Aortic valve repair for the treatment of rheumatic aortic valve disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Valvuloplasty for rheumatic aortic valve disease remains controversial. We conducted this study to explore whether aortic valvuloplasty is appropriate for the rheumatic population. A comprehensive search was conducted, and 7 eligible retrospective studies were identified from PubMed, Embase, Medline and Cochrane (up to April 7, 2020) according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data for hospital mortality, 5-year survival, 5-year reoperation, aortic insufficiency grade (AIG) and aortic valve gradient (AVG) were extracted by 2 independent reviewers and were analysed to evaluate the safety and availability of aortic valvuloplasty for rheumatic patients. The heterogeneity of the results was estimated using the Q test and I2 statistics. The fixed pooling model was used when I2 ≤ 50%; otherwise, the random pooling model was selected. 7 articles with 418 patients were included. The pooled hospital mortality, 5-year survival and 5-year reoperation rates were 3.2%, 94.5% and 9.9%, respectively. The heterogeneities of the weighted mean differences (WMD) values of the AIG and AVG between preoperation and postoperation were extremely high (I2 = 81.5%, p < 0.001 in AIG, I2 = 97.6%, p = 0.003 in AVG). Subgroup analysis suggested that the AIG and AVG were improved by 3.03 grades (I2 = 0%, p < 0.001) and 3.16 mmHg (I2 = 0%, p < 0.001) in the European group, respectively. In the Asian group, the AIG and AVG were improved by 2.57 grades (I2 = 0%, p < 0.001) and 34.39 mmHg (I2 = 0%, p < 0.001), respectively. Compared with the values at discharge, the AIG was increased by 0.15 grades (I2 = 0%, p = 0.031) and the AVG was still decreased by 2.07 mmHg (I2 = 0%, p = 0.031) at the time of follow up. Valvuloplasty is safe and effective to treat rheumatic aortic insufficiency and stenosis, and the duration of maintenance required to improve stenosis was longer than that of insufficiency.

Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty for Severe Aortic Stenosis as Rescue or Bridge Therapy

The study aimed to assess procedural complications, patient flow and clinical outcomes after balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) as rescue or bridge therapy, based on data from our registry. A total of 382 BAVs in 374 patients was performed. The main primary indication for BAV was a bridge for TAVI (n = 185, 49.4%). Other indications included a bridge for AVR (n = 26, 6.9%) and rescue procedure in hemodynamically unstable patients (n = 139, 37.2%). The mortality rate at 30 days, 6 and 12 months was 10.4%, 21.6%, 28.3%, respectively. In rescue patients, the death rate raised to 66.9% at 12 months. A significant improvement in symptoms was confirmed after BAV, after 30 days, 6 months, and in survivors after 1 year (p < 0.05 for all). Independent predictors of 12-month mortality were baseline STS score [HR (95% CI) 1.42 (1.34 to 2.88), p < 0.0001], baseline LVEF <20% [HR (95% CI) 1.89 (1.55–2.83), p < 0.0001] and LVEF <30% at 1 month [HR (95% CI) 1.97 (1.62–3.67), p < 0.0001] adjusted for age/gender. In everyday clinical practice in the TAVI era, there are still clinical indications to BAV a standalone procedure as a bridge to surgery, TAVI or for urgent high risk non-cardiac surgical procedures. Patients may improve clinically after BAV with LV function recovery, allowing to perform final therapy, within limited time window, for severe AS which ameliorates long-term outcomes. On the other hand, in patients for whom an isolated BAV becomes a destination therapy, prognosis is extremely poor.

Use of left ventricular support devices during transcatheter aortic valve replacement and balloon aortic valvuloplasty: a single center experience

Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) are definitive and bridging therapies in patients with aortic stenosis. Data on utilization of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in this population is scarce. This study sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes of the use of Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) in patients undergoing TAVR or BAV at a tertiary-care center. Methods We reviewed all TAVRs and BAVs that required Impella from 2012 and 2020. Patient demographics, procedural outcomes, complications, and 30-day mortality were analyzed. Results A total of 1,965 TAVR and 715 BAV cases were performed in the study period. 30 TAVR and 94 BAV cases required an Impella. 65% of these cases were due to cardiogenic shock (CS) (100% of TAVR and 55% of BAV). 31% were performed in female patients. Transfemoral access was utilized in 98% of cases. Impella CP was used in 98% of cases, other types of MCS were used in 8.7% of cases. 32.2% of cases required MCS for more than 24 hours. In the TAVR population the indication for MCS was 46.6% profound hypotension post valve deployment requiring vasopressors, 16.6% cardiac arrest, 10% sustained ventricular arrhythmia, 10% cardiac tamponade [Office1] and 10% coronary occlusion. In the BAV group the indication was 44% high-risk PCI and 56% CS. The 30-day mortality in TAVR was 40% and 28% in BAV; from the BAV group in CS the mortality was 45%. VARC-2 vascular complications and bleeding complications were observed in 4.8% and 1.5%, respectively. 0.7% of the total cohort required conversion to open-heart surgery. Conclusions Impella support is required in a minority of TAVR or BAV cases. In those who require MCS with Impella for either BAV or TAVR, the total mortality remains high especially in those experiencing CS. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.