Advertisement

Significance of echocardiographic evaluation for transcatheter aortic valve implantation

  • Kohsuke Shirakawa
  • Mitsushige MurataEmail author
Invited Review Article
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is widely accepted as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS). Existing scientific evidence demonstrates that TAVI is superior to SAVR, and it is expected that indications for the clinical applications of TAVI will be expanded in the future. Echocardiography plays a key role in perioperative assessment of patients undergoing TAVI. Preprocedural echocardiographic evaluation is important to determine the severity of AS in addition to patients’ anatomical suitability for TAVI. Furthermore, echocardiography is essential for intraoperative guidance, assessment of complications, postoperative evaluation, and prognostic prediction. Inaccurate echocardiographic measurements and evaluation can lead to less-than-optimal/inappropriate treatment strategies in patients with AS. Therefore, a thorough understanding of the limitations of echocardiographic evaluation is important. This review summarizes the role of echocardiographic evaluation in patients undergoing TAVI.

Keywords

Aortic stenosis (AS) Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) Echocardiography 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

We have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Kapadia SR, et al. 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with standard treatment for patients with inoperable aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9986):2485–91.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith CR, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(23):2187–98.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adams DH, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(19):1790–8.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leon MB, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(17):1597–607.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cerrato E, et al. Evaluation of current practices in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the WRITTEN (WoRldwIde TAVI ExperieNce) survey. Int J Cardiol. 2017;228:640–7.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reardon MJ, et al. Surgical or transcatheter aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(14):1321–31.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leon MB, et al. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(17):1609–20.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Popma JJ, et al. transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(18):1706–15.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(18):1695–705.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Osnabrugge RL, et al. Aortic stenosis in the elderly: disease prevalence and number of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis and modeling study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(11):1002–12.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Selzer A. Changing aspects of the natural history of valvular aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med. 1987;317(2):91–8.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baumgartner H, et al. Recommendations on the echocardiographic assessment of aortic valve stenosis: a focused update from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging and the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2017;30(4):372–92.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fryearson J, et al. The role of TTE in assessment of the patient before and following TAVI for AS. Echo Res Pract. 2016;3(2):R19–34.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thaden JJ, et al. Doppler imaging in aortic stenosis: the importance of the nonapical imaging windows to determine severity in a contemporary cohort. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015;28(7):780–5.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baumgartner H, et al. “Overestimation” of catheter gradients by Doppler ultrasound in patients with aortic stenosis: a predictable manifestation of pressure recovery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33(6):1655–61.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bonow RO, et al. ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/EACTS/HVS/SCA/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2017 appropriate use criteria for the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis: a Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Heart Valve Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2018;31(2):117–47.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Muraru D, et al. Assessment of aortic valve complex by three-dimensional echocardiography: a framework for its effective application in clinical practice. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;13(7):541–55.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kempfert J, et al. Aortic annulus sizing: echocardiographic versus computed tomography derived measurements in comparison with direct surgical sizing. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;42(4):627–33.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saitoh T, et al. Comparison of left ventricular outflow geometry and aortic valve area in patients with aortic stenosis by 2-dimensional versus 3-dimensional echocardiography. Am J Cardiol. 2012;109(11):1626–31.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khalique OK, et al. Aortic annular sizing using a novel 3-dimensional echocardiographic method: use and comparison with cardiac computed tomography. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7(1):155–63.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Akinseye OA, Jha SK, Ibebuogu UN. Clinical outcomes of coronary occlusion following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2018;19(2):229–36.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ewe SH, et al. Location and severity of aortic valve calcium and implications for aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol. 2011;108(10):1470–7.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Watanabe Y, et al. Prognostic value of aortic root calcification volume on clinical outcomes after transcatheter balloon-expandable aortic valve implantation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;86(6):1105–13.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ribeiro HB, et al. Predictive factors, management, and clinical outcomes of coronary obstruction following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: insights from a large multicenter registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(17):1552–62.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Delgado V, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: implications of multimodality imaging in patient selection, procedural guidance, and outcomes. Heart. 2012;98(9):743–54.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pollari F, et al. Risk factors for atrioventricular block after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a single-centre analysis including assessment of aortic calcifications and follow-up. Europace. 2019;21:787–95.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zoghbi WA, et al. Recommendations for noninvasive evaluation of native valvular regurgitation: a report from the american society of echocardiography developed in collaboration with the society for cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2017;30(4):303–71.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Philip F, et al. Aortic annulus and root characteristics in severe aortic stenosis due to bicuspid aortic valve and tricuspid aortic valves: implications for transcatheter aortic valve therapies. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;86(2):E88–98.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chiam PT, et al. Percutaneous transcatheter heart valve implantation in a bicuspid aortic valve. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3(5):559–61.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Phan K, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis-systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart Lung Circ. 2015;24(7):649–59.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Takagi H, et al. Meta-analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation for bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valves. J Cardiol. 2019;74(1):40–8.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yoon SH, et al. Outcomes in transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valve stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69(21):2579–89.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fischer-Rasokat U, et al. 1-Year survival after TAVR of patients with low-flow, low-gradient and high-gradient aortic valve stenosis in matched study populations. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(8):752–63.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Monin JL, et al. Low-gradient aortic stenosis: operative risk stratification and predictors for long-term outcome: a multicenter study using dobutamine stress hemodynamics. Circulation. 2003;108(3):319–24.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Clavel MA, et al. Validation of conventional and simplified methods to calculate projected valve area at normal flow rate in patients with low flow, low gradient aortic stenosis: the multicenter TOPAS (True or Pseudo Severe Aortic Stenosis) study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2010;23(4):380–6.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ribeiro HB, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis: the TOPAS-TAVI registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(12):1297–308.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Herrmann HC, et al. Predictors of mortality and outcomes of therapy in low-flow severe aortic stenosis: a Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial analysis. Circulation. 2013;127(23):2316–26.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rodriguez-Gabella T, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 2018;122(4):625–32.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kataoka A, et al. Prognostic impact of low-flow severe aortic stenosis in small-body patients undergoing TAVR: the OCEAN-TAVI registry. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;11(5):659–69.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Luo X, et al. Efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with aortic stenosis and reduced LVEF. A systematic review. Herz. 2015;40(Suppl 2):168–80.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Urena M, et al. Late cardiac death in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: incidence and predictors of advanced heart failure and sudden cardiac death. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(5):437–48.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Eleid MF, et al. Meta-analysis of the prognostic impact of stroke volume, gradient, and ejection fraction after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol. 2015;116(6):989–94.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Malkin CJ, et al. Impact of left ventricular function and transaortic gradient on outcomes from transcatheter aortic valve implantation: data from the UK TAVI Registry. EuroIntervention. 2016;11(10):1161–9.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    D’Onofrio A, et al. Impact of changes in left ventricular ejection fraction on survival after transapical aortic valve implantation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;103(2):559–66.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Logstrup BB, et al. Left ventricular global systolic longitudinal deformation and prognosis 1 year after femoral and apical transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013;26(3):246–54.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Suzuki-Eguchi N, et al. Prognostic value of pre-procedural left ventricular strain for clinical events after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0205190.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Goncalves A, et al. Acute left ventricle diastolic function improvement after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2011;12(10):790–7.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vizzardi E, et al. Early regression of left ventricular mass associated with diastolic improvement after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2012;25(10):1091–8.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Anjan VY, et al. Evaluation of flow after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with low-flow aortic stenosis: a secondary analysis of the PARTNER randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2016;1(5):584–92.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Le Ven F, et al. Evolution and prognostic impact of low flow after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Heart. 2015;101(15):1196–203.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Nombela-Franco L, et al. Significant mitral regurgitation left untreated at the time of aortic valve replacement: a comprehensive review of a frequent entity in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement era. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(24):2643–58.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Nombela-Franco L, et al. Clinical impact and evolution of mitral regurgitation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis. Heart. 2015;101(17):1395–405.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Chakravarty T, et al. Meta-analysis of the impact of mitral regurgitation on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol. 2015;115(7):942–9.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zilberszac R, et al. Outcome of combined stenotic and regurgitant aortic valve disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(14):1489–95.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Poliacikova P, et al. Prognostic impact of pre-existing right ventricular dysfunction on the outcome of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Invasive Cardiol. 2013;25(3):142–5.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lindsay AC, et al. Prevalence and prognostic significance of right ventricular systolic dysfunction in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(7):e003486.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Malouf JF, et al. Severe pulmonary hypertension in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis: clinical profile and prognostic implications. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40(4):789–95.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kokkinidis DG, et al. The predictive value of baseline pulmonary hypertension in early and long term cardiac and all-cause mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2018;19(7 pt B):859–67.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Barbanti M, et al. Prevalence and impact of preoperative moderate/severe tricuspid regurgitation on patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;85(4):677–84.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Jilaihawi H, et al. Anatomic suitability for present and next generation transcatheter aortic valve prostheses: evidence for a complementary multidevice approach to treatment. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3(8):859–66.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Tsuruta H, et al. Incidence, predictors, and midterm clinical outcomes of left ventricular obstruction after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;92(4):E288–98.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Bagur R, et al. Usefulness of TEE as the primary imaging technique to guide transcatheter transapical aortic valve implantation. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4(2):115–24.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Oguri A, et al. Clinical outcomes and safety of transfemoral aortic valve implantation under general versus local anesthesia: subanalysis of the French Aortic National CoreValve and Edwards 2 registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7(4):602–10.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Auffret V, et al. Temporal trends in transcatheter aortic valve replacement in France: FRANCE 2 to FRANCE TAVI. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(1):42–55.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hyman MC, et al. Conscious sedation versus general anesthesia for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. Circulation. 2017;136(22):2132–40.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Dall’Ara G, et al. Local and general anaesthesia do not influence outcome of transfemoral aortic valve implantation. Int J Cardiol. 2014;177(2):448–54.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Haensig M, et al. Aortic valve calcium scoring is a predictor of significant paravalvular aortic insufficiency in transapical-aortic valve implantation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;41(6):1234–40 (discussion 1240-1).Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Khalique OK, et al. Quantity and location of aortic valve complex calcification predicts severity and location of paravalvular regurgitation and frequency of post-dilation after balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7(8):885–94.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Athappan G, et al. Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: meta-analysis and systematic review of literature. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(15):1585–95.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Genereux P, et al. Paravalvular leak after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the new Achilles’ heel? A comprehensive review of the literature. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(11):1125–36.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Delgado V, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: role of multi-detector row computed tomography to evaluate prosthesis positioning and deployment in relation to valve function. Eur Heart J. 2010;31(9):1114–23.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Binder RK, et al. The impact of integration of a multidetector computed tomography annulus area sizing algorithm on outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a prospective, multicenter, controlled trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(5):431–8.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Blanke P, et al. Prosthesis oversizing in balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve implantation is associated with contained rupture of the aortic root. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5(4):540–8.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Zoghbi WA, et al. Guidelines for the evaluation of valvular regurgitation after percutaneous valve repair or replacement: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography Developed in Collaboration with the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Japanese Society of Echocardiography, and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2019;32(4):431–75.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Thourani VH, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: a propensity score analysis. Lancet. 2016;387(10034):2218–25.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kodali S, et al. Early clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve replacement in inoperable, high-risk and intermediate-risk patients with aortic stenosis. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(28):2252–62.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Ribeiro HB, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance versus transthoracic echocardiography for the assessment and quantification of aortic regurgitation in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Heart. 2014;100(24):1924–32.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Barbanti M, et al. Anatomical and procedural features associated with aortic root rupture during balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2013;128(3):244–53.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Watanabe Y, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients of small body size. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;84(2):272–80.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Takeda Y, et al. Systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve and severe mitral regurgitation immediately after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Echocardiogr. 2012;10(4):143–5.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Kappetein AP, et al. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(15):1438–54.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    O’Sullivan KE, et al. Is valve choice a significant determinant of paravalvular leak post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;45(5):826–33.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Head SJ, et al. The impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 34 observational studies comprising 27 186 patients with 133 141 patient-years. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(12):1518–29.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Pibarot P, et al. Incidence and sequelae of prosthesis-patient mismatch in transcatheter versus surgical valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: a PARTNER trial cohort—a analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(13):1323–34.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Miyasaka M, et al. Incidence, predictors, and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch following transcatheter aortic valve replacement in Asian Patients: the OCEAN-TAVI Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11(8):771–80.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Brennan JM, et al. Long-term safety and effectiveness of mechanical versus biologic aortic valve prostheses in older patients: results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery National Database. Circulation. 2013;127(16):1647–55.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Sondergaard L, et al. Durability of transcatheter and surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves in patients at lower surgical risk. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(5):546–53.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Foroutan F, et al. Structural valve deterioration after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Heart. 2017;103(23):1899–905.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Blackman DJ, et al. Long-term durability of transcatheter aortic valve prostheses. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(5):537–45.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Nakatani S. Subclinical leaflet thrombosis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Heart. 2017;103(24):1942–6.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Amat-Santos IJ, et al. Infective endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: results from a large multicenter registry. Circulation. 2015;131(18):1566–74.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Moriyama N, et al. Prosthetic valve endocarditis after transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthesis: results from the FinnValve Registry. EuroIntervention. 2019;15:e500–7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Japan Society for the Promotion of ScienceTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of CardiologyKeio University School of MedicineTokyoJapan
  3. 3.School of Medicine, Center for Preventive MedicineKeio UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations