Kapadia, Samir

De novo progressive aortic insufficiency (AI) is a side effect frequently related to prolonged support with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVAD). Its progression can result in recurrent clinical heart failure symptoms and significantly increased mortality. Recently, percutaneous intervention methods, such as transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and percutaneous occluder devices, have emerged. However, given the very scarce global experience with these approaches, evidence in the literature is lacking. We sought to assess the outcomes of CF-LVAD patients who had undergone percutaneous intervention for AI. A systematic search of six databases from inception to April 2016 was performed by two independent reviewers. Eligible studies were those that included series or cases where patients had percutaneous transcatheter interventions for AI in CF-LVAD patients. Data were extracted and meta-analyzed from the identified studies. A total of 29 patients from 15 published studies and 3 unpublished records were included in the analysis. Mean patient age was 56.6 ± 13.7 years, and 72.4% were male. The etiology of heart failure resulting in LVAD placement was ischemic cardiomyopathy in 17.2%. The two intervention groups were TAVR (27.6%) and occluder devices (72.4%). A transfemoral approach (69%), apical approach (10%), brachial approach (7%), subclavian approach (3%), and mini-sternotomy (3%) were used. The preintervention AI grade was severe with a median grade of 4 (interquartile range, 4–4). Postoperatively, the AI grade improved significantly to a median grade of 0 (0–2). At long-term follow-up AI grade was still trivial with a median AI grade of 1 (0–1). Subgrouping the treatments into the occluder device and TAVR, it was found that both interventional techniques were similarly effective in reducing the AI grade from severe to trivial. In terms of complications, from the occluder group, two patients were complicated with device migration and another two with transient hemolysis. In the TAVR cohort, two patients experienced device migration and another had significant postimplant perivalvular leakage. Our results indicate that percutaneous interventions for AI in CF-LVAD patients with TAVR, and closure devices demonstrate similar efficacy in significantly reducing severe AI. Current results are encouraging, potentiating viability as a treatment option, particularly in nonsurgical candidates. Future research with larger patient cohorts and comparative controls is required to sufficiently evaluate the efficacy of this technique and promote its widespread acceptance as a mainstay treatment.

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.