Bernhard Wernly1, Sarah Eder2, Eliano P Navarese3,4,5, Daniel Kretzschmar6, Marcus Franz6, Brunilda Alushi7,8, Frederik Beckhoff7,8, Christian Jung9, Michael Lichtenauer1, Christian Datz2, Paul Christian Schulze6, Ulf Landmesser7,8,10, Uta C Hoppe1, Volkmar Falk11,12,13, Alexander Lauten14,15. 1. Department of Cardiology, Clinic of Internal Medicine II, Paracelsus Medical University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Hospital Oberndorf, Teaching Hospital of Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Oberndorf, Austria. 3. Interventional Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine Research, Inova Center for Thrombosis Research and Drug Development, Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, VA, USA. 4. SIRIO MEDICINE Network, Evidence-Based Section, Falls Church, VA, USA. 5. Cardiovascular Institute, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland. 6. Department of Cardiology, Clinic of Internal Medicine I, Universitaetsherzzentrum Thüringen, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany. 7. Department of Cardiology, University Heart Center Berlin and Charité University Medicine Berlin, Campus Benjamin-Franklin, Berlin, Germany. 8. German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Site Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 9. Division of Cardiology, Pulmonology, and Vascular Medicine, Medical Faculty, University Duesseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany. 10. Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Berlin, Germany. 11. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Charite Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 12. Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, German Heart Center Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 13. Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland. 14. Department of Cardiology, University Heart Center Berlin and Charité University Medicine Berlin, Campus Benjamin-Franklin, Berlin, Germany. alexander.lauten@charite.de. 15. German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Site Berlin, Berlin, Germany. alexander.lauten@charite.de.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the mainstay of treatment for aortic stenosis in patients with high surgical risk. Pure aortic regurgitation (PAR) is considered a relative contraindication for TAVR; however, TAVR is increasingly performed in PAR patients with unfavorable risk profile. Herein, we aim to summarize available data on TAVR for PAR with special emphasis on "on-label" versus "off-label" TAVR devices. METHODS AND RESULTS: Pubmed was searched for studies of patients undergoing TAVR for PAR. Primary outcome was 30 day-mortality. Pooled estimated event rates were calculated. Twelve studies including a total of 640 patients were identified until December 2017. Among these, 208 (33%) patients were treated with devices with CE-mark approval for PAR ("on-label"; JenaValve and J valve). Overall, the procedural success rate was 89.9% (95% CI 81.1-96.1%; I2 80%). Major bleeding was reported in 6.4% (95% CI 2.9-10.8%; I2 48%). All-cause mortality at 30 days was 10.4% (95% CI 7.1-14.2%; I2 20%). Stroke occurred in 2.2% (95% CI 0.9-3.9%; I2 0%). A permanent pacemaker was required in 10.7% (95% CI 7.3-14.6%; I2 23%). At 30 days after TAVR, ≥ moderate AR post-interventional was observed in 11.5% (95% CI 2.9-23.6%; I2 90%). In the "on-label"-group, success rate was 93.0% (95% CI 85.9-98.1%; I2 52%). 30-day-mortality was 9.1% (95% CI 3.7-16.0%; I2 36%). More than trace AR was present in 2.8% (95% CI 0.1-7.6%; I2 0%). Compared to first-generation devices, second-generation devices were associated with significantly lower 30-day-mortality (r = - 0.10; p = 0.02), and significantly higher procedural success rates (r = 0.28; p < 0.001). Compared to other second-generation devices, the use of J valve or JenaValve was not associated with altered mortality (r = 0.04; p = 0.50), rates of > trace residual AR (r = - 0.05; p = 0.65) but with a significantly higher procedural success (r = 0.15; p = 0.042). CONCLUSION: Based on this summary of available observational data TAVR for PAR is feasible and safe in patients deemed inoperable. First-generation TAVR devices are associated with inferior outcome and should be avoided. The "on-label" use of PAR-certified TAVR devices is associated with a significantly higher procedural success rate and might be favorable compared to other second-generation devices.
INTRODUCTION: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the mainstay of treatment for aortic stenosis in patients with high surgical risk. Pure aortic regurgitation (PAR) is considered a relative contraindication for TAVR; however, TAVR is increasingly performed in PAR patients with unfavorable risk profile. Herein, we aim to summarize available data on TAVR for PAR with special emphasis on "on-label" versus "off-label" TAVR devices. METHODS AND RESULTS: Pubmed was searched for studies of patients undergoing TAVR for PAR. Primary outcome was 30 day-mortality. Pooled estimated event rates were calculated. Twelve studies including a total of 640 patients were identified until December 2017. Among these, 208 (33%) patients were treated with devices with CE-mark approval for PAR ("on-label"; JenaValve and J valve). Overall, the procedural success rate was 89.9% (95% CI 81.1-96.1%; I2 80%). Major bleeding was reported in 6.4% (95% CI 2.9-10.8%; I2 48%). All-cause mortality at 30 days was 10.4% (95% CI 7.1-14.2%; I2 20%). Stroke occurred in 2.2% (95% CI 0.9-3.9%; I2 0%). A permanent pacemaker was required in 10.7% (95% CI 7.3-14.6%; I2 23%). At 30 days after TAVR, ≥ moderate AR post-interventional was observed in 11.5% (95% CI 2.9-23.6%; I2 90%). In the "on-label"-group, success rate was 93.0% (95% CI 85.9-98.1%; I2 52%). 30-day-mortality was 9.1% (95% CI 3.7-16.0%; I2 36%). More than trace AR was present in 2.8% (95% CI 0.1-7.6%; I2 0%). Compared to first-generation devices, second-generation devices were associated with significantly lower 30-day-mortality (r = - 0.10; p = 0.02), and significantly higher procedural success rates (r = 0.28; p < 0.001). Compared to other second-generation devices, the use of J valve or JenaValve was not associated with altered mortality (r = 0.04; p = 0.50), rates of > trace residual AR (r = - 0.05; p = 0.65) but with a significantly higher procedural success (r = 0.15; p = 0.042). CONCLUSION: Based on this summary of available observational data TAVR for PAR is feasible and safe in patients deemed inoperable. First-generation TAVR devices are associated with inferior outcome and should be avoided. The "on-label" use of PAR-certified TAVR devices is associated with a significantly higher procedural success rate and might be favorable compared to other second-generation devices.
Authors: Adam S Evans; Menachem M Weiner; Shahzad Shaefi; Prakash A Patel; Matthew M Townsley; Abirami Kumaresan; Jared W Feinman; Ashley V Fritz; Archer K Martin; Toby B Steinberg; J Ross Renew; Jane L Gui; Brian Radvansky; Himani Bhatt; Sudhakar Subramani; Archit Sharma; Jacob T Gutsche; John G Augoustides; Harish Ramakrishna Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Date: 2019-11-09 Impact factor: 2.628
Authors: Daniela Haase; Laura Bäz; Marcus Franz; P Christian Schulze; Tarek Bekfani; Sophie Neugebauer; Michael Kiehntopf; Sven Möbius-Winkler Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2020-10-14 Impact factor: 5.460