Dataset Information

Distal aortic biomechanics after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement: a hypothesis generating study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Biomechanical effects of transcatheter (TAVR) versus surgical (SAVR) aortic valve interventions on the distal aorta have not been studied. This study utilized global circumferential strain (GCS) to assess post-procedural biomechanics changes in the descending aorta after TAVR versus SAVR.

Methods

Patients undergoing TAVR or SAVR for aortic stenosis were included. Transesophageal (TEE) and transthoracic (TTE) echocardiography short-axis images of the aorta were used to image the descending aorta immediately before and after interventions. Image analysis was performed with two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography and dedicated software. Delta GCS was calculated as: post-procedural GCS-pre-procedural GCS. Percentage delta GCS was calculated as: (delta GCS/pre-procedural GCS) × 100.

Results

Eighty patients, 40 TAVR (median age 81 y/o, 40% female) and 40 SAVR (median 72 y/o, 30% female) were included. The post-procedure GCS was significantly higher than the pre-procedural GCS in the TAVR (median 10.7 [interquartile range IQR 4.5, 14.6] vs. 17.0 [IQR 6.1, 20.9], p = 0.009) but not in the SAVR group (4.4 [IQR 3.3, 5.3] vs. 4.7 [IQR 3.9, 5.6], p = 0.3). The delta GCS and the percentage delta GCS were both significantly higher in the TAVR versus SAVR group (2.8% [IQR 1.4, 6] vs. 0.15% [IQR - 0.6, 1.5], p < 0.001; and 28.8% [IQR 14.6%, 64.6%] vs. 4.4% [IQR - 10.6%, 5.6%], p = 0.006). Results were consistent after multivariable adjustment for key clinical and hemodynamic characteristics.

Conclusions

After TAVR, there was a significantly larger increase in GCS in the distal aorta compared to SAVR. This may impact descending aortic remodeling and long-term risk of aortic events.

SUBMITTER: Rong LQ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10690972 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Distal aortic biomechanics after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement: a hypothesis generating study.

Rong Lisa Q LQ Zheng William W Martinez Andrew A Rahouma Mohammed M Devereux Richard B RB Kim Jiwon J Osman Bassam B Palumbo Maria C MC Redfors Björn B Girardi Leonard N LN Weinsaft Jonathan W JW Gaudino Mario M

Journal of cardiothoracic surgery 20231130 1

<h4>Background</h4>Biomechanical effects of transcatheter (TAVR) versus surgical (SAVR) aortic valve interventions on the distal aorta have not been studied. This study utilized global circumferential strain (GCS) to assess post-procedural biomechanics changes in the descending aorta after TAVR versus SAVR.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients undergoing TAVR or SAVR for aortic stenosis were included. Transesophageal (TEE) and transthoracic (TTE) echocardiography short-axis images of the aorta were used to i ...[more]

PMID: 38037164

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRandomized trials support the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of aortic stenosis in high- and intermediate-risk patients, but the generalizability of those results in clinical practice has been challenged.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), particularly in intermediate- and high-risk patients, in a nationally representative real-world cohort.MethodsUsing data from the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry and Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database linked to Medicare administrative claims for follow-up, 9,464 propensity-matched intermediate- and high-risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score ≥3%) U.S. patients who underwent commercial TAVR or SAVR were examined. Death, stroke, and days alive and out of the hospital to 1 year were compared, as well as discharge home, with subgroup analyses by surgical risk, demographics, and comorbidities.ResultsIn a propensity-matched cohort (median age 82 years, 48% women, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score 5.6%), TAVR and SAVR patients experienced no difference in 1-year rates of death (17.3% vs. 17.9%; hazard ratio: 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83 to 1.04) and stroke (4.2% vs. 3.3%; hazard ratio: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.47), and no difference was observed in the proportion of days alive and out of the hospital to 1 year (rate ratio: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.02). However, TAVR patients were more likely to be discharged home after treatment (69.9% vs. 41.2%; odds ratio: 3.19; 95% CI: 2.84 to 3.58). Results were consistent across most subgroups, including among intermediate- and high-risk patients.ConclusionsAmong unselected intermediate- and high-risk patients, TAVR and SAVR resulted in similar rates of death, stroke, and DAOH to 1 year, but TAVR patients were more likely to be discharged home.

Project description:Background In the absence of randomized controlled trials, reports from nonrandomized studies comparing valve-in-valve implantation (ViV) to redo surgical aortic valve replacement (rAVR) have shown inconsistent results. Methods and Results PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched through December 2021. Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines were followed. The protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Random effects models were applied. The primary outcomes of interest were short-term and midterm mortality. Secondary outcomes included stroke, myocardial infarction, acute renal failure, and permanent pacemaker implantation, as well as prosthetic aortic valve regurgitation, mean transvalvular gradient, and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch. Of 8881 patients included in 15 studies, 4458 (50.2%) underwent ViV and 4423 (49.8%) rAVR. Short-term mortality was 2.8% in patients undergoing ViV compared with 5.0% in patients undergoing rAVR (risk ratio [RR] 0.55 [95% CI, 0.34-0.91], P=0.02). Midterm mortality did not differ in patients undergoing ViV compared with patients undergoing rAVR (hazard ratio, 1.27 [95% CI, 0.72-2.25]). The rate of acute kidney failure was lower following ViV, (RR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.33-0.88], P=0.02), whereas prosthetic aortic valve regurgitation (RR, 4.18 [95% CI, 1.88-9.3], P=0.003) as well as severe patient-prothesis mismatch (RR, 3.12 [95% CI, 2.35-4.1], P<0.001) occurred more frequently. The mean transvalvular gradient was higher following ViV (standard mean difference, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.15-0.72], P=0.008). There were no significant differences between groups with respect to stroke (P=0.26), myocardial infarction (P=0.93), or pacemaker implantation (P=0.21). Conclusions Results of this meta-analysis demonstrate better short-term mortality after ViV compared with rAVR. Midterm mortality was similar between groups. Given the likely selection bias in these individual reports, an adequately powered multicenter randomized clinical trial with sufficiently long follow-up in patients with low-to-intermediate surgical risk is warranted. Registration URL: crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/. Unique identifier: CRD42021228752.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies of the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been based primarily on a single balloon-expandable system.ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk.MethodsWe performed a formal economic analysis on the basis of individual, patient-level data from the CoreValve U.S. High Risk Pivotal Trial. Empirical data regarding survival and quality of life over 2 years, and medical resource use and hospital costs through 12 months were used to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and lifetime medical costs in order to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of TAVR versus SAVR from a U.S.ResultsRelative to SAVR, TAVR reduced initial length of stay an average of 4.4 days, decreased the need for rehabilitation services at discharge, and resulted in superior 1-month quality of life. Index admission and projected lifetime costs were higher with TAVR than with SAVR (differences $11,260 and $17,849 per patient, respectively), whereas TAVR was projected to provide a lifetime gain of 0.32 quality-adjusted life-years ([QALY]; 0.41 LY) with 3% discounting. Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $55,090 per QALY gained and $43,114 per LY gained. Sensitivity analyses indicated that a reduction in the initial cost of TAVR by ∼$1,650 would lead to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY gained.ConclusionsIn a high-risk clinical trial population, TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis provided meaningful clinical benefits compared with SAVR, with incremental costs considered acceptable by current U.S.StandardsWith expected modest reductions in the cost of index TAVR admissions, the value of TAVR compared with SAVR in this patient population would become high. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [Medtronic CoreValve U.S. Pivotal Trial]; NCT01240902).

Dataset Information

Distal aortic biomechanics after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement: a hypothesis generating study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Distal aortic biomechanics after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement: a hypothesis generating study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets