Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation by Intercostal Access: Initial Experience with a No-Touch Technique.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is now a well-established therapeutic option in an elderly high-risk patient cohort with aortic valve disease. Although most commonly performed via a transfemoral route, alternative approaches for TAVI are constantly being improved. Instead of the classical mini-sternotomy, it is possible to achieve a transaortic access via a right anterior mini-thoracotomy in the second intercostal space. We describe our experience with this sternum- and rib-sparing technique in comparison to the classical transaortic approach. METHODS: Our retrospective study includes 173 patients who were treated in our institution between January 2017 and April 2020 with transaortic TAVI via either upper mini-sternotomy or intercostal thoracotomy. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality, and secondary endpoints were defined as major postoperative complications that included admission to the intensive care unit and overall hospital stay, according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients were treated with TAo-TAVI by upper mini-sternotomy, while 91 patients received the intercostal approach. Both groups were comparable in age (mean age: 82 years) and in the proportion of female patients. The intercostal group had a higher rate of peripheral artery disease (41% vs. 22%, p = 0.008) and coronary artery disease (71% vs. 40%, p < 0.001) with a history of percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting, resulting in significantly higher preinterventional risk evaluation (EuroScore II 8% in the intercostal vs. 4% in the TAo group, p = 0.005). Successful device implantation and a reduction of the transvalvular gradient were achieved in all cases with a significantly lower rate of trace to mild paravalvular leakage in the intercostal group (12% vs. 33%, p < 0.001). The intercostal group required significantly fewer blood transfusions (0 vs. 2 units, p = 0.001) and tended to require less reoperation (7% vs. 15%, p = 0.084). Hospital stays (9 vs. 12 d, p = 0.011) were also shorter in the intercostal group. Short- and long-term survival in the follow-up showed comparable results between the two approaches (30-day, 6-month- and 2-year mortality: 7%, 23% and 36% in the intercostal vs. 9%, 26% and 33% in the TAo group) with acute kidney injury (AKI) and reintubation being independent risk factors for mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Transaortic TAVI via an intercostal access offers a safe and effective treatment of aortic valve stenosis.

Midterm Follow-up of the Transatrial-to-Left Ventricle Cannulation for Acute Type A Dissection.

BACKGROUND: It is still controversial as to which cannulation strategy for acute type A aortic dissection (AAD) is optimal. Antegrade perfusion to diminish further organ malperfusion and ischemia is preferable. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a total of 420 patients who underwent AAD surgery from January 2001 to December 2020. Group A included 229 patients with a transatrial cannulation; group B included 191 patients with all other additionally used cannulation sites. A retrospective analysis was conducted at 30 days and according to clinical outcome and midterm mortality. Risk factors for probability of death were analyzed by multifactorial logistic regression. RESULTS: The calculated risk scores and demographic preoperative variables were comparable except for hyperlipoproteinemia (P = .011) and redo operation in group B (P < .001) and more pericardial tamponade in group A (P = .006). In addition, fewer patients with postoperative new onset of renal failure were observed in group A (P = .039), although new onset of dialysis was not different between the groups (P = .878). Patients in group A were discharged from the hospital significantly earlier (P = .004). Nevertheless, although significantly more total arch surgery was performed in group A, shorter operation times (P < .001) and lower transfusion rates were observed in group A. Patients' follow-up after a median time of 3.6 (0.6-7.6) years showed no difference in 30-day, 1-year, and long-term mortality. Multivariate logistic regression revealed aortic valve stenosis (P = .041), coronary artery bypass graft surgical procedures (P = .014), preoperative cardiopulmonary resuscitation (P < .001), and length of surgery (P = .032) as the strongest risk factors for mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Transatrial cannulation for AAD operation was safe and successfully performed under emergent conditions. Although no benefit in mortality was achieved, clinical benefits of shorter operation times, less transfusion, better kidney preservation, and earlier discharge of the patient were observed.

TAVR for All? The Surgical Perspective.

In spite of the noninferiority of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in high- and intermediate-risk patients, there are still obstacles that need to be overcome before the procedure is further expanded and clinically integrated. The lack of evidence on the long-term durability of the bioprostheses used for TAVR remains of particular concern. In addition, surgery may be preferred over TAVR in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) or with concomitant pathologies such as other valve diseases (mitral regurgitation/tricuspid regurgitation), aortopathy, and coronary artery disease. In this review, we discuss and summarize relevant data from clinical trials, current trends, and remaining obstacles, and provide our perspective on the indications for the expansion of TAVR.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Patients undergoing surgery for severe aortic stenosis (SAS) can be treated with either transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The choice of procedure depends on several factors, including the clinical judgement of the heart team and patient preferences, which are captured by actively informing and involving patients in a process of shared decision making (SDM). We synthesised the most up-to-date and accessible evidence on the benefits and risks that may be associated with TAVI versus SAVR to support SDM in this highly personalised decision-making process. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Wiley) were searched from January 2000 to August 2020 with no language restrictions. Reference lists of included studies were searched to identify additional studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared TAVI versus SAVR in patients with SAS and reported on all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, length of stay in intensive care unit or hospital, valve durability, rehospitalisation/reintervention, stroke (any stroke or major/disabling stroke), myocardial infarction, major vascular complications, major bleeding, permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, new-onset or worsening atrial fibrillation (NOW-AF), endocarditis, acute kidney injury (AKI), recovery time or pain were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers were involved in data extraction and risk of bias (ROB) assessment using the Cochrane tool (one reviewer extracted/assessed the data, and the second reviewer checked it). Dichotomous data were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel method with random-effects to generate a risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. Continuous data were pooled using the inverse-variance method with random-effects and expressed as a mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: 8969 records were retrieved and nine RCTs (61 records) were ultimately included (n=8818 participants). Two RCTs recruited high-risk patients, two RCTs recruited intermediate-risk patients, two RCTs recruited low-risk patients, one RCT recruited high-risk (≥70 years) or any-risk (≥80 years) patients; and two RCTs recruited all-risk or 'operable' patients. While there was no overall change in the risk of dying from any cause (30 day: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.22; ≤1 year: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; 5 years: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.22), cardiovascular mortality (30 day: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.39; ≤1 year: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.06; 2 years: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.12), or any type of stroke (30 day: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.14;≤1 year: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.23; 5 years: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.30), the risk of several clinical outcomes was significantly decreased (major bleeding, AKI, NOW-AF) or significantly increased (major vascular complications, PPM implantation) for TAVI vs SAVR. TAVI was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay vs SAVR (MD -3.08 days, 95% CI -4.86 to -1.29; 4 RCTs, n=2758 participants). Subgroup analysis generally favoured TAVI patients receiving implantation via the transfemoral (TF) route (vs non-TF); receiving a balloon-expandable (vs self-expanding) valve; and those at low-intermediate risk (vs high risk). All RCTs were rated at high ROB, predominantly due to lack of blinding and selective reporting. CONCLUSIONS: No overall change in the risk of death from any cause or cardiovascular mortality was identified but 95% CIs were often wide, indicating uncertainty. TAVI may reduce the risk of certain side effects while SAVR may reduce the risk of others. Most long-term (5-year) results are limited to older patients at high surgical risk (ie, early trials), therefore more data are required for low risk populations. Ultimately, neither surgical technique was considered dominant, and these results suggest that every patient with SAS should be individually engaged in SDM to make evidence-based, personalised decisions around their care based on the various benefits and risks associated with each treatment. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019138171.

Procedural outcomes in patients with dual versus single antiplatelet therapy prior to transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

The impact of uninterrupted dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) on bleeding events among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has not been well studied. We conducted an analysis of 529 patients who underwent transfemoral TAVR in our centre and were receiving either DAPT or single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) prior to the procedure. Accordingly, patients were grouped into a DAPT or SAPT group. Following current guidelines, patients in the SAPT group were switched to DAPT for 90 days after the procedure. The primary endpoint of our analysis was the incidence of bleeding events at 30 days according to the VARC-2 classification system. Any VARC-2 bleeding complications were found in 153 patients (28.9%), while major/life-threatening or disabling bleeding events occurred in 60 patients (11.3%). Our study revealed no significant difference between the DAPT vs. SAPT group regarding periprocedural bleeding complications. Based on multivariable analyses, major bleeding (HR 4.59, 95% CI 1.64-12.83, p = 0.004) and life-threatening/disabling bleeding (HR 8.66, 95% CI 3.31-22.65, p < 0.001) events were significantly associated with mortality at 90 days after TAVR. Both pre-existing DAPT and SAPT showed a comparable safety profile regarding periprocedural bleeding complications and mortality at 90 days. Thus, DAPT can be safely continued in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR.

Outcome of Unilateral Pulmonary Edema after Minimal-Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery: 10-Year Follow-Up.

The study was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) at the University Medical Center Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany (reference number: AZ D 559/18) and registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (reference number: DRKS00022222). OBJECTIVE: Unilateral pulmonary edema (UPE) is a complication after minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS). We analyzed the impact of this complication on the short- and long-term outcome over a 10-year period. METHODS: We retrospectively observed 393 MIMVS patients between 01/2009 and 12/2019. The primary endpoint was a radiographically and clinically defined UPE within the first postoperative 24 h, secondary endpoints were 30-day and long-term mortality and the percentage of patients requiring ECLS. Risk factors for UPE incidence were evaluated by logistic regression, and risk factors for mortality in the follow-up period were assessed by Cox regression. RESULTS: Median EuroSCORE II reached 0.98% in the complete MIMVS group. Combined 30-day and in-hospital mortality after MIMVS was 2.0% with a 95, 93 and 77% survival rate after 1, 3 and 10 years. Seventy-two (18.3%) of 393 patients developed a UPE 24 h after surgery. Six patients (8.3%) with UPE required an extracorporeal life-support system. Logistic regression analysis identified a higher creatinine level, a worse LV function, pulmonary hypertension, intraoperative transfusion and a longer aortic clamp time as predictors for UPE. Combined in hospital mortality and 30-day mortality was slightly but not significantly higher in the UPE group (4.2 vs. 1.6%; p = 0.17). Predictors for mortality during follow-up were age ≥ 70 years, impaired RVF, COPD, drainage loss ≥ 800 mL and length of ventilation ≥ 48 h. During a median follow-up of 4.6 years, comparable survival between UPE and non-UPE patients was seen in our analysis after 5 years (89 vs. 88%; p = 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital outcome with UPE after MIMVS was not significantly worse compared to non-UPE patients, and no differences were observed in the long-term follow-up. However, prolonged aortic clamp time, worse renal and left ventricular function, pulmonary hypertension and transfusion are associated with UPE.

Frailty in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: prognostic value of the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is a hallmark of frailty, is common among elderly patients, and is a predictor of poor outcomes in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) is a simple and well-established screening tool to predict the risk of morbidity and mortality in elderly patients. In this study, we evaluated whether GNRI may be used in the risk stratification and management of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS: Patients with symptomatic severe AS (n = 953) who underwent transfemoral TAVR at the University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein Kiel, Germany, between 2010 and 2019 (development cohort) were divided into two groups: normal GNRI ≥ 98 (no nutrition-related risk; n = 618) versus low GNRI < 98 (at nutrition-related risk; n = 335). The results were validated in an independent (validation) cohort from another high-volume TAVR centre (n = 977). RESULTS: The low-GNRI group had a higher proportion of female patients (59.1% vs. 52.1%), higher median age (82.9 vs. 81.8 years), prevalence of atrial fibrillation (50.4% vs. 40.0%), median logistic EuroSCORE (17.5% vs. 15.0%) and impaired left ventricular function (<35%: 10.7% vs. 6.8%), lower median estimated glomerular filtration rate (50 vs. 57 mL/min/1.73 m2 ) and median albumin level (3.5 vs. 4.0 g/dL) compared with the normal-GNRI group. Among peri-procedural complications, Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) Stage 3 was more common in the low-GNRI group (3.6% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.002). After a mean follow-up of 21.1 months, all-cause mortality was significantly increased in the low-GNRI group compared with the normal-GNRI group (p < 0.001). This was confirmed in the validation cohort (p < 0.001). Low GNRI < 98 was identified as an independent risk factor for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.44, 95% CI 1.01-2.04, p = 0.043). Other independent risk factors included albumin level < median of 4.0 g/dL, high-sensitive troponin T in the highest quartile (> 45.0 pg/mL), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide in the highest quartile (> 3595 pg/mL), grade III-IV tricuspid regurgitation, pulmonary arterial hypertension, life-threatening bleeding, AKIN Stage 3 and disabling stroke. CONCLUSIONS: Low GNRI score was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality in patients undergoing TAVR, implying that this vulnerable group may benefit from improved preventive measures.