Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Subclinical Valve Thrombosis in Sutureless Bioprosthetic Valves

2017; Wiley; Volume: 6; Issue: 8 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1161/jaha.117.006862

2047-9980

Bobby Yanagawa, Subodh Verma, C. David Mazer,

Cardiac Structural Anomalies and Repair

HomeJournal of the American Heart AssociationVol. 6, No. 8Subclinical Valve Thrombosis in Sutureless Bioprosthetic Valves Open AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toOpen AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBSubclinical Valve Thrombosis in Sutureless Bioprosthetic Valves Bobby Yanagawa, MD, PhD, Subodh Verma, MD, PhD and C. David Mazer, MD, FRCPC Bobby YanagawaBobby Yanagawa Division of Cardiac Surgery, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada , Subodh VermaSubodh Verma Division of Cardiac Surgery, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada and C. David MazerC. David Mazer Department of Anesthesia, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada Originally published21 Aug 2017https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.117.006862Journal of the American Heart Association. 2017;6:e006862In the current issue of JAHA, Dalén et al1 report the results of a single‐center prospective observational study of 47 patients with implantation of the Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis (LivaNova, Milan, Italy). Cardiac computed tomography (CT) performed at a median of 491 days (range 36–1247 days) found hypo‐attenuated leaflet thickening (HALT) in 18 (38%) and reduced leaflet motion (RLM) in 13 (28%) patients. HALT affected a single leaflet in 10 (56%), 2 leaflets in 6 (33%), and all leaflets in 2 patients (11%). The mean HALT leaflet thickening was 3 mm. For RLM, 1 leaflet was affected in 11 and 2 leaflets in 2 patients. Surprisingly, 5 of 18 patients with HALT (28%) and 3 of 13 patients with RLM (23%) were receiving anticoagulants at the time of CT. In fact, there was no significant difference in warfarin use between HALT and no HALT groups (22% versus 14%, P=0.45), but there was a trend towards reduced novel oral anticoagulant use in patients with HALT (6% versus 28%, P=0.06). Clinically, there were 3 strokes and 1 transient ischemic attack but no association with presence of HALT and RLM.Makkar et al2 first alerted the cardiovascular community to the existence of a significant and previously unrecognized risk of prosthetic leaflet motion reduction following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in the absence of formal anticoagulation. It was hypothesized that this reduced leaflet motion was caused by subclinical leaflet thrombosis, which may trigger premature structural valve deterioration and constitute a nidus for cerebral thromboembolic events. The measures of valve thrombosis are HALT and RLM. The clinical consequences of such phenomena, and the role of anticoagulation for prevention and treatment are uncertain. This report by Dalén et al1 adds important data to the overall literature of HALT and RLM and is the first report of protocol‐driven CT focusing on sutureless SAVR.Subclinical valve thrombosis is a newly recognized clinical entity that has been described in a variety of surgical and transcatheter bioprostheses.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 These patients may present with early significant increases in transvalvular gradients and even overt thrombosis. Del Trigo et al8 reviewed 1521 patients who underwent TAVI to find that 4.5% experienced clinical premature valve hemodynamic deterioration and an independent risk factor was no anticoagulation, suggesting that the mechanism was thrombosis related. Egbe et al9 examined explanted bioprostheses at the Mayo Clinic (mean 24 months) and found that overt thrombosis (11% in the aortic position) was associated with HALT and RLM. The importance of this issue of subclinical valve thrombosis is underscored by the fact that the seminal study prompted the Food and Drug Administration to state that, "if reduced leaflet motion is detected by imaging, treatment options should be discussed with the team of physicians responsible for the patient's care."11 Full anticoagulation with warfarin is currently the only treatment shown to reverse leaflet motion reduction in observational studies, although high‐quality data in this regard are lacking.Sutureless valves are bioprosthetic valves that are implanted in an open surgical procedure but require few or no sutures, thus allowing for significantly shortened cardiopulmonary bypass and cross‐clamp times.12, 13 Sutureless valves are particularly useful for redo aortic procedures with calcified annuli that do not allow for conventional annular suturing, multiple valve procedures to reduce surgical times, and to facilitate minimally invasive