Short- and intermediate-term outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) being currently employed in low surgical risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). The durability and extended outcomes of TAVR as compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-risk patients remains uncertain. Methods: We selected randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing outcomes of TAVR vs. SAVR in low surgical risk patients having severe AS using online databases. The primary outcome was all-cause death. The secondary outcomes were composite of all-cause death & disabling stroke, cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), permanent pacemaker (PPM) placement, new onset atrial fibrillation (AF), valve re-intervention and valve thrombosis. The outcomes were stratified at short- (1-year) and intermediate-term (≤5 years) follow-up. We used a random effect model to report outcomes as relative risk (RR) with a 95 % confidence interval (CI). Results: The analysis consisted of six RCTs comprising 5,122 subjects with a mean age of 75.4 years. At short-term follow up, there was a significant reduction in all-cause death (RR: 0.62, 0.46-0.82, p = 0.001) and composite of all-cause death and disabling stroke (RR: 0.62, 0.45-0.83, p = 0.002) in patients undergoing TAVR. At intermediate-term follow-up, there was no significant difference in survival (RR:0.95, 0.73-1.24, p = 0.71) and composite outcome (RR: 0.95, 0.74-1.22, p = 0.71). TAVR patients had lower incidence of new onset AF, however, higher PPM placement. Conclusion: In patients with severe AS having low-surgical risk, patients undergoing TAVR had improved short-term survival as compared to SAVR. This survival advantage was absent at intermediate-term follow-up. The long-term outcomes remain uncertain.

Clinical Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR) in Patients With Sarcoidosis.

Introduction Data regarding clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with sarcoidosis is lacking. This study aims to clarify the clinical outcomes of TAVR vs SAVR in patients with sarcoidosis. Methods Data was collected from the National Inpatient Sample database from 2016-2019 using validated ICD-10-CM codes for sarcoidosis, TAVR, and SAVR. Patients were divided into two cohorts: those who underwent TAVR and those who underwent SAVR. Statistical analysis was performed using Pearson's chi-squared test to determine clinical outcomes of TAVR vs SAVR in patients with sarcoidosis. Results The prevalence of sarcoidosis was 0.23% among total study patients (n=142,420,378). After exclusions, the prevalence of TAVR was 650 (49%) and SAVR was 675 (51%) in patients with sarcoidosis. Patients who underwent TAVR were on average older (74 vs 65 years old, p=0.001), and more likely to be female (57 vs 40%, p<0.001) compared to patients who underwent SAVR. The TAVR cohort had higher rates of congestive heart failure (CHF) (77.7 vs 42.2%, p=0.001), chronic kidney disease (CKD) (42.3 vs 24.4% p=0.001), anemia (5.4 vs 2.2%, p=0.004), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (1.5 vs 0%, p=0.004), and hypothyroidism (31.5 vs 16.3%, p=0.001) compared to the SAVR cohort. Inpatient mortality post-procedure was higher in the SAVR cohort compared to the TAVR cohort (15 vs 0, p=0.001). Regarding post-procedure complications, respiratory complications were more common in the SAVR cohort (4.4 vs 0%, p=0.001), while TAVR was associated with a higher incidence of permanent pacemaker (PPM) insertion (2.15 vs 0.8%, p=0.001). There was no statistical difference in the development of acute kidney injury (AKI) (0.8 vs 1.5%, p=0.33), AKI requiring hemodialysis (0 vs. 0.7%, p=0.08), or stroke (0.8 vs 0.7, p=1) post-procedure between the two cohorts. Conclusion This study found that in the sarcoidosis population, TAVR was associated with reduced mortality, shorter hospital length of stay, and lower hospitalization costs in comparison to SAVR.

