Alec Vahanian ,
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) should be the result of collaborative work between cardiologists and surgeons. TAVI provides haemodynamic and clinical improvement for up to three years. Today, TAVI is targeted at high-risk patients but may be extended to lower risk patients in the future.
First performed in humans seven years ago, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for the treatment of aortic stenosis (AS) is a dynamic field of research and development: two devices have been CE marked and are commercialised.
As a general principle, the selection of candidates for TAVI and the performance of the procedure should involve multi-disciplinary teams including cardiologists, surgeons, imaging specialists and anaesthesiologists, all with experience in the management of valve disease.
TAVI should only be performed in patients with severe symptoms that can definitely be attributed to severe AS, and be restricted, for the time being, to patients at high-risk or with contraindications for surgery. The key element to establishing the risk for surgery is clinical judgement, in association with a more quantitative assessment, based on the combination of several scores (e.g, expected mortality > 20% with the Logistic EuroSCORE and > 10% with STS score). This approach allows the frequent risk factors such as chest radiation, previous aorto-coronary bypass with patent grafts, porcelain aorta, and liver cirrhosis, not covered by scores to be taken into account. TAVI should not be performed in patients whose life expectancy is less than 1 year, these patients are instead to be managed conservatively. When TAVI is considered, the following steps should be taken to assess feasibility :
There are specific complications for the transfemoral approach:
Contraindications for the transapical approach are rare: severe respiratory insufficiency, chest deformity, or previous surgery of the LV using a patch.
The performance of TAVI should be restricted to high volume centres which have both cardiology and cardiac surgery departments, and expertise in structural heart disease intervention.
Two devices are under clinical investigation. One is the Edwards-Sapien balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve, for the transfemoral and the transapical approaches. The other is the Medtronic CoreValve System which has a self-expanding, nitinol frame for transfemoral and, more recently, transaxillary use.
Two different approaches are currently used: In the transfemoral approach, the common femoral artery can either be prepared surgically or approached percutaneously. The transapical approach requires an antero-lateral mini-thoracotomy. Preliminary cases using the axillary approach have been reported. Both approaches share the same main principles. Most teams perform the procedure under general anaesthesia, although sedation and analgesia may suffice for the transfemoral approach. After crossing the aortic valve, balloon valvuloplasty is performed to pre-dilate the native valve. The position of the prosthesis at the aortic valve can be assessed by aortography and echocardiography. When positioning is considered correct, the prosthesis is released, under rapid pacing with the balloon expandable, but not with self-expanding devices.
Immediately after TAVI, aortography and, whenever available, TEE, are performed to assess the location and degree of aortic regurgitation, the patency of the coronary arteries, and to rule out complications. After the procedure, patients should stay in intensive care for at least 24 hours and be closely monitored for several days.
Since the first in-man TAVI by Alain Cribier in 2002, over 8000 high-risk patients with severe symptomatic AS have been treated using this technique. Two thirds were performed using the transfemoral approach. Patients were mostly over 80 years old, and at high risk. The procedural success, i.e. correct positioning of the prosthesis, is currently over 90% in experienced centres. Valve function is good with a final valve area ranging from 1.5 to 1.8cm². Thirty-day mortality ranges from 5 to 18%. Acute myocardial infarction occurs in 2 to 11%. Mild to moderate aortic regurgitation, mostly paravalvular, is observed in around 50% whilst severe aortic regurgitation is seen in <5%. Prosthesis embolisation or malpositioning occurs in 1 to 3% of cases, and coronary occlusion in <1%. Stroke ranges from 2 to 9%. In the transfemoral approach, vascular complications range from 11 to 15% with the balloon expandable device, decreasing to 2-4% with the self expandable ones, which have a lower profile. Finally, atrioventricular block necessitating pacemaker implantation occurs in 4 to 8% with the balloon expandable device and in up to 30 % with self-expandable devices. All reports consistently showed a learning curve effect both on the success rate and the incidence and severity of complications. Long-term results, up to 6 years (though only 1 to 3 years in most studies), are reported in a limited number of patients. The survival rate is approximately 70% at 2 years with a significant improvement in clinical condition in most cases. The majority of late deaths are due to comorbidities. No case of prosthetic dysfunction has been reported so far. There are currently no studies available comparing either one device against the other or one approach against the other.
Case reports have shown the feasibility of a valve in valve implantation, for either acute failure of TAVI or for degenerated valve prostheses.
As well as enrolment in randomised controlled trials, data should be accumulated in registries to assess safety and durability. Progress in delivery systems and valve manufacturing has lead to 18F introducers as well as a wider range of prosthetic valve dimensions and improvements in device manufacturing to produce better durability. Furthermore, improved imaging could facilitate valve placement.
Fig. 1 - Aortic annulus measurement
Top panel: transthoracic echocardiography
Bottom panel: Multislice computer tomography
Fig.2 - Prosthesis and currently used approaches for transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
Fig.3 - Prosthesis in place
Left : Edwards Sapien balloon expandable prosthesis.
Right : Medtronic CoreValve prosthesis.
In both cases a pace maker lead is positioned in the right ventricle and a transoesophageal probe is in place.
Fig. 4 – 3D transoesophageal view of the placement of the prosthesis at the level of the aortic valve. The arrows show the upper and lower edge of the prosthesis
Fig.5 - 3D transoesophageal view of the prosthesis
Left panel: diastole; Right panel: systole
Current results suggest that TAVI is feasible and provides haemodynamic and clinical improvement for up to three years in patients with severe symptomatic AS at high risk or with contraindications for surgery. Pending questions mainly concern safety and long-term durability. Surgeons and cardiologists must work as a team to select the best candidates, perform the procedure, and, finally, evaluate the results. Today these techniques are targeted at high-risk patients but they may be extended to lower risk groups in the future, if the initial promise holds true after careful evaluation.
1. Cribier A, Eltchaninoff H, Bash A, et al. Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis for calcific aortic stenosis: first human case description. Circulation, 2002;106:3006-3008.
2. Vahanian A, Alfieri OR, Al-Attar N, et al. Transcatheter valve implantation for patients with aortic stenosis: a position statement from the European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) in collaboration with the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Euro Heart J, 2008;29:1463-1470. 3. Grube E, Buellesfeld L, Mueller R, et al. Progress and current status of percutaneous aortic valve replacement: results of three device generations of the CoreValve revalving system. Circ Cardiovasc Intervent, 2008;1:167-75.
4. Piazza N, de Jaegere P, Shultz, C. et al. Anatomy of the aortic valvar complex and its implications for transcatheter implantation of the aortic valve. Circ Cardiovasc Intervent, 2008;1:74-81.
5. Webb JG, Altwegg L, Boone RH, et al. Transcather aortic valve implantation: impact on clinical and valve-related outcomes. Circulation, 2009;119:3009-3016.
6. Himbert D, Descoutures F, Al-Attar N, et al. Results of Transfemoral or Transapical Aortic Valve Implantation Following a Uniform Assessment in High-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2009;54:303-311.
7. Walther T, Simon P, Dewey T, et al. Transapical minimally invasive aortic valve implantation: multicenter experience. Circulation, 2007;116(Suppl):I240-245. 8. Svensson L, Dewey T, Kapadia S, et al. United States feasibility study of transcatheter insertion of a stented aortic valve by the left ventricular apex. Ann Thorac Surg, 2008;86:46-55.
9. Dewey TM, Brown D, Ryan WH, et al. Reliability of risk algorithms in predicting early and late operative outcomes in high-risk patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 2008;135:180-7.
10. Lee SJ, Lindquist K, Segal MR, Covinsky KE. Development and validation of a prognostic index for 4-year mortality in older adults. JAMA, 2006;295:801-808. Erratum in: JAMA. 2006;295:1900.
11. Moss RR, Ivens E, Pasupati S, et al. Role of Echocardiography in Percutaneous Aortic Valve Implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol Img, 2008;1:15-24.
12. Tops L, Wood D, Delgado V, et al. Non-invasive Evaluation of the Aortic Root with Multislice Computed Tomography: Implications for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol Img, 2008;1:321-30.
Alec Vahanian, Dominique Himbert, Eric Brochet Cardiology Department, Bichat Hospital, 46 Rue Henri Huchard, Paris 75018, France
Our mission: To reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease
© 2018 European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved