Treatment Of Severe Aortic Stenosis Research Articles

Eight-years trends and outcomes in TAVI performed in a high-volume center

Abstract Introduction Since the first transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), remarkable changes in procedure features and patients' profile have been reported, making it a widespread treatment for severe aortic stenosis in all risk-class patients. Purpose To evaluate TAVI contemporary trends and outcomes in the last 8 years in a high-volume TAVI center. Methods Data of adult patients submitted to TAVI from April 2012 to April 2019 in a high-volume center were obtained from the Swiss TAVI registry, a prospective national multi-center database. Patients were divided according to implant period in two groups: 1) TAVI performed from 2012 to 2016, and 2) TAVI performed from 2017 to 2019. Results Over a 8-years period, a total of 1485 procedures were performed, increasing from 95 in 2012 to 320 in 2018 (p<0.001). A remarkable modification in patients' profile and procedure characteristics can be seen in Table 1. Despite higher age and surgical risk, a significant decrease in 1-year mortality (6.8% vs. 3.2%; p<0.001) was observed in the last 3 years. This difference was especially notable in the subgroup of high-risk patients (STS score ≥8), who presented a decrease in 30-days (5% vs. 3.3%; p=0.001) and 1-year mortality (13.1% vs. 4.9%; p<0.001). In multivariate analysis, age (OR 1.05, 95% CI: 1.0–1.1), non-femoral access (OR 2.7, 95% CI: 1.2–6.0), and STS score (OR 1.07, 95% CI: 1.0–1.1) were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality, while male gender (OR 1.8, 95% CI: 1.0–3.2), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 2.1, 95% CI: 1.1–3.9), and STS score (OR 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01–1.14) were predictors of 1-year mortality. Conclusion Significant changes in patients' profile and procedure characteristics were observed in the last 3 years of TAVI experience. Even performed in elderly and high-risk patients, TAVI was associated with low early and 1-year mortality. The Swiss TAVI registry offers a unique opportunity to monitor trends and outcomes in patient submitted to TAVI. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): APT is a Ph.D. study and her scientific research is supported by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (Capes) - Finance Code 001.

Prosthesis embolization during transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been a revolution in the treatment of severe aortic stenosis evolving to a high procedural success rate and low rate of complications. Embolization of the percutaneous device is a rare but potentially life-threatening complication. The spectrum of clinical manifestations ranges between incidental finding on cardiac imaging to cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest. Data about predictors and management of transcatheter heart valve embolization are scarce and mostly anecdotical. Management strategies are related to the type, the size, the location of the embolized device, the timing of diagnosis, and the clinical presentation of the patient. According to recent data from TRAVEL registry, device embolization and migration occur in approximately 1% of the patients and is responsible for increased morbidity and mortality. However, in a considerable proportion of cases it could have been prevented, hence structural interventionalists should plan the procedures carefully and know thoroughly the risk factors for device embolization. Increased awareness of predisposing factors, preventive measures, and appropriate bail-out options and techniques are strongly advisable. This paper is a review of the incidence, and outcomes of percutaneous prosthesis embolization during TAVI. It also suggests an integrated algorithmic approach for the management of device embolization incorporating both percutaneous and surgical techniques.

Three-Year Survival after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Findings from the Marshfield Aortic Valve Experience (MAVE) Study.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a rapidly evolving treatment for severe aortic stenosis. However, uncertainties exist for optimal valve selection as there are few long-term studies comparing patient survival by valve type.Objective: We hypothesized that self-expandable valves (SEV) would provide a survival advantage over balloon expandable valves (BEV), as SEV continue to expand and might better accommodate to the anatomy of the aortic valve over time.Methods: We examined outcomes according to valve type from a rural tertiary referral center between 2012 and 2017.Results: Out of 269 patients, 77 deaths (28.6%) occurred over the study period with 6 deaths by 1 month post-TAVR and 37 deaths by 1 year post-TAVR. The median observation time for survivors was 21.5 months. The probability of survival at 3 years was 60.7% and 61.9% for patients who underwent treatment with SEV and BEV, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in overall patient survival with or without adjustment for factors such as age, sex, race, and aortic valve area. Additionally, in a secondary analysis restricted to those patients treated in later years (2015-2017) survival among patients with BEV appeared superior (HR=0.456, P=0.015).Conclusion: Patients who underwent TAVR at a rural medical center with SEV showed similar survival compared to those who received a BEV. Superior survival was observed among those who received BEV versus SEV between 2015 and 2017.

