Surgical Versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Impact of Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch on Outcomes
0
Citation
0
Reference
10
Related Paper
Abstract:
Background: The hemodynamics of most prosthetic valves are often inferior to that of the normal native valve, and a significant proportion of patients undergoing surgical (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have high residual transaortic pressure gradients due to prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM). Since the experience with TAVR has increased and long-term outcomes are reported, a close look at the PPM literature is required in light of new evidence. Methods: For this review, we searched the Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases from 2000 to 2022. Articles reporting PPM as an outcome following aortic valve replacements were identified and reviewed. Results: The impact of PPM on clinical outcomes aortic valve replacement has not been clear since multiple studies failed to report PPM incidence. However, the PPM after SAVR vary greater than after TAVR, ranging from 8% to almost 80% in SAVR and from 24%-35% in TAVR. Incidence of severe PPM following redo SAVR is ranging from 2 to 9% and following valve-in-valve TAVR is from 14 to 33%, however, while PPM is higher in valve-in-valve TAVR, patients had better survival rates. Conclusions: The gap between valve performance and clinical outcomes in TAVR and SAVR could be reduced by carefully selecting patients for either treatment option. Understanding predictors of PPM can add to the safety, effectiveness, and increased survival benefit of both TAVR and SAVR.Keywords:
Valve replacement
Valve replacement
Cite
Citations (176)
Valve replacement
Investigational device exemption
Cite
Citations (10)
This thesis, entitled 'Advanced hemodynamic imaging of aortic and aortic valve disease', describes the diagnostic value and prognostic potential of 4D flow MRI in the evaluation of abnormal blood flow in patients with aortic and aortic valve disease. We show that 4D flow MRI is a promising technique in the era of advanced hemodynamic imaging and can be used both in-vivo and ex-vivo to study hemodynamic characteristics in patients with aortic and aortic valve disease. Furthermore, we have evaluated the effect of surgical and transcatheter aortic valve prostheses on ascending aortic hemodynamics and have studied the effects of aortic root replacement and aortic coarctation repair on ascending and descending aortic hemodynamics.
Cite
Citations (0)
We compared stroke occurrence and outcomes between Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), both periprocedural and at follow-up.From March 2012 to December 2014, 391 consecutive patients underwent TAVR (N.=290) or isolated SAVR (N.=101), concomitantly. Patients' data were prospectively collected.TAVR patients had more comorbidities. One (0.34%) TIA and 9 (3.11%) strokes occurred in-hospital following TAVR, but no cerebrovascular event occurred after SAVR (P=0.11). One stroke (0.99%) and one TIA (0.99%) were detected in SAVR group within 30 days. Among TAVR patients, one (0.75%) stroke at 6 months, 2 (1.9%) strokes and 2 (1.9%) TIAs at 12 months were diagnosed. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that 96% and 99% 12-month CVA free survival following TAVR and SAVR, respectively (P=0.67). Preoperative mean trans-aortic valve systolic pressure gradient higher than 40 mmHg remained as risk factor for stroke in TAVR patients only, OR: 4.48 (CI: 1.2-16.54, P=0.02). One intraoperative death, and 5 (4 with CVA) in-hospital deaths occurred after TAVR; whereas only one patient died in SAVR group (P=0.49). Thirty-day mortality was 3.8% (11/290) for TAVR and 0.99% (1/101) for SAVR patients. SAVR patients' survival was 99% at 6 months, 97.9% at 12, and 96.4% at 24 months, whereas survival in TAVR was 97.5% at 6, 92% at 12, and 73.6% at 24 months (HR: 8.43 (CI: 2.47-28.73), P<0.001).Even with significant differences in patients' baseline characteristics; in-hospital and mid-term stroke rates are not significantly higher following TAVR than SAVR. Although periprocedural stroke is not uncommon in TAVR, mid-term stroke rate is low.
Valve replacement
Stroke
Cite
Citations (1)
Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the current treatment of choice for good surgical candidates with moderate to severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). As transcatheter aortic valvular replacement (TAVR) has shown an improved one and two-year all-cause mortality, it has been chosen for moderately symptomatic severe AS patients. The purpose of this review was to perform a clinical comparison of TAVR vs. SAVR and to analyze the Health Index Factor (HIF) that makes TAVR a treatment of choice in asymptomatic AS patients. An extensive literature search of PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases was performed using the keywords “Aortic stenosis”, “SAVR”, “TAVR”, and “Asymptomatic”. A total of 45 prospective randomized clinical trials in the English language that were published from the year 2000 onwards were included in the final analysis. It has been found that 59.3% of asymptomatic AS patients are likely to die in the next five years without proactive treatment. Multiple studies have proven that early intervention with aortic valve replacement is superior to conservative treatment in severe asymptomatic AS; however, the choice between SAVR and TAVR is not well established. The NOTION Trial, SURTAVI Trail, and PARTNER 3 study have shown the non-inferiority of TAVR over SAVR, during one-year follow-up for low surgical risk patients. Evolut Low-Risk study and Early TAVR are the only two prospective studies performed to date that have enrolled patients with asymptomatic severe AS. The Evolut Trial demonstrated no difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days (1.3% vs. 4.8%. p=0.23), and 12 days (1.3% vs. 6.5%, p=0.11). Additionally, TAVR also decreases the risk of post-procedural atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury (AKI), and rehospitalization, and leads to significant improvement in the mean trans-aortic pressure gradient. TAVR also showed marked improvement in the 30-day Quality of Life (QOL) index, where SAVR did not report any significant change in the QOL index. However, the official recommendations of Early TAVR are still awaited. TAVR has consistently shown a statistically non-significant difference in case mortality, risk of stroke, and rehospitalization with moderate to high surgical risk patients whereby recent initial trials have shown significant improvement in the QOL index and hemodynamic index for patients with asymptomatic disease. More extensive studies are required to prove the risk stratifications, long-term outcomes, and clinical characteristics that would make TAVR a preferred intervention in asymptomatic patients.
Valve replacement
valvular heart disease
Cite
Citations (3)
Background The hemodynamics of most prosthetic valves are often inferior to that of the normal native valve, and a significant proportion of patients undergoing surgical (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have high residual transaortic pressure gradients due to prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM). As the experience with TAVR has increased and long-term outcomes are reported, a close look at the PPM literature is required in light of new evidence. Methods For this review, we searched the Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases from 2000 to 2022. Articles reporting PPM as an outcome following aortic valve replacements were identified and reviewed. Results The impact of PPM on clinical outcomes in aortic valve replacement has not been clear as multiple studies failed to report PPM incidence. However, the PPM outcomes after SAVR vary more widely than after TAVR, ranging from 8% to 80% in SAVR and from 24% to 35% in TAVR. Incidence of severe PPM following redo SAVR ranges from 2% to 9% and following valve-in-valve TAVR is from 14% to 33%, however, while PPM is higher in valve-in-valve TAVR, patients had better survival rates. Conclusions The gap between valve performance and clinical outcomes in SAVR and TAVR could be reduced by carefully selecting patients for either treatment option. Understanding predictors of PPM can add to the safety, effectiveness, and increased survival benefit of both SAVR and TAVR.
Valve replacement
Cite
Citations (4)
Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has long been the standard treatment for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). However, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative; it was initially intended for high-risk patients and has now expanded its use to patients of all risk groups. While TAVR has demonstrated promising outcomes in diverse patient populations, uncertainties persist regarding its long-term durability and potential complications, raising the issue of the ideal lifetime management strategy for patients with AS. Therefore, SAVR continues to play an important role in clinical practice, particularly in younger patients with longer life expectancies, those with complex aortic anatomy who are unsuitable for TAVR, and those requiring concomitant surgical procedures. The choice between TAVR and SAVR warrants personalized decision-making, considering patient characteristics, comorbidities, anatomical considerations, and overall life expectancy. A multidisciplinary approach involving an experienced heart team is crucial in the preoperative evaluation process. In this review, we aimed to explore the current role of surgical management in addressing aortic valve stenosis amidst the expanding utilization of less invasive transcatheter procedures.
Valve replacement
valvular heart disease
Concomitant
Cite
Citations (5)
Background: The hemodynamics of most prosthetic valves are often inferior to that of the normal native valve, and a significant proportion of patients undergoing surgical (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have high residual transaortic pressure gradients due to prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM). Since the experience with TAVR has increased and long-term outcomes are reported, a close look at the PPM literature is required in light of new evidence. Methods: For this review, we searched the Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases from 2000 to 2022. Articles reporting PPM as an outcome following aortic valve replacements were identified and reviewed. Results: The impact of PPM on clinical outcomes aortic valve replacement has not been clear since multiple studies failed to report PPM incidence. However, the PPM after SAVR vary greater than after TAVR, ranging from 8% to almost 80% in SAVR and from 24%-35% in TAVR. Incidence of severe PPM following redo SAVR is ranging from 2 to 9% and following valve-in-valve TAVR is from 14 to 33%, however, while PPM is higher in valve-in-valve TAVR, patients had better survival rates. Conclusions: The gap between valve performance and clinical outcomes in TAVR and SAVR could be reduced by carefully selecting patients for either treatment option. Understanding predictors of PPM can add to the safety, effectiveness, and increased survival benefit of both TAVR and SAVR.
Valve replacement
Cite
Citations (0)
Valve replacement
Cite
Citations (19)
The hemodynamics and outcomes in patients with a small aortic annulus (SAA) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a second-generation transcatheter heart valve remain unclear. We investigated whether TAVR with a Sapien XT (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) influences postprocedural valve hemodynamics and long-term outcome in high-risk SAA patients compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).We retrospectively identified 94 SAA patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (TAVR = 35 and SAVR = 59). SAA was defined as an aortic annulus diameter ≤ 20 mm, measured by preprocedural transesophageal echocardiography.The mean age was 80.2 years. The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons-Predicted Risk of Mortality was 6.8%. The post-procedural peak transvalvular velocity and mean pressure gradient were significantly lower in the TAVR cohort than in the SAVR cohort, whereas the postprocedural aortic valve area was significantly higher in the TAVR cohort. Severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) occurred less frequently after TAVR than SAVR (TAVR 2.9% versus SAVR 22.0%, P = 0.01). The two-year mortality in SAA patients was similar between the two groups.TAVR with a Sapien XT in SAA patients improved the valve hemodynamics and reduced the incidence of PPM compared with SAVR. TAVR patients had a similar 2-year mortality despite higher risk baseline characteristics. To avoid PPM and the consequent poor outcomes, TAVR can be considered an alternative option to SAVR in high surgical risk patients with SAA.
Valve replacement
Cardiac skeleton
Cite
Citations (19)