Skip to main content
Download PDF

Effectiveness and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in elderly people with severe aortic stenosis with different types of heart failure

BMC Cardiovascular Disorders volume 23, Article number: 34 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Impaired left ventricular function is an independent predictor of adverse clinical outcomes in patients with aortic stenosis. The aim of this study is to evaluate the short-term changes of echocardiographic parameters, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) level and adverse events amongst patients with heart failure (HF) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedure.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at affiliated Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital of Qingdao University between September 2017 and September 2022. TAVR cases were stratified into three groups [heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)] by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Baseline characteristics, changes in echocardiographic parameters (1 week and 1 month), BNP (1 month), and NYHA class (6 months) post-TAVR were compared across the three groups. Meanwhile, we observed the adverse events of the patients after TAVR.

Results

A total of 96 patients were included, of whom 15 (15.6%) had HFrEF, 15 (15.6%) had HFmrEF, and 66 (68.8%) had HFpEF. Compared to the HFpEF subgroup, patients in the HFrEF subgroup were younger (p < 0.05), and with a higher BNP (p < 0.05). The left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) in HFrEF group decreased significantly after TAVR. HFmrEF and HFrEF patients showed significant improvements in LVEF after TAVR. The pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP), aortic valve peak gradient (AVPG) and aortic valve peak gradient (Vmax) decreased significantly 1 month after TAVR in all three groups compared to the baseline (all p < 0.05). BNP significantly reduced in HFrEF group compared to HFpEF patients after TAVR (p < 0.05). The majority of patients experienced an improvement at least one NYHA class in all three groups 6 months post-TAVR. There is no significant increase in the risk of adverse events in the HFrEF group.

Conclusions

Patients who underwent TAVR achieved significant improvements in BNP, NYHA class, LVEDD, LVEF, and PASP across the three HF classes, with a more rapid and pronounced improvement in the HFrEF and HFmrEF groups. Complication rates were low in the different HF groups. There is no significant increase in the risk of periprocedural complications in the HFrEF and HFmrEF groups.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The incidence of aortic stenosis (AS) increases with age and is a significant problem in an aging society [1,2,3]. Symptomatic severe aortic stenosis has dismal prognosis and early intervention is strongly recommended in all patients [1]. For patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) due to severe aortic stenosis, a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is associated with increased mortality risk [4]. A reduced EF is one of the commonest reasons for patients being denied access to SAVR [5, 6]. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now increasingly offered to patients as an alternative to SAVR in patients with symptomatic severe AS and those with intermediate [7, 8] or higher [8,9,10,11] surgical risk and has been demonstrated to have comparable outcomes to SAVR.

Heart failure (HF) is a complex clinical syndrome with symptoms and signs that result from any structural or functional impairment of ventricular filling or ejection of blood [12]. AS and HF are two common causes of mortality in the elderly, they often coexist and affect one another. A Report of the Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, Japanese Heart Failure Society and Writing Committee of the Universal Definition of Heart Failure proposes a new and revised classification of HF according to LVEF: HF with reduced EF (HFrEF): HF with an LVEF of ≤ 40%; HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF): HF with an LVEF of 41% to 49%; HF with preserved EF (HFpEF): HF with an LVEF of ≥ 50%; and HF with improved EF (HFimpEF): HF with a baseline LVEF of ≤ 40%, a ≥ 10-point increase from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of > 40% [13]. Prior research has demonstrated that impaired left ventricular function is associated with increased risks of adverse clinical outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis [14]. The use of TAVR in patients with HFrEF is controversial due to higher risks of complications [15]. Therefore, our study aims to evaluate the effects of TAVR on cardiac function among severe AS patients with different phenotypes of HF, accessing by echocardiographic parameters, B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) level and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class. The incidence of adverse events was also evaluated across three groups to further elucidate the safety outcome of TAVR.

Methods

Study population

The study population included patients who underwent TAVR at the affiliated Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital of Qingdao University from September 2017 to September 2022. Our study complies with the Declaration of Helsinki. This study received ethics approval from Affiliated Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital of Qingdao University Ethics Committee. The ethics approval number is 2022–75. All patients provided written informed consent to participate. Patient inclusion criteria comprised: (1) underwent TAVR for symptomatic severe AS [mean gradient ≥ 40 mmHg (1 mmHg = 0.133 kPa), peak velocity ≥ 4.0 m/s, valve area ≤ 1 cm2 (or ≤ 0.6 cm2/m2) at the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao university; (2) complicated with HF symptoms and/or signs, such as breathlessness, orthopnoea, paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnoea, reduced exercise tolerance, fatigue, inability to exercise and fluid retention [13]; (3) with a BNP level ≥ 35 ng/L or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) ≥ 125 ng/L. The exclusion criteria included (1) mild or moderate AS; (2) could not be measured by echocardiography; (3) severe rheumatic AS; (4) without HF. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to the baseline EF: reduced (≤ 40%; n = 15 ), mildly reduced (≥ 41% and ≤ 49%; n = 15), and preserved (≥ 50%; n = 66) EF.

TAVR procedure and medication

All patients underwent preoperative investigations such as computed tomography (CT) scan, electrocardiogram and transthoracic echocardiography. All patients underwent transfemoral access and general anesthesia for the TAVR procedure. The choice of prosthesis and the performance of pre- or post-dilation was left to the interventionalist’s discretion [16]. Unfractionated heparin was used for periprocedural anticoagulation. Suture-mediated closure devices were used for access-site closure [16].

Data collection

Baseline characteristics for each participants were collected, including demographics (age, sex, body mass index), symptoms (angina, dyspnea, syncope), NYHA class, smoking, heart rate, medical comorbidities such as hyperlipidemia, diabetes, dyslipidemia, chronic kidney disease (CKD), coronary heart disease (CHD), prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) history, history of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) and atrial fibrillation (AF). The improvement of NYHA class is evaluated according to the guiding principles of chronic heart failure (CHF) clinical research. Invalid NYHA change was defined as no change in NYHA class or deterioration in NYHA class. Effective NYHA change was defined as improvement of 1 NYHA class(es). Remarkable effect NYHA change was defined as improvement of 2/3NYHA class(es). Laboratory examination included BNP, high-sensitivity Troponin I(hsTnI), uric acid, homocysteine, blood lipid, hepatic function, creatinine, urea and blood counts. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed before and after TAVR procedure. All echocardiograms were obtained with the patient in a stable hemodynamic condition. Echocardiographic parameters included left atrium anteroposterior diameter (LAAD), left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD), right ventricular anteroposterior diameter (RVAD), left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), aortic valve peak gradient (AVPG), aortic valve mean gradient (AVMG), peak aortic velocity (Vmax), pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP), LVEF, moderate-severe aortic regurgitation (AR) and moderate-severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR). Moderate-severe valve regurgitation includes moderate valve regurgitation and severe valve regurgitation. According to the valve regurgitation guidelines [17], the degree of valve regurgitation was comprehensively assessed using echocardiographic qualitative, semi-quantitative, and quantitative indicators. LVEF was assessed by the Simpson’s method. TAVR cases compared for the incidence of adverse events over a 6-month follow-up. Adverse events include vascular complications, heart block, AF, poor wound healing, secondary thoracotomy for hemostasis, coronary obstruction, perivalvular leakage, permanent pacemaker, stroke and all-cause mortality. Patients underwent baseline laboratory examination and echocardiography before TAVR and regular examinations 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, one year and every year thereafter after TAVR according to a standard follow-up protocol. Adverse events data were obtained from medical records or by inquiring the patients' families or referring physicians through telephone. The duration of follow-up in this study is 6 months.

Statistical analysis

Data analysis was performed using SPSS (version 25.0). Categorical variables were expressed as absolute numbers and percentages. The Chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test was used compare categorical variables between groups. Data normality was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Normally distributed continuous variables were presented as mean and SD. Paired t-tests and ANOVA were used to compare normally distributed continuous variables, followed by a post hoc analysis performed using the Scheffe test. Non-normally distributed continuous variables are presented as median with 25%-75% interquartile range. We use the nonparametric Kruskal Wallis test to compare non-normally continuous variables. A 2-tailed p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 96 patients underwent TAVR for severe AS were included. Amongst these, 66 patients were classified as HFpEF, 15 as HFmrEF and 15 as HFrEF. Baseline characteristics are demonstrated in Table 1. The mean age of the groups decreased with increasing severity of EF reduction (p < 0.05). Compared to patients with HFpEF, those with HFrEF were significantly younger (p < 0.05). Besides, NYHA class at baseline was significantly higher in patients with HFrEF. In patients with HFrEF, 46.7% were male, with a mean age of 69.13 ± 6.79. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 22.1 kg/m2. In terms of cardiovascular risk factors, 33.3% were identified as smokers, and the prevelance of hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia and CKD were found to be 46.7%, 13.3%, 33.3% and 6.7% respectively, in HFrEF patients. Baseline cardiovascular disease including CHD (73.3%), prior MI (20.0%), AF (6.7%) and stroke (6.7%) were captured. Baseline cardiac Surgery included CABG (0.0%) and PCI (13.3%). There was no significant difference in heart rate between HFrEF and the other two groups. Compared to patients with HFpEF, hsTnI, BNP and uric acid at baseline was significantly higher in patients with HFrEF. Other laboratory parameters did not differ significantly across the three groups.

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the study population [\(\overline{X}\) ± S or M(P25, P75), case(%)]
Full size table

The baseline echocardiographic findings are detailed in Table 2. LVEDD, LVEDV, LAAD and moderate-severe TR were significantly different across the 3 groups (p < 0.05). The median of preoperative LVEF of the three groups (HFrEF, HFmrEF, HFpEF) were 36.00, 46.00 and 62.00 respectively.

Table 2 Echocardiography at baseline [\(\overline{X}\) ± S or M(P25, P75), case(%)]
Full size table

The comparison of echocardiography parameters before and after operation is shown in Table 3. Compared with baseline, LVEF of the HFmrEF and HFrEF group increased significantly 1 week after TAVR (p < 0.05 for both). One month after TAVR, LVEDD in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF decreased significantly compared with baseline values (p < 0.05). And LVEF increased evidently in three groups 1 month post-TAVR (p < 0.05). In the HFmrEF group, 12 patients had increased LVEF 1 week post-TAVR, of whom 10 patients had a recovered LVEF level of ≥ 50%. The LVEF of eight patients in the HFrEF group increased to ≥ 41%, of whom 2 patients had recovered to ≥ 50%. One month after TAVR, three patients in HFmrEF group lost follow-up. In HFmrEF group, LVEF of 10 patients recovered to ≥ 50%. In HFrEF group, one patient was lost follow-up and one patient died during perioperative period. The LVEF of 11 patients in the HFrEF group increased to ≥ 41%, of whom eight patients recovered to ≥ 50%.

Table 3 Comparison of pre-and post-TAVR echocardiogram parameters for 1 week and 1 month [\(\overline{X}\) ± S or M(P25, P75)]
Full size table

The changes in echocardiographic parameters 1 week after TAVR across the three groups are shown in Tables 3 and 4. AVPG and Peak aortic velocity decreased in the three groups compared with baseline. Compared to patients with HFpEF, LVEF at 1 week was significantly improved in patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF. PASP in patients with HFrEF decreased significantly after TAVR.

Table 4 Changes of echocardiographic indexes 1 week and 1 month after TAVR [\(\overline{X}\) ± S or M(P25, P75)]
Full size table

The changes in echocardiographic parameters 1 month after TAVR across the three groups are also shown in Tables 3 and 4. There were statistically significant differences in the improvement of peak aortic velocity, PASP and LVEF at 1 month across the three groups. Compared to HFpEF group, HFmrEF and HFrEF patients showed significant improvements in LVEF. Peak aortic velocity decreased significantly in HFpEF patients than in HFmrEF patients (p < 0.05). Compared with HFpEF and HFmrEF group, PASP in HFrEF group decreased more significantly after TAVR (p < 0.05). Compared to baseline, AVPG decreased significantly in the three groups 1 month post-TAVR (p < 0.05), without any significant inter-group differences.

The 1-month BNP changes after TAVR between the three groups are compared in Table 5. The BNP level of the HFmrEF and HFrEF groups was significantly decreased compared with group HFpEF (p < 0.05 for both). Subjective outcomes in terms of the NYHA class were collected during follow-up. Table 5 and Fig. 1 show the changes of NYHA class before and after surgery. Most patients were NYHA class III or IV at baseline and NYHA class I or II at follow-up.There was a similarly strong improvement of at least one NYHA class in all three groups, with 100.0, 93.4, and 93.8% for HFrEF, HFmrEF and HFpEF patients, respectively. However, there were no statistically between-group difference.

Table 5 Changes of BNP at 1 month and NYHA class at 6 months after TAVR [M(P25, P75), case(%)]
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Changes of NYHA class before and after TAVR

Full size image

The intraoperative and postoperative clinical details are shown in Table 6. Longer intensive care time were observed for the HFrEF group (p < 0.05). And HFrEF and HFmrEF groups have longer length-of-stay of hospitalizations.

Table 6 Intraoperative and postoperative clinical data [M(P25, P75)]
Full size table

Post-TAVR outcomes are shown in Table 7. Left bundle branch block (LBBB) was the most common type of conduction disturbances induced by TAVR in this study, with a prevalence of 16.7% in the overall study population. In patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF and HFpEF, the prevalence of LBBB was 6.7%, 6.7% and 21.2%, respectively. Other arrhythmias induced by TAVR in AS patients with HF included complete heart block (8.3%), and atrial fibrillation (4.2%). Among the overall study population, 8 patients (8.3%) had implanted a permanent pacemaker due to complete heart block. The incidence of adverse events was low in the three groups. In terms of all-cause mortality post-TAVR, only one death (6.7%) occurred in the HFrEF subgroup, due to ventricular fibrillation. Two other deaths (3.0%) were observed in the HFpEF subgroup because of coronary obstruction during TAVR. Of the total study population, other adverse events included vascular complications (3.1%), poor wound healing (1.0%), secondary thoracotomy for hemostasis (1.0%), moderate valve regurgitation (6.3%), and stroke (5.2%).

Table 7 Postoperative adverse events [case (%)]
Full size table

Discussion

The main findings of this study are the following: (i) patients who underwent TAVR achieved significant improvements in BNP, NYHA class, LVEDD, LVEF, and PASP across the three HF classes, with a more rapid and pronounced improvement in the HFrEF and HFmrEF groups; (ii) patients with HFrEF undergoing TAVR demonstrated a rapid improvement in left ventricular (LV) function and have a similar short-term clinical outcomes as compared to those with HFmrEF; (iii) the risk of periprocedural adverse events in patients with severely impaired LVEF appears to be comparable to patients with normal or mildly reduced LVEF.

In previous studies [15, 18, 19], AS patients were divided into two groups according to preoperative LVEF (TAVR) and their overall clinical outcomes were followed up. But our study divided patients into three groups (HFrEF, HFmrEF, HFpEF) according to latest HF guidelines. In a single center study [19], they investigated clinical outcomes of high-risk patients with severe AS undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation(TAVI) stratified by LVEF. It showed patients with LVEF ≤ 30% experienced a rapid improvement in LVEF associated with improved NYHA functional class at 30 days after TAVI. Webb et al. [20] study showed there was a significant improvement in LVEF after valve insertion. Another study [18] demonstrated the outcome of patients with low-EF severe AS following TAVR is as good as that of patients with preserved-EF. The results of our study are in keeping with those in the published literature. In our study, various echocardiographic parameters were analyzed comprehensively, which allowed us to investigate possible improvements in cardiac structure, in additional to LVEF changes. Meanwhile, echocardiographic data available 1 week and 1 month post-TAVR allowed for time-dependent changes to be assessed across different classes of HF. Patients who underwent TAVR achieved good recovery across the three HF classes, with a more rapid and pronounced improvement in the HFrEF and HFmrEF groups. According to our study, the improvement of LVEF and LVEDD in patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF improved more significantly, most probably due to a ceiling effect in HFpEF patients, limiting LVEF and LVEDD improvement beyond a certain point. In addition, TAVR can significantly reduce PASP, AVPG, Vmax in AS patients with HF. In our study, we also found that compared to 1 week after TAVR, more patients in HFrEF group recovered their LVEF to ≥ 50% at 1 month post-TAVR. And TAVR can continuously improve LVEF of HFrEF patients. Valvular parameters improved in all classes patients suggesting an equal success rate. Several studies have demonstrated a symptomatic benefit of TAVR as reflected by changes in NYHA functional class [20,21,22]. Our study demonstrated there was a similarly strong improvement of at least one NYHA class in all three groups. There were no statistically between-group differences. Meanwhile, the symptoms of HF were improved and the quality of life was significantly improved. In addition to TAVR being beneficial for the treatment of symptoms of valvular heart failure, our study has demonstrated favorable effects on neurohormonal activation and reverse cardiac remodeling. In AS, myocardial wall stress induces the synthesis of BNP [23]. Previous studies have demonstrated a relation between the severity of AS, clinical symptoms and the release of this neurohormone [23]. SAVR decreases myocardial wall stress and thereby results in a significant reduction of BNP [24]. Our findings are in line with this observation and have demonstrated that TAVR also leads to a reduction in neurohormonal activation. Nevertheless, because the levels of BNP correlate with myocardial wall stress and the severity of aortic valve stenosis [23], the reduction of BNP in our study might be evidence of the beneficial effects of TAVR on myocardial function. The improvement of BNP and NYHA class were mirrored by a marked improvement in LVEDD, LVEF, and PASP across the three classes. Previous clinical studies [15, 25, 26] have reported non-significant differences in major outcomes(such as complication rates, short- or long-term survival, in-hospital mortality and cardiovascular mortality following TAVR) for patients with low versus high LVEF. In our study, the incidence of adverse events was low in the three groups, and we did not detect a significant increase in the incidence of adverse events in HFrEF group. Therefore, TAVR may be offered to patients with both severe AS and HFrEF.

Severe left ventricular dysfunction has long been established as a marker for poor outcomes after SAVR [27, 28]. Many of AS patients have reduced LVEF resulting in reluctance to offer aortic valve replacement [28]. The advent of TAVR has transformed the conventional management of such patients, with results revealing favorable hemodynamic changes with TAVR in comparison to SAVR [29]. Previous studies have been widely diverged and inconsistent regarding the effect of baseline EF on TAVR outcomes. In a study of 11,292 patients undergoing TAVR, systolic dysfunction (LVEF < 30%) was not significantly associated with higher rates of mortality [26]. This was further supported in the PARTNER trial, where results revealed there were no statistically significant differences in early and late mortality rates in AS patients, regardless of their pre-procedural LVEF [30]. Our findings showed similar early mortality and complication rates between across the spectrum of LVEF. However, the PARTNER 2 study demonstrated baseline LVEF was an independent predictor of 2-year cardiovascular mortality [31]. Possible explanations for these conflicting results may be the different EF values used as a cut-off for LV dysfunction or that patients may have concomitant pathologies causing HF, such as ischaemic cardiomyopathy, which will impact on their prognosis. The main clinical implication suggested by this finding involves the necessity of early intervention in patients with systolic dysfunction, with the use of higher LVEF cut-off values to improve their outcomes [32,33,34]. Although our data showed good recovery and it did not increased risk in patients with HFrEF after TAVR. This does not mean that we can ignore severe AS patients with mild systolic dysfunction. Previous studies showed low EF is a risk factor affecting the prognosis of patients with severe AS [14]. Chronic pressure overload as a result of severe AS causes increased wall stress and oxygen demand, followed by LV remodeling and compensatory hypertrophy, impairing diastolic function and promoting myocardial ischemia, ultimately resulting in fibrosis and irreversible damage to myocardial systolic function. Therefore, for patients with severe AS and mild LV systolic dysfunction particularly at early stages, timely intervention should be carried out to prevent irreversible severe LV functional damage leading to a serious decline in quality of life.

HFpEF is an entity with growing incidence and prevalence. So far, no significantly beneficial treatment has been established for HFpEF patients. Most therapeutic options of HFpEF focused on symptom control, which is in contrast to the situation of HFrEF [35]. HFpEF patients represents a more heterogeneous population, some of them have not developed to HFrEF yet and some already have severely symptomatic HF but would maintain a normal EF. So, we must distinguish HFpEF from HFrEF as well as other aetiologies that have different treatment strategies [36]. Of note, if the patient is in a mild stage before the development of HFrEF, early intervention is the key. In addition, factors functioning in the progression from this stage to HFrEF may be our therapeutic target [37]. Diagnosis of HFpEF relies on the presentation of objective evidence of cardiac dysfunction, physical examination, imaging data, blood testing results or echocardiography data. When these tests are inconclusive, invasive exercise testing is necessary. Treatment of HFpEF aims at controlling of cardiac congestion symptoms, management of comorbidities. Future research should focus on refining HFpEF into different phenotypes to achieve personalized treatment.

Our study has several limitations. Firstly, this is a single-center, retrospective study with selection bias, which further limits our analysis. Secondly, the limitations of the study are related to the small sample size, which may limit statistical power. Thirdly, this study has a short-follow up period and some loss of follow-up, which limits the ability to detect delayed complications and out of hospital mortality outcomes post-TAVR.

Conclusions

Patients who underwent TAVR achieved significant improvements in BNP, NYHA class, LVEDD, LVEF, and PASP across the three HF classes, with a more rapid and pronounced improvement in the HFrEF and HFmrEF groups. Complication rates were low in the different HF groups. There is no significant increase in the risk of periprocedural complications in the HFrEF and HFmrEF groups.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analyzed during the present study are not publicly available because of the restrictions by the Affiliated Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital of Qingdao University, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

TAVR:

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement

AS:

Aortic stenosis

HF:

Heart failure

HFrEF:

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

HFmrEF:

Heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction

HFpEF:

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

BNP:

B-type natriuretic peptide

NT-proBNP:

N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide

SAVR:

Surgical aortic valve replacement

LVEF:

Left ventricular ejection fraction

CKD:

Chronic kidney disease

CHD:

Coronary heart disease

PCI:

Percutaneous coronary intervention

CABG:

Coronary artery bypass grafting

MI:

Myocardial infarction

TIA:

Transient ischemic attack

AF:

Atrial fibrillation

CHF:

Chronic heart failure

hsTnI:

High-sensitivity Troponin I

LAAD:

Left atrium anteroposterior diameter

LVEDD:

Left ventricular end-diastolic dimension

RVAD:

Right ventricular anteroposterior diameter

LVEDV:

Left ventricular end-diastolic volume

AVPG:

Aortic valve peak gradient

AVMG:

Aortic valve mean gradient

Vmax:

Peak aortic velocity

TR:

Tricuspid regurgitation

PASP:

Pulmonary artery systolic pressure

AR:

Aortic regurgitation

BMI:

Body mass index

CT:

Computed tomography

LV:

Left ventricular

TAVI:

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation

References

  1. Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F, Milojevic M, Baldus S, Bauersachs J, Capodanno D, Conradi L, De Bonis M, De Paulis R, et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. EuroIntervention. 2022;17(14):e1126–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Seoudy H, von Eberstein M, Frank J, Thomann M, Puehler T, Lutter G, Lutz M, Bramlage P, Frey N, Saad M, et al. HFA-PEFF score: prognosis in patients with preserved ejection fraction after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. ESC Heart Fail. 2022;9(2):1071–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Song F, Liu FZ, Liang YF, Tse G, Li X, Liao HT, Chen JY. Clinical, sonographic characteristics and long-term prognosis of valvular heart disease in elderly patients. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2019;16(1):33–41.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Halkos ME, Chen EP, Sarin EL, Kilgo P, Thourani VH, Lattouf OM, Vega JD, Morris CD, Vassiliades T, Cooper WA, et al. Aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;88(3):746–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Marzec K, Jaworska-Wilczyńska M, Kowalik I, Nieznańska M, Witkowski A, Dąbrowski M, Kuśmierski K, Hryniewiecki T. Comparison of the long-term outcomes and risk factors of aortic stenosis treatment—in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement. Kardiol Pol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.33963/KP.a2022.0122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Iung B, Cachier A, Baron G, Messika-Zeitoun D, Delahaye F, Tornos P, Gohlke-Bärwolf C, Boersma E, Ravaud P, Vahanian A. Decision-making in elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis: why are so many denied surgery? Eur Heart J. 2005;26(24):2714–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, Makkar RR, Svensson LG, Kodali SK, Thourani VH, Tuzcu EM, Miller DC, Herrmann HC, et al. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(17):1609–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP 3rd, Fleisher LA, Jneid H, Mack MJ, McLeod CJ, O’Gara PT, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with Valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2017;135(25):e1159–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kodali SK, Williams MR, Smith CR, Svensson LG, Webb JG, Makkar RR, Fontana GP, Dewey TM, Thourani VH, Pichard AD, et al. Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(18):1686–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Mack MJ, Leon MB, Smith CR, Miller DC, Moses JW, Tuzcu EM, Webb JG, Douglas PS, Anderson WN, Blackstone EH, 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 (London, England). 2015;385(9986):2477–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ, De Bonis M, Hamm C, Holm PJ, Iung B, Lancellotti P, Lansac E, Muñoz DR, et al. 2017 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2018;71(2):110.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, Allen LA, Byun JJ, Colvin MM, Deswal A, Drazner MH, Dunlay SM, Evers LR, et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;79(17):e263-421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bozkurt B, Coats AJ, Tsutsui H, Abdelhamid M, Adamopoulos S, Albert N, Anker SD, Atherton J, Böhm M, Butler J, et al. Universal definition and classification of heart failure: a report of the Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, Japanese Heart Failure Society and Writing Committee of the Universal Definition of Heart Failure. J Card Fail. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2021.01.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Passeri JJ, Elmariah S, Xu K, Inglessis I, Baker JN, Alu M, Kodali S, Leon MB, Svensson LG, Pibarot P, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement and standard therapy in inoperable patients with aortic stenosis and low EF. Heart. 2015;101(6):463–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Al Balool J, Al Jarallah M, Rajan R, Dashti R, Alasousi N, Kotevski V, Taha Mousa AS, Al Haroun R, Tse G, Zhanna KD, et al. Clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement stratified by left ventricular ejection fraction: a single centre pilot study. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022;77:103712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Steffen J, Reißig N, Andreae D, Beckmann M, Haum M, Fischer J, Theiss H, Braun D, Orban M, Rizas K, et al. TAVI in patients with low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis-short-term and long-term outcomes. Clin Res Cardiol. 2022;111(12):1325–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Zoghbi WA, Adams D, Bonow RO, Enriquez-Sarano M, Foster E, Grayburn PA, Hahn RT, Han Y, Hung J, Lang RM, et al. Recommendations for noninvasive evaluation of native valvular regurgitation: a report from the American society of echocardiography developed in collaboration with the society for cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2017;30(4):303–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ternacle J, Faroux L, Alperi A, Muntané-Carol G, Delarochellière R, Paradis JM, Kalavrouziotis D, Mohammadi S, Dumont E, Beaudoin J, et al. Impact of left-ventricular dysfunction in patients with high- and low- gradient severe aortic stenosis following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. The Can J Cardiol. 2021;37(7):1103–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pilgrim T, Wenaweser P, Meuli F, Huber C, Stortecky S, Seiler C, Zbinden S, Meier B, Carrel T, Windecker S. Clinical outcome of high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction undergoing medical treatment or TAVI. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(11):e27556.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Webb JG, Pasupati S, Humphries K, Thompson C, Altwegg L, Moss R, Sinhal A, Carere RG, Munt B, Ricci D, et al. Percutaneous transarterial aortic valve replacement in selected high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. Circulation. 2007;116(7):755–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Carabello BA. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2011;13(3):173–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Grube E, Schuler G, Buellesfeld L, Gerckens U, Linke A, Wenaweser P, Sauren B, Mohr FW, Walther T, Zickmann B, et al. Percutaneous aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis in high-risk patients using the second- and current third-generation self-expanding CoreValve prosthesis: device success and 30-day clinical outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50(1):69–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gerber IL, Stewart RA, Legget ME, West TM, French RL, Sutton TM, Yandle TG, French JK, Richards AM, White HD. Increased plasma natriuretic peptide levels reflect symptom onset in aortic stenosis. Circulation. 2003;107(14):1884–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Raphael C, Briscoe C, Davies J, Ian Whinnett Z, Manisty C, Sutton R, Mayet J, Francis DP. Limitations of the New York Heart Association functional classification system and self-reported walking distances in chronic heart failure. Heart (British Cardiac Society). 2007;93(4):476–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ferrante G, Presbitero P, Pagnotta P, Sonia Petronio A, Brambilla N, De Marco F, Fiorina C, Giannini C, D’Ascenzo F, Klugmann S, et al. Impact of severe left ventricular dysfunction on mid-term mortality in elderly patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2016;13(4):290–8.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Baron SJ, Arnold SV, Herrmann HC, Holmes DR Jr, Szeto WY, Allen KB, Chhatriwalla AK, Vemulapali S, O’Brien S, Dai D, et al. Impact of ejection fraction and aortic valve gradient on outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(20):2349–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pereira JJ, Lauer MS, Bashir M, Afridi I, Blackstone EH, Stewart WJ, McCarthy PM, Thomas JD, Asher CR. Survival after aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis with low transvalvular gradients and severe left ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39(8):1356–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pai RG, Varadarajan P, Razzouk A. Survival benefit of aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis with low ejection fraction and low gradient with normal ejection fraction. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;86(6):1781–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Clavel MA, Webb JG, Rodés-Cabau J, Masson JB, Dumont E, De Larochellière R, Doyle D, Bergeron S, Baumgartner H, Burwash IG, et al. Comparison between transcatheter and surgical prosthetic valve implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Circulation. 2010;122(19):1928–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Elmariah S, Palacios IF, McAndrew T, Hueter I, Inglessis I, Baker JN, Kodali S, Leon MB, Svensson L, Pibarot P, et al. Outcomes of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with aortic stenosis and left ventricular dysfunction: results from the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial (cohort A). Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6(6):604–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Furer A, Chen S, Redfors B, Elmariah S, Pibarot P, Herrmann HC, Hahn RT, Kodali S, Thourani VH, Douglas PS, et al. Effect of baseline left ventricular ejection fraction on 2-year outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: analysis of the PARTNER 2 trials. Circ Heart Fail. 2019;12(8):e005809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Chen Y, Zhou J, Lee S, Liu T, Hothi SS, Wong ICK. Development of an electronic frailty index for predicting mortality in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement using machine learning. medRxiv. 2020.

  33. Vassiliou VS, Pavlou M, Malley T, Halliday BP, Tsampasian V, Raphael CE, Tse G, Vieira MS, Auger D, Everett R, et al. A novel cardiovascular magnetic resonance risk score for predicting mortality following surgical aortic valve replacement. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):20183.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Vassiliou V, Chin C, Perperoglou A, Tse G, Ali A, Raphael C, Jabbour A, Newby D, Pennell D, Dweck M, et al. Ejection fraction by cardiovascular magnetic resonance predicts adverse outcomes post aortic valve replacement. Heart. 2014;100(Suppl 3):A53–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Heath R, Johnsen H, Strain WD, Evans M. Emerging horizons in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the role of SGLT2 inhibitors. Diabetes Ther. 2022;13(2):241–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Borlaug BA. Evaluation and management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2020;17(9):559–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Yamamoto K. “The third man” in heart failure-heart failure with reduce ejection fraction evolved from heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Circ J. 2015;79(10):2108–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the patients and their families for agreeing to participate in this study. I would like to thank all my teachers who have helped me to develop the fundamental and essential academic competence.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Mei Dong and Lizhen Wang have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiology, The Affiliated Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital of Qingdao University, Yantai, Shandong, China

    Mei Dong, Lizhen Wang, Tao Dai, Zhicheng Xiao & Faxin Ren

  2. Tianjin Key Laboratory of Ionic-Molecular Function of Cardiovascular Disease, Department of Cardiology, Tianjin Institute of Cardiology, Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China

    Gary Tse & Tong Liu

  3. Kent and Medway Medical School, Canterbury, CT2 7FS, UK

    Gary Tse

  4. School of Nursing and Health Studies, Hong Kong Metropolitan University, Hong Kong, China

    Gary Tse

  5. Department of Ultrasound, The Affiliated Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital of Qingdao University, Yantai, Shandong, China

    Lihong Wang

Authors
  1. Mei Dong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lizhen Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gary Tse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tao Dai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lihong Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zhicheng Xiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tong Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Faxin Ren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: TL and FX R; methodology: MD; software: ZC X; validation: MD and TD; formal analysis: ZC X; data curation: LH W and LZ W; writing—original draft preparation: LZ W; writing—review and editing: GT and TL. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Tong Liu or Faxin Ren.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study followed the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Affiliated Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital of Qingdao University Ethics Committee (No. 2022-75). Informed consent was obtained from all subjects and/or their legal guardians.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dong, M., Wang, L., Tse, G. et al. Effectiveness and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in elderly people with severe aortic stenosis with different types of heart failure. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 23, 34 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-023-03048-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-023-03048-7

Keywords

BMC Cardiovascular Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2261

Contact us