procedures. There has previously been a single case report of early valve thrombosis with a size S sutureless SAVR.14 Given that HALT and RLM have been reported with conventional SAVR and TAVR, it is not surprising that they also occur with sutureless SAVR.What is surprising from this study is that the incidence of HALT and RLM was higher than that in the published literature for SAVR and even for TAVR.2, 10 In a recent report from the Assessment of TRanscathetEr and Surgical Aortic BiOprosthetic VaLVe Thrombosis and Its TrEatment With Anticoagulation (RESOLVE) and the Subclinical Aortic Valve Bioprosthesis Thrombosis Assessed with Four‐Dimensional Computed Tomography (SAVORY) registries, 12% of 890 patients undergoing SAVR and TAVR had subclinical leaflet thrombosis: 4% for SAVR and 13% for TAVR.10 As Dalén et al have correctly explained, sutureless SAVR and some TAVR devices share the presence of a stent, the need for leaflet crimping or collapsing, and the need for balloon dilation (Medtronic Corevalve is self‐expandable), all of which may contribute to thrombogenic potential. Also, all patients in this study were treated with low‐dose aspirin or warfarin/novel oral anticoagulant alone. This is consistent with routine medical management post‐SAVR.15 However, whether the metallic stent of the sutureless SAVR is thrombogenic remains to be determined. If so, there may be an advantage to the use of more potent antithrombotic therapy with sutureless SAVR. On the other hand, unlike TAVR, in which the native valve is left in situ, for sutureless SAVR, the diseased leaflets and any large annular calcific deposits are removed, thus theoretically optimizing aortic root blood flow. Furthermore, there is less risk of suboptimal device implantation as the sutureless valve is placed under direct vision and an improperly implanted valve can easily be recognized, removed, and reimplanted. Finally, as a possible explanation of the increased incidence of HALT and RLM, the time point for CT in this study was considerably longer than in previous studies of early valve thrombosis.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 More information about the incidence of RLM in sutureless and stentless aortic valves will be provided from the upcoming BELIEVE (Behavior of Valve Leaflets) study (NCT03200574).Contrary to published studies, HALT and RLM were seen in patients receiving oral anticoagulation, and there was no significant difference in the use of warfarin or novel oral anticoagulant in patients with subclinical thrombosis compared with those without.1 In the RESOLVE and SAVORY registries, subclinical leaflet thrombosis was seen less frequently among patients receiving anticoagulants and, in patients not already on anticoagulants, leaflet thrombosis completely resolved with initiation of anticoagulation.2, 10 It is possible that differences in warfarin management including the involvement of a thrombosis clinic or the use of home international normalized ratio monitoring may account, in part, for the variability in the observed incidence of subclinical thrombosis.Also, in this study, there were few cerebral embolic events reported and no association with stroke was identified, but HALT and RLM were associated with increased rates of transient ischemic attacks. Early reports of subclinical thrombosis suggested a possible association with cerebral embolism,1 but more recent studies have not found this link.16, 17 Further studies with protocol‐driven cerebral imaging will be needed to better understand the cerebral embolic risk. Other important questions to address include whether subclinical valve leaflet thrombosis occurs in bioprostheses implanted in the mitral, tricuspid, or pulmonic positions, and what the natural history of this phenomenon is for all valve positions.Given the uncertain but potentially adverse clinical consequences, there is an urgent and unaddressed need to study early postoperative valve structure and function, and evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral anticoagulation approaches for all prostheses. There are discordant positions in current clinical practice guidelines regarding short‐term oral anticoagulation post‐SAVR and no specific guidelines regarding the use of antiplatelet agents and anticoagulation for sutureless SAVR.18, 19, 20 In the www.clinicaltrials.gov database, several recently posted randomized controlled trials are comparing standard of care versus anticoagulation following TAVR and SAVR with HALT and RLM as an outcome: (1) 1 small single‐center, pilot trial at the Cleveland Clinic (Frequency of Reduced Leaflet Motion After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT02696226); (2) a 300‐patient randomized controlled trial comparing aspirin versus rivaroxaban postbioprosthetic SAVR (Comparison of a Rivaroxaban‐based Strategy With an Antiplatelet‐based Strategy Following Successful TAVR for the Prevention of Leaflet Thickening and Reduced Leaflet Motion as Evaluated by Four‐dimensional, Volume‐rendered Computed Tomography [4DCT] [GALILEO‐4D]; NCT02833948); (3) a 200‐patient randomized controlled trial comparing anticoagulation versus standard of care for thrombosis post‐TAVR: RETORIC (Rule Out Transcatheter Aortic Valve Thrombosis With Post Implantation Computed Tomography; NCT02826200); and (4) a 1000‐patient randomized controlled trial comparing aspirin versus rivaroxaban postbioprosthetic SAVR (NCT02974920). In the RESOLVE (NCT02318342), 1000 patients with early bioprosthetic valve thrombosis will be treated with warfarin for 3 months and resolution will be assessed by CT. These prospective studies along with the BELIEVE study will introduce high‐quality evidence regarding the incidence of subclinical thrombosis and the optimal antithrombotic therapy for the subacute period following TAVR and bioprosthetic SAVR. The results of these studies may provide data supporting a possible change in current recommendations and practice patterns, and may lead to a larger end‐point trial of major adverse cardiovascular events. The work by Dalén et al is an important early step in this journey.DisclosuresMazer is supported by a Merit Award from the University of Toronto Department of Anesthesia. The remaining authors have no disclosures to report.Footnotes*Correspondence to: C. David Mazer, MD, FRCPC, Department of Anesthesia, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, 30 Bond St, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5B 1W8. E‐mail: [email protected]caThe opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.References1 Dalén M, Sartipy U, Cederlund K, Franco‐Cereceda A, Svensson A, Themudo R, Svenarud P, Bacsovics Brolin E. Hypo‐attenuated leaflet thickening and reduced valve leaflet motion in sutureless bioprosthetic aortic valves. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017; 6:e005251. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.116.005251.LinkGoogle Scholar2 Makkar RR, Fontana G, Jilaihawi H, Chakravarty T, Kofoed KF, de Backer O, Asch FM, Ruiz CE, Olsen NT, Trento A, Friedman J, Berman D, Cheng W, Kashif M, Jelnin V, Kliger CA, Guo H, Pichard AD, Weissman NJ, Kapadia S, Manasse E, Bhatt DL, Leon MB, Søndergaard L. Possible subclinical leaflet thrombosis in bioprosthetic aortic valves. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373:2015–2024.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3 Yanagawa B, Mazine A, Bhatt DL, Clavel MA, Côté N, Cheema AN, Pibarot P, Verma S. Subclinical bioprosthetic aortic valve thrombosis: clinical and translational implications. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2017; 32:137–146.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4 Cota L, Stabile E, Agrusta M, Sorropago G, Pucciarelli A, Ambrosini V, Mottola G, Esposito G, Rubino P. Bioprostheses, "thrombosis" after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 61:789–791.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5 Jander N, Pache G, Henschke S, Minners J. Diagnosis of obstructive thrombosis in a porcine bioprosthesis in the aortic position by contrast‐enhanced ECG‐gated computer tomography. Eur Heart J. 2013; 34:1357.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6 Pache G, Blanke P, Zeh W, Jander N. Cusp thrombosis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement detected by computed tomography and echocardiography. Eur Heart J. 2013; 34:3546.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7 Pache G, Schoechlin S, Blanke P, Dorfs S, Jander N, Arepalli CD, Gick M, Buettner HJ, Leipsic J, Langer M, Neumann FJ, Ruile P. Early hypo‐attenuated leaflet thickening in balloon‐expandable transcatheter aortic heart valves. Eur Heart J. 2016; 37:2263–2271.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8 Del Trigo M, Muñoz‐Garcia AJ, Wijeysundera HC, Nombela‐Franco L, Cheema AN, Gutierrez E, Serra V, Kefer J, Amat‐Santos IJ, Benitez LM, Mewa J, Jiménez‐Quevedo P, Alnasser S, Garcia Del Blanco B, Dager A, Abdul‐Jawad Altisent O, Puri R, Campelo‐Parada F, Dahou A, Paradis JM, Dumont E, Pibarot P, Rodés‐Cabau J. Incidence, timing, and predictors of valve hemodynamic deterioration after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: multicenter registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 67:644–655.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9 Egbe AC, Pislaru SV, Pellikka PA, Poterucha JT, Schaff HV, Maleszewski JJ, Connolly HM. Bioprosthetic valve thrombosis versus structural failure: clinical and echocardiographic predictors. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 66:2285–2294.