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.
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an emerging alternative for the treatment of aortic stenosis (AS). Evidence from clinical trials sprang up continuously, and guidelines have listed TAVR as an alternative for part of AS patients. Although old guidelines only recommended TAVR for surgical high-risk or in-operable AS patients, the latest guidelines have expanded its indications enormously. Moreover, there are ongoing TAVR studies on low-risk patients, asymptomatic patients, pure aortic regurgitation patients, bicuspid aortic valve patients,etc. It is believed that the indication of TAVR will continue to expand. More and more patients will benefit from TAVR in the foreseeable future.
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become an increasingly important therapy option for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are not suitable for traditional aortic valve surgery. Transfemoral access remains the most utilized and preferred route for TAVR. Several alternative routes exist, including transapical, direct aortic, axillary-subclavian, transcarotid, and transcaval accesses. Many factors will be taken into account when operators determine the best vascular access, such as diameters of the access and sheater, valve size, calcification, and tortuosity. Vascular complications are the most common complications of TAVR, which are closely related to the adverse outcome and prognosis, and their occurrences are related to many factors, including the surgeon’s experience, the patient-associated factors, and the device-associated factors. The risk of vascular complications can be reduced through the choice of valve type and vascular approach, detailed preoperative imaging evaluation, and improvement of the patient’s baseline disease. It is suitable to determine whether conservative treatment or reintervention will be chosen according to the severity of the complications.
This study aims to explore the effect of aortic sinus diameter on aortic valve opening and closing performance in the case of no obvious disease of aortic valve and annulus and continuous dilation of aortic root. A total of 25 three-dimensional aortic root models with different aortic sinus and root diameters were constructed according to the size of clinical surgical guidance. The valve sinus diameter DS is set to 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 mm, respectively, and the aortic root diameter DA is set to 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 mm, respectively. Through the structural mechanics calculation with the finite element software, the maximum stress, valve orifice area, contact force and other parameters of the model are analyzed to evaluate the valve opening and closing performance under the dilated state. The study found that aortic valve stenosis occurs when the DS = 32 mm, DA = 26, 27 mm and DS = 36 mm, DA = 26 mm. Aortic regurgitation occurs when the DS = 32, 36 and 40 mm, DA = 30 mm and DS = 44, 48 mm, DA = 29, 30 mm. The other 15 models had normal valve movement. The results showed that the size of the aortic sinus affected the opening and closing performance of the aortic valve. The smaller sinus diameter adapted with the larger root diameter and the larger sinus diameter adapted with the smaller root diameter. When the sinus diameter is 40 mm, the mechanical performance of the valve are good and it can well adapt with the relatively large range of aortic root dilation.
ObjectiveTo investigate effectiveness and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the treatment of aortic regurgitation. Methods PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data and VIP were searched from inception to August 2021. According to the criteria of inclusion and exclusion, two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted the data and evaluated the quality of the included studies. Then, Stata 16.0 software was used for meta-analysis. Subgroup meta-analysis of valve type used and study type was performed. ResultsTwenty-five studies (12 cohort studies and 13 single-arm studies) were included with 4 370 patients. Meta-analysis results showed that an incidence of device success was 87% (95%CI 0.81-0.92). The success rate of the new generation valve subgroup was 93% (95%CI 0.89-0.96), and the early generation valve subgroup was 66% (95%CI 0.56-0.75). In addition, the 30-day all-cause mortality was 7% (95%CI 0.05-0.10), the 30-day cardiac mortality was 4% (95%CI 0.01-0.07), the incidence of pacemaker implantation was 10% (95%CI 0.08-0.13), and the incidence of conversion to thoracotomy was 2% (95%CI 0.01-0.04). The incidence of moderate or higher paravalvular aortic regurgitation was 6% (95%CI 0.03-0.09). Conclusion Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for aortic regurgitation is safe and yields good results, but some limitations can not be overcome. Therefore, multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our results.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the early and mid-term safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement via transfemoral (TF), transapical (TAp) and transsubclavian (TSc) approaches by meta-analysis.MethodsWe systematically searched the clinical comparative trials published from inception to June 2019 from PubMed, Web of Science, EMbase and The Cochrane Library, to evaluate the safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement through TF, TAp or TSc approaches. The information of all-cause mortality at 30 days, 1 year, 2 years and the incidence of common complications at 30 days after operation (including pacemaker-dependent block, major vascular complications, severe bleeding events, acute renal injury and stroke) were exacted, and a meta-analysis was conducted by RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsThis study included 11 literatures, with a total of 7 833 patients, among whom 5 348 patients were treated by TF TAVR, 1 796 patients by TAp TAVR and 689 patients by TSc TAVR. The results of the meta-analysis were as follows: (1) at 30 days after operation, the mortality of TF and TSc approaches were lower than that of the TAp approach (TF vs. TAp: OR=0.57, 95%CI 0.39-0.84, P=0.004; TSc vs. TAp: OR=4.12, 95%CI 1.93-8.79, P=0.000 3). There was no statistical difference between the TF and TSc approaches (TF vs. TSc: OR=0.98, 95%CI 0.38-2.51, P=0.97); at 1 year, there was no statistical difference in mortality among the three approaches (P>0.05); at 2 years, there was no statistical difference between TSc and TF or TAp approaches (TF vs. TSc: OR=1.21, 95%CI 0.95-1.54, P=0.13; TSc vs. TAp: OR=1.02, 95%CI 0.76-1.36, P=0.91). (2) The incidence of acute kidney injury after TF approach was lower than that of the TAp approach (OR=0.30, 95%CI 0.22-0.41, P<0.000 01). (3) There was no statistical difference in major vascular complications between TSc and TF or TAp approaches (TF vs. TSc: OR=0.75, 95%CI 0.38-1.49, P=0.41; TSc vs. TAp: OR=1.37, 95%CI 0.56-3.32, P=0.49). (4) There was no statistical difference in severe bleeding events between TF and TSc (OR=0.97, 95%CI 0.53-1.76, P=0.92). (5) There was no statistical difference in the incidence of postoperative stroke, pacemaker dependent block among the three approaches (P>0.05).ConclusionTAp and TSc approaches are safe and effective. They are not only an alternative to TF approach, but also the first choice in some patients with poor condition of iliofemoral artery.
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is the best treatment for severe aortic stenosis with high surgical risk, and low body weight significantly increased the risk of surgery and postoperative all-cause mortality. A case of elderly female diagnosed with severe aortic valve stenosis and extremely low body weight was presented in this article. Additionally, horizocardia and low located coronary orifice were also found in this patient, which markedly increased the risk and complexity of the TAVR procedure. During the operation, circulatory collapse occurred, and prosthetic valve was quickly released under emergency cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The operation was successful and the patient’s vital signs recovered soon. The follow-up showed that the patient was in good condition.
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a well-established treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis. At present, TAVR has already shown noninferiority and even superiority to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients deemed at high or intermediate risk for SAVR. However, the long-term follow-up results of the randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety between TAVR and SAVR are still lacking in those patients who are at low risk for SAVR. This paper gives an overview and reviews results of the Evolut Low Risk trial and interprets its implications for transcatheter therapy in aortic valve diseases.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficiency and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with aortic stenosis at intermediate-low risk compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).MethodsTwo researchers searched literatures independently in databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Internet, VIP database for studies published from January 2012 to October 2017, then screened for propriate studies, collected information from different follow-up period all on the principle of Cocharan handbook. At last statistal analysis was performed in RevMan 5.3 to calculate relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsThirteen studies were enrolled in this Meta-analysis with 10 753 patients, including 5 263 cases in TAVR group and 5 490 cases in SAVR group. Meta-analysis showed that there were no statistically significant differences in all-cause mortality between TAVR group and SAVR group in 30 days, 1 year or 2 years after operation [RR=0.96, 95%CI (0.75, 1.24), P=0.78; RR=0.84, 95%CI (0.68, 1.03), P=0.09; RR=0.97, 95%CI (0.84, 1.14), P=0.75]; while stroke more preferred SAVR no matter 30 days or 1 year [RR=0.64, 95%CI (0.51, 0.80), P<0.000 1;RR=0.76, 95%CI (0.63, 0.92), P=0.004].ConclusionThere is no significant difference in all-cause mortality of intermediate-low risk patients undergoing TAVR and SAVR, but TAVR perfoms better in terms of srtoke.
With the expanding indications for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) guidelines, combined valvular disease is often encountered in the clinic, and existing relevant studies have shown that preoperative moderate to severe mitral regurgitation is associated with higher mortality. In these patients, the optimal treatment strategy for TAVR with evidence-based heart failure, TAVR with transcatheter mitral intervention, or staging transcatheter therapy are unclear. Therefore, a comprehensive assessment of the anatomy and function of the aortic and mitral valves, as well as an in-depth assessment of the patient’s baseline risk profile, are the basis for an individualized approach to treatment. This article will review the results of the relevant research to better help clinicians diagnose and treat relevant patients.