Since the 1960s when the first aortic surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was performed, continuous growth in the field of valvular technology has occurred. Although SAVR remains a lifesaving procedure, minimally invasive transcatheter aortic valve replacement has revolutionized and expanded aortic valve replacement to patients who were not previously SAVR candidates, increasing their quality of life and survival. Since its introduction in the United States in 2011, the technology and practice have rapidly expanded. Hybrid techniques have been developed that combine surgical access to the vasculature with valvular deployment over transcatheter systems. This literature review aims to describe the differences between the current available valve technologies, review approaches to surgical technique, discuss anesthetic considerations, and look forward to future directions, trends, and challenges.
CheitlinMDGertzEWBrundageBHCarlsonCJQuashJABodeRSJr.Rate of progression of severity of valvular aortic stenosis in the adult. Am Heart J. 1979;98:689-700.
4.
LesterSJHeilbronBGinKDodekAJueJ. The natural history and rate of progression of aortic stenosis. Chest. 1998;113:1109-1114.
5.
CribierAEltchaninoffHBashA, et al. Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis for calcific aortic stenosis: first human case description. Circulation. 2002;106:3006-3008.
6.
NishimuraRAOttoCMBonowRO, 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 Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:252-289.
7.
NishimuraRAOttoCMBonowRO, et al. 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.
8.
OttoCMKumbhaniDJAlexanderKP, et al. 2017 ACC expert consensus decision pathway for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the management of adults with aortic stenosis: a report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:1313-1346.
9.
AgarwalSTuzcuEMKrishnaswamyA, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: current perspectives and future implications. Heart. 2015;101:169-177.
10.
FriedLPTangenCMWalstonJ, et al; Cardiovascular Health Study Collaborative Research Group. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56:M146-M156.
EssesGAndreopoulosELinMHAryaSDeinerS. A comparison of three frailty indices in predicting morbidity and mortality after on-pump aortic valve replacement. Anesth Analg. 2018;126:39-45.
13.
EdwardsFHCohenDJO’BrienSM, et al. Development and validation of a risk prediction model for in-hospital mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JAMA Cardiol. 2016;1:46-52.
14.
GutscheJTPatelPAWalshEK, et al. New frontiers in aortic therapy: focus on current trials and devices in transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2015;29:536-541. doi:10.1053/j.jvca.2014.09.003
15.
ZajariasACribierAG. Outcomes and safety of percutaneous aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:1829-1836.
16.
SchymikGSchröfelHHeimeshoffMLuikAThoenesMMandinovL. How to adapt the implantation technique for the new SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve design. J Interv Cardiol. 2015;28:82-89. doi:10.1111/joic.12165
CheungALichtensteinKM. Illustrated techniques for transapical aortic valve implantation. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;1:231-239.
19.
KasapkaraHAAslanANAyhanH, et al. Trans-subclavian aortic valve replacement with various bioprosthetic valves: single-center experience. Turk Kardiyol Dern Ars. 2016;44:582-589.
20.
DebryNDelhayeCAzmounA, et al. Transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve replacement: general or local anesthesia. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:2113-2120.
21.
CodnerPPuglieseDKouzR, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement by a novel suprasternal approach. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;105:1215-1222.
22.
GreenbaumABBabaliarosVCChenMY, et al. Transcaval access and closure for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a prospective investigation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:511-521.
23.
MiceliAGilmanovDMurziM, et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with a sutureless valve through a right anterior mini-thoracotomy versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation in high-risk patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;49:960-965.
24.
SantarpinoGPfeifferSJesslJ, et al. Sutureless replacement versus transcatheter valve implantation in aortic valve stenosis: a propensity-matched analysis of 2 strategies in high-risk patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147:561-567.
25.
TerwelpMDThouraniVHZhaoY, et al. Minimally invasive versus transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement: a propensity matched study. J Heart Valve Dis. 2017;26:146-154.
26.
MayrNPMichelJBleizifferSTassaniPMartinK. Sedation or general anesthesia for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). J Thorac Dis. 2015;7:1518-1526.
27.
de BritoFSJrCarvalhoLASarmento-LeiteR, et al; Brazilian TAVI Registry investigators. Outcomes and predictors of mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: results of the Brazilian registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;85:E153-E162. doi:10.1002/ccd.25778
28.
HahnRTLittleSHMonaghanMJ, et al. Recommendations for comprehensive intraprocedural echocardiographic imaging during TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:261-287.
29.
PatelPAAckermannAMAugoustidesJGT, et al. Anesthetic evolution in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: expert perspectives from high-volume academic centers in Europe and the United States. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2017;31:777-790. doi:10.1053/j.jvca.2017.02.051
30.
VillablancaPAMohananeyDNikolicK, et al. Comparison of local versus general anesthesia in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;91:330-342.
31.
PaniSCaginoJFeustelP, et al. Patient selection and outcomes of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement performed with monitored anesthesia care versus general anesthesia. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2017;31:2049-2054.
32.
HymanMVemulapalliSSzetoW, et al. Moderate vs. general anesthesia for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: an STS/ACC Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry Analysis. http://scaiscientificsessions.org/2016images/14823.pdf. Accessed May 11, 2018.
33.
MackMJLeonMBSmithCR, 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. 2015;385:2477-2484.
34.
EltchaninoffHDurandEAvinéeG, et al. Assessment of structural valve deterioration of transcatheter aortic bioprosthetic balloon-expandable valves using the new European consensus definition [published online March30, 2018]. EuroIntervention. doi:10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00015
35.
HayashidaKLefevreTChevalierB, et al. Impact of post-procedural aortic regurgitation on mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5:1247-1256.
36.
MaisanoFTaramassoMNietlispachF. Prognostic influence of paravalvular leak following TAVI: is aortic regurgitation an active incremental risk factor or just a mere indicator?Eur Heart J. 2015;36:413-415.
37.
BagurRRodes-CabauJGurvitchR, et al. Need for permanent pacemaker as a complication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement in elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis and similar baseline electrocardiographic findings. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5:540-551.
38.
WeberMBruggemannESchuelerR, et al. Impact of left ventricular conduction defect with or without need for permanent right ventricular pacing on functional and clinical recovery after TAVR. Clin Res Cardiol. 2015;104:964-974.
39.
MedrandaGBrahmbhattKSrivastavaA, et al. Conduction disturbances in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the cost of less paravalvular leak?J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(11, suppl):A1344.
40.
DaneaultBKirtaneAJKodaliSK, et al. Stroke associated with surgical and transcatheter treatment of aortic stenosis: a comprehensive review. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:2143-2150.
41.
Rodes-CabauJKahlertPNeumannFJ, et al. Feasibility and exploratory efficacy evaluation of the Embrella Embolic Deflector system for the prevention of cerebral emboli in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the PROTAVI-C pilot study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:1146-1155.
42.
O’SullivanCJWenaweserP. A glimpse into the future: in 2020, which patients will undergo TAVI or SAVR?Interv Cardiol. 2017;12:44-50.
43.
LeonMBSmithCRMackMJ, et al; PARTNER 2 Investigators. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1609-1620.
44.
ChristiansenSSchmidMAutschbachR. Perioperative risk of redo aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;15:105-110.
45.
PechlivanidisKOnoratiFPetrilliG, et al. In which patients is transcatheter aortic valve replacement potentially better indicated than surgery for redo aortic valve disease? Long-term results of a 10-year surgical experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148:500-508.
46.
SeiffertMConradiLBaldusS, et al. Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation in patients with degenerated bioprostheses. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5:341-349.
47.
RoyDASchaeferUGuettaV, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for pure severe native aortic valve regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:1577-1584.
48.
GiustinoGLatibAPanoulasVF, et al. Early outcomes with direct flow medical versus first-generation transcatheter aortic valve devices: a single-center propensity-matched analysis. J Interv Cardiol. 2015;28:583-593.
