Search

Patients with non-paradoxical low-flow–low-gradient (LFLG) aortic stenosis (AS) are at increased surgical risk, and thus, they may particularly benefit from transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, data on this issue are still limited and based on the results with older-generation transcatheter heart valves (THVs). The aim of this study was to investigate early and mid-term outcome of TAVR with newer-generation THVs in the setting of LFLG AS. Data for the present analysis were gathered from the OBSERVANT II dataset, a national Italian observational, prospective, multicenter cohort study that enrolled 2,989 consecutive AS patients who underwent TAVR at 30 Italian centers between December 2016 and September 2018, using newer-generation THVs. Overall, 420 patients with LVEF ≤50% and mean aortic gradient n = 389) with those who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR, n = 401) from the OBSERVANT I study. Patients with LFLG AS undergoing TAVR were old (mean age, 80.8 ± 6.7 years) and with increased operative risk (mean EuroSCORE II, 11.5 ± 10.2%). VARC-3 device success was 83.3% with 7.6% of moderate/severe paravalvular leak. Thirty-day mortality was 3.1%. One-year all-cause mortality was 17.4%, and the composite endpoint was 34.8%. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR 1.78) and EuroSCORE II (HR 1.02) were independent predictors of 1-year mortality, while diabetes (HR 1.53) and class NYHA IV (HR 2.38) were independent predictors of 1-year mortality or CHF. Compared with LFLG AS treated with SAVR, TAVR patients had a higher rate of major vascular complications and permanent pacemaker, while SAVR patients underwent more frequently to blood transfusion, cardiogenic shock, AKI, and MI. However, 30-day and 1-year outcomes were similar between groups. Patients with non-paradoxical LFLG AS treated by TAVR were older and with higher surgical risk compared with SAVR patients. Notwithstanding, TAVR was safe and effective with a similar outcome to SAVR at both early and mid-term.

Background: Data reflecting the benefit of procedural improvements in real-world transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) practice are sparse. Aims: To compare outcomes and trends of two TAVI eras from real Italian practice. Methods: A total of 1811 and 2939 TAVI patients enrolled in the national, prospective OBSERVANT and OBSERVANT II studies in 2010–2012 and 2016–2018, respectively, were compared in a cohort study. Outcomes were adjusted using inverse propensity of treatment weighting and propensity score matching. Results: The median age (83.0 (79.0–86.0) vs. 83.0 (79.0–86.0)) and EuroSCORE II (5.2 (3.2–7.7) vs. 5.1 (3.1–8.1)) of OBSERVANT and OBSERVANT II patients were similar. At 1 year, patients of the OBSERVANT II study had a significantly lower risk of all-cause death (10.6% vs. 16.3%, Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.63 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.52–0.76)) and rehospitalization for heart failure (HF) (14.3% vs. 19.5%, Sub-distribution HR 0.71 (95%CI 0.60–0.84)), whereas rates of stroke (3.1% vs. 3.6%) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) (16.6% vs. 18.0%) were comparable between study groups. Conclusions: Age and risk profile among patients undergoing TAVI in Italy remained substantially unchanged between the 2010–2012 and 2016–2018 time periods. After adjustment, patients undergoing TAVI in the most recent era had lower risk of all-cause death and rehospitalization for HF at 1 year, whereas rates of stroke and PPI did not differ significantly.

The superiority of transcatheter (TAVR) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic stenosis (AS) has not been fully demonstrated in a real-world setting. This prospective study included 5706 AS patients who underwent SAVR from 2010 to 2012 and 2989 AS patients who underwent TAVR from 2017 to 2018 from the prospective multicenter observational studies OBSERVANT I and II. Early adverse events as well as all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), and hospital readmission due to heart failure at 1-year were investigated. Among 1008 propensity score matched pairs, TAVR was associated with significantly lower 30-day mortality (1.8 vs. 3.5%, p = 0.020), stroke (0.8 vs. 2.3%, p = 0.005), and acute kidney injury (0.6 vs. 8.2%, p &lt, 0.001) compared to SAVR. Moderate-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation (5.9 vs. 2.0%, p &lt, 0.001) and permanent pacemaker implantation (13.8 vs. 3.3%, p &lt, 0.001) were more frequent after TAVR. At 1-year, TAVR was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (7.9 vs. 11.5%, p = 0.006), MACCE (12.0 vs. 15.8%, p = 0.011), readmission due to heart failure (10.8 vs. 15.9%, p &lt, 0.001), and stroke (3.2 vs. 5.1%, p = 0.033) compared to SAVR. TAVR reduced 1-year mortality in the subgroups of patients aged 80 years or older (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.33–0.71), in females (HR 0.57, 0.38–0.85), and among patients with EuroSCORE II ≥ 4.0% (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32–0.71). In a real-world setting, TAVR using new-generation devices was associated with lower rates of adverse events up to 1-year follow-up compared to SAVR.

Background To assess clinical outcomes of patients with concomitant severe aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD) who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods Data were extracted from the multicenter OBSERVANT study. For the purposes of the present analysis, we included only patients with established stable CAD meeting any of the following inclusion criteria: 1) TAVI patients with CAD undergoing staged PCI or TAVI and PCI in the same session; 2) SAVR patients undergoing combined SAVR and CABG in the same session. Results After propensity-score matching, a total of 472 patients (236 per group) were identified. Among TAVI patients, PCI was performed prior to the procedure in 217 patients (92.0%), whereas concomitant TAVI and PCI were performed in 19 patients (8.0%). At 3-year, there was no difference in survival between the two groups (KM estimate of freedom from death for SAVR and TAVI patients of 0.742 and 0.650, respectively; log-rank p-value of 0.105). The rate of MACCE was comparable between the two groups (KM estimate of freedom from MACCE for SAVR and TAVI patients of 0.683 and 0.582, respectively; log-rank p-value of 0.115). Conclusions In patients with associated severe AS and CAD, percutaneous treatment (TAVR and staged or concomitant PCI) was comparable to surgical treatment (SAVR and concomitant CABG) with respect to the early and mid-term risk of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke and unplanned revascularization.

Introduction: Data on the early and late outcome following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in obese patients are limited. We investigated whether TAVI may be superior to SAVR in obese patients. Material and methods: Obese patients (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m²) who underwent either SAVR or TAVI were identified from the nationwide OBSERVANT registry, and their in-hospital and long-term outcomes were analysed. Propensity score matching was employed to identify two cohorts with similar baseline characteristics. Results: The propensity score matching provided 142 pairs balanced in terms of baseline risk factors. In-hospital and 30-day mortality did not differ between SAVR and TAVI obese patients (4.6% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.56, and 5.2% vs. 3.2%, p = 0.41, respectively). Obese SAVR patients experienced a higher rate of renal failure (12.4% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.0105) and blood transfusion requirement (60.3% vs. 25.7%, p < 0.0001) in comparison with TAVI patients. A higher rate of permanent pacemaker implantation (14.4% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.0018), and major vascular injuries (7.4% vs. 0%, p = 0.0044) occurred in the TAVI group. Five-year survival was higher in the SAVR group compared to the TAVI patient cohort (p = 0.0046), with survival estimates at 1, 3 and 5 years of 88.0%, 80.3%, 71.8% for patients undergoing SAVR, and 85.2%, 69.0%, 52.8% for those subjected to TAVI procedures. Conclusions: In obese patients, both SAVR and TAVI are valid treatment options, although in the long term SAVR exhibited higher survival rates.

Objective To evaluate outcomes of monitored anesthesia care (MAC) compared with general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Design Secondary analysis from the observational and prospective OBSERVANT (OBservational Study of Effectiveness of avR–taVi procedures for severe Aortic steNosis Treatment) study. Setting Multicenter study, including Italian hospitals performing TAVR interventions. Participants One thousand four hundred ninety-four patients with severe and symptomatic aortic stenosis. Interventions Transfemoral TAVR under general or local anesthesia. Measurements and Main Results A propensity score procedure was applied, and 310 pairs were matched with similar baseline characteristics (EuroSCORE II: local anesthesia 6.6±5.9% v general anesthesia 7.0±7.7%, p = 0.430). MAC was associated with similar 30-day mortality compared with GA (3.9% v 4.8%, p = 0.564). TAVR was performed under MAC without any increased risk of other adverse events. The risk of paravalvular regurgitation≥mild was similar between the study groups (MAC 49.5% v general anesthesia 57.0%, p = 0.858). Two patients receiving on MAC had severe paravalvular regurgitation, whereas this complication was not observed after GA. Permanent pacemaker implantation was 19.1% in the MAC group v 14.8% in the GA group (p = 0.168). Mean intensive care unit stay was 3.5 days for the GA group v 2.9 days for the MAC group (p = 0.086). A similar 3-year survival rate was observed (MAC 69.4% v GA 69.9%, p = 0.966). Conclusions Transfemoral TAVR can be performed under MAC with similar immediate and late outcomes as compared with GA. A possible risk of severe paravalvular regurgitation and pacemaker implantation with TAVR under MAC requires further investigation.

Background: The OBSERVANT study (Observational Study of Effectiveness of SAVR–TAVI Procedures for Severe Aortic Stenosis Treatment) showed that mortality at 1 year is similar after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for real-world propensity-matched patients with aortic stenosis at low and intermediate risk. We report the 5-year outcomes of the Italian OBSERVANT study. Methods and Results: The unadjusted enrolled population (N=7618) between December 2010 and June 2012 included 5707 patients on SAVR and 1911 patients on TAVR. The propensity score method was applied to select 2 groups with similar baseline characteristics. All outcomes were adjudicated through a linkage with administrative databases. The primary end points of this analysis were death from any cause and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 5 years. The matched population had a total of 1300 patients (650 per group). The propensity score method generated a low and intermediate-risk population (mean logistic EuroSCORE 2: 5.1±6.2% versus 4.9±5.1%, SAVR versus transfemoral TAVR; P =0.485). At 5 years, the rate of 5 death from any cause was 35.8% in the surgical group and 48.3% in the transcatheter group (hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12–1.69; P =0.002). Similarly, TAVR was associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events as compared with SAVR (42.5% versus 54.0%; hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.11–1.63; P =0.003). The cumulative incidence of cerebrovascular events, myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularization were similar in the study groups at 5 years. Conclusions: The present results suggest that at 5 years, in a real-world population with severe aortic stenosis and at low and intermediate risk, suggest that SAVR is associated in with lower mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events rates than transfemoral TAVR performed using first-generation devices. These data need to be confirmed in randomized trials using new-generation TAVR devices.

Background: The OBSERVANT study (Observational Study of Effectiveness of SAVR–TAVI Procedures for Severe Aortic Stenosis Treatment) showed that mortality at 1 year is similar after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for real-world propensity-matched patients with aortic stenosis at low and intermediate risk. We report the 5-year outcomes of the Italian OBSERVANT study. Methods and Results: The unadjusted enrolled population (N=7618) between December 2010 and June 2012 included 5707 patients on SAVR and 1911 patients on TAVR. The propensity score method was applied to select 2 groups with similar baseline characteristics. All outcomes were adjudicated through a linkage with administrative databases. The primary end points of this analysis were death from any cause and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 5 years. The matched population had a total of 1300 patients (650 per group). The propensity score method generated a low and intermediate-risk population (mean logistic EuroSCORE 2: 5.1±6.2% versus 4.9±5.1%, SAVR versus transfemoral TAVR; P=0.485). At 5 years, the rate of 5 death from any cause was 35.8% in the surgical group and 48.3% in the transcatheter group (hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12–1.69; P=0.002). Similarly, TAVR was associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events as compared with SAVR (42.5% versus 54.0%; hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.11–1.63; P=0.003). The cumulative incidence of cerebrovascular events, myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularization were similar in the study groups at 5 years. Conclusions: The present results suggest that at 5 years, in a real-world population with severe aortic stenosis and at low and intermediate risk, suggest that SAVR is associated in with lower mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events rates than transfemoral TAVR performed using first-generation devices. These data need to be confirmed in randomized trials using new-generation TAVR devices.

OBJECTIVES We aimed to analyze the baseline features and clinical outcomes of patients younger than 80 years undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) enrolled in the OBservational Study of Effectiveness of SAVR-TAVR procedures for severe Aortic steNosis Treatment (OBSERVANT) real-world study, focusing on variables guiding Heart Team decision toward TAVI. BACKGROUND Patients treated with TAVI, independently of surgical risk score, are mostly older than 80 years. METHODS OBSERVANT is a multicenter, observational, prospective cohort study that enrolled patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) who underwent SAVR or TAVI from December 2010 to June 2012 in 93 Italian participating hospitals. For this analysis, baseline characteristics, therapeutic approach and outcomes up to 5 years of follow-up of 4,801 patients under 80 years of age were collected. Patients were stratified by age classes (

Background: To assess clinical outcomes of patients with concomitant severe aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD) who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods: Data were extracted from the multicenter OBSERVANT study. For the purposes of the present analysis, we included only patients with established stable CAD meeting any of the following inclusion criteria: 1) TAVI patients with CAD undergoing staged PCI or TAVI and PCI in the same session; 2) SAVR patients undergoing combined SAVR and CABG in the same session. Results: After propensity-score matching, a total of 472 patients (236 per group) were identified. Among TAVI patients, PCI was performed prior to the procedure in 217 patients (92.0%), whereas concomitant TAVI and PCI were performed in 19 patients (8.0%). At 3-year, there was no difference in survival between the two groups (KM estimate of freedom from death for SAVR and TAVI patients of 0.742 and 0.650, respectively; log-rank p-value of 0.105). The rate of MACCE was comparable between the two groups (KM estimate of freedom from MACCE for SAVR and TAVI patients of 0.683 and 0.582, respectively; log-rank p-value of 0.115). Conclusions: In patients with associated severe AS and CAD, percutaneous treatment (TAVR and staged or concomitant PCI) was comparable to surgical treatment (SAVR and concomitant CABG) with respect to the early and mid-term risk of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke and unplanned revascularization.

Objectives: We compared the outcome of anaemic patients undergoing transcatheter (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic valve stenosis. Methods: Anaemic patients (haemoglobin