Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Aortic Valve: TAVR, TAVI vs Open Heart Surgery’ Category


Among patients with aortic stenosis who were at intermediate surgical risk, there was no significant difference in the incidence of death or disabling stroke at 5 years after TAVR as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Five-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement

 

January 29, 2020
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910555

List of authors.

  • Raj R. Makkar, M.D.,
  • Vinod H. Thourani, M.D.,
  • Michael J. Mack, M.D.,
  • Susheel K. Kodali, M.D.,
  • Samir Kapadia, M.D.,
  • John G. Webb, M.D.,
  • Sung-Han Yoon, M.D.,
  • Alfredo Trento, M.D.,
  • Lars G. Svensson, M.D., Ph.D.,
  • Howard C. Herrmann, M.D.,
  • Wilson Y. Szeto, M.D.,
  • D. Craig Miller, M.D.,
  • et al.,

for the PARTNER 2 Investigators*

 

Abstract

BACKGROUND

There are scant data on long-term clinical outcomes and bioprosthetic-valve function after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis and intermediate surgical risk.

METHODS

We enrolled 2032 intermediate-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at 57 centers. Patients were stratified according to intended transfemoral or transthoracic access (76.3% and 23.7%, respectively) and were randomly assigned to undergo either TAVR or surgical replacement. Clinical, echocardiographic, and health-status outcomes were followed for 5 years. The primary end point was death from any cause or disabling stroke.

RESULTS

At 5 years, there was no significant difference in the incidence of death from any cause or disabling stroke between the TAVR group and the surgery group (47.9% and 43.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.25; P=0.21). Results were similar for the transfemoral-access cohort (44.5% and 42.0%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.20), but the incidence of death or disabling stroke was higher after TAVR than after surgery in the transthoracic-access cohort (59.3% vs. 48.3%; hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.71). At 5 years, more patients in the TAVR group than in the surgery group had at least mild paravalvular aortic regurgitation (33.3% vs. 6.3%). Repeat hospitalizations were more frequent after TAVR than after surgery (33.3% vs. 25.2%), as were aortic-valve reinterventions (3.2% vs. 0.8%). Improvement in health status at 5 years was similar for TAVR and surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with aortic stenosis who were at intermediate surgical risk, there was no significant difference in the incidence of death or disabling stroke at 5 years after TAVR as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01314313. opens in new tab.)

 

Read Full Post »


Comparison between balloon-expandable (Sapien XT or Sapien 3 valve, Edwards Lifesciences) vs self-expanding (CoreValve, Medtronic) TAVR from 2013 to 2015, Results: Lower mortality rate and other advantages with balloon-expandable valves over self-expanding valves.

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

French Studies Point to Inherent Differences in TAVR Valves

FRANCE-TAVI database was funded and managed by the French Society of Cardiology and French Working Group of Interventional Cardiology. Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic partly funded the registry, but had no role in data collection, analysis, or manuscript drafting. Van Belle, Dehara, Abdel-Wahab, and Thiele report no relevant conflicts of interest.

Circulation. Published online November 16, 2019. AbstractAbstractEditorial

American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2019; presented November 16, 2019.

Follow Patrice Wendling on Twitter: @pwendl. For more from theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology, join us on Twitter and Facebook.

Patrice Wendling

November 25, 2019

The coprimary end point of at least moderate paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) at discharge and/or in-hospital mortality was more common with a self-expanding (SE) valve than with a balloon-expandable (BE) valve (19.8% vs 11.9%; relative risk [RR], 1.68). This related to nearly twofold more PVR (15.5% vs 8.3%; RR, 1.90) and a 1.4% absolute mortality difference (5.6% vs 4.2%; RR, 1.33).

Need for a permanent pacemaker (22.3% vs 11.0%; P < .0001) and a second transcatheter heart valve (3.7% vs 1.0%; P < .0001) was more frequent with SE valves.

Patients receiving an SE valve also had higher rates of myocardial infarction (0.4% vs 0.2%; P = .02) but had a lower mean transprosthetic gradient than those receiving a BE valve (7 vs 10; P < .0001).

At 2 years, use of a self-expanding valve was associated with a higher risk for all-cause mortality (29.8% vs 26.6%; hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.06 – 1.28) and cardiovascular death (23.3% vs 20.9%; P = .001). This is explained by a 36% excess risk for death during the first 3 months (= .0001), with the two mortality curves remaining parallel thereafter, Van Belle said.

