Dataset Information

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Young Low-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Review.

ABSTRACT: In the last decades, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) revolutionized the treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. The efficacy and safety of TAVR were first proven in inoperable and high-risk patients. Then, subsequent randomized clinical trials showed non-inferiority of TAVR as compared to surgical aortic valve replacement also in intermediate- and low-risk populations. As TAVR was progressively studied and clinically used in lower-risk patients, issues were raised questioning its opportunity in a younger population with a longer life-expectancy. As long-term follow-up data mainly derive from old studies with early generation devices on high or intermediate surgical risk patients, results can hardly be extended to most of currently treated patients who often show a low surgical risk and are treated with newer generation prostheses. Thus, in this low-risk younger population, decision making is difficult due to the lack of supporting data. The aim of the present review is to revise current literature regarding TAVR in younger patients.

SUBMITTER: Bocchino PP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7767870 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Young Low-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Review.

Bocchino Pier Paolo PP Angelini Filippo F Alushi Brunilda B Conrotto Federico F Cioffi Giacomo Maria GM Tersalvi Gregorio G Senatore Gaetano G Pedrazzini Giovanni G De Ferrari Gaetano Maria GM Biasco Luigi L

Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine 20201214

In the last decades, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) revolutionized the treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. The efficacy and safety of TAVR were first proven in inoperable and high-risk patients. Then, subsequent randomized clinical trials showed non-inferiority of TAVR as compared to surgical aortic valve replacement also in intermediate- and low-risk populations. As TAVR was progressively studied and clinically used in lower-risk patients, issues were raised question ...[more]

PMID: 33381528

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low-risk patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis have not been studied in a large scale, multicentered, prospective fashion.ObjectiveTo evaluate the procedural safety, efficacy, and 30-day outcomes of TAVR in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis at low surgical risk.Design, setting, and participantsThe Low Risk Bicuspid Study is a prospective, single-arm trial study with inclusion/exclusion criteria developed from the Evolut Low Risk Randomized Trial. Follow-up is planned for 10 years. Patients underwent TAVR at 25 centers in the United States who were also participating in the Evolut Low Risk Randomized Trial from December 2018 to October 2019. Eligible patients had severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis and met American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guideline indications for aortic valve replacement.InterventionsPatients underwent attempted implant of an Evolut or Evolut PRO transcatheter aortic valve, with valve size based on annular measurements.Main outcomes and measuresThe prespecified primary end point was the incidence of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 30 days. The prespecified primary efficacy end point was device success defined as the absence of procedural mortality, the correct position of 1 bioprosthetic heart valve in the proper anatomical location, and the absence of more than mild aortic regurgitation postprocedure.ResultsA total of 150 patients underwent an attempted implant. Baseline characteristics include mean age of 70.3 (5.5) years, 48.0% female (n = 72), and a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 1.4 (0.6%). Most patients (136; 90.7%) had Sievers type I valve morphology. The incidence of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke was 1.3% (95% CI, 0.3%-5.3%) at 30 days. The device success rate was 95.3% (95% CI, 90.5%-98.1%). At 30 days, the mean (SD) AV gradient was 7.6 (3.7) mm Hg and effective orifice area was 2.3 (0.7) cm2. A new permanent pacemaker was implanted in 22 patients (15.1%). No patients had greater than mild paravalvular leak.Conclusions and relevanceTranscatheter aortic valve replacement in low-surgical risk patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis achieved favorable 30-day results, with low rates of death and stroke and high device success rate.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03635424.

Project description: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.

Project description:Objective To examine the effect of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus surgical replacement of an aortic valve (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low and intermediate risk of perioperative death.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL.Study selection Randomized trials of TAVI compared with SAVR in patients with a mean perioperative risk of death <8%.Review methods Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for outcomes important to patients that were selected a priori by a parallel guideline committee, including patient advisors. We used the GRADE system was used to quantify absolute effects and quality of evidence.Results 4 trials with 3179 patients and a median follow-up of two years were included. Compared with SAVR, transfemoral TAVI was associated with reduced mortality (risk difference per 1000 patients: -30, 95% confidence interval -49 to -8, moderate certainty), stroke (-20, -37 to 1, moderate certainty), life threatening bleeding (-252, -293 to -190, high certainty), atrial fibrillation (-178, -150 to -203, moderate certainty), and acute kidney injury (-53, -39 to -62, high certainty) but increased short term aortic valve reintervention (7, 1 to 21, moderate certainty), permanent pacemaker insertion (134, 16 to 382, moderate certainty), and moderate or severe symptoms of heart failure (18, 5 to 34, moderate certainty). Compared with SAVR, transapical TAVI was associated higher mortality (57, -16 to 153, moderate certainty, P=0.015 for interaction between transfemoral versus transapical TAVI) and stroke (45, -2 to 125, moderate certainty, interaction P=0.012). No study reported long term follow-up, which is particularly important for structural valve deterioration.Conclusions Many patients, particularly those who have a shorter life expectancy or place a lower value on the risk of long term valve degeneration, are likely to perceive net benefit with transfemoral TAVI versus SAVR. SAVR, however, performs better than transapical TAVI, which is of interest to patients who are not candidates for transfemoral TAVI.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42016042879.

Project description:ImportanceTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown to be a valid alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients at high operative risk with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the evidence of the benefits and harms of TAVR in patients at low operative risk is still scarce.ObjectiveTo compare the short-term and midterm outcomes after TAVR and SAVR in low-risk patients with AS.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective comparative effectiveness cohort study used data from the Nationwide Finnish Registry of Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Valve Stenosis of patients at low operative risk who underwent TAVR or SAVR with a bioprosthesis for severe AS from January 1, 2008, to November 30, 2017. Low operative risk was defined as a Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score less than 3% without other comorbidities of clinical relevance. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline covariates between the TAVR and SAVR cohorts.ExposuresPrimary TAVR or SAVR with a bioprosthesis for AS with or without associated coronary revascularization.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were 30-day and 3-year survival.ResultsOverall, 2841 patients (mean [SD] age, 74.0 [6.2] years; 1560 [54.9%] men) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis; TAVR was performed in 325 patients and SAVR in 2516 patients. Propensity score matching produced 304 pairs with similar baseline characteristics. Third-generation devices were used in 263 patients (86.5%) who underwent TAVR. Among these matched pairs, 30-day mortality was 1.3% after TAVR and 3.6% after SAVR (P = .12). Three-year survival was similar in the study cohorts (TAVR, 85.7%; SAVR, 87.7%; P = .45). Interaction tests found no differences in terms of 3-year survival between the study cohorts in patients younger than vs older than 80 years or in patients who received recent aortic valve prostheses vs those who did not.Conclusions and relevanceTranscatheter aortic valve replacement using mostly third-generation devices achieved similar short- and mid-term survival compared with SAVR in low-risk patients. Further studies are needed to assess the long-term durability of TAVR prostheses before extending their use to low-risk patients.

Project description:BackgroundImpaired left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction is a common finding in patients with aortic stenosis and serves as a predictor of morbidity and mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. However, conflicting data on the most accurate measure for LV function exist. We wanted to examine the impact of LV ejection fraction, mean pressure gradient, and stroke volume index on the outcome of patients treated by transcatheter aortic valve replacement.Methods and resultsPatients treated by transcatheter aortic valve replacement were primarily separated into normal flow (NF; stroke volume index >35 mL/m2) and low flow (LF; stroke volume index ?35 mL/m2). Afterwards, patients were divided into 5 groups: "NF-high gradient," "NF-low gradient" (NF-LG), "LF-high gradient," "paradoxical LF-LG," and "classic LF-LG." The 3-year mortality was the primary end point. Of 1600 patients, 789 (49.3%) were diagnosed as having LF, which was characterized by a higher 30-day (P=0.041) and 3-year (P<0.001) mortality. LF was an independent predictor of all-cause (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.62; P=0.03) and cardiovascular (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.77; P=0.016) mortality. Neither mean pressure gradient nor LV ejection fraction was an independent predictor of mortality. Patients with paradoxical LF-LG (35.0%), classic LF-LG (35.1%) and LF-high gradient (38.1%) had higher all-cause mortality at 3 years compared with NF-high gradient (24.8%) and NF-LG (27.9%) (P=0.001). However, surviving patients showed a similar improvement in symptoms regardless of aortic stenosis entity.ConclusionsLF is a common finding within the aortic stenosis population and, in contrast to LV ejection fraction or mean pressure gradient, an independent predictor of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Despite increased long-term mortality, high procedural success and excellent functional improvement support transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with LF severe aortic stenosis.

Project description:BackgroundRestricting transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to centers based on volume thresholds alone can potentially create unintended disparities in healthcare access. We aimed to compare the influence of population density in state of Florida in regard to access to TAVR, TAVR utilization rates, and in-hospital mortality.Methods and resultsFrom 2011 to 2016, we used data from the Agency for Health Care Administration to calculate travel time and distance for each TAVR patient by comparing their home address to their TAVR facility ZIP code. Travel time and distance, TAVR rates, and mortality were compared across categories of low to high population density (population per square miles of land). Of the 6531 patients included, the mean (SD) age was 82 (9) years, 43% were female and 91% were White. Patients residing in the lowest category (<50/square miles) were younger, more likely to be men, and less likely to be a racial minority. Those residing in the lowest category density faced a longer unadjusted driving distances and times to their TAVR center (mean extra distance [miles]=43.5 [95% CI, 35.6-51.4]; P<0.001; mean extra time (minutes)=45.6 [95% CI, 38.3-52.9], P<0.001). This association persisted regardless of the methods used to determine population density. Excluding uninhabitable land, there was a 7-fold difference in TAVR utilization rates in the lowest versus highest population density regions (7 versus 45 per 100 000, P-for-pairwise-comparisons <0.001) and increase in TAVR in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR, 6.13 [95% CI, 1.97-19.1]; P<0.001).ConclusionsOlder patients living in rural counties in Florida face (1) significantly longer travel distances and times for TAVR, (2) lower TAVR utilization rates, and (3) higher adjusted TAVR mortality. These findings suggest that there are trade-offs between access to TAVR, its rate of utilization, and procedural mortality, all of which are important considerations when defining institutional and operator requirements for TAVR across the country.

Project description:Background:Patients with severe aortic stenosis and concomitant active cancer (AC) are considered high-risk patients and usually are not allowed to undergo surgical valve replacement. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be an attractive option for them; however, little is known about the outcomes of TAVR in this subset of complex patients. Methods and results:In this meta-analysis, Medline, Cochrane Library and Scopus databases were searched (anytime up to April 2019) for studies evaluating the outcomes of TAVR in patients with or without AC. We assessed pooled estimates (with their 95% CIs) of the risk ratio (RR) for the all-cause mortality at the 30-day and 1-year follow-ups, a 4-point safety outcome (any bleeding, stroke, need for a pacemaker and acute kidney injury) and a 2-point efficacy outcome (device success and residual mean gradient (mean difference)). Three studies (5162 patients) were included. Of those patients, a total of 368 (7.1%) had AC. Apart from a significantly higher need for a postprocedural pacemaker (RR 1.29, 95%?CI 1.06 to 1.58, p=0.01), TAVR in patients with AC resulted in similar outcomes for safety and efficacy at the 30-day follow-up compared with those without AC. Patients with AC experienced similar rates of the all-cause mortality at the 30-day follow-up compared with those without (RR 0.92, 95%?CI 0.53 to 1.59, p=0.76); however, the all-cause mortality was significantly higher in patients with AC at the 1-year follow-up (RR 1.71, 95%?CI 1.26 to 2.33, p=0.0006). This mortality difference was independent of cancer stage (advanced or limited) at the 30-day follow-up but not at the 1-year follow-up; only patients with limited cancer stages showed similar all-cause mortality rates compared with those without cancer at the 1-year follow-up (RR 1.22, 95%?CI 0.79 to 1.91, p=0.37). Conclusion:TAVR in patients with AC is associated with similar 30-day and potentially worse 1-year outcomes compared with those in patients without AC. The 1-year all-cause mortality appears to be dependent on the cancer stage. Involving a specialised oncologist who usually considers cancer stage in the decision-making process and applying additional preoperative scores such as frailty indices might refine the risk assessment process among these patients. PROSPERO registration number:CRD42019120416.

Dataset Information

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Young Low-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Review.

Publications

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Young Low-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure