In recent years, the number of interventions for valvular heart disease has been increasing day by day, and it has become a hot topic in the field of cardiovascular surgery. Given the aging global population and trends in the prevalence of valvular disease and the broadening of indications for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), a breakthrough of 130000 TAVR procedures is expected by 2026. In the new technology development period, the development potential and technical advantages of heart valve interventional therapy should be faced squarely. This paper focuses on key issues such as comparison of outcomes after TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), prosthetic valve endocarditis after TAVR, and broadening of indications for TAVR, as well as recommendations on how surgeons face the era of TAVR. We hope that this article will help and attract the attention of cardiac surgeons.
In recent years, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has developed rapidly in China, and the number and quality of operations have increased significantly. TAVR has become an important treatment strategy for patients with severe aortic stenosis and regurgitation following surgical aortic valve replacement. Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is one of the main complications after TAVR, but the incidence of TAVR-related PPM is significantly lower than surgical aortic valve replacement. Most studies believe that PPM has no significant effect on the clinical prognosis of most patients after TAVR, and only increases postoperative mortality in a specific population. This article will review the incidence, influencing factors, impact on clinical prognosis and related coping strategies of PPM after TAVR.
For patients with aortic valve disease who require replacement of their native valve, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has been the standard of care. Due to the hemorrhage and thromboembolic risks of long-term anticoagulation therapy for mechanical prosthesis, bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) has a trend to be used in younger patients, which raising the concern for the durability of bioprosthetic valves. The newly published 5-year outcomes of PERIGON trial, with no structural valve deterioration, again demonstrated the favorable durability of the new generation bioprosthetic valves, further providing the evidence of using bioprosthetic AVR in younger patients. At the meantime, the rapid progress of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has brought a new treatment option. For younger patients with low risks, choosing SAVR or TAVI becomes a critical decision. This paper reviews the outcomes of PERIGON trial and its implications to the clinical practice and research of bioprosthetic AVR.
It has been 20 years since the first transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was performed internationally in 2002, and the development of TAVR technology in China has also been more than 10 years. The reliability of TAVR has been clinically proven, and it has also brought good benefits to patients with aortic stenosis. With the gradual progress of technology, TAVR has a trend to surpass surgical aortic valve replacement and become the mainstream surgery for patients with aortic stenosis. This article will review the relevant issues in the development of TAVR technology in recent years, based on existing research, and provide certain clinical references for the future development of TAVR technology.
Objective To compare and analyze the early- to mid-term outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) combined with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) combined with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of significant aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods The data of patients with significant AS and CAD who underwent surgical treatment at Central China Fuwai Hospital of Zhengzhou University from January 2018 to July 2023 were collected. These patients were divided into a TAVR+PCI group and a SAVR+CABG group according to the operation method. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to select patients with close clinical baseline characteristics, and the early- to mid-term outcomes of the two groups were compared. Results A total of 272 patients were enrolled, including 208 males and 64 females, with a mean age of 64.16±8.24 years. There were 47 patients in the TAVR+PCI group and 225 patients in the SAVR+CABG group. After 1∶1 PSM, 32 pairs were selected. There was no statistical difference in baseline data between the two groups (P>0.05). Compared with the SAVR+CABG group, the TAVR+PCI group had significantly shorter operative time, mechanical ventilation time, ICU stay, postoperative hospital stay, and less intraoperative bleeding, and significantly lower postoperative transfusion and complete revascularization rates (P<0.05). The differences in the rates of postoperative in-hospital death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and other complications between the two groups were not statistically significant (P>0.05), and the differences in the rates of severe perivalvular leakage, death, or readmission in the mid-term follow-up were not statistically significant (P>0.05). Conclusion In patients with significant AS and CAD, the early- and mid-term rates of death and complications were similar between those treated with TAVR+PCI and SAVR+CABG, and TAVR+PCI is a safe alternative to SAVR+CABG.
ObjectiveTo compare the early clinical efficacy and safety of transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TA-TAVI) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). MethodsA retrospective study was conducted on patients with severe AS admitted to the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of University of Science and Technology of China from January 2020 to March 2024. According to the surgical method, patients were divided into a SAVR group and a TA-TAVI group, and the clinical data of the two groups were compared. ResultsA total of 71 patients were included, with 45 in the SAVR group, including 33 males and 12 females, aged 16-75 (60.89±10.88) years; 26 in the TA-TAVI group, including 15 males and 11 females, aged 61-83 (72.85±5.53) years. The results showed that postoperative aortic valve transvalvular flow velocity (2.31±0.38 m/s vs. 2.60±0.50 m/s, P=0.019) and transvalvular pressure gradient (21.09±6.03 mm Hg vs. 28.20±10.79 mm Hg, P=0.001) in the TA-TAVI group were lower than those in the SAVR group. In terms of left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, both preoperative (56.73±7.74 mm vs. 52.36±7.00 mm, P=0.017) and postoperative (52.61±7.18 mm vs. 48.04±4.78 mm, P=0.010) values in the TA-TAVI group were larger than those in the SAVR group. In terms of left ventricular ejection fraction, the preoperative value in the TA-TAVI group was lower than that in the SAVR group (58.00%±13.84% vs. 64.87%±7.63%, P=0.026), but there was no statistical difference between the two groups after surgery (P=0.670). The operation time and drainage volume on the first day after surgery in the TA-TAVI group were shorter or lower than those in the SAVR group (P<0.05). There was no statistical difference between the two groups in the postoperative hospital stay, ICU stay, or postoperative mechanical ventilation time (P>0.05). In addition, no serious complications occurred in patients after SAVR, while perivalvular leakage (2 patients), third-degree atrioventricular block (1 patient), and death (3 patients) occurred in the TA-TAVI group. ConclusionFor elderly patients with severe AS and poor cardiac function, TA-TAVI technology has minimal surgical trauma, high safety and effectiveness, and is a safe and effective treatment option besides traditional surgical operations.