The findings were consistent across subgroups, although the difference in the primary composite end point was stronger for those who received transfemoral TAVR and for those treated at the end of the study in 2015.

On multivariable analysis, independent predictors of all-cause mortality were valve design and PVR severity, according to the study, simultaneously published online in Circulation.

Limitations include the use of observational data, potential unmeasured residual confounders, site-reported PVR grading and clinical events (except mortality), and a lack of newer valve designs, Van Belle said.

“The present study strongly supports conducting a randomized trial in order to compare head-to-head the most recent iterations of SE and BE THVs on all-cause mortality,” he concluded.

The study, he said, “points out, if nothing else, that perhaps there is an inherent difference between the TAVR valves. It may be incorrect to assume it is a class effect.”

A second propensity-matched analysis, also published online in Circulation but not presented at AHA, used the nationwide French administrative hospital-discharge database to compare 10,459 matched pairs who underwent TAVR with the balloon-expandable Sapien 3 or self-expanding Evolut R (Medtronic) valve from 2014 to 2018.

Over a mean follow-up of 358 days, use of the BE vs the SE valve was associated with a lower yearly incidence of all-cause death (rate ratio, 0.88; corrected P = .005), cardiovascular death (rate ratio, 0.82; corrected P = .002), and rehospitalization for heart failure (rate ratio, 0.84; corrected P < .0001).

Pacemaker implantation was also lower with the balloon-expandable valve (rate ratio, 0.72; corrected < .0001), Pierre Deharo, MD, PhD, CHU Timone, Marseille, France, and colleagues report.

In an editorial accompanying the two analyses, Mohamed Abdel-Wahab, MD, and Holger Thiele, MD, both with the Heart Center Leipzig at the University of Leipzig, Germany, praised the authors for reporting what is currently the largest published dataset comparing the two valve designs. The limitations of registry-based analyses, however, are “obvious, and the findings should therefore be considered thought-provoking but by no means definite.”

SOURCE

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/921791?nlid=132763_3866&src=WNL_mdplsfeat_191126_mscpedit_card&uac=93761AJ&spon=2&impID=2182575&faf=1

Other related articles published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal include the following 73 articles:

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/?s=TAVR

 

 

Read Full Post »


Post TAVR: Management of conduction disturbances and number of valve recapture and/or repositioning attempts – Optimize self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) positioning reduced the need for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implants down the road

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

  • The PPM rate dropped from 9.7% to 3.0% (P=0.035), according to a team led by Hasan Jilaihawi, MD, of NYU Langone Health in New York City.
  • the PARTNER 3 and CoreValve Low Risk trials in patients at low surgical risk showed PPM implant rates of 17.4% with the Evolut line, 6.6% with the balloon-expandable Sapien 3, and 4.1%-6.1% with surgery.

 

  • “The His bundle passes through the membranous septum, a few millimeters beneath the non-coronary/right coronary cusps. It is therefore not surprising that a deeper valve implantation increases the likelihood of mechanical damage of the His bundle leading to a transient or persistent conduction disturbance,” according to Rodés-Cabau.

To capture factors that contributed to need for PPM implantation, Jilaihawi and colleagues performed a detailed restrospective analysis on 248 consecutive Evolut recipients at Langone treated with the standard TAVR approach — aiming for 3-4 mm implant depth (in relation to the non-coronary cusp) and recapturing and repositioning when the device landed considerably lower. Patients with prior PPM implantation were excluded. Devices used were Medtronic’s Evolut R, Evolut Pro, and Evolut 34XL.

This analysis revealed that use of the large Evolut 34XL (OR 4.96, 95% CI 1.68-14.63) and implant depth exceeding membranous septum length (OR 8.04, 95% CI 2.58-25.04) were independent predictors of later PPM implantation.

From there, operators came up with the MIDAS technique and applied it prospectively to another 100 consecutive patients.

Besides bringing down the PPM implant rate to 3.0%, there were no more cases of valve embolization, dislocation, or need for a second valve.

The standard and MIDAS groups shared similar membranous septum lengths but diverged in average actual device depth, such that the standard group tended to have Evolut devices positioned deeper (3.3 mm vs 2.3 mm, P<0.001).

