Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine 1-year outcomes of transseptal balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve implantation in failed mitral bioprosthesis, ring annuloplasty, and mitral annular calcification (MAC). BACKGROUND: Immediate outcomes following transseptal mitral valve implantation in failed bioprostheses are favorable, but data on subsequent outcomes are lacking. METHODS: Percutaneous transseptal implantation of balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves was performed in 87 patients with degenerated mitral bioprostheses (valve in valve [VIV]) (n = 60), previous ring annuloplasty (valve in ring) (n = 15), and severe MAC (valve in MAC) (n = 12). RESULTS: The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was 13 +/- 8%, and the mean age was 75 +/- 11 years. Acute procedural success was achieved in 78 of 87 patients (90%) in the overall group and 58 of 60 (97%) in the VIV group, with a success rate of 20 of 27 (74%) in the valve in ring/valve in MAC group. Thirty-day survival free of death and cardiovascular surgery was 95% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 92% to 97%) in the VIV subgroup and 78% (95% CI: 70% to 86%) in the valve in ring/valve in MAC group (p = 0.008). One-year survival free of death and cardiovascular surgery was 86% (95% CI: 81% to 91%) in the VIV group compared with 68% (95% CI: 58% to 78%) (p = 0.008). At 1 year, 36 of 40 patients (90%) had New York Heart Association functional class I or II symptoms, no patients had more than mild residual mitral prosthetic or periprosthetic regurgitation, and the mean transvalvular gradient was 7 +/- 3 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: One-year outcomes following successful transseptal balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve implantation in high-risk patients with degenerated mitral bioprostheses are excellent, characterized by durable symptom relief and prosthesis function. Although mitral valve in ring and valve in MAC have higher operative morbidity and mortality, 1-year outcomes after an initially successful procedure are favorable in carefully selected patients.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 17% of patients are readmitted within 30 days of discharge after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Selected patients are discharged to skilled nursing facilities, yet the association between a hospital's practice to discharge home versus to skilled nursing facilities, and readmission remains unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy (STS/ACC TVT) Registry was used to evaluate readmissions among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (2011-2015). Hospitals were divided into quartiles (Q1-Q4) based on the percentage of patients discharged directly home. We assessed patient and hospital level characteristics and used hierarchical logistic regression to analyze the association of discharge disposition with 30-day readmission. Our cohort included 18 568 transcatheter aortic valve replacement patients at 329 US hospitals, of whom 69% were discharged directly home. Hospitals in the highest quartile of direct home discharge (Q4) compared with hospitals in the lowest (Q1) were more likely to use femoral access (75.2% versus 60.1%, P<0.001), had fewer patients receiving transfusion (26.4% versus 40.9%, P<0.001), and were more likely to be located in the Southern United States (48.8% versus 18.3%, P<0.001). Median 30-day readmission rate was 17.9%. There was no significant difference in 30-day readmissions among quartiles (P=0.14), even after multivariable adjustment (odds ratio Q4 versus Q1=0.89, 95%CI 0.76-1.04; P=0.15). Factors most strongly associated with 30-day readmission were glomerular filtration rate, in-hospital stroke or transient ischemic attack, and nonfemoral access. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant association between hospital practice of direct home discharge post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement and 30-day readmission. Further research is needed to understand regional variations and optimum strategies for postdischarge care.

This paper provides a comprehensive overview of 3D transesophageal echocardiography still images and movies of mechanical mitral valves, mitral bioprostheses, and mitral valve repairs. Alongside these visual descriptions, the historical overview of surgical and percutaneous mitral valve intervention is described with the special emphasis on the incremental value of 3D transesophageal echocardiography (3DTEE). For each mitral valve intervention, 2D echocardiography, chest x-ray, and fluoroscopy images corresponding to 3DTEE are given. In addition, key references on echocardiographic imaging of individual valves and procedures are enumerated in accompanying figures and tables.

Background: Patients with severe aortic stenosis in the setting of low gradient and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) remain an area of clinical uncertainty. Methods: Retrospective chart review identified 209 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) between September 2014 and September 2015. Of these patients, 3 (1.4%) were excluded due to procedural indication other than severe aortic stenosis and 41 (20%) were excluded due to reduced LVEF (<50%). Of the remaining 165 patients with aortic valve area <1 cm2, 77 (47%) had either a peak velocity <4.0 m2 or mean gradient <40 mmHg (LG group) and 88 (53%) had both peak velocity >4.0 m2 and mean gradient >40 mmHg (HG group) across the AV. Outcomes were defined by the valve academic research consortium 2 criteria when applicable and compared between the LG and HG groups via Fisher's exact test. Median follow-up was 367 days. Continuous data are shown as median [interquartile range] and categorical data are shown as proportions. Results: The 30-day mortality risk as assessed by Society of Thoracic Surgery score was not significantly different between the LG and HG groups (5.9% [3.5-8.1] vs 6.2% [4.4-7.6], p=0.45). There were no significant differences in outcomes (Table). Conclusion: In a high-volume center, patients undergoing TAVR for severe AS with LG preserved LVEF have no significant difference in adverse outcomes, both in-hospital and on 1-year follow-up, when compared to patients with HG preserved LVEF. (Figure Presented)

BACKGROUND: Appropriate valve sizing is critical in aortic valve replacement. We hypothesized that direct intraoperative valve sizing results in smaller aortic annular diameters compared with sizing based on systolic-phase multidetector computerized tomographic (MDCT) imaging. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively analyzed 78 patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis between 2012 and 2014 at our institution. Preoperative MDCT measurements of the aortic annulus served as basis for assignment to a theoretical surgical valve size, which was then (1) compared to the implanted valve size and (2) to a theoretical transcatheter aortic valve replacement valve size. To quantify the resulting differences, geometric orifice areas (GOA) were calculated. MDCT-based sizing produced the same valve size for n=34 patients (group CT-same), a larger valve with a 25% increased GOA in n=32 patients (group CT-Lg) and a smaller GOA by 22% in n=12 patients (group CT-Sm). On the basis of MDCT measurements, 41% of valves implanted were undersized. The comparison of intraoperative implanted to a theoretical transcatheter aortic valve replacement valve size resulted in GOAs 25% larger for patients in group CT-same, 40.6% larger in group CT-Lg and 14.6% larger in group CT-Sm. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative MDCT measurements differ substantially from direct intraoperative assessment of the aortic annulus. Implanted surgical aortic valve replacement valves were smaller relative to MDCT-based sizing in 41% of patients, and the potential GOA was between 25% and 40.6% larger if patients had undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement.