Abstract Objective Our objective was to evaluate the impact of various blood pressures (BPs) on coronary perfusion and valvular hemodynamics following aortic valve replacement (AVR). Background Lower systolic and diastolic (SBP/DBP) pressures from the recommended optimal target range of SBP < 120–130 mmHg and DBP < 80 mmHg after AVR have been independently associated with increased cardiovascular and all‐cause mortality. Methods The hemodynamic assessment of a 26 mm SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve (TAV), 29 mm Evolut R TAV, and 25 mm Magna Ease surgical aortic valve (SAV) was performed in a pulsed left heart simulator with varying SBP, DBP, and heart rate (HR) conditions (60 and 120 bpm) at 5 L/min cardiac output (CO). Average coronary flow (CF), effective orifice areas (EOAs), and valvulo‐arterial impedance (Zva) were calculated. Results At HR of 60 bpm, at SBP < 120 mmHg and DBP < 60 mmHg, CF decreased below the physiological lower limit with several different valves. Zva and EOA were found to increase and decrease respectively with increasing SBP and DBP. The same results were found with an HR of 120 bpm. The trends of CF variation with BP were similar in all valves however the drop below the lower physiological CF limit was valve dependent. Conclusion In a controlled in vitro system, with different aortic valve prostheses in place, CF decreased below the physiologic minimum when SBP and DBP were in the range targeted by blood pressure guidelines. Combined with recent observations from patients treated with AVR, these findings underscore the need for additional studies to identify the optimal BP in patients treated with AVR for AS.
International Consensus Statement on Nomenclature and Classification of the Congenital Bicuspid Aortic Valve and Its Aortopathy, for Clinical, Surgical, Interventional and Research Purposes
Abstract 18892: Clinical and Hemodynamic Factors Influence the Risk of Pulmonary Hypertension in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights from the PARTNER I Trial and Registry
Introduction: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is associated with increased mortality after surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for aortic stenosis (AS). Hypothesis: We hypothesized that clinical or hemodynamic factors might influence the relationship between significant PH and increased mortality. Methods: Among patients with symptomatic AS at high or prohibitive surgical risk receiving TAVR in the PARTNER I randomized trial or registry, 2180 patients with an invasive measurement of mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) recorded were included. PH was defined as: none (mPAP<25 mmHg), mild (25 to <35), and mod/sev (≥35). Results: One year all-cause mortality was worse with increasing severity of PH: none (n=785, 18.6%), mild (n=838, 22.7%), and mod/sev (n=557, 25.0%) (p=0.01). The association between mod/sev PH (vs. no PH) and 1y mortality varied by sex and renal function (interaction p=0.03 and p=0.06, respectively). In females, mod/sev PH was associated with increased mortality (24.6% vs. 14.1%, HR 1.89, 95% CI 1.32-2.73); in males it was not (24.9% vs. 22.2%, HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82-1.52). Additionally, mod/sev PH was associated with mortality in those with glomerular filtration rate (GFR) <40 (HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.28-2.42), but not in those with GFR ≥40. In a multivariable Cox PH model of patients with mod/sev PH, oxygen dependent lung disease, cerebrovascular disease, lower GFR, and lower baseline transvalvular mean gradient were each independently associated with increased 1y mortality (p<0.05 for all), whereas pulmonary artery compliance was the only hemodynamic variable associated with mortality (p=0.043) (Table). Conclusions: The relationship between mod/sev PH and increased mortality after TAVR is altered by sex and renal function. While lower pulmonary artery compliance is associated with increased mortality in patients with significant PH, clinical factors appear to be more influential in stratifying risk than hemodynamic indices.
Abstract 15686: Early Intervention versus Conservative Management for Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Introduction: The management of asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) is controversial and guidelines for the management of the same is not updated based on recently available evidence. Hypothesis: The main objective is to determine the optimal strategy for the management of asymptomatic severe AS between early intervention versus conservative management. Methods: We performed a systematic electronic search of the PubMed and Cochrane databases from the inception of the database to May 31 st , 2020. We used the Mantel Haenszel method with the Paule-Mandel estimator of Tau 2 and Hartung-Knapp adjustment to calculate relative risk (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and 95% prediction interval (PI). We used P curve analysis to assess publication bias and estimate the true effect of an intervention. All analysis was carried out using R version 3.6.2. Results: A total of seven studies were included in the final analysis, consisting of 1213 patients with early intervention and 2601 patients with conservative management. Early intervention as compared to conservative management was associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.21-0.48) (Panel A) , cardiac mortality (RR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.27-0.48) (Panel B) and non-cardiac mortality (RR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.28-0.56) (Panel C) . There was no difference in the risk of sudden cardiac death (RR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.15-1.40), stroke (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.17-3.64), myocardial infarction (RR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.01-16.82) or heart failure hospitalization (RR: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.01-5.29) between the groups. The pooled estimate for all the outcomes was associated with low-moderate heterogeneity. Conclusions: Among asymptomatic severe AS patients, early intervention is associated with reduced mortality without increasing any procedure-related clinical outcomes. Hence, this meta-analysis supports early intervention as opposed to watchful waiting for the management of asymptomatic severe AS.
International consensus statement on nomenclature and classification of the congenital bicuspid aortic valve and its aortopathy, for clinical, surgical, interventional and research purposes
Abstract This International Consensus Classification and Nomenclature for the congenital bicuspid aortic valve condition recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valves: 1. The fused type (right-left cusp fusion, right-non-coronary cusp fusion and left-non-coronary cusp fusion phenotypes); 2. The 2-sinus type (latero-lateral and antero-posterior phenotypes); and 3. The partial-fusion (forme fruste) type. The presence of raphe and the symmetry of the fused type phenotypes are critical aspects to describe. The International Consensus also recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valve-associated aortopathy: 1. The ascending phenotype; 2. The root phenotype; and 3. Extended phenotypes.
Summary: international consensus statement on nomenclature and classification of the congenital bicuspid aortic valve and its aortopathy, for clinical, surgical, interventional and research purposes
Abstract This International evidence-based nomenclature and classification consensus on the congenital bicuspid aortic valve and its aortopathy recognizes 3 types of bicuspid aortic valve: 1. Fused type, with 3 phenotypes: right-left cusp fusion, right-non cusp fusion and left-non cusp fusion; 2. 2-sinus type with 2 phenotypes: Latero-lateral and antero-posterior; and 3. Partial-fusion or forme fruste. This consensus recognizes 3 bicuspid-aortopathy types: 1. Ascending phenotype; root phenotype; and 3. extended phenotypes.
Cardiac surgery considerations and lessons learned during the COVID‐19 pandemic
Background: Patients with bicuspid aortic valve (AV) stenosis were excluded from the pivotal evaluations of transcatheter AV replacement (TAVR) devices. We sought to evaluate the outcomes of TAVR in patients with bicuspid AV stenosis in comparison with those with tricuspid AV stenosis. Methods: We used data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry (November 2011 through November 2018) to determine device success, procedural outcomes, post-TAVR valve performance, and in-hospital clinical outcomes (mortality, stroke, and major bleeding) according to valve morphology (bicuspid versus tricuspid). Results were stratified by older and current (Sapien 3 and Evolut R) generation valve prostheses. Medicare administrative claims were used to evaluate mortality and stroke to 1 year among eligible individuals (≥65 years). Results: After exclusions, there were 170 959 eligible procedures at 593 sites during the specified interval. Of these, 5412 TAVR procedures (3.2%) were performed in patients with bicuspid AV, including 3705 with current-generation devices. In comparison with patients with tricuspid valves, patients with bicuspid AV were younger and had a lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Operative Mortality score. When current-generation devices were used to treat patients with bicuspid AV, device success increased (93.5 versus 96.3; P =0.001) and the incidence of 2+ aortic insufficiency declined (14.0% versus 2.7%; P <0.001) in comparison with older-generation devices. With current-generation devices, device success was slightly lower in the bicuspid (versus tricuspid) AV group (96.3% in bicuspid versus 97.4% in tricuspid, P =0.07), with a slightly higher incidence of residual moderate or severe aortic insufficiency among patients with bicuspid AV (2.7% versus 2.1%; P <0.001). A lower 1-year adjusted risk of mortality (hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.78–0.99]) was observed for patients with bicuspid AV versus patients with tricuspid AV in the Medicare-linked cohort, whereas no difference was observed in the 1-year adjusted risk of stroke (hazard ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.94–1.39]). Conclusions: Using current-generation devices, procedural, postprocedural, and 1-year outcomes were comparable following TAVR for bicuspid AV versus tricuspid AV disease. With newer-generation devices, TAVR is a viable treatment option for patients with bicuspid AV disease.
Thirty-Day Outcomes of Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement for Degenerated Mitral Bioprostheses (Valve-in-Valve), Failed Surgical Rings (Valve-in-Ring), and Native Valve With Severe Mitral Annular Calcification (Valve-in-Mitral Annular Calcification) in
Background: Transcatheter mitral valve replacement using aortic transcatheter heart valves has recently become an alternative for patients with degenerated mitral bioprostheses, failed surgical repairs with annuloplasty rings or severe mitral annular calcification who are poor surgical candidates. Outcomes of these procedures are collected in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology/Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. A comprehensive analysis of mitral valve-in-valve (MViV), mitral valve-in-ring (MViR), and valve-in-mitral annular calcification (ViMAC) outcomes has not been performed. We sought to evaluate short-term outcomes of early experience with MViV, MViR, and ViMAC in the United States. Methods: Retrospective analysis of data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. Results: Nine hundred three high-risk patients (median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 10%) underwent MViV (n=680), MViR (n=123), or ViMAC (n=100) between March 2013 and June 2017 at 172 hospitals. Median age was 75 years, 59.2% female. Technical and procedural success were higher in MViV. Left ventricular outflow tract obstruction occurred more frequently with ViMAC (ViMAC=10%, MViR=4.9%, MViV=0.7%; P <0.001). In-hospital mortality (MViV=6.3%, MViR=9%, ViMAC=18%; P =0.004) and 30-day mortality (MViV=8.1%, MViR=11.5%, ViMAC=21.8%; P =0.003) were higher in ViMAC. At 30-day follow-up, median mean mitral valve gradient was 7 mm Hg, most patients (96.7%) had mitral regurgitation grade ≤1 (+) and were in New York Heart Association class I to II (81.7%). Conclusions: MViV using aortic balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves is associated with a low complication rate, a 30-day mortality lower than predicted by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, and superior short-term outcomes than MViR and ViMAC. At 30 days, patients in all groups experienced improvement of symptoms, and valve performance remained stable. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02245763.