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10 Chakravarty T, Søndergaard L, Friedman J, De Backer O, Berman D, Kofoed KF, Jilaihawi H, Shiota T, Abramowitz Y, Jørgensen TH, Rami T, Israr S, Fontana G, de Knegt M, Fuchs A, Lyden P, Trento A, Bhatt DL, Leon MB, Makkar RR; RESOLVE; SAVORY Investigators . Subclinical leaflet thrombosis in surgical and transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valves: an observational study. Lancet. 2017; 389:2383–2392.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11 https://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm465729.htm. Accessed July 2, 2017.Google Scholar12 Mazine A, Bonneau C, Karangelis D, Yanagawa B, Verma S, Bonneau D. Sutureless aortic valves: who is the right patient?Curr Opin Cardiol. 2017; 32:130–136.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13 Yanagawa B, Cruz J, Boisvert L, Bonneau D. A simple modification to lower incidence of heart block with sutureless valve implantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016; 152:630–632.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14 Vötsch A, Weihs W, Asslaber M, Dapunt O. Perceval sutureless valve dysfunction caused by valvular thrombosis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016; 102:e309–e311.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15 Brennan JM, Edwards FH, Zhao Y, O'Brien S, Booth ME, Dokholyan RS, Douglas PS, Peterson ED; DEcIDE AVR Research Team . Early anticoagulation of bioprosthetic aortic valves in older patients: results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery National Database. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 60:971.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16 Vollema EM, Kong WKF, Katsanos S, Kamperidis V, van Rosendael PJ, van der Kley F, de Weger A, Ajmone Marsan N, Delgado V, Bax JJ. Transcatheter aortic valve thrombosis: the relation between hypo‐attenuated leaflet thickening, abnormal valve haemodynamics, and stroke. Eur Heart J. 2017; 38:1207–1217.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17 Yanagisawa R, Hayashida K, Yamada Y, Tanaka M, Yashima F, Inohara T, Arai T, Kawakami T, Maekawa Y, Tsuruta H, Itabashi Y, Murata M, Sano M, Okamoto K, Yoshitake A, Shimizu H, Jinzaki M, Fukuda K. Incidence, predictors, and mid‐term outcomes of possible leaflet thrombosis after TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017; 10:1–11.CrossrefGoogle Scholar18 Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP, Guyton RA, O'Gara PT, Ruiz CE, Skubas NJ, Sorajja P, Sundt TM, Thomas JD; ACC/AHA Task Force Members . 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 Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 63:e57–e185.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar19 Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F, Antunes MJ, Barón‐Esquivias G, Baumgartner H, Borger MA, Carrel TP, De Bonis M, Evangelista A, Falk V, Lung B, Lancellotti P, Pierard L, Price S, Schäfers HJ, Schuler G, Stepinska J, Swedberg K, Takkenberg J, Von Oppell UO, Windecker S, Zamorano JL, Zembala M; ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG); Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC); European Association for Cardio‐Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) . Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012): the Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio‐Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012; 42:S1–S44.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar20 Whitlock RP, Sun JC, Fremes SE, Rubens FD, Teoh KH. Antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy for valvular disease: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence‐Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012; 141:e576S–e600S.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Lescroart M, Hébert J, Vincent F and Nguyen L (2020) Pulsatility in ventricular assistance devices: A translational review focused on applied haemodynamics, Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases, 10.1016/j.acvd.2020.03.017, 113:6-7, (461-472), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2020. Oezpeker U, Feuchtner G, Bonaros N, Goliasch G, Milasinovic D, Liga R, Akhtar M and Patel P (2018) Cusp thrombosis of a self-expandable sutureless aortic valve treated by valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedure: case report, European Heart Journal - Case Reports, 10.1093/ehjcr/yty117, 2:4, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2018. August 2, 2017Vol 6, Issue 8Article InformationMetrics © 2017 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.117.006862PMID: 28862965 Originally publishedAugust 21, 2017 Keywordshypo‐attenuated leaflet thickeningEditorialssutureless valvesreduced valve leaflet motionPDF download SubjectsAortic Valve Replacement/Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation