Objective To search and review the best clinical evidence to compare the clinical therapeutic effects and safety between TAVR and SAVR, thereby guiding its clinical use and providing references of treatments for such patients. Methods EMbase (1974～2016), MEDLINE (1996～2016) and The Cochrane Library (Issue 5, 2016) were systematically retrieved to collect randomized control trials, case-control studies and meta-analyses. Then, we assessed the quality of all the evidences to develop treatments based on those evidences and the situations of such patients. Results We identified 21 articles, including 2 articles of meta-analysis. With regard to the mortality and incidence of cardiovascular events, TAVR was not worse than SAVR. In addition, TAVR was more dominant than SAVR for patients who combined more basic diseases. Conclusion TAVR is one of the effective treatments for most patients with severe AS after sufficient assessment.
Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in aortic stenosis patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) versus tricuspid aortic valve (TAV). Methods This retrospective study included 252 consecutive patients with severe and symptomatic aortic valve stenosis undergoing TAVR in West China Hospital form April 2012 to September 2017, in whom 4 patients were excluded because of valve failure after surgical aortic valve replacement. Results Of the 248 patients, 131 had BAV and 117 had TAV. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups, including age [(73.56±6.35) vs. (74.31±6.35) years, P=0.354], male proportion (51.9% vs. 63.2%, P=0.072). Society of Thoracic Surgeons score for BAV patients was lower than that for TAV patients [(7.56±4.01)% vs. (8.78±5.14)%, P=0.037]. Procedural success rate was high in both BAV and TAV groups (95.4% vs. 98.3%, P=0.359). There was no difference in 30-day all-cause mortality (6.1% vs. 2.6%, P=0.176) between the two groups; the aortic valve maximum velocity of valve hemodynamics after TAVR was similiar [(2.39±0.53) vs. (2.31±0.45) m/s, P=0.262] between the two groups. Conclusions Patients with BAV show similar procedural and clinical outcomes to patients with TAV. Therefore, TAVR appears to be a safe and effective procedure for patients with BAV as well as those with TAV.
ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of Venus A-Valve and other overseas devices in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the baseline characteristics, procedural details, and postprocedural outcomes of severe AS patients who underwent TAVR with Venus A-Valve or overseas devices between April 2012 and January 2019 in West China Hospital of Sichuan University.ResultsA total of 342 AS patients undergoing TAVR were finally included, 238 with Venus A-Valve and the other 104 with overseas devices (43 with CoreValve, 33 with Lotus, 21 with SAPIEN XT, and 7 with SAPIEN 3). Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups, and the proportion of patients with bicuspid aortic valve was around 50% in both groups. After successful valve implantation, all patients’ hemodynamics were significantly improved, with the median of maximum velocity decreased to 2.30 m/s (inter-quartile range: 0.60 m/s) and 2.50 m/s (inter-quartile range: 0.62 m/s), respectively (P=0.003). Postprocedural 30-day and 1-year all cause mortalities were similar (30-day: 5.9% vs. 1.9%, P=0.086; 1-year: 8.4% vs. 5.8%, P=0.307), while low incidence of procedure-related complications and improved life quality were achieved in both groups.ConclusionTAVR with the domestic Venus A-Valve is feasible, safe, and can produce favorable outcomes for AS patients, and especially for Chinese TAVR population with a high prevalence of bicuspid aortic valve.
This article described the clinical diagnosis and treatment of a patient with bicuspid aortic stenosis occurring severe mitral regurgitation during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Before transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the patient’s information about medical history, signs, evaluation of CT and echocardiography were collected. After discussion by the heart team, the trans-femoral aortic valve replacement was performed. After the valve was placed during the procedure, a severe mitral regurgitation occurred. No clear causes were found, and the patient’s hemodynamics was stable. The patient recovered well during follow-up, so surgery and other treatments were not considered. This article discussed the possible mechanism and solutions of mitral regurgitation during transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and owned certain value for similar cases to refer to.
An 82-year-old male was hospitalized complaining of dyspnea for 1 year and aggravating for 2 weeks. He had been treated in other hospitals for several times due to such situation and his symptom could be relieved by diuretics. After admission, he was diagnosed as severe aortic stenosis with extremely low left ventricular contractile function; transthoracic echocardiography showed a left ventricular ejection fraction of only 16.1%. He was classified as a typical case of severe aortic stenosis with “low transaortic velocity and low transaortic gradient” since the transaortic velocity being 2.36 m/s and transaortic gradient being 22/14 mm Hg (1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa). Dobutamine-stress echocardiography suggested that the patient’s left ventricular reserve function was extremely poor and the potential benefits of valvular surgery were finite as the former data being 2.59 m/s and 27/16 mm Hg respectively. In consideration of progressive exacerbation of the patient’s symptoms, we eventually conducted transcatheter aortic valve replacement surgery with the support of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. His symptoms such as dyspnea disappeared after the surgery and clinical parameters had also got a significant improvement.
ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes of local anesthesia and general anesthesia in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).MethodsA total of 399 severe aortic stenosis patients were included, who underwent TAVR successfully in West China Hospital of Sichuan University between April 2012 and January 2019. The baseline characteristics, procedural details, postprocedural outcomes, and ultrasound data of those patients were collected. All patients were followed up and the end date of follow-up was June 20th 2020. According to anesthetic mode, the patients were divided into local anesthesia group and general anesthesia group. The differences between the two groups in incidence of postprocedural complications, hemodynamics, postprocedural 30-day mortality, and postprocedural 1-year mortality were retrospectively analyzed.ResultsOf the 399 patients, 206 (51.6%) received local anesthesia and 193 (48.4%) received general anesthesia. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in baseline characteristics. The symptoms of both groups were relieved. But the incidences of mild bleeding events (12.4% vs. 1.5%, P<0.001), severe bleeding events (10.4% vs. 0.5%, P<0.001), major vascular complications (0.5% vs. 3.6%, P=0.032), and postprocedural 30-day all causes mortality (1.9% vs. 6.7%, P=0.018) were significantly lower in the local anesthesia group than those in the general anesthesia group.ConclusionIn TAVR, compared with general anesthesia, local anesthesia is safer to use with lower incidence of postprocedural complications and postprocedural 30-day all causes mortality.
This case was an elderly male patient with symptomatic aortic valve calcification and severe aortic valve stenosis. Before the operation, the heart valve team had fully evaluated the patient’s suitability for transcatheter aortic valve replacement and approach. This patient had severe stenosis and plaques in the iliac artery, femoral artery, descending aorta, so the carotid artery approach transcatheter aortic valve replacement was chosen. After the operation, the patient’s symptoms improved significantly. So far, the patient was generally in good condition, without chest tightness, shortness of breath and other symptoms in daily activities. The current clinical application of the transcarotid approach is relatively small, but it is believed that with the publication of more clinical research results, the application of the transcarotid approach in transcatheter aortic valve replacement will become more and more common.
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an important treatment for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. The 2020 updated version of Chinese Expert Consensus on Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement was born in the process of Chinese exploration for TAVR. It is of epochal guiding significance for TAVR in China, which has entered a stage of rapid development from the initial stage. Moreover, it further promotes the standardized and healthy development of TAVR in China. The 2020 updated version of Chinese Expert Consensus on Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement, based on its 2015 version, has included aortic valve stenosis with a low risk of surgical operation as an indication, made more detailed recommendations on the operating specifications of balloon dilation and valve placement during TAVR, added the antithrombotic program after TAVR, and important opinions on the treatment of coronary atherosclerotic heart disease, renal insufficiency, and emergency TAVR. In this article, we will focus on all these updates to interpret the updated consensus in detail.
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become one of the main treatments for severe aortic stenosis. However, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is often required in elderly patients who combine with coronary artery disease. This paper reports a case of one-stop TAVR+PCI operation for a 71-year-old male patient with left main bifurcation lesions and severe aortic stenosis. During the procedure, first of all, the coronary arteries were assessed by angiography, and the pigtail catheter was implanted in the left ventricle after the straight guidewire transvalved successfully; then PCI was performed on the diseased coronary arteries; finally, the stenosis of aortic valve was treated with TAVR. After operation, the hemodynamics of the patient was stable and symptoms were significantly improved, showing a good clinical effect of one-stop operation of TAVR+PCI.
ObjectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in oncology and non-oncology patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).MethodsA computer-based search in PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, CBM, CNKI and Wanfang databases from their date of inception to December 2021 was performed, together with reference screening, to identify eligible clinical trials. Two investigators screened the articles, extracted data, and evaluated quality independently. RevMan 5.3 and Stata 12.0 softwares were used for meta-analysis.ResultsThe selected 8 cohort studies contained 57 988 patients, including 12 335 cancer patients and 45 653 non-cancer patients. The results of meta-analysis showed that in patients with cancer, the 30-day mortality [OR=0.74, 95%CI (0.65, 0.84), I2=0%, P<0.000 01], stroke [OR=0.87, 95%CI (0.76, 0.99), I2=0%, P=0.04] and acute kidney injury [OR=0.81, 95%CI (0.76, 0.85), I2=49%, P<0.000 01] were lower than those in patients without cancer. The 1-year mortality [OR=1.46, 95%CI (1.15, 1.86), I2=62%, P=0.002] and late mortality [OR=1.51, 95%CI (1.24, 1.85), I2=61%, P<0.000 1] were higher in patients with cancer.ConclusionIt is effective and safe in cancer patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI. However, compared with patients without cancer, it is still high in long-term mortality, and further study of the role of TAVI in cancer patients with AS is necessary.