Incidence, Predictors, and Prognostic Impact of Late Bleeding Complications After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

AbstractBackgroundThe incidence and prognostic impact of late bleeding complications after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are unknown.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to identify the incidence, predictors, and prognostic impact of major late bleeding complications (MLBCs) (≥30 days) after TAVR.MethodsClinical 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.ResultsAmong 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).ConclusionsMLBCs 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

Transcatheter Valve Implantation in Failed Surgically Inserted Bioprosthesis Review and Practical Guide to Echocardiographic Imaging in Valve-in-Valve Procedures

AbstractAn increased use of bioprosthetic heart valves has stimulated an interest in possible transcatheter options for bioprosthetic valve failure given the high operative risk. The encouraging results of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in high-risk surgical candidates with native disease have led to the development of the transcatheter valve-in-valve (VIV) procedures for failed bioprostheses. VIV procedures are unique in many ways, and there is an increased need for multimodality imaging in a team-based approach. The echocardiographic approach to VIV procedures has not previously been described. In this review, we summarize key echocardiographic requirements for optimal patient selection, procedural guidance, and immediate post-procedural assessment for VIV procedures

Evaluation of flow after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with low-flow aortic stenosis : a secondary analysis of the PARTNER randomized clinical trial

Importance: Low-flow (LF) severe aortic stenosis (AS) is an independent predictor of mortality in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR). Little is known about improvement in flow after AVR and its effects on survival. Objective: To determine whether higher flow (left-ventricular stroke volume index [LVSVI]) after transcatheter AVR (TAVR) would indicate better clinical outcomes in this at-risk population. Design, Setting, and Participants: A substudy analysis of data from the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) randomized clinical trial and continued-access registry was conducted. A total of 984 participants with evaluable echocardiograms and baseline LF AS (LVSVI =35 mL/m2) were included. The trial was conducted at 26 sites in the United States and Canada. Patients were stratified after TAVR into tertiles by discharge LVSVI status (severe low flow [SLF], moderate low flow [MLF], and normal flow [(NF]). The present study was conducted from May 11, 2007, to January 9, 2012, with data analysis performed from April 25, 2014, to January 21, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was all-cause mortality at 1 year. Results: Baseline characteristics of 984 patients with LF AS included mean (SD) age, 84 (7) years; 582 (59.1%) men; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score, 11.4% (4.0%); and mean LVSVI, 27.6 (5.0) mL/m2. The discharge LVSVI values by group were SLF, 23.1 (3.5) mL/m2; MLF, 31.7 (2.2) mL/m2; and NF, 43.1 (7.0). All-cause mortality at 1 year was SLF, 26.5%; MLF, 20.1%; and NF, 19.6% (P¿=¿.045). Mean LVSVI normalized by 6 months in the MLF (35.9 [9.3] mL/m2) and NF (38.8 [11.1] mL/m2) groups, but remained low in the SLF group at 6 months and 1 year (31.4 [8.4] and 33.0 [8.3] mL/m2], respectively) (P¿<¿.001 for all groups). Reported as multivariate hazard ratio, mortality at 1 year was higher in the SLF group compared with the other groups (1.61; 95% CI, 1.17-2.23; P¿=¿.004). In addition to SLF, sex (1.59; 95% CI, 1.18-2.13; P¿=¿.002), presence of atrial fibrillation (1.41; 95% CI, 1.06-1.87; P¿=¿.02), STS score (1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06; P¿=¿.02), presence of moderate or severe mitral regurgitation at discharge (1.65; 95% CI, 1.21-2.26; P¿=¿.001), pre-TAVR mean transvalvular gradient (0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; P¿=¿.004), and effective orifice area index (1.87; 95% CI, 1.09-3.19; P¿=¿.02) were independent predictors of 1-year mortality.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Severe LF at discharge is associated with an increased risk of mortality following TAVR in patients with severe AS and preexisting LF. The identification of remedial causes of persistent LF after TAVR may represent an opportunity to improve the outcome of these patients

The initial U.S. experience with the Tempo active fixation temporary pacing lead in structural heart interventions

ObjectivesThis multicenter retrospective study of the initial U.S. experience evaluated the safety and efficacy of temporary cardiac pacing with the Tempo® Temporary Pacing Lead.BackgroundDespite increasing use of temporary cardiac pacing with the rapid growth of structural heart procedures, temporary pacing leads have not significantly improved. The Tempo lead is a new temporary pacing lead with a soft tip intended to minimize the risk of perforation and a novel active fixation mechanism designed to enhance lead stability.MethodsData from 269 consecutive structural heart procedures were collected. Outcomes included device safety (absence of clinically significant cardiac perforation, new pericardial effusion, or sustained ventricular arrhythmia) and efficacy (clinically acceptable pacing thresholds with successful pace capture throughout the index procedure). Postprocedure practices and sustained lead performance were also analyzed.ResultsThe Tempo lead was successfully positioned in the right ventricle and achieved pacing in 264 of 269 patients (98.1%). Two patients (0.8%) experienced loss of pace capture. Procedural mean pace capture threshold (PCT) was 0.7 ± 0.8 mA. There were no clinically significant perforations, pericardial effusions, or sustained device‐related arrhythmias. The Tempo lead was left in place postprocedure in 189 patients (71.6%) for mean duration of 43.3 ± 0.7 hr (range 2.5–221.3 hr) with final PCT of 0.84 ± 1.04 mA (n = 80). Of these patients, 84.1% mobilized out of bed with no lead dislodgment.ConclusionThe Tempo lead is safe and effective for temporary cardiac pacing for structural heart procedures, provides stable peri and postprocedural pacing and allows mobilization of patients who require temporary pacing leads.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154941/1/ccd28476.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154941/2/ccd28476_am.pd

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

AbstractBackgroundLittle 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

Prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement in the PARTNER 2 trial and registry

Objectives This study aimed to compare incidence and impact of measured prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPMM) versus predicted PPM (PPMP) after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Background TAVR studies have used measured effective orifice area indexed (EOAi) to body surface area (BSA) to define PPM, but most SAVR series have used predicted EOAi. This difference may contribute to discrepancies in incidence and outcomes of PPM between series. Methods The study analyzed SAVR patients from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2A trial and TAVR patients from the PARTNER 2 SAPIEN 3 Intermediate Risk registry. PPM was classified as moderate if EOAi ≤0.85 cm2/m2 (≤0.70 if obese: body mass index ≥30 kg/m2) and severe if EOAi ≤0.65 cm2/m2 (≤0.55 if obese). PPMM was determined by the core lab–measured EOAi on 30-day echocardiogram. PPMP was determined by 2 methods: 1) using normal EOA reference values previously reported for each valve model and size (PPMP1; n = 929 SAVR, 1,069 TAVR) indexed to BSA; and 2) using normal reference EOA predicted from aortic annulus size measured by computed tomography (PPMP2; n = 864 TAVR only) indexed to BSA. Primary endpoint was the composite of 5-year all-cause death and rehospitalization. Results The incidence of moderate and severe PPMP was much lower than PPMM in both SAVR (PPMP1: 28.4% and 1.2% vs. PPMM: 31.0% and 23.6%) and TAVR (PPMP1: 21.0% and 0.1% and PPMP2: 17.0% and 0% vs. PPMM: 27.9% and 5.7%). The incidence of severe PPMM and severe PPMP1 was lower in TAVR versus SAVR (P < 0.001). The presence of PPM by any method was associated with higher transprosthetic gradient. Severe PPMP1 was independently associated with events in SAVR after adjustment for sex and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (hazard ratio: 3.18;95% CI: 1.69-5.96; P < 0.001), whereas no association was observed between PPM by any method and outcomes in TAVR. Conclusions EOAi measured by echocardiography results in a higher incidence of PPM following SAVR or TAVR than PPM based on predicted EOAi. Severe PPMP is rare (<1.5%), but is associated with increased all-cause death and rehospitalization after SAVR, whereas it is absent following TAVR

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