Recent advances in aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Al-Adhami A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5074353 | biostudies-other | 2016
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
Recent advances in aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis.
Al-Adhami Ahmed A Al-Attar Nawwar N
F1000Research 20161020
Aortic valve replacement is no longer an operation that is approached solely through a median sternotomy. Recent advances in the fields of transcatheter valves have expanded the proportion of patients eligible for intervention. Comparisons between transcatheter valves and conventional surgery have shown non-inferiority of transcatheter valve implants in patients with a high or intermediate pre-operative predictive risk. With advances in our understanding of sutureless valves and their applicabil ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Evidence in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has accumulated rapidly over the last few years and its application to clinical decision making are becoming more important. In this review, we discuss the advances in TAVR for patient selection, expanding indications, complications, and emerging technologies.
| S-EPMC6790961 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7542521 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Over the last few years, treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis in high-risk patients has drastically changed to adopt a less-invasive approach. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been developed as a very reproducible and safe procedure, as shown in many trials. When compared to surgery, TAVI has produced superior, or at least comparable, results, and thus a trend to broaden treatment indications to lower-risk patients has erupted as a natural consequence, even though there is a lack of long-term evidence. In this review, we summarize and underline aspects that still remain unanswered that are compulsory if we want to enhance our understanding of this disease.
| S-EPMC5770996 | biostudies-other
Project description:A 57 year old female underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for severe aortic stenosis. Mild iatrogenic mitral stenosis was noted intraoperatively. Attempts to reposition the device were hampered by aortic angulation. One year later, severe mitral stenosis was confirmed on transoesophageal echocardiography. It is important to recognise that iatorgenic mitral stenosis due to TAVR may progress over time. Care should be taken to minimise the risk of this rare complication.
| S-EPMC4382556 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCirculatory efficiency reflects the ratio between total left ventricular work and the work required for maintaining cardiovascular circulation. The effect of severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) and aortic valve replacement (AVR) on left ventricular/circulatory mechanical power and efficiency is not yet fully understood. We aimed to quantify left ventricular (LV) efficiency in patients with severe AS before and after surgical AVR.MethodsCirculatory efficiency was computed from cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging derived volumetric data, echocardiographic and clinical data in patients with severe AS (n?=?41) before and 4 months after AVR and in age and sex-matched healthy subjects (n?=?10).ResultsIn patients with AS circulatory efficiency was significantly decreased compared to healthy subjects (9?±?3% vs 12?±?2%; p?=?0.004). There were significant negative correlations between circulatory efficiency and LV myocardial mass (r?=?-?0.591, p?<?0.001), myocardial fibrosis volume (r?=?-?0.427, p?=?0.015), end systolic volume (r?=?-?0.609, p?<?0.001) and NT-proBNP (r?=?-?0.444, p?=?0.009) and significant positive correlation between circulatory efficiency and LV ejection fraction (r?=?0.704, p?<?0.001). After AVR, circulatory efficiency increased significantly in the total cohort (9?±?3 vs 13?±?5%; p?<?0.001). However, in 10/41 (24%) patients, circulatory efficiency remained below 10% after AVR and, thus, did not restore to normal values. These patients also showed less reduction in myocardial fibrosis volume compared to patients with restored circulatory efficiency after AVR.ConclusionIn our cohort, circulatory efficiency is reduced in patients with severe AS. In 76% of cases, AVR leads to normalization of circulatory efficiency. However, in 24% of patients, circulatory efficiency remained below normal values even after successful AVR. In these patients also less regression of myocardial fibrosis volume was seen. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov NCT03172338, June 1, 2017, retrospectively registered.
| S-EPMC7919094 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is a life-saving treatment for patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis. We sought to determine whether transcatheter AVR has resulted in a more equitable treatment rate by race in the United States. Methods and Results A total of 32 853 patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis were retrospectively identified via Optum's deidentified electronic health records database (2007-2017). AVR rates in non-Hispanic Black and White patients were assessed in the year after diagnosis. Multivariate Fine-Gray hazards models were used to evaluate the likelihood of AVR by race, with adjustment for patient factors and the managing cardiologist. Time-trend and 1-year symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis survival analyses were also performed. From 2011 to 2016, the rate of AVR increased from 20.1% to 37.1%. Overall, Black individuals were less likely than Whites to receive AVR (22.9% versus 31.0%; unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.62-0.79; fully adjusted HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67-0.85). Yet, during 2015 to 2016, AVR racial differences were attenuated (29.5% versus 35.2%; adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-1.02) because of greater uptake of transcatheter AVR in Blacks than Whites (53.4% of AVRs versus 47.3%; P=0.128). Untreated patients had significantly higher 1-year mortality than those treated (adjusted HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.53-0.61), which was consistent by race (interaction P value=0.52). Conclusions Although transcatheter AVR has increased the use of AVR in the United States, treatment rates remain low. Black patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis were less likely than White patients to receive AVR, yet these differences have recently narrowed.
| S-EPMC7660794 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) has been developed as an alternative surgical treatment for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of SU-AVR through an assessment of hemodynamic performance and safety.From December 2014 to June 2016, a total of 12 consecutive patients with severe AS underwent SU-AVR. The endpoints were overall survival and valve-related complications (paravalvular leakage, valve thrombosis, migration, endocarditis, and permanent pacemaker implantation). The mean follow-up duration was 18.1±8.6 months.The mean age of the patients was 77.1±5.8 years and their mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 9.2±17.7. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times were 94.5±37.3 minutes and 54.9±12.5 minutes, respectively. Follow-up echocardiography showed good prosthesis function with low transvalvular pressure gradients (mean, 13.9±8.6 mm Hg and peak, 27.2±15.0 mm Hg) at a mean of 9.9±4.2 months. No cases of primary paravalvular leakage, valve thrombosis, migration, or endocarditis were reported. A new permanent pacemaker was implanted in 1 patient (8.3%). The 1-year overall survival rate was 83.3%±10.8%.Our initial experience with SU-AVR demonstrated excellent early clinical outcomes with good hemodynamic results. However, there was a high incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation compared to the rate for conventional AVR, which is a problem that should be solved.
| S-EPMC5796611 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6575142 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The study sought to contrast risk profiles and compare outcomes of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD) who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) and coronary artery bypass grafting (AS+CABG) with those of patients with isolated AS who underwent AVR alone.In patients with severe AS, CAD is often an incidental finding with underappreciated survival implications.From October 1991 to July 2010, 2,286 patients underwent AVR+CABG and 1,637 AVR alone. A propensity score was developed and used for matched comparisons of outcomes (1,082 patient pairs). Analyses of long-term mortality were performed for each group, then combined to identify common and unique risk factors.Patients with AS+CAD versus isolated AS were older, more symptomatic, and more likely to be hypertensive, and had lower ejection fraction and greater arteriosclerotic burden but less severe AS. Hospital morbidity and long-term survival were poorer (43% vs. 59% at 10 years). Both groups shared many mortality risk factors; however, early risk among AS+CAD patients reflected effects of CAD; late risk reflected diastolic left ventricular dysfunction expressed as ventricular hypertrophy and left atrial enlargement. Patients with isolated AS and few comorbidities had the best outcome, those with CAD without myocardial damage had intermediate outcome equivalent to propensity-matched isolated AS patients, and those with CAD, myocardial damage, and advanced comorbidities had the worst outcome.Cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities must be considered in managing patients with severe AS. Patients with severe AS and CAD risk factors should undergo early diagnostics and AVR+CABG before ischemic myocardial damage occurs.
| S-EPMC4262244 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThere is no quality of life tool specifically developed for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) to assess how this chronic condition and its treatment affect patients. The Toronto Aortic Stenosis Quality of Life Questionnaire (TASQ) has been developed to overcome this gap. The results of the validation of the TASQ in patients undergoing treatment for severe AS are presented.Methods and resultsProspective study at 10 centres in Europe and Canada, which enrolled 274 patients with severe symptomatic AS undergoing surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Mean TASQ score at baseline was 71.2 points and increased to 88.9 three months after aortic valve implantation (P < 0.001). Increases were seen for the emotional impact (32.0 to 39.0; P < 0.001), physical limitations (14.8 to 22.0; P < 0.001), and physical symptoms (8.5 vs. 11.0; P < 0.001) domains. Internal consistency was good/excellent for overall TASQ score (? = 0.891) and for the physical limitation, emotional impact, and social limitation domains (? = 0.815-0.950). Test-retest reliability was excellent or strong for the overall TASQ (intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.883) and for the physical symptoms, physical limitation, emotional impact, and social limitation domains (intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.791-0.895). Responsiveness was medium overall (Cohen's d = 0.637) and medium/large for physical symptoms, emotional impact, and physical limitations (0.661-0.812). Sensitivity to change was significant for physical symptoms, physical limitations (both P < 0.001), emotional impact (P = 0.003), and social limitations (P = 0.038).ConclusionsThe TASQ is a new, brief, self-administered, and clinically relevant health-specific tool to measure changes in quality of life in patients with AS undergoing an intervention.
| S-EPMC7835556 | biostudies-literature