TAVR. Putting the swagger back in Mick Jagger › wenatchee20 › powerpoints › hwang.pdf ·...
Transcript of TAVR. Putting the swagger back in Mick Jagger › wenatchee20 › powerpoints › hwang.pdf ·...
TAVRPutting the Swagger back in Mick Jagger
Wayne S. Hwang MD FACCInterventional Cardiology
Director, Cardiac Catheterization LaboratoryVirginia Mason Medical Center
© 2014 Virginia Mason Medical Center
No disclosures of relevance
2
INCIDENCE
3
US ESTIMATESAortic Stenosis 1.5 millionSevere 500,000Symptomatic 250,000
ETIOLOGY
• CALCIFIC BICUSPID RHEUMATIC
• Age > 70 Age < 70 Worldwide
4
CALCIFIC AORTIC STENOSIS
5
Symptoms of aortic stenosis
▪ Shortness of breath
▪ Syncope or presyncope
▪ Angina
▪ Fatigue
▪ Difficulty when exercising
▪ Swollen ankles and feet
▪ Rapid or irregular heartbeat
▪ Palpitations (an uncomfortable awarenessof heart beating rapidly or irregularly)
Age-related calcific
aortic stenosis
3. Das P. European Heart Journal. 2005;26:1309-1313;
4. Lester SJ et al. CHEST 1998;113(4):1109-1114.
The symptoms of aortic disease are commonly misunderstood by patients
as ‘normal’ signs of aging.3
Many patients initially appear asymptomatic,
but on closer examination up to 37% exhibit symptoms.4
6
PATHOPHYSIOLOGY
7
CO
LVH
DiastolicDysfunction
Myocardialischemia
8
Severe aortic stenosis is life threatening and treatment is critical
9
100
80
60
40
20
0 0 40 50 6070 Age, years
Surv
ival
, %
Onset severe symptoms
Average survival, y
Angina
Syncope
Failure
0 2 4 6
Latentperiod
(Increasing obstruction,myocardial overload)
Adult average course with valvular aortic stenosis
5. Otto CM. Timing of aortic valve surgery. Heart. 2000;84:211-218
After the onset of symptoms, patients with severe aortic stenosis have a survival rate as low as 50% at 2 years and 20% at 5 years without aortic valve replacement
5-YEAR SURVIVAL
(Distant Metastasis)
3 4
12
23
2830
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
severeinoperable AS*
lung cancer colorectalcancer
breast cancer ovarian cancer prostatecancer
Su
rviv
al (%
)
Severe aortic stenosis has a worse prognosis than many metastatic cancers
*Using constant hazard ratio. Data on file, Edwards Lifesciences LLC. Analysis courtesy of Murat Tuczu, MD, Cleveland Clinic
5-year survival of breast cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer,
ovarian cancer and severe inoperable aortic stenosis
10
Can we manage Aortic Stenosis with medications? … No. It is a mechanical problem.
• Vasodilators (NTG) are potentially dangerous, although may be useful in acutely decompensated AS with CHF, in ICU setting.
• Afterload reducing agents (ACEi, ARB) benefit is unclear
- traditionally has been relatively contraindicated
- ACEi has not prevented progression of AS severity in clinical trials
- An observational study suggested improved survival and lower CV events
- Not a specific recommendation, but its use for AS related co-morbidities ok
• Diuretics cautiously
• Digoxin if CHF present
• Re-establish / maintain Sinus rhythm
• Treating symptoms, NOT the underlying disease
What about “plain old” balloon aortic valvuloplasty?
- Palliative procedure- Bridge to sAVR or TAVR- Frail patients, very old- Compromised clinical
status from concurrent CAD and/or other extracardiac co-morbidities
why?- Fracture of calcific nodules- Commissural splitting- Annular stretching
BENEFITS OF AVR
1. Improved survival
2. Relief of symptoms
3. Increased ejection fraction
13
“Gold Standard”. Surgical AVR (sAVR) works, but its big surgery. Many are not even candidates
few willingly sign up..
Enter: PERCUTANEOUS Aortic Valve Replacement• novel concept of implanting an artificial valve within the structure of
the originally heavily diseased valve, while beating, using currently proven catheter techniques without need for general anesthesia or even a Foley catheter, performed within 45 minutes, and walks home the next day.
Early Opposition -• It Can’t be done - Impossible!
• Too Dangerous and unpredictable!
• Valve can’t be stented open !
• Durability unpredictable!
First proof of concept – Cadaver procedure
• A. Cribier, Rouen 1994
Demonstrated ability to deploy a PALMAZ STENT in the aortic position and contributed to appropriate stent dimensions.
Alain Cribier: First human transcatheter valve replacement (2002)
19
Transfemoral procedural animation
20
Continuously Improving Processes
Procedural• Conscious sedation >> General Anesthesia• Cath lab > Hybrid OR• No central line or Swan catheter or even radial arterial lines often• Transthoracic ECHO >> Transesophageal ECHO • Percutaneous suture management for large bore arterial catheters >> surgical cutdown
POST Procedural Care Pathways• Remove lines ASAP• If appropriate, non-ICU (ie telemetry bed) recovery• Early ambulation encouraged• Echo in am, follow up labs, telemetry review – if all ok discharge
TAVR VALVES• CORE VALVE SAPIEN
• SELF EXPANDING BALOON EXPANDABLE
22
LOTUS VALVE
23
TAVR Access options – historical evolution
26
27
28
29
PARTNER 1: HIGH RISK
30
PARTNER 2: INTERMEDIATE
31
PARTNER 2: TRANSFEMORAL
32
SUMMARY SLIDE TO DATE: STS score breakdown
PROHIBITIVE RISK(STS > 15%)
Partner 1BCoreValve Extreme
TAVR > Medical therapy
HIGH RISK(STS >8%)
10% of total pts Partner 1ACoreValve High
TAVR = SAVR
INTERMEDIATE RISK(STS 3-8%)
25% of total pts Partner 2A, S3iSURTAVI, UK TAVI
TAVR = SAVR*Transfemoral: TAVR > SAVR
LOW RISK(STS <3%)
65% of total pts PARTNER 3 LRCoreValve LRNOTION All Comers
TAVR > SAVR
LOW RISK TAVR - summary of latest trials
• PARTNER 3 (Edwards Lifesciences)
• EVOLUT LOW RISK TRIAL. (Medtronic)
Primary Endpoint
0 3 6 9 12
496 475 467 462 456454 408 390 381 377
Number at risk:
TAVRSurgery
Months after Procedure
451374
TAVRSurgery
Psuperiority= 0.001
HR [95% CI] =
0.54 [0.37, 0.79]
Death
, S
troke, or
Rehosp
(%)
Pnon-inferiority< 0.001
Upper 95% CI of
risk diff = -2.5%
8.5%9.3%
15.1%
4.2%
0
10
20
Leon MB, Mack MJ. PARTNER 3: transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement in low risk patients with aortic stenosis. Presented at ACC 2019; March 2019; New Orleans, LA
All-Cause Mortality
All-
Cause M
ort
alit
y (
%)
494 494 493 492454 445 438 433 431
488427
Months from ProcedureNumber at risk:
1.0%1.1% 2.5%
0
10
0.4%
20HR [95% CI] =
0.41 [0.14, 1.17]
496TAVRSurgery
P = 0.09
0 3 6 9 12
TAVRSurgery
Leon MB, Mack MJ. PARTNER 3: transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement in low risk patients with aortic stenosis. Presented at ACC 2019; March 2019; New Orleans, LA
All Stroke
All
Str
oke (
%)
491 491 489 487454 435 427 423 421
484417
Months from ProcedureNumber at risk:
HR [95% CI] =
0.38 [0.15, 1.00]
496TAVRSurgery
1.2%
2.4% 3.1%
P = 0.04
0
10
20
0.6%0 3 6 9 12
TAVRSurgery
Leon MB, Mack MJ. PARTNER 3: transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement in low risk patients with aortic stenosis. Presented at ACC 2019; March 2019; New Orleans, LA
Death or Disabling Stroke
Death
or
Dis
ablin
g S
troke (
%)
494 494 493 491454 444 436 432 430
488426
Months from ProcedureNumber at risk:
HR [95% CI] =
0.34 [0.12, 0.97]
496TAVRSurgery
1.0%
2.9%1.3%
P = 0.03
0
10
20
0.4%0 3 6 9 12
TAVRSurgery
Leon MB, Mack MJ. PARTNER 3: transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement in low risk patients with aortic stenosis. Presented at ACC 2019; March 2019; New Orleans, LA
Primary Endpoint - Subgroup Analysis
Subgroup TAVR Surgery Diff [95% CI] P-value*
Overall 8.5 15.1 -6.6 [-10.8, -2.5]
Age
≤ 74 (n=516)
> 74 (n=434)
10.6
5.8
14.9
15.3
-4.3 [-10.1, 1.5]
-9.5 [-15.3, -3.7]0.21
Sex
Female (n=292)
Male (n=658)
8.1
8.7
18.5
13.8
-10.4 [-18.3, -2.5]
-5.1 [-9.9, -0.3]0.27
STS Score
≤ 1.8 (n=464)
> 1.8 (n=486)
9.1
8.0
15.7
14.5
-6.7 [-12.6, -0.7]
-6.5 [-12.2, -0.8]0.98
LV Ejection Fraction
≤ 65 (n=384)
> 65 (n=524)
9.6
8.0
17.2
12.4
-7.6 [-14.5, -0.7]
-4.4 [-9.6, 0.7]0.48
NYHA Class
I/II (n=687)
III/IV (n=263)
6.8
12.3
14.5
16.9
-7.8 [-12.4, -3.2]
-4.7 [-13.5, 4.1]0.54
Atrial Fibrillation
No (n=786)
Yes (n=163)
7.9
11.6
14.0
20.3
-6.1 [-10.5, -1.7]
-8.7 [-19.9, 2.5]0.67
KCCQ Overall Summary Score
≤ 70 (n=407)
> 70 (n=536)
10.5
6.5
19.9
11.2
-9.4 [-16.5, -2.4]
-4.6 [-9.4, 0.2]0.27
-20% 20%-10% 10%0 TAVR Better Surgery Better →
Event rates are KM estimates (%)
* P-value is for interaction
Leon MB, Mack MJ. PARTNER 3: transcatheter or surgical aortic
valve replacement in low risk patients with aortic stenosis.
Presented at ACC 2019; March 2019; New Orleans, LA
The PARTNER 3 TrialConclusions (1)
In a population of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis patients who
were at low surgical risk, SAPIEN 3 TAVR compared to surgery:
• Demonstrated superiority in the primary endpoint and 6 pre-
specified secondary endpoints, after first achieving non-inferiority
• Significantly reduced the primary endpoint of death, stroke, or
rehospitalization by 46% at 1-year.
▪ Components of the primary endpoint favored SAPIEN 3 TAVR,
both at 30 days and 1 year
▪ Multiple sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness of the
primary endpoint findings
The PARTNER 3 TrialConclusions (2)
• Secondary endpoints adjusted for multiple comparisons
indicated that SAPIEN 3 TAVR reduced new-onset AF, index
hospitalization days, and a measure of poor treatment outcome
(death or low KCCQ score at 30 days).
• Other secondary endpoint analyses also showed reduced
bleeding after SAPIEN 3 TAVR and no differences in the need
for new permanent pacemakers, major vascular complications,
coronary obstruction, and mod-severe PVR.
The PARTNER 3 TrialConclusions (3)
• SAPIEN 3 TAVR had more rapid post-procedure
improvement in patient-oriented functional indices, including
NYHA class, 6-minute walking distance, and KCCQ scores.
• SAPIEN 3 TAVR allowed 95.8% of patients to return home or
to self-care, compared to only 73.1% for surgery.
TAVR ISSUES
• Paravalvular leak (PVL): aortic regurgitation
• Permanent pacemaker
• Long term durability
• BICUSPID VALVES
• Coronary access post TAVR
43
PARTNER 3 PVL
44
CONDUCTION ABNORMALITIES
45
PACEMAKER REQUIREMENT
46
PACEMAKER
47
What about Bicuspid Valves?- They were excluded from the randomized trials
With newer generation devices, even BICUSPID AS outcomes are much improved with lower adverse events
NOT all bicuspid valves will be best suited by TAVR. Individualized assessment needed.
Confidence in Durability of TAVR vs SAVR at 6 years
VALVE IN VALVE (when initial SAVR fails)
• Bioprosthetic TAVR Valve in Valve
• valve
50
SUMMARY OF CURRENT STATE
TRANSCATHETER SURGERY
AORTIC STENOSIS Everyone Non-TAVR candidatesMechanical ValvesConcurrent procedures
AORTIC REGURGITATION Ongoing trials Everyone
Multidisciplinary Team is crucial
• Valve Cardiologist
• Interventional Cardiologist/Structural Interventionalist
• Cardiothoracic Surgeon with transcatheter training
• CV Anesthesiologist
• Radiologist / CT
• Heart Failure specialist
• MD Consultants
• Dedicated Valve coordinator *
• Cath lab / OR staff,
• RN leadership, cath lab/OR/CCU/telemetry
• Administration buy in and support
meet weekly or bi-weekly, review cases objectively transparently, review outcomes and quality assessment
Case 1
• 93 y/o very functional F, independently living
• Short of breath
• Chest pain new
• Atrial fibrillation chronic on OAC
• Echo severe aortic stenosis (peak vel 5.0m/s, mean gradient 61mmHg, AVA 0.65)
a) Medical therapyb) BAVc) Coronary angiogram then TAVRd) CTS consultation for sAVR
Case 1, continued
• 1/8/18 Cath - 95% Circumflex - stented/DES RCA 90% - stented/DES
• 1/16/18 TAVR
• 1/17/18 Discharged
• 1/17/20 most recent clinic visit - asymptomatic cardiac status, last echo normal TAVR appearance, no paravalvular leak, LVEF 70.
Case 2
• 57 y/o M
• Severe aortic insufficiency/moderate aortic stenosis
• h/o bioprosthetic 27mm AVR for severe aortic regurgitation (bicuspid) 9/25/03
• HFrEF acute systolic CHF, LVEF 19 in cardiogenic shock, shock liver on inotropes
• h/o CAD - RCA PCI
• Severe PAD, s/p iliofemoral and fem-fem bypass, bilateral CIA occlusions.
• Atrial fibrillation new
• Newly diagnosed Hodgkins lymphoma – felt to be curable.
a) Medical therapyb) BAVc) Coronary angiogram then TAVRd) CTS consultation for re-do sAVR
Case 2, continued
• Cath – stable disease, patency of previous stents
• Valve-in-Valve TAVR - L. axillary approach , 26mm Sapien 3
• 6 mo later - echo: LVEF 51 (from 19), normal Valve in valve appearance of TAVR, trivial paravalvular AI.
• Hodgkin’s cured
Case 3
• 65 y/o patient
• Symptomatic severe aortic stenosis
• Ascending aortic aneurysm, 4cm
• 1 vessel CAD (circumflex/Obtuse marginal)
a) sAVR (and leave aneurysm alone)b) TAVR now and follow – if either TAVR deteriorates over time and/or
aneurysm becomes >5.5, then can sAVR/root replacement
Case 4
• 75 y/o M, non-diabetic
• Typical angina CCS III
• Exertional dyspnea HFpEF NYHA class II-III
• Severe aortic stenosis
• Severe multivessel CAD (focal LAD, CX, RPDA stenosis).
a) Medical therapyb) Multivessel PCI, then TAVRc) TAVR, then multivessel PCId) CABG/sAVR
59