S2642 A Novel Use of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Regurgitation in End-Stage Liver Disease

INTRODUCTION: The combination of severe aortic regurgitation (AR), end-stage liver disease (ESLD), and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) carries significant morbidity and mortality. ESLD induces a hyperdynamic circulation characterized by peripheral vasodilation, low intravascular volume, and impaired contractility, resulting in poor cardiac reserve. As such, treatment options for valvular abnormalities such as AR in the setting of ESLD and ESRD remain challenging. While transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS) is well established, minimally-invasive treatment options for AR are limited. We present a case of severe AR in a patient with ESLD and ESRD treated via expanded-access TAVR, hence allowing the patient to maintain transplant candidacy. CASE DESCRIPTION/METHODS: A 48 y/o male with history of alcohol-related ESLD and ESRD was referred for evaluation of simultaneous liver and kidney transplant. Initial evaluation revealed him to be Child Turcotte Pugh class C with a MELD-Na of 33. During pre-transplant evaluation, a transthoracic echocardiogram revealed a mobile hypoechoic mass near the non-coronary leaflet, with resultant severe eccentric AR. Transesophageal echocardiogram confirmed a 10 × 4.5mm mobile vegetation on the left coronary cusp (AR PISA radius: 0.81cm and AR PISA volume: 52.29ml). Upon further workup, blood cultures were found to be positive for Streptococcus, likely disseminated from his tunneled internal jugular dialysis catheter. The patient was initiated on 6 weeks of IV Cefazolin with subsequent replacement of the hemodialysis catheter. The presence of severe AR was deemed prohibitive for transplantation, and he was assessed to be too high-risk for open cardiac valve repair. However, after presentation at a multi-disciplinary structural heart disease case conference, the treating team recommended an expanded access, compassionate use TAVR, usually performed for AS. FDA and Henry Ford IRB approval was obtained with completion of TAVR via transfemoral approach and resulting reduction of his severe AR to trivial AR. This novel technique has allowed the patient to potentially be re-listed for liver and kidney transplant. DISCUSSION: Our case displays the use of a multidisciplinary approach to determining a novel and minimally-invasive approach for repair of AR in a high-risk patient. Furthermore, correction of the patient’s AR has allowed for preservation of his transplant candidacy.

MIGHTY MITIS

SESSION TITLE: Medical Student/Resident Cardiovascular Disease Posters SESSION TYPE: Med Student/Res Case Rep Postr PRESENTED ON: October 18-21, 2020 INTRODUCTION: Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) is the mainstay treatment of severe aortic stenosis especially in the elderly with multiple comorbidities and is emerging as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). (1) The rate of infective endocarditis (IE) following TAVR has been reported to be around 1.5%.(2) Herein, we describe a case where the patient developed prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) 2 months after undergoing TAVR. CASE PRESENTATION: A 73-year-old male presented to the emergency with cough, chills, and bilateral lower extremity swelling for a week. His medical history was significant for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, bradycardia status post dual lead pacemaker (2013), and severe aortic stenosis status post TAVR (26mm SAPIEN 3 valve via right femoral artery- TAVR was done 2 months prior to this presentation). The patient underwent a dental procedure 3 weeks after the TAVR and did not receive any antibiotic prophylaxis prior to the dental procedure. Duke Criteria indicated ‘Possible infective endocarditis (IE)’. Transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) did not show any vegetation. Blood cultures yielded Streptococcus mitis/ oralis. Transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) showed 0.6 X 0.2cm vegetation on the left coronary cusp of the prosthetic aortic valve and mild paravalvular aortic insufficiency. The pacemaker was vegetation-free. He was started on intravenous (IV) ceftriaxone, responded well to it, and was discharged with a 6weeks course of IV ceftriaxone and he was referred to cardiothoracic surgery for further evaluation. DISCUSSION: IE is an uncommon complication after TAVR. PVE associated with TAVR is difficult to diagnose and has a dismal prognosis so TAVR- IE deserves prompt diagnosis and treatment. PVE presents with fever, new or changing heart murmur, new or worsening heart failure, or new or progressive cardiac conduction abnormalities. The most frequently encountered pathogens in early PVE (within two months of TAVR) are S. aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci followed by gram-negative bacilli and fungi. The most frequently encountered pathogens in intermediate PVE (2 to 12 months after TAVR) and late PVE (more than 12 months after TAVR) are streptococci and S. aureus followed by coagulase-negative staphylococci and enterococci. The main sources of PVE are dental interventions and respiratory, skin, urological, and gastrointestinal infections.(2) Studies have shown that men are found to be affected by IE more often than women. (3) CONCLUSIONS: As per the American Heart Association (AHA) and the European Society for Cardiology (ESC) guidelines, PVE should be treated with a bactericidal agent for at least six weeks. Guidelines recommend early surgery in complicated cases including those with heart failure, perivalvular complications, and high risk of embolism. Emphasis should also be given on any pre-procedure prophylaxis. Reference #1: Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, Miller DC, Moses JW, Svensson LG, Tuzcu EM, Webb JG, PARTNER Trial Investigators. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2187–98. Reference #2: Amat-Santos IJ, Ribeiro HB, Urena M, Allende R, Houde C, Bédard E, Perron J, Delarochellière R, Paradis JM, Dumont E, Doyle D, Mohammadi S, Côté M, San Roman JA, Rodés-Cabau J. Prosthetic valve endocarditis after transcatheter valve replacement: A systematic review. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:334–346. Reference #3: Olsen NT, Backer O De, Thyregod HGH, Vejlstrup N, Bundgaard H, Søndergaard L. Structural Heart Disease Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation. 2015;1–9. DISCLOSURES: No relevant relationships by Sanya Chandna, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Kesavan Sankaramangalam, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Monarch Shah, source=Web Response

Expansion of TAVR into Low-Risk Patients and Who to Consider for SAVR.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS) over the last decade. The results of the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) 3 and Evolut Low Risk trials demonstrated the safety and efficacy of TAVR in low-surgical-risk patients and led to the approval of TAVR for use across the risk spectrum. Heart teams around the world will now be faced with evaluating a deluge of younger, healthier patients with severe AS. Prior to the PARTNER 3 and Evolut Low Risk studies, this heterogenous patient population would have undergone surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). It is unlikely that TAVR will completely supplant SAVR for the treatment of severe AS in patients with a low surgical risk, as SAVR has excellent short- and long-term outcomes and years of durability data. In this review, we outline the critical role that SAVR will continue to play in the treatment of severe AS in the post-PARTNER 3/Evolut Low Risk era.

Transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement impact on outcomes and cancer treatment schedule

Background.Recent data suggest that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS) is viable in cancer patients. TAVR may be preferred in cancer patients due to its minimally invasive nature and smaller impact on oncologic therapies compared to SAVR.ObjectivesWe sought to determine if TAVR is an acceptable alternative to SAVR in cancer patients and whether TAVR allows for earlier initiation or resumption of anti-cancer therapies.Methods.Cancer patients in a tertiary cancer center diagnosed with severe AS were retrospectively included. Patients accepted by the heart team underwent either TAVR or SAVR, while remaining patients received medical therapy alone. Time intervals to initiation of cancer treatment and the impact of cancer treatment on the replaced valves were recorded. Logistic regression was performed to determine the impact of treatment strategy on overall survival (OS) in all 3 subgroups.Results.One hundred and eighty-seven cancer patients diagnosed with severe AS were identified. AVR was associated with better OS compared to medical therapy alone (p < 0.0001). TAVR was associated with better OS at 72 months (HR = 0.468, p < 0.001) compared to medical therapy alone, with no difference in OS observed between SAVR and TAVR. Time intervals to initiation of cancer treatments were shorter in the TAVR group, with no valve deterioration or infection observed in all groups.Conclusion.Cancer patients with severe AS benefit from AVR. TAVR is a viable alternative to SAVR in high-risk cancer patients to prolong survival and allow for earlier administration or resumption of anti-neoplastic therapies.

Dual atrioventricular nodal pathways physiology and high-grade heart block

We report of case of an 87 year old lady with preexisting RBBB who developed LBBB after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis. She underwent pacemaker implantation, and subsequently developed high-grade atrioventricular (AV) block. Dual chamber pacing in the setting of complete heart block with a long programmed AV delay showed retrograde P waves. Ventricular pacing showed intact retrograde conduction. Shortening the programmed AV delay resulted in loss of retrograde P waves during dual chamber pacing. These findings are discussed.

Mid-term outcomes of Sapien 3 versus Perimount Magna Ease for treatment of severe aortic stenosis

BackgroundThere is limited information on the longer-term outcome after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with new-generation prostheses compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The aim of this study was to compare the mid-term outcomes after TAVR with Sapien 3 and SAVR with Perimount Magna Ease bioprostheses for severe aortic stenosis.MethodsIn a retrospective study, we included patients who underwent transfemoral TAVR with Sapien 3 or SAVR with Perimount Magna Ease bioprosthesis between January 2008 and October 2017 from the nationwide FinnValve registry. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for differences in the baseline characteristics. The Kaplan-Meir method was used to estimate late mortality.ResultsA total of 2000 patients were included (689 in the TAVR cohort and 1311 in the SAVR cohort). Propensity score matching resulted in 308 pairs (STS score, TAVR 3.5 ± 2.2% vs. SAVR 3.5 ± 2.8%, p = 0.918). In-hospital mortality was 3.6% after SAVR and 1.3% after TAVR (p = 0.092). Stroke, acute kidney injury, bleeding and atrial fibrillation were significantly more frequent after SAVR, but higher rate of vascular complications was observed after TAVR. The cumulative incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation at 4 years was 13.9% in the TAVR group and 6.9% in the SAVR group (p = 0.0004). At 4-years, all-cause mortality was 20.6% for SAVR and 25.9% for TAVR (p = 0.910). Four-year rates of coronary revascularization, prosthetic valve endocarditis and repeat aortic valve intervention were similar between matched cohorts.ConclusionsThe Sapien 3 bioprosthesis achieves comparable midterm outcomes to a surgical bioprosthesis with proven durability such as the Perimount Magna Ease. However, the Sapien 3 bioprosthesis was associated with better early outcome.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03385915.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Readmissions in the Current Era (from the National Readmission Database)

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the mainstream treatment for severe aortic stenosis. Despite improvement in device iteration and operator experience rigorous outcome data outside the scope of clinical trials is lacking. Nationwide readmission database 2016 and 2017 was utilized to identify the study population. International Classification of Disease,10th edition codes were used to identify TAVI admissions. Outcomes of interest were the 90-day readmission pattern and in hospital complications of the TAVI procedure. A total of 73,784 TAVI related index admissions were identified in the Nationwide Readmission Database in 2016 to 2017. Forty four percent of patients undergoing TAVI in that timeframe were discharged within 48 hours of their procedure. 16,343 patients (22.2%) were readmitted within 90 days after discharge. Major cardiac co-morbidities like heart failure were prevalent more often in the group of patients that were readmitted within 90 days. Noncardiac causes however accounted for two thirds of these readmissions. The median time to 90-day readmission was 31 days. Multivariate analysis showed that nonagenarians, patients undergoing transapical TAVI, and patients with a higher comorbidity burden were more likely to be readmitted within 90 days. In conclusion, almost half of TAVI patients in the US are discharged within 48 hours after their procedure and 20% of all TAVI patients are readmitted within 90 days. Most readmissions are due to noncardiac causes.

Long-term and Temporal Outcomes of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic-valve Replacement in Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Meta-analysis.

To determine the 5-year and temporal performance of TAVR versus SAVR. TAVR has become a valuable treatment for severe aortic stenosis but the long-term safety and efficacy remain unclear. Databases were searched until October 6, 2019 for randomized trials with ≥5 years' follow-up. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled with random-effects models. We included 4 trials with 3,758 patients. TAVR was associated with a significantly higher 5-year all-cause mortality than SAVR (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.37; P = 0.02). Landmark analysis showed no significant difference within 2 years (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79-1.08; P = 0.33) but a statistically higher mortality in TAVR between 2 and 5 years (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14-1.52; P = 0.0002), with significant difference between these 2 temporal phases (P for interaction = 0.001). Similar interaction was found for cardiovascular mortality and several other outcomes. Rates of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke, permanent pacemaker implantation, aortic-valve rehospitalization, and reintervention were higher, but rates of major bleeding and new-onset fibrillation were lower in TAVR at 5 years. The incidences of myocardial infarction, stroke, and transient ischemic attack were not statistically different between TAVR and SAVR. TAVR was associated with a significantly higher all-cause mortality at 5 years compared with SAVR. Of note, all-cause mortality presented a characteristic temporal pattern showing increased risk between 2 and 5 years but not within 2 years. Longer-term follow-up data are warranted.

P0709RENAL OUTCOMES AND MORTALITY FOLLOWING TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE IMPLANTATION IN CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE PATIENTS

Abstract Background and Aims Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is indicated for the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis with a high surgical risk that are rejected for surgical valve placement. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of TAVI on long-term kidney function in stage 3-4 chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. Method We performed a single-center retrospective observational study of 529 consecutive patients that underwent TAVI between August 2007 and January 2018. We included patients with stage 3 or 4 CKD, with at least two stable measurements of glomerular filtration rate during the three months before TAVI. We excluded patients that presented with an acute kidney injury during the three months that preceded TAVI. Results 165 patients (31.3%) of the patients who underwent TAVI had a stable stage 3 or 4 CKD before implantation. Their mean age was 83.61 ±5.08 years, BMI of 27.79 ± 4.54 kg/m2, baseline serum creatinine of 1.62 ± 0.49 mg/dl for an eGFR measured by MDRD-4 of 40.19 ± 10.79 ml/min, EuroScore-II of 6 (IQR 4-8). 42 patients (28.6%) had a post-procedural acute kidney injury (AKI), 2 of them required temporary renal replacement therapy and 30 patients (71.4%) recovered to their baseline kidney function. Mean contrast media administered was 162.0 ±77.8 ml. Mean serum creatinine decreased from 1.64 ± 0.51 mg/dl to 1.46 ± 0.52 ml/min after 1 year of follow-up (p=0.032). Only 2.4% of patients showed a &amp;gt;50% increase in serum creatinine after 1 year. Median follow-up was 3.8 years (IQR 2.3-5.7 years) during which time no patient progressed to end-stage kidney disease. 33.3 % of patients died during follow-up, with a one-year survival rate of 87% and two-year survival of 82%. Post-interventional major bleeding (14.6 vs 5.8%, p&amp;lt;0.001) and the need for post-interventional pacemaker implantation (25 vs 13.3%, p&amp;lt;0,001)were the only risk factors associated with the development of AKI. Contrast volume was not associated with the development of AKI. AKI was associated with an increased in-hospital stay (13.2 vs 7.4 days, p&amp;lt;0.001), but was not associated with either a reduced kidney function at end of follow-up or an increased mortality (Log-rank X2=1.72, p=0,578). Conclusion Despite the high incidence of post-interventional AKI after TAVI, our study did not show an association between AKI and increased mortality or reduced renal survival. In most cases after AKI patients recovered to their baseline kidney function. There is an improvement in kidney function after one year of treatment of severe aortic stenosis with TAVI in patients with CKD Stage 3-4.

The Distinguish Method of Severe Aortic Stenosis Treatment Geriatric High Mortality Risk Patients

Aim To improve quality of treatment for senile patients with pronounced aortic stenosis (AS).Material and methods Aortic valve stenosis (AS) is the most common valve pathology in cardiosurgical patients. Surgical correction of aortic valve (AV) stenosis accounts for 10 to 22 % of open-heart operations. 125 patients with pronounced AS were treated in the N. N. Burdenko Main Military Clinical Hospital between 2010 and 2017. This study was based on the implementation of new, minimally invasive methods in our clinic in 2013: balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAVP) of the aortic valve and transcatheter aortic valve prosthesis (TCAVP).Results In the group of patients receiving the drug therapy alone, the in-hospital mortality was 2 %. At the time of maximum follow-up duration (3 years), the survival rate was 50.5 %. In the group of patients who underwent the AV replacement with extracorporeal circulation, the 3 year postoperative mortality was 16.6 %. There was no 3 year mortality in the group of patients who underwent TCAVP. The short-term beneficial effect of BAVP was confirmed.Conclusion An algorithm was developed for medical care of patients older than 75 with pronounced AS; the place of BAVP in the step-by-step management of these patients was determined. Using the developed approach in the management of these patients provided a 32 % (p&lt;0.05) increase in the number of cases of radical surgical care.

Outcomes of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionised the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS), though its safety and efficacy in low-risk patients remains to be established. A systematic review of PubMed, Medline and EMBASE identified four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in patients at low surgical risk comparing TAVR to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). A meta-analysis was performed with a primary outcome of a composite of all-cause mortality and stroke at longest available follow-up. A total of four RCTs with 2,836 patients was included in the final analysis. 1,363 patients were randomised to SAVR and 1,473 to TAVR. The composite of all-cause mortality and stroke was significantly lower in patients undergoing TAVR compared with SAVR (OR 0.59, 95%CI 0.37-0.95, p=0.03) with low heterogeneity (I2=31%). The difference in the primary composite outcome was driven by a difference in mortality (OR 0.66, 95%CI 0.44-0.98, p=0.04; I2=0%) without significant differences in stroke (OR 0.75 95%CI 0.45-1.26, p=0.28; I2=37%). Weighted absolute risk difference (ARD) of the primary composite outcome also favoured TAVR (ARD -2.0% 95%CI -3.3 to -0.7%, p=0.002) with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 50 to prevent one death or stroke. Patients undergoing TAVR had a significantly higher risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR 3.9, 95%CI 1.8-8.4, p<0.001, I2=84%) and moderate or severe paravalvular leak (OR 5.0, 95%CI 1.6-15.7, p=0.01; I2=19%). In patients with severe AS at low surgical risk, the rate of the composite of death and stroke was significantly lower with TAVR than with SAVR. Longer term follow-up with a focus on the impact of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, paravalvular leak (PVL) and structural valve deterioration is essential before the use of TAVR can be generalised to the broader population of patients with AS.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: how to decrease post-operative complications.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a therapeutic option widely used for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in the elderly. Careful pre-procedural screening, operator experience, and technological innovations, accounted for a safe, reliable, and standardized procedure. To further decrease post-operative complications, few steps are important: careful planning of the procedure by the Heart Team, clinical and diagnostic evaluation including electrocardiogram, echography, and computed tomography of the heart and great vessels. This approach will allow a selection of ideal candidates for the procedure, the best vascular approach, the selection of patients candidates for early discharge, and last but not least, simplification of the TAVI procedure. Although the procedure is reaching the ‘simplicity’ of coronary interventions, it should always be kept in mind the possibility, albeit remote, that life-threatening complication could ensue, requiring the prompt intervention of the cardiovascular surgeon.

NATIONAL TRENDS IN READMISSION RATES AFTER TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT VERSUS SURGICAL AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT WITH SEVERE AORTIC STENOSIS

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS) in high and intermediate risk patients. We intended to study the national trends in readmission rates, in patients underwent TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Using the

PERICARDITIS: A RARE COMPLICATION OF TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT

Transaortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a treatment for severe aortic stenosis. Current TAVR complications are related to vascular access, valve deployment, valve function, organ injury, and arrhythmia. We present a rare scenario where a patient developed acute pericarditis shortly after TAVR. 77

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Transseptal Approach Using a Femoral Veno- Arterial Loop

After successful introduction of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in 2002, TAVI has become an increasingly accepted therapy for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in patients judged to be at high risk for open heart surgery. We describe anterograde transseptal access for TAVI in a patient where transfemoral access alone was impossible to achieve due to a heavily calcified stenotic aortic valve. It is an interesting and alternative approach to achieve TAVI.

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients for the Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis.

Recently, two randomized trials, the PARTNER 3 and the Evolut Low Risk Trial, independently demonstrated that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is non-inferior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in patients at low surgical risk, paving the way to a progressive extension of clinical indications to TAVR. We designed a meta-analysis to compare TAVR versus SAVR in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low surgical risk. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019131125). Randomized studies comparing one-year outcomes of TAVR or SAVR were searched for within Medline, Scholar and Scopus electronic databases. A total of three randomized studies were selected, including nearly 3000 patients. After one year, the risk of cardiovascular death was significantly lower with TAVR compared to SAVR (Risk Ratio (RR) = 0.56; 95% CI 0.33–0.95; p = 0.03). Conversely, no differences were observed between the groups for one-year all-cause mortality (RR = 0.67; 95% CI 0.42–1.07; p = 0.10). Among the secondary endpoints, patients undergoing TAVR have lower risk of new-onset of atrial fibrillation compared to SAVR (RR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.17–0.39; p < 0.00001), major bleeding (RR = 0.30; 95% CI 0.14–0.65; p < 0.002) and acute kidney injury stage II or III (RR = 0.28; 95% CI 0.14–0.58; p = 0.0005). Conversely, TAVR was associated to a higher risk of aortic regurgitation (RR = 3.96; 95% CI 1.31–11.99; p = 0.01) and permanent pacemaker implantation (RR = 3.47; 95% CI 1.33–9.07; p = 0.01) compared to SAVR. No differences were observed between the groups in the risks of stroke (RR= 0.71; 95% CI 0.41–1.25; p = 0.24), transient ischemic attack (TIA; RR = 0.98; 95% CI 0.53–1.83; p = 0.96), and MI (RR = 0.75; 95% CI 0.43–1.29; p = 0.29). In conclusion, the present meta-analysis, including three randomized studies and nearly 3000 patients with severe aortic stenosis at low surgical risk, shows that TAVR is associated with lower CV death compared to SAVR at one-year follow-up. Nevertheless, paravalvular aortic regurgitation and pacemaker implantation still represent two weak spots that should be solved.

Meta-Analysis of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Surgical Risk Patients

Current guidelines recommend transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for patients with severe aortic stenosis at elevated surgical risk, but not for patients at low surgical risk. Our objective is to compare major clinical outcomes and procedural complications with TAVI versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low surgical risk. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, identified through a systematic search of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Count data were pooled across trials using random-effects models with inverse variance weighting to obtain relative risks (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Three randomized controlled trials (n = 2,629) were included. At 30 days, TAVI was associated with a substantial reduction in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.45, 95%CI: 0.20 to 0.99), atrial fibrillation (RR: 0.27, 95%CI: 0.17 to 0.41), life threatening/disabling bleeding (RR: 0.29, 95%CI: 0.12 to 0.69), and acute kidney injury (RR: 0.28, 95%CI: 0.14 to 0.57). The reduction in atrial fibrillation persisted at 12 months (RR: 0.32, 95%CI: 0.21 to 0.49). However, TAVI patients had an increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation at both 30 days (RR: 3.13, 95%CI: 1.36 to 7.21) and 12 months (RR: 2.99, 95%CI: 1.19 to 7.51). Due to the low absolute numbers of events, results were inconclusive at 30 days and 12 months for cardiovascular mortality, stroke, transient ischemic attack, and myocardial infarction. In conclusion, while some outcomes remained inconclusive, these data suggest that TAVI should be considered as a first-line therapy for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in low surgical risk patients.