Stratification of Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement According to Surgical Inoperability for Technical Versus Clinical Reasons

ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to examine the impact of reasons for surgical inoperability on outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundPatients with severe aortic stenosis may be deemed inoperable due to technical or clinical reasons. The relative impact of each designation on early and late outcomes after TAVR is unclear.MethodsPatients were studied from the inoperable arm (cohort B) of the randomized PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) trial and the nonrandomized continued access registry. Patients were classified according to whether they were classified as technically inoperable (TI) or clinically inoperable (CLI). Reasons for TI included porcelain aorta, previous mediastinal radiation, chest wall deformity, and potential for injury to previous bypass graft on sternal re-entry. Reasons for CLI were systemic factors that were deemed to make survival unlikely.ResultsOf the 369 patients, 23.0% were considered inoperable for technical reasons alone; the remaining were judged to be CLI. For TI, the most common cause was a porcelain aorta (42%); for CLI, it was multiple comorbidities (48%) and frailty (31%). Quality of life and 2-year mortality were significantly better among TI patients compared with CLI patients (mortality 23.3% vs. 43.8%; p < 0.001). Nonetheless, TAVR led to substantial survival benefits compared with standard therapy in both inoperable cohorts.ConclusionsPatients undergoing TAVR based solely on TI have better survival and quality of life improvements than those who are inoperable due to clinical comorbidities. Both TI and CLI TAVR have significant survival benefit in the context of standard therapy. (THE PARTNER TRIAL: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial; NCT00530894

The ARCH Projects: design and rationale (IAASSG 001)

OBJECTIVE A number of factors limit the effectiveness of current aortic arch studies in assessing optimal neuroprotection strategies, including insufficient patient numbers, heterogenous definitions of clinical variables, multiple technical strategies, inadequate reporting of surgical outcomes and a lack of collaborative effort. We have formed an international coalition of centres to provide more robust investigations into this topic. METHODS High-volume aortic arch centres were identified from the literature and contacted for recruitment. A Research Steering Committee of expert arch surgeons was convened to oversee the direction of the research. RESULTS The International Aortic Arch Surgery Study Group has been formed by 41 arch surgeons from 10 countries to better evaluate patient outcomes after aortic arch surgery. Several projects, including the establishment of a multi-institutional retrospective database, randomized controlled trials and a prospectively collected database, are currently underway. CONCLUSIONS Such a collaborative effort will herald a turning point in the surgical management of aortic arch pathologies and will provide better powered analyses to assess the impact of varying surgical techniques on mortality and morbidity, identify predictors for neurological and operative risk, formulate and validate risk predictor models and review long-term survival outcomes and quality-of-life after arch surger

TRANSFORM (Multicenter Experience With Rapid Deployment Edwards INTUITY Valve System for Aortic Valve Replacement) US clinical trial: Performance of a rapid deployment aortic valve

Background: The TRANSFORM (Multicenter Experience With Rapid Deployment Edwards INTUITY Valve System for Aortic Valve Replacement) trial (NCT01700439) evaluated the performance of the INTUITY rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) system in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Methods: TRANSFORM was a prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter (n 1�4 29), single-arm trial. INTUITY is comprised of a cloth-covered balloon- expandable frame attached to a Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna Ease aortic valve. Primary and effectiveness endpoints were evaluated at 1 year. Results: Between 2012 and 2015, 839 patients underwent RDAVR. Mean age was 73.5 8.3 years. Full sternotomy (FS) was used in 59% and minimally invasive surgical incisions in 41%. Technical success rate was 95%. For isolated RDAVR, mean crossclamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times for FS were 49.3 26.9 minutes and 69.2 34.7 minutes, respectively, and for minimally invasive surgical 63.1 25.4 minutes and 84.6 33.5 minutes, respectively. These times were favorable compared with Society of Thoracic Surgeons data- base comparators for FS: 76.3 minutes and 104.2 minutes, respectively, and for minimally invasive surgical, 82.9 minutes and 111.4 minutes, respectively (P<.001). At 30 days, all-cause mortality was 0.8%; valve explant, 0.1%; throm- boembolism, 3.5%; and major bleeding, 1.3%. In patients with isolated aortic valve replacement, the rate of permanent pacemaker implantation was 11.9%. At 1 year, mean effective orifice area was 1.7 cm2; mean gradient, 10.3 mm Hg; and moderate and severe paravalvular leak, 1.2% and 0.4%, respectively

Current trends in cannulation and neuroprotection during surgery of the aortic arch in Europe†‡

OBJECTIVES To conduct a survey across European cardiac centres to evaluate the methods used for cerebral protection during aortic surgery involving the aortic arch. METHODS All European centres were contacted and surgeons were requested to fill out a short, comprehensive questionnaire on an internet-based platform. One-third of more than 400 contacted centres completed the survey correctly. RESULTS The most preferred site for arterial cannulation is the subclavian-axillary, both in acute and chronic presentation. The femoral artery is still frequently used in the acute condition, while the ascending aorta is a frequent second choice in the case of chronic presentation. Bilateral antegrade brain perfusion is chosen by the majority of centres (2/3 of cases), while retrograde perfusion or circulatory arrest is very seldom used and almost exclusively in acute clinical presentation. The same pumping system of the cardio pulmonary bypass is most of the time used for selective cerebral perfusion, and the perfusate temperature is usually maintained between 22 and 26°C. One-third of the centres use lower temperatures. Perfusate flow and pressure are fairly consistent among centres in the range of 10-15 ml/kg and 60 mmHg, respectively. In 60% of cases, barbiturates are added for cerebral protection, while visceral perfusion still receives little attention. Regarding cerebral monitoring, there is a general tendency to use near-infrared spectroscopy associated with bilateral radial pressure measurement. CONCLUSIONS These data represent a snapshot of the strategies used for cerebral protection during major aortic surgery in current practice, and may serve as a reference for standardization and refinement of different approache

International consensus statement on nomenclature and classification of the congenital bicuspid aortic valve and its aortopathy, for clinical, surgical, interventional and research purposes.

peer reviewedThis International Consensus Classification and Nomenclature for the congenital bicuspid aortic valve condition recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valves: 1. The fused type (right-left cusp fusion, right-non-coronary cusp fusion and left-non-coronary cusp fusion phenotypes); 2. The 2-sinus type (latero-lateral and antero-posterior phenotypes); and 3. The partial-fusion (forme fruste) type. The presence of raphe and the symmetry of the fused type phenotypes are critical aspects to describe. The International Consensus also recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valve-associated aortopathy: 1. The ascending phenotype; 2. The root phenotype; and 3. Extended phenotypes

Summary: International Consensus Statement on Nomenclature and Classification of the Congenital Bicuspid Aortic Valve and Its Aortopathy, for Clinical, Surgical, Interventional and Research Purposes.

peer reviewedThis International evidence-based nomenclature and classification consensus on the congenital bicuspid aortic valve and its aortopathy recognizes 3 types of bicuspid aortic valve: 1. Fused type, with 3 phenotypes: right-left cusp fusion, right-non cusp fusion and left-non cusp fusion; 2. 2-sinus type with 2 phenotypes: Latero-lateral and antero-posterior; and 3. Partial-fusion or forme fruste. This consensus recognizes 3 bicuspid-aortopathy types: 1. Ascending phenotype; root phenotype; and 3. extended phenotypes

International consensus statement on nomenclature and classification of the congenital bicuspid aortic valve and its aortopathy, for clinical, surgical, interventional and research purposes

This International Consensus Classification and Nomenclature for the congenital bicuspid aortic valve condition recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valves: 1. The fused type (right-left cusp fusion, right-non-coronary cusp fusion and left-non-coronary cusp fusion phenotypes); 2. The 2-sinus type (latero-lateral and antero-posterior phenotypes); and 3. The partial-fusion (forme fruste) type. The presence of raphe and the symmetry of the fused type phenotypes are critical aspects to describe. The International Consensus also recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valve-associated aortopathy: 1. The ascending phenotype; 2. The root phenotype; and 3. Extended phenotypes.Cardiolog

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: The use of transcatheter aortic-valve replacement has been shown to reduce mortality among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis who are not candidates for surgical replacement. However, the two procedures have not been compared in a randomized trial involving high-risk patients who are still candidates for surgical replacement. METHODS: At 25 centers, we randomly assigned 699 high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis to undergo either transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable bovine pericardial valve (either a transfemoral or a transapical approach) or surgical replacement. The primary end point was death from any cause at 1 year. The primary hypothesis was that transcatheter replacement is not inferior to surgical replacement. RESULTS: The rates of death from any cause were 3.4% in the transcatheter group and 6.5% in the surgical group at 30 days (P=0.07) and 24.2% and 26.8%, respectively, at 1 year (P=0.44), a reduction of 2.6 percentage points in the transcatheter group (upper limit of the 95% confidence interval, 3.0 percentage points; predefined margin, 7.5 percentage points; P=0.001 for noninferiority). The rates of major stroke were 3.8% in the transcatheter group and 2.1% in the surgical group at 30 days (P=0.20) and 5.1% and 2.4%, respectively, at 1 year (P=0.07). At 30 days, major vascular complications were significantly more frequent with transcatheter replacement (11.0% vs. 3.2%, P<0.001); adverse events that were more frequent after surgical replacement included major bleeding (9.3% vs. 19.5%, P<0.001) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (8.6% vs. 16.0%, P=0.006). More patients undergoing transcatheter replacement had an improvement in symptoms at 30 days, but by 1 year, there was not a significant between-group difference. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, transcatheter and surgical procedures for aortic-valve replacement were associated with similar rates of survival at 1 year, although there were important differences in periprocedural risks. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; Clinical Trials.gov number, NCT00530894.)