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.
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.
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.
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.
ObjectiveTo compare the early clinical efficacy and safety of transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TA-TAVI) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). MethodsA retrospective study was conducted on patients with severe AS admitted to the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of University of Science and Technology of China from January 2020 to March 2024. According to the surgical method, patients were divided into a SAVR group and a TA-TAVI group, and the clinical data of the two groups were compared. ResultsA total of 71 patients were included, with 45 in the SAVR group, including 33 males and 12 females, aged 16-75 (60.89±10.88) years; 26 in the TA-TAVI group, including 15 males and 11 females, aged 61-83 (72.85±5.53) years. The results showed that postoperative aortic valve transvalvular flow velocity (2.31±0.38 m/s vs. 2.60±0.50 m/s, P=0.019) and transvalvular pressure gradient (21.09±6.03 mm Hg vs. 28.20±10.79 mm Hg, P=0.001) in the TA-TAVI group were lower than those in the SAVR group. In terms of left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, both preoperative (56.73±7.74 mm vs. 52.36±7.00 mm, P=0.017) and postoperative (52.61±7.18 mm vs. 48.04±4.78 mm, P=0.010) values in the TA-TAVI group were larger than those in the SAVR group. In terms of left ventricular ejection fraction, the preoperative value in the TA-TAVI group was lower than that in the SAVR group (58.00%±13.84% vs. 64.87%±7.63%, P=0.026), but there was no statistical difference between the two groups after surgery (P=0.670). The operation time and drainage volume on the first day after surgery in the TA-TAVI group were shorter or lower than those in the SAVR group (P<0.05). There was no statistical difference between the two groups in the postoperative hospital stay, ICU stay, or postoperative mechanical ventilation time (P>0.05). In addition, no serious complications occurred in patients after SAVR, while perivalvular leakage (2 patients), third-degree atrioventricular block (1 patient), and death (3 patients) occurred in the TA-TAVI group. ConclusionFor elderly patients with severe AS and poor cardiac function, TA-TAVI technology has minimal surgical trauma, high safety and effectiveness, and is a safe and effective treatment option besides traditional surgical operations.
Objective To evaluate the short-term efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using Venus A-Plus valve delivery system in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Methods The clinical data of patients undergoing TAVR in our hospital from August 2018 to March 2022 were collected and divided into a Venus A-PLUS and a Venus A group according to the type of valve delivery system used. The perioperative data of the two groups were compared. ResultsA total of 121 patients were included, including 70 patients in the Venus A-Plus group (45 males and 25 females with a mean age of 67.81±6.62 years), and 51 patients in the Venus A group (33 males and 18 females with a mean age of 68.25±7.01 years). All patients underwent TAVR, and the postoperative hemodynamic features (left ventricular ejection fraction, mean cross-valve pressure difference, peak flow rate) were significantly improved (P<0.05). There was no statistical difference in surgical success rate, all-cause mortality, conversion to thorax opening, midvalve placement, moderate or above perivalvular regurgitation, new left bundle branch block or new right bundle branch block between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion TAVR with Venus A-Plus valve delivery system in patients with severe aortic stenosis is satisfactory, safe and reliable.
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 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.