SOURCE

https://www.medpagetoday.com/cardiology/pci/81849

 

Read Full Post »


Mitralign and Corvia, Tewksbury, Mass – Investment and Acquisition by Edwards Lifesciences

 

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Edwards LifesciencesEdwards Lifesciences (NYSE:EW) said today that it made a pair of strategic bets on the structural heart space, paying $35 million for the right to acquire Corvia Medical and paying an unspecified amount for some of mitral valve repair device maker Mitralign‘s assets.

Tewksbury, Mass.-based Corvia is developing an interatrial shunt to treat heart failure by creating a small opening between the left and right atria to lower blood pressure in the left atrium and lungs. The device has CE Mark approval in the European Union and a pivotal U.S trial aimed at winning a nod from the FDA is under way, Edwards said.

“We are extremely pleased to have the support of the global leader in patient-focused innovations for structural heart disease as we continue to advance this novel treatment for heart failure,” Corvia president & CEO George Fazio said in prepared remarks. “We are proud of our accomplishments to date and look forward to completing the pivotal study with the support of our global clinical investigators.”

The Irvine, Calif.-based company also said it bought “certain” Mitralign assets, including intellectual property and associated clinical and regulatory experience. Mitralign, also based in Tewksbury, is developing an annuloplasty system for treating functional mitral and tricuspid regurgitation.

Edwards said the transactions are not expected to affect its financial outlook for 2019.

SOURCE

https://www.massdevice.com/edwards-lifesciences-gets-in-on-corvia-mitralign/?spMailingID=1958&puid=370787

Read Full Post »


Reporter: Gail S. Thornton

This article appeared on the website of Cardiovascular Business

‘Patient No. 1’ from a Hep C heart transplant study shares his story

By the time three transplant physicians approached Tom Giangiulio Jr. about being the first patient in a new clinical trial to accept a heart from a Hepatitis C-positive donor, Giangiulio didn’t have much of a choice.

He had already been on the heart transplant waitlist for more than two years, he was a live-in at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and he had a body size (6-foot-2, 220 pounds) and blood type (O-positive) that was difficult to match to a donor.

It took Giangiulio less than 24 hours to speak to his previous cardiologist and his family and decide to enroll in the program. The doctors at Penn explained to him that because of new medications that can cure Hepatitis C, they were confident the virus could be eradicated post-transplant.

“There was no hesitation at all, not with me,” said Carin Giangiulio, Tom’s wife of 33 years. “Because I knew what the alternative was and we didn’t have too much choice except for going on a VAD (ventricular assist device) … and he didn’t want to do that. I said, ‘If they have a cure, then it’s a no-brainer. Let’s just do it.’ And I’m glad we did because I don’t think he would’ve been here today.”

Tom, 59, is set to celebrate his second anniversary with his new heart in June. He received the heart the day after Father’s Day in 2017 and subsequently contracted Hepatitis C, which was promptly wiped out with a 12-week regimen of elbasvir/grazoprevir (Zepatier).

Some of Giangiulio’s doctors at Penn published in February their experience with the first 10 patients in the clinical trial, called USHER, in the American Journal of Transplantation. All nine patients who survived were cured of Hepatitis C thanks to the antiviral therapy.

The implications of the research are massive, said Rhondalyn McLean, MD, MHS, the medical director of Penn’s heart transplant program and lead author of the recently published study. For the past two decades, the U.S. has struggled to increase the number of heart transplants above about 3,000 per year. And every year, patients die waiting for a heart transplant or become too sick to handle a transplant surgery.

McLean estimated 700 hearts from donors with Hepatitis C are discarded each year in the U.S. If even half of those are suitable for transplant, it would increase by 10 percent the number of organs that are available for implantation.

“There are so many people who have end-stage heart failure who die waiting for transplant, so anytime that we can increase our access to organs then I think we’re all going to be happy about that,” McLean said. “I think the people believe in the medicine, they believe that Hepatitis C is curable, so the risk to these folks is low. With the results of the study, I think we’ve proven that we can do this safely and the medications have great efficacy.”

Transplanting Hepatitis C-positive hearts isn’t a new idea, McLean explained.

“We used to do this all the time (with) the thinking that Hepatitis C usually doesn’t cause a problem for many, many years, so if hearts are only going to last 13 years or so and Hepatitis C doesn’t usually cause a problem for 30 years in someone, it should be an OK thing to do,” she said.

But then a study published in the 1990s found Hepatitis C-negative patients who accepted a heart from a donor with Hepatitis C actually had an increased risk of death compared to those who received normal hearts, and the practice of using these organs ceased.

However, with the new medications—the first commercially available treatment for Hepatitis C was approved by the FDA in 2014—McLean and her team are systematically studying the safety of implanting these hearts and then wiping out the virus once it’s contracted. And they’re optimistic about the program, which showed the first 10 patients had no evidence of the virus after their 12-week medication regimens.

“That met the criteria for sustained virologic response and those patients are deemed to be cured,” she said. “There’s no reason to think that this population would be any different than your normal, nontransplant population (in terms of Hepatitis C reappearing) so I think it was a pretty successful study.”

Penn researchers are also studying a similar approach in kidney and lung transplant candidates, which could help patients stuck on waitlists for those organs as well.

McLean described the increasing availability of these organs as an “unfortunate benefit” of the opioid epidemic. Through sharing needles, many opioid users are contracting Hepatitis C and dying young. Organs from young donors tend to perform better and often have no other problems, so solving the Hep C issue through medication could have a huge impact if this strategy is eventually rolled out on a broader scale.

“It’s hard when you have single-center studies,” McLean said. “They’re always promising, but in order to get a better assessment of what we’re doing and how the drug is doing I think you need to combine numbers so there has to be a registry that looks at all of the patients who have received these drugs and then using numbers to determine whether this is a successful strategy for us. And I believe that it will be.”

Those are the large-scale implications of this research. Tom Giangiulio can share the personal side.

Patient No. 1

Giangiulio said he feels “extremely gifted” to be Patient No. 1 in the USHER program. He knows he may not be alive if he wasn’t.

He recalls going into ventricular tachycardia about a week before his transplant and said it “scared the daylights” out of him.

“The amount of red tape, meetings and research, technology, and things that had to happen at a very precise moment in time for me to be the first … it’s mind-boggling to think about it,” he said. “But for all that to happen and for it to happen when it happened—and for me to get the heart when I got it—there was a lot of divine intervention along with a lot of people that were involved.”

Giangiulio has also experienced some powerful moments since receiving the transplant. After a bit of written correspondence with his donor’s family, he met the young man’s family one weekend in December of 2018.

He said riding over to the meeting was probably the most tense he’s ever been, but once he arrived the experience far exceeded his expectations.

“We were there for 2 ½ hours and nobody wanted to leave,” Giangiulio said.

The donor’s mother got Giangiulio a gift, a ceramic heart with a photograph of her son. A fellow transplant patient had told Giangiulio about a product called Enso, a kidney-shaped object you can hold in your hand which plays a recording of a user’s heartbeat.

Giangiulio decided to give it to her.

“I was very cautious at the advice of the people here at Penn,” he said. “Nobody knew how she would react to it. It might bother her, she could be thrilled to death. And she was, she was thrilled to death with it and she sleeps with it every night. She boots up the app and she listens to my heartbeat on that app every night.”

Another moment that sticks out to Giangiulio is meeting Patient No. 7 in the USHER program, who he remains in touch with. They ran into each other while waiting to get blood work done, and began talking about their shared experience as transplant recipients.

The clinical trial came up and Giangiulio slow-played his involvement, asking Patient No. 7 about the trial and not letting on that he was ultra-familiar with the program.

When Giangiulio finally told him he was Patient No. 1, Patient No. 7 “came launching out of his chair” to hug him.

“He said, ‘I owe you my life,’” Giangiulio recalled.

After Giangiulio responded that it was the doctors he really owed, Patient No. 7 said he had specifically asked how Patient No. 1 was doing when McLean first offered the program to him.

“She explained that I was going to be No. 7. … I didn’t care about 6, 5, 4, 3 or 2. I wanted to know how No. 1 was doing,” Giangiulio recalled of the conversation. “He said, ‘That was you. … They told me how well you were doing and that if I wanted you’d come here and talk to me, so I owe you.’”

Giangiulio feels strongly about giving back and reciprocating the good fortune he’s had. That’s why he talks to fellow patients and the media to share his story—because it could save other people’s lives, too.

He can’t do as much physical labor as he used to, but he remains involved in the excavating company he owns with his brothers and is the Emergency Management Coordinator for Waterford Township, New Jersey. He also serves on the township’s planning board and was previously Director of Public Safety.

“To me, he’s Superman,” Carin Giangiulio said. “It was insane, completely insane what the human body can endure and still survive.”

That now includes being given a heart with Hepatitis C and then wiping out the virus with the help of modern medicine.

“I would tell (other transplant candidates) to not fear it, especially if you’re here at Penn,” Giangiulio said. “I know there’s a lot of good hospitals across the country, but my loyalty kind of lies here for understandable reasons.”

Other related articles were published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal include the following:

2016

People with blood type O have been reported to be protected from coronary heart disease, cancer, and have lower cholesterol levels.

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2016/01/11/people-with-blood-type-o-have-been-reported-to-be-protected-from-coronary-heart-disease-cancer-and-have-lower-cholesterol-levels/

2015

A Patient’s Perspective: On Open Heart Surgery from Diagnosis and Intervention to Recovery

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2015/05/10/a-patients-perspective-on-open-heart-surgery-from-diagnosis-and-intervention-to-recovery/

No evidence to change current transfusion practices for adults undergoing complex cardiac surgery: RECESS evaluated 1,098 cardiac surgery patients received red blood cell units stored for short or long periods

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2015/04/08/no-evidence-to-change-current-transfusion-practices-for-adults-undergoing-complex-cardiac-surgery-recess-evaluated-1098-cardiac-surgery-patients-received-red-blood-cell-units-stored-for-short-or-lon/

2013

ACC/AHA Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2013/11/05/accaha-guidelines-for-coronary-artery-bypass-graft-surgery/

On Devices and On Algorithms: Arrhythmia after Cardiac SurgeryPrediction and ECG Prediction of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Onset

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2013/05/07/on-devices-and-on-algorithms-arrhythmia-after-cardiac-surgery-prediction-and-ecg-prediction-of-paroxysmal-atrial-fibrillation-onset/

 

Editor’s note:

I wish to encourage the e-Reader of this Interview to consider reading and comparing the experiences of other Open Heart Surgery Patients, voicing their private-life episodes in the ER that are included in this recently published volume, The VOICES of Patients, Hospital CEOs, Health Care Providers, Caregivers and Families: Personal Experience with Critical Care and Invasive Medical Procedures.

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2017/11/21/the-voices-of-patients-hospital-ceos-health-care-providers-caregivers-and-families-personal-experience-with-critical-care-and-invasive-medical-procedures/

 

I also wish to encourage the e-Reader to consider, if interested, reviewing additional e-Books on Cardiovascular Diseases from the same Publisher, Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence (LPBI) Group, on Amazon.com.

  • Perspectives on Nitric Oxide in Disease Mechanisms, on Amazon since 6/2/12013

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DINFFYC

  • Cardiovascular, Volume Two: Cardiovascular Original Research: Cases in Methodology Design for Content Co-Curation, on Amazon since 11/30/2015

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B018Q5MCN8

  • Cardiovascular Diseases, Volume Three: Etiologies of Cardiovascular Diseases: Epigenetics, Genetics and Genomics, on Amazon since 11/29/2015

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B018PNHJ84

  • Cardiovascular Diseases, Volume Four: Regenerative and Translational Medicine: The Therapeutics Promise for Cardiovascular Diseases, on Amazon since 12/26/2015

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B019UM909A

Read Full Post »


Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR) vs Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI): Results Comparison for Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch (PPM) – adjusted outcomes, including mortality, heart failure (HF) rehospitalization, stroke, and quality of life, at 1 year

 

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

UPDATED on 11/27/2018

Journal of the American College of Cardiology

5-Year Outcomes of Self-Expanding Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients

Abstract

Background The CoreValve U.S. Pivotal High Risk Trial was the first randomized trial to show superior 1-year mortality of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) among high operative mortality–risk patients.

Objectives The authors sought to compare TAVR to SAVR for mid-term 5-year outcomes of safety, performance, and durability.

Methods Surgical high-risk patients were randomized (1:1) to TAVR with the self-expanding bioprosthesis or SAVR. VARC-1 (Valve Academic Research Consortium I) definitions were applied. Severe hemodynamic structural valve deterioration was defined as a mean gradient ≥40 mm Hg or a change in gradient ≥20 mm Hg or new severe aortic regurgitation. Five-year follow-up was planned.

Results A total of 797 patients were randomized at 45 U.S. centers, of whom 750 underwent an attempted implant (TAVR = 391, SAVR = 359). The overall mean age was 83 years, and the STS score was 7.4%. All-cause mortality rates at 5 years were 55.3% for TAVR and 55.4% for SAVR. Subgroup analysis showed no differences in mortality. Major stroke rates were 12.3% for TAVR and 13.2% for SAVR. Mean aortic valve gradients were 7.1 ± 3.6 mm Hg for TAVR and 10.9 ± 5.7 mm Hg for SAVR. No clinically significant valve thrombosis was observed. Freedom from severe SVD was 99.2% for TAVR and 98.3% for SAVR (p = 0.32), and freedom from valve reintervention was 97.0% for TAVR and 98.9% for SAVR (p = 0.04). A permanent pacemaker was implanted in 33.0% of TAVR and 19.8% of SAVR patients at 5 years.

Conclusions This study shows similar mid-term survival and stroke rates in high-risk patients following TAVR or SAVR. Severe structural valve deterioration and valve reinterventions were uncommon. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902)

SOURCE

http://www.onlinejacc.org/content/72/22/2687

J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Sep 18. pii: S0735-1097(18)38287-1. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.001. [Epub ahead of print]

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch in 62,125 Patients Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: From the STS/ACC TVT Registry.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) for aortic stenosis is generally associated with worse outcomes. Transcatheter AVR (TAVR) can achieve a larger valve orifice and the effects of PPM after TAVR are less well studied.

OBJECTIVES:

The authors utilized the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) registry to examine the frequency, predictors, and association with outcomes of PPM after TAVR in 62,125 patients enrolled between 2014 and 2017.

METHODS:

On the basis of the discharge echocardiographic effective valve area indexed to body surface area, PPM was classified as severe (<0.65 cm2/m2), moderate (0.65 to 0.85 cm2/m2), or none (>0.85 cm2/m2). Multivariable regression models were utilized to examine predictors of severe PPM as well as adjusted outcomes, including mortality, heart failure (HF) rehospitalization, stroke, and quality of life, at 1 year in 37,470 Medicare patients with claims linkage.

RESULTS:

  • Severe and moderate PPM were present following TAVR in 12% and 25% of patients, respectively. Predictors of severe PPM included small (≤23-mm diameter) valve prosthesis, valve-in-valve procedure, larger body surface area, female sex, younger age, non-white/Hispanic race, lower ejection fraction, atrial fibrillation, and severe mitral or tricuspid regurgitation.
  • At 1 year, mortality was 17.2%, 15.6%, and 15.9% in severe, moderate, and no PPM patients, respectively (p = 0.02).
  • HF rehospitalization had occurred in 14.7%, 12.8%, and 11.9% of patients with severe, moderate, and no PPM, respectively (p < 0.0001).
  • There was no association of severe PPM with stroke or quality of life score at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS:

Severe PPM after TAVR was present in 12% of patients and was associated with higher mortality and HF rehospitalization at 1 year. Further investigation is warranted into the prevention of severe PPM in patients undergoing TAVR.

KEYWORDS:

aortic stenosis; prosthesis–patient mismatch; transcatheter aortic valve replacement

PMID:
30257798
DOI:
10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.001

SOURCE

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30257798

 

Prior Meta Analysis Study

Ann Thorac Surg. 2016 Mar;101(3):872-80

 

Ann Thorac Surg. 2016 Mar;101(3):872-80. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.11.048. Epub 2016 Jan 29.

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

We reviewed currently available studies that investigated prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with a systematic literature search and meta-analytic estimates.

METHODS:

To identify all studies that investigated PPM in TAVI, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through August 2015. Studies considered for inclusion met the following criteria: the study population included patients undergoing TAVI and outcomes included at least post-procedural PPM prevalence. We performed three quantitative meta-analyses about (1) PPM prevalence after TAVI, (2) PPM prevalence after TAVI versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), and (3) late all-cause mortality after TAVI in patients with PPM versus patients without PPM.

RESULTS:

We identified 21 eligible studies that included data on a total of 4,000 patients undergoing TAVI. The first meta-analyses found moderate PPM prevalence of 26.7%, severe PPM prevalence of 8.0%, and overall PPM prevalence of 35.1%. The second meta-analyses of six studies, including 745 patients, found statistically significant reductions in moderate (p = 0.03), severe (p = 0.0003), and overall (p = 0.02) PPM prevalence after TAVI relative to SAVR. The third meta-analyses of five studies, including 2,654 patients, found no statistically significant differences in late mortality between patients with severe PPM and patients without PPM (p = 0.44) and between patients with overall PPM and patients without PPM (p = 0.97).

CONCLUSIONS:

Overall, moderate, and severe PPM prevalence after TAVI was 35%, 27%, and 8%, respectively, which may be less than that after SAVR. In contrast to PPM after SAVR, PPM after TAVI may not impair late survival.

Comment in

 

Other related studies published on TAVR, TAVI in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal include the following:

 

  • New method for performing Aortic Valve Replacement: Transmural catheter procedure developed at NIH, Minimally-invasive tissue-crossing – Transcaval access, abdominal aorta and the inferior vena cava

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2016/10/31/new-method-for-performing-aortic-valve-replacement-transmural-catheter-procedure-developed-at-nih-minimally-invasive-tissue-crossing-transcaval-access-abdominal-aorta-and-the-inferior-vena-cava/

 

  • Second in the United States to implant Edwards Newly FDA-Approved Aortic Valve “Intuity Elite” Sutureless Valve at Northwestern Medicine

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2016/10/13/second-in-the-united-states-to-implant-edwards-newly-fda-approved-aortic-valve-intuity-elite-sutureless-valve-at-northwestern-medicine/

 

  • Medtronic’s CoreValve System Sustains Positive Outcomes Through Two Years in Extreme Risk Patients

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2014/09/15/medtronics-corevalve-system-sustains-positive-outcomes-through-two-years-in-extreme-risk-patients/

 

  • One year Post-Intervention Mortality Rate: TAVR and AVR – Aortic Valve Procedures 6.7% in AVR, 11.0% in AVR with CABG, 20.7 in Transvascular (TV-TAVR) and 28.0% in Transapical (TA-TAVR) Patients

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2014/08/04/one-year-post-intervention-mortality-rate-tavr-and-avr-aortic-valve-procedures-6-7-in-avr-11-0-in-avr-with-cabg-20-7-in-transvascular-tv-tavt-and-28-0-in-transapical-ta-tavr-patients/

 

  • Developments on the Frontier of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) Devices

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2014/01/26/developments-on-the-frontier-of-transcatheter-aortic-valve-replacement-tavr-devices/

 

  • Off-Label TAVR Procedures: 1 in 10 associated with higher in-hospital 30-day mortality, 1-year mortality was similar in the Off-Label and the On-Label groups

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2017/06/22/off-label-tavr-procedures-1-in-10-associated-with-higher-in-hospital-30-day-mortality-1-year-mortality-was-similar-in-the-off-lavel-and-the-on-label-groups/

 

  • First U.S. TAVR Patients Treated With Temporary Pacing Lead (Tempo Lead)

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2016/12/21/first-u-s-tavr-patients-treated-with-temporary-pacing-lead-tempo-lead/

 

  • SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in High-Risk and Inoperable Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis: One-Year Clinical Outcomes

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2016/07/14/sapien-3-transcatheter-aortic-valve-replacement-in-high-risk-and-inoperable-patients-with-severe-aortic-stenosis-one-year-clinical-outcomes/

 

  • TAVR with Sapien 3: combined all-cause death & disabling stroke rate was 8.4% and 16.6% for the surgery arm

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2016/04/05/tavr-with-sapien-3-combined-all-cause-death-disabling-stroke-rate-was-8-4-and-16-6-for-the-surgery-arm/

 

  • Hadassah Opens Israel’s First Heart Valve Disease Clinic

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2016/12/06/hadassah-opens-israels-first-heart-valve-disease-clinic/

  • Trans-apical Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in a Patient with Severe and Complex Left Main Coronary Artery Disease (LMCAD)

Author: Larry H Bernstein, MD, FCAP and Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2013/06/17/management-of-difficult-trans-apical-transcatheter-aortic-valve-replacement-in-a-patient-with-severe-and-complex-arterial-disease/

 

  • Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR): Postdilatation to Reduce Paravalvular Regurgitation During TAVR with a Balloon-expandable Valve

Curator: Larry H Bernstein, MD, FCAP and Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2013/06/17/postdilatation-to-reduce-paravalvular-regurgitation-during-transcatheter-aortic-valve-replacement/

 

  • Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement for Inoperable Severe Aortic Stenosis


Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/09/03/transcatheter-aortic-valve-replacement-for-inoperable-severe-aortic-stenosis/

 

  • Updated Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI): risk for stroke and suitability for surgery

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD,RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/08/07/transcatheter-aortic-valve-implantation-tavi-risky-and-costly-2/

 

  • The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) covers transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) under Coverage with Evidence Development (CED)

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/06/19/the-centers-for-medicare-medicaid-services-cms-covers-transcatheter-aortic-valve-replacement-tavr-under-coverage-with-evidence-development-ced/

 

  • Investigational Devices: Edwards Sapien Transcatheter Aortic Heart Valve Replacement Transfemoral Deployment

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/06/10/investigational-devices-edwards-sapien-transcatheter-aortic-heart-valve-replacement-transfemoral-deployment/

 

  • Investigational Devices: Edwards Sapien Transcatheter Aortic Valve Transapical Deployment

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/06/04/investigational-devices-edwards-sapien-transcatheter-heart-valve/

 

 

Read Full Post »


Are TAVR volume requirements limiting rural and minority access to this life-saving procedure, or are they still necessary for patient safety?

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

CMS Considers Changing TAVR Volume Requirements

Debate over transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures continues as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) considers changing the status quo. Are TAVR volume requirements limiting rural and minority access to this life-saving procedure, or are they still necessary for patient safety?

In June 2018, cardiology news sources widely reported that CMS opened public comment on established volume requirements for hospitals and heart teams to perform TAVR. The Medicare Evidence Development & Coverage Advisory Committee (MEDCAC) then met on July 25 to discuss the issue. A report in Cardiovascular Business suggested that the committee appeared split on the subject—especially in weighing the potential harms of limiting TAVR to only high volume hospitals.

Cases for and against TAVR volume requirements

The Case for TAVR Volume Requirements

For those on the side of maintaining TAVR volume requirements, the benefits are obvious—volume is associated with positive outcomes and lower rates of complications. In fact, a 2018 expert consensus document from four major cardiology societies actually supported increasing volume requirements to maintain a TAVR program, to ensure adequate data collection for statistically reliable quality metrics and quality assurance.

A new study published in September in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions seems to add new weight to this argument—data collected from hospitals participating in the international TAVR registry showed volume to have a significant effect on patient safety. The findings suggested that a learning curve of at least 225 procedures was required for hospitals to perform TAVRs with the lowest mortality rates, and that low annual volume hospitals were associated with decreased procedural safety and higher patient mortality.

John D. Carroll, MD, of the University of Colorado School of Medicine wrote an editorial in the same publication arguing that there is a “danger of lowering TAVR quality of care” by relaxing or eliminating TAVR volume requirements. “This would create many new centers starting a new learning curve, result in more low-volume centers, and potentially diluting the case volume and advanced skills of established and high-volume centers,” he writes.

The Case Against TAVR Volume Requirements

While the case for TAVR volume requirements is strong, it does little to answer the central question of the opposing viewpoint—does the benefit of expanding TAVR access to rural areas outweigh the cost of allowing the procedure to be conducted in relatively inexperienced or low-volume centers?

It is difficult to capture data depicting how many patients with aortic stenosis go without valve replacement due to TAVR volume requirements, but the concern seems genuine. We continue to learn more about TAVR, but experts have already established the procedure as the “treatment of choice in the extreme-risk patient who cannot have surgery,” said Martin B. Leon, MD, FACC at a 2017 American College of Cardiology conference.

In this population, where surgical valve replacement is not an option, median life expectancy is increased from 11 months to almost 30 months with TAVR, according to Leon. Indeed, some experts like Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, FACC, believe that, regardless of surgical risk scores, patients over 80 should undergo TAVR rather than surgical valve replacements.

If TAVR volume requirements limit access to the procedure for this growing elderly population, the negative effects would be obvious. An Edwards Lifesciences resource about aortic stenosis states, “After the onset of symptoms, patients with severe aortic stenosis have a survival rate as low as 50% at 2 years.”

SOURCE

https://acp-online.org/tavr-volume-requirements-debate/

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »