Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Rheumatic Aortic Stenosis

BackgroundPatients with rheumatic aortic stenosis (AS) were excluded from transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) trials.ObjectivesThe authors sought to examine outcomes with TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with rheumatic AS, and versus TAVR in nonrheumatic AS.MethodsThe authors identified Medicare beneficiaries who underwent TAVR or SAVR from October 2015 to December 2017, and then identified patients with rheumatic AS using prior validated International Classification of Diseases, Version 10 codes. Overlap propensity score weighting analysis was used to adjust for measured confounders. The primary study outcome was all-cause mortality. Multiple secondary outcomes were also examined.ResultsThe final study cohort included 1,159 patients with rheumatic AS who underwent aortic valve replacement (SAVR, n = 554; TAVR, n = 605), and 88,554 patients with nonrheumatic AS who underwent TAVR. Patients in the SAVR group were younger and with lower prevalence of most comorbidities and frailty scores. After median follow-up of 19 months (interquartile range: 13 to 26 months), there was no difference in all-cause mortality with TAVR versus SAVR (11.2 vs. 7.0 per 100 person-year; adjusted hazard ratio: 1.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.84 to 2.79; p = 0.2). Compared with TAVR in nonrheumatic AS, TAVR for rheumatic AS was associated with similar mortality (15.2 vs. 17.7 deaths per 100 person-years (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.87; 95% confidence interval: 0.68 to 1.09; p = 0.2) after median follow-up of 17 months (interquartile range: 11 to 24 months). None of the rheumatic TAVR patients, <11 SAVR patients, and 242 nonrheumatic TAVR patients underwent repeat aortic valve replacement (124 redo-TAVR and 118 SAVR) at follow-up.ConclusionsCompared with SAVR, TAVR could represent a viable and possibly durable option for patients with rheumatic AS.     

Doppler Velocity Index Outcomes Following Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in the PARTNER Trials

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the association between Doppler velocity index (DVI) and 2-year outcomes for balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).BackgroundDVI >0.35 is normal for a prosthetic valve, but recent studies suggest that DVI <0.50 is associated with poor outcomes following TAVR.MethodsPatients with severe aortic stenosis enrolled in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) 2 (intermediate surgical risk) or PARTNER 3 (low surgical risk) trial undergoing TAVR (n = 1,450) or SAVR (n = 1,303) were included. Patients were divided into 3 DVI groups on the basis of core laboratory–assessed discharge or 30-day echocardiograms: DVI_LOW (≤0.35), DVI_INTERMEDIATE (>0.35 to ≤0.50), and DVI_HIGH (>0.50). Two-year outcomes were assessed.ResultsFollowing TAVR, there were no differences among the 3 DVI groups in composite outcomes of death, stroke, or rehospitalization or in any individual components of 2-year outcomes (P > 0.70 for all). Following SAVR, there was no difference among DVI groups in the composite outcome (P = 0.27), but there was a significant association with rehospitalization (P = 0.02). Restricted cubic-spline analysis for combined outcomes showed an increased risk with post-SAVR DVI ≤0.35 but no relationship post-TAVR. DVI ≤0.35 was associated with increased 2-year composite outcome for SAVR (HR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.29–2.54; P < 0.001), with no adverse outcomes for TAVR (P = 0.86).ConclusionsIn intermediate- and low-risk cohorts of the PARTNER trials, DVI ≤0.35 predicted worse 2-year outcomes following SAVR, driven primarily by rehospitalization, with no adverse outcomes associated with DVI following TAVR with the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 valve.     

Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation or Flutter Following Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: PARTNER 3 Trial

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the incidence and prognostic impact of early and late postoperative atrial fibrillation or flutter (POAF) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).BackgroundThere is an ongoing controversy regarding the incidence, recurrence rate, and prognostic impact of early (in-hospital) POAF and late (postdischarge) POAF in patients with AS undergoing TAVR or SAVR.MethodsIn the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) 3 trial, patients with severe AS at low surgical risk were randomized to TAVR or SAVR. Analyses were performed in the as-treated population excluding patients with preexistent atrial fibrillation or flutter.ResultsAmong 781 patients included in the analysis, early POAF occurred in 152 (19.5%) (18 of 415 [4.3%] and 134 of 366 [36.6%] following TAVR and SAVR, respectively). Following discharge, 58 new or recurrent late POAF events occurred within 1 year following the index procedure in 55 of 781 patients (7.0%). Early POAF was not an independent predictor of late POAF following discharge (odds ratio: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.52-2.08; P = 0.90). Following adjustment, early POAF was not an independent predictor of the composite outcome of death, stroke, or rehospitalization (hazard ratio: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.64-1.92; P = 0.72), whereas late POAF was associated with an increased adjusted risk for the composite outcome (hazard ratio: 8.90; 95% CI: 5.02-15.74; P < 0.0001), irrespective of treatment modality.ConclusionsIn the PARTNER 3 trial, early POAF was more frequent following SAVR compared with TAVR. Late POAF, but not early POAF, was significantly associated with worse outcomes at 2 years, irrespective of treatment modality.     

Temporal Trends and Outcomes of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to assess the temporal trends of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS), and to compare the outcomes between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in this population.BackgroundRandomized trials comparing TAVR to SAVR in AS with bicuspid valve are lacking.MethodsThe study queried the National Inpatient Sample database (years 2012 to 2016) to identify hospitalizations for bicuspid AS who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement. A propensity-matched analysis was used to compare outcomes of hospitalizations for TAVR versus SAVR for bicuspid AS and TAVR for bicuspid AS versus tricuspid AS.ResultsThe analysis included 31,895 hospitalizations with bicuspid AS, of whom 1,055 (3.3%) underwent TAVR. TAVR was increasingly utilized during the study period for bicuspid AS (p_trend = 0.002). After matching, TAVR and SAVR had similar in-hospital mortality (3.1% vs. 3.1%; odds ratio: 1.00; 95% confidence interval: 0.60 to 1.67). There was no difference between TAVR and SAVR in the rates of cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, acute kidney injury, hemopericardium, cardiac tamponade, or acute stroke. TAVR was associated with lower rates of acute myocardial infarction, post-operative bleeding, vascular complications, and discharge to nursing facility as well as a shorter length of hospital stay. On the contrary, TAVR was associated with a higher incidence of complete heart block and permanent pacemaker insertion. TAVR for bicuspid AS was associated with similar in-hospital mortality compared with tricuspid AS.ConclusionsThis nationwide analysis showed similar in-hospital mortality for TAVR and SAVR in patients with bicuspid AS. TAVR for bicuspid AS was also associated with similar in-hospital mortality compared with tricuspid AS. Further studies are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes of TAVR for bicuspid AS.     

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Aortic Valve Replacement in the PARTNER 2 Trial and Registry

ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare incidence and impact of measured prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM_M) versus predicted PPM (PPM_P) after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundTAVR studies have used measured effective orifice area indexed (EOAi) to body surface area (BSA) to define PPM, but most SAVR series have used predicted EOAi. This difference may contribute to discrepancies in incidence and outcomes of PPM between series.MethodsThe study analyzed SAVR patients from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2A trial and TAVR patients from the PARTNER 2 SAPIEN 3 Intermediate Risk registry. PPM was classified as moderate if EOAi ≤0.85 cm²/m² (≤0.70 if obese: body mass index ≥30 kg/m²) and severe if EOAi ≤0.65 cm²/m² (≤0.55 if obese). PPM_M was determined by the core lab–measured EOAi on 30-day echocardiogram. PPM_P was determined by 2 methods: 1) using normal EOA reference values previously reported for each valve model and size (PPM_P1; n = 929 SAVR, 1,069 TAVR) indexed to BSA; and 2) using normal reference EOA predicted from aortic annulus size measured by computed tomography (PPM_P2; n = 864 TAVR only) indexed to BSA. Primary endpoint was the composite of 5-year all-cause death and rehospitalization.ResultsThe incidence of moderate and severe PPM_P was much lower than PPM_M in both SAVR (PPM_P1: 28.4% and 1.2% vs. PPM_M: 31.0% and 23.6%) and TAVR (PPM_P1: 21.0% and 0.1% and PPM_P2: 17.0% and 0% vs. PPM_M: 27.9% and 5.7%). The incidence of severe PPM_M and severe PPM_P1 was lower in TAVR versus SAVR (P < 0.001). The presence of PPM by any method was associated with higher transprosthetic gradient. Severe PPM_P1 was independently associated with events in SAVR after adjustment for sex and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (hazard ratio: 3.18;95% CI: 1.69-5.96; P < 0.001), whereas no association was observed between PPM by any method and outcomes in TAVR.ConclusionsEOAi measured by echocardiography results in a higher incidence of PPM following SAVR or TAVR than PPM based on predicted EOAi. Severe PPM_P is rare (<1.5%), but is associated with increased all-cause death and rehospitalization after SAVR, whereas it is absent following TAVR.     

Outcomes 2 Years After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients at Low Surgical Risk

BackgroundIn low surgical risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, the PARTNER 3 (Safety and Effectiveness of the SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve in Low Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis) trial demonstrated superiority of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgery for the primary endpoint of death, stroke, or re-hospitalization at 1 year.ObjectivesThis study determined both clinical and echocardiographic outcomes between 1 and 2 years in the PARTNER 3 trial.MethodsThis study randomly assigned 1,000 patients (1:1) to transfemoral TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve versus surgery (mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score: 1.9%; mean age: 73 years) with clinical and echocardiography follow-up at 30 days and at 1 and 2 years. This study assessed 2-year rates of the primary endpoint and several secondary endpoints (clinical, echocardiography, and quality-of-life measures) in this as-treated analysis.ResultsPrimary endpoint follow-up at 2 years was available in 96.5% of patients. The 2-year primary endpoint was significantly reduced after TAVR versus surgery (11.5% vs. 17.4%; hazard ratio: 0.63; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 0.88; p = 0.007). Differences in death and stroke favoring TAVR at 1 year were not statistically significant at 2 years (death: TAVR 2.4% vs. surgery 3.2%; p = 0.47; stroke: TAVR 2.4% vs. surgery 3.6%; p = 0.28). Valve thrombosis at 2 years was increased after TAVR (2.6%; 13 events) compared with surgery (0.7%; 3 events; p = 0.02). Disease-specific health status continued to be better after TAVR versus surgery through 2 years. Echocardiographic findings, including hemodynamic valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure, were similar for TAVR and surgery at 2 years.ConclusionsAt 2 years, the primary endpoint remained significantly lower with TAVR versus surgery, but initial differences in death and stroke favoring TAVR were diminished and patients who underwent TAVR had increased valve thrombosis. (Safety and Effectiveness of the SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve in Low Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis [PARTNER 3]; NCT02675114)     

Relationship Between Hospital Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Volume and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to examine whether hospital surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) volume was associated with corresponding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) outcomes.BackgroundRecent studies have demonstrated a volume-outcome relationship for TAVR.MethodsIn total, 208,400 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries were analyzed for all aortic valve replacement procedures from 2012 to 2015. Claims for patients <65 years of age, concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting surgery, other heart valve procedures, or other major open heart procedures were excluded, as were secondary admissions for aortic valve replacement. Hospital SAVR volumes were stratified on the basis of mean annual SAVR procedures during the study period. The primary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year post-operative TAVR survival. Adjusted survival following TAVR was assessed using multivariate Cox regression.ResultsA total of 65,757 SAVR and 42,967 TAVR admissions were evaluated. Among TAVR procedures, 21.7% (n = 9,324) were performed at hospitals with <100 (group 1), 35.6% (n = 15,298) at centers with 100 to 199 (group 2), 22.9% (n = 9,828) at centers with 200 to 299 (group 3), and 19.8% (n = 8,517) at hospitals with ≥300 SAVR cases/year (group 4). Compared with group 4, 30-day TAVR mortality risk-adjusted odds ratios were 1.32 (95% confidence interval: 1.18 to 1.47) for group 1, 1.25 (95% confidence interval: 1.12 to 1.39) for group 2, and 1.08 (95% confidence interval: 0.82 to 1.25) for group 3. These adjusted survival differences in TAVR outcomes persisted at 1 year post-procedure.ConclusionsTotal hospital SAVR volume appears to be correlated with TAVR outcomes, with higher 30-day and 1-year mortality observed at low-volume centers. These data support the importance of a viable surgical program within the heart team, and the use of minimum SAVR hospital thresholds may be considered as an additional metric for TAVR performance.     

Bioprosthetic Valve Leaflet Displacement During Valve-in-Valve Intervention: An Ex Vivo Bench Study

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to examine the effect of different transcatheter heart valves (THVs) on valve leaflet displacement when deployed within bioprosthetic surgical valves and, thereby, risk for coronary obstruction.BackgroundCoronary obstruction is a potentially devastating complication during valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Strategies such as provisional stenting and intentional bioprosthetic valve leaflet laceration have been developed to mitigate this risk. Alternatively, the use of a THV that retracts the bioprosthetic leaflet away from the coronary ostium may prevent coronary obstruction.MethodsA 25-mm J-Valve, a 26-mm Evolut Pro, and a 23-mm JenaValve were implanted into both a 25-mm Trifecta surgical valve and a 25-mm Mitroflow surgical valve. A 23-mm and a 26-mm SAPIEN 3 were deployed into the Trifecta and Mitroflow, respectively. Displacement of the surgical valve leaflets (retraction vs. expansion) was measured with implantation of each THV by measuring displacement angle and maximal displacement distance.ResultsWithin both the Trifecta and Mitroflow valves, implantation of the J-Valve and JenaValve resulted in retraction of the surgical valve leaflets, and placement of the Evolut Pro and SAPIEN 3 resulted in tubular expansion of the surgical valve leaflets. There were significant differences in displacement angles and distances between both the J-Valve and JenaValve and the SAPIEN 3 and Evolut Pro (p < 0.0001).ConclusionsViV implantation with new-generation THVs that directly interact with bioprosthetic valve leaflets results in surgical valve leaflet retraction. This might mitigate the risk for coronary obstruction in selected cases of ViV transcatheter aortic valve replacement and also facilitate coronary reaccess after ViV TAVR.     

Impact of Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the impact of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on survival in patients with each subclass of low-gradient (LG) aortic stenosis (AS) and to compare outcomes following surgical AVR (SAVR) and transcatheter AVR (TAVR).BackgroundLG severe AS encompasses a wide variety of pathophysiology, including classical low-flow, LG (LF-LG), paradoxical LF-LG, and normal-flow, LG (NF-LG) AS, and uncertainty exists regarding the impact of AVR on each subclass of LG AS.MethodsPubMed and Embase were queried through October 2020 to identify studies comparing survival with different management strategies (SAVR, TAVR, and conservative) in patients with LG AS. Pairwise meta-analysis comparing AVR versus conservative management and network meta-analysis comparing SAVR versus TAVR versus conservative management were performed.ResultsThirty-two studies with a total of 6,515 patients and a median follow-up time of 24.2 months (interquartile range: 36.5 months) were included. AVR was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality in classical LF-LG (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36 to 0.48), paradoxical LF-LG (HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.57), and NF-LG (HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.62) AS compared with conservative management. SAVR and TAVR were each associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality in classical LF-LG (HR: 0.46 [95% CI: 0.38 to 0.55] and 0.49 [95% CI: 0.37 to 0.64], respectively), paradoxical LF-LG (HR: 0.42 [95% CI: 0.28 to 0.65] and 0.42 [95% CI: 0.25 to 0.72], respectively), and NF-LG (HR: 0.40 [95% CI: 0.21 to 0.77] and 0.46 [95% CI: 0.26 to 0.84], respectively) AS compared with conservative management. No significant difference was observed between SAVR and TAVR.ConclusionsIn all subclasses of LG AS, AVR was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality regardless of surgical or transcatheter approach.     

The Effect of Psychosocial Risk Factors on Outcomes After Aortic Valve Replacement

BackgroundPsychosocial risk factors (PSRFs) have emerged as important nontraditional risk factors that are associated with worse surgical outcomes but have not been well-characterized in valvular disease.ObjectivesThis study evaluates the impact of PSRFs on 30-day outcomes following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).MethodsAll adult patients (≥18 years of age) who underwent isolated TAVR or SAVR in the Nationwide Readmissions Database from 2016 to 2018 were included. Patients were classified as having 0 PSRFs vs ≥1 PSRF. PSRFs included limited cognitive understanding, substance use, psychiatric disease, low socioeconomic status, or uninsured status. Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, readmission, and composite morbidity (stroke, pulmonary embolus, pacemaker implantation, bleeding complications, acute kidney injury, myocardial infarction, or new atrial fibrillation).ResultsA nationally weighted total of 74,763 SAVR and 87,142 TAVR patients met inclusion criteria. For SAVR, patients with PSRFs had significantly higher 30-day mortality (4.2% vs 3.7%; P = 0.048) and readmissions (13.1% vs 11.3%; P < 0.001), but there was no difference in composite morbidity. For TAVR, patients with PSRFs had significantly higher 30-day readmission (11.7% vs 10.7%; P = 0.012) but no difference in 30-day mortality or composite morbidity. On risk-adjusted analysis, presence of PSRFs was a significant predictor of higher 30-day readmissions following SAVR (adjusted OR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.02-1.19).ConclusionsThe presence of PSRFs is associated with worse short-term outcomes following SAVR and TAVR, with a more profound impact in SAVR. This study highlights the importance of identifying at-risk patients and suggests that TAVR may be beneficial in patients with less social support.     

Commissural Alignment After Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Is Associated With Improved Hemodynamic Outcomes

BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is generally performed without control over the alignment of the bioprosthesis to the native aortic valve (AV) commissures. Data on the impact of commissural misalignment (CMA) on the clinical and hemodynamic outcome after TAVR are scarce.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the impact of commissural misalignment (CMA) on the clinical and hemodynamic outcome in patients with severe tricuspid aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR using the balloon-expandable (BE) SAPIEN 3 valve (Edwards LifeSciences).MethodsClinical data of consecutive patients who underwent BE TAVR at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Los Angeles, California, USA) enrolled in the RESOLVE (Assessment of TRanscathetER and Surgical Aortic BiOprosthetic Valve Thrombosis and Its TrEatment With Anticoagulation) registry were retrospectively analyzed to evaluate CMA, which was defined as a neocommissure position >30° compared with native commissures on computed tomography.ResultsA total of 324 patients (36.6% female, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 3.9%) were included in the analysis. CMA was present in 171 individuals (52.8%). At 30 days, rates of aortic regurgitation greater than mild (5.6%) and a residual AV gradient ≥20 mm Hg (7.4%) were not different between CMA and non-CMA patients. Commissural orientation was independently associated with a relative AV mean gradient increase >50% from discharge to 30 days (per increase of 10° misalignment; OR: 1.3; 95% CI: 1.0-1.4; P = 0.01). The long-term composite outcome of death or stroke was not different between groups (log-rank P = 0.29).ConclusionsIn patients with severe tricuspid aortic stenosis who undergo SAPIEN 3 TAVR, the neocommissures align randomly. Our data demonstrate that commissural alignment may impact device performance and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing BE TAVR. (Assessment of TRanscathetEr and Surgical Aortic BiOprosthetic VaLVve Dysfunction with Multimodality Imaging and Its TrEatment with Anticoagulation [RESOLVE]; NCT02318342)     

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: An Updated Meta-Analysis

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate early results of valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for structural valve degeneration (SVD).BackgroundViV TAVR has been increasingly used for SVD, but it remains unknown whether it produces better or at least comparable results as redo SAVR.MethodsObservational studies comparing ViV TAVR and redo SAVR were identified in a systematic search of published research. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed, comparing clinical outcomes between the 2 groups.ResultsTwelve publications including a total of 16,207 patients (ViV TAVR, n = 8,048; redo SAVR, n = 8,159) were included from studies published from 2015 to 2020. In the pooled analysis, ViV TAVR was associated with lower rates of 30-day mortality overall (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39 to 0.68; p < 0.001) and for matched populations (OR: 0.419; 95% CI: 0.278 to 0.632; p = 0.003), major bleeding (OR 0.48; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.80; p = 0.013), as well as with shorter hospital stay (OR: ?3.30; 95% CI: ?4.52 to ?2.08; p < 0.001). In contrast, ViV TAVR was associated with higher rates of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (OR: 4.63; 95% CI: 3.05 to 7.03; p < 0.001). The search revealed an important lack of comparative studies with long-term results.ConclusionsViV TAVR is a valuable option in the treatment of patients with SVD because of its lower incidence of post-operative complications and better early survival compared with redo SAVR. However, ViV TAVR is associated with higher rates of myocardial infarction and severe patient-prosthesis mismatch.     

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Prior Mediastinal Radiation

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate the trends and outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) among patients with prior mediastinal radiation from a national database.BackgroundThere is a paucity of data about the temporal trends and outcomes of TAVR versus SAVR in patients with prior mediastinal radiation.MethodsThe National Inpatient Sample database years 2012 to 2017 was queried for hospitalizations of patients with prior mediastinal radiation who underwent isolated AVR. Using multivariable analysis, the study compared the outcomes of TAVR versus SAVR. The main study outcome was in-hospital mortality.ResultsThe final analysis included 3,675 hospitalizations for isolated AVR; of whom 2,170 (59.1%) underwent TAVR and 1,505 (40.9%) underwent isolated SAVR. TAVR was increasingly performed over time (p_trend = 0.01), but there was no significant increase in the rates of utilization of SAVR. The following factors were independently associated with TAVR utilization: older age, chronic lung disease, coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease, prior cerebrovascular accidents, prior coronary artery bypass grafting, and larger-sized hospitals, while women were less likely to undergo TAVR. Compared with SAVR, TAVR was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (1.2% vs. 2.0%, adjusted odds ratio: 0.27; 95% confidence interval: 0.09 to 0.79; p = 0.02). TAVR was associated with lower rates of acute kidney injury, use of mechanical circulatory support, bleeding and respiratory complications, and shorter length of hospital stay. TAVR was associated with higher rates of pacemaker insertion.ConclusionsThis nationwide observational analysis showed that TAVR is increasingly performed among patients with prior mediastinal radiation. TAVR provides an important treatment option for this difficult patient population with desirable procedural safety when using SAVR as a benchmark.     

The PARTNER 3 Bicuspid Registry for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Surgical-Risk Patients

ObjectivesThe study compared 1-year outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) morphology and clinically similar patients having tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) morphology.BackgroundThere are limited prospective data on TAVR using the SAPIEN 3 device in low-surgical-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and bicuspid anatomy.MethodsLow-risk, severe aortic stenosis patients with BAV were candidates for the PARTNER 3 (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves 3) (P3) bicuspid registry or the P3 bicuspid continued access protocol. Patients treated in these registries were pooled and propensity score matched to TAV patients from the P3 randomized TAVR trial. Outcomes were compared between groups. The primary endpoint was the 1-year composite rate of death, stroke, and cardiovascular rehospitalization.ResultsOf 320 total submitted BAV patients, 169 (53%) were treated, and most were Sievers type 1. The remaining 151 patients were excluded caused by anatomic or clinical criteria. Propensity score matching with the P3 TAVR cohort (496 patients) yielded 148 pairs. There were no differences in baseline clinical characteristics; however, BAV patients had larger annuli and they experienced longer procedure duration. There was no difference in the primary endpoint between BAV and TAV (10.9% vs 10.2%; P = 0.80) or in the rates of the individual components (death: 0.7% vs 1.4%; P = 0.58; stroke: 2.1% vs 2.0%; P = 0.99; cardiovascular rehospitalization: 9.6% vs 9.5%; P = 0.96).ConclusionsAmong highly select bicuspid aortic stenosis low-surgical-risk patients without extensive raphe or subannular calcification, TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve demonstrated similar outcomes to a matched cohort of patients with tricuspid aortic stenosis.     

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Complex Coronary Artery Disease

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare, in a cohort of patients with complex coronary artery disease (CAD) and severe aortic stenosis (AS), the clinical outcomes associated with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (plus percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) (plus coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]).BackgroundPatients with complex CAD were excluded from the main randomized trials comparing TAVR with SAVR, and no data exist comparing TAVR + PCI vs SAVR + CABG in such patients.MethodsA multicenter study was conducted including consecutive patients with severe AS and complex CAD (SYNTAX [Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery] score >22 or unprotected left main disease). A 1:1 propensity-matched analysis was performed to account for unbalanced covariates. The rates of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), including all-cause mortality, nonprocedural myocardial infarction, need for new coronary revascularization, and stroke, were evaluated.ResultsA total of 800 patients (598 undergoing SAVR + CABG and 202 undergoing transfemoral TAVR + PCI) were included, and after propensity matching, a total of 156 pairs of patients were generated. After a median follow-up period of 3 years (interquartile range: 1-6 years), there were no significant differences between groups for MACCE (HR for transfemoral TAVR vs SAVR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.89-1.98), all-cause mortality (HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.81-1.94), myocardial infarction (HR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.41-3.27), and stroke (HR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.13-1.32), but there was a higher rate of new coronary revascularization in the TAVR + PCI group (HR: 5.38; 95% CI: 1.73-16.7).ConclusionsIn patients with severe AS and complex CAD, TAVR + PCI and SAVR + CABG were associated with similar rates of MACCE after a median follow-up period of 3 years, but TAVR + PCI recipients exhibited a higher risk for repeat coronary revascularization. Future trials are warranted.     

