Placement Of Aortic Transcatheter Valves Research Articles

Porcelain Aorta

Calcification of the thoracic aorta is often associated with valvular and coronary calcification, reflecting an underlying atherosclerotic process.1,2 It has been found to be associated with an increased rate of mortality and cardiovascular disease.1 Porcelain aorta (PA) is extensive calcification of the ascending aorta or aortic arch that can be completely or near completely circumferential.3–5 This entity is rare in the general population, but it has an increasing incidence in older patients and in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) or aortic stenosis (AS).6,7 The clinical relevance is based on the fact that it can complicate surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for the treatment of severe AS by preventing safe access via the ascending aorta. PA is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, especially as a result of increased perioperative stroke risk.8,9 Recently, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a less invasive and feasible treatment option in patients at high risk for conventional SAVR.10 In some series, ≈20% (5%–33%) of patients undergoing TAVR were diagnosed with PA.11 Inconsistencies in the definition and the use of different diagnostic modalities contribute to this wide range of PA prevalence. We reviewed the available published data to seek a consistent, clinically relevant definition based on contemporary imaging, a firm understanding of the pathogenesis and associations, and the clinical implications of this disease entity. PA has been used to address extensive circumferential or nearly circumferential calcification of the thoracic aorta such that it precludes safe cross-clamping or entry to the ascending aorta. However, there is no clear description or definition used; thus, cardiac surgeons and cardiologists use this term inconsistently. In the 1980s, Coselli and Crawford12 initially described 2 …

Assessment of Paravalvular Aortic Regurgitation after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Intra–Core Laboratory Variability

There is significant disparity in the reported incidence of moderate and severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation (PAR) between the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) I and PARTNER II trials, which may be related to the echocardiographic methodologies used by separate core laboratories. To further explore the variability in echocardiographic interpretation of PAR, agreement between the grading of PAR by the core laboratory of PARTNER IIB was compared with that by a consortium of echocardiography core laboratory directors. The PARTNER IIB core laboratory reevaluated patients using primarily the circumferential extent of the regurgitant jet for PAR. A consortium of echocardiography core laboratory directors was formed to evaluate the echocardiographic images and to grade PAR and central and total aortic regurgitation in a randomly chosen subset of the randomized patients in the PARTNER IIB trial using a multiwindow, multiparametric approach. Both a four-class scale (none or trace, mild, moderate, and severe) and a seven-class (none, trace, mild, mild to moderate, moderate, moderate to severe, and severe) scale were used. Levels of grading agreement between the consortium and original core laboratory in both scales were determined using weighted κ statistics. Only 87 patients assessed for PAR by the consortium could be paired with readings by the PARTNER IIB core laboratory. Using the four-class grading scheme the weighted κ statistic for PAR was 0.481 (95% confidence limits, 0.367, 0.595). Using the seven-class scale, the weighted κ statistic for PAR was 0.517 (95% confidence limits, 0.431, 0.607). For either grading scheme, 15.9% of patients graded by the PARTNER IIB core laboratory as having moderate PAR would have been graded as having mild PAR using the multiparametric approach. Similar results were seen for central and total aortic regurgitation assessments. Using primarily the circumferential extent criteria, the PARTNER IIB core laboratory overestimated the severity of PAR compared to the consortium using a multi-parametric approach. Although a more granular classification scheme for PAR may slightly improve concordance between core laboratories, differences in the incidence of moderate or severe PAR are likely related to differences in grading methodology. A multiparametric approach is advocated, and other echocardiographic methods for assessing PAR deserve further study.

Outcomes of inoperable symptomatic aortic stenosis patients not undergoing aortic valve replacement: insight into the impact of balloon aortic valvuloplasty from the PARTNER trial (Placement of AoRtic TraNscathetER Valve trial).

The aim of this report is to characterize the impact of balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) in patients not undergoing aortic valve replacement in the PARTNER (Placement of AoRtic TraNscathetER Valves) trial. The PARTNER trial is the only randomized trial with independently adjudicated data of inoperable severe symptomatic aortic stenosis patients, allowing outcome analysis of unoperated-on patients. The design and initial results of the PARTNER trial (Cohort B) were reported previously. After excluding patients with pre-randomization BAV, we compared patients undergoing BAV within 30 days of randomization (BAV group) with those not having BAV within 30 days of randomization (no BAV group) to characterize the use and impact of BAV. In the PARTNER Cohort B study, 179 inoperable patients were randomized to standard treatment including 39 patients (21.8%) who had undergone a BAV before randomization (previous BAV group). Of the 140 patients who did not have BAV before enrollment in the study, 102 patients (73%) had BAV within 30 days of study randomization (BAV group). Survival at 3 months was greater in the BAV group compared with the no BAV group (88.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 82.0% to 94.5% vs. 73.0%; 95% CI: 58.8% to 87.4%). However, survival was similar at 6-month follow-up (74.5%; 95% CI: 66.1% to 83.0% vs. 73.1%; 58.8% to 87.4%). There was improvement in quality of life parameters when paired comparisons were made between baseline and 30 days and 6 months between the BAV and no BAV groups, but this effect was lost at 12-month follow-up. BAV improves functional status and survival in the short term, but these benefits are not sustained. BAV for aortic stenosis patients who cannot undergo aortic valve replacement is a useful palliative therapy. (THE PARTNER TRIAL: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial; NCT00530894).

Predictors and clinical outcomes of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the PARTNER (Placement of AoRtic TraNscathetER Valves) trial and registry.

The purpose of this study was to identify predictors and clinical implications of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Cardiac conduction disturbances requiring PPM are a frequent complication of TAVR. However, limited data is available regarding this complication after TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve. The study included patients without prior pacemaker who underwent TAVR in the PARTNER (Placement of AoRtic TraNscathetER Valves) trial and registry and investigated predictors and clinical effect of new PPM. Of 2,559 TAVR patients, 586 were excluded due to pre-existing PPM. A new PPM was required in 173 of the remaining 1,973 patients (8.8%). By multivariable analysis, predictors of PPM included right bundle branch block (odds ratio [OR]: 7.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.92 to 10.06, p < 0.001), prosthesis diameter/left ventricular (LV) outflow tract diameter (for each 0.1 increment, OR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.51, p = 0.002), LV end-diastolic diameter (for each 1 cm, OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.87, p = 0.003), and treatment in continued access registry (OR: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.08 to 2.92, p = 0.025). Patients requiring PPM had a longer mean duration of post-procedure hospitalization (7.3 ± 2.7 days vs. 6.2 ± 2.8 days, p = 0.001). At 1 year, new PPM was associated with significantly higher repeat hospitalization (23.9% vs. 18.2%, p = 0.05) and mortality or repeat hospitalization (42.0% vs. 32.6%, p = 0.007). There was no difference between groups in LV ejection fraction at 1 year. PPM was required in 8.8% of patients without prior PPM who underwent TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve in the PARTNER trial and registry. In addition to pre-existing right bundle branch block, the prosthesis to LV outflow tract diameter ratio and the LV end-diastolic diameter were identified as novel predictors of PPM after TAVR. New PPM was associated with a longer duration of hospitalization and higher rates of repeat hospitalization and mortality or repeat hospitalization at 1 year. (THE PARTNER TRIAL: Placement of AoRtic TraNscathetER Valves Trial; NCT00530894).

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement program in the post-food and drug administration approval era: early outcomes at an academic medical center.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has recently become a suitable alternative for treatment of symptomatic aortic stenosis in patients who are at very high risk for morbidity and mortality with conventional corrective surgery. In the fall of 2011, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of TAVR, allowing for reimbursement at institutions outside of investigative trials. We report the initiation of a TAVR-based program at an academic tertiary care facility that did not participate in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) 1 or PARTNER II trials. A total of 160 patients were evaluated for TAVR from May 2012 through June 2013. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement was found to be appropriate for 50 (31%). In this experience, morbidity and mortality were similar to those reported for the PARTNER trial (30-day hospital mortality was 8%). A single case of presumed cerebrovascular accident was observed. These results demonstrate that the real-world application can be done with comparable results. Implementation of lessons learned in the trials allowed a very short learning curve and excellent results after only a limited number of patients. Use of computed tomography reconstructed images for operative planning, including fluoroscopic angle, facilitated minimal use of contrast in each case. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is a viable option for patients at very high risk for surgical intervention in the post-Food and Drug Administration approval era. Real-world results comparable with published outcomes from experienced centers involved in the PARTNER trial can be achieved.

Incidence, predictors, and prognostic impact of late bleeding complications after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

The incidence and prognostic impact of late bleeding complications after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are unknown. The aim of this study was to identify the incidence, predictors, and prognostic impact of major late bleeding complications (MLBCs) (≥30 days) after TAVR. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients who underwent TAVR within the randomized cohorts and continued access registries in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial were analyzed after stratifying by the occurrence of MLBCs. Predictors of MLBCs and their association with 30-day to 1-year mortality were assessed. Among 2,401 patients who underwent TAVR and survived to 30 days, MLBCs occurred in 142 (5.9%) at a median time of 132 days (interquartile range: 71 to 230 days) after the index procedure. Gastrointestinal complications (n = 58 [40.8%]), neurological complications (n = 22 [15.5%]), and traumatic falls (n = 11 [7.8%]) were identified as the most frequent types of MLBCs. Independent predictors of MLBCs were the presence of low hemoglobin at baseline, atrial fibrillation or flutter at baseline or 30 days, the presence of moderate or severe paravalvular leak at 30 days, and greater left ventricular mass at 30 days. MLBCs were identified as a strong independent predictor of mortality between 30 days and 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio: 3.91; 95% confidence interval: 2.67 to 5.71; p < 0.001). MLBCs after TAVR were frequent and associated with increased mortality. Better individualized and risk-adjusted antithrombotic therapy after TAVR is urgently needed in this high-risk population. (THE PARTNER TRIAL: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial; NCT00530894).

Costs of periprocedural complications in patients treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement: results from the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve trial.

In patients with severe aortic stenosis, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) improves survival when compared with nonsurgical therapy but with higher in-hospital and lifetime costs. Complications associated with TAVR may decrease with greater experience and improved devices, thereby reducing the overall cost of the procedure. Therefore, we sought to estimate the effect of periprocedural complications on in-hospital costs and length of stay of TAVR. Using detailed cost data from 406 TAVR patients enrolled in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve (PARTNER) I trial, we developed multivariable models to estimate the incremental cost and length of stay associated with specific periprocedural complications. Attributable costs and length of stay for each complication were calculated by multiplying the independent cost of each event by its frequency in the treatment group. Mean cost for the initial hospitalization was $79 619±40 570 ($50 891 excluding the valve); 49% of patients had ≥1 complication. Seven complications were independently associated with increased hospital costs, with major bleeding, arrhythmia, and death accounting for the largest attributable cost per patient. Renal failure and the need for repeat TAVR, although less frequent, were also associated with substantial incremental and attributable costs. Overall, complications accounted for $12 475 per patient in initial hospital costs and 2.4 days of hospitalization. In the PARTNER trial, periprocedural complications were frequent, costly, and accounted for ≈25% of non-implant-related hospital costs. Avoidance of complications should improve the cost-effectiveness of TAVR for inoperable and high-risk patients, but reductions in the cost of uncomplicated TAVR will also be necessary for optimal efficiency. http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00530894.

Impact of aortic annulus size on valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes after transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement: insights from the PARTNER Trial.

The objective was to evaluate the effects of aortic annulus size on valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes in those patients included in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) randomized controlled trial cohort A and the nonrandomized continued access cohort. Patients included the randomized controlled trial (n=574) and nonrandomized continued access (n=1358) cohorts were divided in tertiles according to aortic annulus diameter (small aortic annulus tertile, medium aortic annulus tertile, and large aortic annulus tertile [LAA], respectively) as measured by transthoracic echocardiography. Severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was defined as an effective aortic orifice area of <0.65 cm(2)/m(2). In the randomized controlled trial cohort, patients in the small aortic annulus tertile who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement had a lower incidence of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (19.7% versus 37.5%; P=0.03) and only a trend toward a higher incidence of moderate-to-severe paravalvular leaks compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (5.7% versus 0%; P=0.06). In the LAA tertile, there were no differences in the rate of prosthesis-patient mismatch between groups, and a significant increase in moderate-to-severe paravalvular leaks was associated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (9% versus 0%; P=0.01). There were no differences in mortality between transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement. In the nonrandomized continued access cohort, there were no differences in prosthesis-patient mismatch between the small aortic annulus and LAA tertiles, but a higher rate of moderate-to-severe paravalvular leaks was observed in the LAA tertile (5.9% versus 11.5%; P=0.009). Patients in the LAA tertile had a higher mortality rate at 1-year follow-up (P=0.02), and differences persisted in multivariable analysis (P=0.048 for LAA versus medium aortic annulus tertile, P=0.035 for LAA versus small aortic annulus tertile). Aortic annulus size had a major impact on valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement. This study highlights the importance of considering aortic annulus size in the evaluation of high-risk patients who are candidates for aortic valve replacement. http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00530894.

Incidence and Sequelae of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch in Transcatheter Versus Surgical Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: A PARTNER Trial Cohort-A Analysis

BackgroundLittle is known about the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and its impact on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). ObjectivesThe objectives of this study were: 1) to compare the incidence of PPM in the TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) randomized control trial (RCT) arms of the PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves) I Trial cohort A; and 2) to assess the impact of PPM on regression of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy and mortality in these 2 arms and in the TAVR nonrandomized continued access (NRCA) registry cohort. MethodsThe PARTNER Trial cohort A randomized patients 1:1 to TAVR or bioprosthetic SAVR. Postoperative PPM was defined as absent if the indexed effective orifice area (EOA) was >0.85 cm2/m2, moderate if the indexed EOA was ≥0.65 but ≤0.85 cm2/m2, or severe if the indexed EOA was <0.65 cm2/m2. LV mass regression and mortality were analyzed using the SAVR-RCT (n = 270), TAVR-RCT (n = 304), and TAVR-NRCA (n = 1,637) cohorts. ResultsThe incidence of PPM was 60.0% (severe: 28.1%) in the SAVR-RCT cohort versus 46.4% (severe: 19.7%) in the TAVR-RCT cohort (p < 0.001) and 43.8% (severe: 13.6%) in the TAVR-NRCA cohort. In patients with an aortic annulus diameter <20 mm, severe PPM developed in 33.7% undergoing SAVR compared with 19.0% undergoing TAVR (p = 0.002). PPM was an independent predictor of less LV mass regression at 1 year in the SAVR-RCT (p = 0.017) and TAVR-NRCA (p = 0.012) cohorts but not in the TAVR-RCT cohort (p = 0.35). Severe PPM was an independent predictor of 2-year mortality in the SAVR-RCT cohort (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.78; p = 0.041) but not in the TAVR-RCT cohort (HR: 0.58; p = 0.11). In the TAVR-NRCA cohort, severe PPM was not a predictor of 1-year mortality in all patients (HR: 1.05; p = 0.60) but did independently predict mortality in the subset of patients with no post-procedural aortic regurgitation (HR: 1.88; p = 0.02). ConclusionsIn patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk, PPM is more frequent and more often severe after SAVR than TAVR. Patients with PPM after SAVR have worse survival and less LV mass regression than those without PPM. Severe PPM also has a significant impact on survival after TAVR in the subset of patients with no post-procedural aortic regurgitation. TAVR may be preferable to SAVR in patients with a small aortic annulus who are susceptible to PPM to avoid its adverse impact on LV mass regression and survival. (The PARTNER Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial; NCT00530894)

Comprehensive Analysis of Mortality Among Patients Undergoing TAVR: Results of the PARTNER Trial

BackgroundPatients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) who were deemed too high risk or inoperable for conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial were randomized to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus AVR (PARTNER-A arm) or standard therapy (PARTNER-B arm). ObjectivesThis study compared when and how deaths occurred after TAVR versus surgical AVR or standard therapy. MethodsThe PARTNER-A arm included 244 transfemoral (TF) and 104 transapical (TA) TAVR patients, and 351 AVR patients; the PARTNER-B arm included 179 TF-TAVR patients and 179 standard therapy patients. Deaths were categorized as cardiovascular, noncardiovascular, or uncategorizable, and were characterized by multiphase hazard modelling. ResultsIn the PARTNER-A arm, the risk of death peaked after randomization in the TA-TAVR and AVR groups, falling to low levels commensurate with the U.S. population within 3 months. Early risk was less in TF-TAVR patients, resulting in initial superior survival; between 12 and 18 months, risk increased, such that within 2 years, TF-TAVR and AVR patients had similar survival rates. Cardiovascular, noncardiovascular, and uncategorizable deaths for TF-TAVR were 37%, 43%, and 20%, respectively, versus 22%, 41%, and 37%, respectively, for TA-TAVR and 33%, 43%, and 24%, respectively, for AVR. In the PARTNER-B arm, risk with standard therapy was 60% per year; TF-TAVR reduced risk to 20% per year, resulting in 0.5 years of life added within 2.5 years. ConclusionsIn inoperable AS patients, TAVR substantially reduced the risk of cardiovascular death. In high-risk patients, TA-TAVR and AVR were associated with elevated peri-procedural risk more than with TF-TAVR, although cardiovascular death was higher after TF-TAVR. Therefore, TF-TAVR should be considered the standard of care for severely symptomatic inoperable patients or those at high risk of noncardiovascular mortality after conventional surgery. (THE PARTNER TRIAL: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial; NCT00530894)

Outcomes With Post-Dilation Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The PARTNER I Trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve)

This study sought to characterize the patients receiving post-implantation balloon dilation (PD) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and evaluate procedural outcomes in thePARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) I trial. Following TAVR, PD has been used to treat paravalvular regurgitation. The PARTNER I trial cohort A (n= 304) and cohort B (n= 194) patients randomized to TAVR and the nonrandomized continued access TAVR (n= 1,637) patients were included in the analysis. PD was performed at the discretion of the operator. Clinical events and echocardiographic variables were collected prospectively out to 1 year. The overall incidence of PD was 12.4%. PD patients had significantly less prosthesis-patient mismatch (p < 0.001) and larger effective orifice areas (p < 0.001) throughout the follow-up period.There were significantly more subacute strokes (occurring <7 days: 4.9% vs. 2.6%; p= 0.04) in PD patients but no difference in late stroke, either at 7 to 30 days (0.0% vs. 0.8%; p= 0.16) or>30days (1.9 vs. 1.7%; p= 0.75). Although there was no significant increase in early mortality with PD, at 1 year, there was a trend for higher all-cause mortality (p= 0.054) and a significant difference in death or stroke (p= 0.04). When the subgroup of patients with none/trace paravalvular regurgitation were evaluated, there was no significant association of PD with mortality (p= 0.61) and death or stroke (p=0.96). Multivariable analysis failed to show a relationship between PD andmortality. PD is associated with reduced rates of moderate or severe prosthesis-patient mismatch with no evidence for short-term structural deterioration of the balloon-expandable transcatheter valve. Although PD is associated with a greater incidence of early stroke, there is no significant association between PD and stroke beyond 7 days. Multivariable analysis shows no significant association between PD and mortality.

Predictors of poor outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: results from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) trial.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a less invasive option for treatment of high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. We sought to identify patients at high risk for poor outcome after TAVR using a novel definition of outcome that integrates quality of life with mortality. Among 2137 patients who underwent TAVR in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) trial or its associated continued access registry, quality of life was assessed with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Overall Summary Scale (KCCQ-OS; range 0-100, where a higher score equates to a better quality of life) at baseline and at 1, 6, and 12 months after TAVR. A poor 6-month outcome (defined as death, KCCQ-OS score <45, or ≥10-point decrease in KCCQ-OS score compared with baseline) occurred in 704 patients (33%). Using a split-sample design, we developed a multivariable model to identify a parsimonious set of covariates to identify patients at high risk for poor outcome. The model demonstrated moderate discrimination (c-index=0.66) and good calibration with the observed data, performed similarly in the separate validation cohort (c-index=0.64), and identified 211 patients (10% of the population) with a ≥50% likelihood of a poor outcome after TAVR. A second model that explored predictors of poor outcome at 1 year identified 1102 patients (52%) with ≥50% likelihood and 178 (8%) with ≥70% likelihood of a poor 1-year outcome after TAVR. Using a large, multicenter cohort, we have developed and validated predictive models that can identify patients at high risk for a poor outcome after TAVR. Although model discrimination was moderate, these models may help guide treatment choices and offer patients realistic expectations of outcomes based on their presenting characteristics. http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00530894.

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Operation: A PARTNER Trial Subgroup Analysis

The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial reported a reduced rate of mortality in patients with previous coronary bypass grafting (CABG) operation who received surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in comparison with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We sought to further evaluate these groups. We reviewed the database of the 699 patients enrolled in the PARTNER trial. The cohort for this study consisted of 288 patients (41.2%) who had a history of CABG operation before enrollment in the PARTNER trial. All patients were followed up for 2 years. The mean age was 81.5±6.6 years, and 231 patients (80.2%) were men. The preoperative characteristics were similar in 140 patients (48.6%) who received SAVR and 148 (51.4%) who received TAVR. There were no differences between the two groups with respect to the operative outcomes of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction, but the TAVR patients experienced more paravalvular regurgitation (p<0.0001). At 2 years, there was a trend toward greater all-cause mortality in the TAVR patients (hazard ratio [HR] 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.99, 2.35; p=0.052). Furthermore, the TAVR patients had more repeated hospitalization (HR 1.75; 95% CI: 0.99, 3.07; p=0.05), death of any cause or repeated hospitalization (HR 1.52; 95% CI: 1.06, 2.19; p=0.02), and death of any cause or stroke (HR 1.51; 95% CI: 1.00, 2.27; p=0.05). The 2-year follow-up of patients with a history of previous CABG operation in the PARTNER trial demonstrated improved outcomes with SAVR in comparison with TAVR. Further longitudinal assessment is necessary to corroborate these findings and to understand the possible causes.

Early Regression of Severe Left Ventricular Hypertrophy After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Is Associated With Decreased Hospitalizations

This study sought to examine the relationship between left ventricular mass (LVM) regression and clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). LVM regression after valve replacement for aortic stenosis is assumed to be a favorable effect of LV unloading, but its relationship to improved clinical outcomes is unclear. Of 2,115 patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis at high surgical risk receiving TAVR in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) randomized trial or continued access registry, 690 had both severe LV hypertrophy (left ventricular mass index [LVMi] ≥ 149 g/m(2) men, ≥ 122 g/m(2) women) at baseline and an LVMi measurement at 30-day post-TAVR follow-up. Clinical outcomes were compared for patients with greater than versus lesser than median percentage change in LVMi between baseline and 30 days using Cox proportional hazard models to evaluate event rates from 30 to 365 days. Compared with patients with lesser regression, patients with greater LVMi regression had a similar rate of all-cause mortality (14.1% vs. 14.3%, p = 0.99), but a lower rate of rehospitalization (9.5% vs. 18.5%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32 to 0.78; p = 0.002) and a lower rate of rehospitalization specifically for heart failure (7.3% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.01). The association with a lower rate of rehospitalization was consistent across subgroups and remained significant after multivariable adjustment (HR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.84; p = 0.007). Patients with greater LVMi regression had lower B-type natriuretic peptide (p = 0.002) and a trend toward better quality of life (p = 0.06) at 1-year follow-up than did those with lesser regression. In high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis and severe LV hypertrophy undergoing TAVR, those with greater early LVM regression had one-half the rate of rehospitalization over the subsequent year compared to those with lesser regression.

The Odyssey of TAVR from concept to clinical reality.

On 16 April 2002, my colleagues and I performed, in an inoperable and desperately ill man with critical calcific aortic stenosis (AS), the first clinical percutaneous implantation of an aortic valve bioprosthesis. As of 2013, more than 80,000 patients have been treated; and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), so strongly criticized by all the experts throughout the early years, continues to grow in parallel with its constant technological improvements. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement can now be recognized as a medical breakthrough. It is a revolutionary technology that meets an unfulfilled clinical need for a common disease, is validated by rigorous evidence-based studies, and is applicable worldwide. We report here the main phases of this 20-year odyssey and briefly consider the prospects of TAVR, which remains in continuous development.

Antithrombotic Therapy After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

A solid evidence base for appropriate antithrombotic therapy in patients with complex transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is not yet established. This is especially important because approximately 40% of patients with TAVR from both the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy (STS/ACC TVT) registry1 and the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial2 cohorts had baseline diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF) and may have had an indication for anticoagulation in addition to the protocol-directed 6 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel and aspirin) after TAVR.

Worldwide TAVI registries: what have we learned?

With a rapidly aging society, the number of patients with cardiovascular disease-in particular aortic stenosis-is progressively increasing. Although conventional aortic valve replacement remains the only treatment known to improve prognosis and symptoms in symptomatic patients with aortic stenosis, about one-third are still withhold from the life-saving therapy. Based on the compelling evidence of the randomized Placement of Aortic transcatheter valves (PARTNER) A and B cohort, TAVI is now considered standard of care for extreme risk and inoperable patients and is an alternative to surgery for high-risk patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. However, these patients were super-selected, which does not reflect a clinical real-world situation. TAVI registries represent a real-world scenario, and therefore provide the evidence for the treatment of high-risk patients (regarding comorbidities and anatomical factors) in daily clinical life. The review will focus on the recently published Edwards SAPIEN, Medtronic CoreValve and mixed (national) registries with the focus on short- and midterm outcome. These registries suggest that the growing experience of the operators with regard to patient selection, prevention, recognition and treatment of procedural complications together with the developments in valve design will improve the short-term results of TAVI. However, randomized trials in intermediate risk patients and data on long-term valve durability are a prerequisite before indications can be expanded to younger and lower risk patient population.

Impact of Wait Times on the Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Severe Aortic Valve Disease: A Discrete Event Simulation Model

BackgroundThere is increasing demand for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as the primary treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are high-risk surgical candidates or inoperable. We used mathematical simulation models to estimate the hypothetical effectiveness of TAVR with increasing wait times. MethodsWe applied discrete event modelling, using data from the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trials. We compared TAVR with medical therapy in the inoperable cohort, and compared TAVR to conventional aortic valve surgery in the high-risk cohort. One-year mortality and wait-time deaths were calculated in different scenarios by varying TAVR wait times from 10 days to 180 days, while maintaining a constant wait time for surgery at a mean of 15.6 days. ResultsIn the inoperable cohort, the 1-year mortality for medical therapy was 50%. When the TAVR wait time was 10 days, the TAVR wait-time mortality was 1.9% with a 1-year mortality of 31.5%. TAVR wait-time deaths increased to 28.9% with a 180-day wait, with a 1-year mortality of 41.4%. In the high-risk cohort, the wait-time deaths and 1-year mortality for the surgical patients were 2.5% and 27%, respectively. The TAVR wait-time deaths increased from 2.2% with a 10-day wait to 22.4% with a 180-day wait, and a corresponding increase in 1-year mortality from 24.5% to 32.6%. Mortality with TAVR exceeded surgery when TAVR wait times exceeded 60 days. ConclusionsModest increases in TAVR wait times have a substantial effect on the effectiveness of TAVR in inoperable patients and high-risk surgical candidates.

Balloon-Expandable Prostheses for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

The implantation of a transcatheter heart valve (THV) through a balloon-expandable system played a major role in the early stages of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The technology consists of sewing a foldable biological cardiac valve inside a metallic stent frame, and then crimping the device into a balloon in order to implant the valve at the level of the aortic annulus through balloon inflation. The use of balloon-expandable valves underwent a rapid expansion in the years following the pioneering experience of 2002, and recent large multicenter trials and registries have confirmed the safety and efficacy of TAVR using balloon-expandable valves. The randomized Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial showed both the superiority and non-inferiority of TAVR with the balloon-expandable Edwards-Sapien system compared to medical treatment (non-operable patients) and surgical aortic valve replacement (high risk patients), respectively. Balloon-expandable valves have been associated with excellent hemodynamic results (residual mean gradient <15 mm Hg in most cases), though residual paravalvular aortic regurgitation is frequent (trivial or mild in the majority of patients, moderate or severe in <10%). Valve durability studies with up to 5-year follow-up have shown maintained valve hemodynamics over time with only a minimal decrease in valve area and no increase in aortic regurgitation. Future improvements in the balloon-expandable THV technology such as implementing anti-paravalvular leak features (ex. Sapien 3 valve), and showing its efficacy for the treatment of non-high risk patients (ongoing PARTNER II trial) will probably lead to broader use in a lower risk population in the near future.

Sex-Related Differences in Outcomes After Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: Insights From the PARTNER Trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve)

This study sought to examine sex-specific differences in outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. The PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) trial demonstrated similar 2-year survival with SAVR or TAVR for high-risk patients, but sex-specific outcomes are unknown. In all, 699 patients (300 female) were randomly assigned 1:1 to either SAVR or TAVR with a balloon expandable pericardial tissue valve. Baseline characteristics and 2-year outcomes of TAVR versus SAVR were compared among males and females. Baseline characteristics differed between the sexes. Despite higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality risk scores (11.9 vs. 11.6; p = 0.05), female patients had lower prevalence of coronary artery disease (64.4% vs. 83.7%), prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery (19.8% vs. 61.2%), peripheral vascular disease (36.4% vs. 46.9%), diabetes mellitus (35.6% vs. 45.6%), and elevated creatinine (11.7% vs. 23.9%). Among female patients, procedural mortality trended lower with TAVR versus SAVR (6.8% vs. 13.1%; p = 0.07) and was maintained throughout follow-up (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44 to 1.00; p = 0.049), driven by the transfemoral arm (HR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.93; p = 0.02). Among male patients, although procedural mortality was lower with TAVR (6% vs. 12.1%; p = 0.03), there was no overall survival benefit (HR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.61; p = 0.42). In this retrospective subanalysis of high-risk, symptomatic aortic stenosis patients in the PARTNER trial, female subjects had lower late mortality with TAVR versus SAVR. This was especially true among patients suitable for transfemoral access and suggests that TAVR may be preferred over surgery for high-risk female patients. A randomized, controlled trial conducted specifically in female patients is necessary to properly study differences in mortality between treatment modalities. (THE PARTNER TRIAL: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial; NCT00530894).