a median follow-up of 316 days, the composite end point occurred in 305 patients. There were 132 (19.6%) deaths, 144 (21.4%) heart failure hospitalizations, and 114 (16.9%) patients underwent aortic valve replacement. Elevated NT-proBNP (1.41 [95% CI, 1.01-1.95]; P =0.048), diabetes (1.46 [95% CI, 1.08-1.96]; P =0.01), elevated averaged mitral valve E/e' ratio (hazard ratio, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.18-2.10]; P <0.01), and presence atrial fibrillation at the time of index echocardiogram (hazard ratio, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.15-2.91]; P =0.01) were each independently associated with an increased hazard for the composite outcome and when taken collectively, each of these factors incrementally increased risk., Conclusions: These results further elucidate the relatively poor short-medium term outcomes and risk stratification of patients with moderate aortic stenosis, supporting randomized trials assessing the efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in this population., Competing Interests: Disclosures None.

Background: There is a significant increase in morbidity and mortality in patients complicated by major bleeding following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). It has become more challenging to manage such complications when the patient needs to be on anticoagulation or antiplatelet agent post-procedure to prevent thrombotic/embolic complications., Methods: We systematically reviewed all available randomized controlled trials and observational studies to identify incidence rates of gastrointestinal bleeding post-procedure. After performing a systematic search, a total of 8731 patients from 15 studies (5 RCTs and 10 non-RCTs) were included in this review., Results: The average rate of gastrointestinal bleeding during follow-up was 3.0% in randomized controlled trials and 1.9% among observational studies., Conclusion: Gastrointestinal bleeding has been noted to be higher in the RCTs as compared to observational studies. This review expands knowledge of current guidelines and possible management of patients undergoing TAVR., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)

Objective: A recently published randomized control trial showed different results with suture-based vascular closure device (VCD) than plug-based VCD in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The learning curve for MANTA device is steep, while the learning curve for suture based VCD is shallow as the devices are quite different. In this meta-analysis, we have compared suture-based (ProGlide and Prostar XL) vs plug-based VCDs (MANTA)., Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of all published studies (using PubMed/Medline and Cochrane databases) reporting the clinical outcome of plug-based vs suture-based VCDs in transfemoral TAVR patients., Results: We included nine studies with a total of 2865 patients (plug-based n = 1631, suture-based n = 1234). There was no significant difference in primary outcome of all bleeding when using plug-based as opposed to suture-based VCDs (RR 1.14 [0.62-2.06] I 2  = 72%). There was no significant difference in the incidence of secondary outcomes between two groups including major life threatening bleeding (RR 1.16 [0.38-3.58] I 2  = 65%), major vascular complications (RR 0.84 [0.35-2.00] I 2  = 55%), minor vascular complications (RR 1.05 [0.56-1.95] I 2  = 42%), pseudo aneurysm (RR 1.84 [0.11-29.98] I 2  = 44%), stenosis-dissection (RR 0.98 [0.66-1.47] I 2  = 0%), VCD failure (RR 1.71 [0.96-3.04] I 2  = 0%), and blood transfusion (RR 1.01 [0.38-2.71], I 2  = 61%)., Conclusion: Large bore arteriotomy closure with plug-based VCD was not superior to suture-based VCDs in this transfemoral TAVR population. There was very frequent use of secondary VCDs in suture-based VCD group which is not practical when using MANTA. Additional high-powered studies are required to determine the safety and efficacy of MANTA device., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Cardiological Society of India. Published by Elsevier, a division of RELX India, Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The ideal antithrombotic therapy post transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains uncertain. We performed a network meta-analysis of RCTs to report the outcomes with various antithrombotic strategies to determine the optimal therapy. A systematic search of the PubMed/Medline and Cochrane databases was performed through January 6, 2022. The primary outcome was stroke and the secondary outcomes were major/life-threatening bleeding, myocardial infarction, all-cause mortality, and cardiac mortality. A network meta-analysis was conducted with a random-effects model. All analysis was carried out using R version 4.0.3. Six RCTs were included in the final analysis. SAPT when compared with DAPT was associated with a reduced risk of major or life-threatening bleeding [OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.25-0.70]. Other antithrombotic strategies were associated with similar odds of major and life-threatening bleeding post TAVR compared with DAPT. There was no difference in the incidence of stroke, myocardial infarction, all-cause and cardiac mortality between the various antithrombotic strategies post TAVR. The present analysis reported SAPT as the preferred antithrombotic regimen post TAVR compared with other regimens in patients who do not have other indications for anticoagulation. Additional studies such as ADAPT-TAVR, CLOE and ATLANTIS trials will further add to our understanding of the adequate antithrombotic regimen post TAVR in patients with otherwise no indication for anticoagulation., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Limited information is available on outcomes in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), as pivotal randomised trials excluded patients with BAV pathology due to anatomic complexity., Aims: The aim of the study was to compare early outcomes between TAVI and SAVR in patients with BAV stenosis., Methods: We queried the Nationwide Readmission Database (NRD) between 2016 and 2018 to identify adults who underwent TAVI or SAVR for BAV stenosis. The study's primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day and six-month major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We matched both cohorts using propensity score matching, and applied logistic and Cox-proportional hazard regression to compute the odds ratio (OR), the hazard ratio (HR), and the 95% confidence interval (CI)., Results: Out of 17,068 patients with BAV stenosis, 1,629 (9.5%) patients underwent TAVI and 15,439 (90.5%) underwent SAVR. After propensity score matching (PSM), we found 1,393 matched pairs. Of the matched pairs, 848 had complete six-month follow-ups. In the PSM cohort, TAVI was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality (0.7% vs 1.8%, OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.13-0.93; p=0.035), and a similar rate of MACE at 30 days (1% vs 1.5%, OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.27-1.58; p=0.343) and at six months (4.2% vs 4.9%, HR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.44-1.69; p=0.674), compared with SAVR., Conclusions: In the propensity score-matched cohort, TAVI was associated with reduced odds of in-hospital mortality and a similar risk of 30-day and six-month MACE, supporting the feasibility of TAVI in BAV patients without a need for concurrent aortic root repair.

