Management Of Severe Aortic Stenosis Research Articles

Enhancing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) outcomes through virtual proctoring: a case series analysis

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) represents a pivotal advancement in the management of severe aortic stenosis, offering a minimally invasive alternative to surgical valve replacement. Despite its widespread adoption, the complexity of TAVI procedures, especially in high-risk anatomical scenarios such as valve-in-valve interventions, necessitates ongoing educational support for operators. This article explores the implementation of a virtual proctoring system for complex TAVI procedures, evaluating its feasibility, educational value, and impact on procedural success and safety.

Percutaneous treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm and aortic valve stenosis with ‘staged’ EVAR and TAVR: a case series

Symptomatic aortic valve stenosis (AS) and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) are critical clinical conditions, increasingly more prevalent with aging of the population. Calcific aortic stenosis is the most common structural cardiac disease in the elderly population, and medical management of severe aortic stenosis of the elderly population is associated with poor outcomes as compared to surgical treatment. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a treatment of choice in inoperable, often elderly, patients with symptomatic severe AS and in intermediate-to-high surgical risk patients. It is not yet clarified the incidence of AAA and its impact on procedural and clinical outcomes among patients undergoing TAVR. It is known that after AS resolution with aortic valve replacement or TAVR there is an increase in blood pressure that increases the risk of dissection or abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture if AAA repair is delayed. The purpose of this report is to describe the anatomical details and technical and procedural considerations when proposing totally endovascular strategies dedicated to the treatment of patients with AS and AAA.

Predictors of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Moderate Aortic Stenosis: Implications for Aortic Valve Replacement.

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. This study included 674 patients from the Cleveland Clinic Health System with moderate aortic stenosis (aortic valve area, 1-1.5 cm2; 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. 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. 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.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Elderly Patients: Opportunities and Challenges.

Over the past two decades, the rapid evolution of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the management of severe aortic stenosis (AS) in the elderly. The prevalence of comorbidities in elderly AS patients presents a considerable challenge to the effectiveness and prognosis of patients after TAVR. In this article, we aim to summarize some of the clinical aspects of the current use of TAVR in elderly patients and attempt to highlight the challenges and issues that need further consideration.

Features and outcomes of bailout repeat transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): the Bailout Acute TAVI-in-TAVI to Lessen Events (BATTLE) international registry

AimTranscatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a mainstay in the management of severe aortic stenosis in patients with intermediate to prohibitive surgical risk. When a single TAVI device fails and cannot be retrieved, TAVI-in-TAVI must be performed acutely, but outcomes of bailout TAVI-in-TAVI have been incompletely appraised. We aimed at analyzing patient, procedural and outcome features of patients undergoing bailout TAVI-in-TAVI in a multicenter registry.MethodsDetails of patients undergoing bailout TAVI-in-TAVI, performed acutely or within 24 h of index TAVI, in 6 international high-volume institutions, were collected. For every case provided, 2 same-week consecutive controls (prior TAVI, and subsequent TAVI) were provided. Outcomes of interest were procedural and long-term events, including death, myocardial infarction, stroke, access site complication, major bleeding, and reintervention, and their composite (i.e. major adverse events [MAE]).ResultsA total of 106 patients undergoing bailout TAVI-in-TAVI were included, as well as 212 controls, for a total of 318 individuals. Bailout TAVI-in-TAVI was less common in younger patients, those with higher body mass index, or treated with Portico/Navitor or Sapien devices (all p < 0.05). Bailout TAVI-in-TAVI was associated with higher in-hospital rates of death, emergency surgery, MAE, and permanent pacemaker implantation (all p < 0.05). Long-term follow-up showed that bailout TAVI-in-TAVI was associated with higher rates of death and MAE (both < 0.05). Similar findings were obtained at adjusted analyses (all p < 0.05). However, censoring early events, outlook was not significantly different when comparing the two groups (p = 0.897 for death, and p = 0.645 for MAE).ConclusionsBail-out TAVI-in-TAVI is associated with significant early and long-term mortality and morbidity. Thus, meticulous preprocedural planning and sophisticated intraprocedural techniques are of paramount importance to avoid these emergency procedures.

Aortic Stenosis: Risk Stratification and Timing of Surgery.

This review summarizes the current management of patients with newly diagnosed aortic stenosis. Recent developments include detection of early myocardial dysfunction using serum B-type natriuretic peptide levels and global longitudinal strain, as well as ongoing trials of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in asymptomatic patients and patients with moderate aortic stenosis complicated by symptoms or left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Given the high mortality associated with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, all symptomatic patients should be referred for aortic valve replacement. Asymptomatic patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, abnormal exercise stress test, high degree of stenosis, rapid disease progression, or elevated serum B-type natriuretic peptide level may also have an indication for valve replacement, based on established criteria. The progress in management of severe aortic stenosis has been in the direction of earlier detection and earlier valve replacement.

Severe aortic stenosis management in heart valve centres compared with primary/secondary care centres

ObjectiveCurrent guidelines recommend use of heart valve centres (HVCs) to deliver optimal quality of care for patients with valve disease but there is no evidence to support this. The hypothesis...

Laparoscopic adrenalectomy of pheochromocytoma following management of severe aortic stenosis with transcatheter aortic valve replacement under monitored anesthesia care sedation: a case report

BackgroundManagement of a patient with an active pheochromocytoma and severe aortic stenosis remains controversial. Adrenalectomy for a pheochromocytoma poses a high risk for stroke, hypertensive emergency, and mortality, compounded by the cardiovascular instability of severe aortic stenosis. In this case report, successful management of an active pheochromocytoma with concomitant severe aortic stenosis was accomplished by performing transcatheter aortic valve replacement under monitored anesthesia care prior to laparoscopic adrenalectomy.Case presentationAn 84-year-old woman with severe aortic stenosis (valve area 0.53 cm2) presented with a symptomatic pheochromocytoma. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement was performed under monitored anesthesia care using a judicious approach of 100 mcg fentanyl total, 4 mg total of midazolam, and a background dexmedetomidine infusion. Alpha-blockade was maintained with 10 mg total of phentolamine mesylate. Laparoscopic adrenalectomy was performed after an uncomplicated postoperative course. The perioperative course for the adrenalectomy was unremarkable and the patient was hemodynamically stable. Postoperative course was uncomplicated and the patient was discharged from the hospital after 5 days.ConclusionThis case report demonstrated the successful approach of managing severe aortic stenosis through a transcatheter aortic valve replacement using monitored anesthesia care sedation prior to laparoscopic adrenalectomy of a symptomatic pheochromocytoma.

Quantification of Significant Aortic Stenosis by Echocardiography versus Four-Dimensional Cardiac Computed Tomography: A Multi-Modality Imaging Study.

Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) grading of aortic stenosis (AS) is challenging when parameters are discrepant, and four-dimensional cardiac computed tomography (4D-CCT) is increasingly utilized for transcatheter intervention workup. We compared TTE and 4D-CCT measures contributing to AS quantification. AS patients (n = 80, age 86 ± 10 years, 71% men) referred for transcatheter replacement in 2014-2017 were retrospectively studied, 20 each with high-gradient AS (HG-AS), classical and paradoxical low-flow low-gradient AS (CLFLG-AS and PLFLG-AS), and normal-flow low-gradient AS (NFLG-AS). Correlation and Bland-Altman analyses were performed between TTE and 4D-CCT parameters. There were moderate-to-high TTE versus 4D-CCT correlations for left ventricular volumes, function, mass, and outflow tract dimensions (r = 0.51-0.88), though values were mostly significantly higher by 4D-CCT (p &lt; 0.001). Compared with 4D-CCT planimetry of aortic valve area (AVA), TTE estimates had modest correlation (r = 0.37-0.43) but were significantly lower (by 0.15-0.32 cm2). The 4D-CCT estimate of LVSVi lead to significant reclassification of AS subtype defined by TTE. In conclusion, 4D-CCT quantified values were higher than TTE for the left ventricle and AVA, and the AS subtype was reclassified based on LVSVi by 4D-CCT, warranting further research to establish its clinical implications and optimal thresholds in severe AS management.

Personalised Treatment in Aortic Stenosis: A Patient-Tailored Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Approach

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVI) has become a game changer in the management of severe aortic stenosis shifting the concept from inoperable or high-risk patients to intermediate or low surgical-risk individuals. Among devices available nowadays, there is no clear evidence that one device is better than the other or that one device is suitable for all patients. The selection of the optimal TAVI valve for every patient represents a challenging process for clinicians, given a large number of currently available devices. Consequently, understanding the advantages and disadvantages of each valve and personalising the valve selection based on patient-specific clinical and anatomical characteristics is paramount. This review article aims to both analyse the available devices in the presence of specific clinical and anatomic features and offer guidance to select the most suitable valve for a given patient.

Lifetime Management of Aortic Stenosis: Transcatheter Versus Surgical Treatment for Young and Low-Risk Patients.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is now indicated across all risk categories of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and has been proposed as first line option for the majority of patients >74 years old. However, median age of patients enrolled in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement low-risk trials is 74 years and transcatheter aortic valve replacement has never been systematically investigated in young low risk patients. Although the long-term data in surgical aortic valve replacement in young patients (age <75) are well known, such data remain lacking in transcatheter aortic valve replacement. In the absence of clear guideline recommendations in patients with challenging anatomies (eg, hostile calcium, bicuspid), it is important to know the potential advantages and disadvantages of each treatment and to consider how they might integrate with each other in the lifetime management of such patients. In this review, we discuss current outstanding issues on the management of severe aortic stenosis from a lifetime management perspective, particularly in terms of initial intervention and future reinterventions.

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Young, Low-risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis

Aortic stenosis is a common form of acquired degenerative valvular disease associated with poor survival after the onset of symptoms. Treatment options for patients with aortic stenosis in addition to medical therapy include surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with either tissue or mechanical valves, or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with either balloon-expandable or self-expanding valves via either transfemoral or alternative access routes. In this review, the authors discuss the current evidence and special considerations regarding the use of TAVR versus SAVR in the management of severe aortic stenosis in young (&lt;65 years of age), low-risk patients, highlighting the history of aortic stenosis treatment, the current guidelines and recommendations, and important issues that remain to be addressed. Ultimately, until ongoing clinical trials with long-term follow-up data shed light on whether interventions for aortic stenosis can be broadened to a low-risk population, TAVR in young, low-risk patients should be undertaken with caution and with guidance from a multidisciplinary heart team.

Impact of Managing Provider Type on Severe Aortic Stenosis Management and Mortality.

BackgroundMany patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis do not undergo aortic valve replacement (AVR) despite clinical guidelines. This study analyzed the association of managing provider type with cardiac specialist follow‐up, AVR, and mortality for patients with newly diagnosed severe aortic stenosis (sAS).Methods and ResultsWe identified adults with newly diagnosed sAS per echocardiography performed between January 2017 and March 2019 using Optum electronic health record data. We then selected from those meeting all eligibility criteria patients managed by a primary care provider (n=1707 [25%]) or cardiac specialist (n=5039 [75%]). We evaluated the association of managing provider type with cardiac specialist follow‐up, AVR, and mortality, as well as the independent association of cardiac specialist follow‐up and AVR with mortality, within 1 year of echocardiography detecting sAS. A subgroup analysis was limited to patients with symptomatic sAS. Patient characteristics and comorbidities at baseline were used for covariate‐adjusted cause‐specific and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models assessing group differences in outcomes by managing provider type. An adjusted Cox proportional hazard model with additional time‐dependent covariates for follow‐up and AVR was used to assess these practices' association with mortality. Within 1 year of echocardiography detecting sAS, data revealed that primary care provider management was associated with lower rates of cardiac specialist follow‐up (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47 [95% CI, 0.43–0.50], P<0.0001) and AVR (HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.53–0.64], P<0.0001) and with higher 1‐year mortality (HR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.26–1.66], P<0.0001). Cardiac specialist follow‐up and AVR were independently associated with lower mortality (follow‐up: HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.48–0.63], P<0.0001; AVR: HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.60–0.83], P<0.0001). Results were similar for patients with symptomatic sAS. All analyses were adjusted for baseline patient characteristics and comorbidities.ConclusionsFor patients newly diagnosed with sAS, we observed differences in rates of cardiac specialist follow‐up and AVR and risk of mortality between primary care provider‐ versus cardiologist‐managed patients with sAS. In addition, a lower likelihood of receiving follow‐up and AVR was independently associated with higher mortality.

Management of severe aortic stenosis in asymptomatic patients in the new AVATAR.

Management of asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis remains debatable. Until now, evidence on the subject was limited to observational studies, registry data, and meta-analyses. Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Conservative Treatment in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis trial thus is the first randomized controlled trial assessing the role of surgery in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis. A critical evaluation of the study along with discussion on existing evidence has been provided in this appraisal.

Aortic stenosis post-COVID-19: a mathematical model on waiting lists and mortality

ObjectivesTo provide estimates for how different treatment pathways for the management of severe aortic stenosis (AS) may affect National Health Service (NHS) England waiting list duration and associated mortality.DesignWe constructed...

Management of asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectivesThe management of severe aortic stenosis mandates consideration of aortic valve intervention for symptomatic patients. However, for asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis, recent randomised trials supported earlier intervention. We...

Impact of Decision Aid on Decision-making of Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: Randomized Pilot Study

<h2>Abstract</h2><h3>Background</h3> Clinical guidelines recommend patients with aortic stenosis (AS) being considered for transcatheter aortic valve implantation or surgical aortic valve replacement to participate in shared decision-making (SDM) with a heart valve team (HVT). Data supporting these recommendations are limited. This project gathered data on feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a decision aid (DA) in decision-making for patients with severe AS deciding between transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement. <h3>Methods</h3> This institutional review board-approved randomized pilot trial assigned eligible patients to receive either the American College of Cardiology's DA for patients with AS or usual care. Patients were surveyed after their visit regarding knowledge, treatment-preference concordance, SDM (SDM process and CollaboRATE Scales), and decisional conflict. Patients were followed for 3 months to collect data on treatment received. <h3>Results</h3> Of 62 patients approached, 59 (95%) consented and participated. The average age of participants was 72 years, they were 100% white, and 32% of them were female. Intervention patients had higher knowledge scores (75.6 vs 65.5) and more frequently reported CollaboRATE top scores (67% vs 33%) than usual care patients. No other group comparisons reached significance. Patients who saw both members of the HVT before survey completion reported higher SDM process scores than those who saw only 1 specialist (3.1 vs 2.4). <h3>Conclusions</h3> The study exceeded enrollment targets, indicating feasibility. Results suggest the American College of Cardiology's DA improved patient knowledge and communication scores. Patients who met with both members of the HVT reported higher SDM. These observations highlight the importance of SDM and multidisciplinary HVT assessment in the management of severe AS.

Management of Se Management of Severe Aortic Stenosis in Car tic Stenosis in Cardiogenic Shock: diogenic Shock: Early P Early Percutaneous Mechanical Cir cutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Suppor y Support or Emer t or Emergent Transcatheter A anscatheter Aortic Valve Replacement? e Replacement?

Aortic stenosis (AS) affects an estimated 1.5 million patients in the United States, with 250,000 patients or more suffering severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis. A subset of these patients also have unrevascularized coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction, representing an extreme risk population of AS patients. Cardiogenic shock (CS) complicates a small minority of AS presentations and/or patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) but is responsible in these cases for a disproportionately high rate of morbidity and mortality. Indeed, CS results in a 4-fold increase in TAVR mortality, proportional to shock severity and largely independent of procedural complications. All patients undergoing TAVR should undergo an assessment of hemodynamics and vascular access as well as an estimation of risk for conduction system abnormalities, coronary occlusion, landing zone rupture, and stroke. In patients with pre-procedural CS or at a high risk of hemodynamic deterioration, preemptive or carefully planned, provisional use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) helps ensure the best possible outcomes during TAVR.

Occurrence of high-grade conduction disorder after the onset of left bundle branch block in post-TAVI. The French multicenter LBBB-TAVI study

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionized the management of severe aortic stenosis. The development of a new-onset complete left bundle branch block (LBBB) is, however, a frequent complication. The objective of the present study was to assess the impact of a new-onset LBBB after TAVI on the risk of high degree conduction disorder appearance. Patients were included in 10 centers in the French Multicenter LBBB-TAVI study. New-onset LBBB after TAVI persisting for more than 24 hours were stratified by intracardiac electrophysiological study. Patients at high-risk of conduction disturbances (≥ 70 ms His-ventricle interval (HV) or presence of infra-Hissian block) were implanted with a pacemaker with recording of disturbance episodes (Sorin Microport CRM, Clamart, France). Those at lower risk (HV < 70 ms) were implanted with a loop recorder with automatic remote monitoring (Biotronik, Berlin, Germany). The primary end point was the incidence (rate and time to onset) of high-grade conduction disturbances between the two groups at 12 months. From June 2015 to November 2018, 199 patients were included in the study (mean age 82.3 ± 5.9 years, 61.9% female sex). A self-expanding valve was implanted in 65.2% of the procedures. A pacemaker were implanted in 46 patients, 135 patients with a loop recorder. At 12 months, 46 (25.4%) patients displayed a high-grade conduction disorder. High-grade conduction disturbances were more frequent with HV ≥ 70 ms (46.2% vs. 17.1%, P < 0.001). The median time to conduction disorder occurrence was 100 [29–229] days. In multivariate analysis, adjusted for implantation center, an HV ≥ 70 ms was independently associated with the occurrence of a high-grade conduction disorder, HR 2.8 [1.3–6.1], P = 0.007 ( Fig. 1 ). Increased HV interval (≥ 70 ms) is independently associated with the occurrence of high-grade conduction disorder in new-onset LBBB after TAVI.

Characteristics and outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement in China: a report from China aortic valve transcatheter replacement registry (CARRY).

Background:The past decade has witnessed an ever-increasing momentum of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and a subsequent paradigm shift in the contemporary management of severe aortic stenosis (AS). We conducted a multi-centric TAVR registry based on Chinese patients (the China Aortic valve tRanscatheter Replacement registrY [CARRY]) to delineate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of Chinese patients who underwent TAVR and compare the results between different valve types in different Chinese regions.Methods:CARRY is an all-comer registry of aortic valve disease patients undergoing TAVR across China and was designed as an observational study that retrospectively included all TAVR patients at each participating site. Seven hospitals in China participated in the CARRY, and 1204 patients from April 2012 to November 2020 were included. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-squared test, and continuous variables were analyzed using a t test or analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. The Kaplan–Meier curve was used to estimate the risk of adverse events during follow-up.Results:The mean age of the patients was 73.8 ± 6.5 years and 57.2% were male. The median Society of Thoracic Surgeon-Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 6.0 (3.7–8.9). Regarding the aortic valve, the proportion of bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) was 48.5%. During the hospital stay, the stroke rate was 0.7%, and the incidence of high-degree atrioventricular block indicating permanent pacemaker implantation was 11.0%. The in-hospital all-cause mortality rate was 2.2%. After 1 year, the overall mortality rate was 4.5%. Compared to patients with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV), those with BAV had similar in-hospital complication rates, but a lower incidence of in-hospital mortality (1.4% vs. 3.3%) and 1 year mortality (2.3% vs. 5.8%).Conclusions:TAVR candidates in China were younger, higher proportion of BAV, and had lower rates of post-procedural complications and mortality than other international all-comer registries. Given the use of early generation valves in the majority of the population, patients with BAV had similar rates of complications, but lower mortality than those with TAV. These findings further propel the extension of TAVR in low-risk patients.Trial Registration:https://www.chictr.org.cn/ (No. ChiCTR2000038526).