Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Small Anatomy: Patient Selection and Technical Challenges

Login or register to view PDF.
Abstract

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a standard treatment for severe aortic stenosis. Although this technique has reached relative maturity, further optimisation of patient selection and device implantation is essential to improve prognosis. Smaller body size is a predictor of a challenging TAVI procedure due to specific anatomical difficulty and adverse events including annulus rupture, acute coronary obstruction and vascular complications. A newer generation, lower profile TAVI system is useful for patients with smaller anatomy. Moreover, TAVI is superior to surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with a narrowing annulus because this treatement has a low incidence of prosthesis–patient mismatch.

Disclosure
YW is a proctor for TF-TAVI for Edwards SAPIEN and Medtronic.
Correspondence
Yusuke Watanabe, Department of Medicine, Teikyo University School of Medicine, 2-11-1 Kaga, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo 173-0003, Japan. E: yusuke0831@gmail.com
Received date
30 September 2017
Accepted date
02 January 2018
Citation
Interventional Cardiology Review 2018;13(2):66–8.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.15420/icr.2017:28:1

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a commonly used and minimally invasive approach for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).1,2 In the latest guidelines from the 2017 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) for the management of valvular heart disease, the following clinical characteristics favour TAVI: Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)/EuroSCORE II ≥4 % (logistic EuroSCORE I ≥10 %); presence of severe comorbidity; age ≥75 years; and presence of frailty or restricted mobility and conditions that may affect the rehabilitation process after the procedure.3 Accumulated data from randomised controlled trials and large registries of elderly patients show that TAVI is superior to medical therapy in terms of mortality in extreme-risk patients4, non-inferior or superior to surgery in high-risk patients,5–8 and non-inferior to surgery and even superior when transfemoral access is possible in intermediate-risk patients.9–12 The second-generation self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (THV) also showed substantial efficacy with a low rate of vascular complications compared with older devices.13 It is expected that more patients will be candidates for TAVI in the future. Although this technique has reached relative maturity, further optimisation of patient selection and device implantation is essential to improve prognosis.

Pre-procedural assessment of imaging techniques, specifically, multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT), has been recommended for TAVI optimisation.14

Asian populations have smaller body size (BSA=1.41±0.15 m2), aortic annulus size, and vascular access size than European populations (BSA=1.72±0.18 m2);15 this is a potential risk for annulus rupture, residual aortic valve stenosis, or vascular complications.16,17 Women with severe AS had smaller aortic root dimensions, even after correcting for their smaller body size and height, reflecting a sex-specific difference.18 This review includes a discussion of issues related to a small aortic complex and small access arteries. These issues are illustrated in a short case study provided in Figure 1.

Small Aortic Annulus

MDCT is useful to decide on the TAVI strategy in relation to access site, valve type and valve size. The incidence of annulus rupture or perforation is as low as 0–1.1 %; however, this is a catastrophic complication associated with a high risk of death.19,20 Aggressive device oversizing and large calcifications in the epicardial fat area of the annulus/left ventricular outflow tract have been reported as risk factors for annulus rupture.19,21,22 A smaller annulus calculated by MDCT (e.g. annulus area <300 cm2) may increase the risk of annulus rupture due to relative valve oversizing.21 A previous report showed a trend towards higher incidence of annulus rupture in patients with a small body size (BSA <1.75 m2) compared with patients with a larger body size (BSA ≥1.75 m2) (2.3 % versus 0.5 %; p=0.11).23

Prosthesis–Patient Mismatch

Prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM), defined by an indexed effective orifice area <0.85 cm2/m2 using echocardiography, is a major concern after aortic valve replacement. The risk factors for PPM are small annulus diameter and larger BSA.24 PPM is common (20–70 %) after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), and has a negative impact on short- and long-term outcomes.25 Head et al. reported that moderate and severe PPM are associated with a 1.2- and 1.8-fold increase in the risk of all-cause mortality, respectively.26 Some studies have reported that PPM is associated with less regression of left ventricular hypertrophy, less improvement in patient functional status and increased mortality after TAVI,27,28 whereas other studies found no significant impact of PPM on outcomes.29 Pibarot et al. reported that PPM is more frequent and often more severe after SAVR than after TAVI, and that TAVI may be preferable to SAVR in patients with a small aortic annulus who are susceptible to PPM, to avoid the adverse impact on left ventricular mass regression and survival.30 Distention of the aortic annulus due to systematic oversizing and the absence of a sewing ring may have been potential mechanisms accounting for the superior haemodynamic profile associated with TAVI compared with standard surgical valves.31

Figure 1: Small Aortic Complex in an 84-year-old Woman with a Body Surface Area of 1.23 m2

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Acute Coronary Obstruction

The coronary height from the aortic annulus plane to the coronary ostium is also a matter of great concern for TAVI in patients with a small body size. Acute coronary obstruction (ACO) is thought to be caused by native-valve leaflet involvement in the coronary ostium among patients undergoing TAVI.32 A previous study showed the distance between the left coronary ostium and the aortic annulus plane was shorter in the small-body group.23 Rebeiro et al. reported on data from a multicentre registry that showed that both coronary height <12 mm and sinus of Valsalva <30 mm were powerful predictors of ACO.33 Yamamoto et al. reported females were more prevalent in the coronary protection (CP) group than in the non-CP group (89.4 % versus 67.3 %), resulting in a smaller body height and body surface area in the CP group in the Japanese population. They also reported ACO occurred in 70 % of patients with bulky calcification, 50 % of

patients with leaflet length exceeding target coronary height, and 20 % of patients with flow limitation during valvuloplasty with simultaneous aortic root injection. Although the complication of ACO was difficult to predict, a preparatory CP strategy, such as guidewire insertion with or without a therapeutic balloon, is safe and feasible for the management of ACO during TAVI.34

Small Femoral Artery

Asian populations, including Japanese, have a smaller femoral artery diameter compared with Europeans.15 Vascular complications are relatively frequent and serious in transfemoral TAVI, and previous reports have shown that vascular complications are associated with significantly increased patient morbidity and mortality.35,36 The ratio of the sheath outer diameter (in millimetres) to the minimal femoral artery diameter (in millimetres) >1.05 is a predictor of vascular complications.35 In previous reports, newer TAVI technology with a lower-profile sheath system, SAPIEN 3 (Edwards Lifesciences), reduced bleeding and vascular complications by reducing sheath size using 14Fr or 16Fr Edwards eSheath (minimum artery diameter 5.5 mm). Arai et al. reported that SAPIEN 3 had a lower incidence of vascular complications (3 %) than those of SAPIEN XT (Edwards Lifesciences) implantation (12 %) via the femoral artery.37 The second-generation self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (THV) EvolutTM R (Medtronic) also showed substantial efficacy, with a low rate of vascular complications by reducing sheath size using 14Fr-equivalent system with InLineTM (minimum artery diameter 5.0 mm), which is adaptable to smaller access arteries compared with SAPIEN 3.13 Subclavian access with EvolutTM R was not significantly different from transfemoral access and may represent the safest non-femoral access route for TAVI.38

Summary

Small body size is more common in Asians and women and is associated with small aortic annulus size, low coronary height and smaller femoral artery size. Patients with small body size have a potential risk for annulus rupture, ACO, PPM and vascular complications during a TAVI procedure. The surgical approach to a patient with a small annulus has a risk of PPM, and TAVI is superior to SAVR, especially in terms of PPM, so we should consider TAVI for patients with a small annulus. Selection of THV in a patient with a small annulus is the next consideration. The area of the SAPIEN 3 THV is smaller than that of the SAPIEN XT when opened with the same nominal pressure and same size valve due to an outer skirt attachment. Therefore, the S3 20 mm THV may have potential risk of PPM.39 The EvolutTM R is designed for a supra-annular position to increase the effective orifice area, and may be suitable in patients with a small annulus. Pre-procedural planning with CT scan is quite important to determine the selection of THV and avoid complications.

Conclusion

Small body size is a predictor of a challenging TAVI procedure. TAVI with new generation devices is superior to SAVR and has a lower incidence of PPM. A self-expanding supra-annular THV would be favourable in a patient with a small annulus.

