Mitral Regurgitation in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
2013; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 128; Issue: 19 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1161/circulationaha.113.006196
ISSN1524-4539
AutoresAlexandra Gonçalves, Scott D. Solomon,
Tópico(s)Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
ResumoHomeCirculationVol. 128, No. 19Mitral Regurgitation in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Free AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBMitral Regurgitation in Transcatheter Aortic Valve ReplacementThe Complexity of Multivalvular Disease Alexandra Gonçalves, MD, PhD and Scott D. Solomon, MD Alexandra GonçalvesAlexandra Gonçalves From the Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA. and Scott D. SolomonScott D. Solomon From the Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA. Originally published2 Oct 2013https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.006196Circulation. 2013;128:2101–2103Other version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: November 5, 2013: Previous Version 1 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as an alternative treatment for patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) who are at an unacceptably high risk for conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR).1,2 Approximately 60 000 patients worldwide have undergone TAVR in the 11 years since it was introduced.3 Although good procedural success and favorable clinical outcomes have been reported,4,5 issues remain regarding the best patient selection for the procedure. Risk calculators commonly used to estimate the risk of valvular surgery, such as the logistic EuroSCORE and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons model, are not considered accurate in patients undergoing TAVR because they do not account for all clinical characteristics that may significantly affect procedural and postprocedural mortality. The current selection criteria are based on those used in randomized trials, and, in conjunction with the clinical evaluation, echocardiography is a mainstay in the assessment of candidates for this procedure. Beyond the clinical and anatomic exclusion criteria, severe pulmonary hypertension with right ventricular dysfunction, very severe left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction <20%), and severe mitral regurgitation (MR) are among the echocardiographic exclusions.6 Moreover, each of the commercially available prosthesis manufacturers presents its own recommendations for the procedure, with the CoreValve being more restrictive with respect to concomitant valvular disease.Article see p 2145Nevertheless, the criteria for patient selection are still open to debate and are not considered binding. As a consequence, patients found in TAVR registries often have characteristics that go beyond the recommended criteria, and this procedure is being considered in a wider array of patients with off-label indications. TAVR in patients with significant MR is one example, and several large series have reported up to 48% of patients with moderate or severe MR.7,8 Nevertheless, until recently, the prognostic impact of MR among patients undergoing TAVR was unknown, and conflicting results have been reported.9Previous studies have shown that patients with moderate or severe MR undergoing TAVR exhibit a worse baseline clinical profile, including advanced age, higher EuroSCORE and Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores, higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation, and previous myocardial infarction. On echocardiography, they have lower LV ejection fraction, larger LV volumes, smaller aortic valve area, and higher systolic pulmonary pressure.8,10,11 In this issue of Circulation, Bedogni et al12 highlight the prognostic significance of MR in patients undergoing TAVR. This study included 1007 consecutive patients from the Italian nationwide registry, 33.4% with moderate/severe MR, treated with the third-generation the 18-Fr CRS CoreValve Revalving System device. As with previous studies, patients with moderate or severe MR had higher logistic EuroSCORE and Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores, higher rate of New York Heart Association class 3 to 4, and higher frequency of pulmonary hypertension and atrial fibrillation, and those with severe MR had lower mean estimated glomerular filtration rate compared with patients with mild baseline MR. At 1 month and 1 year after TAVR, the cardiac mortality rates in patients with moderate/severe MR were significantly higher compared with those with none to mild MR. At 1 year, they observed a stepwise increase in the risk of mortality across the MR groups (none to mild, 10%; moderate, 12%; severe 17%), but the difference between patients with moderate/severe MR was not statistically significant. Most patients presented with functional MR, and a substantial percentage demonstrated MR improvement (47% with severe MR and 35% with moderate MR) at 1 year, whereas MR severity worsened in only 8.4%. However, in this registry, the improvement in MR severity was not associated with a beneficial effect on survival. Importantly, severe pulmonary hypertension and atrial fibrillation were more frequently found among patients whose MR severity