General Versus Local Anesthesia With Conscious Sedation in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: The Randomized SOLVE-TAVI Trial.

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice, local anesthesia with conscious sedation (CS) is performed in roughly 50% of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. However, no randomized data assessing the safety and efficacy of CS versus general anesthesia (GA) are available. METHODS: The SOLVE-TAVI (Comparison of Second-Generation Self-Expandable Versus Balloon-Expandable Valves and General Versus Local Anesthesia in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial is a multicenter, open-label, 2×2 factorial, randomized trial of 447 patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement comparing CS versus GA. The primary efficacy end point was powered for equivalence (equivalence margin 10% with significance level 0.05) and consisted of the composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, infection requiring antibiotic treatment, and acute kidney injury at 30 days. RESULTS: The primary composite end point occurred in 27.2% of CS and 26.4% of GA patients (rate difference, 0.8 [90% CI, -6.2 to 7.8]; Pequivalence=0.015). Event rates for the individual components were as follows: all-cause mortality, 3.2% versus 2.3% (rate difference, 1.0 [90% CI, -2.9 to 4.8]; Pequivalence<0.001); stroke, 2.4% versus 2.8% (rate difference, -0.4 [90% CI, -3.8 to 3.8]; Pequivalence<0.001); myocardial infarction, 0.5% versus 0.0% (rate difference, 0.5 [90% CI, -3.0 to 3.9]; Pequivalence<0.001), infection requiring antibiotics 21.1% versus 22.0% (rate difference, -0.9 [90% CI, -7.5 to 5.7]; Pequivalence=0.011); acute kidney injury, 9.0% versus 9.2% (rate difference, -0.2 [90% CI, -5.2 to 4.8]; Pequivalence=0.0005). There was a lower need for inotropes or vasopressors with CS (62.8%) versus GA (97.3%; rate difference, -34.4 [90% CI, -41.0 to -27.8]). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement, use of CS compared with GA resulted in similar outcomes for the primary efficacy end point. These findings suggest that CS can be safely applied for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02737150.

Cerebral Tissue Oxygen Saturation Is Enhanced in Patients following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Retrospective Study.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a relevant alteration in cerebral tissue oxygen saturation (rSO2) could be detected following TAVI. Retrospective data analysis included 275 patients undergoing TAVI between October 2016 and December 2020. Overall, rSO2 significantly increased following TAVI (64.6 ± 10% vs. 68.1 ± 10%, p < 0.01). However, a significant rise was only observed in patients with a preoperative rSO2 < 60%. Of the hemodynamic confounders studied, hemoglobin, mean arterial pressure and blood pH were lowered, while central venous pressure and arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) were slightly elevated (PaCO2: 39 (36−43) mmHg vs. 42 (37−47) mmHg, p = 0.03; pH: 7.41 (7.3−7.4) vs. 7.36 (7.3−7.4), p < 0.01). Multivariate linear regression modeling identified only hemoglobin as a predictor of altered rSO2. Patients with a EuroScore II above 4% and an extended ICU stay were found to have lower rSO2, while no difference was observed in patients with postoperative delirium or between the implanted valve types. Further prospective studies that eliminate differences in potential confounding variables are necessary to confirm the rise in rSO2. Future research should provide more information on the value of cerebral oximetry for identifying high-risk patients who will require further clinical interventions in the setting of the TAVI procedure.

Impact of Anesthesia Strategy and Valve Type on Clinical Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: The randomized SOLVE-TAVI (compariSon of secOnd-generation seLf-expandable vs. balloon-expandable Valves and gEneral vs. local anesthesia in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial compared newer-generation self-expanding valves (SEV) and balloon-expandable valves (BEV) as well as local anesthesia with conscious sedation (CS) and general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Both strategies showed similar outcomes at 30 days. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes during 1-year follow-up in the randomized SOLVE-TAVI trial. METHODS: Using a 2 × 2 factorial design 447 intermediate- to high-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to transfemoral TAVR using either the SEV (Evolut R, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota) or the BEV (Sapien 3, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) as well as CS or GA at 7 sites. RESULTS: In the valve-comparison strategy, rates of the combined endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, moderate or severe paravalvular leakage, and permanent pacemaker implantation were similar between the BEV and SEV group (n = 84, 38.3% vs. n = 87, 40.4%; hazard ratio: 0.94; 95% confidence interval: 0.70 to 1.26; p = 0.66) at 1 year. Regarding the anesthesia comparison, the combined endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and acute kidney injury occurred with similar rates in the GA and CS groups (n = 61, 25.7% vs. n = 54, 23.8%; hazard ratio: 1.09; 95% confidence interval: 0.76 to 1.57; p = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: In intermediate- to high-risk patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR, newer-generation SEV and BEV as well as CS and GA showed similar clinical outcomes at 1 year using a combined clinical endpoint. (SecOnd-generation seLf-expandable Versus Balloon-expandable Valves and gEneral Versus Local Anesthesia in TAVI [SOLVE-TAVI]; NCT02737150).

Real-world use of the sufentanil sublingual tablet system for patient-controlled management of acute postoperative pain: a prospective noninterventional study.

Objective: To evaluate the real-life effectiveness, safety, tolerability and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) of the sufentanil sublingual tablet system (SSTS) for postoperative pain management (POPM).Methods: This prospective, multicenter, noninterventional, study included adults with acute moderate to severe postoperative pain who self-administered sufentanil using the SSTS. Main outcome measures were pain intensity at rest (numerical rating scale [NRS]: 0 [no pain] to 10 [most intense pain imaginable]); most intense pain intensity (0-10); 4-point patient assessment of the pain control method ("excellent", "good", "fair", "poor"); patient satisfaction with the pain control level and the method of administration of pain medication (6-point scale: "extremely satisfied", "very satisfied", "satisfied", "dissatisfied", "very dissatisfied", "extremely dissatisfied"). Adverse drug reactions were recorded.Results: The SSTS reduced resting pain intensity in patients (n = 341) from a mean ± SD NRS score of 5.2 ± 2.3 (at SSTS handover) to 1.8 ± 1.6 (3rd day after handover). The proportion of patients with severe pain (for the PRO measure "most intense pain") decreased steadily during the 72 hours of treatment. Overall, 87.1% of the patients reported the method of pain control to be "good" or "excellent"; 91.8% reported being "extremely/very satisfied" or "satisfied" with the level of pain control; and 95.9% were at least satisfied with the method of pain medication administration. SSTS safety and tolerability was typical for opioids and as described in the SSTS Summary of Product Characteristics.Conclusions: The SSTS is a valuable option for real-life POPM and is effective in a wide range of surgical procedures.

Mitral valve leaflet repair with the new PASCAL system: early real-world data from a German multicentre experience.

AIMS: To examine the clinical experience and practical use of the PASCAL transcatheter valve repair system (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) and to report some of the first clinical results. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 18 consecutive patients with severe, symptomatic mitral regurgitation (MR) were included in this German multicentre registry. All patients underwent clinical, echocardiographic, and laboratory assessment prior to the PASCAL procedure and before hospital discharge. MR was classified as functional in 6 patients, degenerative in 2, and combined in 10. All except one received a single PASCAL implant. The preprocedural severe MR present in all patients was reduced: grade 0 in 4 (22.2%), grade I in 11 (61.1%), grade II in 3 (16.7%). The v-wave was significantly reduced from 31.7 ± 9.5 to 18 ± 7.7 mmHg (p < 0.001). Independent leaflet capture, performed in 4 (22.2%) of the patients, wide clasps, and the 10-mm central spacer are features of the PASCAL device to optimize mitral leaflet repair. There were no periprocedural complications. CONCLUSION: PASCAL is a safe and effective mitral valve repair device for the treatment of severe MR. Device-specific features allow valve repair tailored to the individual anatomy of the underlying mitral pathology in each patient.