Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with extra-small aortic annuli.

BACKGROUND: A small aortic annulus (SAA) is a risk factor for prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) in patients undergoing surgical or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Data regarding TAVI in patients with extra-SAA are scarce. AIMS: The aim of this study was to analyse the safety and efficacy of TAVI in patients with extra-SAA. METHODS: A multicentre registry study including patients with extra-SAA (defined as an aortic annulus area <280 mm2 and/or perimeter <60 mm) undergoing TAVI was established. Primary efficacy and safety endpoints were defined as device success and early safety at 30 days, respectively, using the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria, and were analysed according to valve type: self-expanding (SEV) versus balloon-expandable (BEV). RESULTS: A total of 150 patients were included, of which 139 (92.7%) were women, and 110 (73.3%) received an SEV. Intraprocedural technical success was 91.3%, with a higher rate in patients receiving an SEV (96.4% vs 77.5% with BEV; p=0.001). Overall, 30-day device success was 81.3%, (85.5% with SEV vs 70.0% with BEV; p=0.032). The primary safety endpoint occurred in 72.0% of patients (with no difference between groups; p=0.118). Severe PPM occurred in 12% (9.0% with SEV and 24.0% with BEV; p=0.039), with no impact on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or heart failure readmission at 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: TAVI is a safe and feasible treatment in patients with extra-SAA with a high rate of technical success. The use of SEV was associated with a lower rate of intraprocedural complications, higher device success at 30 days and better haemodynamic outcomes compared to BEV.

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with morbid obesity: a multicentre propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Morbidly obese (MO) patients are increasingly undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the best therapeutic strategy for these patients remains a matter for debate. AIMS: Our aim was to compare the periprocedural and mid-term outcomes in MO patients undergoing TAVR versus SAVR. METHODS: A multicentre retrospective study including consecutive MO patients (body mass index ≥40 kg/m2, or ≥35 kg/m2 with obesity-related comorbidities) from 18 centres undergoing either TAVR (n=860) or biological SAVR (n=696) for severe AS was performed. Propensity score matching resulted in 362 pairs. RESULTS: After matching, periprocedural complications, including blood transfusion (14.1% versus 48.1%; p<0.001), stage 2-3 acute kidney injury (3.99% versus 10.1%; p=0.002), hospital-acquired pneumonia (1.7% versus 5.8%; p=0.005) and access site infection (1.5% versus 5.5%; p=0.013), were more common in the SAVR group, as was moderate to severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM; 9.9% versus 39.4%; p<0.001). TAVR patients more frequently required permanent pacemaker implantation (14.4% versus 5.6%; p<0.001) and had higher rates of ≥moderate residual aortic regurgitation (3.3% versus 0%; p=0.001). SAVR was an independent predictor of moderate to severe PPM (hazard ratio [HR] 1.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25-2.59; p=0.002), while TAVR was not. In-hospital mortality was not different between groups (3.9% for TAVR versus 6.1% for SAVR; p=0.171). Two-year outcomes (including all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and readmissions) were similar in both groups (log-rank p>0.05 for all comparisons). Predictors of all-cause 2-year mortality differed between the groups; moderate to severe PPM was a predictor following SAVR (HR 1.78, 95% CI: 1.10-2.88; p=0.018) but not following TAVR (p=0.737). CONCLUSIONS: SAVR and TAVR offer similar mid-term outcomes in MO patients with severe AS, however, TAVR offers some advantages in terms of periprocedural morbidity.