User login
SAN DIEGO – Severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) increases risk of adverse outcomes and may be preventable in some cases with careful preprocedural planning, suggests a registry-based retrospective cohort study of 62,125 patients treated in the contemporary era.
The study – the largest to date of this patient population – determined that about one in every eight patients undergoing TAVR ultimately had a severe mismatch between the hemodynamics of the valve prosthesis and the requirements for cardiac output. Compared with counterparts that have moderate or no PPM, these patients with severe PPM had a 12% higher adjusted risk of heart failure rehospitalization and a 19% higher adjusted risk of death, according to results reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting and simultaneously published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Sep 23. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.001).
Notably, some of the predictors of severe PPM, such as use of smaller-diameter valves and performance of a valve-in-valve procedure, were potentially modifiable.
“Our findings suggest that efforts should be made to identify this problem and limit the risk for PPM after TAVR,” concluded lead investigator Howard C. Herrmann, MD, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and director of the cardiac catheterization laboratories, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia. “Awareness is really the first step in trying to fix it.”
“We spend a lot of time in the heart-team meetings looking at the CT scans for annular dimensions and the vascular access, but we don’t really talk too much about severe PPM or the risk of that,” he elaborated. “This [study] allows us to start to predict it, based on patient factors and what prosthesis we might be choosing for a patient, and it allows us to have that conversation and think about alternatives.
“There are alternatives to try to avoid PPM, everything from which prosthesis we choose to the size of the prosthesis, to whether we fracture a patient’s valve if we are doing a valve-in-valve procedure. In the future, in some situations, we might even choose a low-risk or low-intermediate-risk patient for surgery with an enlargement operation in order to get a larger effective orifice area. So there are choices that we can make, and we should start thinking about that in the heart-team approach.”
Findings in context
The new study reinforces the message “that hemodynamics matter,” he said. “To the extent that we can get larger valves in and get better results from those valves, it will reduce the frequency of PPM. That’s something as operators we don’t spend as much time focusing on, and this will refocus our attention in trying to prevent PPM by being more diligent in terms of prosthesis choice and some operator characteristics, to try to reduce the gradients and improve the effective orifice areas as much as we can.”
Panelist Jeffrey J. Popma, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, noted that he and his colleagues have observed similar trends in their smaller studies but had difficulty teasing out contributors. “It really goes back to the preprocedural planning about what valve you can get in, and larger orifice area is certainly better,” he concurred. “So I do think that this is a phenomenal addition.”
Study details
For the study, Dr. Herrmann and his colleagues analyzed 2014-2107 data from the STS/ACC Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry, a national surveillance and quality improvement system. They identified enrollees aged 65 years or older at the time of their TAVR procedure who had fee-for-service Medicare and linked them to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services claims data to assess outcomes.
Overall, 12.1% of patients had severe PPM, defined as an effective valve orifice area indexed to body surface area of less than 0.65 cm2/m2 on discharge echocardiography, and another 24.6% had moderate PPM, Dr. Herrmann reported at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
The strongest multivariate predictors of severe PPM were small prosthetic valve size (up to 23 mm in diameter) (odds ratio, 2.77), a valve-in-valve procedure (OR, 2.78), larger body surface area (OR, 1.71 per 0.2-U increase), and female sex (OR, 1.46). Odds also increased with decreasing age and were elevated for patients of nonwhite/Hispanic race and those having a lower ejection fraction, atrial fibrillation or flutter, or severe mitral or tricuspid regurgitation.
It was not possible to assess specific valves as predictors of mismatch because the registry prohibits comparisons across manufacturers, according to Dr. Herrmann.
One-year mortality, the study’s primary endpoint, was 17.2% in patients with severe PPM, compared with 15.8% in patients with moderate or no PPM (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.19; P less than .001). Findings were similar across subgroups.
The 1-year rate of heart failure rehospitalization was 14.7% in patients with severe PPM, compared with 12.2% in patients with moderate or no PPM (AHR, 1.12; P = .017).
“I would point out that these [outcome] curves are divergent at 1 year,” Dr. Herrmann noted. “So if we look at low-intermediate-risk and low-risk patients and younger patients, who may be more active and who see the effects of PPM more commonly and who are going to be living more than 1 year, we are going to have to consider this going forward in a more important way.”
Severe PPM did not significantly influence the rate of stroke (which stood at about 4% in each group) or worsen quality of life score at 1 year.
Dr. Herrmann disclosed receiving institutional grant/research support from Abbott Vascular, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Corvia Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and St. Jude Medical, as well as consulting fees/honoraria from Edwards, Medtronic, and Siemens Healthineers.
SAN DIEGO – Severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) increases risk of adverse outcomes and may be preventable in some cases with careful preprocedural planning, suggests a registry-based retrospective cohort study of 62,125 patients treated in the contemporary era.
The study – the largest to date of this patient population – determined that about one in every eight patients undergoing TAVR ultimately had a severe mismatch between the hemodynamics of the valve prosthesis and the requirements for cardiac output. Compared with counterparts that have moderate or no PPM, these patients with severe PPM had a 12% higher adjusted risk of heart failure rehospitalization and a 19% higher adjusted risk of death, according to results reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting and simultaneously published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Sep 23. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.001).
Notably, some of the predictors of severe PPM, such as use of smaller-diameter valves and performance of a valve-in-valve procedure, were potentially modifiable.
“Our findings suggest that efforts should be made to identify this problem and limit the risk for PPM after TAVR,” concluded lead investigator Howard C. Herrmann, MD, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and director of the cardiac catheterization laboratories, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia. “Awareness is really the first step in trying to fix it.”
“We spend a lot of time in the heart-team meetings looking at the CT scans for annular dimensions and the vascular access, but we don’t really talk too much about severe PPM or the risk of that,” he elaborated. “This [study] allows us to start to predict it, based on patient factors and what prosthesis we might be choosing for a patient, and it allows us to have that conversation and think about alternatives.
“There are alternatives to try to avoid PPM, everything from which prosthesis we choose to the size of the prosthesis, to whether we fracture a patient’s valve if we are doing a valve-in-valve procedure. In the future, in some situations, we might even choose a low-risk or low-intermediate-risk patient for surgery with an enlargement operation in order to get a larger effective orifice area. So there are choices that we can make, and we should start thinking about that in the heart-team approach.”
Findings in context
The new study reinforces the message “that hemodynamics matter,” he said. “To the extent that we can get larger valves in and get better results from those valves, it will reduce the frequency of PPM. That’s something as operators we don’t spend as much time focusing on, and this will refocus our attention in trying to prevent PPM by being more diligent in terms of prosthesis choice and some operator characteristics, to try to reduce the gradients and improve the effective orifice areas as much as we can.”
Panelist Jeffrey J. Popma, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, noted that he and his colleagues have observed similar trends in their smaller studies but had difficulty teasing out contributors. “It really goes back to the preprocedural planning about what valve you can get in, and larger orifice area is certainly better,” he concurred. “So I do think that this is a phenomenal addition.”
Study details
For the study, Dr. Herrmann and his colleagues analyzed 2014-2107 data from the STS/ACC Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry, a national surveillance and quality improvement system. They identified enrollees aged 65 years or older at the time of their TAVR procedure who had fee-for-service Medicare and linked them to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services claims data to assess outcomes.
Overall, 12.1% of patients had severe PPM, defined as an effective valve orifice area indexed to body surface area of less than 0.65 cm2/m2 on discharge echocardiography, and another 24.6% had moderate PPM, Dr. Herrmann reported at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
The strongest multivariate predictors of severe PPM were small prosthetic valve size (up to 23 mm in diameter) (odds ratio, 2.77), a valve-in-valve procedure (OR, 2.78), larger body surface area (OR, 1.71 per 0.2-U increase), and female sex (OR, 1.46). Odds also increased with decreasing age and were elevated for patients of nonwhite/Hispanic race and those having a lower ejection fraction, atrial fibrillation or flutter, or severe mitral or tricuspid regurgitation.
It was not possible to assess specific valves as predictors of mismatch because the registry prohibits comparisons across manufacturers, according to Dr. Herrmann.
One-year mortality, the study’s primary endpoint, was 17.2% in patients with severe PPM, compared with 15.8% in patients with moderate or no PPM (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.19; P less than .001). Findings were similar across subgroups.
The 1-year rate of heart failure rehospitalization was 14.7% in patients with severe PPM, compared with 12.2% in patients with moderate or no PPM (AHR, 1.12; P = .017).
“I would point out that these [outcome] curves are divergent at 1 year,” Dr. Herrmann noted. “So if we look at low-intermediate-risk and low-risk patients and younger patients, who may be more active and who see the effects of PPM more commonly and who are going to be living more than 1 year, we are going to have to consider this going forward in a more important way.”
Severe PPM did not significantly influence the rate of stroke (which stood at about 4% in each group) or worsen quality of life score at 1 year.
Dr. Herrmann disclosed receiving institutional grant/research support from Abbott Vascular, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Corvia Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and St. Jude Medical, as well as consulting fees/honoraria from Edwards, Medtronic, and Siemens Healthineers.
SAN DIEGO – Severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) increases risk of adverse outcomes and may be preventable in some cases with careful preprocedural planning, suggests a registry-based retrospective cohort study of 62,125 patients treated in the contemporary era.
The study – the largest to date of this patient population – determined that about one in every eight patients undergoing TAVR ultimately had a severe mismatch between the hemodynamics of the valve prosthesis and the requirements for cardiac output. Compared with counterparts that have moderate or no PPM, these patients with severe PPM had a 12% higher adjusted risk of heart failure rehospitalization and a 19% higher adjusted risk of death, according to results reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting and simultaneously published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Sep 23. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.001).
Notably, some of the predictors of severe PPM, such as use of smaller-diameter valves and performance of a valve-in-valve procedure, were potentially modifiable.
“Our findings suggest that efforts should be made to identify this problem and limit the risk for PPM after TAVR,” concluded lead investigator Howard C. Herrmann, MD, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and director of the cardiac catheterization laboratories, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia. “Awareness is really the first step in trying to fix it.”
“We spend a lot of time in the heart-team meetings looking at the CT scans for annular dimensions and the vascular access, but we don’t really talk too much about severe PPM or the risk of that,” he elaborated. “This [study] allows us to start to predict it, based on patient factors and what prosthesis we might be choosing for a patient, and it allows us to have that conversation and think about alternatives.
“There are alternatives to try to avoid PPM, everything from which prosthesis we choose to the size of the prosthesis, to whether we fracture a patient’s valve if we are doing a valve-in-valve procedure. In the future, in some situations, we might even choose a low-risk or low-intermediate-risk patient for surgery with an enlargement operation in order to get a larger effective orifice area. So there are choices that we can make, and we should start thinking about that in the heart-team approach.”
Findings in context
The new study reinforces the message “that hemodynamics matter,” he said. “To the extent that we can get larger valves in and get better results from those valves, it will reduce the frequency of PPM. That’s something as operators we don’t spend as much time focusing on, and this will refocus our attention in trying to prevent PPM by being more diligent in terms of prosthesis choice and some operator characteristics, to try to reduce the gradients and improve the effective orifice areas as much as we can.”
Panelist Jeffrey J. Popma, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, noted that he and his colleagues have observed similar trends in their smaller studies but had difficulty teasing out contributors. “It really goes back to the preprocedural planning about what valve you can get in, and larger orifice area is certainly better,” he concurred. “So I do think that this is a phenomenal addition.”
Study details
For the study, Dr. Herrmann and his colleagues analyzed 2014-2107 data from the STS/ACC Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry, a national surveillance and quality improvement system. They identified enrollees aged 65 years or older at the time of their TAVR procedure who had fee-for-service Medicare and linked them to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services claims data to assess outcomes.
Overall, 12.1% of patients had severe PPM, defined as an effective valve orifice area indexed to body surface area of less than 0.65 cm2/m2 on discharge echocardiography, and another 24.6% had moderate PPM, Dr. Herrmann reported at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
The strongest multivariate predictors of severe PPM were small prosthetic valve size (up to 23 mm in diameter) (odds ratio, 2.77), a valve-in-valve procedure (OR, 2.78), larger body surface area (OR, 1.71 per 0.2-U increase), and female sex (OR, 1.46). Odds also increased with decreasing age and were elevated for patients of nonwhite/Hispanic race and those having a lower ejection fraction, atrial fibrillation or flutter, or severe mitral or tricuspid regurgitation.
It was not possible to assess specific valves as predictors of mismatch because the registry prohibits comparisons across manufacturers, according to Dr. Herrmann.
One-year mortality, the study’s primary endpoint, was 17.2% in patients with severe PPM, compared with 15.8% in patients with moderate or no PPM (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.19; P less than .001). Findings were similar across subgroups.
The 1-year rate of heart failure rehospitalization was 14.7% in patients with severe PPM, compared with 12.2% in patients with moderate or no PPM (AHR, 1.12; P = .017).
“I would point out that these [outcome] curves are divergent at 1 year,” Dr. Herrmann noted. “So if we look at low-intermediate-risk and low-risk patients and younger patients, who may be more active and who see the effects of PPM more commonly and who are going to be living more than 1 year, we are going to have to consider this going forward in a more important way.”
Severe PPM did not significantly influence the rate of stroke (which stood at about 4% in each group) or worsen quality of life score at 1 year.
Dr. Herrmann disclosed receiving institutional grant/research support from Abbott Vascular, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Corvia Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and St. Jude Medical, as well as consulting fees/honoraria from Edwards, Medtronic, and Siemens Healthineers.
REPORTING FROM TCT 2018
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Patients with severe PPM after TAVR had elevated risks of heart failure rehospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.12) and death (AHR, 1.19).
Study details: A retrospective cohort study of 62,125 patients aged 65 years or older who underwent TAVR and were captured in the national STS/ACC Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry.
Disclosures: Dr. Herrmann disclosed receiving institutional grant/research support from Abbott Vascular, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Corvia Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and St. Jude Medical, as well as consulting fees/honoraria from Edwards, Medtronic, and Siemens Healthineers.