Dataset Information

Surgical explantation of transcatheter aortic bioprostheses: Results and clinical implications.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Despite the rapid adoption of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and worldwide interest in its implantation, TAVR valve explantation has not been well described.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 1442 consecutive patients who underwent a TAVR procedure between 2011 and 2019, in which TAVR explantation was performed in 15 patients (1.0%). In addition, 2 patients from outside institutions also underwent TAVR explantation at our institution. We reviewed the clinical details of these 17 patients.

Results

The frequency of TAVR explant increased over time from 0 to 1 during the period from 2011 to 2015 to 6 in 2019. The mean age was 73.0 ± 9.3 years. The majority of patients (88.2%) were in New York Heart Association functional class IV heart failure. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was significantly higher at the time of explantation than at the time of the original TAVR (3.5% vs 9.9%; P < .001). The indication for explantation included structural valve degeneration (23.5%), severe paravalvular leak (41.2%), TAVR procedure-related complications (23.5%), endocarditis (5.9%), and bridge-to-definitive surgery (5.9%). Neoendothelialization of the TAVR valve into the aortic wall requiring intense aortic endarterectomy was noted in all 5 of the TAVR valves older than 1 year, in which 2 (40%) required unplanned aortic root repair. There were 2 (11.8%) in-hospital mortalities.

Conclusions

Surgical TAVR valve explant is increasing and may become common in the near future. The clinical effects of explanting chronically implanted valves with the potential need for aortic repair is not negligible. These data should be used to more appropriately select TAVR candidates as TAVR practices expand into younger and lower risk patients.

SUBMITTER: Fukuhara S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7388726 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with supra-annular transcatheter heart valves has been adopted in patients with degenerated surgical aortic valves. The next generation self-expanding Evolut PRO valve has not been evaluated in patients with surgical valve failure. Methods and Results Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in degenerated surgical aortic valve procedures using the Evolut R or Evolut PRO transcatheter heart valves in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry between April 2015 and June 2019 were evaluated. Transcatheter valve performance was evaluated by clinical site echocardiography. In-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year clinical outcomes were based on the Society of Thoracic Surgeons-American College of Cardiology-Transcatheter Valve Therapy registry definitions. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in degenerated surgical aortic valve was performed in 5897 patients (5061 [85.8%] patients received the Evolut R valve and 836 [14.2%] received the Evolut PRO valve). Thirty-day transcatheter heart valves hemodynamic performance was excellent in both groups (mean gradient: Evolut PRO: 13.8±7.5 mm Hg; Evolut R: 14.5±8.1 mm Hg), while paravalvular regurgitation was significantly different between valve types (P=0.02). Clinical events were low at 30 days (Evolut PRO: for the all-cause mortality, 2.8%, any stroke was 1.8%, new pacemaker implantation, 3.0%: Evolut R:all-cause mortality, 2.5%, any stroke was 2.2%, new pacemaker implantation, 5.3%) and 1 year (Evolut PRO: all-cause mortality, 9.2%; any stroke, 3.1%; Evolut R: all-cause mortality, 9.8%; any stroke, 2.9%). Conclusions Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in degenerated surgical aortic valve with self-expandable supra-annular transcatheter heart valves is associated with excellent clinical outcomes and valve hemodynamics. Additional reductions in residual paravalvular regurgitation were obtained with the next generation Evolut PRO.

Project description:Importance:In patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at intermediate surgical risk, treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) results in similar 2-year survival. The effect of TAVR vs SAVR on health status in patients at intermediate surgical risk is unknown. Objective:To compare health-related quality of life among intermediate-risk patients with severe AS treated with either TAVR or SAVR. Design, Setting, and Participants:Between December 2011 and November 2013, 2032 intermediate-risk patients with severe AS were randomized to TAVR with the Sapien XT valve or SAVR in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve 2 Trial and were followed up for 2 years. Data analysis was conducted between March 1, 2016, to April 30, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures:Health status was assessed at baseline, 1 month, 1 year, and 2 years using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) (23 items covering physical function, social function, symptoms, self-efficacy and knowledge, and quality of life on a 0- to 100-point scale; higher scores indicate better quality of life), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (36 items covering 8 dimensions of health status as well as physical and mental summary scores; higher scores represent better health status), and EuroQOL-5D (assesses 5 dimensions of general health on a 3-level scale, with utility scores ranging from 0 [death] to 1 [ideal health]). Analysis of covariance was used to examine changes in health status over time, adjusting for baseline status. Results:Of the 2032 randomized patients, baseline health status was available for 1833 individuals (950 TAVR, 883 SAVR) who formed the primary analytic cohort. A total of 1006 (54.9%) of the population were men; mean (SD) age was 81.4 (6.8) years. Over 2 years, both TAVR and SAVR were associated with significant improvements in both disease specific (16-22 points on the KCCQ-OS scale) and generic health status (3.9-5.1 points on the SF-36 physical summary scale). At 1 month, TAVR was associated with better health status than SAVR, but this difference was restricted to patients treated via transfemoral access (mean difference in the KCCQ overall summary [KCCQ-OS] score, 14.1 points; 95% CI, 11.7 to 16.4; P?<?.01) and was not seen in patients treated via transthoracic access (mean difference in KCCQ-OS, 3.5 points; 95% CI, -1.4 to 8.4; P?<?.01 for interaction). There were no significant differences between TAVR and SAVR in any health status measures at 1 or 2 years. Conclusions and Relevance:Among intermediate-risk patients with severe AS, health status improved significantly with both TAVR and SAVR through 2 years of follow up. Early health status improvement was greater with TAVR, but only among patients treated via transfemoral access. Longer term follow-up is needed to assess the durability of quality-of-life improvement with TAVR vs SAVR in this population. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01314313.