RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data regarding the relationship between overall hospital volumes for total aortic valve replacement (AVR; transcatheter AVR [TAVR] or surgical AVR [SAVR]) and patient outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We queried the 2019 Nationwide Readmission Database for patients undergoing AVR. Based on procedural volumes of TAVR or SAVR, we classified hospitals as high (≥50th percentile) or low (<50th percentile) volume centers and categorized hospitals as high TAVR/high SAVR, high TAVR/low SAVR, high SAVR/low TAVR, and low TAVR/low SAVR. Multivariable regression models were employed. The main study outcomes were in-hospital mortality and 30-day readmission after total AVR. Our final analysis included 72 123 patients undergoing AVR at 400 hospitals across the United States. The median (interquartile range) hospital procedural volumes for total AVR, TAVR, and SAVR were 137 (86-210), 82 (50-127), and 56 (31-87) procedures, respectively. There was an inverse correlation between hospital procedural volumes of AVR, TAVR, or SAVR and in-hospital mortality after total AVR but not with 30-day readmission. Using high TAVR/high SAVR hospitals as reference, there was higher in-hospital mortality after total AVR among low TAVR/low SAVR hospitals (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.29 [95% CI, 1.07-1.56]) but similar in-hospital mortality among high TAVR/low SAVR hospitals and low TAVR/high SAVR volumes. There was no difference in 30-day readmission rates after total AVR among the 4 hospital categories. CONCLUSIONS: Nationwide data revealed that in-hospital mortality after total AVR (SAVR or TAVR) is inversely related to hospital total volumes of AVR. Patients with aortic stenosis have better outcomes if they are managed among experienced centers with high case volumes of both TAVR and SAVR.

RESUMEN

The Bicuspid Aortic Valve (BAV) is the most common congenital anomaly in adults, with a global incidence of 1.3%. Despite being well documented, BAV presents significant clinical challenges due to its phenotypic heterogeneity, diverse clinical manifestations, and variable outcomes. Pathophysiologically, BAV differs from tricuspid valves in calcification patterns and hemodynamic effects, leading to increased shear stress and aortic root dilatation, while it is influenced by genetic and hemodynamic factors. This is why therapeutically, BAV presents challenges for both surgical and transcatheter interventions, with surgical approaches being traditionally preferred, especially when aortopathy is present. However, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a viable option, with studies showing comparable outcomes to surgery in selected patients, while advancements in TAVI and a better understanding of BAV's genetic and pathophysiological nuances are expanding treatment options. The choice between mechanical and bioprosthetic valves also presents considerations, particularly regarding long-term durability and the need for anticoagulation. Future research should focus on long-term registries and genetic studies to refine therapeutic strategies and improve patient outcomes. This review aims to evaluate current approaches in the surgical and interventional management of BAV, focusing on its anatomy, pathogenesis, pathophysiology, and therapeutic strategies.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and cardiogenic shock (CS) are an extremely high-risk population with a poor prognosis in the absence of definitive therapy. AIMS: To compare the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with surgical AVR (SAVR) in patients with AS-CS. METHODS: We queried the Nationwide Readmission Database (2016-2021) to identify patients hospitalized for AS-CS who underwent isolated TAVR or SAVR. In-hospital outcomes of TAVR vs SAVR were compared using multivariable regression and propensity-matching analyses. Ninety-day readmissions were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression model. RESULTS: Of 16,072 patients hospitalized for AS-CS, 6,381 (39.7%) underwent isolated TAVR, and 9,691 (60.3%) underwent isolated SAVR. From 2016 through 2021, the proportion of TAVR increased from 29.5% to 46.5% and the proportion of SAVR correspondingly decreased in AS-CS (ptrend<0.01). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, TAVR was associated with lower odds of stroke (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.79), acute kidney injury (aOR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68-0.92), and major bleeding (aOR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40-0.72) and higher odds of vascular complications (aOR 1.55, 95% CI 1.22-1.96) compared with SAVR. In-hospital mortality, myocardial infarction, permanent pacemaker placement, and 90-day all-cause and heart failure readmissions were similar. Length of stay was shorter and total costs and nonhome discharges were lower with TAVR. CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide observational analysis showed that TAVR is increasingly performed in patients with AS-CS and is associated with similar in-hospital mortality and 90-day readmissions, but lower in-hospital complications and resource utilization compared with SAVR.

RESUMEN

Self-expanding (SE) and balloon-expandable (BE) transcatheter heart valves (THVs) have not been extensively studied in valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR). We compared outcomes of supra-annular SE and BE THVs used for ViV-TAVR via a retrospective analysis of institutional data (2013-2023) including all patients undergoing ViV-TAVR (TAVR in previous surgical AVR). Unmatched and propensity-matched (1:1) comparisons of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were undertaken between SE and BE THV along with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. A total of 315 patients undergoing ViV-TAVR were included of which 73% received a SE THV. Median age was 77 years and women comprised 42.5% of the population. Propensity-score matching (1:1) yielded 81 matched pairs. Implanted aortic valve size was comparable between the groups (23 mm [23-26] vs. 23mm [23-26], p=0.457). At 30 days following ViV-TAVR, the SE group had a lower mean aortic valve gradient (14 mmHg [11-18] vs. 17.5 mmHg [13-25], p=0.007). A higher number of BE patients had severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) (16% vs. 6.2%, p=0.04). At one-year follow-up, the SE group had a lower aortic valve gradient (14.0 mmHg [9.6-19] vs. 17 mmHg [13-25], p=0.04) compared to the BE group. 30-day mortality was 2.7% while one-year mortality was 7.5% and comparable between the groups. Survival and stroke incidence were similar in both groups up to 5 years. In conclusion, both SE and BE THVs had comparable survival following ViV-TAVR. The higher residual aortic valve gradients in BE THVs are likely due to valve design and warrant long-term evaluation for potential structural valve degeneration.

RESUMEN

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2024.1407566.].

RESUMEN

The Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention-2 (NOTION-2) trial is the first randomized controlled trial to compare transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-risk patients, specifically focusing on relatively younger patients and those with bicuspid valves. It randomized 370 patients (mean age 71 years) to assess outcomes at 1 year. Results indicated a higher composite primary endpoint rate for TAVI (10.2%) compared to SAVR (7.1%) in the overall cohort, with even more pronounced differences in patients with bicuspid valves (14.3% for TAVI vs. 3.9% for SAVR). The risk of death or disabling stroke at 1 year was also three times higher with TAVI.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Aortic regurgitation is distinguished by the backflow of blood from the aorta into the left ventricle. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines recommend surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with symptomatic aortic regurgitation (sAR). This study estimates the difference in mortality, health care use, and costs between patients with sAR who receive SAVR within 12 months of diagnosis versus those who do not. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used the Optum United Healthcare database to identify 132 317 patients diagnosed with sAR from 2016 to 2021 who had at least 6 months of enrollment before sAR and 12 months of enrollment after. Criteria were no history of aortic stenosis or transcatheter aortic valve replacement and ≥2 visits for heart failure, angina, dyspnea, or syncope. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, health care use, and annualized cost. Baseline differences in demographics and comorbidities were adjusted with inverse propensity score weighting. We modeled survival and estimated health care use and costs using Cox proportional hazards and general linear models, respectively. Of the 132 317 patients, 400 underwent SAVR within 12 months of diagnosis. They were on average younger, more often men, and with a slightly higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index score. After inverse propensity score weighting, patients with sAR who had SAVR had lower mortality, fewer inpatient and emergency department visits, fewer hospital days, and lower annualized cost. CONCLUSIONS: SAVR performed within 12 months of an sAR diagnosis is associated with improved mortality and lower annualized health care use and costs. These clinical and economic benefits should be considered when managing patients with sAR.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Objectives: To analyze Heart Team decisions and outcomes following failure of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) prostheses. Methods: Patients undergoing re-operations following index SAVR (Redo-SAVR) and those undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) following SAVR were included in this study. Patients who underwent index SAVR and/or Redo-SAVR for endocarditis were excluded. Data are presented as medians and 25th-75th percentiles, or absolute numbers and percentages. Outcomes were analyzed in accordance to the VARC-3 criteria. Results: Between 01/2015 and 03/2021, 53 patients underwent Redo-SAVR, 103 patients ViV-TAVR. Mean EuroSCORE II was 5.7% (3.5-8.5) in the Redo-SAVR group and 9.2% (5.4-13.6) in the ViV group. In the Redo-SAVR group, 12 patients received aortic root enlargement (22.6%). Length of hospital and ICU stay was longer in the Redo-SAVR group (p < 0.001; p < 0.001), PGmax and PGmean were lower in the Redo-SAVR group as compared to the ViV-TAVR group (18 mmHg (10-30) vs. 26 mmHg (19-38), p < 0.001) (9 mmHg (6-15) vs. 15 mmHg (9-21), p < 0.001). A higher rate of paravalvular leakage was seen in the ViV-TAVR group (p = 0.013). VARC-3 Early Safety were comparable between the two populations (p = 0.343). Survival at 1 year and 5 years was 82% and 36% in the ViV-TAVR cohort and 84% and 77% in the Redo-SAVR cohort. The variables were patient age (OR 1.061; [95% CI 1.020-1.104], p = 0.004), coronary heart disease (OR 2.648; [95% CI 1.160-6.048], p = 0.021), and chronic renal insufficiency (OR 2.711; [95% CI 1.160-6.048], p = 0.021) showed a significant correlation to ViV-TAVR. Conclusions: Heart Team decisions are crucial in the treatment of patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses and lead to a low mortality in both treatment paths thanks to patient-specific therapy planning. ViV-TAVR offers a treatment for elderly or intermediate-risk profile patients with comparable short-term mortality. However, this therapy is associated with increased pressure gradients and a high prevalence of paravalvular leakage. Redo-SAVR enables the surgical treatment of concomitant cardiac pathologies and allows anticipation for later VIV-TAVR by implanting the largest possible valve prostheses.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) has become the preferred treatment approach for many patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis (SsAS), particularly those who are deemed at high surgical risk. However, in low-risk surgical patients (LSRP) with SsAS, the choice between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is often a matter of debate and depends on several clinical and anatomical considerations. RECENT FINDINGS: Midterm data show similar clinical outcomes and durability of TAVR and SAVR bioprosthetic valves in LRSP. Data on long term durability and outcomes of TAVR in LRSP remains scarce. Both TAVR and SAVR are reasonable options in LRSP with SsAS. Nevertheless, many of these LRSP are expected to outlive their bioprosthetic valves and planning for the second aortic valve replacement should begin at the time of the index procedure with special consideration for coronary re-access, risk for coronary obstruction, and prothesis patient mismatch.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: With the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve implantation, the role of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in elderly patients has been called into question. We investigated the short-term outcomes of SAVR in the elderly population. METHODS: All patients aged ≥ 70 years who underwent isolated SAVR in our centre between 2008 and 2017 were included in the study. Survival at 30 days and 1 year were compared for patients aged 70-79 years (n = 809) versus patients aged ≥ 80 years (n = 322). Factors associated with poorer survival outcomes were identified using multivariable Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Patients aged 70-79 years and patients aged ≥ 80 years had similar survival rates at 30 days (98.1% vs. 98.4%, p = 0.732) and 1 year (96.0% vs. 94.1%, p = 0.162) post-SAVR. This remained true after multivariable adjustment. Risk factors for 30 day all-cause mortality included insulin dependent diabetes (HR 6.17, 95% CI 1.32-28.92, p = 0.021) and increasing cardiopulmonary bypass time (HR 2.72, 95% CI 1.89-3.91, p < 0.0001). Significant risk factors for 1 year all-cause mortality were New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV (HR 6.25, 95% CI 1.55-25.24, p = 0.010) and longer cardiopulmonary bypass time (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.40-2.69, p < 0.0001). Similar results were obtained for cardiac-specific mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term outcomes of SAVR are excellent in elderly patients and age alone is not a predictor of poorer outcomes. However, the increased risk of mortality in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes and those with severe functional impairment (NYHA class IV) should be carefully considered when selecting patients for SAVR in this elderly population.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) being currently employed in low surgical risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). The durability and extended outcomes of TAVR as compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-risk patients remains uncertain. Methods: We selected randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing outcomes of TAVR vs. SAVR in low surgical risk patients having severe AS using online databases. The primary outcome was all-cause death. The secondary outcomes were composite of all-cause death & disabling stroke, cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), permanent pacemaker (PPM) placement, new onset atrial fibrillation (AF), valve re-intervention and valve thrombosis. The outcomes were stratified at short- (1-year) and intermediate-term (≤5 years) follow-up. We used a random effect model to report outcomes as relative risk (RR) with a 95 % confidence interval (CI). Results: The analysis consisted of six RCTs comprising 5,122 subjects with a mean age of 75.4 years. At short-term follow up, there was a significant reduction in all-cause death (RR: 0.62, 0.46-0.82, p = 0.001) and composite of all-cause death and disabling stroke (RR: 0.62, 0.45-0.83, p = 0.002) in patients undergoing TAVR. At intermediate-term follow-up, there was no significant difference in survival (RR:0.95, 0.73-1.24, p = 0.71) and composite outcome (RR: 0.95, 0.74-1.22, p = 0.71). TAVR patients had lower incidence of new onset AF, however, higher PPM placement. Conclusion: In patients with severe AS having low-surgical risk, patients undergoing TAVR had improved short-term survival as compared to SAVR. This survival advantage was absent at intermediate-term follow-up. The long-term outcomes remain uncertain.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to pool randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and extrapolate pooled time-to-event data to compare long-term outcomes. METHODS: An electronic database search was performed for RCTs comparing SAVR with TAVR. The most current longest follow-up data for each RCT were included. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Survival data were pooled for Kaplan-Meier analysis as well as parametric modeling with extrapolation. RESULTS: Seven RCTs comprising 7774 patients were included. Mean valve gradient at 5 y was comparable between SAVR [11 mmHg (3.7; 18.3)] and TAVR [8.1 mmHg (1.9; 14.3)] (P = 0.38). TAVR had a higher mean valve area at 30 d, 1 y, and 2 y [1.68 cm2 (1.22; 2.13) versus 1.8 cm2 (1.35; 2.25), P = 0.02]. SAVR had a higher freedom from any paravalvular leak at 30 d and 1 y [86% (81; 90) versus 39% (36; 41), P < 0.01]. All-cause death was lower in the SAVR group at 5 y [39% (29; 50) versus 43% (31; 57), P < 0.01]. Although no differences were seen between SAVR and TAVR in the pooled Kaplan-Meier analysis of all-cause mortality and composite of all-cause mortality or stroke, parametric modeling with extrapolation showed significant divergence for both outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled all-cause mortality as well as pooled composite of all-cause mortality or stroke indicated better survival with SAVR at 5 y. Long-term parametric extrapolation also indicated superior survival with SAVR.

