ObjectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve stenosis (TAV) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).MethodsA computer-based search in PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI and Wanfang databases from their date of inception to March 2019 was conducted. Two reviewers independently screened the articles, extracted data and evaluated their quality. RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.0 softwares were used for meta-analysis.ResultsThe selected 15 cohort studies contained 45 770 patients, including 1 500 of BAV patients and 44 270 of TAV patients. The results showed that no statistical difference was found in postoperative in-hospital mortality [OR=1.29, 95%CI (0.91, 1.83), P=0.15], 30-day mortality [OR=1.23, 95%CI (0.86, 1.77), P=0.25], and 1-year mortality [OR=1.14, 95%CI (0.87, 1.50), P=0.33] between the two groups. The surgical success rate [OR=0.57, 95%CI (0.44, 0.74), P<0.01], postoperative bleeding events [OR=0.72, 95%CI (0.58, 0.91), P<0.01] and postoperative vascular injury [OR=0.68, 95%CI (0.47, 0.97), P=0.03] of patients in the BAV group were lower than those in the TAV group. The incidence of paravalvular leak in the BAV group was higher than that in the TAV group [OR=1.47, 95%CI (1.13, 1.90), P<0.01]. No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of conversion to surgery, postoperative myocardial infarction, postoperative renal failure, postoperative neurologic events, postoperative valve gradient difference and pacemaker implantation.ConclusionCompared with TAV, the application of TAVR in BAV patients is feasible and effective.
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been confirmed to be safety and efficacy for high-risk elderly aortic stenosis, and the clinical effect of TAVR for medium and low-risk aortic stenosis is not worse than that of surgery. The development of surgical techniques and instruments has made cardiologists attempt to broaden the surgical indications. Many elderly and high-risk patients with pure native aortic regurgitation have been treated “off label” with similar techniques, completing artificial valve replacement, restoring valve function and improving the prognosis. However, due to the high requirements of surgical techniques and surgical complications, there is a lack of randomized controlled studies to confirm its safety and effectiveness. Unlike aortic stenosis, native aortic regurgitation presents unique challenges for transcatheter valves. In this article, the authors review current advances in the treatment of aortic valve regurgitation with TAVR.
In 2020, due to the impact of the novel coronavirus epidemic, the development of transcatheter heart valve therapy has been shown to slow down, but there are still many aspects worth noting. The indication of monoclonal antibody after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) should be further clarified. Low surgical risk patients were included in TAVR relative indications. Mitraclip G4 was approved by CE. The indication of atrial septal occlusion after mitraclip should be further clarified. The technique of coaptation augmentation is expected to become a new method of mitral valve interventional repair. Tendyne transcatheter mitral valve was approved by European Union. Transcatheter tricuspid valve treatment equipments, TriClip and PASCAL obtained CE mark. TAVR technology is being popularized rapidly in China, and what’s more, balloon dilated valve Sapien 3 and new recyclable repositioning valve system-Venus plus have entered the domestic market. A number of mitral valve therapeutic instruments have appeared one after another, and China's first tricuspid valve lux has completed its FIM research. Finally, with the improvement of devices and technology in the future, interventional therapy of heart valve is expected to benefit more patients.
ObjectiveTo compare and analyze the clinical effects of two kinds of frame design valves after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 124 patients who underwent TAVR and were followed up for 1 year. There were 71 males and 53 females aged 75.57±6.21 years. These patients were treated with Venus-A or Edwards Sapien aortic valves. The hemodynamics and cardiac function of these two kinds of transcatheter aortic valves (THV) were evaluated by echocardiography. The 30-day mortality and 1-year clinical effect of the patients were calculated.ResultsEight-one patients used Venus-A valve and 43 patients used Edwards Sapien valve. The aortic valve transaortic pressure gradient was reduced and the rate of perivalvular leakage was low (both 2.6%) in both groups, and there was no statistical difference between the two groups. The implantation rate of permanent pacemaker was 17.3% and 11.6%, respectively. The 1-month survival (94.0% and 93.0%) and 1-year survival (94.0% and 91.0%) rates were not statistically different.ConclusionThe two groups of THV with different stent structures have good short-term clinical effect and low implantation rate of permanent pacemaker.
The advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has brought up a new treatment option for patients with severe aortic valve disease. However, with the continuous expansion of surgical indications, problems such as structural valve deterioration caused by biological prosthesis have become increasingly prominent. In the newly announced 5-year follow-up results of COMMENCE (SAVR) trial, the aortic bioprosthesis using the new RESILIA biotissue material demonstrated extraordinary clinical safety, efficacy and durability with zero structural valve deterioration and excellent hemodynamic evaluation results. As a result, patients with valvular heart disease have more diverse therapeutic options. However, the choice between surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and TAVR, biological prosthesis and mechanical prosthesis, etc, has become more and more prominent, which brings more difficulties to clinicians. This paper reviews the research background, 5-year follow-up results of COMMENCE trial and the implications for aortic valve surgery in China.
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a well-established treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis. At present, TAVR has already shown noninferiority and even superiority to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients deemed at high or intermediate risk for SAVR. However, the long-term follow-up results of the randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety between TAVR and SAVR are still lacking in those patients who are at low risk for SAVR. This paper gives an overview and reviews results of the Evolut Low Risk trial and interprets its implications for transcatheter therapy in aortic valve diseases.
ObjectiveTo assess outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for pure native aortic valve regurgitation.MethodsA total of 129 patients underwent transfemoral TAVR in Fuwai Hospital from May 2019 to October 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 83 males and 46 females with an average age of 72.26±8.97 years. The patients were divided into a pure native aortic valve regurgitation group (17 patients) and an aortic valve stenosis group (112 patients).ResultsThe incidence of valve in valve was higher in the pure native aortic valve regurgitation group (47.0% vs. 16.1%, P<0.01). There was no statistical difference between the two groups in conversion to surgery, intraoperative use of extracorporeal circulation, intraoperative left ventricular rupture, postoperative use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), peripheral vascular complications, disabled stroke, death, or pacemaker implantation. There was no statistical difference in the diameter of annulus (25.75±2.21 mm vs. 24.70±2.90 mm, P=0.068) or diameter of outflow tract (25.82±3.75 mm vs. 25.37±3.92 mm, P=0.514) between the pure native aortic valve regurgitation group and the aortic valve stenosis group.ConclusionTransfemoral TAVR is a feasible method for patients with pure native aortic valve regurgitation. The diameter of annulus plane, the diameter of outflow tract and the shape of outflow tract should be evaluated.
Objective To explore the clinical effects of emergency transcatheter aortic replacement (TAVR) on the treatment of patients with acute refractory heart failure or cardiogenic shock secondary to severe aortic stenosis during hospitalization. Methods The study selected 44 patients from 8 heart valve centers from January 2018 to January 2021. All patients received emergency TAVR treatment. The patients’ baseline clinical data, cardiac ultrasound indicators, and postoperative hospital stay were collected. Paired t-test and McNemar test were used to compare and analyze the preoperative and postoperative cardiac ultrasound indexes, moderate to severe aortic stenosis, and cardiac function. Results The average age of the patients was (72.0±7.9) years. Valve displacement occurred in one patient during the operation, and the surgical success rate was 97.7%. Four cases died during hospitalization, and the mortality rate was 9.1%. The median length of hospital stay was 11.5 d. The postoperative aortic valve area was significantly higher than that before surgery [(0.5±0.2) vs. (3.8±1.6) mm2, P<0.05], the mean transvalvular pressure of the aortic valve was significantly lower than that before operation [(64.0±24.9) vs. (11.3±4.6) mm Hg (1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa), P<0.05], the peak aortic flow velocity was significantly lower than that before operation [(4.5±0.7) vs. (1.9±0.7) m/s, P<0.05], the left ventricular end diastolic inner diameter was lower than that before operation [(59.0±7.2) vs. (56.1±7.3) mm, P<0.05], the left ventricular ejection fraction increased significantly compared with that before operation [(30.1±10.4)% vs. (40.9±11.0)%, P<0.05], and the cardiac function improved significantly compared with that before operation (P<0.05). During the operation, 2 cases (4.5%) underwent valve-in-valve implantation, 11 cases (25.0%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention during the same period. During the postoperative hospital stay, 1 case (2.3%) developed stroke, 3 cases (6.8%) experienced severe bleeding, 5 cases (11.4%) had severe vascular complications, 2 cases (4.5%) experienced acute myocardial infarction, 30 cases (68.2%) had small or trace paravalvular regurgitation, 3 cases (6.8%) received permanent pacemaker implantation, and 5 cases (11.4%) developed acute kidney injury. Conclustion Emergency TAVR is an effective and feasible treatment plan for patients with acute refractory heart failure or cardiogenic shock secondary to severe aortic stenosis.
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.
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is effective in the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and its applicable population is also gradually expanding, but it carries risk of ischemic and bleeding events, which underscores the importance of optimizing adjuvant antithrombotic regimens. The release of the 2022 version of Chinese expert consensus on antithrombotic therapy after transcatheter aortic valve implantation has promoted the standardized and safe development of antithrombotic therapy after TAVR in China. Combined with the latest progress of antithrombotic therapy after TAVR, from emphasizing ischemia and bleeding risk assessment, single-agent antiplatelet therapy for patients without anticoagulation indications, the selection of antithrombotic strategies for patients with other antithrombotic indications, antithrombotic strategy changes in postoperative valve thrombosis and bleeding events, this article interprets this consensus.