References
  1. Gilard M, Eltchaninoff H, Iung B, et al. Registry of transcatheter aortic-valve implantation in high-risk patients. New Engl J Med 2012;366:1705–15.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Mylotte D, Osnabrugge RL, Windecker S, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in Europe: adoption trends and factors influencing device utilization. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;62:210–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ, et al. 2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease: The Task Force for the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J 2017;38:2739–91.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. New Engl J Med 2010; 363:1597–607.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Mack MJ, Leon MB, Smith CR, et al. 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015;385:2477–84.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Deeb GM, Reardon MJ, Chetcuti S, et al. 3-Year outcomes in high-risk patients who underwent surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;67:2565–74.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. New Engl J Med 2011;364:2187–98.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Adams DH, Popma JJ, Reardon MJ, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. New Engl J Med 2014;370:1790–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Thyregod HG, Steinbruchel DA, Ihlemann N, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis: 1-Year results from the All-comers NOTION Randomized Clinical Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;65:2184–94.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Thourani VH, Kodali S, Makkar RR, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: A propensity score analysis. Lancet 2016;387:2218–25.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. New Engl J Med 2016;374:1609–20.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Reardon MJ, Van Mieghem NM, Popma JJ, et al. Surgical or transcatheter aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. New Engl J Med 2017;376:1321–31.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Kalra SS, Firoozi S, Yeh J, et al. Initial experience of a second-generation self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve: The UK & Ireland Evolut R Implanters’ Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2017;10:276–82.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Achenbach S, Delgado V, Hausleiter J, et al. SCCT expert consensus document on computed tomography imaging before transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)/transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2012;6:366–80.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Watanabe Y, Hayashida K, Takayama M, et al. First direct comparison of clinical outcomes between European and Asian cohorts in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Massy study group vs. the PREVAIL JAPAN trial. J Cardiol 2015;65:112–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Nara Y, Watanabe Y, Kozuma K, et al. Incidence, predictors, and mid-term outcomes of percutaneous closure failure after transfemoral aortic valve implantation using an expandable sheath (from the Optimized Transcatheter Valvular Intervention [OCEAN-TAVI] Registry). Am J Cardiol 2017;119:611–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Yoon SH, Ohno Y, Araki M, et al. Comparison of aortic root anatomy and calcification distribution between Asian and Caucasian patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol 2015;116:1566–73.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Hamdan A, Barbash I, Schwammenthal E, et al. Sex differences in aortic root and vascular anatomy in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A computed-tomographic study. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2017;11:87–96.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Hayashida K, Bouvier E, Lefevre T, et al. Potential mechanism of annulus rupture during transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2013;82:E742–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Pasic M, Unbehaun A, Dreysse S, et al. Rupture of the device landing zone during transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a life-threatening but treatable complication. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2012;5:424–32.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Blanke P, Reinohl J, Schlensak C, et al. Prosthesis oversizing in balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve implantation is associated with contained rupture of the aortic root. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2012;5:540–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. Barbanti M, Yang TH, Rodes Cabau J, et al. Anatomical and procedural features associated with aortic root rupture during balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circulation 2013;128:244–53.
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Watanabe Y, Hayashida K, Lefevre T, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients of small body size. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2014;84:272–80.
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. Bax JJ, Delgado V, Bapat V, et al. Open issues in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Part 2: procedural issues and outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Euro Heart J 2014;35:2639–54.
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Dumesnil JG, Pibarot P. Prosthesispatient mismatch: An update. Curr Cardiol Rep 2011;13:250–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. Head SJ, Mokhles MM, Osnabrugge RL, et al. The impact of prosthesis–patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 34 observational studies comprising 27 186 patients with 133 141 patient-years. Euro Heart J 2012;33:1518–29.
    Crossref | PubMed
  27. Ewe SH, Muratori M, Delgado V, et al. Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis–patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58:1910–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  28. Kukucka M, Pasic M, Dreysse S, et al. Patient–prosthesis mismatch after transapical aortic valve implantation: Incidence and impact on survival. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013;145:391–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  29. Tzikas A, Piazza N, Geleijnse ML, et al. Prosthesis–patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the Medtronic CoreValve system in patients with aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol 2010;106:255–60.
    Crossref | PubMed
  30. Pibarot P, Weissman NJ, Stewart WJ, et al. Incidence and sequelae of prosthesis–patient mismatch in transcatheter versus surgical valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: A PARTNER trial cohort – a analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;64:1323–34.
    Crossref | PubMed
  31. Clavel MA, Webb JG, Pibarot P, et al. Comparison of the hemodynamic performance of percutaneous and surgical bioprostheses for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:1883–91.
    Crossref | PubMed
  32. Bagur R, Dumont E, Doyle D, et al. Coronary ostia stenosis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2010;3:253–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  33. Ribeiro HB, Webb JG, Makkar RR, et al. Predictive factors, management, and clinical outcomes of coronary obstruction following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: insights from a large multicenter registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;62:1552–62.
    Crossref | PubMed
  34. Yamamoto M, Shimura T, Kano S, et al. Impact of preparatory coronary protection in patients at high anatomical risk of acute coronary obstruction during transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Int J Cardiol 2016;217:58–63.
    Crossref | PubMed
  35. Hayashida K, Lefevre T, Chevalier B, et al. Transfemoral aortic valve implantation new criteria to predict vascular complications. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2011;4:851–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  36. Steinvil A, Leshem-Rubinow E, Halkin A, et al. Vascular complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation and their association with mortality reevaluated by the valve academic research consortium definitions. Am J Cardiol 2015;115:100–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  37. Arai T, Lefevre T, Hovasse T, et al. Comparison of Edwards SAPIEN 3 versus SAPIEN XT in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Difference of valve selection in the real world. J Cardiol 2017;69:565–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  38. Frohlich GM, Baxter PD, Malkin CJ, et al. Comparative survival after transapical, direct aortic, and subclavian transcatheter aortic valve implantation (data from the UK TAVI registry). Am J Cardiol 2015;116:1555–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  39. Nakashima M, Watanabe Y, Hioki H, et al. Efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with Edwards SAPIEN 3 and XT in smaller Asian anatomy. Cardiovasc Interv Ther 2017.
    Crossref | PubMed