Contemporary suprasternal transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A multicenter experience using a simple, reliable alternative access approach.

Commentary: An all-access pass to transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Impact of Short-Term Complications on Mortality and Quality of Life After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Robotic aortic valve replacement

Outcomes after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a comparison of the randomized PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves) trial with the NRCA (Nonrandomized Continued Access) registry.

Severe Aortic Regurgitation, Aortic Valve Preserving Procedures: A Viable Alternative to Prosthetic AVR

Multisociety (AATS, ACCF, SCAI, and STS) Expert Consensus Statement: Operator and Institutional Requirements for Transcatheter Valve Repair and Replacement, Part 1: Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

AB0549 THE RELEVANCE OF AORTIC STENOSIS AND OUTCOME OF TAVI PROCEDURE FOR VALVE REPAIR IN SCLERODERMA PATIENTS

Requiem for Routine Self-Expanding TAVR Valves? A Commentary on the Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO Versus Sapien Ultra Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Registry (OPERA-TAVI)

Transaortic Implant of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Prostheses

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the commonly used approach for aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with aortic stenosis at low or intermediate surgical risk. However, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as an alternative to SAVR for AVR. This meta-analysis aims to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of TAVR versus SAVR in low-to-intermediate surgical risk patients by analyzing temporal trends in the outcomes of TAVR and SAVR at various follow-up intervals, providing a more detailed understanding. A thorough literature search was performed across PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from their inception up to May 2024 to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Clinical outcomes were evaluated using a random-effects model to pool risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs. A total of 17 studies reporting data at different follow-ups for nine trials were included (n=9092). No statistically significant difference was observed between TAVR and SAVR for reducing all-cause death at 30 days, 1 year, and 2 years but significantly increased risk with TAVR at 5 years or longer follow-up (RR=1.13, 95% CI: 1.03-1.23). However, TAVR was associated with a significantly decreased risk for cardiac death at 1-year follow-up (RR=0.79, 95% CI: 0.64-0.96) and comparable risk for cardiac death at 30 days, 2 years, and 5 years or longer follow-up when compared with SAVR. No statistically significant difference was observed between TAVR and SAVR for reducing the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) at 30 days, 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years or longer follow-up.TAVR was associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleeding events at 30 days (RR=0.38, 95% CI: 0.21-0.67); lower risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) at 30 days (RR=0.38, 95% CI: 0.26-0.54) and 1 year (RR=0.58, 95% CI: 0.41-0.82) and lower risk of new onset or worsening atrial fibrillation (AF) at 30 days (RR=0.25, 95% CI: 0.18-0.34), 1 year (RR=0.26, 95% CI: 0.16-0.41) and 2 years (RR=0.32, 95% CI: 0.20-0.49) when compared with SAVR. However, TAVR was associated with a significantly increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) at 30 days (RR: 2.62, 95% CI: 1.40-4.91), at 1 year (RR: 2.19, 95% CI: 1.24-3.87), at 2 years (RR: 2.74, 95% CI: 1.31-5.71), and beyond 5 years (RR: 1.95, 95% CI: 1.20-3.15). TAVR was also associated with a significantly increased risk of prosthetic valve thrombosis at 2 years (RR=2.70, 95% CI: 1.08-6.71), though no significant association was observed at 30 days, 1 year, or 5 years. Similarly, no significant differences were observed in aortic-valve reintervention rates at 30 days, 2 years, or 5 years, but TAVR showed a significantly increased risk at 1 year (RR=1.98, 95% CI: 1.21-3.24). TAVR was associated with a significantly increased risk of major vascular complications at 30 days (RR=2.37, 95% CI: 1.38-4.04) and a significantly increased risk of TIA at 2 years (RR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.02-2.00, I2=0%). The risk of hospitalizations was comparable between the groups. TAVR and SAVR demonstrated comparable rates of all-cause death up to 2 years of follow-up. However, at 5 years or longer follow-up, TAVR was associated with a higher risk of all-cause death. While TAVR showed certain procedural advantages, such as a lower risk of major bleeding, AKI, and new-onset or worsening AF, the choice between TAVR and SAVR in patients with low or intermediate surgical risk should consider long-term outcomes, with SAVR potentially being more favorable due to better survival observed on longer follow-up durations.

Commentary: The story of body mass index and transcatheter aortic valve replacement remains incomplete

Background Referral rates and outcomes of cardiac rehabilitation have not been evaluated in patients with transcatheter aortic valve replacement or compared with surgical aortic valve replacement. Method A retrospective cohort study was conducted in 488 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement ( n = 199) and surgical aortic valve replacement ( n = 289) from a university-based statewide transcatheter aortic valve replacement/surgical aortic valve replacement program during 2015-2017. Cardiac rehabilitation consisted of supervised exercise, diet education, and stress and depression management. We compared changes from baseline in exercise duration and intensity during cardiac rehabilitation sessions, quality-of-life (36-Item Short-Form Health Survey), and psychosocial measures (anxiety, depression, mood, social support, and diet) between transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement patients using t-test and chi-square analyses. Results Of 488 patients, cardiac rehabilitation referral rates were similar at 41% (transcatheter aortic valve replacement 81/199 versus surgical aortic valve replacement 117/289), but enrollment rates were lower in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (27/199, 14%) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (102/289, 35%, p < 0.01). Among eligible patients, cardiac rehabilitation completion rates were lower in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (12%) than surgical aortic valve replacement (32%). Exercise intensity during cardiac rehabilitation improved in both groups in a similar fashion (transcatheter aortic valve replacement 1.03 ± 1.09 versus surgical aortic valve replacement 1.34 ± 1.15 metabolic equivalents), but increase in exercise duration was higher in transcatheter aortic valve replacement patients versus surgical aortic valve replacement patients (14.52 ± 6.42 versus 10.67 ± 8.38 min, p = 0.02). Improvement in physical composite score was higher in surgical aortic valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement (8.72 ± 7.87 versus 2.36 ± 7.6, p = 0.02) while improvement in mental composite score was higher in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (8.19 ± 8.50) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (1.18 ± 7.23, p = 0.02). There was no significant difference between the two groups in improvement in psychosocial measures. Conclusion Cardiac rehabilitation enrollment was low in transcatheter aortic valve replacement patients versus surgical aortic valve replacement patients despite similar referral rates. Improvement in functional and quality-of-life performance was achieved in both transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement. Future studies should address obstacles for enrollment of transcatheter aortic valve replacement patients.

Direct Comparison of Feasibility and Safety of Transfemoral Versus TransaorticVersus Transapical Transcatheter AorticValve Replacement.

We present the case of a 64-year-old female who was admitted to our centre with severe aortic insufficiency and advanced heart failure symptoms (NYHA class III–IV). Her medical history included: surgical homograft aortic valve replacement due to severe aortic insufficiency 14 years ago, chronic atrial fibrillation, and hypothyroidism. The patient’s logistic EuroSCORE was 32%, EuroSCORE II 9.1%, and STS score 3.95%. Preprocedural transthoracic echocardiographic examination revealed akinesis of the basal and mid segments of interventricular septum, global hypokinesis of remaining segments with ejection fraction of 19%, enlargement of the left ventricle and atrium (diameter of 68 and 43 mm, respectively), regurgitant orifice area of 0.3 cm2, regurgitant volume of 58 mL, and regurgitant jet width to left ventricular outflow tract ratio of 66% (Fig. 1). An additional transoesophageal echocardiographic examination was performed for more precise measurement: this showed aortic annulus diameter of 24 mm. Angiography and computed tomography were also performed, showing no lesions in either the coronary or peripheral arteries. On the basis of the abovementioned clinical conditions, the Heart Team decided to refer the patient to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) via femoral access. The procedure was performed under general anaesthesia with a temporary pacemaker placed through the jugular vein and vascular access obtained with 18 Fr sheath by puncture of the right femoral artery. Due to lack of calcifications, two pig-tail catheters were placed in order to mark the plane of the annulus (Fig. 2) and 29 mm Medtronic CoreValveTM bioprosthesis was implanted under rapid pacing. Despite these preventive measures, the final position of prosthesis was too low with moderate-to-severe aortic insufficiency (Fig. 3) that persisted even after postdilatation with a 28 mm balloon. Therefore, the decision to implant another 29 mm CoreValve 10 to 15 mm higher was made. Finally, in control imaging, only a mild paravalvular leak was present (Fig. 4), and on discharge the ejection fraction had improved to 43%. TAVI is an effective treatment option for severe aortic stenosis in inoperable and high-risk patients. However, failure (mostly insufficiency) of a previous homograft aortic valve poses a challenge for any interventional treatment. In selected patients, TAVI can be a feasible alternative for high risk re-operation. TAVI may also be considered in some cases of native aortic insufficiency where there is favourable anatomy.

How Do We Address Health Care Inequalities for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Canada?