The Management of Coronary Artery Disease in TAVR Patients.

About half of the transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) recipients exhibit some degree of coronary artery disease (CAD), and controversial results have been reported regarding the impact of the presence and severity of CAD on clinical outcomes post-TAVR. In addition to coronary angiography, promising data has been recently reported on the use of both cardiac computed tomography angiography and the functional invasive assessment of coronary lesions whether by FFR or iFR in the work-up pre-TAVR. Despite mitigated available data, percutaneous revascularization of significant coronary lesions has been the routine strategy in TAVR candidates with CAD. Additionally, scarce data exists on the incidence, characteristics and management of coronary events post-TAVR, and increasing interest exists on the potential coronary access challenges in patients requiring coronary angiography/intervention post-TAVR. This review provides an updated overview of the knowledge of CAD in TAVR recipients, focusing on its prevalence, clinical impact, pre- and post-procedural evaluation and management.

Catheter versus surgical approach for the management of concomitant aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease: An inverse probability treatment weighting analysis.

BACKGROUND: Two therapeutic strategies are available when aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease coexist: a transcatheter approach, with percutaneous coronary intervention followed by transcatheter aortic valve replacement; and a surgical approach, consisting of surgical aortic valve replacement combined with coronary artery bypass graft. AIM: We sought to compare the outcomes of these two strategies. METHODS: The study population consisted of 241 patients who benefited from aortic valve replacement and coronary revascularization (transcatheter, n=150; surgery, n=91). RESULTS: Patients in the transcatheter population were older (83.5 vs. 71.8years; P<0.001) and had a higher Logistic EuroSCORE (11.1% vs. 5.7%; P<0.001). At 30days postprocedure, patients who had surgery exhibited more life-threatening bleedings (12.1% vs 4.5%; P=0.034), acute kidney injury (12.1% vs. 1.3%; P<0.001) and atrial fibrillation (55.6% vs. 8.7%; P<0.001). After a median follow-up of 27months, the risk of major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events did not differ significantly between the two strategies (hazard ratio [HR] 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-2.04; P=0.07), whereas estimated glomerular filtration rate<60mL/min (HR 2.22, 95% CI 1.58-3.12; P<0.001), peripheral artery disease (HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.37-2.91; P<0.001) and left ventricular ejection fraction<50% (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.12-2.55; P=0.012) were associated with a negative prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, patients with aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease treated by catheter were older and had a higher co-morbidity burden than those treated by surgery. The surgical strategy was associated with a higher rate of 30-day complications, but long-term outcomes were similar between the two strategies.

Radiation Exposure During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Impact of Arterial Approach and Prosthesis Type.

BACKGROUND: The impact of novel alternative access and valve type on radiation exposure during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has not yet been evaluated. This study sought to determine the impact of a transarterial approach and prosthesis type on physician and patient exposure to radiation during TAVR. METHODS: This was a prospective study including 140 consecutive patients undergoing TAVR by transfemoral (n = 102) or transcarotid (TC) (n = 38) access at 2 centers. Implanted valves were the self-expanding Evolut R/PRO system (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN; n = 38) and the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA; n = 102). The primary endpoint was first operator radiation exposure. The secondary endpoint was patient radiation exposure. RESULTS: First operator radiation exposure was 4-fold greater during TC TAVR (P < .001). The use of a self-expanding valve was associated with a longer x-ray time (P = .015) and a 2-fold greater first operator radiation dose (P = .018). Patient radiation dose was not significantly affected by arterial approach (P = .055) or valve type (P = .095). After adjustment for potential confounders, the TC approach remained associated with a 174.8% (95% confidence interval, 80.6-318.3, P < .001) increase in first operator radiation dose, whereas the use of a self-expanding valve no longer influenced the first operator dose (P = .630). CONCLUSIONS: TC access and the use of a self-expanding valve were associated with a 4- and 2-fold greater first operator radiation exposure during TAVR procedures, respectively. Unlike the arterial approach, the effect of bioprosthesis type on radiation exposure was mainly related to x-ray time and was no longer significant after adjustment.

