Limited data is available about the effect of implanted valve size on prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM) incidence and aortic gradient (AG) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We compared PPM incidence and postprocedural AG between TAVR and SAVR patients considering the impact of implanted valve size.
Methods
From March 20, 2012, to September 30, 2015, 563 consecutive patients underwent TAVR (n = 419) or isolated SAVR (n = 144). Postprocedural transthoracic echocardiography was obtained within 30 days; AG, effective orifice area (EOA), and EOA index were calculated.
Results
A total of 381 patients in TAVR group and 82 patients in SAVR group were included. Mean preoperative AG and mean aortic valve area were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Postprocedural AG was significantly lower in TAVR than SAVR group, 7.74 ± 5.39 versus 14.27 ± 8.16 (P < 0.001). Between patients who had TAVR and SAVR with a valve size ≤23 mm, SAVR patients were 3 times more likely to have greater than mild AG after the procedure, OR: 3.1 (95% CI, 1.1 to 8.9) (P < 0.001). PPM incidence was significantly higher in SAVR group than TAVR group, 44 (53.7%) versus 112 (29.4%), OR = 2.8 (95% CI, 1.7 to 4.5) (P < 0.001). The PPM incidence was also higher in SAVR group than TAVR group among those who had the procedures with a valve size ≤23 mm, 35 (64.8%) versus 56 (47.9%), OR = 2 (95% CI, 1.1 to 3.9) (P = 0.048). Postprocedural outcomes were comparable between the 2 groups.
Conclusions
In comparison to SAVR, TAVR is associated with less PPM and lower AG, especially in patients receiving a valve size ≤23 mm.
IungB.CachierA.BaronGet al. Decision-making in elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis: why are so many denied surgery?Eur Heart J2005; 26: 2714–2720.doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehi471
2.
HuPP. TAVR and SAVR: current treatment of aortic stenosis. Clin Med Insights Cardiol2012; 6: 125–139.doi:10.4137/CMC.S7540
3.
MakkarRR.FontanaGP.JilaihawiHet al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement for inoperable severe aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med2012; 366: 1696–1704.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1202277
4.
MackMJ.LeonMB.SmithCRet 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. Lancet2015; 385: 2477–2484.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60308-7
5.
MoatNE.LudmanP.de BelderMAet al. Long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: the U.K. TAVI (United Kingdom transcatheter aortic valve implantation) registry. J Am Coll Cardiol2011; 58: 2130–2138.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.050
6.
PiazzaN.KalesanB.van MieghemNet al. A 3-center comparison of 1-year mortality outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement on the basis of propensity score matching among intermediate-risk surgical patients. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2013; 6: 443–451.doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2013.01.136
7.
PibarotP.DumesnilJG. Prosthetic heart valves: selection of the optimal prosthesis and long-term management. Circulation2009; 119: 1034–1048.doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.778886
GhantaRK.KronIL. Patient-prosthesis mismatch: surgical aortic valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in high risk patients with aortic stenosis. J Thorac Dis2016; 8: E1441–E1443.doi:10.21037/jtd.2016.09.62
10.
ZornGL.LittleSH.TadrosPet al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: a randomized trial of a self-expanding prosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2016; 151: 1014–1023.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.10.070
11.
Rodés-CabauJ.PibarotP.SuriRMet al. Impact of aortic annulus size on valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes after transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement: insights from the PARTNER Trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv2014; 7: 701–711.doi:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.001681
12.
KalavrouziotisD.Rodés-CabauJ.BagurRet al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis and small aortic annulus. J Am Coll Cardiol2011; 58: 1016–1024.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2011.05.026
13.
HahnRT.PibarotP.StewartWJet al. Comparison of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement in severe aortic stenosis: a longitudinal study of echocardiography parameters in cohort A of the PARTNER trial (placement of aortic transcatheter valves). J Am Coll Cardiol2013; 61: 2514–2521.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.02.087
14.
PibarotP.WeissmanNJ.StewartWJet al. Incidence and sequelae of prosthesis-patient mismatch in transcatheter versus surgical valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: a PARTNER trial cohort--a analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol2014; 64: 1323–1334.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2014.06.1195
15.
Aalaei-AndabiliSH.AndersonRD.PetersenJWet al. Comparison of periprocedural and mid-term stroke rates and outcomes between surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement patients. J Cardiovasc Surg2017; 58: 591–597.doi:10.23736/S0021-9509.16.09390-3
OttoCM.NishimuraRA. New ACC/AHA valve guidelines: aligning definitions of aortic stenosis severity with treatment recommendations. Heart2014; 100: 902–904.doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2013-305134
18.
ZoghbiWA.ChambersJB.DumesnilJGet al. Recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with echocardiography and Doppler ultrasound: a report from the American Society of echocardiography's guidelines and standards Committee and the task Force on prosthetic valves, developed in conjunction with the American College of cardiology cardiovascular imaging Committee, cardiac imaging Committee of the American Heart Association, the European association of echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of echocardiography and the Canadian Society of echocardiography, endorsed by the American College of cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association, European association of echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of echocardiography, and Canadian Society of echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr2009; 22: 975–1014.doi:10.1016/j.echo.2009.07.013
19.
DeebGM.ReardonMJ.ChetcutiSet al. 3-year outcomes in high-risk patients who underwent surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol2016; 67: 2565–2574.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2016.03.506
20.
ClavelM-A.WebbJG.PibarotPet al. Comparison of the hemodynamic performance of percutaneous and surgical bioprostheses for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol2009; 53: 1883–1891.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2009.01.060
21.
SmithCR.LeonMB.MackMJet al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med2011; 364: 2187–2198.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1103510
22.
ThyregodHGH.SteinbrüchelDA.IhlemannNet al. No clinical effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in intermediate- and low-risk patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at mid-term follow-up: an analysis from the NOTION trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2016; 50: 721–728.doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezw095
23.
GianniniC.PetronioAS.NardiCet al. Left ventricular reverse remodeling in percutaneous and surgical aortic bioprostheses: an echocardiographic study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr2011; 24: 28–36.doi:10.1016/j.echo.2010.08.027
24.
PoulinF.YingchoncharoenT.WilsonWMet al. Impact of Prosthesis-Patient mismatch on left ventricular myocardial mechanics after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Heart Assoc2016; 5: e002866. Epub ahead of print 08 Feb 2016.doi:10.1161/JAHA.115.002866
25.
EweSH.MuratoriM.DelgadoVet al. Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol2011; 58: 1910–1918.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.027
26.
BleizifferS.HettichI.HutterAet al. Incidence and impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Heart Valve Dis2013; 22: 309–316.
27.
da SilvaC.SahlenA.WinterRet al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: impact of 2D-transthoracic echocardiography versus 3D-transesophageal echocardiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging2014; 30: 1549–1557.doi:10.1007/s10554-014-0510-0
