Left Ventricular Mechanics Differ in Subtypes of Aortic Stenosis Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BackgroundLeft ventricular (LV) mechanics are impaired in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). We hypothesized that there would be differences in myocardial mechanics, measured by global longitudinal strain (GLS) recovery in patients with four subtypes of severe AS after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), stratified based upon flow and gradient.MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated 204 patients with severe AS who underwent TAVR and were followed post-TAVR at our institution for clinical outcomes. Speckle-tracking transthoracic echocardiography was performed pre- and post-TAVR. Patients were classified as: (1) normal-flow and high-gradient, (2) normal-flow and high-gradient with reduced LV ejection fraction (LVEF), (3) classical low-flow and low-gradient, or (4) paradoxical low-flow and low-gradient.ResultsBoth GLS (−13.9 ± 4.3 to −14.8 ± 4.3, P < 0.0001) and LVEF (55 ± 15 to 57 ± 14%, P = 0.0001) improved immediately post-TAVR. Patients with low-flow AS had similar improvements in LVEF (+2.6 ± 9%) and aortic valve mean gradient (−23.95 ± 8.34 mmHg) as patients with normal-flow AS. GLS was significantly improved in patients with normal-flow (−0.93 ± 3.10, P = 0.0004) compared to low-flow AS. Across all types of AS, improvement in GLS was associated with a survival benefit, with GLS recovery in alive patients (mean GLS improvement of −1.07 ± 3.10, P < 0.0001).ConclusionsLV mechanics are abnormal in all patients with subtypes of severe AS and improve immediately post-TAVR. Recovery of GLS was associated with a survival benefit. Patients with both types of low-flow AS showed significantly improved, but still impaired, GLS post-TAVR, suggesting underlying myopathy that does not correct post-TAVR.

Economic Considerations in Access to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the treatment of aortic stenosis, with the number of procedures and sites offering the procedure steadily rising over the past decade in the United States. Despite this, growth into certain markets has been limited as hospitals have to balance high TAVR costs with the ability to offer a complete array of state-of-the-art therapies for aortic stenosis. This trade-off often results in decreased access to TAVR services by patients cared for in hospitals that cannot afford these services or have difficulty meeting procedural requirements, recruiting skilled physicians, and initiating and then maintaining a functioning TAVR program. The lack of access is more common among patients of color or those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged. The purpose of this review is to describe the hospital-level economic considerations of TAVR in the United States and the resulting effects on geographic, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic access for Americans.

Reducing Morbidity and Mortality in Patients With Coarctation Requires Systematic Differentiation of Impacts of Mixed Valvular Disease on Coarctation Hemodynamics

Background Despite ongoing advances in surgical techniques for coarctation of the aorta (COA) repair, the long‐term results are not always benign. Associated mixed valvular diseases (various combinations of aortic and mitral valvular pathologies) are responsible for considerable postoperative morbidity and mortality. We investigated the impact of COA and mixed valvular diseases on hemodynamics. Methods and Results We developed a patient‐specific computational framework. Our results demonstrate that mixed valvular diseases interact with COA fluid dynamics and contribute to speed up the progression of the disease by amplifying the irregular flow patterns downstream of COA (local) and exacerbating the left ventricular function (global) (N=26). Velocity downstream of COA with aortic regurgitation alone was increased, and the situation got worse when COA and aortic regurgitation coexisted with mitral regurgitation (COA with normal valves: 5.27 m/s, COA with only aortic regurgitation: 8.8 m/s, COA with aortic and mitral regurgitation: 9.36 m/s; patient 2). Workload in these patients was increased because of the presence of aortic stenosis alone, aortic regurgitation alone, mitral regurgitation alone, and when they coexisted (COA with normal valves: 1.0617 J; COA with only aortic stenosis: 1.225 J; COA with only aortic regurgitation: 1.6512 J; COA with only mitral regurgitation: 1.3599 J; patient 1). Conclusions Not only the severity of COA, but also the presence and the severity of mixed valvular disease should be considered in the evaluation of risks in patients. The results suggest that more aggressive surgical approaches may be required, because regularly chosen current surgical techniques may not be optimal for such patients.

Imaging Challenges in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis and Heart Failure: Did We Find a Way Out of the Labyrinth?

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most frequent degenerative valvular disease in developed countries. Its incidence has been constantly rising due to population aging. The diagnosis of AS was considered straightforward for a very long time. High gradients and reduced aortic valve area were considered as “sine qua non” in diagnosis of AS until a growing body of evidence showed that patients with low gradients could also have severe AS with the same or even worse outcome. This completely changed the paradigm of AS diagnosis and involved large numbers of parameters that had never been used in the evaluation of AS severity. Low gradient AS patients may present with heart failure (HF) with preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), associated with changes in cardiac output and flow across the aortic valve. These patients with low-flow low-gradient or paradoxical low-flow low-gradient AS are particularly challenging to diagnose, and cardiac output and flow across the aortic valve have become the most relevant parameters in evaluation of AS, besides gradients and aortic valve area. The introduction of other imaging modalities in the diagnosis of AS significantly improved our knowledge about cardiac mechanics, tissue characterization of myocardium, calcium and inflammation burden of the aortic valve, and their impact on severity, progression and prognosis of AS, not only in symptomatic but also in asymptomatic patients. However, a variety of novel parameters also brought uncertainty regarding the clinical relevance of these indices, as well as the necessity for their validation in everyday practice. The aim of this review is to summarize the prevalence of HF in patients with severe AS and elaborate on the diagnostic challenges and advantages of comprehensive multimodality cardiac imaging to identify the patients that may benefit from surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement, as well as parameters that may help during follow-up.

Mitophagy Regulation Following Myocardial Infarction

Mitophagy, which mediates the selective elimination of dysfunctional mitochondria, is essential for cardiac homeostasis. Mitophagy is regulated mainly by PTEN-induced putative kinase protein-1 (PINK1)/parkin pathway but also by FUN14 domain-containing 1 (FUNDC1) or Bcl2 interacting protein 3 (BNIP3) and BNIP3-like (BNIP3L/NIX) pathways. Several studies have shown that dysregulated mitophagy is involved in cardiac dysfunction induced by aging, aortic stenosis, myocardial infarction or diabetes. The cardioprotective role of mitophagy is well described, whereas excessive mitophagy could contribute to cell death and cardiac dysfunction. In this review, we summarize the mechanisms involved in the regulation of cardiac mitophagy and its role in physiological condition. We focused on cardiac mitophagy during and following myocardial infarction by highlighting the role and the regulation of PI NK1/parkin-; FUNDC1-; BNIP3- and BNIP3L/NIX-induced mitophagy during ischemia and reperfusion.