Advertisement

Current Cardiology Reports

, 21:161 | Cite as

Should All Low-risk Patients Now Be Considered for TAVR? Operative Risk, Clinical, and Anatomic Considerations

  • Saima Siddique
  • Hemal Gada
  • Mubashir A. Mumtaz
  • Amit N. VoraEmail author
Valvular Heart Disease (TL Kiefer, Section Editor)
  • 47 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Valvular Heart Disease

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This article reviews the current data on TAVR in low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis, highlights the results of the recently published Medtronic Low Risk Randomized Study and PARTNER 3 trials, and describes specific clinical, anatomic, and procedural considerations regarding the optimal treatment choice in this population.

Recent Findings

In low-risk patients, the Medtronic Low Risk Randomized Study demonstrated TAVR to be non-inferior to surgery with respect to the composite endpoint of death or disabling stroke while PARTNER 3 trial proved TAVR to be superior to surgery with regard to the composite endpoint of death, stroke, or rehospitalization.

Summary

Recent trials demonstrate the safety and efficacy of TAVR in low-risk patients and have led to an FDA indication for the use of TAVR in these patients. However, the lack of long-term data on the rate of transcatheter valve deterioration in the younger population, higher incidence of paravalvular leak and pacemaker implantation following TAVR, along with certain intrinsic anatomic factors remain potential challenges to generalize TAVR in all low surgical risk patients. We describe specific clinical, anatomic, and procedural considerations regarding the optimal treatment choice for low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic AS.

Keywords

TAVR TAVI SAVR Low risk Severe aortic stenosis 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Saima Siddique has no relevant disclosures.

Hemal Gada reports consulting for Medtronic, Bard Inc., Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific Corp.

Mubashir A. Mumtaz reports consulting and proctoring for Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Atricure, Medtronic, Z-Medica, and JOMDD.

Amit N. Vora reports consulting for Medtronic.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. 2010;363(17):1597–607.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Popma JJ, Adams DH, Reardon MJ, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using a self-expanding bioprosthesis in patients with severe aortic stenosis at extreme risk for surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(19):1972–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smith CR, Leon MB. Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. 2011;364(23):2187–98.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adams DH, Popma JJ, Reardon MJ, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. 2014;370(19):1790–8.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. New Engl J Med. 2016;374(17):1609–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reardon MJ, Van Mieghem NM, Popma JJ, et al. Surgical or transcatheter aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. New Engl J Med. 2017;376(14):1321–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D'Agostino RS, Jacobs JP, Badhwar V, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database: 2019 update on outcomes and quality. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;107(1):24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Waksman R, Rogers T, Torguson R, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72(18):2095–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Waksman R, Corso PJ, Torguson R, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients: one-year results from the LRT Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thyregod HG, Steinbruchel DA, Ihlemann N, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis: 1-year results from the All-Comers NOTION Randomized Clinical Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(20):2184–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    • Thyregod HGH, Ihlemann N, Jorgensen TH, et al. Five-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes from the Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention (NOTION) Randomized Clinical Trial in Lower Surgical Risk Patients. Circulation. 2019; The trial provides 5 -year data following TAVR with self-expanding valves in predominantly low surgical risk patients. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    •• Popma JJ, Deeb GM, Yakubov SJ, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(18):1706–15 Largest clinical trial to demonstrate safety and efficacy of TAVR with self-expanding valves in low surgical risk patients. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    •• Mack MJ, Leon MB, Thourani VH, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(18):1695–705 Largest clinical trial to indicate safety and efficacy of TAVR with balloon-expandable valves in low surgical risk patients. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fatima B, Mohananey D, Khan FW, et al. Durability data for bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve: a systematic review. JAMA Cardiol. 2019;4(1):71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rodriguez-Gabella T, Voisine P, Puri R, Pibarot P, Rodes-Cabau J. Aortic Bioprosthetic valve durability: incidence, mechanisms, predictors, and management of surgical and transcatheter valve degeneration. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(8):1013–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johnston DR, Soltesz EG, Vakil N, et al. Long-term durability of bioprosthetic aortic valves: implications from 12,569 implants. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99(4):1239–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mack MJ, Leon MB, Smith CR, et al. 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9986):2477–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Toggweiler S, Humphries KH, Lee M, et al. 5-year outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(4):413–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Barbanti M, Petronio AS, Ettori F, et al. 5-year outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with corevalve prosthesis. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2015;8(8):1084–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sondergaard L, Ihlemann N, Capodanno D, et al. Durability of Transcatheter and surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves in patients at lower surgical risk. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(5):546–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Athappan G, Patvardhan E, Tuzcu EM, et al. Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: meta-analysis and systematic review of literature. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(15):1585–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Seiffert M, Fujita B, Avanesov M, et al. Device landing zone calcification and its impact on residual regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with different devices. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;17(5):576–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Binder RK, Webb JG, Willson AB, et al. The impact of integration of a multidetector computed tomography annulus area sizing algorithm on outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a prospective, multicenter, controlled trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(5):431–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Finkelstein A, Rozenbaum Z, Zhitomirsky S, et al. Safety outcomes of new versus old generation transcatheter aortic valves. Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions. 2018.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Genereux P, Webb JG, Svensson LG, et al. Vascular complications after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: insights from the PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(12):1043–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Barbanti M, Binder RK, Freeman M, et al. Impact of low-profile sheaths on vascular complications during transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement. EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. 2013;9(8):929–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nazif TM, Dizon José M, Hahn RT, et al. Predictors and clinical outcomes of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the PARTNER (Placement of AoRtic TraNscathetER Valves) Trial and Registry. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2015;8(1, Part A):60–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fadahunsi OO, Olowoyeye A, Ukaigwe A, et al. Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of permanent pacemaker implantation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: analysis from the U.S. Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology TVT Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(21):2189–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Siontis GC, Juni P, Pilgrim T, et al. Predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(2):129–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mauri V, Reimann A, Stern D, et al. Predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the SAPIEN 3. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(21):2200–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ojeda S, Hidalgo F, Romero M, et al. Impact of the repositionable Evolut R CoreValve system on the need for a permanent pacemaker after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis. 0(0).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Petronio AS, Sinning JM, Van Mieghem N, et al. Optimal implantation depth and adherence to guidelines on permanent pacing to improve the results of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the medtronic corevalve system: the corevalve prospective, international, post-market ADVANCE-II Study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(6):837–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fujita B, Kutting M, Seiffert M, et al. Calcium distribution patterns of the aortic valve as a risk factor for the need of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;17(12):1385–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Patel A, Leon MB. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with bicuspid aortic valves. J Thorac Dis. 2018;10(Suppl 30):S3568–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Reddy G, Wang Z, Nishimura RA, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for stenotic bicuspid aortic valves: systematic review and meta analyses of observational studies. Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions. 2018;91(5):975–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Khalique OK, Hahn RT, Gada H, et al. Quantity and location of aortic valve complex calcification predicts severity and location of paravalvular regurgitation and frequency of post-dilation after balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2014;7(8):885–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kaneko H, Hoelschermann F, Seifert M, et al. Predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation for aortic stenosis using Medtronic new generation self-expanding CoreValve Evolut R. Heart Vessels. 2018.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ribeiro HB, Webb JG, Makkar RR, et al. Predictive factors, management, and clinical outcomes of coronary obstruction following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: insights from a large multicenter registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(17):1552–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yamamoto M, Shimura T, Kano S, et al. Impact of preparatory coronary protection in patients at high anatomical risk of acute coronary obstruction during transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Int J Cardiol. 2016;217:58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chakravarty T, Sharma R, Abramowitz Y, et al. Outcomes in patients with transcatheter aortic valve replacement and left main stenting: the TAVR-LM Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(8):951–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kotronias RA, Kwok CS, George S, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with or without percutaneous coronary artery revascularization strategy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6(6).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Chandrasekhar J, Hibbert B, Ruel M, Lam B-K, Labinaz M, Glover C. Transfemoral vs non-transfemoral access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Cardiol. 2015;31(12):1427–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Biancari F, Rosato S, D'Errigo P, et al. Immediate and intermediate outcome after transapical versus transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Am J Cardiol. 2016;117(2):245–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Chakravarty T, Søndergaard L, Friedman J, et al. Subclinical leaflet thrombosis in surgical and transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valves: an observational study. Lancet. 2017;389(10087):2383–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rosseel L, De Backer O, Sondergaard L. Clinical valve thrombosis and subclinical leaflet thrombosis following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: is there a need for a patient-tailored antithrombotic therapy? Front Cardiovasc Med. 2019;6:44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kapadia SR, Huded CP, Kodali SK, et al. Stroke after surgical versus transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the PARTNER Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72(20):2415–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Reynolds MR, Magnuson EA, Lei Y, et al. Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: results of the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial (Cohort A). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(25):2683–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Baron SJ, Wang K, House JA, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate risk. Circulation. 2019;139(7):877–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saima Siddique
    • 1
  • Hemal Gada
    • 1
  • Mubashir A. Mumtaz
    • 1
  • Amit N. Vora
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.UPMC PinnacleHarrisburgUSA
  2. 2.Duke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations