Transcatheter Valve Therapies in 2020: A Surgeon’s Perspective...0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015...
Transcript of Transcatheter Valve Therapies in 2020: A Surgeon’s Perspective...0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015...
Michael J. Reardon, M.D., FACC, FACSProfessor of Cardiothoracic SurgeryAllison Family Distinguished Chair of Cardiovascular ResearchHouston Methodist DeBakey Heart & Vascular Center
Transcatheter Valve Therapies in 2020: A Surgeon’s Perspective
REQUIREDI Michael J. Reardon, M.D
Consultant:
Medtronic
Boston Scientific
Agenda
Understand the dataWhat are the knowledge gapsWho should be considered for TAVR in 2020
Extreme Risk
DONE
DONE
FDA Approved
HIGH RISK
DONE
DONE
FDA Approved
Intermediate risk
DONE
DONE
FDA Approved
High and Intermediate risk
TAVR vs. AVR must show equivalent or better
mortality
hemodynamics
morbidity
quality of life
durability
patient acceptance
TAVR ties/wins
TAVR wins
TAVR wins
TAVR wins
Unknown Unknown
TAVR ties/winsStrokeHemodynamicsAtrial fibrillationTransfusions
Surgery winsPVLPacers for SEV
High risk age 84Intermediate risk age 80/81
Low risk
Primary Endpoints
Valves Used
Mean ageSex
STS PROM
Primary Endpoint Outcomes
1 Year All-cause Mortality
KM Curves
Stroke
Embolic Protection Devices Were Not Allowed
KM Curves
Rehospitalization
KM Curves
Death, Stroke, Hospitalization
Conclusions
This applies to the population tested!Know the trial data!
Low Risk
DONE
DONE
FDA Approved
2017 Up Date
Rick A. Nishimura, MD, MACC, FAHA, Co-Chair, Catherine M. Otto, MD, FACC, FAHA, Co-Chair, Robert O. Bonow, MD, MACC, FAHA, Blase A. Carabello, MD, FACC, John P. Erwin III, MD, FACC, FAHA, Lee A. Fleisher, MD, FACC, FAHA, Hani Jneid, MD, FACC, FAHA, FSCA, Michael J. Mack, MD, FACC, Christopher J. McLeod, MBChB, PhD, FACC, FAHA, Patrick T. O’Gara, MD, MACC, FAHA, Vera H. Rigolin,, MD, FACC, Thoralf M. Sundt III, MD, FACC, Annemarie Thompson, MD, 2017 AHA/ACC Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease, Circulation. 2017;135:e1159–e1195.
70220
74048 74408 74830 7368770228
69885
28948 30772 30159 30432 2892526426
25513
18466 1861318548
18157 1773316182
15929
19146 2068021543
22007
22238 2225522322
3660 3983 4158 4234 4791 536561214666
894616106
24908
38276
51303
58657
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Total of all SAVRS (includes Bentalls) Isolated AVR SAVR + CABG SAVR Other Bentalls TAVR
The Aortic Valve “Universe” in the USA
Linked TVT and STS Data. From the STS/ACC TVT Steering CommitteeRepresents approx. 93% and 97% of SAVR and TAVR respectively
Presented By Joe Bavaria MD at EACTS 2019
Pacemaker
Trial DifferencesTrial Differences
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Perm
anen
t Pa
cem
aker
# Implanted TAVR Patients
95% Control limitAverage99.8% Control limit
Presented by Dr. Gada at TCT 2019
Site-level Variation and Predictors of PPIVariability in 30-Day PPI Rate by Center
Remember the S curve and find a RAO
projection
Hemodynamics
Trial Differences
That is the dataWhat are the knowledge gaps?
Who was excluded?
Bicuspid ValvesPartner 3 Syntax > 32Evolut Syntax > 22
Who was excluded after local heart team approval?
520/1,520 (34%) screen failed 255/1,723 (14.8%) screen failed
Age?
Mean ageSex
STS PROM
7% were < 65 years
6% were < 65 years1.3% were < 60 years
Safety is the key difference in outcomes in both trials with most of the benefit in the first month
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
0.0025
0.0030
0.0035
0.0040
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Inst
anta
neo
us
Haz
ard
Mo
rtal
ity
Time (Days)
High Risk TAVR High Risk SAVR
Intermediate Risk TAVR Intermediate Risk SAVR
Low Risk TAVR Low Risk SAVR
Causes of Death Risk of death lower in low-risk patients
Presented by Dr. Ramlawi at AATS 2019
Nu
mb
er o
f Pa
tien
ts
31
43
11
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
TAVRN=3
SAVRN=8
TAVRN=6
SAVRN=1
TAVRN=5
SAVRN=8
0–30 Days 31–120 121–365
Technical Repair Failure Complications(Linked to Death)
No Recovery Other
5
2
1
3
1
4
Causes of Death Hierarchical Causes of Death –Low Risk
Presented by Dr. Ramlawi at AATS 2019
Sievers HH, Schmidtke C. A classification system for the bicuspid aortic valve from 304 surgical specimens., J ThoracCardiovasc Surg. 2007 May;133(5):1226-33.
Bicuspid Valves
Sievers HH, Schmidtke C. A classification system for the bicuspid aortic valve from 304 surgical specimens., J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007 May;133(5):1226-33.
Prevalence of Bicuspid Valve Disease
1 Ward. Heart, 2000; 2. Roberts. AJC, 2012; 3. Zhao, Z.-G. et al. Nat. Rev. Cardiol, 2014. 4. Wang, J of Heart Valve Disease, 2017; 5. Jilaihawi, Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016.
Prevalence of Bicuspid Valve Disease inUS SAVR Patients by Age (n = 1,725) 2
44, 39%
55, 4%
63, 55%
638, 51%
78,22%
3, 18%
9, 8%
546,44%
269,78%
14,82%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
21 - 50 51 - 79 80 - 89 ≥ 90
Unicuspid Bicuspid Tricuspid
Prevalence of Bicuspid Valve Disease inTAVR Patients by Country3
6.7% 6.6% 4.5%2.7% 1.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Poland(n = 417)
France(n = 417)
Italy(n = 468)
Germany(n = 1,395)
USA(n = 7,710)
Makkar et al: JAMA 2019;321:2193-202
Data from STS/ACC TVT Registry. 92.236 patients treated with the third-generation balloon-expandable Sapien 3 from 2015-2018
Makkar et al: JAMA 2019;321:2193-202
Procedural Outcomes
Makkar et al: JAMA 2019;321:2193-202
30-day Outcomes
Makkar et al: JAMA 2019;321:2193-202
1-Year mortality
Makkar et al: JAMA 2019;321:2193-202
1-Year stroke
Makkar et al: JAMA 2019;321:2193-202
Paravalvular Leak
Hemodynamics
Patient Prosthesis Mismatch
CoreValve High Risk Trial
CoreValve High Risk
7.413.3
6.812.8
1620.4
1
1.1
1.5
2.53.8
10.2
0
10
20
30
40
Large Medium Small Large Medium Small
Moderate PPM Severe PPM
TAVR SAVR
P=0.031
P=0.070
Perc
enta
ge P
PM
Hemodynamics30-day PPM by Annular Size
Presented by Dr. Mumtaz at TVT 2019
Low Risk
Herrmann HC, Daneshvar SA, Fonarow GC, Stebbins A, Vemulapalli S, Desai ND, Malenka DJ, Thourani VH, RymerJ, Kosinski AS.,Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: From the STS/ACC TVT Registry., J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Dec 4;72(22):2701-2711
Pibarot P, Clavel MA., Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: It Is Neither Rare Nor Benign., J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Dec 4;72(22):2712-2716.
Evolut Low Risk PPM
Fallon JM, DeSimone JP, Brennan JM, O'Brien S, Thibault DP, DiScipio AW, Pibarot P, Jacobs JP, Malenka DJ., The
Incidence and Consequence of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.,Ann
Thorac Surg. 2018 Jul;106(1):14-22.
STS SURGICAL PPM
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Jun 8. pii: S1936-878X(18)30358-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.04.010. [Epub ahead of print]
Sapien 3 mean EOA 1.66
Evolut mean EOA 2.01
Balloon Expanded
Self-Expanding
30 Day PPM
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Evolut TAVR Partner TAVR
30 Day PPM
Severe
Moderate
9.9%
1.1%
53.8%
8.3%
GORLIN R, McMILLAN IK, MEDD WE, MATTHEWS MB, DALEY R., Dynamics of the circulation in aortic valvular disease., Am J Med. 1955 Jun;18(6):855-70
Hemodynamics
Rahimtoola, S .The Problem of Valve Prosthesis-Patient
Mismatch. Circulation, Vol. 58, No 1, July 1978;20-24Grossman Text, Hemodynamics Chapter
Normal Flow
High Flow
DurabilityMechanical vs.Biologic
Randomized trials
Circulation 2013;128:1372-80
50 – 65 years old – no survival difference
Shared decision making
Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. 2017AHA/ACC focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACCguideline for the management of patients withvalvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J AmColl Cardiol. 2017;70(2):252-289.
Tissue vs. mechanical
Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, 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. J AmColl Cardiol. 2017;70(2):252-289.
Early Failures of Surgical Valves
TAVR Durability
THV degeneration = ≥ 20 mmHG after30 days and/or at least moderate AR, without endocarditis
CHU Rouen239 pts from 2002-2011 (> 5 years FU)
Freedom from either reoperation, or if asymp,echo mean valve gradient >40 mmHg or severe AR (effective ROA > 0.3cm2)
Among survivors, none withMG >40 and only 1 pt with severe AR resulting in ViVprocedure
High Risk 5-year
High Risk 5-year
INTERMEDIATE RISK ADDED
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
1 2 3 4
TAVR
SAVR
SAVR/CAB
17544
18090 17507
15910
18384
28857
29829 30265 28493
25580
43548
51998
LOW RISK ADDED
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
1 2 3 4
TAVR
SAVR
SAVR/CAB
17544
18090 17507
15910
18384
28857
29829 30265 28493
25580
43548
80076
Under Diagnosis
The most common abnormalities were aortic sclerosis (34%),
mitral regurgitation (22%), and aortic regurgitation (15%). Aortic
stenosis was present in 1.3%. The likelihood of undiagnosed
VHD was two-fold higher in the two most deprived
socioeconomic quintiles than in the most affluent quintile, and
three-fold higher in individuals with atrial fibrillation
Enrolled 2500 individuals aged
≥65 years from a primary care
population and screened for
undiagnosed VHD using
transthoracic echocardiography.
Newly identified (predominantly
mild) VHD was detected in 51%
of participants.
Clinically significant valve
disease will double by 2050 in
the UK
Under Diagnosis
THE HEART TEAM DISCUSSION
• 90 and above = High Risk
– TAVR
• 80 = Intermediate to High Risk
– 10 year valve is all they will ever need
• 70 = Low to Intermediate Risk
– Likely will require a VIV, start with the largest platform
• 60 = Shared decision making
– “Kicking the can”• PPM vs PPM
• Coronary Access• Durability
How do we choose?
TAVR vs. AVR must show equivalent or better
mortality
hemodynamics
morbidity
quality of life
durability
patient acceptance
AgeLife spanAnatomyChoice
Conclusions – From the surgeon’s perspective
Demand for TAVR will increase
Number of TAVRs will increase
Surgery will not go away but become more complex and a good surgeon will become even more valuable to the best programs
Understand the dataLove your surgeon
Thank You