Background: Limited data are available regarding clinical outcomes of valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) following the United States Food and Drug Administration approval of ViV TAVI in 2015., Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate in-hospital, 30-day, and 6-month outcomes of ViV TAVI versus repeat surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with a failed aortic bioprosthetic valve., Methods: This retrospective cohort study identified patients who underwent ViV TAVI or repeat SAVR utilising the Nationwide Readmission Database from 2016 to 2018. Primary outcomes were all-cause readmission (at 30 days and 6 months) and in-hospital death. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital stroke, pacemaker implantation, 30-day/6-month major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and mortality during readmission. Propensity score-matching (inverse probability of treatment weighting) analyses were implemented., Results: Out of 6,769 procedures performed, 3,724 (55%) patients underwent ViV TAVI, and 3,045 (45%) underwent repeat SAVR. ViV TAVI was associated with lower in-hospital all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20-0.90, p=0.026) and a higher rate of 30-day (hazard ratio [HR] 1.46, 95% CI: 1.13-1.90, p=0.004) and 6-month all-cause readmission (HR 1.54, 95% CI: 1.14-2.10, p=0.006) compared with repeat SAVR. All secondary outcomes were comparable between the two groups., Conclusions: ViV TAVI was associated with lower in-hospital mortality but higher 30-day and 6-month all-cause readmission. However, there was no difference in risk of in-hospital stroke, post-procedure pacemaker implantation, MACE, and mortality during 30-day and 6-month readmission compared with repeat SAVR, suggesting that ViV TAVI can be performed safely in carefully selected patients.

Most of the trials investigating the role of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) across various strata of risk categories have excluded patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis (BAS) due to its anatomical complexities. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis with meta-regression of studies comparing clinical, procedural, and after-procedural echocardiographic outcomes in BAS versus tricuspid aortic stenosis (TAS) patients who underwent TAVI. We searched the PubMed and Cochrane databases for relevant articles from the inception of the database to October 2019. Continuous and categorical variables were pooled using inverse variance and Mantel-Haenszel method, respectively, using the random-effect model. To rate the certainty of evidence for each outcome, we used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) approach. Nineteen articles were included in the final analysis. There was no difference in the risk of 30-day mortality, 1-year mortality, 30-day cardiovascular mortality, major and/or life-threatening bleeding, major vascular complications, acute kidney injury, permanent pacemaker implantation, device success, annular rupture, after-procedural aortic valve area, and mean pressure gradient between the 2 groups. BAS patients who underwent TAVI had a higher risk of 30-day stroke, conversion to surgery, need for second valve implantation, and moderate to severe paravalvular leak. In conclusion, the present meta-analysis supports the feasibility of TAVI in surgically ineligible patients with BAS. However, the incidence of certain procedural complications such as stroke, conversion to surgery, second valve implantation, and paravalvular leak is higher among BAS patients compared with TAS patients, which must be discussed with the patient during the decision-making process., Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Note: All authors had access to the data and a role in writing the manuscript. The present work was conducted at New York Medical College, Metropolitan Hospital Centre., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The main objective was to determine the optimal strategy for managing asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis between early intervention versus conservative management. We performed a systematic electronic search of the PubMed and Cochrane databases from the inception of the database to May 31, 2020. The Mantel Haenszel method with the Paule-Mandel estimator of Tau 2 and Hartung-Knapp adjustment were used to calculate relative risk (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and 95% prediction interval. P curve analysis was used to assess publication bias and estimate the true effect of an intervention. All analysis was carried out using R version 3.6.2. A total of 9 studies were included in the final analysis, consisting of 1,775 patients with early intervention and 3,040 patients with conservative management. Early intervention as compared with conservative management was associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.53), cardiac mortality (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.48) and noncardiac mortality (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.56). There was no difference in the risk of sudden cardiac death (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.40), stroke (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.64), myocardial infarction (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.01 to 16.82) or heart failure hospitalization (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 5.29) with early intervention compared with conservative management. In conclusion, early intervention is associated with reduced all-cause, cardiovascular, and noncardiovascular mortality without increasing any procedure-related clinical outcomes among asymptomatic severe AS patients. Hence, this meta-analysis supports early intervention instead of watchful waiting for the management of asymptomatic severe AS. This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO- CRD42020188439., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)