worsened and were also independent predictors of mortality.12Other registries and observational studies have previously reported similar findings concerning the effect of MR on mortality among patients undergoing TAVR. Toggweiler et al,8 using the Edwards SAPIEN valve, reported a doubling of mortality at 1 month after TAVR among patients with moderate/severe MR compared with mild or less MR. Nevertheless, those patients had similar mortality rates at 1 year. In addition, the Canadian13 and the Italian CoreValve registries have reported a higher frequency of severe MR among patients who died at 30 and 69 days after the procedure, respectively.14 The German registry recently showed that, among 1385 patients undergoing TAVR, 33.8% presented with MR ≥ grade 2. These patients had high procedural success but lower survival rates at 30 days and 1 year, although the improvement in quality of life at 30 days was similar in both groups.11There is limited information regarding the effect of TAVR on MR, but, after aortic valve gradient relief, the immediate decrease in afterload and LV pressure would be expected to result in improvement in MR. Moreover, the longer-term effects of TAVR may, similarly to AVR, lead to regression of hypertrophy or reversal of LV dilation, improving ventricular geometry with resultant reduction in MR severity over time. However, functional MR can be a maladaptive consequence of AS, and it is found in patients with greater LV dilation and worse LV function15 and thus is a marker of LV disease that reflects underlying LV dysfunction. In this study, patients with AS and severe MR presented with higher end-diastolic LV volumes, but LV ejection fraction was not significantly different in patients with varying degrees of MR severity. Considering that MR enhances LV ejection fraction, which may mask subclinical myocardial dysfunction, the similarity of LV ejection fraction between patients with moderate/severe MR and those with mild MR might indicate the absence of myocardial functional compensation in the former group. This may help explain the higher mortality and hospitalization rates for heart failure of patients with moderate/severe MR, despite MR improvement. Additional insights into LV myocardial contractility and function in patients with AS and MR referred to TAVR might be obtained with strain analysis, which is a less load-dependent measure of cardiac function than ejection fraction.Parallels can be drawn with surgical AVR, because MR is recognized as an independent risk factor influencing long-term survival in elderly patients undergoing AVR,16 and concomitant MR surgery is selectively considered in symptomatic patients undergoing AVR. Mitral valve (MV) repair has been associated with improved late survival in patients with double valve disease, including the elderly and those with depressed LV function; however, simultaneous replacement of the aortic valve and MV significantly increases surgical morbidity and mortality. Thus, echocardiographic MV morphologic evaluation is critical for the assessment of mechanism and reparability. MR improvement after AVR is more likely in patients with lesser degrees of MR or in the presence of normal MV morphology, because it usually reflects the functional nature of MR. In patients with myxomatous, calcific, and ischemic MR, the decrease in MR severity should not be expected.16 In contrast to surgical AVR, concurrent MV repair has not been an option for patients undergoing TAVR. However, bivalvular transcatheter treatment of concomitant AS and MR has been reported previously from a very experienced center,9 using TAVR and mitral clip in a single session. Additional studies showing efficacy and safety of bivalvular transcatheter treatments are needed for future recommendations.The effect of TAVR on the degree of MR may be different depending on the type of prosthesis used. It has been suggested that the effects of the 2 commercially available transcatheter valves could differ because of the potential for increased risk of MV anterior leaflet restriction or secondary chordae disruption by the longer CoreValve prosthesis.17 In the current study, CoreValve MV function impairment was ruled out, because the low implant had no effect on MR.If left untreated, patients with severe AS and concomitant moderate/severe MR have a very poor prognosis. Although patients with moderate/severe MR undergoing TAVR have higher overall morbidity and mortality compared with those with lower degrees of MR, the benefit of TAVR may indeed be higher in this group. The randomized trials PARTNER A and B suggested that patients with MR may experience an even greater benefit from TAVR compared with both medical management and surgical AVR.1,7 In the PARTNER 1B trial, MR was a marker of higher TAVR procedural mortality but also of greater procedural benefit compared with medical management. Likewise, in the PARTNER 1A study, patients with MR had a lower risk with TAVR than with surgical AVR (24.2% versus 35%).2Nevertheless, the PARTNER trial was not designed to determine whether patients with more substantial MR would benefit from TAVR. Even with the best attempts to minimize confounding, registries and observational studies have limited ability to determine the potential benefit of this intervention in clinical practice and only provide incentive for designing properly powered trials. Considering the high prevalence of MR and the frequency of events in patients undergoing TAVR with significant MR, additional trials to determine whether patients with moderate to severe MR will benefit from TAVR are certainly warranted to support the best medical decision.Sources of FundingDr Gonçalves receives funds from Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology Grant HMSP-ICS/007/2012.DisclosuresNone.FootnotesThe opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.Correspondence to Scott D. Solomon, MD, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Cardiovascular Division, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115. E-mail [email protected]References1. Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, Miller DC, Moses JW, Svensson LG, Tuzcu EM, Webb JG, Fontana GP, Makkar RR, Williams M, Dewey T, Kapadia S, Babaliaros V, Thourani VH, Corso P, Pichard AD, Bavaria JE, Herrmann HC, Akin JJ, Anderson WN, Wang D, Pocock SJ; PARTNER Trial Investigators. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients.N Engl J Med. 2011; 364:2187–2198.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, Miller DC, Moses JW, Svensson LG, Tuzcu EM, Webb JG, Fontana GP, Makkar RR, Brown DL, Block PC, Guyton RA, Pichard AD, Bavaria JE, Herrmann HC, Douglas PS, Petersen JL, Akin JJ, Anderson WN, Wang D, Pocock S; PARTNER Trial Investigators. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery.N Engl J Med. 2010; 363:1597–1607.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Cribier A, Eltchaninoff H, Bash A, Borenstein N, Tron C, Bauer F, Derumeaux G, Anselme F, Laborde F, Leon MB. Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis for calcific aortic stenosis: first human case description.Circulation. 2002; 106:3006–3008.LinkGoogle Scholar4. Rodés-Cabau J, Webb JG, Cheung A, Ye J, Dumont E, Feindel CM, Osten M, Natarajan MK, Velianou JL, Martucci G, DeVarennes B, Chisholm R, Peterson MD, Lichtenstein SV, Nietlispach F, Doyle D, DeLarochellière R, Teoh K, Chu V, Dancea A, Lachapelle K, Cheema A, Latter D, Horlick E. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis in patients at very high or prohibitive surgical risk: acute and late outcomes of the multicenter Canadian experience.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 55:1080–1090.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Gilard M, Eltchaninoff H, Iung B, Donzeau-Gouge P, Chevreul K, Fajadet J, Leprince P, Leguerrier A, Lievre M, Prat A, Teiger E, Lefevre T, Himbert D, Tchetche D, Carrié D, Albat B, Cribier A, Rioufol G, Sudre A, Blanchard D, Collet F, Dos Santos P, Meneveau N, Tirouvanziam A, Caussin C, Guyon P, Boschat J, Le Breton H, Collart F, Houel R, Delpine S, Souteyrand G, Favereau X, Ohlmann P, Doisy V, Grollier G, Gommeaux A, Claudel JP, Bourlon F, Bertrand B, Van Belle E, Laskar M; FRANCE 2 Investigators. Registry of transcatheter aortic-valve implantation in high-risk patients.N Engl J Med. 2012; 366:1705–1715.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. Holmes DR, Mack MJ, Kaul S, Agnihotri A, Alexander KP, Bailey SR, Calhoon JH, Carabello BA, Desai MY, Edwards FH, Francis GS, Gardner TJ, Kappetein AP, Linderbaum JA, Mukherjee C, Mukherjee D, Otto CM, Ruiz CE, Sacco RL, Smith D, Thomas JD. 2012 ACCF/AATS/SCAI/STS expert consensus document on transcatheter aortic valve replacement.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 59:1200–1254.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, Miller DC, Moses JW, Svensson LG, Tuzcu EM, Webb JG, Fontana GP, Makkar RR, Brown DL, Block PC, Guyton RA, Pichard AD, Bavaria JE, Herrmann HC, Douglas PS, Petersen JL, Akin JJ, Anderson WN, Wang D, Pocock S; PARTNER Trial Investigators. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery.N Engl J Med. 2010; 363:1597–1607.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. Toggweiler S, Boone RH, Rodés-Cabau J, Humphries KH, Lee M, Nombela-Franco L, Bagur R, Willson AB, Binder RK, Gurvitch R, Grewal J, Moss R, Munt B, Thompson CR, Freeman M, Ye J, Cheung A, Dumont E, Wood DA, Webb JG. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: outcomes of patients with moderate or severe mitral regurgitation.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 59:2068–2074.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9. Chan PH, Alegria-Barrero E, Patterson T, Davies S, Di Mario C, Franzen OW, Moat N. Successful dual-valve transcatheter therapy for severe aortic stenosis and mitral regurgitation.Int J Cardiol. 2012; 157:e35–e37.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. D'Onofrio A, Gasparetto V, Napodano M, Bianco R, Tarantini G, Renier V, Isabella G, Gerosa G. Impact of preoperative mitral valve regurgitation on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012; 41:1271–1276; discussion 1276.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11. Lauten A, Ferrari M, Zahn R, Sievert H, Linke A, Grube E, Gerckens U, Sack S, Senges J, Figulla HR. Impact of preoperative mitral regurgitation on outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: results of the German TAVI registry.Euro Heart J. 2013; 34(Abstract Supplement).CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12. Bedogni F, Latib A, De Marco F, Agnifili M, Oreglia J, Pizzocri S, Latini RA, Lanotte S, Petronio AS, De Carlo M, Ettori F, Fiorina C, Poli A, Cirri S, De Servi S, Ramondo A, Tarantini G, Marzocchi A, Fiorilli R, Klugmann S, Ussia GP, Tamburino C, Maisano F, Brambilla N, Colombo A, Lucas T. Interplay between mitral regurgitation and transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the corevalve revalving system: a multicenter registry.Circulation. 2013; 128:2145–2153.LinkGoogle Scholar13. Rodés-Cabau J, Dumont E, De LaRochellière R, Doyle D, Lemieux J, Bergeron S, Clavel MA, Villeneuve J, Raby K, Bertrand OF, Pibarot P. Feasibility and initial results of percutaneous aortic valve implantation including selection of the transfemoral or transapical approach in patients with severe aortic stenosis.Am J Cardiol. 2008; 102:1240–1246.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14. Tamburino C, Capodanno D, Ramondo A, Petronio AS, Ettori F, Santoro G, Klugmann S, Bedogni F, Maisano F, Marzocchi A, Poli A, Antoniucci D, Napodano M, De Carlo M, Fiorina C, Ussia GP. Incidence and predictors of early and late mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in 663 patients with severe aortic stenosis.Circulation. 2011; 123:299–308.LinkGoogle Scholar15. Brener SJ, Duffy CI, Thomas JD, Stewart WJ. Progression of aortic stenosis in 394 patients: relation to changes in myocardial and mitral valve dysfunction.J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995; 25:305–310.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16. Barreiro CJ, Patel ND, Fitton TP, Williams JA, Bonde PN, Chan V, Alejo DE, Gott VL, Baumgartner WA. Aortic valve replacement and concomitant mitral valve regurgitation in the elderly: impact on survival and functional outcome.Circulation. 2005; 112(suppl 9):I443–I447.LinkGoogle Scholar17. Zamorano JL, Badano LP, Bruce C, Chan KL, Gonçalves A, Hahn RT, Keane MG, La Canna G, Monaghan MJ, Nihoyannopoulos P, Silvestry FE, Vanoverschelde JL, Gillam LD. EAE/ASE recommendations for the use of echocardiography in new transcatheter interventions for valvular heart disease.Eur Heart J. 2011; 32:2189–2214.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Ngiam J, Chew N, Teng R, Kochav J, Kochav S, Tan B, Sim H, Sia C, Kong W, Tay E, Yeo T and Poh K (2019) Clinical and echocardiographic features of paradoxical low-flow and normal-flow severe aortic stenosis patients with concomitant mitral regurgitation, The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, 10.1007/s10554-019-01735-1, 36:3, (441-446), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2020. Sillesen A, Olsen N, Fritz-Hansen T and Jørgensen P (2020) Clinical Management and Long-Term Prognosis of Combined Left-Sided Valvular Heart Disease, International Heart Journal, 10.1536/ihj.19-501, 61:3, (539-546), Online publication date: 30-May-2020. Al-khadra Y, Alraies M, Darmoch F, Pacha H, Soud M, Kajy M, Kaki A, AlJaroudi W, Kwok C, Mamas M and Kapadia S (2019) In-Hospital Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Mitral Valve Stenosis, The American Journal of Cardiology, 10.1016/j.amjcard.2019.02.005, 123:9, (1510-1516), Online publication date: 1-May-2019. Bavishi C, Kolte D, Gordon P and Abbott J (2018) Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis and heart failure, Heart Failure Reviews, 10.1007/s10741-018-9726-8, 23:6, (821-829), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2018. Yu P, Mattia A, Cassiere H, Esposito R, Manetta F, Kohn N and Hartman A (2017) Should high risk patients with concomitant severe aortic stenosis and mitral valve disease undergo double valve surgery in the TAVR era?, Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, 10.1186/s13019-017-0688-z, 12:1, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2017. Zamorano J, Gonçalves A, Lancellotti P, Andersen K, González-Gómez A, Monaghan M, Brochet E, Wunderlich N, Gafoor S, Gillam L and La Canna G (2016) The use of imaging in new transcatheter interventions: an EACVI review paper, European Heart Journal – Cardiovascular Imaging, 10.1093/ehjci/jew043, 17:8, (835-835af), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2016. Itabashi Y, Shibayama K, Mihara H, Utsunomiya H, Berdejo J, Arsanjani R, Siegel R, Chakravarty T, Jilaihawi H, Makkar R and Shiota T (2015) Significant Reduction in Mitral Regurgitation Volume Is the Main Contributor for Increase in Systolic Forward Flow in Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Hemodynamic Analysis Using Echocardiography, Echocardiography, 10.1111/echo.12936, 32:11, (1621-1627), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2015. Ramakrishna H, Kohl B, Jassar A and Augoustides J (2014) Incidental Moderate Mitral Regurgitation in Patients Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis: Review of Guidelines and Current Evidence, Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, 10.1053/j.jvca.2013.11.003, 28:2, (417-422), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2014. November 5, 2013Vol 128, Issue 19 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics © 2013 American Heart Association, Inc.https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.006196PMID: 24088529 Originally publishedOctober 2, 2013 Keywordsmitral valve insufficiencyEditorialsaortic stenosispercutaneous aortic valve replacementPDF download Advertisement
Referência(s)