For the SURTAVI Investigators

Similar documents
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Prosthesis or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients:

Strokes After TAVR: Perspectives from the US CoreValve Trials

LOW RISK TAVR. WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS

Neal Kleiman, MD Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Institute

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch in High Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis in a Randomized Trial of a Self-Expanding Prosthesis

TAVI After PARTNER-2 : The Hamilton Approach

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with a Repositionable Self-expanding Bioprosthesis in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Suboptimal for

Igor Palacios, MD Director of Interventional Cardiology Massachusetts General Hospital Professor of Medicine Harvard Medical School

Debate: SAVR for Low-Risk Patients in 2017 is Obsolete AVR vs TAVI

Incorporating the intermediate risk in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI)

30-Day Outcomes Following Implantation of a Repositionable Self-Expanding Aortic Bioprosthesis: First Report From the FORWARD Study

Is TAVR Now Indicated in Even Low Risk Aortic Valve Disease Patients

Edwards Sapien. Medtronic CoreValve. Inoperable FDA approved High risk: in trials. FDA approved

Ian T. Meredith AM. MBBS, PhD, FRACP, FCSANZ, FACC, FAPSIC. Monash HEART, Monash Health & Monash University Melbourne, Australia

2/15/2018 DISCLOSURES OBJECTIVES. Consultant for BioSense Webster, a J&J Co. Aortic stenosis background. Short history of TAVR

TAVR IN INTERMEDIATE-RISK PATIENTS

TAVR: Intermediate Risk Patients

Appropriate Patient Selection or Healthcare Rationing? Lessons from Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in The PARTNER I Trial Wilson Y.

Is TAVR the treatment of choice for high risk diabetic patients with aortic stenosis? Insights from the FRANCE2 Registry

Saudi Heart Association. Raising Standards through Education and Training

Aortic Stenosis: Open vs TAVR vs Nothing

Aortic Valve Practice Guidelines: What Has Changed and What You Need to Know

Paris, August 28 th Gian Paolo Ussia on behalf of the CoreValve Italian Registry Investigators

Five-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) in Inoperable Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: The PARTNER Trial

The Role of TAVI in high-risk and normal-risk Patients

SAPIEN 3: Evaluation of a Balloon- Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve in High-Risk and Inoperable Patients With Aortic Stenosis One-Year Outcomes

Aortic Stenosis: Background

22/06/2017. Oxford City. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement 2017 guidelines. 1. First time I have heard about it. 2.

Percutaneous Management of Severe AS in Octagenarians. Phillip Matsis FRACP FCSANZ Interventional Cardiologist Wakefield Heart Centre Wellington

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation. SSVQ November 23, 2012 Centre Mont-Royal 15:40

THE PERCUTANEOUS MANAGEMENT OF VALVULAR HEART DISEASE DR JOHN RAWLINS CONSULTANT INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGIST UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL SOUTHAMPTON

TAVR in Intermediate Risk Populations /Optimizing Systems for TAVR

TAVR today: High Risk, Intermediate Risk Population, and Valve in Valve Therapy

Aortic valve implantation using the femoral and apical access: a single center experience.

Role of Embolic Protection Devices in TAVR: Are They Needed? Waste of Time and Money?

Valve Disease in Patients With Heart Failure TAVI or Surgery? Miguel Sousa Uva Hospital Cruz Vermelha Lisbon, Portugal

Evolving and Expanding Indications for TAVR

RANDOMISED TRIALS TAVI WITH SAVR STEPHAN WINDECKER AORTIC VALVE DISEASE COMPARING

TAVR: Review of the Robust Data from Randomized Trials

Potential conflicts of interest

Policy Specific Section: March 30, 2012 March 7, 2013

TAVI limitations for low risk patients

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Current and Future Devices: How do They Work, Eligibility, Review of Data

Transcatheter Therapies For Aortic Valve Disease. March 2017 Brian Whisenant MD

Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Implantation for Aortic Stenosis

TAVR-Update Andrzej Boguszewski MD, FACC, FSCAI Vice Chairman, Cardiology Mid-Michigan Health Associate Professor Michigan State University, Central

L evoluzione nel management della valvulopatia aortica

A new option for the Diagnosis and Management of Valvular Heart Disease. Oregon Comprehensive Valve Center

Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Implantation for Aortic Stenosis

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is considered investigational for all other indications.

Aortic Stenosis: Interventional Choice for a 70-year old- SAVR, TAVR or BAV? Interventional Choice for a 90-year old- SAVR, TAVR or BAV?

Medical Policy An independent licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association

Early Experience of Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement Results from the Intrepid Global Pilot Study

Surgical AVR: Are there any contraindications? Pyowon Park Samsung Medical Center Seoul, Korea

Indication, Timing, Assessment and Update on TAVI

Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Implantation for Aortic Stenosis

TAVI: Nouveaux Horizons

Peri-operative results and complications in 15,964 transcatheter aortic valve implantations from the German Aortic valve RegistrY (GARY)

Supplementary Online Content

After PARTNER 2A/S3i and SURTAVI: What is the Role of Surgery in Intermediate-Risk AS Patients?

SOLVE-TAV. Holger Thiele, MD on behalf of the SOLVE-TAVI Investigators

Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes at 30 Days with the SAPIEN 3 TAVR System in Inoperable, High-Risk and Intermediate-Risk AS Patients

2016 Update in Geriatrics Elizabeth Eckstrom, MD, MPH Oregon Health & Science University Oregon Geriatrics Society October 7, 2016

How to Prevent Thromboembolic Complications in TAVI

Severe Aortic Valve Disease: TAVR in Four Ages and Four Etiologies Age 25 y/o Congenital, 50 y/o Bicuspid, 75 y/o Rheumatic, 100 y/o Degenerative

TAVR y Enfermedad Coronaria. Mauricio G. Cohen, MD, FACC, FSCAI Director, Cardiac Catheterization Lab Associate Professor of Medicine

1-YEAR OUTCOMES FROM JOHN WEBB, MD

TAVI- Is Stroke Risk the Achilles Heel of Percutaneous Aortic Valve Repair?

An Update on the Edwards TAVR Results. Zvonimir Krajcer, MD Director, Peripheral Intervention Texas Heart Institute at St.

The Impact of TAVI Nurse Coordinator on patient management of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) program in QEH

Le TAVI pour tout le monde?

TAVI: The Real Deal? Marc Pelletier, MD Head, Department of Cardiac Surgery New Brunswick Heart Centre

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Vinod H. Thourani, MD, FACC, FACS

Strokes After TAVR. Ioannis Iakovou, MD, PhD. Interventional Cardiology Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center

Summary Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Evaluation of the evidence and synthesis of organizational issues

Dr.ssa Loredana Iannetta. Centro Cardiologico Monzino

Is Stroke Frequency Declining?

Outcomes in the Commercial Use of Self-expanding Prostheses in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Comparison of the Medtronic CoreValve and

Prof. Dr. Thomas Walther. TAVI in ascending aorta / aortic root dilatation

CIPG Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement- When Is Less, More?

Accepted Manuscript. Sixteen Years Later and the Debate for TAVR or SAVR Remains Controversial. Saina Attaran, MD, Vinod H.

Outcomes of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Moderate Risk Patients: Implications for Determination of Equipoise in the Transcatheter Era

THE MEDTRONIC TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT (TAVR) SYSTEM

Are Heart Valve Referral Centers Feasible in Latin America?

RISK PREDICTION IN TAVR. Beyond STS PROM and the Eyeball Assessment

Is TAVI ready for prime time in: - Intermediate risk patients? - Low risk patients?

State of the Art and Future perspective

TAVR or SAVR A glimpse into the future

Aortic Valve Controversies Beyond risk assessment: TAVI for Everybody

Multicentre clinical study evaluating a novel resheatable self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve system

Peri-Surgical Anemia and the TAVR Patient

THE VALVE CLINIC VALVE CONFERENCE

Less Invasive Aortic Valve Surgery

Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Implantation for Aortic Stenosis

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement TAVR

3 years after introduction of TAVI in QEH. Michael KY Lee On Behalf of QEH TAVI Heart Team Queen Elizabeth Hospital Hong Kong

One-year outcomes with the transcatheter LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System

TAVI Versus Suturless Valve In Intermediate Risk Patients

TAVR in 2017 What we know? What to expect?

Transcription:

Neurological complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with a self-expanding bioprosthesis or surgical aortic valve replacement in patients at intermediate-risk for surgery A. Pieter Kappetein, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands Nicolas M. Van Mieghem, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands Michael J. Reardon, Methodist Debakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston, TX, USA Patrick W. J. C. Serruys, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands Jeffrey J. Popma, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA For the SURTAVI Investigators

Speaker's name: Prof. A Pieter Kappetein I do not have any potential conflict of interest X I have the following potential conflicts of interest to report: Institutional grant/research support: Medtronic Medtronic personnel performed all statistical analyses and verified the accuracy of the data, and assisted in the graphical display of the data presented. 2

Background An increased risk for death, long-term morbidity and poor quality of life is associated with periprocedural stroke after surgical or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The SURTAVI Trial showed that TAVI with a self-expanding CoreValve or Evolut R bioprosthesis was noninferior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. As TAVI continues to be clinically evaluated in lower-risk populations, an understanding of the relative risk for neurological complications and their clinical consequences following SAVR and TAVI is critical. 3

Methods PATIENTS: Severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at intermediate surgical risk Risk determined by heart team at each site: Estimated surgical mortality 3% and <15% and other measures of comorbidity, frailty and disability International screening committee confirmed patient eligibility STUDY: Independent Clinical Events Committee adjudicated all neurological events. VARC-2* definitions of stroke Encephalopathy included evidence of altered mental state (e.g. seizures, delirium, confusion, hallucinations, dementia) Neurologist or stroke specialist evaluated patients with suspected event Imaging at discretion of specialist All stroke and encephalopathy were compared between TAVI and SAVR at 30 days. *Kappetein AP, et al. Eur Heart J 2012;33: 2403-18. 4

Neurological assessments NIH Stroke Scale Modified Rankin Score * Mini-Mental State Exam* Additional Assessments* Baseline Post procedure Discharge 30 Days 6 Months 12 Months 18 Months 24 Months 3 5 Years *By neurologist or stroke specialist. Additional testing included; field testing and gait, writing, drawing, and hand function assessments. 5

All stroke (%) Incidence of all stroke 20% TAVI SAVR 15% 10% 5% 30-Day p* = 0.031 5.4 3.3 2-Year p*= 0.143 8.0 6.3 No. at Risk 0% 0 6 12 18 24 Months Post Procedure TAVI 864 731 591 439 263 SAVR 796 653 539 393 230 * log-rank 6

Disabling stroke (%) Incidence of disabling stroke TAVI SAVR 30-Day p* = 0.057 2 Year p* = 0.076 2.4 1.2 4.5 2.4 No. at Risk Months Post Procedure TAVI 864 755 612 456 272 SAVR 796 674 555 407 241 * log-rank 7

Non-disabling stroke (%) Incidence of non-disabling stroke 20% TAVI SAVR 15% 10% 5% 30-Day p* = 0.230 3.0 2.1 2-Year p* = 0.834 4.1 4.0 No. at Risk 0% 0 6 12 18 24 Months Post Procedure TAVI 864 738 600 447 271 SAVR 796 669 553 400 238 * log-rank 8

Timing of early strokes TAVI SAVR Non-disabling Disabling 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time from implant to event (days) 9

Percentage of Patients (%) Early stroke severity 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Modified Rankin Scores at 30 Days 7,1 9,3 42,9 50,0 TAVI N=28 53,4 37,3 SAVR N=43 0 1 2 6 Missing 10I

Mean ± SD or % Baseline data for patients with early stroke TAVI N=28 SAVR N=43 P Value Age, years 78.5 ± 8.2 80.3 ± 6.9 0.32 Male sex 50.0 58.1 0.50 BMI < 21 kg/m 2 3.6 4.7 >0.99 STS Risk of mortality, % 4.4 ± 1.7 4.4 ± 1.6 0.88 EuroSCORE, % 12.6 ± 10.7 11.6 ± 7.6 0.68 NYHA Class 0.20 II 32.1 51.2 III/IV 67.9 48.8 LV ejection fraction, % 59.6 ± 10.7 61.0 ± 10.0 0.57 History of hypertension 96.4 79.1 0.08 Diabetes mellitus 35.7 34.9 0.94 Prior CABG 21.4 16.3 0.58 Peripheral vascular disease 28.6 30.2 0.88 Prior PCI 32.1 25.6 0.55 5-Meter gait speed > 6 sec 53.8 53.5 0.98 Severe aortic calcification 14.3 16.3 >0.99 11

TAVI baseline data: early vs no stroke Mean ± SD or % Stroke N=28 No Stroke N=836 P Value Age, years 78.5 ± 8.2 80.0 ± 6.1 0.35 Male sex 50.0 57.9 0.41 STS Risk of mortality, % 4.4 ± 1.7 4.4 ± 1.5 0.89 History of hypertension 96.4 92.6 0.72 Diabetes mellitus 35.7 34.1 0.86 Peripheral vascular disease 28.6 30.9 0.80 Severe aortic calcification 14.3 12.4 0.77 12

SAVR baseline data: early vs no stroke Mean ± SD or % Stroke N=43 No Stroke N=753 P Value Age, years 80.3 ± 6.9 79.7 ± 6.0 0.54 Male sex 58.1 54.8 0.67 STS Risk of mortality, % 4.4 ± 1.6 4.5 ± 1.6 0.55 History of hypertension 79.1 91.0 0.01 Diabetes mellitus 34.9 34.8 0.99 Peripheral vascular disease 30.2 29.9 0.96 Severe aortic calcification 16.3 10.5 0.23 13

TAVI procedural data: early vs no stroke Mean ± SD, or % Stroke N=28 No Stroke N=836 P Value Delivery catheter in body, min 19.6 ± 17.4 14.9 ± 15.9 0.14 Iliofemoral access, min 92.9 93.7 0.70 Need for revascularization 21.4 19.5 0.80 Procedure time 67.5 ± 43.2 51.8 ± 32.2 0.07 Pre-TAVR balloon valvuloplasty 42.9 47.3 0.64 Post-TAVR balloon valvuloplasty 21.4 29.2 0.37 > 1 Valve implanted 14.3 6.5 0.11 14

SAVR procedural data: early vs no stroke Mean ± SD, or % Stroke N=43 No Stroke N=753 P Value Cardiopulmonary bypass time, min 95.0 ± 34.9 98.0 ± 39.6 0.63 Aortic cross-clamp time, min 72.1 ± 27.6 74.4 ± 30.6 0.63 Total procedure time, min 200.6 ± 63.9 203.9 ± 69.4 0.77 Median or full sternotomy 88.4 89.6 0.88 Concomitant CABG 18.6 22.3 0.57 Concomitant root enlargement 4.7 1.5 0.15 15

TAVI hospitalisation data: early vs no stroke Mean ± SD, or % Stroke N=28 No Stroke N=836 P Value ICU duration, hours 88.0 ± 88.6 47.2 ± 41.1 0.03 Length of stay, days 8.9 ± 5.1 5.6 ± 4.8 <0.001 Discharge Location <0.001 Home 35.7 86.7 Another hospital 3.6 1.2 Rehabilitation clinic 32.1 5.9 Skilled nursing facility 14.3 3.6 Other 3.6 1.4 Patient died in hospital 10.7 1.2 16

SAVR hospitalisation data: early vs no stroke Mean ± SD, or % Stroke N=43 No Stroke N=796 P Value ICU duration, hours 125.3 ± 196.9 67.3 ± 86.3 0.06 Length of stay, days 12.6 ± 7.9 9.6 ± 8.0 0.02 Discharge Location 0.002 Home 27.9 55.8 Another hospital 4.7 3.6 Rehabilitation clinic 41.9 21.1 Skilled nursing facility 11.6 13.4 Other 11.6 4.8 Patient died in hospital 2.3 1.3 17

SF-36 physical summary 50 Quality of life by early vs no stroke 45 40 35 30 25 Série1 Série2 Série3 Série4 1 2 3 Change from baseline, mean ± SD TAVI stroke 4.3 ± 10.6 7.4 ± 9.7 SAVR stroke -2.6 ± 9.5 5.1 ± 9.9 P value for change from baseline 0.01 0.42 TAVI no stroke 5.8 ± 10.4 6.4 ± 10.3 SAVR no stroke -1.0 ± 11.1 6.4 ± 10.4 P value for change from baseline <0.001 0.99 18

All-cause mortality (%) Mortality in patients with early stroke No. at Risk TAVI 28 22 18 SAVR 43 34 28 19

All-cause mortality (%) Mortality in patients with early encephalopathy No. at Risk TAVI 14 12 9 SAVR 62 52 45 20

Subgroup analyses for early stroke Subgroup TAVI SAVR Hazard Ratios (95% CI) P for Interaction n/n (KM rate at 30 Days) Age 0.95 < 80 Years 12/352 (3.4) 19/330 (5.8) 0.59 (0.28 to 1.21) 80 Years 16/512 (3.1) 24/466 (5.2) 0.61 (0.32 to 1.14) Sex 0.37 Male 14/498 (2.8) 25/438 (5.7) 0.49 (0.25 to 0.94) Female 14/366 (3.9) 18/ 358 (5.1) 0.76 (0.38 to 1.53) STS 0.90 <4% 10/345 (2.9) 15/299 (5.0) 0.58 (0.26 to 1.28) 4% 18/519 (3.5) 28/497 (5.7) 0.61 (0.34 to 1.11) Diabetes 0.90 No 18/569 (3.2) 28/519 (5.4) 0.58 (0.32 to 1.06) Yes 10/295 (3.4) 15/277 (5.5) 0.62 (0.28 to 1.38) Revascularization Needed 0.52 No 22/695 (3.2) 36/633 (5.7) 0.55 (0.33 to 0.94) Yes 6/169 (3.6) 7/163 (4.3) 0.82 (0.28 to 2.44) Severe AO Calcification 0.60 No 24/756 (3.2) 36/710 (5.1) 0.63 (0.37 to 1.05) Yes 4/108 (3.7) 7/86 (8.2) 0.44 (0.13 to 1.50) PVD 0.81 No 20/598 (3.4) 30/558 (5.4) 0.62 (0.35 to 1.09) Yes 8/266 (3.0) 13/238 (5.5) 0.55 (0.23 to 1.32) 0.125 0.25 0.50 1.00 2.00 Favors TAVI Favors SAVR 21

Summary The incidence of early (30-day) stroke was significantly lower in patients after TAVI than after SAVR. Early stroke patients experienced longer ICU times, more days in hospital and were more frequently discharged to an alternate care facility regardless of treatment group. With or without stroke, TAVI patients recovered quality of life sooner than SAVR patients. All-cause mortality at 1 year was similar for TAVI and SAVR patients with stroke or with encephalopathy at 30 days. There were no differences in early stroke rates among TAVI and SAVR patients for select subgroups. 22