Robert Schueler1, Can Öztürk2, Jasmin Viktoria Laser2, Fabian Wirth2, Nikos Werner2, Armin Welz3, Georg Nickenig2, Jan-Malte Sinning2, Christoph Hammerstingl4. 1. Contilia Heart and Vessel Centrum, Department of Cardiology and Angiology, Elisabeth Hospital, Essen, Germany. 2. Heart Centre Bonn, Department of Internal Medicine, Cardiology, Pulmonology and Angiology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany. 3. Heart Centre Bonn, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany. 4. Heart and Vessel Medicine Mediapark, Department of Cardiology, Cologne, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative treatment option to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in selected high-risk patients. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of right ventricular (RV) functional imaging to predict clinical response to TAVR and SAVR. METHODS: One hundred and ten patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis (AVS) undergoing successful TAVR and 32 controls undergoing SAVR were prospectively enrolled. Six months follow up (FU) included two-dimensional (2D) transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) with RV deformation imaging. RESULTS: Baseline TTE showed no significant differences between groups (TAVR and SAVR) in conventional left ventricular (LV) and RV functional parameters (LV ejection fraction [LV-EF]: p = .21; tricuspidal annular plane systolic excursion [TAPSE]: 1.8 ± 0.5 cm, 1.9 ± 0.4 cm, p = .21), and RV strain (right ventricular-global longitudinal strain [RV-GLS] -11.6 ± 5.2%, -11.5 ± 6.5%, p = .70). At FU LV function was unchanged in both groups (p > .05); RV function was significantly improved after TAVR (RV-GLS: -11.6 ± 5.2%, -13.4 ± 6.1%, p = .005; TAPSE: 1.8 ± 0.5 cm, 1.9 ± 0.3 cm, p = .05), and worsened after SAVR (RV-GLS: -11.5 ± 6.5%, -8.9 ± 5.2%, p = .04; TAPSE: 1.9 ± 0.4 cm, 1.5 ± 0.3 cm, p < .001). Functional New York Heart Association (NYHA) class remained unchanged in patients after SAVR (p = .21), and improved after TAVR (p < .001). Baseline RV function was linked with clinical response to TAVR (TAPSE, p < .0001; RV-GLS, p = .04), and the development of RV-GLS was associated with functional worsening after SAVR (p = .05). CONCLUSION: Baseline RV function and changes of right heart mechanics are closely associated with functional improvements after AVR. SAVR, but not TAVR, seems to have detrimental effects on RV-function.
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative treatment option to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in selected high-risk patients. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of right ventricular (RV) functional imaging to predict clinical response to TAVR and SAVR. METHODS: One hundred and ten patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis (AVS) undergoing successful TAVR and 32 controls undergoing SAVR were prospectively enrolled. Six months follow up (FU) included two-dimensional (2D) transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) with RV deformation imaging. RESULTS: Baseline TTE showed no significant differences between groups (TAVR and SAVR) in conventional left ventricular (LV) and RV functional parameters (LV ejection fraction [LV-EF]: p = .21; tricuspidal annular plane systolic excursion [TAPSE]: 1.8 ± 0.5 cm, 1.9 ± 0.4 cm, p = .21), and RV strain (right ventricular-global longitudinal strain [RV-GLS] -11.6 ± 5.2%, -11.5 ± 6.5%, p = .70). At FU LV function was unchanged in both groups (p > .05); RV function was significantly improved after TAVR (RV-GLS: -11.6 ± 5.2%, -13.4 ± 6.1%, p = .005; TAPSE: 1.8 ± 0.5 cm, 1.9 ± 0.3 cm, p = .05), and worsened after SAVR (RV-GLS: -11.5 ± 6.5%, -8.9 ± 5.2%, p = .04; TAPSE: 1.9 ± 0.4 cm, 1.5 ± 0.3 cm, p < .001). Functional New York Heart Association (NYHA) class remained unchanged in patients after SAVR (p = .21), and improved after TAVR (p < .001). Baseline RV function was linked with clinical response to TAVR (TAPSE, p < .0001; RV-GLS, p = .04), and the development of RV-GLS was associated with functional worsening after SAVR (p = .05). CONCLUSION: Baseline RV function and changes of right heart mechanics are closely associated with functional improvements after AVR. SAVR, but not TAVR, seems to have detrimental effects on RV-function.