Search

Valvular heart disease is an important source of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Current prosthetic valve replacement options, such as bioprosthetic and mechanical heart valves are limited by structural valve degeneration requiring reoperation or the need for lifelong anticoagulation. Several new polymer technologies have been developed in recent years in the hope of creating an ideal polymeric heart valve substitute that overcomes these limitations. These compounds and valve devices are in various stages of research and development and have unique strengths and limitations inherent to their properties. This review summarizes the current literature available for the latest polymer heart valve technologies and compares important characteristics necessary for a successful valve replacement therapy, including hydrodynamic performance, thrombogenicity, hemocompatibility, long-term durability, calcification, and transcatheter application. The latter portion of this review summarizes the currently available clinical outcomes data regarding polymeric heart valves and discusses future directions of research.

BackgroundIn recent years, the number of patients with failed surgically implanted aortic bioprostheses and the number of candidates for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) have been increasing.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and long-term survival outcomes of VIV-TAVR compared with the benchmark native valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (NV-TAVR).MethodsA cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent TAVR in the department of cardiology at Toulouse University Hospital, Rangueil, France between January 2016 and January 2020. The study population was divided into two groups: NV-TAVR (N = 1589) and VIV-TAVR (N = 69). Baseline characteristics, procedural data, in-hospital outcomes, and long-term survival outcomes were observed.ResultsIn comparison with NV-TAVR, there are no differences in TAVR success rate (98.6 vs. 98.8%, p = 1), per-TAVR complications (p = 0.473), and length of hospital stay (7.5 ± 50.7 vs. 4.4 ± 2.8, p = 0.612). The prevalence of in-hospital adverse outcomes did not differ among study groups, including acute heart failure (1.4 vs. 1.1%), acute kidney injury (2.6, 1.4%), stroke (0 vs. 1.8%, p = 0.630), vascular complications (p = 0.307), bleeding events (0.617), and death (1.4 vs. 2.6%). VIV-TAVR was associated with a higher residual aortic gradient [OR = 1.139, 95%CI (1.097–1.182), p = 0.001] and a lower requirement for permanent pacemaker implantation [OR = 0.235 95%CI (0.056–0.990), p = 0.048]. Over a mean follow-up period of 3.44 ± 1.67 years, no significant difference in survival outcomes has been observed (p = 0.074).ConclusionVIV-TAVR shares the safety and efficacy profile of NV-TAVR. It also represents a better early outcome but a higher non-significant long-term mortality rate.

ObjectiveSurgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is traditionally the gold-standard treatment in patients with aortic valve disease. The advancement of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) provides an alternative treatment to patients with high surgical risks and those who had previous cardiac surgery. We aim to evaluate the trend, early clinical outcomes, and the choice of prosthesis use in isolated SAVR in the United Kingdom.MethodsAll patients (n = 79,173) who underwent elective or urgent isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) from 1996 to 2018 were extracted from the National Adult Cardiac Surgery Audit database. Patients who underwent additional procedures and emergency or salvage SAVR were excluded from the study. Trend and clinical outcomes were investigated in the whole cohort. Patients who had previous cardiac surgery, high-risk groups (EuroSCORE II >4%), and predicted/observed mortality were evaluated. Furthermore, the use of biological prostheses in five different age groups, that are 80, was investigated. Clinical outcomes between the use of mechanical and biological aortic valve prostheses in patients

IntroductionTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a minimally invasive procedure to replace a diseased and faulty aortic valve in patients with severe aortic stenosis. As TAVR gains popularity among lower-risk younger patients with a longer life expectancy; there is a need to investigate the long-term shortcomings and limitations of the procedure for this patient group. One such shortcoming is that commissural alignment of transcatheter heart valves (THV) appears to be random; meaning that the THV neo-commissures can misalign with the native commissures of the aortic valve during deployment or self-expansion.ObjectivesIdentify techniques and procedures used to obtain commissural alignment in TAVR. Evaluate the effectiveness of these procedures in terms of the degree of commissural alignment. Analyse the impact of commissural alignment on coronary filling and re-access.MethodsTwo electronic online databases were searched to identify existing literature relevant to the aim and objectives of this review: EBSCOhost and PubMed. After search filters were applied and duplicates removed; a total of 64 articles from both databases were screened against the inclusion/exclusion criteria. This resulted in a total of thirteen articles which met the objectives of this review and thus; were included.ResultsAll studies focused on a patient centered approach involving pre-TAVR computed tomography to obtain commissural alignment. Other studies modified this approach and combined techniques. All studies that implemented a technique to reduce commissural misalignment were significantly successful in obtaining commissural alignment when compared to a study in which alignment was random when no technique was implemented. Severe coronary overlapping in commissural aligned heart valves was relatively low compared to severe coronary overlapping when no technique was implemented.ConclusionsAn increase in optimal commissural alignment via introduction of an alignment technique may seem attractive; however; the categorization of commissural alignment is arbitrary and does not accurately reflect real life clinical implications. Further research is needed to determine whether a routine procedure to achieve commissural alignment is necessary in low-risk younger patients undergoing TAVR.

Background: Traditionally, the only effective treatment for aortic stenosis was surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was approved in the United States in late 2011 and provided a critical alternative therapy. Our aims were to investigate the trends in the utilization of SAVR in the early vs. late TAVR era and to assess SAVR and TAVR outcomes.Methods: Using the 2011–2017 National Inpatient Sample database, we identified hospitalizations for patients with a most responsible diagnosis of aortic stenosis during which an aortic valve replacement (AVR) was performed, either SAVR or TAVR. Patients' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, procedure complications, length of stay, and mortality were analyzed. Multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality. Piecewise regression analyses were performed to assess temporal trends in SAVR and TAVR utilization.Results: A total of 542,734 AVR procedures were analyzed. The utilization of SAVR was steady until 2014 with a significant downward trend in the following years 2015–2017 (P = 0.026). In contrast, a steady upward trend was observed in the TAVR procedure with a significant increase during the years 2015–2017 (P = 0.006). Higher in-hospital mortality was observed in SAVR patients. The mortality rate declined from 2011 to 2017 in a significantly higher proportion in the TAVR compared with the SAVR group.Conclusion: Utilization of SAVR showed a downward trend during the late TAVR era (2015–2017), and TAVR utilization demonstrated a steady upward trend during the years 2011–2017. Higher in-hospital mortality was recorded in patients who underwent SAVR.

Objective: The heart team (HT) approach plays a key role in selecting the optimal treatment strategy for patients with aortic stenosis (AS). However, little is known about the HT decision process and its impact on outcomes. The aim of this study was to identify the factors associated with the HT decision and evaluate clinical outcomes according to the treatment choice. Methods: The study included a total of 286 consecutive patients with AS referred for discussion in the weekly HT meeting in a cardiovascular institute over 2 years. Patients were stratified according to the selected therapeutic approach: medical treatment (MT), surgical (SAVR), or transcatheter (TAVR) aortic valve replacement. Baseline characteristics involved in making a therapeutic choice were identified and a decision‐making tree was built using classification and regression tree methodology. Results: Based on HT discussion, 53 patients were assigned to SAVR, 210 to TAVR, and 23 to MT. Older patients (≥88 years old) were mainly assigned to TAVR or MT according to the logistic EuroSCORE (

Valvular heart disease is an important source of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Current prosthetic valve replacement options, such as bioprosthetic and mechanical heart valves are limited by structural valve degeneration requiring reoperation or the need for lifelong anticoagulation. Several new polymer technologies have been developed in recent years in the hope of creating an ideal polymeric heart valve substitute that overcomes these limitations. These compounds and valve devices are in various stages of research and development and have unique strengths and limitations inherent to their properties. This review summarizes the current literature available for the latest polymer heart valve technologies and compares important characteristics necessary for a successful valve replacement therapy, including hydrodynamic performance, thrombogenicity, hemocompatibility, long-term durability, calcification, and transcatheter application. The latter portion of this review summarizes the currently available clinical outcomes data regarding polymeric heart valves and discusses future directions of research., Competing Interests: IG reports the following disclosures: consultant (honoraria)—Zimmer Biomet, Atricure, Neosurgery, Neptune Medical, Abbvie, Johnson & Johnson, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic. Advisory Boards: Edwards Surgical, Medtronic Surgical, Trisol Medical, Abbvie, Johnson & Johnson, Foldax Medical, Zimmer Biomet, Neosurgery, Abbvie, Boston Scientific.Equity: Valcare Medical, Durvena, CardioMech, Vdyne, MitreMedical, MITRx.Institutional funding to Columbia University: Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, JenaValve. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Singh, Kachel, Castillero, Xue, Kalfa, Ferrari and George.)

Background: In recent years, the number of patients with failed surgically implanted aortic bioprostheses and the number of candidates for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) have been increasing., Objectives: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and long-term survival outcomes of VIV-TAVR compared with the benchmark native valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (NV-TAVR)., Methods: A cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent TAVR in the department of cardiology at Toulouse University Hospital, Rangueil, France between January 2016 and January 2020. The study population was divided into two groups: NV-TAVR ( N = 1589) and VIV-TAVR ( N = 69). Baseline characteristics, procedural data, in-hospital outcomes, and long-term survival outcomes were observed., Results: In comparison with NV-TAVR, there are no differences in TAVR success rate (98.6 vs. 98.8%, p = 1), per-TAVR complications ( p = 0.473), and length of hospital stay (7.5 ± 50.7 vs. 4.4 ± 2.8, p = 0.612). The prevalence of in-hospital adverse outcomes did not differ among study groups, including acute heart failure (1.4 vs. 1.1%), acute kidney injury (2.6, 1.4%), stroke (0 vs. 1.8%, p = 0.630), vascular complications ( p = 0.307), bleeding events (0.617), and death (1.4 vs. 2.6%). VIV-TAVR was associated with a higher residual aortic gradient [OR = 1.139, 95%CI (1.097-1.182), p = 0.001] and a lower requirement for permanent pacemaker implantation [OR = 0.235 95%CI (0.056-0.990), p = 0.048]. Over a mean follow-up period of 3.44 ± 1.67 years, no significant difference in survival outcomes has been observed ( p = 0.074)., Conclusion: VIV-TAVR shares the safety and efficacy profile of NV-TAVR. It also represents a better early outcome but a higher non-significant long-term mortality rate., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Matta, Levai, Roncalli, Elbaz, Bouisset, Nader, Blanco, Campelo Parada, Carrié and Lhermusier.)

Objective: Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is traditionally the gold-standard treatment in patients with aortic valve disease. The advancement of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) provides an alternative treatment to patients with high surgical risks and those who had previous cardiac surgery. We aim to evaluate the trend, early clinical outcomes, and the choice of prosthesis use in isolated SAVR in the United Kingdom., Methods: All patients ( n = 79,173) who underwent elective or urgent isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) from 1996 to 2018 were extracted from the National Adult Cardiac Surgery Audit database. Patients who underwent additional procedures and emergency or salvage SAVR were excluded from the study. Trend and clinical outcomes were investigated in the whole cohort. Patients who had previous cardiac surgery, high-risk groups (EuroSCORE II >4%), and predicted/observed mortality were evaluated. Furthermore, the use of biological prostheses in five different age groups, that are <50, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, and >80, was investigated. Clinical outcomes between the use of mechanical and biological aortic valve prostheses in patients <65 years old were analyzed., Results: The number of isolated SAVR increased across the study period with an average of 4,661 cases performed annually after 2010. The in-hospital/30-day mortality rate decreased from 5.28% (1996) to 1.06% (2018), despite an increasing trend in EuroSCORE II. The number of isolated SAVR performed in octogenarians increased from 596 to 2007 (the first year when TAVR was introduced in the UK) to 872 in 2015 and then progressively decreased to 681 in 2018. Biological prosthesis usage increased across all age groups, particularly in the 60-69 group, from 24.59% (1996) to 81.87% (2018). There were no differences in short-term outcomes in patients <65 years old who received biological or mechanical prostheses., Conclusion: Surgical aortic valve replacement remains an effective treatment for patients with isolated aortic valve disease with a low in-hospital/30-day mortality rate. The number of patients with high-risk and octogenarians who underwent isolated SAVR and those requiring redo surgery has reduced since 2016, likely due to the advancement in TAVR. The use of biological aortic prostheses has increased significantly in recent years in all age groups., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Chan, Dimagli, Fudulu, Sinha, Narayan, Dong and Angelini.)

Introduction: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a minimally invasive procedure to replace a diseased and faulty aortic valve in patients with severe aortic stenosis. As TAVR gains popularity among lower-risk younger patients with a longer life expectancy; there is a need to investigate the long-term shortcomings and limitations of the procedure for this patient group. One such shortcoming is that commissural alignment of transcatheter heart valves (THV) appears to be random; meaning that the THV neo-commissures can misalign with the native commissures of the aortic valve during deployment or self-expansion., Objectives: Identify techniques and procedures used to obtain commissural alignment in TAVR. Evaluate the effectiveness of these procedures in terms of the degree of commissural alignment. Analyse the impact of commissural alignment on coronary filling and re-access., Methods: Two electronic online databases were searched to identify existing literature relevant to the aim and objectives of this review: EBSCOhost and PubMed. After search filters were applied and duplicates removed; a total of 64 articles from both databases were screened against the inclusion/exclusion criteria. This resulted in a total of thirteen articles which met the objectives of this review and thus; were included., Results: All studies focused on a patient centered approach involving pre-TAVR computed tomography to obtain commissural alignment. Other studies modified this approach and combined techniques. All studies that implemented a technique to reduce commissural misalignment were significantly successful in obtaining commissural alignment when compared to a study in which alignment was random when no technique was implemented. Severe coronary overlapping in commissural aligned heart valves was relatively low compared to severe coronary overlapping when no technique was implemented., Conclusions: An increase in optimal commissural alignment via introduction of an alignment technique may seem attractive; however; the categorization of commissural alignment is arbitrary and does not accurately reflect real life clinical implications. Further research is needed to determine whether a routine procedure to achieve commissural alignment is necessary in low-risk younger patients undergoing TAVR., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Khalid and O'Sullivan.)

Background: Traditionally, the only effective treatment for aortic stenosis was surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was approved in the United States in late 2011 and provided a critical alternative therapy. Our aims were to investigate the trends in the utilization of SAVR in the early vs. late TAVR era and to assess SAVR and TAVR outcomes. Methods: Using the 2011-2017 National Inpatient Sample database, we identified hospitalizations for patients with a most responsible diagnosis of aortic stenosis during which an aortic valve replacement (AVR) was performed, either SAVR or TAVR. Patients' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, procedure complications, length of stay, and mortality were analyzed. Multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality. Piecewise regression analyses were performed to assess temporal trends in SAVR and TAVR utilization. Results: A total of 542,734 AVR procedures were analyzed. The utilization of SAVR was steady until 2014 with a significant downward trend in the following years 2015-2017 ( P = 0.026). In contrast, a steady upward trend was observed in the TAVR procedure with a significant increase during the years 2015-2017 ( P = 0.006). Higher in-hospital mortality was observed in SAVR patients. The mortality rate declined from 2011 to 2017 in a significantly higher proportion in the TAVR compared with the SAVR group. Conclusion: Utilization of SAVR showed a downward trend during the late TAVR era (2015-2017), and TAVR utilization demonstrated a steady upward trend during the years 2011-2017. Higher in-hospital mortality was recorded in patients who underwent SAVR., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elbaz-Greener, Rozen, Kusniec, Marai, Carasso, Ko, Wijeysundera, Alcalai, Planer and Amir.)