Tania Rodriguez-Gabella

Conduction Disturbances After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Current Status and Future Perspectives

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a well-accepted option for treating patients with aortic stenosis at intermediate to high or prohibitive surgical risk. TAVR-related conduction disturbances, mainly new-onset left bundle-branch block and advanced atrioventricular block requiring permanent pacemaker implantation, remain the most common complication of this procedure. Furthermore, improvements in TAVR technology, akin to the increasing experience of operators/centers, have translated to a major reduction in periprocedural complications, yet the incidence of conduction disturbances has remained relatively high, with perhaps an increasing trend over time. Several factors have been associated with a heightened risk of conduction disturbances and permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVR, with prior right bundle-branch block and transcatheter valve type and implantation depth being the most commonly reported. New-onset left bundle-branch block and the need for permanent pacemaker implantation may have a significant detrimental association with patients’ prognosis. Consequently, strategies intended to reduce the risk and to improve the management of such complications are of paramount importance, particularly in an era when TAVR expansion toward treating lower-risk patients is considered inevitable. In this article, we review the available evidence on the incidence, predictive factors, and clinical association of conduction disturbances after TAVR and propose a strategy for the management of these complications.

Predictors and Association With Clinical Outcomes of the Changes in Exercise Capacity After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Background: At present, there are no objective data specifically examining the clinical impact of variations in exercise capacity post–transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We describe the changes in exercise capacity between baseline and 6 months post-TAVR, and ascertain factors associated with and clinical implications of a lack of improvement in exercise capacity post-TAVR. Methods: A total of 305 patients (mean age, 79±9 years; 44% men; Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk mortality score, 6.7±4.2%) undergoing TAVR completed both baseline and follow-up exercise capacity assessments at 6 months post-TAVR. Exercise capacity was evaluated by the 6-minute walk test (6MWT). Clinical outcomes were compared between patients displaying greater than (n=152; improving group) versus less than (n=153; nonimproving group) the median percentage change in distance walked between baseline and 6-month follow-up examinations. The primary outcome measure was clinical event rates, measured from the 6-month post-TAVR period onward. Further dichotomization according to baseline 6MWT distance (less than versus more than median walking distance, or slow walker versus fast walker) was also assessed. Results: The mean overall distances walked pre- and post-TAVR (6 months post-TAVR) were 204±119 and 263±116 m, respectively (&Dgr;6MWT=60±106 m), with 219 (72%) patients demonstrating an increase in their walking distance (median percentage increase of the entire population was 20% [interquartile range, 0%–80%]). Factors independently correlated with reduced exercise capacity improvement included a range of baseline clinical characteristics (older age, female sex, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; P<0.05 for all), periprocedural major or life-threatening bleeding (P=0.009) and new-onset anemia at 6 months post-TAVR (P=0.009). Failure to improve the 6MWT distance by at least 20% was independently associated with all-cause mortality (P=0.002) and cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for cardiovascular causes (P=0.001). Baseline slow walkers who were able to improve the 6MWT distance presented with significantly better outcomes than nonimprovers (P=0.01 for all-cause mortality; P=0.001 for cardiovascular end point). Conclusions: Approximately one-third of patients undergoing TAVR did not improve their exercise capacity postprocedure. The lack of functional improvement post-TAVR was predicted by a mix of baseline and periprocedural factors translating into poorer clinical outcomes. These results suggest that systematically implementing exercise capacity assessment pre- and post-TAVR may help to improve patient risk stratification.

Future of transcatheter aortic valve implantation — evolving clinical indications

Accumulating clinical experience and technological improvements have provided the basis for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) to emerge as a well-established means for treating patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis at high or prohibitive surgical risk. During this decade, TAVI has emerged as a valid alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in patients at intermediate surgical risk, and several studies are currently being performed to evaluate the role of TAVI in patients at low surgical risk. Furthermore, promising, but preliminary, data are emerging on the efficacy of TAVI for treating patients with bicuspid aortic valve disease, as well as patients with pure aortic regurgitation. In this Perspectives article, we summarize the evolving indications for TAVI, and give our opinion on the future perspectives for this procedure.

Left atrial appendage closure: Initial experience with the ultraseal device

We report the initial experience of percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) closure with the Ultraseal device.

Latest-Generation Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Devices and Procedures

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a well-established treatment for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who are at high or prohibitive surgical risk. More recently, TAVR has emerged as a valid alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for treating intermediate-risk patients, and several studies are currently evaluating the role of TAVR in low-risk patients. Transcatheter heart valve (THV) technologies have evolved considerably over time, and important iterations have been implemented in many of the latest-generation devices to (1) reduce the size and improve delivery system properties; (2) improve valve deployment, repositioning, and retrievability; and (3) reduce paravalvular leaks. This article reviews the main characteristics of, and clinical results associated with, the newer-generation THVs while providing an overview of novel TAVR indications.

Reported Versus "Real" Incidence of New Pacemaker Implantation Post-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Cardiac conduction disturbances requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation remain the most frequent complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). PPM rates of approximately 6% (ranging from 2% to 14%) for the balloon-expandable valve system (BEV, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine,

Timing of Onset and Outcome of New Conduction Abnormalities Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Role of Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Little is known about the timing of onset and outcome of conduction abnormalities (CA) following balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The aim of this study was to examine the timing of CA and determine the impact of balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) on the persistence of these abnormalities. METHODS A total of 347 patients were included. Of these, 75 had a continuous electrocardiogram recording and a 6-lead electrocardiogram at each step of the procedure. RESULTS In the transcatheter aortic valve implantation population undergoing continuous electrocardiogram monitoring, new-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) or third-degree atrioventricular block occurred in 48 (64%) and 16 (21.3%) patients, with 51.5% of CA occurring before valve implantation. Left bundle branch block persisted more frequently at hospital discharge (53.8 vs 22.7%; P=.028) and at 1-month follow-up (38.5 vs 13.6%; P=.054) when occurring before valve implantation. Balloon aortic valvuloplasty prior to valve implantation was used in 264 (76.1%) patients, and 78 (22.5%) had persistent LBBB or complete atrioventricular block requiring pacemaker implantation. Persistent LBBB or unresolved atrioventricular block at 1 month occurred more frequently in the BAV group (76.1 vs 47.6%; P=.021), and the use of BAV was associated with a lack of CA resolution (OR, 3.5; 95%CI, 1.17-10.43; P=.021). CONCLUSIONS In patients undergoing a balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve implantation, more than half of CA occurred before valve implantation. Early occurrence of CA was associated with a higher rate of persistence at 1-month follow-up. The use of BAV was associated with an increased risk of CA persistence.

Haemodynamic outcomes following aortic valve-in-valve procedure

Background and objectives Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation (ViV) has emerged as a valuable technique to treat failed surgical bioprostheses (BPs) in patients with high risk for redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Small BP size (≤21 mm), stenotic pattern of degeneration and pre-existing prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM) have been associated with worse clinical outcomes after ViV. However, no study has evaluated the actual haemodynamic benefit associated with ViV. This study aims to compare haemodynamic status observed at post-ViV, pre-ViV and early after initial SAVR and to determine the factors associated with worse haemodynamic outcomes following ViV, including the rates of high residual gradient and ‘haemodynamic futility’. Methods Early post-SAVR, pre-ViV and post-ViV echocardiographic data of 79 consecutive patients who underwent aortic ViV at our institution were retrospectively analysed. The primary study endpoint was suboptimal valve haemodynamics (SVH) following ViV defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 as the presence of high residual aortic mean gradient (≥20 mm Hg) and/or at least moderate aortic regurgitation (AR). Haemodynamic futility of ViV was defined as <10 mm Hg decrease in mean aortic gradient and no improvement in AR compared with pre-ViV. Results SVH was found in 61% of patients (57% high residual gradient, 4% moderate AR) after ViV versus 24% early after SAVR. Pre-existing PPM and BP mode of failure by stenosis were independently associated with the primary endpoint (OR: 2.87; 95% CI 1.08 to 7.65; p=0.035 and OR: 3.02; 95% CI 1.08 to 8.42; p=0.035, respectively) and with the presence of high residual gradient (OR: 4.38; 95% CI 1.55 to 12.37; p=0.005 and OR: 5.37; 95% CI 1.77 to 16.30; p=0.003, respectively) following ViV. Criteria of ViV haemodynamic futility were met in 7.6% overall and more frequently in patients with pre-existing PPM and stenotic BP (18.5%) compared with other patients (2.0%). ViV restored haemodynamic function to early post-SAVR level in only 34% of patients. Conclusion Although ViV was associated with significant haemodynamic improvement compared with pre-ViV in >90% of patients, more than half harboured SVH outcome. Furthermore, only one-third of patients had a restoration of valve haemodynamic function to the early post-SAVR level. Pre-existing PPM and stenosis pattern of BP degeneration were the main factors associated with SVH and haemodynamic futility following ViV. These findings provide strong support for the prevention of PPM at the time of initial SAVR and careful preprocedural patient screening.

Reply: Bioprosthetic Valve Durability: Highlighting the Importance of Evaluating Consecutive Patients and Using the Right Definition

In response to the letter from Dr. Hernandez-Vaquero and colleagues, first, we recognize the importance and welcome the European consensus statement [(1)][1]. However, we respectfully disagree with some aspects of this statement with respect to the definition of structural valve deterioration (SVD

Infective endocarditis following transcatheter edge‐to‐edge mitral valve repair: A systematic review

To assess the clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients diagnosed with infective endocarditis (IE) after edge‐to‐edge mitral valve repair with the MitraClip device.