Clinical profile and outcome of patients with severe aortic stenosis at high surgical risk: single-center prospective evaluation according to treatment assignment.

The study sought to assess the clinical profile, outcome, and predictors for mortality of "real-world" high-risk severe aortic stenosis patients according to the mode of treatment assigned. Patients were referred to a dedicated clinic for meticulous screening and multidisciplinary team assessment and 343 were finally assigned treatment (age 81.3 ± 7.2 years, 42.3% men): transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the Edwards SAPIEN or CoreValve device, 100 (29.2%); surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), 61 (17.8%); balloon valvuloplasty (as definitive therapy), 27 (7.9%); medication only, 155 (45.2%). No patient was lost to follow-up. The balloon valvuloplasty group had a significantly higher 1-month mortality rate (18.5%) than the TAVR group (3%, P = 0.006) and medical therapy group (3.9%; P = 0.004), without significant difference from the SAVR group (11.5%, P = 0.5). One-year cumulative survival was significantly higher in the TAVR group (92%) than in the other groups (SAVR 71%, balloon valvuloplasty 61.5%, medication 65%; all P < 0.001). Among survivors, 1-year rates of high functional class (NYHA I/II) were as follows: TAVR, 84.6%; SAVR, 63.3%; balloon valvuloplasty, 18.2%; medication, 21.4% (TAVR vs. SAVR, P = 0.04; SAVR vs. balloon valvuloplasty or medical therapy, P = 0.01). On multivariate regression analysis, renal failure (hazard ratio [HR] = 5.3, P < 0.001), not performing TAVR (HR = 4.9, P < 0.001), and pulmonary pressure (10 mm Hg, HR = 1.2, P = 0.02) were independent predictors of 1-year mortality. TAVR, performed in carefully selected high-risk patients, is associated with an excellent survival rate and high functional class. Patients treated with another of the available modalities, including SAVR, had a worse outcome, regardless of which alternative treatment they receive.

Dvir D ，Sagie A ，Porat E ，Assali A ，Shapira Y ，Vaknin-Assa H ，Shafir G ，Bental T ，Nevzorov R ，Battler A ，Kornowski R ... -  《-》

Hemodynamic performance and outcome of percutaneous versus surgical stentless bioprostheses for aortic stenosis with anticipated patient-prosthesis mismatch.

We aimed to compare the performance and midterm survival of transcutaneous aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgically implanted stentless aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic stenosis in patients anticipated to have patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM). A retrospective analysis was performed of 86 and 49 consecutive TAVR and SAVR patients with severe aortic stenosis and calculated minimal effective orifice area larger than the best projected effective orifice area. Cox hazard analyses were used to assess the effect of TAVR versus SAVR on outcome. The peak and mean transprosthetic gradient at discharge were lower (P < .001 for both) in the TAVR group. Mild or greater aortic regurgitation was more frequent in the TAVR group (61% vs 7%; P < .0001). At 3 months of follow-up, the mean gradient in the TAVR group was similar to that of the SAVR group but the prevalence of aortic regurgitation was still higher. The unadjusted 3-year survival rate was superior in the SAVR versus TAVR group (91.6% ± 4% vs 67.0% ± 7%; P = .01). Adjustments for both age and comorbidity resulted in loss of the difference in mortality between the 2 groups. In patients with anticipated PPM, TAVR offers an immediate lower incidence of PPM than SAVR but a greater prevalence of aortic regurgitation. The differences in transaortic gradients became nonsignificant 3 months postoperatively. The question of whether TAVR is a suitable substitute for SAVR in patients with anticipated PPM, in particular, those who are older and sicker, warrants additional investigation.

Finkelstein A ，Schwartz AL ，Uretzky G ，Banai S ，Keren G ，Kramer A ，Topilsky Y ... -  《-》

Conventional surgery, sutureless valves, and transapical aortic valve replacement: what is the best option for patients with aortic valve stenosis? A multicenter, propensity-matched analysis.

Although surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the treatment of choice for patients with aortic valve stenosis, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) have shown good results. The aim of our multicenter, propensity-matched study was to compare the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of surgical SAVR, transapical TAVR (TA-TAVR), and SU-AVR. We analyzed data from 566 TA-TAVR, 349 SAVR, and 38 SU-AVR patients treated from January 2009 to March 2012. We used a propensity-matching strategy to compare on-pump (SAVR, SU-AVR) and off-pump (TA-TAVR) surgical techniques. The outcomes were analyzed using multivariate weighted logistic regression or multinomial logistic analysis. In the matched cohorts, the 30-day overall mortality was significantly lower after SAVR than TA-TAVR (7% vs 1.8%, P = .026), with no differences in mortality between SU-AVR and TA-TAVR. Multivariate analysis showed SU-AVR to have a protective effect, although not statistically significant, against aortic regurgitation, pacemaker implantation, and renal replacement therapy compared with TA-TAVR. Compared with TA-TAVR, SAVR demonstrated significant protection against aortic regurgitation (odds ratio, 0.04; P < .001) and a trend toward protection against death, pacemaker implantation, and myocardial infarction. The mean transaortic gradient was 10.3 ± 4.4 mm Hg, 11 ± 3.4 mm Hg, and 16.5 ± 5.8 mm Hg in the TA-TAVR, SU-AVR, and SAVR patients, respectively. SAVR was associated with lower 30-day mortality than TA-TAVR. SAVR was also associated with a lower risk of postoperative aortic regurgitation compared with TA-TAVR. We did not find other significant differences in outcomes among matched patients treated with SAVR, SU-AVR, and TA-TAVR.

D'Onofrio A ，Rizzoli G ，Messina A ，Alfieri O ，Lorusso R ，Salizzoni S ，Glauber M ，Di Bartolomeo R ，Besola L ，Rinaldi M ，Troise G ，Gerosa G ... -  《-》

Clinical outcomes and revascularization strategies in patients with low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic valve stenosis according to the assigned treatment modality.

This study compared clinical outcomes and revascularization strategies among patients presenting with low ejection fraction, low-gradient (LEF-LG) severe aortic stenosis (AS) according to the assigned treatment modality. The optimal treatment modality for patients with LEF-LG severe AS and concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) requiring revascularization is unknown. Of 1,551 patients, 204 with LEF-LG severe AS (aortic valve area <1.0 cm(2), ejection fraction <50%, and mean gradient <40 mm Hg) were allocated to medical therapy (MT) (n = 44), surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) (n = 52), or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (n = 108). CAD complexity was assessed using the SYNTAX score (SS) in 187 of 204 patients (92%). The primary endpoint was mortality at 1 year. LEF-LG severe AS patients undergoing SAVR were more likely to undergo complete revascularization (17 of 52, 35%) compared with TAVR (8 of 108, 8%) and MT (0 of 44, 0%) patients (p < 0.001). Compared with MT, both SAVR (adjusted hazard ratio [adj HR]: 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07 to 0.38; p < 0.001) and TAVR (adj HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.52; p < 0.001) improved survival at 1 year. In TAVR and SAVR patients, CAD severity was associated with higher rates of cardiovascular death (no CAD: 12.2% vs. low SS [0 to 22], 15.3% vs. high SS [>22], 31.5%; p = 0.037) at 1 year. Compared with no CAD/complete revascularization, TAVR and SAVR patients undergoing incomplete revascularization had significantly higher 1-year cardiovascular death rates (adj HR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.07 to 7.36; p = 0.037). Among LEF-LG severe AS patients, SAVR and TAVR improved survival compared with MT. CAD severity was associated with worse outcomes and incomplete revascularization predicted 1-year cardiovascular mortality among TAVR and SAVR patients.

O'Sullivan CJ ，Englberger L ，Hosek N ，Heg D ，Cao D ，Stefanini GG ，Stortecky S ，Gloekler S ，Spitzer E ，Tüller D ，Huber C ，Pilgrim T ，Praz F ，Buellesfeld L ，Khattab AA ，Carrel T ，Meier B ，Windecker S ，Wenaweser P ... -  《-》

Impact of varying degrees of renal dysfunction on transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement.

Renal impairment portends adverse outcomes in patients undergoing valvular heart surgery. The relationship between renal dysfunction in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is incompletely understood. A retrospective review of 1336 patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR; 2002-2012) and 321 patients undergoing TAVR (2007-2012) was performed. Patients were divided into 3 glomerular filtration rate (GFR) groups: GFR greater than 60 mL/min, GFR 31 to 60 mL/min, and GFR 30 mL/min or less. Logistic and linear regression analysis was performed to estimate the TAVR effect on outcomes. Risk adjustments were made using the Society for Thoracic Surgeons (STS) predicted risk of mortality (PROM). TAVR patients were older (82 vs 65 years; P < .001), had a poorer ejection fraction (48% vs 53%; P < .001), were more likely female (45% vs 41%; P = .23), and had a higher STS PROM (11.9% vs 4.6%; P < .001). In-hospital mortality rates for TAVR and SAVR were 3.5% and 4.1%, respectively (P = .60), a result that marginally favors TAVR after risk adjustment (adjusted odds ratio = .52, P = .06). In SAVR patients, worsening preoperative renal failure was associated with increased in-hospital mortality (P = .004) and hospital (P < .001) and intensive care unit (ICU) (P < .001) lengths of stay. In contrast, worsening renal function did not influence in-hospital mortality (P = .78) and hospital (P < .23) and ICU (P = .88) lengths of stay in TAVR patients. Worsening renal function was associated with increased in-hospital mortality, hospital length of stay, and ICU length of stay in SAVR patients, but not in TAVR patients. This unexpected finding may have important clinical implications in patients with aortic stenosis and preoperative renal dysfunction.

Nguyen TC ，Babaliaros VC ，Razavi SA ，Kilgo PD ，Guyton RA ，Devireddy CM ，Shults CC ，Mavromatis K ，Kanitkar M ，Block P ，Lerakis S ，Thourani VH ... -  《-》