TAVR as an Alternative to SAVR for Pure Native Aortic Regurgitation.

Although transcatheter aortic valve replacement was originally fulfilling an unmet clinical need in the elderly population suffering from tricuspid aortic valve stenosis, its use has been progressively expanded to other groups of patients. In this review, we focus on pure native aortic valve regurgitation, which is in most cases a degenerative disease and therefore frequently diagnosed in elderly patients with comorbidities. Symptoms tend to appear late in the disease, when left ventricular dilation and systolic dysfunction are associated owing to excessive volume overload. It is often combined with a dilated aortic annulus and ascending aorta. Surgical aortic valve replacement remains the criterion standard treatment for severe aortic regurgitation. However, for patients at prohibitive surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement represents an attractive alternative. Various technical challenges are the absence of calcium at the level of the annulus, which means there are no anchoring points or fluoroscopic landmarks, the difficulty of valve sizing, and the increased stroke volume secondary to the aortic regurgitation, making valve deployment more unstable than in the setting of aortic stenosis. The first-generation transcatheter valves were associated with a higher mortality rate and lower procedural success related to increased risk of paravalvular leak and valve migration requiring a second valve or annular rupture than the more recent off-label or on-label transcatheter valves. Early studies with the dedicated on-label devices showed safety and promising results and will undoubtedly serve in the future a growing number of patients with native aortic regurgitation at prohibitive risk for surgery.

[Aortic stenosis: TAVI for all patients?] / Sténose aortique : TAVI en première intention pour tous les patients ?

Over the last 21 years, the paradigm has shifted from an initial use of TAVI for inoperable aortic stenosis cases to recognition of its benefits for all categories of patients. Since 2021, the European Society of Cardiology has recommended first-line transfemoral TAVI from the age of 75 for all categories of patients with aortic stenosis (high, intermediate, low risk). However, in Switzerland, the Federal Office of Public Health currently places a restriction on the reimbursement of low-risk patients, which is expected to be reassessed in 2023. Surgery remains the best therapeutic option for patients with an unfavorable anatomy and for those whose life expectancy exceeds the potential durability of the valve. In this article we will discuss the evidence supporting TAVI, its current indications and initial complications as well as areas for improvement to potentially further expand its indications.

Au cours des deux dernières décennies, le paradigme est passé d'une utilisation initiale du TAVI pour les cas de sténose aortique inopérables à une reconnaissance de ses bénéfices pour toutes les catégories de patients. Depuis 2021, la Société européenne de cardiologie recommande le TAVI transfémoral en première intention dès 75 ans pour toutes les catégories de patients avec sténose aortique (risque élevé, intermédiaire, bas). En Suisse, l'Office fédéral de la santé publique impose une restriction pour le remboursement des patients à bas risque, avec une réévaluation prévue durant l'année 2023. Cependant, la chirurgie garde une place particulière pour les patients avec une anatomie défavorable et pour ceux dont l'espérance de vie dépasse la durabilité potentielle de la valve. Dans cet article, nous discutons des preuves, des indications actuelles, des complications initiales du TAVI et des points à améliorer pour potentiellement étendre davantage les indications.

Study Evaluating the Use of RenalGuard to Protect Patients at High Risk of AKI.

BACKGROUND: Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) can occur after cardiovascular procedures using contrast media, which is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. RenalGuard is a closed-loop system designed to match intravenous hydration with diuretic-induced diuresis that has shown mixed results in the prevention of CIN in previous randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: The STRENGTH (Study Evaluating the Use of RenalGuard to Protect Patients at High Risk of AKI) study assessed whether RenalGuard (PLC Medical Systems) is superior to standard intravenous hydration for CIN prevention in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing complex cardiovascular procedures. METHODS: STRENGTH is a multicenter, international, open-label, postmarket, prospective, randomized (1:1) study monitored by the Cardiovascular European Research Center (Massy, France) that included a total of 259 patients with moderate to severe chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration 15-40 mL/min/m2) requiring a complex coronary, structural, or peripheral procedure with an expected contrast injection of at least 3 times the estimated glomerular filtration rate. Patients were randomized to either RenalGuard or intravenous saline hydration according to current guidelines. RESULTS: The primary endpoint, the incidence of CIN at day 3 after the procedure, was similar between the 2 groups (17/107 [15.9%] in the RG group vs 15/110 [13.9%] in the control group; P = 0.62). In addition, none of the secondary endpoints differed between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients undergoing complex cardiovascular interventions in experienced centers, furosemide-induced high urine output with matched hydration using the RenalGuard system did not reduce the risk of CIN and adverse outcomes at 12 months compared with conventional intravenous hydration.

Volume-Outcome Relationship in Surgical and Cardiac Transcatheter Interventions with a Focus on Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

"Practice makes perfect" is an old saying that can be true for complex interventions. There is a strong and persistent relationship between high volume and better outcomes with more than 300 studies being reported on the subject. The more complex the procedure, the greater the volume-outcome relationship is. Failure to rescue was shown to be one of the factors explaining higher mortality rates post complex surgery. High-volume centers provide a better safety net, thanks to the structure and better protocols, and low-volume operators have better results at high-volume centers than at low-volume centers. Finally, effort should be made to regroup complex procedures in high-volume centers, but without compromising patient access to the procedures. Adaptation to local and geographic constraints is important.