Gradient and pressure recovery of a self-expandable transcatheter aortic valve depends on ascending aorta size: In vitro study

Objective: In this study we aimed to understand the role of interaction of the Medtronic Evolut R transcatheter aortic valve with the ascending aorta (AA) by evaluating the performance of the valve and the pressure recovery in different AA diameters with the same aortic annulus size. Methods: A 26-mm Medtronic Evolut R valve was tested using a left heart simulator in aortic root models of different AA diameter (D): small (D = 23 mm), medium (D = 28 mm), and large (D = 34 mm) under physiological conditions. Measurements of pressure from upstream to downstream of the valve were performed using a catheter at small intervals to comprehensively assess pressure gradient and pressure recovery. Results: In the small AA, the measured peak and mean pressure gradient at vena contracta were 11.5 ± 0.5 mm Hg and 7.8 ± 0.4 mm Hg, respectively, which was higher (P \u3c .01) compared with the medium (8.1 ± 0.4 mm Hg and 5.2 ± 0.4 mm Hg) and large AAs (7.4 ± 1.0 mm Hg and 5.4 ± 0.6 mm Hg). The net pressure gradient was lower for the case with the medium AA (4.1 ± 1.2 mm Hg) compared with the small AA (4.7 ± 0.8 mm Hg) and large AA (6.1 ± 1.4 mm Hg; P \u3c .01). Conclusions: We have shown that small and large AAs can increase net pressure gradient, because of the direct interaction of the Medtronic Evolut R stent with the AA (in small AA) and introducing higher level of turbulence (in large AA). AA size might need to be considered in the selection of an appropriate device for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Lower survival after coronary artery bypass in patients who had atrial fibrillation missed by widely used definitions

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of limiting the definition of post-coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) atrial fibrillation (AF) to AF/flutter requiring treatment-as in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons\u27 (STS) database- on the association with survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We assessed in-hospital incidence of post-CABG AF in 7110 consecutive isolated patients with CABG without preoperative AF at 4 hospitals (January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2010). Patients with ≥1 episode of post-CABG AF detected via continuous in-hospital electrocardiogram (ECG)/telemetry monitoring documented by physicians were assigned to the following: Group 1, identified as having post-CABG AF in STS data and Group 2, not identified as having post-CABG AF in STS data. Patients without documented post-CABG AF constituted Group 3. Survival was compared via a Cox model, adjusted for STS risk of mortality and accounting for site differences. RESULTS: Over 7 years\u27 follow-up, 16.0% (295 of 1841) of Group 1, 18.7% (79 of 422) of Group 2, and 7.9% (382 of 4847) of Group 3 died. Group 2 had a significantly greater adjusted risk of death than both Group 1 (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.33) and Group 3 (HR: 1.94; 95% CI, 1.69 to 2.22). CONCLUSIONS: The statistically significant 16% higher risk of death for patients with AF post-CABG missed vs captured in STS data suggests treatment and postdischarge management should be investigated for differences. The historical misclassification of missed patients as experiencing no AF in the STS data weakens the ability to observe differences in risk between patients with and without post-CABG AF. Therefore, STS data should not be used for research examining post-CABG AF

The medically managed patient with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis in the TAVR era: Patient characteristics, reasons for medical management, and quality of shared decision making at heart valve treatment centers

Background Little is known about patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) who receive medical management despite evaluation at a heart valve treatment center. Objective We identified patient characteristics associated with medical management, physician-reported reasons for selecting medical management, and patients’ perceptions of their involvement and satisfaction with treatment selection. Methods and results Of 454 patients evaluated for AS at 9 established heart valve treatment centers from December 12, 2013 to August 19, 2014, we included 407 with severe symptomatic AS. Information was collected using medical record review and survey of patients and treating physicians. Of 407 patients, 212 received transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), 124 received surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), and 71 received medical management (no SAVR/TAVR). Thirty-day predicted mortality was higher in patients receiving TAVR (8.7%) or medical management (9.8%) compared with SAVR (3.4%) (P<0.001). Physician-reported reasons for medical management included patient preference (31.0%), medical futility (19.7%), inoperability/anatomic infeasibility (11.3%), and inadequate vascular access (8.5%). Compared with patients receiving AVR, medically managed patients were less likely to report that they received enough information about the pros and cons of treatment options (P = 0.03), that their physicians involved them in treatment decisions (P<0.001), and that final decisions were the right ones (P<0.001). Conclusions Patient preference was the most common physician-reported reason for selecting non-invasive AS management, yet patients not undergoing AVR after valve center evaluation reported being less likely to receive sufficient education about treatment options and more likely to feel uncertain about final treatment decisions. Greater attention to shared decision making may improve the experience of care for this vulnerable group of patients

Orthopedic Principles to Facilitate Enhanced Recovery After Cardiac Surgery

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols recognize early postoperative mobilization as a driver of faster postoperative recovery, return to normal activities, and improved long-term patient outcomes. For patients undergoing open cardiac surgery, an opportunity for facilitating earlier mobilization and a return to normal activity lies in the use of improved techniques to stabilize the sternal osteotomy. By following the key orthopedic principles of approximation, compression, and rigid fixation, a more nuanced approach to sternal precaution protocols is possible, which may enable earlier patient mobilization, physical rehabilitation, and recovery

Impact of varying degrees of renal dysfunction on transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement

BackgroundRenal impairment portends adverse outcomes in patients undergoing valvular heart surgery. The relationship between renal dysfunction in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is incompletely understood.MethodsA retrospective review of 1336 patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR; 2002-2012) and 321 patients undergoing TAVR (2007-2012) was performed. Patients were divided into 3 glomerular filtration rate (GFR) groups: GFR greater than 60 mL/min, GFR 31 to 60 mL/min, and GFR 30 mL/min or less. Logistic and linear regression analysis was performed to estimate the TAVR effect on outcomes. Risk adjustments were made using the Society for Thoracic Surgeons (STS) predicted risk of mortality (PROM).ResultsTAVR patients were older (82 vs 65 years; P < .001), had a poorer ejection fraction (48% vs 53%; P < .001), were more likely female (45% vs 41%; P = .23), and had a higher STS PROM (11.9% vs 4.6%; P < .001). In-hospital mortality rates for TAVR and SAVR were 3.5% and 4.1%, respectively (P = .60), a result that marginally favors TAVR after risk adjustment (adjusted odds ratio = .52, P = .06). In SAVR patients, worsening preoperative renal failure was associated with increased in-hospital mortality (P = .004) and hospital (P < .001) and intensive care unit (ICU) (P < .001) lengths of stay. In contrast, worsening renal function did not influence in-hospital mortality (P = .78) and hospital (P < .23) and ICU (P = .88) lengths of stay in TAVR patients.ConclusionsWorsening renal function was associated with increased in-hospital mortality, hospital length of stay, and ICU length of stay in SAVR patients, but not in TAVR patients. This unexpected finding may have important clinical implications in patients with aortic stenosis and preoperative renal dysfunction

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

A Composite Metric for Benchmarking Site Performance in TAVR: Results from the STS/ACC TVT Registry

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a transformative therapy for aortic stenosis. Despite rapid improvements in technology and techniques, serious complications remain relatively common and are not well described by single outcome measures. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is site-level variation in TAVR outcomes in the United States using a novel 30-day composite measure. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from the STS/ACC TVT Registry to develop a novel ranked composite performance measure that incorporates mortality and serious complications. The selection and rank order of the complications for the composite was determined by their adjusted association with 1-year outcomes. Sites whose risk-adjusted outcomes were significantly more or less frequent than the national average based on a 95% probability interval were classified as performing worse or better than expected. Results: The development cohort consisted of 52,561 patients who underwent TAVR between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017. Based on the associations with 1-year risk-adjusted mortality and health status, we identified four periprocedural complications to include in the composite risk model in addition to mortality. Ranked empirically according to severity, these included stroke, major, life-threatening or disabling bleeding, stage III acute kidney injury, and moderate or severe peri-valvular regurgitation. Based on these ranked outcomes, we found that there was significant site-level variation in quality of care in TAVR in the United States. Overall, better than expected site performance was observed in 25/301 (8%) of sites; performance as expected was observed in 242/301 sites (80%); and worse than expected performance was observed in 34/301 (11%) of sites. Thirty-day mortality, stroke, major, life-threatening or disabling bleeding, and moderate or severe peri-valvular leak were each substantially more common in sites with worse than expected performance as compared with other sites. There was good aggregate reliability of the model. Conclusions: There are substantial variations in the quality of TAVR care received in the United States, and 11% of sites were identified as providing care below the average level of performance. Further study is necessary to determine structural, process-related, and technical factors associated with high- and low-performing sites

Temporal Changes in Mortality After Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Retrospective Analysis of US Medicare Patients (2012–2019)

BACKGROUND: The treatment of aortic stenosis is evolving rapidly. Pace of change in the care of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) differs. We sought to determine differences in temporal changes in 30‐day mortality, 30‐day readmission, and length of stay after TAVR and SAVR. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients treated in the United States between 2012 and 2019 using data from the Medicare Data Set Analytic File 100% Fee for Service database. We included consecutive patients enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B and aged ≥65 years who had SAVR or transfemoral TAVR. We defined 3 study cohorts, including all SAVR, isolated SAVR (without concomitant procedures), and elective isolated SAVR and TAVR. The primary end point was 30‐day mortality; secondary end points were 30‐day readmission and length of stay. Statistical models controlled for patient demographics, frailty measured by the Hospital Frailty Risk Score, and comorbidities measured by the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI). Cox proportional hazard models were developed with TAVR versus SAVR as the main covariates with a 2‐way interaction term with index year. We repeated these analyses restricted to full aortic valve replacement hospitals offering both SAVR and TAVR. The main study cohort included 245 269 patients with SAVR and 188 580 patients with TAVR, with mean±SD ages 74.3±6.0 years and 80.7±6.9 years, respectively, and 36.5% and 46.2% female patients, respectively. Patients with TAVR had higher ECI scores (6.4±3.6 versus 4.4±3) and were more frail (55.4% versus 33.5%). Total aortic valve replacement volumes increased 61% during the 7‐year span; TAVR volumes surpassed SAVR in 2017. The magnitude of mortality benefit associated with TAVR increased until 2016 in the main cohort (2012: hazard ratio [HR], 0.76 [95% CI, 0.67–0.86]; 2016: HR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.36–0.43]); although TAVR continued to have lower mortality rates from 2017 to 2019, the magnitude of benefit over SAVR was attenuated. A similar pattern was seen with readmission, with a lower risk of readmission from 2012 to 2016 for patients with TAVR (2012: HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.63–0.73]; 2016: HR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.41–0.45]) followed by a lesser difference from 2017 to 2019. Year over year, TAVR was associated with increasingly shorter lengths of stay compared with SAVR (2012: HR, 1.91 [95% CI, 1.84–1.98]; 2019: HR, 5.34 [95% CI, 5.22–5.45]). These results were consistent in full aortic valve replacement hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of improvement in TAVR outpaced SAVR until 2016, with the recent presence of U‐shaped phenomena suggesting a narrowing gap between outcomes. Future longitudinal research is needed to determine the long‐term implications of lowering risk profiles across treatment options to guide case selection and clinical care