Minimally invasive surgical aortic valve replacement versus transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation in low-risk octogenarians : Observational, retrospective and single-center study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare short-term and mid-term outcomes in low-risk octogenarian population treated with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (tf-TAVI) or minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (mini-AVR) for severe aortic stenosis. METHODS: In this single-center, retrospective cohort study we gathered data on low-risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons [STS] score < 4%) octogenarians before and after tf-TAVI and mini-AVR performed between January 2013 and May 2019; follow-up was completed in May 2022. Short-term outcomes were hospital length of stay, in-hospital all-cause mortality and other major postoperative outcomes. Mid-term clinical outcomes were 1­year and 3­year all-cause mortality. Propensity score-based matching was performed. RESULTS: In total 106 patients were matched, resulting in 53 pairs. In-hospital complications were similar between the matched groups of patients with the exception of mild and moderate paravalvular leak (mini-AVR vs. tf-TAVI: mild PVL: 3.8% vs. 45.3%, p < 0.001; moderate PVL: 0% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.4952) and of postprocedural acute kidney injury that was more frequent in mini-AVR group (mini-AVR vs. tf-TAVI: 22.6% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.023). Hospital length of stay (p = 0.239) and in-hospital mortality (p = 0.495) did not differ between groups. The 1-year and 3­year all-cause mortality Kaplan-Meier estimates were similar between mini-AVR and tf-TAVI. CONCLUSION: In the present study on low-risk octogenarians, transfemoral TAVI and minimally invasive AVR showed comparable short-term and mid-term results. Both procedures are deemed safe and effective. Larger RCTs will be required to determine which low-risk patients will benefit most from TAVI.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation with fracturing of a failed small surgical aortic bioprosthesis: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Failure of a small surgical aortic bioprosthesis represents a challenging clinical scenario with valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) often resulting in patient-prosthesis mismatch. Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) performed as a part of the ViV TAVI has recently emerged as an alternative approach with certain types of surgical bioprostheses. CASE SUMMARY: An 81-year-old woman with a history of three surgical aortic valve procedures presented with heart failure. Aortic bioprosthesis degeneration with severe stenosis and moderate regurgitation was found. The patient was deemed a high-risk surgical candidate and the heart team decided that ViV TAVI was the preferred treatment option. Due to the very small 19 mm stented surgical aortic bioprosthesis Mitroflow 19 mm (Sorin Group, Italy) we decided to perform BVF as a part of ViV TAVI to prevent patient-prosthesis mismatch. Since this was the first BVF procedure in our centre, an ex vivo BVF of the same kind of bioprosthetic valve was performed first. Subsequently, successful BVF with implantation of Evolut R 23 mm (Medtronic, USA) self-expandable transcatheter valve was performed. Excellent haemodynamic result was achieved and no periprocedural complications were present. The patient had an immediate major improvement in clinical status and remains asymptomatic after 6 months. DISCUSSION: Bioprosthetic valve fracture together with ViV TAVI is a safe and effective emerging technique for treatment of small surgical aortic bioprosthesis failure. Bioprosthetic valve fracture allows marked oversizing of implanted self-expandable transcatheter aortic valves, leading to excellent haemodynamic and clinical results. An ex vivo BVF can serve as an important preparatory step when introducing the new method.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in a cancer patient denied for surgical aortic valve replacement-a case report.

BACKGROUND: Aortic stenosis is a progressive disease. Symptomatic aortic stenosis has a poor prognosis, which is frequently worse than that of a malignant disease. Cancer patients with severe aortic stenosis may be denied for optimal oncologic treatment because of high operative risk and for aortic valve replacement because of the significant comorbidity itself. In patients treated with medical therapy alone, 1-year-mortality exceeds 50 %. CASE REPORT: A 71-year-old woman with well-differentiated, surgically treated, ovarian carcinoma and two relapses treated with chemo- and radiotherapy presented with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (aortic valve area 0.6 cm(2), mean gradient 60 mmHg). The tumor was in stagnation. She was rejected for surgical valve replacement. We implanted a 29 mm CoreValve aortic prosthesis via transfemoral approach. After the procedure haemodynamic variables remain stable, patient's exertional capacity is excellent. CONCLUSION: Aortic valve replacement improves survival of cancer patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVI) is a treatment option in inoperable patients and patients at high surgical risk. Symptoms should not be confused for the progression of the malignant disease. In patient selection emphasis should be made on their frailty and futility. Eligible patients must have a life expectancy of at least 1 year. Final decision has to be made by a multidisciplinary heart team. TAVI can reduce treatment risk and facilitate the oncologic treatment.