Reverse left ventricular remodeling after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Reverse left ventricular (LV) remodeling after aortic valve replacement (AVR), in patients with aortic stenosis, is well-documented as an important prognostic factor. With this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to characterize the response of the unloaded LV after AVR. We searched on MEDLINE/PubMed and Web of Science for studies reporting echocardiographic findings before and at least 1 month after AVR for the treatment of aortic stenosis. In total, 1,836 studies were identified and 1,098 were screened for inclusion. The main factors of interest were structural and dynamic measures of the LV and aortic valve. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to compute standardized mean differences (SMD) between follow-up and baseline values for each outcome. Twenty-seven studies met the eligibility criteria, yielding 11,751 patients. AVR resulted in reduced mean aortic gradient (SMD: - 38.23 mmHg, 95% CI: - 39.88 to - 36.58 , I 2 = 92 % ), LV mass (SMD: - 37.24 g, 95% CI: - 49.31 to - 25.18 , I 2 = 96 % ), end-diastolic LV diameter (SMD: - 1.78 mm, 95% CI: - 2.80 to - 0.76 , I 2 = 96 % ), end-diastolic LV volume (SMD: - 1.6 ml, 95% CI: - 6.68 to 3.51, I 2 = 91 % ), increased effective aortic valve area (SMD: 1.10 cm2, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.20, I 2 = 98 % ), and LV ejection fraction (SMD: 2.35%, 95% CI: 1.31 to 3.40%, I 2 = 94.1 % ). Our results characterize the extent to which reverse remodeling is expected to occur after AVR. Notably, in our study, reverse remodeling was documented as soon as 1 month after AVR.

An Unusual Case of Bicuspid Aortic Valve With Prolapse Masquerading as Cusp Perforation.

We present a unique clinical scenario of a 58-year-old male with a past medical history of hypertension who initially presented with chest pain and was ruled in for non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) but rapidly developed respiratory failure secondary to aortic insufficiency complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS), attributed to aortic valve prolapse. Intriguingly, the patient had a normal ECG on presentation, underscoring the dynamic nature of valvular pathology. The development of CS highlights the importance of early recognition, prompt diagnosis, and interdisciplinary management in such complex cases.

Effect of Sex and Flow Status on Outcomes After Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Background: Low stroke volume index <35 ml/m2 despite preserved ejection fraction (paradoxical low flow [PLF]) is associated with adverse outcomes in patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, whether the risk associated with PLF is similar in both sexes is unknown. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to analyze the risk associated with PLF in severe aortic stenosis for men and women randomized to TAVR or SAVR. Methods: Patients with ejection fraction ≥50% from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2 and 3 trials were stratified by sex and treatment arm. The impact of PLF on the 2-year occurrence of the composite of death or heart failure hospitalization (primary endpoint) and of all-cause mortality alone (secondary endpoint) was analyzed. Analysis of variance was used to assess baseline differences between groups. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to identify predictors of the endpoint. Results: Out of 2,242 patients, PLF was present in 390 men and 239 women (30% vs 26%, P = 0.06). PLF was associated with a higher rate of NYHA functional class III to IV dyspnea (60% vs 54%, P < 0.001) and a higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation (39% vs 24%, P < 0.001). PLF was a significant predictor of the primary endpoint among women undergoing SAVR in multivariate analysis (adjusted HR: 2.25 [95% CI: 1.14-4.43], P = 0.02) but was not associated with a worse outcome in any of the other groups (all P > 0.05). Conclusions: In women with PLF, TAVR may improve outcomes compared to SAVR. PLF appears to have less impact on outcomes in men.

Aortic Stenosis Management in Patients With Acute Hip Fracture.

The treatment of severe aortic stenosis (SAS) has evolved rapidly with the advent of minimally invasive structural heart interventions. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has allowed patients to undergo definitive SAS treatment achieving faster recovery rates compared to valve surgery. Not infrequently, patients are admitted/diagnosed with SAS after a fall associated with a hip fracture (HFx). While urgent orthopedic surgery is key to reduce disability and mortality, untreated SAS increases the perioperative risk and precludes physical recovery. There is no consensus on what the best strategy is either hip correction under hemodynamic monitoring followed by valve replacement or preoperative balloon aortic valvuloplasty to allow HFx surgery followed by valve replacement. However, preoperative minimalist transcatheter aortic valve replacement may represent an attractive strategy for selected patients. We provide a management pathway that emphasizes an early multidisciplinary approach to optimize time for hip surgery to improve orthopedic and cardiovascular outcomes in patients presenting with HFx-SAS.

Efficacy and safety of TAVR versus SAVR in patients with small aortic annuli: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with a small aortic annulus (SAA) undergoing aortic valve replacement are at increased risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM), which adversely affects outcomes. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has shown promise in mitigating PPM compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines to compare clinical outcomes, mortality, and PPM between SAA patients undergoing TAVR and SAVR. Eligible studies were identified through comprehensive literature searches and assessed for quality and relevance. RESULTS: Nine studies with a total of 2476 patients were included. There was no significant difference in 30-day Mortality between TAVR vs SAVR groups (OR = 0.65, 95% CI [ 0.09-4.61], P = 0.22). There was no difference between both groups regarding myocardial infarction at 30 days (OR = 0.63, 95% CI [0.1-3.89], P = 0.62). TAVR was associated with a significantly lower 30-day major bleeding and 2-year major bleeding, Pooled studies were homogeneous (OR = 0.44, 95% CI [0.31-0.64], P < 0.01, I2 = 0, P = 0.89), (OR = 0.4 ,95% CI [0.21-0.77], P = 0.03, I2 = 0%, P = 0.62) respectively. TAVR was associated with a lower rate of moderate PPM (OR = 0.6, 95% CI [ 0.44-0.84], p value = 0.01, i2 = 0%, p value = 0.44). The overall effect estimate did not favor any of the two groups regarding short-term Mild AR (OR = 5.44, 95% CI [1.02-28.91], P = 0.05) and Moderate/severe AR (OR = 4.08, 95% CI [ 0.79-21.02], P = 0.08, I2 = 0%, P = 0.59). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that both TAVR and SAVR are viable options for treating AS in patients with a small aortic annulus. TAVR offers advantages in reducing PPM and major bleeding, while SAVR performs better in terms of pacemaker implantation. Future studies should focus on comparing newer generation TAVR techniques and devices with SAVR. Consideration of patient characteristics is crucial in selecting the optimal treatment approach for AS.

DEDICATE trial: the devil lies in the definition of "low risk".

Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) has evolved from a treatment strategy for high-risk patients to an option for low-risk individuals, prompting the need for rigorous comparisons with surgical aortic-valve replacement (SAVR). The German-Austrian Prospective Randomized Trial of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Conventional Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low and Intermediate Risk Patients (DEDICATE) trial compares low- and intermediate-risk patient undergoing SAVR and TAVR. This review outlines the trial design, key findings, strengths, and weaknesses of the study and also highlights the urgent need for standardized definitions of low-risk patients in future trials to ensure accurate comparisons and robust conclusions.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch in transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) occurs when the effective orifice area (EOA) of a normally functioning prosthetic valve is too small in relation to the patient's body size. The effect of PPM on outcomes and valve durability have gained credibility, making this an important possibly preventable risk factor. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) generally has a lower incidence of PPM than surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Current surgical literature and randomized trials show an association between severe PPM and mortality in patients with SAVR but there is less evidence for an association with TAVR. Differences in the incidence of PPM may be related to the methods and cutoffs for measuring mismatch. This review will discuss the current state of field and propose standardization of measurement methods which may more accurately risk stratify patients.

What did the transcatheter aortic valve replacement-surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR-SAVR) trials tell us?

Two families of randomized trials comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to surgery for both the Balloon Expandable Valve and the Supra Annular Self-Expanding Valve have been completed to include all surgical risk levels. The result of these trials has led to the approval of TAVR for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis without using risk level as the sole criterion. We have seen an explosion of TAVR in the US to over 98,000 commercial cases in 2022. We have also seen a rapid increase in the use of TAVR in patients less than 65 years of age. With these increases, it is important to ask if they are being driven largely by the data or just the desire for TAVR by both patients and their physicians. Heart team input is a class I indication when deciding between TAVR and surgery. For surgical members of the heart team to appropriately counsel patients, a full understanding of what the TAVR surgery trials tell us as well as what they do not is essential. In this article we will explore those questions.

Implanted size and structural valve deterioration in the Edwards Magna bioprosthesis.

Background: The desire of patients to avoid anticoagulation, together with the potential of valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), have resulted in the increasing use of bioprosthetic valves for aortic valve replacement (AVR). While patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) is known to be an adverse risk after AVR, few studies have addressed the effect of PPM on valve durability. This study evaluates the role of valve size and hemodynamics on long term durability after AVR with a Magna bioprosthesis. Methods: We performed a retrospective, single-center evaluation of patients who underwent a surgical AVR procedure between June 2004 through December 2022 using the Magna bioprosthesis. Perioperative information and long-term follow-up data were sourced from the institution's Society for Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Registry and outcomes database. Cumulative incidence of freedom from reintervention were estimated accounting for competing events. Group comparisons used Gray's test. Results: Among 2,100 patients, the mean patient age was 69 years (range, 22-95 years), of whom 98% had native aortic valve disease, 32.5% had concomitant coronary bypass grafting, and 19% had mitral valve surgery. Median follow-up was 5.8 (1.9-9.4) years, during which 116 reinterventions were performed, including 74 explants and 42 VIV procedures. Nine hundred and twenty-eight patients died prior to reintervention. Incidence of all cause reintervention was 1.2%, 4.5%, and 11.7% at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively. Smaller valve size was associated with worse survival (P<0.001), but not with reintervention. Higher mean gradient at implant was associated with increased late reintervention [sub-distribution hazard ratio: 1.016; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.005 to 1.028; P=0.0047, n=1,661]. Conclusions: While reintervention rates are low for the Magna prosthesis at 15 years, the analysis is confounded by the competing risk of death. PPM, as reflected physiologically by elevated post-operative valve gradients, portends an increased risk of intervention. Further study is necessary to elucidate the mechanism of early stenosis in patients who progress to reintervention.

The Clinical Impact of Paravalvular Leaks With Transcutaneous Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Aortic valve stenosis is a common cardiac condition that requires intervention for symptomatic and/or prognostic reasons. The two most common interventions are surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The ratio of TAVI:SAVR has increased twofold over the past few years and is now being considered in intermediate-risk patients as well. One of the significant benefits of TAVI is that it is less invasive; however, one of the drawbacks is a high paravalvular leaks (PVLs) rate compared to SAVR. To assess the impact of PVLs on survival, progression of heart failure, and the need for re-intervention. METHOD: We conducted a comprehensive systematic literature search from the conception of TAVI 2002 until December 2022 through Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), Science Direct, and CENTRAL (Wiley). We followed PRISMA guidelines and checklists. Review protocol registration ID in PROSPERO: CRD42023393742. RESULTS: We identified 28 studies that met our eligibility criteria, and only 24 studies were suitable for pooling in a meta-analysis (including their hazard ratio with a confidence interval of 95%) assessing our primary outcome (all-cause mortality). The remaining four studies were narratively synthesised. RevMan V5.4 (Version 5.4. Cochrane Collaboration, 2020) was utilised to pool meta-analysis data to assess effect estimates of PVLs in both intervention arms, using a random effect model for calculation (hazard ratio 1.14 confidence interval 95% 1.08-1.21 [p<0.0001]), with a follow-up duration between 30 days to 5 years. CONCLUSION: Patients with mild or higher degrees of PVLs in both intervention arms incurred unfavourable outcomes. The incidence of PVLs was significantly higher with TAVI; even a mild degree led to poor quality of life and increased all-cause mortality on long-term follow-up.

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Aortic stenosis is a common and significant valve condition requiring bioprosthetic heart valves with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) being strongly recommended for high-risk patients or patients over 75 years. This meta-analysis aimed to pool existing data on postprocedural clinical as well as echocardiographic outcomes comparing valve-in-valve (ViV)-TAVR to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement to assess the short-term and medium-term outcomes for both treatment methods. A systematic literature search on Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Medline (PubMed interface) electronic databases from inception to August 2023. We used odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. Twenty-four studies (25,216 patients) were pooled with a mean follow-up of 16.4 months. The analysis revealed that ViV-TAVR group showed a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (OR 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43 to 0.58, p <0.00001), new-onset atrial fibrillation (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.67, p = 0.002), major bleeding event (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.45, p <0.00001) and lower rate of device success (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.53, p = 0.0003). There were no significant differences between either group when assessing 1-year mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, postoperative left ventricular ejection fraction, and effective orifice area. ViV-TAVR cohort showed a significantly increased incidence of paravalvular leaks, aortic regurgitation, and increased mean aortic valve gradient. ViV-TAVR is a viable short-term option for older patients with high co-morbidities and operative risks, reducing perioperative complications and improving 30-day mortality with no significant cardiovascular adverse events. However, both treatment methods present similar results on short-term to medium-term complications assessment.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Surgical Risk Patients: An Updated Metanalysis of Extended Follow-Up Randomized Controlled Trials.

The long-term safety and effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low surgical risk has not been evaluated in a pooled analysis. An electronic database search was conducted for randomized controlled trials with a maximal 5 years clinical and echocardiographic follow-up including low surgical risk patients who underwent TAVR or SAVR. We calculated odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model. Subgroups analysis was performed for permanent pacemaker implantation and paravalvular leaks. Three randomized controlled trials were included with a total of 2,611 low surgical risk patients (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score <4%). Compared with SAVR, the TAVR group had similar rates of all-cause mortality (OR 0.94,95% CI 0.65 to 1.37, p = 0.75) and disabling stroke (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.36, p = 0.48). No significant differences were registered in the TAVR group in terms of major cardiovascular events (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.38, p = 0.83), myocardial infarction (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.40, p = 0.31), valve thrombosis (OR 3.11, 95% CI 0.29 to 33.47, p = 0.35), endocarditis (OR 0.71,95% CI 0.35 to 1.48, p = 0.36), aortic valve reintervention (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.66, p = 0.80), and rehospitalization (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.02, p = 0.07) compared with SAVR. However, TAVR patients had a higher risk of paravalvular leaks (OR 8.21, 95% CI 4.18 to 16.14, p <0.00001), but lower rates of new-onset atrial fibrillation (OR 0.27,95% CI 0.17 to 0.30, p <0.0001). The rates of permanent pacemaker implantation were comparable from 1 year up to a maximum of 5 years (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.97, p = 0.18). Lastly, TAVR had a greater effective orifice area (0.10 cm2/m2, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.15, p = 0.0001), but similar transvalvular mean gradients (0.60, 95% CI 3.94 to 2.73, p = 0.72). In conclusion, TAVR patients had similar long-term outcomes compared with SAVR, except for an elevated risk of paravalvular leaks in the TAVR group and increased rates of atrial fibrillation in the SAVR cohort.

Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement and Renal Dysfunction: From Acute Kidney Injury to Chronic Disease.

Background: Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is often complicated by acute kidney injury (AKI). Identifying patients at risk of AKI is important to start nephroprotective strategies or renal replacement therapy (RRT). This study investigated the incidence and risk factors of post-operative AKI in SAVR patients. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) developed in the post-cardiac-surgery follow-up period was also assessed. Methods: A total of 462 SAVR patients were retrospectively enrolled. The primary endpoint was the occurrence rate of AKI after surgery. Kidney recovery, during two planned outpatient clinic nephrological visits within 12 months after the surgery, was assessed. Results: A total of 76 patients experienced an AKI event. A Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that subjects with CKD stage IV had a time to progression of 2.7 days, compared to patients with stages I-II, who were characterized by the slowest progression time, >11.2 days. A Cox regression indicated that CKD stages predicted a higher risk of AKI independently of other variables. During their ICU stay, 23 patients died, representing 5% of the population, most of them requiring RRT during their ICU stay. A severe CKD before the surgery was closely related to perioperative mortality. During the follow-up period, 21 patients with AKI worsened their CKD stage. Conclusions: AKI represents a common complication for SAVR patients in the early post-operative period, prolonging their ICU stay, with negative effects on survival, especially if RRT was required. Pre-operative CKD >3 stage is an independent risk factor for AKI in patients undergoing SAVR.

The Effect of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement on Arterial Stiffness: Does the Valve Type Matter?

Background: Despite the increasing use of transcatheter aortic valve procedures, many patients still require surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Assessing arterial properties in patients undergoing SAVR for aortic valve stenosis can be challenging, and the existing evidence is inconclusive. Our study aimed to investigate the impact of SAVR on vascular stiffness and the quality of life, as well as the different effects of valve type on arterial properties. Methods: We included 60 patients (mean age 70.25 ± 8.76 years, 65% men) with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who underwent SAVR. Arterial stiffness (cfPWV, baPWV) and vascular parameters (AIx@75, central pressures, SEVR) were measured at baseline, pre-discharge, and 1-year post-operation. The QOL was assessed using the generic questionnaire-short-form health survey 36 (SF-36) pre-operatively and at 1 year. Results: Post-SAVR, cfPWV increased immediately (7.67 ± 1.70 m/s vs. 8.27 ± 1.92 m/s, p = 0.009) and persisted at 1 year (8.27 ± 1.92 m/s vs. 9.29 ± 2.59 m/s, p ≤ 0.001). Similarly, baPWV (n = 55) increased acutely (1633 ± 429 cm/s vs. 2014 ± 606 cm/s, p < 0.001) and remained elevated at 1 year (1633 ± 429 cm/s vs. 1867 ± 408 cm/s, p < 0.001). Acute decrease in Alx@75 (31.16 ± 10% vs. 22.48 ± 13%, p < 0.001) reversed at 1 year (31.16 ± 10% vs. 30.98 ± 9%, p = 0.71). SEVR improved (136.1 ± 30.4% vs. 149.2 ± 32.7%, p = 0.01) and persisted at 1 year (136.1 ± 30.4% vs. 147.5 ± 30.4%, p = 0.01). SV had a greater cfPWV increase at 1 year (p = 0.049). The QOL improved irrespective of arterial stiffness changes. Conclusions: After SAVR, arterial stiffness demonstrates a persistent increase at 1-year, with valve type having a slight influence on the outcomes. These findings remain consistent despite the perceived QOL.

Socioeconomic disparity in transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement: a population study of National Inpatient Sample from 2015 to 2020.

There is limited data on the effect of socioeconomic status (SES) on transcatheter (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) outcomes for aortic stenosis (AS). This study conducted a population-based analysis to assess the influence of SES on valve replacement outcomes. Patients with AS undergoing TAVR or SAVR were identified in National Inpatient Sample from Q4 2015-2020. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to compare in-hospital outcomes between patients living in neighborhoods of income at the lowest and highest quartiles. Of 613,785 AS patients, 9.77% underwent TAVR and 10.13% had SAVR. These rates decline with lower neighborhood income levels, with TAVR/SAVR ratio also declining in lower-income areas. Excluding concomitant procedures, 58,064 patients received isolated TAVR (12,355 low-income and 15,212 high-income) and 43,694 underwent isolated SAVR (10,029 low-income and 10,811 high-income). Low-income patients, in both TAVR and SAVR, were younger but had more comorbid burden. For isolated TAVR, outcomes were similar across income groups. However, for isolated SAVR, low-income patients experienced higher in-hospital mortality (aOR = 1.44, p < 0.01), pulmonary (aOR = 1.13, p = 0.01), and renal complications (aOR = 1.14, p < 0.01). They also had more transfers, longer waits for operations, and extended hospital stays. Lower-income communities had reduced access to TAVR and SAVR, with TAVR accessibility being particularly limited. When given access to TAVR, patients from lower-income neighborhoods had mostly comparable outcomes. However, patients from low-income communities faced worse outcomes in SAVR, possibly due to delays in treatment. Ensuring equitable specialized healthcare resources including expanding TAVR access in economically disadvantaged communities is crucial.

Aortic Regurgitation, Time to Aortic Valve Reintervention, and Mortality in Degenerated Trifecta Versus Non-Trifecta Bioprosthesis.

On July 31, 2023, the Trifecta valve was withdrawn from the market after concerns regarding early (≤5 years) structural valve deterioration (SVD), mainly as aortic regurgitation (AR). Our aim was to determine the timing, mechanism, and impact of bioprosthetic SVD in patients who underwent redo aortic valve replacement (redo-AVR) with either redo-SAVR or valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using Trifecta versus other bioprosthetic valves. Patients who underwent redo-AVR for SVD at our institution were categorized into 2 groups based on the valve type: Trifecta versus non-Trifecta. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard model and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to compare mortality. A total of 171 patients were included; 58 (34%) had previous SAVR with a Trifecta valve and 113 (66%) with non-Trifecta valve. A total of 103 patients (60%) underwent valve-in-valve TAVR and 68 redo-SAVR (40%). The age, gender, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score were similar between Trifecta and non-Trifecta groups. In patients with bioprosthetic valves requiring redo-AVR, Trifecta valves had an earlier onset of greater than moderate AR (4.5 vs 11.9 years, p <0.001) and earlier time to redo-AVR (5.5 vs 12 years, p <0.001). AR was more common as the mechanism of SVD in Trifecta versus non-Trifecta valves (55.2% vs 30.1%, p = 0.006). All-cause adjusted mortality from index SAVR was higher in the Trifecta than in non-Trifecta group (hazard ratio 4.1, 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 11.5, p = 0.007). In conclusion, compared with non-Trifecta valves, Trifecta valves exhibit early SVD primarily as AR and progress rapidly to significant SVD requiring redo-AVR. Mortality is significantly higher with Trifecta than in non-Trifecta valves, potentially impacting the results of SAVR versus TAVR studies.