Search

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic adversely affected health care systems. Patients in need of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are especially susceptible to treatment delays., Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global TAVR activity., Methods: This international registry reported monthly TAVR case volume in participating institutions prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic (January 2018 to December 2021). Hospital-level information on public vs private, urban vs rural, and TAVR volume was collected, as was country-level information on socioeconomic status, COVID-19 incidence, and governmental public health responses., Results: We included 130 centers from 61 countries, including 65,980 TAVR procedures. The first and second pandemic waves were associated with a significant reduction of 15% (P < 0.001) and 7% (P < 0.001) in monthly TAVR case volume, respectively, compared with the prepandemic period. The third pandemic wave was not associated with reduced TAVR activity. A greater reduction in TAVR activity was observed in Africa (-52%; P = 0.001), Central-South America (-33%; P < 0.001), and Asia (-29%; P < 0.001). Private hospitals (P = 0.005), urban areas (P = 0.011), low-volume centers (P = 0.002), countries with lower development (P < 0.001) and economic status (P < 0.001), higher COVID-19 incidence (P < 0.001), and more stringent public health restrictions (P < 0.001) experienced a greater reduction in TAVR activity., Conclusions: TAVR procedural volume declined substantially during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in Africa, Central-South America, and Asia. National socioeconomic status, COVID-19 incidence, and public health responses were associated with treatment delays. This information should inform public health policy in case of future global health crises., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Lefèvre has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences; and received minor fees from Boston Scientific, Terumo, and Abbott. Dr Pilgrim has received research, travel, or educational grants to the institution without personal remuneration from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and ATSens; and speaker fees and consultancy fees to the institution from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, Biosensors, and Highlife. Dr Van Mieghem has received research grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Teleflex; and advisory board fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Inari, JenaValve, Medtronic, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Siemens, Pie Medical, and Teleflex. Dr Swaans has served as a proctor/lecturer for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Bioventrix Inc, Cardiac Dimensions, Edwards Lifesciences, GE Healthcare, Medtronic, and Philips Healthcare. Dr Prendergast has received speaker/consultancy fees from Medtronic, MicroPort, Anteris, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Resar has received institutional research funding from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott; and served as a TAVR proctor for Medtronic. Dr Chen has served as a consultant for Venus MedTech. Dr Hildick-Smith has received research funds and speaker fees from Medtronic. Dr Spence has received TAVR proctoring and consultancy fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Bunc has served as a proctor for Abbott, Meril, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Molnár has served as a consultant for Medtronic and Abbott. Dr Toggweiler has served as a consultant and proctor for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Biosensors; has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott Vascular; has served as a consultant for Medira, Shockwave, Teleflex, atHeart Medical, Cardiac Dimensions, and Polares Medical; has received institutional research grants from Boston Scientific, Fumedica, and Novartis; has received speaker honoraria from Sanofi, AstraZeneca, ReCor Medical, and Daiichi Sankyo; and holds equity in Hi-D Imaging. Dr Ojeda has received consulting fees from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences; and speaker fees from Philips and Word Medica. Dr Toutouzas has served as a proctor for Medtronic, Abbott, Myval, and Boston Scientific. Dr AlMerri has served as a TAVR proctor for Medtronic. Dr Noble has served as a proctor for Medtronic; and received institutional grant support from Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, and Medtronic. Dr Kala has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific; served on the Speakers Bureau for Edwards Lifesciences, Servier, and AstraZeneca; and received research support from Novartis. Dr Kurt has served as a TAVR proctor for Abbott. Dr Yin has served as a TAVR proctor for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott. Dr Sztejfman has served as a proctor for Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Meril Life Sciences, and MicroPort. Dr Mendiz has served as a proctor for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Gunasekaran has received fees from Medtronic, Meril Life Sciences, Abbott, and Boston Scientific. Dr Kao has served as a proctor for Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Dager has served as a consultant for Medtronic. Dr Ferrero-Guadagnoli has served as a proctor for Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Modine has served as a consultant for and received honorarium from Abbott, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Hayashida has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott. Dr Makkar has received research grants from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific, and served as a consultant for Cordis and Medtronic. Dr Mylotte has received institutional grant funding from Boston Scientific and Medtronic; and personal fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and MicroPort. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) commonly have co-morbidities requiring anticoagulation. However, the optimal post-procedural anticoagulation regimen is not well-established. This meta-analysis investigates safety and efficacy outcomes of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and Vitamin K Antagonist (VKA), with or without concomitant antiplatelet therapy. We searched EMBASE and MEDLINE for appropriate studies. Subgroup analyses were performed for anticoagulant monotherapy and combined therapy with antiplatelet agents. Eleven studies (6359 patients) were included. Overall, there were no differences between DOACs and VKA for all-cause mortality (Odds Ratio [OR]: .69; Credible Interval [CrI]: .40-1.06), cardiovascular-related mortality (OR: .76; Crl: .13-3.47), bleeding (OR: .95; CrI: .75-1.17), stroke (OR: 1.04; CrI: .65-1.63), myocardial infarction (OR: 1.51; CrI: .55-3.84), and valve thrombosis (OR: .29; CrI: .01-3.54). For DOACs vs VKA monotherapy subgroup, there were no differences in outcomes. For the combined therapy subgroup, there was decreased odds of all-cause mortality in the DOACs group compared with the VKA group (OR: .13; CrI: .02-.65), but no differences for bleeding and stroke. DOACs and VKA have similar safety and efficacy profiles for post-TAVI patients with anticoagulation indication. However, if concomitant antiplatelet therapy is required, DOACs were more favorable than VKA for all-cause mortality.

Indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have expanded in many countries to include patients with aortic stenosis who are at low surgical risk, and a similar expansion to this cohort is anticipated elsewhere in the world, together with an increase in the proportion of patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) morphology as the age of the patients being treated decreases. To date, patients with BAV have been excluded from major randomized trials of TAVI owing to anatomical considerations. As a consequence, BAV has been a relative contraindication to the use of TAVI in international guidelines. Although clinical experience and observational data are accumulating, BAV presents numerous anatomical challenges for successful TAVI, despite advances in device design. Furthermore, in those with BAV, substantial geographical variation exists in patient characteristics, clinical approach and procedural strategy. Therefore, in this Roadmap article, we summarize the existing evidence and provide consensus recommendations from an international group of experts on the application of TAVI in patients with BAV in advance of the anticipated growth in the use of this procedure in this challenging cohort of patients., (© 2022. Springer Nature Limited.)

Current guidelines on the management of patients with aortic valvular disease have widened the use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with an emphasis on avoidance of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM). This study sought to examine the incidence, risk factors, and all-cause mortality of PPM after TAVI. Medline and Embase databases were searched from inception to August 10, 2021. Patients were compared along 2 arms: (1) any degree of PPM and those without PPM, (2) severe PPM, and nonsevere PPM. A total of 22 articles involving 115,442 patients after TAVI were included. Pooled incidence for any degree of PPM was 30.1% and 10.7% in severe PPM. Incidence was significantly higher (p <0.001) for any degree of PPM in Europe (33.1%) and North America (34.4%) compared with Asia (10.4%). Incidence of severe PPM was higher (p = 0.015) in older generation (13.6%) compared with current-generation valves (6.3%). Severe PPM increased the risk of all-cause mortality relative to nonsevere PPM (hazard ratio: 1.86, 95% confidence interval: 1.05 to 3.29, p = 0.034). Patients of younger age, increased body surface area, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and classified New York Heart Association Class III/IV were at greater risk of both any degree and severe PPM. Smaller prosthesis size increased the risk of any degree of PPM, whereas postdilation and larger prostheses were protective factors. In conclusion, all-cause mortality was significantly affected in severe PPM compared with nonsevere cases, whereas this excess mortality was not observed between those with any degree of PPM and those without. Closer attention to patient and bioprosthetic valve factors is required to minimize the occurrence of severe PPM., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The success rate of coronary angiography (CA) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is variable. Our aim was to investigate CA difficulty, outcomes, and predictors of difficult CA after TAVI., Method: This was an international multicentric retrospective cohort study that included patients with TAVI and subsequent CA between January 2010 and December 2019. Difficulty with CA was graded as 1 (normal), 2 (partial engagement, complete vessel opacification), 3 (partial engagement, incomplete vessel opacification), and 4 (unsuccessful angiography). Patients were grouped as (a) "easy" (grade 1 for left and right) or (b) "difficult" (grade >1 for either). We compared baseline characteristics and outcomes, and performed multivariate logistic regression for predictors of difficult CA., Results: Of 96 patients included (mean age 77.4±8.7 years, 48 [50%] male), 88 (92%) had successful CA. Right CA was successful in 80 (83%) patients and left CA in 91 (95%) (p<0.0001). The "difficult" group (n=41 [43%]) had higher Society of Thoracic Surgery (STS) scores (7.6±4.9 vs 5.4±4.0; p=0.022), smaller annulus perimeters (72.4±5.4 mm vs 76.2±9.4 mm; p=0.049), greater use of self-expanding valves (83% vs 18%; p<0.0001), increased valve size (26.8±2.1 mm vs 25.6±3.0 mm; p=0.032), and increased oversizing for area (44.3%±17.4% vs 23.6%±22.0%; p=0.0002) and perimeter (17.5%±8.2% vs 7.1%±10.8%; p<0.0001). There was no difference in outcomes except for increased major bleeding (7.3% vs 0.0%; p=0.042). The strongest predictor for "difficult" CA was self-expanding valves when compared to balloon-expandable valves (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 15.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.27-102.40). Society of Thoracic Surgery score was borderline predictive (aOR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.52)., Conclusions: Our results show that after TAVI, CA success rate is high, right CA is more difficult than left, self-expanding valves predispose to difficult CA, and STS score weakly predicts difficult CA. This study is hypothesis-generating and more research is required to confirm these findings., (Copyright © 2021 Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons (ANZSCTS) and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the treatment of patient with aortic valve stenosis is unknown and there is uncertainty on the optimal strategies in managing these patients., Methods: This study is supported and endorsed by the Asia Pacific Society of Interventional Cardiology. Due to the inability to have face to face discussions during the pandemic, an online survey was performed by inviting key opinion leaders (cardiac surgeon/interventional cardiologist/echocardiologist) in the field of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in Asia to participate. The answers to a series of questions pertaining to the impact of COVID-19 on TAVI were collected and analyzed. These led subsequently to an expert consensus recommendation on the conduct of TAVI during the pandemic., Results: The COVID-19 pandemic had resulted in a 25% (10-80) reduction of case volume and 53% of operators required triaging to manage their patients with severe aortic stenosis. The two most important parameters used to triage were symptoms and valve area. Periprocedural changes included the introduction of teleconsultation, preprocedure COVID-19 testing, optimization of protests, and catheterization laboratory set up. In addition, length of stay was reduced from a mean of 4.4 to 4 days., Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted on the delivery of TAVI services to patients in Asia. This expert recommendation on best practices may be a useful guide to help TAVI teams during this period until a COVID-19 vaccine becomes widely available., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Introduction: Singapore has the world's second most efficient healthcare system while costing less than 5% GDP. It remains unclear whether transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is cost-effective for treating intermediate-low risk severe aortic stenosis (AS) patients in a highly efficient healthcare system., Materials and Methods: A two-phase economic model combining decision tree and Markov model was developed to assess the costs, effectiveness, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of transfemoral (TF) TAVI versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in intermediate-low risk patients over an 8-year time horizon. Mortality and complications rates were based on PARTNER 2 trial cohort A and Singapore life table. Costs were mainly retrieved from Singapore National University Health System database. Health utility data were obtained from Singapore population based on the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). A variety of sensitivity analyses were conducted., Results: In base case scenario, the incremental effectiveness of TF-TAVI versus SAVR was 0.19 QALYs. The ICER of TF-TAVI was S$33,833/QALY. When time horizon was reduced to 5 years, the ICER was S$60,825/QALY; when event rates from the propensity analysis was used, the ICER was S$21,732/QALY and S$44,598/QALY over 8-year and 5-year time horizons, respectively. At a willingness to pay threshold of S$73,167/QALY, TF-TAVI had a 98.19% probability of being cost-effective after 100,000 simulations. The model was the most sensitive to the costs of TF-TAVI procedure., Conclusion: TF-TAVI is a highly cost-effective option compared to SAVR for intermediate-low risk severe AS patients from a Singapore healthcare system perspective. Increased procedure experience, reduction in device cost, and technology advance may have further increased the cost-effectiveness of TF-TAVI per scenario analysis.

Introduction: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an effective treatment for high-risk or inoperative patients with severe aortic stenosis. Given the unique characteristics of Asian populations, questions regarding mid-term outcomes in Asians undergoing TAVI have yet to be addressed. We evaluated the two-year clinical outcomes of TAVI in an Asian population using Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions., Methods: This prospective study recruited 59 patients from a major academic medical centre in Singapore. The main outcomes were two-year survival rates, peri-procedural complications, symptom improvement, valvular function and assessment of learning curve., Results: Mean age was 76.8 years (61.0% male), mean body surface area 1.6 m 2 and mean logistic EuroSCORE 18.7%. Survival was 93.2%, 86.0% and 79.1% at 30 days, one year and two years, respectively. At 30 days post TAVI, the rate of stroke was 1.7%, life-threatening bleeding 5.1%, acute kidney injury 25.0%, major vascular complication 5.1%, and new permanent pacemaker implantation 6.8%. 29.3% of TAVI patients were rehospitalised (47.1% cardiovascular-related) within one year. These composite outcomes were measured: device success (93.2%); early safety (79.7%); clinical efficacy (66.1%); and time-related valve safety (84.7%). Univariate analysis found these predictors of two-year all-cause mortality: logistic EuroSCORE (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07; p < 0.001); baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (HR 0.97; p = 0.048); and acute kidney injury (HR 5.33; p = 0.022). Multivariate analysis identified non-transfemoral TAVI as a predictor of cardiovascular-related two-year mortality (HR 14.64; p = 0.008)., Conclusion: Despite the unique clinical differences in Asian populations, this registry demonstrated favourable mid-term clinical and safety outcomes in Asians undergoing TAVI., (Copyright: © Singapore Medical Association)

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is being increasingly performed in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (AS)., Objectives: This study sought to compare the procedural and clinical outcomes in patients with bicuspid versus tricuspid AS from the Bicuspid AS TAVR multicenter registry., Methods: Outcomes of 561 patients with bicuspid AS and 4,546 patients with tricuspid AS were compared after propensity score matching, assembling 546 pairs of patients with similar baseline characteristics. Procedural and clinical outcomes were recorded according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria., Results: Compared with patients with tricuspid AS, patients with bicuspid AS had more frequent conversion to surgery (2.0% vs. 0.2%; p = 0.006) and a significantly lower device success rate (85.3% vs. 91.4%; p = 0.002). Early-generation devices were implanted in 320 patients with bicuspid and 321 patients with tricuspid AS, whereas new-generation devices were implanted in 226 and 225 patients with bicuspid and tricuspid AS, respectively. Within the group receiving early-generation devices, bicuspid AS had more frequent aortic root injury (4.5% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.015) when receiving the balloon-expanding device, and moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak (19.4% vs. 10.5%; p = 0.02) when receiving the self-expanding device. Among patients with new-generation devices, however, procedural results were comparable across different prostheses. The cumulative all-cause mortality rates at 2 years were comparable between bicuspid and tricuspid AS (17.2% vs. 19.4%; p = 0.28)., Conclusions: Compared with tricuspid AS, TAVR in bicuspid AS was associated with a similar prognosis, but lower device success rate. Procedural differences were observed in patients treated with the early-generation devices, whereas no differences were observed with the new-generation devices., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Few studies have evaluated the clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (AS). Particularly, limited data exist comparing the results of TAVR with new-generation devices versus early-generation devices., Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes of TAVR for bicuspid AS with early- and new-generation devices., Methods: The Bicuspid TAVR Registry is an international multicenter study enrolling consecutive patients with bicuspid AS undergoing TAVR between April 2005 and May 2015., Results: Of 301 patients, 199 patients (71.1%) were treated with early-generation devices (Sapien XT [Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, Irvine, California]: n = 87; CoreValve [Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota]: n = 112) and 102 with new-generation devices (Sapien 3 [Edwards Lifesciences Corporation]: n = 91; Lotus [Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough, Massachusetts]: n = 11). The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 4.7 ± 5.2 without significant differences between groups (4.6 ± 5.1 vs. 4.9 ± 5.4; p = 0.57). Overall, all-cause mortality rates were 4.3% at 30 days and 14.4% at 1 year. Moderate or severe paravalvular leak was absent and significantly less frequent with new-generation compared to early-generation devices (0.0% vs. 8.5%; p = 0.002), which resulted in a higher device success rate (92.2% vs. 80.9%; p = 0.01). There were no differences between early- and new-generation devices in stroke (2.5% vs. 2.0%; p > 0.99), life-threatening bleeding (3.5% vs. 2.9%; p > 0.99), major vascular complication (4.5% vs. 2.9%; p = 0.76), stage 2 to 3 acute kidney injury (2.5% vs. 2.9%; p > 0.99), early safety endpoints (15.1% vs. 10.8%; p = 0.30), and 30-day all-cause mortality (4.5% vs. 3.9%; p > 0.99)., Conclusions: The clinical outcomes of TAVR in patients with bicuspid AS were favorable. New-generation devices were associated with less paravalvular leak and, hence, a higher device success rate than early-generation devices. (The Bicuspid Aortic Stenosis Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Registry [Bicuspid TAVR]; NCT02394184)., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study describes the characteristics of a real-world Asian patient population treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and evaluates their clinical outcomes., Background: No previously reported randomized or observational studies adequately assess the safety and efficacy of TAVR in an Asian population., Methods: The Asian TAVR registry is an international multicenter study that enrolled patients with aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR in Asian countries., Results: In total, 848 patients with mean STS score of 5.2 ± 3.8% were enrolled between March 2010 and September 2014 at 11 centers in 5 countries. The Edwards Sapien or Medtronic CoreValve was implanted in 64.7% and 35.3% of patients, respectively. The procedural success rate was 97.5%. The 30-day and 1-year mortality rates were 2.5% and 10.8%, respectively. There was no difference in 1-year mortality between devices (Sapien: 9.4%; CoreValve: 12.2%; log-rank p = 0.40). The rates of stroke, life-threatening bleeding, major vascular complications and acute kidney injury (stage 2 to 3) were 3.8%, 6.4%, 5.0% and 3.3%, respectively. Moderate or severe paravalvular leakage was significantly more common with the CoreValve than Sapien (14.4% vs. 7.3%; p = 0.001). According to the multivariate model, a higher STS score, lower body mass index, New York Heart Association functional class III-IV symptoms, diabetes mellitus, prior cerebrovascular accident, low mean gradient at baseline, and moderate or severe paravalvular leakage were significantly associated with reduced survival., Conclusions: Despite anatomical features of concern, the clinical outcomes of TAVR in our Asian population were favorable in comparison with those of previously published trials and observational studies. (The Asian Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Registry [Asian TAVR]; NCT02308150)., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)