Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Valves From the STS/ACC TVT Registry

ObjectivesThis study sought to compare outcomes in patients with bicuspid versus tricuspid anatomy undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundTAVR has shown excellent safety and efficacy in patients with tricuspid aortic valve stenosis, but limited data are available on the use of self-expanding valves in patients with bicuspid valves.MethodsThe Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology TVT Registry was used to analyze patients who underwent TAVR with the Evolut R or Evolut PRO valves. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were analyzed through 1-year follow-up.ResultsBetween July 2015 and September 2018 a total of 932 patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis underwent elective TAVR with the self-expanding Evolut R or Evolut PRO valve. These patients were compared with a group of 26,154 patients with tricuspid aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR during that same time period. At baseline, patients with bicuspid valves were younger, had fewer cardiac comorbidities, and had lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality scores (5.3 ± 4.2% vs. 6.9 ± 4.8%; p < 0.001). To account for these differences, propensity matching was performed, which resulted in 929 matched pairs. Within these match groups, the rates of all-cause mortality at 30 days (2.6% vs. 1.7%; p = 0.18) and 1 year (10.4% vs. 12.1%; p = 0.63), as well the rate of stroke at 30 days (3.4% vs. 2.7%; p = 0.41) and 1 year (3.9% vs. 4.4%; p = 0.93), were comparable.ConclusionsAll-cause mortality, stroke, and valve hemodynamics did not differ at 30 days or 1 year between patient groups. In patients at increased surgical risk, TAVR for bicuspid aortic valve stenosis indicates acceptable safety outcomes with low complications rates.     

Propensity-Matched 1-Year Outcomes Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Bicuspid and Tricuspid Patients

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare 1-year outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low surgical risk patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis to patients with tricuspid aortic stenosis.BackgroundThe pivotal TAVR trials excluded patients with bicuspid aortic valves. The Low Risk Bicuspid Study 30-day primary endpoint of death or disabling stroke was 1.3%.MethodsThe Low Risk Bicuspid Study is a prospective, single-arm, TAVR trial that enrolled patients from 25 U.S. sites. A screening committee confirmed bicuspid anatomy and valve classification on computed tomography using the Sievers classification. Valve sizing was by annular measurements. An independent clinical events committee adjudicated all serious adverse events, and an independent core laboratory assessed all echocardiograms. The 150 patients from the Low Risk Bicuspid Study were propensity matched to the TAVR patients in the randomized Evolut Low Risk Trial using the 1:1 5- to-1-digit greedy method, resulting in 145 pairs.ResultsAll-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 1 year was 1.4% in the bicuspid and 2.8% in the tricuspid group (P = 0.413). A pacemaker was implanted in 16.6% of bicuspid and 17.9% of tricuspid patients (P = 0.741). The effective orifice area was similar between groups at 1 year (2.2 ± 0.7 cm² vs 2.3 ± 0.6 cm², P = 0.677) as was the mean gradient (8.7 ± 3.9 mm Hg vs 8.5 ± 3.1 mm Hg, P = 0.754). Fewer patients in the bicuspid group had mild or worse paravalvular leak (21.3% vs 42.6%, P < 0.001).ConclusionsThere were no significant differences in clinical or forward flow hemodynamic outcomes between the propensity-matched groups at 1 year.     

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.     

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.     

Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Leaflet Thickening in the Evolut Low Risk Sub-Study

BackgroundSubclinical leaflet thrombosis has been reported after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, characterized using 4-dimensional computed tomographic imaging by hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT) and reduced leaflet motion (RLM). The incidence and clinical implications of these findings remain unclear.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the frequency, predictors, and hemodynamic and clinical correlates of HALT and RLM after aortic bioprosthetic replacement.MethodsA prospective subset of patients not on oral anticoagulation enrolled in the Evolut Low Risk randomized trial underwent computed tomographic imaging 30 days and 1 year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgery. The primary endpoint was the frequency of HALT at 30 days and 1 year, analyzed by an independent core laboratory using standardized definitions. Secondary endpoints included RLM, mean aortic gradient, and clinical events at 30 days and 1 year.ResultsAt 30 days, the frequency of HALT was 31 of 179 (17.3%) for TAVR and 23 of 139 (16.5%) for surgery; the frequency of RLM was 23 of 157 (14.6%) for TAVR and 19 of 133 (14.3%) for surgery. At 1 year, the frequency of HALT was 47 of 152 (30.9%) for TAVR and 33 of 116 (28.4%) for surgery; the frequency of RLM was 45 of 145 (31.0%) for TAVR and 30 of 111 (27.0%) for surgery. Aortic valve hemodynamic status was not influenced by the presence or severity of HALT or RLM at either time point. The rates of HALT and RLM were similar after the implantation of supra-annular, self-expanding transcatheter, or surgical bioprostheses.ConclusionsThe presence of computed tomographic imaging abnormalities of aortic bioprostheses were frequent but dynamic in the first year after self-expanding transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement, but these findings did not correlate with aortic valve hemodynamic status after aortic valve replacement in patients at low risk for surgery. (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients; NCT02701283)     

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.     

Three Generations of Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valves: A Report From the STS/ACC TVT Registry

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the evolution of early outcomes for 3 iterative self-expanding transcatheter aortic valves.BackgroundOver the past decade there have been rapid advancements in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) technologies, including 3 generations of supra-annular self-expanding transcatheter systems.MethodsData from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry for patients undergoing TAVR with CoreValve, Evolut R, or Evolut PRO valves to treat tricuspid aortic stenosis between January 2014 and September 2017 were obtained. Patient risk and echocardiographic data are site reported. Valves analyzed included 23-, 26-, and 29-mm sizes to fit 18- to 26-mm annular diameters. Propensity score matching was performed using the Evolut PRO group as the common reference.ResultsOf 18,874 patients undergoing TAVR at 381 centers, 5,514 patients were implanted with CoreValve, 11,295 with Evolut R, and 2,065 with Evolut PRO valves. At 30 days, there were significantly fewer patients with more than mild aortic regurgitation for the unmatched (7.8% CoreValve, 5.2% Evolut R, and 2.8% Evolut PRO; p < 0.001) and matched populations (8.3% CoreValve, 5.4% Evolut R, and 3.4% Evolut PRO; p = 0.032). The mean aortic valve gradients at 30 days in the matched populations were <8 mm Hg for all 3 valves (7.3 mm Hg CoreValve, 7.5 mm Hg Evolut R, 7.2 mm Hg Evolut PRO).ConclusionsAdvancements in transcatheter valve technologies and expanding indications for TAVR have resulted in improved outcomes for patients undergoing TAVR in the United States with self-expanding, supra-annular valves. In particular, the addition of an outer pericardial tissue wrap designed to enhance sealing at the level of the aortic annulus has resulted in very low rates of significant aortic regurgitation while maintaining excellent hemodynamic status.     

Stroke Complicating Infective Endocarditis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BackgroundStroke is one of the most common and potentially disabling complications of infective endocarditis (IE). However, scarce data exist about stroke complicating IE after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine the incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients with definite IE after TAVR complicated by stroke during index IE hospitalization.MethodsData from the Infectious Endocarditis after TAVR International Registry (including 569 patients who developed definite IE following TAVR from 59 centers in 11 countries) was analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups according to stroke occurrence during IE admission (stroke [S-IE] vs. no stroke [NS-IE]).ResultsA total of 57 (10%) patients had a stroke during IE hospitalization, with no differences in causative microorganism between groups. S-IE patients exhibited higher rates of acute renal failure, systemic embolization, and persistent bacteremia (p < 0.05 for all). Previous stroke before IE, residual aortic regurgitation ≥moderate after TAVR, balloon-expandable valves, IE within 30 days after TAVR, and vegetation size >8 mm were associated with a higher risk of stroke during the index IE hospitalization (p < 0.05 for all). Stroke rate in patients with no risk factors was 3.1% and increased up to 60% in the presence of >3 risk factors. S-IE patients had higher rates of in-hospital mortality (54.4% vs. 28.7%; p < 0.001) and overall mortality at 1 year (66.3% vs. 45.6%; p < 0.001). Surgical treatment was not associated with improved outcomes in S-IE patients (in-hospital mortality: 46.2% in surgical vs. 58.1% in no surgical treatment; p = 0.47).ConclusionsStroke occurred in 1 of 10 patients with IE post-TAVR. A history of stroke, short time between TAVR and IE, vegetation size, valve prosthesis type, and residual aortic regurgitation determined an increased risk. The occurrence of stroke was associated with increased in-hospital and 1-year mortality rates, and surgical treatment failed to improve clinical outcomes.     

Late Cerebrovascular Events Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

ObjectivesThis study sought to determine the incidence, clinical characteristics, associated factors, and outcomes of late cerebrovascular events (LCVEs) (>30 days post-procedure) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundScarce data exist on LCVEs following TAVR.MethodsThis was a multicenter study including 3,750 consecutive patients (mean age, 80 ± 8 years; 50.5% of women) who underwent TAVR and survived beyond 30 days. LCVEs were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 (VARC 2) criteria.ResultsLCVEs occurred in 192 (5.1%) patients (stroke, 80.2%; transient ischemic attack, 19.8%) after a median follow-up of 2 (1 to 4) years. Late stroke was of ischemic, hemorrhagic, and undetermined origin in 80.5%, 18.8%, and 0.7% of patients, respectively. Older age, previous cerebrovascular disease, higher mean aortic gradient at baseline, the occurrence of stroke during the periprocedural TAVR period, and the lack of anticoagulation (novel oral anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists) post-TAVR were independent factors associated with late ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack (p < 0.05 for all). Echocardiographic data at the time of the LCVE showed no signs of valve thrombosis or degeneration in the vast majority (97%) patients. Late stroke was disabling in 107 (69.5%) patients (ischemic, 68%; hemorrhagic, 79%), and associated with an in-hospital mortality rate of 29.2%.ConclusionsLCVEs occurred in 5.1% of TAVR recipients after a median follow-up of 2 years. LCVEs were ischemic in most cases, with older age, previous cerebrovascular events, higher mean aortic gradient at baseline, the occurrence during the periprocedural TAVR period, and lack of anticoagulation (but not valve thrombosis/degeneration) determining an increased risk. Late stroke was disabling in most cases and associated with dreadful early and midterm outcomes.     

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.     

Repeat Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Transcatheter Prosthesis Dysfunction

BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) use is increasing in patients with longer life expectancy, yet robust data on the durability of transcatheter heart valves (THVs) are limited. Redo-TAVR may play a key strategy in treating patients in whom THVs fail.ObjectivesThe authors sought to examine outcomes following redo-TAVR.MethodsThe Redo-TAVR registry collected data on consecutive patients who underwent redo-TAVR at 37 centers. Patients were classified as probable TAVR failure or probable THV failure if they presented within or beyond 1 year of their index TAVR, respectively.ResultsAmong 63,876 TAVR procedures, 212 consecutive redo-TAVR procedures were identified (0.33%): 74 within and 138 beyond 1 year of the initial procedure. For these 2 groups, TAVR-to-redo-TAVR time was 68 (38 to 154) days and 5 (3 to 6) years. The indication for redo-TAVR was THV stenosis in 12 (16.2%) and 51 (37.0%) (p = 0.002) and regurgitation or combined stenosis–regurgitation in 62 (83.8%) and 86 (62.3%) (p = 0.028), respectively. Device success using VARC-2 criteria was achieved in 180 patients (85.1%); most failures were attributable to high residual gradients (14.1%) or regurgitation (8.9%). At 30-day and 1-year follow-up, residual gradients were 12.6 ± 7.5 mm Hg and 12.9 ± 9.0 mm Hg; valve area 1.63 ± 0.61 cm² and 1.51 ± 0.57 cm²; and regurgitation ≤mild in 91% and 91%, respectively. Peri-procedural complication rates were low (3 stroke [1.4%], 7 valve malposition [3.3%], 2 coronary obstruction [0.9%], 20 new permanent pacemaker [9.6%], no mortality), and symptomatic improvement was substantial. Survival at 30 days was 94.6% and 98.5% (p = 0.101) and 83.6% and 88.3% (p = 0.335) at 1 year for patients presenting with early and late valve dysfunction, respectively.ConclusionsRedo-TAVR is a relatively safe and effective option for selected patients with valve dysfunction after TAVR. These results are important for applicability of TAVR in patients with long life expectancy in whom THV durability may be a concern.     

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Young,Low-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is approved for all patient risk profiles and is an option for all patients irrespective of age. However, patients enrolled in the low- and intermediate-risk trials were in their 70s, and those in the high-risk trials were in their 80s. TAVR has never been systematically tested in young (<65 years), low-risk patients. Unanswered questions remain, including the safety and effectiveness of TAVR in patients with bicuspid aortic valves; future coronary access; durability of transcatheter heart valves; technical considerations for surgical transcatheter heart valve explantation; management of concomitant conditions such as aortopathy, mitral valve disease, and coronary artery disease; and the safety and feasibility of future TAVR-in-TAVR. The authors predict that balancing these questions with patients’ clear preference for less invasive treatment will become common. In this paper, the authors consider each of these questions and discuss risks and benefits of theoretical treatment strategies in the lifetime management of young patients with severe aortic stenosis.     

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.     

Nationally Representative Repeat Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes: Report From the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to examine real-world experience with repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in a population-based national database.BackgroundRepeat TAVR is a growing option in patients requiring reintervention for TAVR. However, large-scale studies with longitudinal follow-up are limited.MethodsAll Medicare beneficiaries who underwent TAVR from 2012 to 2017 were included. Outcomes included 30-day and longitudinal mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, stroke, pacemaker insertion, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, or cardiac arrest. Outcomes of repeat TAVR were compared with surgical explantation after TAVR (TAVR explantation) in a matched analysis.ResultsOf 133,250 patients who underwent TAVR, 617 (0.46%) underwent subsequent repeat TAVR at a median interval of 154 days (interquartile range: 58-537 days). Mortality at 30 days and 1 year was 6.0% and 22.0%, respectively. Rates of 30-day stroke and pacemaker insertion were 1.8% and 4.2%. Mortality at 30 days was lower in those who underwent their first TAVR during the later era (2015-2017) compared with earlier years (2012-2014) (4.6% vs 8.7%; P = 0.049). Repeat TAVR was associated with lower 30-day mortality compared with a matched group undergoing TAVR explantation (6.2% vs 12.3%; P = 0.05), although 1-year mortality was similar (21.0% vs 20.8%; P = 1.000). The incidence of 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events was higher with TAVR explantation compared with repeat TAVR (risk ratio: 2.92; 95% CI: 1.88-4.99; P ≤ 0.001).ConclusionsRepeat TAVR was performed with acceptable 30-day mortality in this high-risk population. Short-term outcomes were superior to surgical explantation, but 1-year outcomes were similar. Repeat TAVR will likely be an important option for aortic valve reintervention after TAVR.     

Impact of Anesthesia Strategy and Valve Type on Clinical Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BackgroundThe randomized SOLVE-TAVI (compariSon of secOnd-generation seLf-expandable vs. balloon-expandable Valves and gEneral vs. local anesthesia in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial compared newer-generation self-expanding valves (SEV) and balloon-expandable valves (BEV) as well as local anesthesia with conscious sedation (CS) and general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Both strategies showed similar outcomes at 30 days.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes during 1-year follow-up in the randomized SOLVE-TAVI trial.MethodsUsing a 2 × 2 factorial design 447 intermediate- to high-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to transfemoral TAVR using either the SEV (Evolut R, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota) or the BEV (Sapien 3, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) as well as CS or GA at 7 sites.ResultsIn the valve-comparison strategy, rates of the combined endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, moderate or severe paravalvular leakage, and permanent pacemaker implantation were similar between the BEV and SEV group (n = 84, 38.3% vs. n = 87, 40.4%; hazard ratio: 0.94; 95% confidence interval: 0.70 to 1.26; p = 0.66) at 1 year. Regarding the anesthesia comparison, the combined endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and acute kidney injury occurred with similar rates in the GA and CS groups (n = 61, 25.7% vs. n = 54, 23.8%; hazard ratio: 1.09; 95% confidence interval: 0.76 to 1.57; p = 0.63).ConclusionsIn intermediate- to high-risk patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR, newer-generation SEV and BEV as well as CS and GA showed similar clinical outcomes at 1 year using a combined clinical endpoint. (SecOnd-generation seLf-expandable Versus Balloon-expandable Valves and gEneral Versus Local Anesthesia in TAVI [SOLVE-TAVI]; NCT02737150)     

Evaluating Out-of-Hospital 30-Day Mortality After Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: An STS/ACC TVT Analysis

ObjectivesThis study sought to better understand out-of-hospital 30-day mortality following transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and identify factors associated with poor outcomes.BackgroundDespite improvements in outcomes with TAVR for severe aortic stenosis, out-of-hospital 30-day mortality has not been evaluated.MethodsThis study examined patients in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry undergoing TAVR for severe aortic stenosis from January 2015 to March 2018. Primary and secondary endpoints were 30-day out-of-hospital all-cause mortality and out-of-hospital cardiovascular mortality, respectively. Logistic regression models were used to assess association between pre-specified factors and endpoints.ResultsA total of 106,749 patients underwent TAVR and were eligible for analysis. Transfemoral TAVR was performed in 92.3% of patients. A total of 2,137 (2.2%) transfemoral patients died within 30 days of the procedure, and 623 (29%) patients of these patients experienced out-of-hospital 30-day mortality. Cardiovascular and pulmonary etiologies accounted for the majority of observed mortality. Multivariable regression analysis identified older age, gender, lower body surface area, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, lower hemoglobin, atrial fibrillation or flutter, severe lung disease, home oxygen use, lack of moderate-to-severe aortic insufficiency, urgent TAVR, lower Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score, longer hospital length of stay, and in-hospital complications as being independently associated with the primary endpoint. New onset or pre-existent atrial fibrillation or flutter was also independently associated with 30-day out-of-hospital cardiovascular mortality in the transfemoral population.ConclusionsWe identified 30-day all-cause mortality rate for TAVR of 2.2%. Approximately one-third of patients experienced out-of-hospital mortality at 30 days. Several factors were identified as being independently associated with 30-day out-of-hospital all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Further work is needed to understand how best to improve out-of-hospital mortality following TAVR.     

Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty as a Bridge to Aortic Valve Replacement: A Contemporary Nationwide Perspective

ObjectivesThis study sought to use a national representative database to assess the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) as a bridge to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in contemporary practice.BackgroundNationwide data on the use and outcomes of BAV as a bridge to TAVR are limited.MethodsPatients who underwent BAV between January and June in 2015 and 2016 were identified in the National Readmission Database. We assessed rate of subsequent TAVR following BAV, and predictors and timing of subsequent TAVR. We then identified a group of patients who had direct TAVR (without prior BAV) in the original 2015 to 2016 National Readmission Database dataset. We compared in-hospital outcomes following TAVR between patients with prior bridging BAV and those undergoing direct TAVR.ResultsAmong the 3,691 included patients 1,426 (38.6%) had subsequent TAVR. Timing of TAVR was pre-discharge in 7.4%, within 30 days in 35%, between 31 and 90 days in 47%, between 91 and 180 days in 14%, and >180 days in 4%. Negative predictors of subsequent TAVR included prior defibrillator (odds ratio [OR]: 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36 to 0.85), dementia (OR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.79), malnutrition (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.90), and malignancy (OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.82). In propensity-score matched cohorts of patients who underwent direct TAVR versus those with prior BAV, in-hospital mortality during TAVR admission was similar (3.7% vs. 3.5%; p = 0.91). Major complications, length of stay, and discharge disposition were also comparable. However, cost of the hospitalization was higher in the direct TAVR group.ConclusionsAbout 40% of BAV patients undergo subsequent TAVR mostly within 90 days. In-hospital outcomes of TAVR in these patients were comparable with propensity-score matched patients who underwent TAVR without prior BAV. Further investigations are needed to define the role of BAV in contemporary practice.     

Risk Assessment of Coronary Obstruction During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From Post-BASILICA Computed Tomography

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to examine the predictive value of preprocedural computed tomography (CT)–based risk stratification of coronary obstruction during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) on the basis of geometric measurements on postprocedural CT.BackgroundProper patient selection for additional procedures to prevent coronary obstruction during TAVR has not been adequately evaluated.MethodsPre- and postprocedural computed tomographic scans of 28 patients treated using bioprosthetic or native aortic scallop intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction (BASILICA) and TAVR were analyzed. Using the postprocedural computed tomographic images, threatened coronary obstruction (TCO) was defined as: 1) ostial obstruction (adherence of the transcatheter heart valve [THV] to the coronary ostium with leaflet extension above the ostium); and/or 2) sinus sequestration (THV adherence to the sinotubular junction [STJ] with leaflet extension above the STJ) and was substratified into complete and incomplete types.ResultsA total of 51 leaflets were evaluated (88% surgical tissue valves) after excluding leaflets not visible on CT (n = 5). On postprocedural CT, complete TCO was observed in 25.4% (13 of 51 leaflets). On preprocedural CT, leaflets were at high risk for complete TCO (incidence 53%) if the virtual THV–to–coronary distance (VTC) was <3.0 mm, or if the virtual THV–to–STJ distance (VTSTJ) was <1.0 mm with STJ height ? leaflet length <0 mm (leaflet-STJ mismatch). Leaflets were at low risk (incidence 0%) if the VTC was ≥3 mm and VTSTJ was ≥3.0 mm or STJ height ? leaflet length was ≥+2.0 mm. Of 28 leaflets treated using BASILICA, complete TCO was seen in 35.7% (n = 10), due to sinus sequestration (100%) with coexisting ostial obstruction (30%). Actual coronary events occurred in 7.1% (n = 2) because of leaflet prolapse, corresponding to an absolute risk reduction by BASILICA of 29% (P = 0.021).ConclusionsRisk assessment of coronary obstruction after TAVR may improve with a multiparametric approach incorporating VTC, VTSTJ, and leaflet-STJ mismatch. BASILICA appeared to reduce actual coronary events even in leaflets with anticipated coronary obstruction.     

Outcomes Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Degenerative Stentless Versus Stented Bioprostheses

ObjectivesA large comprehensive analysis of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was performed for failed stentless bioprostheses.BackgroundValve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to redo surgery for patients with a failing aortic bioprosthesis.MethodsUnadjusted outcome data were collected from the VIVID (Valve-in-Valve International Data) registry between 2007 and 2016 from a total of 1,598 aortic ViV procedures (291 stentless, 1,307 stented bioprostheses).ResultsBioprosthetic failure was secondary to aortic regurgitation in 56% of stentless and 20% stented devices (p < 0.001). ViV-TAVR access was transfemoral in 71.1% stentless and 74.2% stented ViV-TAVR. Self-expanding devices were more frequently used in stentless ViV-TAVR (56.0% vs. 39.9%; p = 0.05), but there was no difference between balloon-expanding and self-expanding TAVR devices for stented ViV-TAVR (48.6% vs. 45.1%). The degree of oversizing for all mechanisms of bioprosthesis failure was 9 ± 10% for stentless ViV-TAVR vs. 6 ± 9% for stented ViV-TAVR (and 8 ± 10% for stentless ViV-TAVR vs. 3 ± 9% for stented ViV-TAVR in patients with predominant aortic regurgitation; both p < 0.001). Initial device malposition (10.3% vs. 6.2%; p = 0.014), second transcatheter device (7.9% vs. 3.4%), coronary obstruction (6.0% vs. 1.5%), and paravalvular leak occurred more frequently in stentless ViV-TAVR (all p < 0.001). Hospital stay duration (median 7 days) was no different, and 30-day (6.6% vs. 4.4%; p = 0.12) and 1-year mortality year (15.8% vs. 12.6%; p = 0.15) were numerically higher, but not statistically different, after stentless ViV-TAVR.ConclusionsStentless ViV-TAVR is associated with greater periprocedural complications (initial device malposition, second transcatheter device, coronary obstruction, paravalvular leak), but no difference in 30-day and 1-year outcome.     

Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Outside Randomized Trials

BackgroundRecent randomized trials including low-risk patients showed positive results for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), but patients with non-tricuspid aortic valve (NTAV), severe coronary artery disease (SevCAD), and those requiring concomitant mitral/tricuspid valve (CMTV) or concomitant ascending aorta replacement (CAAR) interventions were excluded.ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate the presence and impact of the main clinical variables not evaluated in TAVR versus SAVR trials (NTAV, SevCAD, and CMTV or CAAR intervention) in a large series of consecutive low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (SAS) undergoing SAVR.MethodsSingle-center study including consecutive patients with SAS and low surgical risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of <4%) undergoing SAVR. Baseline, procedural characteristics, and 30-day outcomes were prospectively collected.ResultsOf 6,772 patients with SAS who underwent SAVR between 2000 and 2019, 5,310 (78.4%) exhibited a low surgical risk (mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score: 1.94 ± 0.87%). Of these, 2,165 patients (40.8%) had at least 1 of the following: NTAV (n = 1,468, 27.6%), SevCAD (n = 307, 5.8%), CMTV (n = 306, 5.8%), and CAAR (n = 560, 10.5%). The 30-day mortality and stroke rates for the overall low-risk SAS cohort were 1.9% and 2.4%, respectively. The mortality rate was similar in the SevCAD (2.6%) and CAAR (2.1%) groups versus the rest of the cohort (odds ratio [OR]: 1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85 to 3.75, and OR: 1.64; 95% CI: 0.88 to 3.05, respectively), lower in the NTAV group (0.9%; OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.81), and higher in the CMTV group (5.9%; OR: 2.61; 95% CI: 1.51 to 4.5).ConclusionsIn a real-world setting, close to one-half of the low-risk patients with SAS undergoing SAVR exhibited at least 1 major criterion not evaluated in TAVR versus SAVR randomized trials. Clinical outcomes were better than or similar to those predicted by surgical scores in all groups but those patients requiring CMTV intervention. These results may help determine the impact of implementing the results of TAVR-SAVR trials in real practice and may inform future trials in specific groups.