Prior Balloon Valvuloplasty Versus Direct Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Results From the DIRECTAVI Trial

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate device success of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using new-generation balloon-expandable prostheses with or without balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV).BackgroundRandomized studies are lacking comparing TAVR without BAV against the conventional technique of TAVR with BAV.MethodsDIRECTAVI (Direct Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) was an open-label noninferiority study that randomized patients undergoing TAVR using the Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve with or without prior balloon valvuloplasty. The primary endpoint was the device success rate according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria, which was evaluated using a 7% noninferiority margin. The secondary endpoint included procedural and 30-day adverse events.ResultsDevice success was recorded for 184 of 236 included patients (78.0%). The rate of device success in the direct implantation group (n = 97 [80.2%]) was noninferior to that in the BAV group (n = 87 [75.7%]) (mean difference 4.5%; 95% confidence interval: −4.4% to 13.4%; p = 0.02 for noninferiority). No severe prosthesis-patient mismatch or severe aortic regurgitation occurred in any group. In the direct implantation group, 7 patients (5.8%) required BAV to cross the valve. Adverse events were related mainly to pacemaker implantation (20.9% in the BAV group vs. 19.0% in the direct implantation group; p = 0.70). No significant difference was found between the 2 strategies in duration of procedure, contrast volume, radiation exposure, or rate of post-dilatation.ConclusionsDirect TAVR without prior BAV was noninferior to the conventional strategy using BAV with new-generation balloon-expandable valves, but without procedural simplification. BAV was needed to cross the valve in a few patients, suggesting a need for upstream selection on the basis of patient anatomy. (TAVI Without Balloon Predilatation [of the Aortic Valve] SAPIEN 3 [DIRECTAVI]; NCT02729519)     

Transcatheter Versus Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement: A Propensity-Matched Analysis From the German Aortic Valve Registry

ObjectivesThis study sought to compare patient characteristics, procedural outcomes, and valve hemodynamics of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with current-generation rapid-deployment valves (RDVs) versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with current-generation transcatheter heart valves (THVs).BackgroundThe patient population currently treated with RDVs may have potential similarities with the current TAVR population, but comparative studies in a large patient population remain scarce.MethodsA total of 16,473 patients who underwent isolated SAVR using current-generation RDVs or isolated transfemoral TAVR with current-generation THVs between 2011 and 2017 were enrolled into the German Aortic Valve Registry. Baseline, procedural, and in-hospital outcome parameters were analyzed for RDVs and THVs before and after 1:1 propensity score matching. Furthermore, RDVs and THVs with similar design characteristics were compared with each other.ResultsA total of 1,743 patients received SAVR with an RDV, whereas 14,730 patients were treated with transfemoral TAVR. Patients treated with TAVR were significantly older and had higher surgical risk scores. Following valve replacement, patients treated with an RDV had a significantly higher rate of disabling stroke (1.7% vs. 1.1%; p = 0.03), need for transfusion of >4 red blood cell units (8.5% vs. 1.4%; p < 0.001), and new onset renal replacement therapy (1.9% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.01), whereas the need for a new permanent pacemaker was lower (8.4% vs. 14.9%; p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was similar (1.6% vs. 1.8%; p = 0.62). These findings persisted after 1:1 propensity score matching, but in-hospital mortality was significantly higher after RDVs (1.7% vs. 0.6%; p = 0.003). Balloon-expandable (BE) RDVs had significantly lower residual gradients compared with BE-THVs, while self-expanding (SE)-RDVs had significantly higher residual gradients compared with SE-THVs.ConclusionsIn a large all-comers’ registry, TAVR with current-generation THVs was associated with improved in-hospital outcomes compared with SAVR with current-generation RDVs. The pacemaker rate is significantly higher with TAVR. Post-procedural hemodynamic function varied between individual RDVs and THVs.     

Sex Difference in Outcomes Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Bicuspid Aortic Stenosis

BackgroundIt is unknown whether the sex difference whereby female transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) candidates had a lower risk profile, a higher incidence of in-hospital complications, but more favorable short- and long-term survival observed in tricuspid cohorts undergoing TAVR would persist in patients with bicuspid aortic valves (BAVs).ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to reexamine the impact of sex on outcomes following TAVR in patients with BAVs.MethodsIn this single-center study, patients with BAVs undergoing TAVR for severe aortic stenosis from 2012 to 2021 were retrospectively included. Baseline characteristics, aortic root anatomy, and in-hospital and 1-year valve hemodynamic status and survival were compared between sexes.ResultsA total of 510 patients with BAVs were included. At baseline, women presented with fewer comorbidities. Men had a greater proportion of Sievers type 1 BAV, higher calcium volumes (549.2 ± 408.4 mm³ vs 920.8 ± 654.3 mm³; P < 0.001), and larger aortic root structures. Women experienced more vascular complications (12.9% vs 4.9%; P = 0.002) and bleeding (11.1% vs 5.3%; P = 0.019) and higher residual gradients (16.9 ± 7.7 mm Hg vs 13.2 ± 6.4 mm Hg; P < 0.001), while men were more likely to undergo second valve implantations during index TAVR (6.3% vs 15.9%; P = 0.001). Death at 1 year was not significantly different between sexes (HR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.56-2.35; P = 0.70). Bleeding (adjusted HR: 4.62; 95% CI: 1.51-14.12; P = 0.007) was the single independent predictor of 1-year death for women.ConclusionsIn patients with BAVs undergoing TAVR, women presented with fewer comorbidities, while men had a greater proportion of type 1 BAV, more calcification, and larger aortic roots. In-hospital outcomes favored men, with fewer complications except for the need for second valve implantation, but 1-year survival was comparable between sexes.     

Coronary Access After TAVR-in-TAVR as Evaluated by Multidetector Computed Tomography

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess coronary accessibility after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)–in–TAVR using multidetector computed tomography.BackgroundExpanding TAVR to patients with longer life expectancy may involve more frequent bioprosthetic valve failure and need for redo TAVR. Coronary access after TAVR-in-TAVR may be challenging, particularly as the leaflets from the initial transcatheter heart valve (THV) will form a neo-skirt following TAVR-in-TAVR.MethodsIn 45 patients treated with different combinations of CoreValve and Evolut (CV/EV) THVs with supra-annular leaflet position and SAPIEN THVs with intra-annular leaflet position, post-TAVR-in-TAVR multidetector computed tomographic scans were analyzed to examine coronary accessibility.ResultsAfter TAVR-in-TAVR, the coronary arteries originated below the top of the neo-skirt in 90% of CV/EV-first cases compared with 67% of SAPIEN-first cases (p = 0.009). For these coronary arteries originating below the top of the neo-skirt, the distance between the THV and the aortic wall was <3 mm in 56% and 25% of CV/EV-first and SAPIEN-first cases, respectively (p = 0.035). Coronary access may be further complicated by THV-THV stent frame strut misalignment in 53% of CV/EV-in-CV/EV cases. The risk for technically impossible coronary access was 27% and 10% in CV/EV-first and SAPIEN-first cases, respectively (p = 0.121). Absence of THV interference with coronary accessibility can be expected in 8% and 33% of CV/EV-first and SAPIEN-first cases, respectively (p = 0.005).ConclusionsCoronary access after TAVR-in-TAVR may be challenging in a significant proportion of patients. THVs with intra-annular leaflet position or low commissural height and large open cells may be preferable in terms of coronary access after TAVR-in-TAVR.     

5-Year Outcomes With Self-Expanding vs Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Small Annuli

BackgroundSelf-expanding transcatheter heart valves (THVs) are associated with better echocardiographic hemodynamic performance than balloon-expandable THVs and are considered preferable in patients with small annuli.ObjectivesThis study sought to compare 5-year outcomes between self-expanding vs balloon-expandable THVs in severe aortic stenosis (AS) patients with small annuli.MethodsConsecutive severe AS patients with an aortic valve annulus area <430 mm² who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with either the CoreValve Evolut (Medtronic) or SAPIEN (Edwards Lifesciences) THV between 2012 and 2021 were enrolled from the Bern TAVI registry. A 1:1 propensity-matched analysis was performed to account for baseline differences between groups.ResultsA total of 723 patients were included, and propensity score matching resulted in 171 pairs. Technical success was achieved in over 85% of both groups with no significant difference. Self-expanding THVs were associated with a lower transvalvular gradient (8.0 ± 4.8 mm Hg vs 12.5 ± 4.5 mm Hg; P < 0.001), a larger effective orifice area (1.81 ± 0.46 cm² vs 1.49 ± 0.42 cm²; P < 0.001), and a lower incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (19.7% vs 51.8%; P < 0.001) than balloon-expandable THVs. At 5 years, there were no significant differences in mortality (50.4% vs 39.6%; P = 0.269) between groups. Disabling stroke occurred more frequently in patients with a self-expanding THV than those with a balloon-expandable THV (6.6% vs 0.6%; P = 0.030). Similar results were obtained using inverse probability of treatment weighting in the Bern TAVI registry and the nationwide Swiss TAVI registry.ConclusionsThe echocardiographic hemodynamic advantage of self-expanding THVs was not associated with better clinical outcomes compared with balloon-expandable THVs up to 5 years in patients with small annuli. (Swiss TAVI Registry; NCT01368250)