Long-Term Impact of Cardiac Damage Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Extravalvular cardiac damage caused by aortic stenosis affects prognosis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The long-term impact of changes in cardiac damage in response to relief from mechanical obstruction has not been fully investigated. OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to investigate changes in cardiac damage early after TAVR and the prognostic impact of the cardiac damage classification after TAVR. METHODS: In this single-center observational study, patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR were retrospectively evaluated for cardiac damage before and after TAVR and classified into 5 stages of cardiac damage (0-4). RESULTS: Among 1,863 patients undergoing TAVR between January 2007 and June 2022, 56 patients (3.0%) were classified as stage 0, 225 (12.1%) as stage 1, 729 (39.1%) as stage 2, 388 (20.8%) as stage 3, and 465 (25.0%) as stage 4. Cardiac stage changed in 47.7% of patients (improved: 30.1% in stages 1-4 and deteriorated: 24.7% in stages 0-3) early after TAVR. Five-year all-cause mortality was associated with cardiac damage both at baseline (HRadjusted: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.24-1.44; P < 0.001 for linear trend) and after TAVR (HRadjusted: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.30-1.51; P < 0.001 for linear trend). Five-year all-cause mortality was stratified by changes in cardiac damage (improved, unchanged, or worsened) in patients with cardiac stage 2, 3, and 4 (log-rank P < 0.001 for stage 2, 0.005 for stage 3, and <0.001 for stage 4). CONCLUSIONS: The extent of extra-aortic valve cardiac damage before and after TAVR and changes in cardiac stage early after TAVR have important prognostic implications during long-term follow-up. (SwissTAVI Registry; NCT01368250).

Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients at Five Years.

BACKGROUND: A previous analysis in this trial showed that among patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, the rate of the composite end point of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year was significantly lower with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) than with surgical aortic-valve replacement. Longer-term outcomes are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either TAVR or surgery. The first primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization related to the valve, the procedure, or heart failure. The second primary end point was a hierarchical composite that included death, disabling stroke, nondisabling stroke, and the number of rehospitalization days, analyzed with the use of a win ratio analysis. Clinical, echocardiographic, and health-status outcomes were assessed through 5 years. RESULTS: A total of 1000 patients underwent randomization: 503 patients were assigned to undergo TAVR, and 497 to undergo surgery. A component of the first primary end point occurred in 111 of 496 patients in the TAVR group and in 117 of 454 patients in the surgery group (Kaplan-Meier estimates, 22.8% in the TAVR group and 27.2% in the surgery group; difference, -4.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.9 to 1.3; P = 0.07). The win ratio for the second primary end point was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.51; P = 0.25). The Kaplan-Meier estimates for the components of the first primary end point were as follows: death, 10.0% in the TAVR group and 8.2% in the surgery group; stroke, 5.8% and 6.4%, respectively; and rehospitalization, 13.7% and 17.4%. The hemodynamic performance of the valve, assessed according to the mean (±SD) valve gradient, was 12.8±6.5 mm Hg in the TAVR group and 11.7±5.6 mm Hg in the surgery group. Bioprosthetic-valve failure occurred in 3.3% of the patients in the TAVR group and in 3.8% of those in the surgery group. CONCLUSIONS: Among low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR or surgery, there was no significant between-group difference in the two primary composite outcomes. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02675114.).

Impacto del COVID-19 en pacientes con estenosis aórtica severa: análisis basado en inteligencia artificial / The impact of COVID-19 in patients with severe aortic stenosis: Artificial intelligence research

Introducción: La estenosis aórtica severa es una enfermedad mortal en caso de no ser intervenida. Este estudio pretende conocer el impacto de la pandemia por COVID-19 en la mortalidad de pacientes con estenosis severa durante la primera ola y compararlo con el mismo período del año anterior. Métodos: Se analizaron mediante software basado en inteligencia artificial todos los pacientes que acudieron al hospital en una región española durante la primera ola y en el año anterior, evaluándose la mortalidad comparada entre pacientes con estenosis aórtica severa con y sin COVID-19 durante la pandemia y la era pre-COVID. Se comparó la mortalidad en tres grupos diferentes. En cuanto al número de cirugías cardiacas, se observó una tendencia a la baja en los pacientes sin COVID-19 con respecto al mismo período del año anterior (p = 0,07), y un descenso significativo entre pacientes COVID-19 positivo y COVID-19 negativo. Resultados: Durante la primera ola, acudieron un 13,82% menos de pacientes. Un total de 1.112 tenían estenosis aórtica, de los cuales un 5,48% fueron COVID-19 positivo. La mortalidad fue mayor (p=0,01) en COVID-19 negativo durante la pandemia (4,37%) frente a los de la era pre-COVID-19 (2,57%); también lo fue en el grupo COVID-19 positivo (11,47%) frente a los COVID-19 negativo (4,37%) durante la primera ola (p=0,01). Se observó una tendencia a la disminución de cirugías (p=0,07) en los pacientes COVID-19 negativo durante la pandemia y disminuyeron significativamente en pacientes COVID-19 positivo, frente a los COVID-19 negativo (p=0,04). Conclusiones: El estudio reveló una disminución de los pacientes que acudieron al hospital y un exceso de mortalidad en pacientes con estenosis aórtica severa sin la infección durante la primera ola, frente al mismo período del año anterior; y también, en los pacientes COVID-19 positivo, frente a los COVID-19 negativo. (AU)

Introduction: Untreated, severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis is associated with an ominous diagnosis without intervention. This study aims to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mortality of patients with severe stenosis during the first wave and compare it with the same period last year. Methods: All patients who went to the hospitals in an Spanish region during the first wave, and in the same period of previous year, were analyzed using artificial intelligence-based software, evaluating the mortality of patients with severe aortic stenosis with and without COVID-19 during the pandemic and the pre-COVID era. Mortality of the 3 groups was compared. Regarding cardiac surgeries was a tendency to decrease (P=.07) in patients without COVID-19 between the pandemic and the previous period was observed. A significant decrease of surgeries between patients with COVID-19 and without COVID-19 was shown. Results: Data showed 13.82% less admitted patients during the first wave. A total of 1,112 of them had aortic stenosis and 5.48% were COVID-19 positive. Mortality was higher (P=.01), in COVID-19 negative during the pandemic (4.37%) versus those in the pre-COVID-19 era (2.57%); it was also in the COVID-19 positive group (11.47%), versus COVID-19 negative (4.37%) during the first wave (P=.01). Conclusions: The study revealed a decrease in patients who went to the hospital and an excess of mortality in patients with severe aortic stenosis without infection during the first wave, compared to the same period last year; and also, in COVID-19 positive patients versus COVID-19 negative. (AU)

Impact of Moderate Aortic Stenosis on Long-Term Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The clinical course of patients with moderate aortic stenosis (AS) remains incompletely defined. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to analyze the clinical course of moderate AS and compare it with other stages of the disease. METHODS: Multiple electronic databases were searched to identify studies on adult moderate AS. Random-effects models were used to derive pooled estimates. The primary endpoint was all-cause death. The secondary endpoints were cardiac death, heart failure, sudden death, and aortic valve replacement. RESULTS: Among a total of 25 studies (12,143 moderate AS patients, 3.7 years of follow-up), pooled rates per 100 person-years were 9.0 (95% CI: 6.9 to 11.7) for all-cause death, 4.9 (95% CI: 3.1 to 7.5) for cardiac death, 3.9 (95% CI: 1.9 to 8.2) for heart failure, 1.1 (95% CI: 0.8 to 1.5) for sudden death, and 7.2 (95% CI: 4.3 to 12.2) for aortic valve replacement. Meta-regression analyses detected that diabetes (P = 0.019), coronary artery disease (P = 0.017), presence of symptoms (P < 0.001), and left ventricle (LV) dysfunction (P = 0.009) were associated with a significant impact on the overall estimate of all-cause death. All-cause mortality was higher in patients with reduced LV ejection fraction (<50%) than with normal LV ejection fraction: 16.5 (95% CI: 5.2 to 52.3) and 4.2 (95% CI: 1.4 to 12.8) per 100 person-years, respectively. Compared with moderate AS, the incidence rate difference of all-cause mortality was -3.9 (95% CI: -6.7 to -1.1) for no or mild AS and +2.2 (95% CI: +0.8 to +3.5) for severe AS patients. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate AS appears to be associated with a mortality risk higher than no or mild AS but lower than severe AS, which increases in specific population subsets. The impact of early intervention in moderate AS patients having high-risk features deserves further investigation.

The 10-year horizon: Survival and structural valve degeneration in first-generation transcatheter aortic valves.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is an established treatment for high- or intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. As more low-risk patients are being treated, transcatheter heart valve durability is gaining importance. Data on structural valve deterioration beyond 8 years after transcatheter aortic valve replacement is limited. AIM: To evaluate the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with a follow-up of ≥10 years, focusing on survival and structural valve deterioration, according to the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions/European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery definitions. METHODS: Only patients with a follow-up of ≥ 10 years were included in this study (n=510). Using serial echocardiographic data, the cumulative incidences of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure were analysed. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used for predictor assessment. RESULTS: Mean age was 79.6±6.7 years, with a mean logistic EuroSCORE of 19.8±12.7%. Immediate procedural mortality was 2.9%, and 30-day mortality was 7.8%. Kaplan-Meier-estimated survival at 10 years was 10.3±1.5%. At 10 years, the cumulative incidences of severe and moderate structural valve deterioration were 4.3% and 13%, respectively, for the total population. The cumulative incidence of bioprosthetic valve failure at 10 years was 9.0%. There was a significant difference in the rates of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure depending on valve type: structural valve deterioration, SAPIEN 8.9% vs CoreValve 2.2% at 10 years (P=0.001); bioprosthetic valve failure, SAPIEN 13.9% vs CoreValve 6.7% at 10 years (P=0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure of early transcatheter heart valves was low at 10 years. The identified differences between valve types must be validated using current-generation devices in younger patients.

Effect of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement on All-Cause Mortality in Patients With Aortic Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement and is the treatment of choice for patients at high operative risk. The role of TAVI in patients at lower risk is unclear. Objective: To determine whether TAVI is noninferior to surgery in patients at moderately increased operative risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized clinical trial conducted at 34 UK centers, 913 patients aged 70 years or older with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and moderately increased operative risk due to age or comorbidity were enrolled between April 2014 and April 2018 and followed up through April 2019. Interventions: TAVI using any valve with a CE mark (indicating conformity of the valve with all legal and safety requirements for sale throughout the European Economic Area) and any access route (n = 458) or surgical aortic valve replacement (surgery; n = 455). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 1 year. The primary hypothesis was that TAVI was noninferior to surgery, with a noninferiority margin of 5% for the upper limit of the 1-sided 97.5% CI for the absolute between-group difference in mortality. There were 36 secondary outcomes (30 reported herein), including duration of hospital stay, major bleeding events, vascular complications, conduction disturbance requiring pacemaker implantation, and aortic regurgitation. Results: Among 913 patients randomized (median age, 81 years [IQR, 78 to 84 years]; 424 [46%] were female; median Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality risk score, 2.6% [IQR, 2.0% to 3.4%]), 912 (99.9%) completed follow-up and were included in the noninferiority analysis. At 1 year, there were 21 deaths (4.6%) in the TAVI group and 30 deaths (6.6%) in the surgery group, with an adjusted absolute risk difference of -2.0% (1-sided 97.5% CI, -∞ to 1.2%; P < .001 for noninferiority). Of 30 prespecified secondary outcomes reported herein, 24 showed no significant difference at 1 year. TAVI was associated with significantly shorter postprocedural hospitalization (median of 3 days [IQR, 2 to 5 days] vs 8 days [IQR, 6 to 13 days] in the surgery group). At 1 year, there were significantly fewer major bleeding events after TAVI compared with surgery (7.2% vs 20.2%, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.33 [95% CI, 0.24 to 0.45]) but significantly more vascular complications (10.3% vs 2.4%; adjusted HR, 4.42 [95% CI, 2.54 to 7.71]), conduction disturbances requiring pacemaker implantation (14.2% vs 7.3%; adjusted HR, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.43 to 2.94]), and mild (38.3% vs 11.7%) or moderate (2.3% vs 0.6%) aortic regurgitation (adjusted odds ratio for mild, moderate, or severe [no instance of severe reported] aortic regurgitation combined vs none, 4.89 [95% CI, 3.08 to 7.75]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients aged 70 years or older with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and moderately increased operative risk, TAVI was noninferior to surgery with respect to all-cause mortality at 1 year. Trial Registration: isrctn.com Identifier: ISRCTN57819173.

Cumulative incidence and predictors of acquired aortic stenosis in a large population of men followed for up to 43 years.

BACKGROUND: Acquired aortic stenosis (AS) increases with age and has high mortality without intervention. Factors predicting its development are unclear, although atherosclerotic factors are assumed to be involved. Our aim in this study is to estimate the lifetime cumulative incidence and predictors of AS in middle-aged men. METHODS: We included a random sample of men (n = 9998) born 1915-1925 in Gothenburg, Sweden. From them, 7,494 were examined and followed until a diagnosis of AS or death (maximum follow-up time 42.8 years). We identified AS diagnosis from the Swedish National Patient Registry and deaths from the Swedish Cause of Death Registry by using International Classification of Disease (ICD) diagnostic criteria. To study time-dependent relationships between AS and risk factors with death as the competing risk, we divided the cohort into three overlapping follow-up groups: 25-43, 30-43 and 35-43 years. We used age-adjusted Cox proportional hazards model to identify predictors of AS. RESULTS: The lifelong cumulative incidence of AS was 3.2%. At baseline, participants in the third group had a healthier lifestyle, lower body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, and serum cholesterol levels. Higher BMI, obesity, cholesterol, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, smoking and heredity for stroke were associated with AS. With BMI of 20-22.5 as a reference, hazard ratios of being diagnosed with AS for men with a baseline BMI of 25-27.5 kg/m2, 27.5-30 kg/m2 and > 30 kg/m2 were 1.99 (95% CI 1.12-3.55), 2.98 (95% CI 1.65-5.40) and 3.55 (95% CI 1.84-6.87), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The lifetime cumulative incidence of AS in middle-aged male population was 3.2%. Multiple atherosclerotic risk factors, particularly high BMI might be associated with a higher risk of developing AS.

Aortic valve repair for the treatment of rheumatic aortic valve disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Valvuloplasty for rheumatic aortic valve disease remains controversial. We conducted this study to explore whether aortic valvuloplasty is appropriate for the rheumatic population. A comprehensive search was conducted, and 7 eligible retrospective studies were identified from PubMed, Embase, Medline and Cochrane (up to April 7, 2020) according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data for hospital mortality, 5-year survival, 5-year reoperation, aortic insufficiency grade (AIG) and aortic valve gradient (AVG) were extracted by 2 independent reviewers and were analysed to evaluate the safety and availability of aortic valvuloplasty for rheumatic patients. The heterogeneity of the results was estimated using the Q test and I2 statistics. The fixed pooling model was used when I2 ≤ 50%; otherwise, the random pooling model was selected. 7 articles with 418 patients were included. The pooled hospital mortality, 5-year survival and 5-year reoperation rates were 3.2%, 94.5% and 9.9%, respectively. The heterogeneities of the weighted mean differences (WMD) values of the AIG and AVG between preoperation and postoperation were extremely high (I2 = 81.5%, p < 0.001 in AIG, I2 = 97.6%, p = 0.003 in AVG). Subgroup analysis suggested that the AIG and AVG were improved by 3.03 grades (I2 = 0%, p < 0.001) and 3.16 mmHg (I2 = 0%, p < 0.001) in the European group, respectively. In the Asian group, the AIG and AVG were improved by 2.57 grades (I2 = 0%, p < 0.001) and 34.39 mmHg (I2 = 0%, p < 0.001), respectively. Compared with the values at discharge, the AIG was increased by 0.15 grades (I2 = 0%, p = 0.031) and the AVG was still decreased by 2.07 mmHg (I2 = 0%, p = 0.031) at the time of follow up. Valvuloplasty is safe and effective to treat rheumatic aortic insufficiency and stenosis, and the duration of maintenance required to improve stenosis was longer than that of insufficiency.