Comparison of clinical outcomes after transcarotid and transsubclavian versus transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A propensity-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transcarotid and trans-subclavian access routes are increasingly used as alternative approaches for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) when transfemoral access is not suitable. However, concerns remain about the risk of periprocedural stroke and long-term outcomes following transcarotid/trans-subclavian TAVI. AIMS: The present study sought to compare early and long-term outcomes of transcarotid/trans-subclavian TAVI versus transfemoral TAVI after propensity-score matching. METHODS: The 260 patients who underwent TAVI through a transfemoral (n=220), transcarotid (n=32) or trans-subclavian (n=8) approach at our institution over a 4-year period were identified. A 1:1 matching based on propensity score was performed, and led to a study population of 80 patients (40 transfemoral and 40 transcarotid/trans-subclavian). Primary endpoints were early complications; secondary endpoints were long-term outcomes. RESULTS: There were no differences in the baseline characteristics of the two groups. At 30 days after TAVI there were no significant differences between transfemoral and transcarotid/trans-subclavian TAVI in terms of death rates (5% vs 5%, respectively; P=1.00) and stroke rates (5% vs 2.5%, respectively; P=1.00). After a median follow-up of 21 months, the risk of death (P=0.95), stroke (P=0.82) and myocardial infarction (P=0.16) did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: After propensity-score matching, no significant differences in early and long-term outcomes were observed between transfemoral and transcarotid/trans-subclavian TAVI. These findings should encourage heart teams to consider a transcarotid or trans-subclavian approach when transfemoral access is unavailable.

Exposure to Ionizing Radiation in Patients Undergoing Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is currently becoming an alternative to surgical valve replacement for patients at low risk, a population that is likely to experience an increase in the radiation-induced cancer risk following TAVI. We aimed to evaluate the overall exposure to ionizing radiation in patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI, including the procedure itself as well as the procedures performed in the preintervention work-up and the post-TAVI interventions. All patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI for symptomatic aortic stenosis in our center over a 26 months period were included. Dosimetric indicators from preprocedural coronary angiography and computed tomography (CT), the TAVI procedure, and any postprocedural interventions (electrophysiology study and/or pacemaker implantation) were collected and converted into an effective dose. A total of 119 transfemoral TAVI procedures were included. The mean cumulative effective dose (ED) was 37.3 mSv. Three irradiating procedures were necessary for 84 patients (71% of the population, i.e., coronary angiography, CT scan and the TAVI procedure itself), whereas 30 patients (25%) required a fourth procedure, and 5 required a fifth (4%). The majority of the dose was from the CT, while only 11% of the dose derived from the TAVI procedure itself. In conclusion, overall exposure to ionizing radiation for patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI seems acceptable, and the majority of the overall ED comes from the CT scan.

Abdominal aorta tortuosity on computed tomography identifies patients at risk of complications during transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is now indicated in patients at intermediate surgical risk and will probably soon be indicated in patients at low surgical risk, for whom the occurrence of serious procedural complications is not acceptable. AIMS: We aimed to investigate whether simple arterial variables from computed tomography scanning can predict the occurrence of severe early complications in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR. METHODS: All patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis treated by transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement in our centre, and for whom computed tomography images were available, were included. An exhaustive analysis of preprocedural computed tomography scans was performed retrospectively, in search of arterial tortuosity and vascular calcifications. The primary endpoint was a composite 30-day safety endpoint. RESULTS: Overall, 175 patients were included. The primary endpoint was observed in 60 patients (35%). Abdominal aorta tortuosity was identified in 28 patients (16%) and was strongly associated with the occurrence of a complication (adjusted odds ratio 2.7, 95% confidence interval 1.1-6.6; P=0.03). There was no significant association between iliofemoral tortuosity or vascular calcification and the occurrence of complications. CONCLUSIONS: A tortuous abdominal aorta was found to be a predictor of the occurrence of a complication in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement. This computed tomography variable should therefore be taken into account when choosing the approach, especially for patients at intermediate and low surgical risk.