Citations

Background— The higher risk of adverse outcomes after transapical (TA) versus transfemoral (TF) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) could be attributable to TA-TAVR being an open surgical procedure or to clinical differences between TA- and TF-TAVR patients. We compared outcomes after neutralizing patient differences using propensity score matching. Methods and Results— From April 2007 to February 2012, 1100 Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER)-I patients underwent TA-TAVR and 1521 underwent TF-TAVR with Edwards SAPIEN balloon-expandable bioprostheses. Propensity matching based on 111 preprocedural variables, exclusive of femoral access morphology, identified 501 well-matched patient pairs (46% of possible matches), 95% of whom had peripheral arterial disease. Matched TA-TAVR patients experienced more adverse procedural events, longer length of stay (5 versus 8 days; P <0.0001), and slower recovery (New York Heart Association class I, 31% versus 38% at 30 days, equalizing by 6 months at 51% versus 47%); stroke risk was similar (3.4% versus 3.3% at 30 days and 6.0% versus 6.7% at 3 years); mortality was elevated for the first 6 postprocedural months (19% versus 12%; P =0.01); but aortic regurgitation was less (34% versus 52% mild and 8.9% versus 12% moderate to severe at discharge, P =0.001; 36% versus 50% mild and 10% versus 15% moderate to severe at 6 months, P <0.0001). Conclusions— The likelihood of adverse periprocedural events and prolonged recovery is greater after TA-TAVR than TF-TAVR in vasculopathic patients after accounting for differences in cardiovascular risk factors, although stroke risk is equivalent and aortic regurgitation is less. As smaller delivery systems permit TF-TAVR in many of these patients, we recommend a TF-first access strategy for TAVR when anatomically feasible. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00530894.

BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the balloon‐expandable Sapien transcatheter heart valve improves survival compared to standard therapy in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and is noninferior to surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients at high operative risk. Nonetheless, a significant proportion of patients may require pre‐emptive or emergent support with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and/or intra‐aortic balloon pump (IABP) during TAVR due to pre‐existing comorbid conditions or as a result of procedural complications. Objectives: We hypothesized that patients who required CPB or IABP would have increased periprocedural complications and reduced long‐term survival. In addition, we sought to determine whether preprocedural variables could predict the need for CPB and IABP. Methods: The study population included 2,525 patients in the PARTNER Trial (Cohort A and B) and the continuing access registry (CAR). Patients that received CPB or IABP were compared to patients that did not receive either, and then further divided into those that received support pre‐TAVR and those that were placed on support emergently. Results: One‐hundred sixty‐three patients (6.5%) were placed on CPB and/or IABP. The use of CPB or IABP was associated with higher 1 year mortality (49.1% vs. 21.6%, P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, utilization of CPB or IABP was an independent predictor of 30 day (HR 6.95) and 1‐year (HR 2.56) mortality. Although mortality was highest in emergent cases, mortality was also greater in planned CPB and IABP cases compared with non‐CPB/IABP cases (53.3% and 40.3% vs. 21.6%, P < 0.001). Conclusions: These findings indicate that CPB and IABP use in TAVR portends a poor prognosis and its utilization, particularly in the setting of pre‐emptive use, needs reconsideration. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Background— The objective was to evaluate the effects of aortic annulus size on valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes in those patients included in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) randomized controlled trial cohort A and the nonrandomized continued access cohort. Methods and Results— Patients included the randomized controlled trial (n=574) and nonrandomized continued access (n=1358) cohorts were divided in tertiles according to aortic annulus diameter (small aortic annulus tertile, medium aortic annulus tertile, and large aortic annulus tertile [LAA], respectively) as measured by transthoracic echocardiography. Severe prosthesis–patient mismatch was defined as an effective aortic orifice area of <0.65 cm 2 /m 2 . In the randomized controlled trial cohort, patients in the small aortic annulus tertile who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement had a lower incidence of severe prosthesis–patient mismatch (19.7% versus 37.5%; P =0.03) and only a trend toward a higher incidence of moderate-to-severe paravalvular leaks compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (5.7% versus 0%; P =0.06). In the LAA tertile, there were no differences in the rate of prosthesis–patient mismatch between groups, and a significant increase in moderate-to-severe paravalvular leaks was associated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (9% versus 0%; P =0.01). There were no differences in mortality between transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement. In the nonrandomized continued access cohort, there were no differences in prosthesis–patient mismatch between the small aortic annulus and LAA tertiles, but a higher rate of moderate-to-severe paravalvular leaks was observed in the LAA tertile (5.9% versus 11.5%; P =0.009). Patients in the LAA tertile had a higher mortality rate at 1-year follow-up ( P =0.02), and differences persisted in multivariable analysis ( P =0.048 for LAA versus medium aortic annulus tertile, P =0.035 for LAA versus small aortic annulus tertile). Conclusions— Aortic annulus size had a major impact on valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement. This study highlights the importance of considering aortic annulus size in the evaluation of high-risk patients who are candidates for aortic valve replacement. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00530894.

Background— The incidence and impact of clinical stroke and silent radiographic cerebral infarction complicating open surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) are poorly characterized. Methods and Results— We performed a prospective cohort study of subjects ≥65 years of age who were undergoing AVR for calcific aortic stenosis. Subjects were evaluated by neurologists preoperatively and postoperatively and underwent postoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Over a 4-year period, 196 subjects were enrolled at 2 sites (mean age, 75.8±6.2 years; 36% women; 6% nonwhite). Clinical strokes were detected in 17%, transient ischemic attack in 2%, and in-hospital mortality was 5%. The frequency of stroke in the Society for Thoracic Surgery database in this cohort was 7%. Most strokes were mild; the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was 3 (interquartile range, 1–9). Clinical stroke was associated with increased length of stay (median, 12 versus 10 days; P =0.02). Moderate or severe stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale ≥10) occurred in 8 (4%) and was strongly associated with in-hospital mortality (38% versus 4%; P =0.005). Of the 109 stroke-free subjects with postoperative magnetic resonance imaging, silent infarct was identified in 59 (54%). Silent infarct was not associated with in-hospital mortality or increased length of stay. Conclusions— Clinical stroke after AVR was more common than reported previously, more than double for this same cohort in the Society for Thoracic Surgery database, and silent cerebral infarctions were detected in more than half of the patients undergoing AVR. Clinical stroke complicating AVR is associated with increased length of stay and mortality.