Proposal criteria of paradoxical low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis for predicting prognosis in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: Paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient (PLF-LG) aortic stenosis (AS) is associated with poor prognosis in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). This study aimed to verify the conventional criteria of PLF-LG AS (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] > 50%, mean aortic valve pressure gradient [AVPG] < 40 mm Hg and stroke volume index [SVI] < 35 ml/m2 by measuring Doppler method) compatible for predicting prognosis in patients undergoing TAVI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 128 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI for AS with LVEF > 50% were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the hospital readmission due to heart failure (HRHF) and the secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality after hospital discharge. The patients were classified by both the conventional criteria of PLF-LG AS and the proposal criteria of PLF-LG AS if mean aortic valve pressure gradient (AVPG) < 40 mmHg and SVI by measuring Simpson's method < cut off value based on the ROC curve for predicting HRHF. RESULTS: According to the conventional criteria, only 6 patients were diagnosed with PLF-LG AS. However, according to the proposal criteria, 16 patients were diagnosed with PLF-LG AS. Fourteen patients developed HRHF during the follow-up period after TAVI. Based on the ROC curves, SVI by measuring Simpson's method (cut off value = 25 ml/m2) had higher sensitivity and specificity for predicting HRHF (AUC = 0.74, p = 0.0013) than SVI by measuring Doppler method (AUC = 0.63, p = 0.045). The multivariate analysis revealed that PLF-LG AS defined by the proposal criteria (HR: 5.25; 95% CI: 1.60-17.16; p = 0.0073) but not by the conventional criteria was independently associated with HRHF. PLF-LG AS defined by the conventional criteria and the proposal criteria were not associated with all-cause mortality in the univariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated that new criteria of PLF-LG AS defined as SVI < 25 ml/m2 measured by Simpson's method could predict HRHF in patients with severe AS who underwent TAVI.

Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Conservative Treatment in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis: The AVATAR Trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) represents a class I indication in symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, indications for early SAVR in asymptomatic patients with severe AS and normal left ventricular function remain debated. METHODS: The AVATAR trial (Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Conservative Treatment in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis) is an investigator-initiated international prospective randomized controlled trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of early SAVR in the treatment of asymptomatic patients with severe AS, according to common criteria (valve area ≤1 cm2 with aortic jet velocity >4 m/s or a mean transaortic gradient ≥40 mm Hg), and with normal left ventricular function. Negative exercise testing was mandatory for inclusion. The primary hypothesis was that early SAVR would reduce the primary composite end point of all-cause death, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned hospitalization for heart failure compared with a conservative strategy according to guidelines. The trial was designed as event-driven to reach a minimum of 35 prespecified events. The study was performed in 9 centers in 7 European countries. RESULTS: Between June 2015 and September 2020, 157 patients (mean age, 67 years; 57% men) were randomly allocated to early surgery (n=78) or conservative treatment (n=79). Follow-up was completed in May 2021. Overall median follow-up was 32 months: 28 months in the early surgery group and 35 months in the conservative treatment group. There was a total of 39 events, 13 in early surgery and 26 in the conservative treatment group. In the early surgery group, 72 patients (92.3%) underwent SAVR with operative mortality of 1.4%. In an intention-to-treat analysis, patients randomized to early surgery had a significantly lower incidence of primary composite end point than those in the conservative arm (hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.23-0.90]; P=0.02). There was no statistical difference in secondary end points, including all-cause mortality, first heart failure hospitalizations, major bleeding, or thromboembolic complications, but trends were consistent with the primary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In asymptomatic patients with severe AS, early surgery reduced a primary composite of all-cause death, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned hospitalization for heart failure compared with conservative treatment. This randomized trial provides preliminary support for early SAVR once AS becomes severe, regardless of symptoms. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02436655.

Sutureless versus transcatheter aortic valves in elderly patients with aortic stenosis at intermediate risk: A multi-institutional study.

OBJECTIVE: This multi-institutional study compares the long-term outcome of elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis and an intermediate risk profile undergoing sutureless versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation. METHODS: From 2008 to 2015, 967 elderly patients (>75 years) with intermediate risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 4%-8%) and isolated aortic stenosis were included in the study (sutureless valve = 481; transcatheter aortic valve implantation = 486). After propensity score matching, 2 matched groups of 291 patients were obtained. Transcatheter valves implanted in patients were the CoreValve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn), Edwards SAPIEN-XT (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, Calif), and Acurate-TA (Symetis, Lausanne, Switzerland). Primary end points included all-cause death at 30 days and 5 years. Secondary end points included early and 5-year incidence of composite adverse events (major adverse cardiovascular events: all-cause death, stroke, pacemaker implant, myocardial infarction, paravalvular leak ≥II, and reoperation). RESULTS: After matching, there were no substantial differences between groups. The 30-day mortality was significantly lower in the sutureless valve group (sutureless valve = 1.7% vs transcatheter aortic valve implantation = 5.5%; P = .024) and the rate of permanent pacemaker implantation (sutureless valve = 5.5% vs transcatheter aortic valve implantation = 10.7%, P = .032). Stroke/transient ischemic attack cumulative incidence at 5 years was 1.4% in the sutureless valve group and 5.3% in the transcatheter aortic valve implantation group (P = .010). The incidence of perivalvular leak grade II or greater was 1.3% in the sutureless valve group and 9.8% in the transcatheter aortic valve implantation group (P < .001). At 60 months follow-up, the all-cause death rate was lower in the sutureless valve group than in the transcatheter aortic valve implantation group (sutureless valve = 16.1% ± 4.1% vs transcatheter aortic valve implantation = 28.9% ± 5.3%, P = .006), and the major adverse cardiovascular event rate was lower in the sutureless valve group (sutureless valve = 23.5% ± 4.1% vs transcatheter aortic valve implantation = 39.0% ± 5.6%, P = .002). Multivariable Cox regression identified transcatheter aortic valve implantation as an independent predictor for 5-year mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 1.86; confidence interval, 1.09-3.18; P = .022) (hazard ratio, 1.73; confidence interval, 1.13-2.73; P = .010). CONCLUSIONS: Sutureless valves improved the outcomes of aortic stenosis in elderly patients with an intermediate risk profile when compared with transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in this subset population should be evaluated in further controlled randomized trials with sutureless valve use in a comparative cohort.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch affects late survival after valve surgery for severe aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: The effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) on late survival after aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patient with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) remains unclear. Also, late follow-up in previous studies is confined to only one decade. We aimed to determine the effect of PPM on late survival after isolated AVR for symptomatic severe AS during 25 years of follow-up. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to determine late survival in 404 consecutive patients with moderate PPM (N.=86), severe (N.=11), or no/mild PPM (N.=307) after isolated AVR for symptomatic severe AS during a mean follow-up of 25.0±2.9 years. Moderate, severe, and no/mild PPM were defined as indexed effective orifice area of >0.65≤0.85, ≤0.65, and >0.85 cm2/m2, respectively. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify possible independent predictors of decreased late survival, including moderate or severe PPM. RESULTS: Late survival of patients with severe PPM was worse in comparison with those with no/mild PPM: 7.4±2.6 (95% confidence interval 2.2-12.5) vs. 13.6±0.5 (95% confidence interval 12.6-14.6) years, respectively; P=0.020. Late survival of patients with moderate PPM was similar to those with no/mild PPM. Severe PPM was an independent predictor of decreased late survival: hazards ratio 4.002 (95% confidence interval 1.869-8.569); P<0.001. Moderate PPM was not an independent predictor of decreased late survival. CONCLUSIONS: Severe PPM was independently associated with decreased late survival after isolated AVR for symptomatic severe AS during a mean follow-up of 25.0±2.9 years. Therefore, severe PPM should be prevented as much as possible.

Impact of the recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction after TAVI on mortality in patients with aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of transvalvular aortic valve implantation (TAVI) on the outcomes of the patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS), and predict the effect of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and cardiac structural recovery on mortality after the TAVI in patients with different stage of LV function. METHODS: Out of 191 patients, 151 consecutive patients in 3 centers were evaluated for outcome analysis. Patients were classified into 3 subgroups as AS with reduced ejection fraction (ASrEF) (LVEF <40%), AS with mildly reduced EF (ASmrEF) (LVEF 40-49%) and AS with preserved EF (ASpEF) (LVEF ≥50%). RESULTS: The mean follow-up period was 19.4±12.4 (up to 54) months. All-cause mortality was not different among all 3 groups. (p=0.901). In multivariate analysis, stroke volume index (SVI) (Exp(B): 0.039, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.011-0.013, p<0.001), baseline blood urea nitrogen (Exp(B): 1.022, 95% CI: 1.006-1.038, p=0.006), and percent LVEF change after TAVI (d-LVEF) (Exp(B): 0.046, 95% CI: 0.004-0.610, p=0.046) were the independent predictors for mortality after TAVI. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that the cutoff value of "≤10%" for d-LVEF had sensitivity of 50%, specificity of 75%, and an area under the curve of 0.72 in predicting mortality in patients with SVI <35 mL/m2. CONCLUSION: Improvement of LVEF after TAVI, which reflected the marked LV reverse remodeling, has an impact on the prediction of the survival in patients with AS, and this is more prominent in patients with low SVI.