RESUMEN

Introduction Data regarding clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with sarcoidosis is lacking. This study aims to clarify the clinical outcomes of TAVR vs SAVR in patients with sarcoidosis. Methods Data was collected from the National Inpatient Sample database from 2016-2019 using validated ICD-10-CM codes for sarcoidosis, TAVR, and SAVR. Patients were divided into two cohorts: those who underwent TAVR and those who underwent SAVR. Statistical analysis was performed using Pearson's chi-squared test to determine clinical outcomes of TAVR vs SAVR in patients with sarcoidosis. Results The prevalence of sarcoidosis was 0.23% among total study patients (n=142,420,378). After exclusions, the prevalence of TAVR was 650 (49%) and SAVR was 675 (51%) in patients with sarcoidosis. Patients who underwent TAVR were on average older (74 vs 65 years old, p=0.001), and more likely to be female (57 vs 40%, p<0.001) compared to patients who underwent SAVR. The TAVR cohort had higher rates of congestive heart failure (CHF) (77.7 vs 42.2%, p=0.001), chronic kidney disease (CKD) (42.3 vs 24.4% p=0.001), anemia (5.4 vs 2.2%, p=0.004), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (1.5 vs 0%, p=0.004), and hypothyroidism (31.5 vs 16.3%, p=0.001) compared to the SAVR cohort. Inpatient mortality post-procedure was higher in the SAVR cohort compared to the TAVR cohort (15 vs 0, p=0.001). Regarding post-procedure complications, respiratory complications were more common in the SAVR cohort (4.4 vs 0%, p=0.001), while TAVR was associated with a higher incidence of permanent pacemaker (PPM) insertion (2.15 vs 0.8%, p=0.001). There was no statistical difference in the development of acute kidney injury (AKI) (0.8 vs 1.5%, p=0.33), AKI requiring hemodialysis (0 vs. 0.7%, p=0.08), or stroke (0.8 vs 0.7, p=1) post-procedure between the two cohorts. Conclusion This study found that in the sarcoidosis population, TAVR was associated with reduced mortality, shorter hospital length of stay, and lower hospitalization costs in comparison to SAVR.

RESUMEN

Introduction: There is a lack of real-world data directly comparing different valve prostheses for transaortic valve replacement (TAVR). We aimed to compare early clinical outcomes at 30-days between the self-expandable Portico valve (Abbott) with the balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien 3 valve (Edwards Lifesciences) (ES3). Methods: Out of 1,901 patients undergoing TAVR between January 2018 and December 2021, all patients who received either Portico valve or ES3 valve via transfemoral TAVR were matched using nearest-neighbor (1:1) propensity scoring. Primary endpoints were single safety endpoints and early safety composite endpoints defined by Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) criteria. The secondary endpoint was to analyze risk predictors for new permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation in TAVR. Results: Out of 661 complete cases, a total of 434 patients were successfully matched based on age, sex, Euro Score II and STS-score. In the matched cohort, 217 received either a Portico or valve and 217 received an ES3 valve. The VARC-2 early safety composite scores indicated a significantly greater overall 30-day safety risk in the Portico group at 9.2% (n = 20) compared to 3.7% (n = 8) in the ES3 group (p = 0.032). The requirement for new permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation was also higher in the Portico group, at 21.2% (n = 46) vs. 13.4% (n = 29) in the ES3 group (p = 0.042). 30-day mortality was higher was 3.7% (n = 8) in Portico group compared to 0.9% in ES3 group (p = 0.11). Furthermore, implantation of the Portico valve was identified as a significant risk predictor for new PPM implantation, alongside higher age, preprocedural atrioventricular block (AVB) and longer total procedure duration. Conclusion: This study shows significantly higher rates of early clinical complications for Portico valve prostheses compared to ES3. These findings should be especially taken into consideration when selecting valve prosthesis for high-risk patients.

RESUMEN

Reverse left ventricular (LV) remodeling after aortic valve replacement (AVR), in patients with aortic stenosis, is well-documented as an important prognostic factor. With this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to characterize the response of the unloaded LV after AVR. We searched on MEDLINE/PubMed and Web of Science for studies reporting echocardiographic findings before and at least 1 month after AVR for the treatment of aortic stenosis. In total, 1,836 studies were identified and 1,098 were screened for inclusion. The main factors of interest were structural and dynamic measures of the LV and aortic valve. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to compute standardized mean differences (SMD) between follow-up and baseline values for each outcome. Twenty-seven studies met the eligibility criteria, yielding 11,751 patients. AVR resulted in reduced mean aortic gradient (SMD: - 38.23 mmHg, 95% CI: - 39.88 to - 36.58 , I 2 = 92 % ), LV mass (SMD: - 37.24 g, 95% CI: - 49.31 to - 25.18 , I 2 = 96 % ), end-diastolic LV diameter (SMD: - 1.78 mm, 95% CI: - 2.80 to - 0.76 , I 2 = 96 % ), end-diastolic LV volume (SMD: - 1.6 ml, 95% CI: - 6.68 to 3.51, I 2 = 91 % ), increased effective aortic valve area (SMD: 1.10 cm2, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.20, I 2 = 98 % ), and LV ejection fraction (SMD: 2.35%, 95% CI: 1.31 to 3.40%, I 2 = 94.1 % ). Our results characterize the extent to which reverse remodeling is expected to occur after AVR. Notably, in our study, reverse remodeling was documented as soon as 1 month after AVR.

RESUMEN

Background: Low stroke volume index <35 ml/m2 despite preserved ejection fraction (paradoxical low flow [PLF]) is associated with adverse outcomes in patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, whether the risk associated with PLF is similar in both sexes is unknown. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to analyze the risk associated with PLF in severe aortic stenosis for men and women randomized to TAVR or SAVR. Methods: Patients with ejection fraction ≥50% from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2 and 3 trials were stratified by sex and treatment arm. The impact of PLF on the 2-year occurrence of the composite of death or heart failure hospitalization (primary endpoint) and of all-cause mortality alone (secondary endpoint) was analyzed. Analysis of variance was used to assess baseline differences between groups. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to identify predictors of the endpoint. Results: Out of 2,242 patients, PLF was present in 390 men and 239 women (30% vs 26%, P = 0.06). PLF was associated with a higher rate of NYHA functional class III to IV dyspnea (60% vs 54%, P < 0.001) and a higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation (39% vs 24%, P < 0.001). PLF was a significant predictor of the primary endpoint among women undergoing SAVR in multivariate analysis (adjusted HR: 2.25 [95% CI: 1.14-4.43], P = 0.02) but was not associated with a worse outcome in any of the other groups (all P > 0.05). Conclusions: In women with PLF, TAVR may improve outcomes compared to SAVR. PLF appears to have less impact on outcomes in men.

RESUMEN

The treatment of severe aortic stenosis (SAS) has evolved rapidly with the advent of minimally invasive structural heart interventions. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has allowed patients to undergo definitive SAS treatment achieving faster recovery rates compared to valve surgery. Not infrequently, patients are admitted/diagnosed with SAS after a fall associated with a hip fracture (HFx). While urgent orthopedic surgery is key to reduce disability and mortality, untreated SAS increases the perioperative risk and precludes physical recovery. There is no consensus on what the best strategy is either hip correction under hemodynamic monitoring followed by valve replacement or preoperative balloon aortic valvuloplasty to allow HFx surgery followed by valve replacement. However, preoperative minimalist transcatheter aortic valve replacement may represent an attractive strategy for selected patients. We provide a management pathway that emphasizes an early multidisciplinary approach to optimize time for hip surgery to improve orthopedic and cardiovascular outcomes in patients presenting with HFx-SAS.

RESUMEN

Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) has evolved from a treatment strategy for high-risk patients to an option for low-risk individuals, prompting the need for rigorous comparisons with surgical aortic-valve replacement (SAVR). The German-Austrian Prospective Randomized Trial of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Conventional Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low and Intermediate Risk Patients (DEDICATE) trial compares low- and intermediate-risk patient undergoing SAVR and TAVR. This review outlines the trial design, key findings, strengths, and weaknesses of the study and also highlights the urgent need for standardized definitions of low-risk patients in future trials to ensure accurate comparisons and robust conclusions.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Patients with a small aortic annulus (SAA) undergoing aortic valve replacement are at increased risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM), which adversely affects outcomes. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has shown promise in mitigating PPM compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines to compare clinical outcomes, mortality, and PPM between SAA patients undergoing TAVR and SAVR. Eligible studies were identified through comprehensive literature searches and assessed for quality and relevance. RESULTS: Nine studies with a total of 2476 patients were included. There was no significant difference in 30-day Mortality between TAVR vs SAVR groups (OR = 0.65, 95% CI [ 0.09-4.61], P = 0.22). There was no difference between both groups regarding myocardial infarction at 30 days (OR = 0.63, 95% CI [0.1-3.89], P = 0.62). TAVR was associated with a significantly lower 30-day major bleeding and 2-year major bleeding, Pooled studies were homogeneous (OR = 0.44, 95% CI [0.31-0.64], P < 0.01, I2 = 0, P = 0.89), (OR = 0.4 ,95% CI [0.21-0.77], P = 0.03, I2 = 0%, P = 0.62) respectively. TAVR was associated with a lower rate of moderate PPM (OR = 0.6, 95% CI [ 0.44-0.84], p value = 0.01, i2 = 0%, p value = 0.44). The overall effect estimate did not favor any of the two groups regarding short-term Mild AR (OR = 5.44, 95% CI [1.02-28.91], P = 0.05) and Moderate/severe AR (OR = 4.08, 95% CI [ 0.79-21.02], P = 0.08, I2 = 0%, P = 0.59). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that both TAVR and SAVR are viable options for treating AS in patients with a small aortic annulus. TAVR offers advantages in reducing PPM and major bleeding, while SAVR performs better in terms of pacemaker implantation. Future studies should focus on comparing newer generation TAVR techniques and devices with SAVR. Consideration of patient characteristics is crucial in selecting the optimal treatment approach for AS.

Asunto(s)