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.     

Outcomes of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Following Supra-Annular Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: From the STS/ACC TVT Registry

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the outcomes of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) in the TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry in patients undergoing supra-annular transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for de novo stenosis or failed surgical bioprostheses (transcatheter aortic valve [TAV]–in–surgical aortic valve [SAV]).BackgroundSevere PPM has been associated with adverse outcomes following TAVR, yet the clinical outcome of severe PPM after supra-annular TAVR is largely unknown.MethodsSupra-annular TAVR was performed in patients enrolled in the TVT Registry with de novo stenosis (n = 42,174) or TAV-in-SAV (n = 5,446). Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria were used to define severe PPM. The clinical impact of severe PPM on 1-year mortality and valve-related readmission was assessed using multivariate regression. A generalized linear mixed model was used to evaluate predictors of severe PPM.ResultsSevere PPM was found in 5.3% of patients undergoing de novo TAVR and 27.0% of patients undergoing TAV-in-SAV. The presence of severe PPM was not significantly associated with 1-year mortality or valve-related readmissions in both groups. Mean aortic gradients were higher in patients with severe PPM than in those without severe PPM at 1 month (9.7 ± 5.7 mm Hg vs. 7.3 ± 4.0 mm Hg; p < 0.001) and 1 year (10.2 ± 6.4 mm Hg vs. 8.0 ± 4.3 mm Hg; p < 0.001). Pre-procedural factors, including a <20-mm aortic annulus, were positive predictors of severe PPM in patients undergoing de novo TAVR (area under the curve = 0.795) and TAV-in-SAV (area under the curve = 0.764).ConclusionsSevere PPM after supra-annular TAVR was not associated with increased 1-year mortality or valve-related readmissions. Longer-term follow-up is needed to determine if higher residual gradients in patients with severe PPM predict long-term outcomes. (STS/ACC Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry [TVT Registry]; NCT01737528)     

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Latest-Iteration Self-Expanding or Balloon-Expandable Valves: The Multicenter OPERA-TAVI Registry

BackgroundThe latest iterations of devices for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have brought refinements to further improve patient outcomes.ObjectivesThis study sought to compare early outcomes of patients undergoing TAVR with the self-expanding (SE) Evolut PRO/PRO+ (Medtronic, Inc) or balloon-expandable (BE) Sapien 3 ULTRA (Edwards Lifesciences) devices.MethodsThe OPERA-TAVI (Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO vs Sapien 3 Ultra Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry collected data from 14 high-volume centers worldwide on patients undergoing TAVR with SE or BE devices. After excluding patients who were not eligible for both devices, patients were compared using 1:1 propensity score matching. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 device success and early safety, respectively.ResultsAmong 2,241 patients eligible for the present analysis, 683 pairs of patients were matched. The primary efficacy outcome did not differ between patients receiving SE or BE transcatheter aortic valves (SE: 87.4% vs BE: 85.9%; P = 0.47), but the BE device recipients showed a higher rate of the primary safety outcome (SE: 69.1% vs BE: 82.6%; P < 0.01). This finding was driven by the higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (SE: 17.9% vs BE: 10.1%; P < 0.01) and disabling stroke (SE: 2.3% vs BE: 0.7%; P = 0.03) in SE device recipients. On post-TAVR echocardiography, the rate of moderate to severe paravalvular regurgitation was similar between groups (SE: 3.2% vs BE: 2.3%; P = 0.41), whereas lower mean transvalvular gradients were observed in the SE cohort (median SE: 7.0 vs BE: 12.0 mm Hg; P < 0.01).ConclusionsThe OPERA-TAVI registry showed that SE and BE devices had comparable Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 device success rates, but the BE device had a higher rate of early safety. The higher permanent pacemaker implantation and disabling stroke rates in SE device recipients drove this composite endpoint.     

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.     

Incidence and Outcomes of Surgical Bailout During TAVR: Insights From the STS/ACC TVT Registry

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and outcomes of surgical bailout during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundThe incidence and outcomes of unplanned conversion to open heart surgery, or “surgical bailout,” during TAVR are not well characterized.MethodsData from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry was analyzed with respect to whether surgical bailout was performed during the index TAVR procedure. A Cox proportional hazards models was used to evaluate 1-year mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events.ResultsBetween November 2011 and September 2015, a total of 47,546 patients underwent TAVR. Surgical bailout during TAVR was performed in 1.17% of the cases (n = 558); the most frequent indications were valve dislodgement (22%), ventricular rupture (19.9%), and aortic valve annular rupture (14.2%). The incidence of surgical bailout significantly decreased over time (first tertile 1.25%, second tertile 1.43%, third tertile 1.04%; p = 0.0088). The 30-day and 1-year incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (54.6% vs. 7.4% [p < 0.0001] and 63.92% vs. 20.29% [p < 0.0001]) and all-cause mortality (50.00% vs. 4.98% [p < 0.0001] and 59.79% vs. 17.06% [p < 0.0001]) were significantly higher in those who underwent bailout. Independent predictors of surgical bailout included female sex, hemoglobin, left ventricular ejection fraction, nonelective cases, and nonfemoral access. Body surface area was the only independent predictor of survival after surgical bailout.ConclusionsIn a large, nationally representative registry, the need for surgical bailout in patients undergoing TAVR is low, and its incidence has decreased over time. However, surgical bailout after TAVR is associated with poor outcomes, including 50% mortality at 30 days.     

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.     

Patient-Specific Implantation Technique to Obtain Neo-Commissural Alignment With Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valves

ObjectivesThe authors sought to investigate whether a patient-specific implantation technique during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) can result in a safe and reproducible neo-commissural alignment of self-expanding transcatheter heart valves (THVs).BackgroundTo date, little attention has been paid to neo-commissural alignment during TAVR.MethodsA fluoroscopy-based, patient- and valve-specific TAVR implantation technique was applied in 60 patients treated with 3 different self-expanding THV platforms (Evolut R/PRO, Medtronic; ACURATE neo2, Boston Scientific; and Portico, Abbott—20 patients in each group). Post-TAVR cardiac computed tomography was used to assess THV neo-commissural alignment.ResultsConsidering all 60 patients, ≤mild commissural misalignment (CMA <30°) was obtained in 53 patients (88%) using this modified TAVR implantation technique—in 36 patients (60%), optimal commissural alignment (<15°) was obtained. In 2 patients, cardiac computed tomography revealed severe CMA (>45°) with overlap between the coronary ostia and THV commissures. Using the ACURATE neo2 platform, operators succeeded in avoiding ≥moderate CMA in all 20 cases. When analyzing those cases in which the optimal amount of THV rotation could be assessed and applied before THV expansion (n = 52; 87%), the success rate of TAVR with ≤mild CMA was 98%. No procedure- or valve-related complications occurred in this study cohort.ConclusionsA patient-specific TAVR implantation technique aiming to obtain neo-commissural alignment is feasible and safe, and aides to prevent THV implantations with overlap between the coronary ostia and THV commissures. Optimized TAVR devices and design may further improve the success rate of TAVR with neo-commissural alignment.     

Preventing Coronary Obstruction During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Results From the Multicenter International BASILICA Registry

ObjectivesThis study sought to determine the safety of the BASILICA (bioprosthetic or native aortic scallop intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction) procedure.BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement causes coronary artery obstruction in 0.7% of cases, with 40% to 50% mortality. BASILICA is a procedure to prevent coronary obstruction. Safety and feasibility in a large patient cohort is lacking.MethodsThe international BASILICA registry was a retrospective, multicenter, real-world registry of patients at risk of coronary artery obstruction undergoing BASILICA and transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions were used to adjudicate events.ResultsBetween June 2017 and December 2020, 214 patients were included from 25 centers in North America and Europe; 72.8% had bioprosthetic aortic valves and 78.5% underwent solo BASILICA. Leaflet traversal was successful in 94.9% and leaflet laceration in 94.4%. Partial or complete coronary artery obstruction was seen in 4.7%. Procedure success, defined as successful BASILICA traversal and laceration without mortality, coronary obstruction, or emergency intervention, was achieved in 86.9%. Thirty-day mortality was 2.8% and stroke was 2.8%, with 0.5% disabling stroke. Thirty-day death and disabling stroke were seen in 3.4%. Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 composite safety was achieved in 82.8%. One-year survival was 83.9%. Outcomes were similar between solo and doppio BASILICA, between native and bioprosthetic valves, and with the use of cerebral embolic protection.ConclusionsBASILICA is safe, with low reported rates of stroke and death. BASILICA is feasible in the real-world setting, with a high procedure success rate and low rates of coronary artery obstruction.     

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Failed Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Valves

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly being performed in younger and lower surgical risk patients. Given the longer life expectancy of these patients, the bioprosthetic valve will eventually fail, and aortic valve reintervention may be necessary. Although currently rare, redo-TAVR will likely increase in the future as younger patients are expected to outlive their transcatheter bioprosthesis. This review provides a contemporary overview of the indications, procedural planning, implantation technique, and outcomes of TAVR in failed transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valves.     

Minimizing Permanent Pacemaker Following Repositionable Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

ObjectivesThis study sought to minimize the risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI) with contemporary repositionable self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundSelf-expanding TAVR traditionally carries a high risk of PPMI. Limited data exist on the use of the repositionable devices to minimize this risk.MethodsAt NYU Langone Health, 248 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis underwent TAVR under conscious sedation with repositionable self-expanding TAVR with a standard approach to device implantation. A detailed analysis of multiple factors contributing to PPMI was performed; this was used to generate an anatomically guided MInimizing Depth According to the membranous Septum (MIDAS) approach to device implantation, aiming for pre-release depth in relation to the noncoronary cusp of less than the length of the membranous septum (MS).ResultsRight bundle branch block, MS length, largest device size (Evolut 34 XL; Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota), and implant depth > MS length predicted PPMI. On multivariate analysis, only implant depth > MS length (odds ratio: 8.04; 95% confidence interval: 2.58 to 25.04; p < 0.001) and Evolut 34 XL (odds ratio: 4.96; 95% confidence interval: 1.68 to 14.63; p = 0.004) were independent predictors of PPMI. The MIDAS approach was applied prospectively to a consecutive series of 100 patients, with operators aiming to position the device at a depth of < MS length whenever possible; this reduced the new PPMI rate from 9.7% (24 of 248) in the standard cohort to 3.0% (p = 0.035), and the rate of new left bundle branch block from 25.8% to 9% (p < 0.001).ConclusionsUsing a patient-specific MIDAS approach to device implantation, repositionable self-expanding TAVR achieved very low and predictable rates of PPMI which are significantly lower than previously reported with self-expanding TAVR.     

Center Valve Preference and Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From the AMTRAC Registry

BackgroundData on outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using balloon-expandable valves (BEVs) or self-expandable valves (SEVs) as well as the impact of center valve preference on these outcomes are limited.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare outcomes of TAVR procedures using third-generation BEVs and SEVs stratified by center valve preference.MethodsIn a multicenter registry (n = 17), 13 centers exhibited valve preference (66.6%-90% of volume) and were included. Outcomes were compared between BEVs and SEVs stratified by center valve preference.ResultsIn total, 7,528 TAVR procedures (3,854 with SEVs and 3,674 with BEVs) were included. The mean age was 81 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 5.2. Baseline characteristics were similar between BEVs and SEVs. Need for pacemaker implantation was higher with SEVs at BEV- and SEV-dominant centers (17.8% vs 9.3% [P < 0.001] and 12.7% vs 10.0% [P = 0.036], respectively; HR: 1.51; P for interaction = 0.021), risk for cerebrovascular accident was higher with SEVs at BEV-dominant but not SEV-dominant centers (3.6% vs 1.1% [P < 0.001] and 2.2% vs 1.4% [P = 0.162]; HR: 2.08; P for interaction < 0.01). Aortic regurgitation greater than mild was more frequent with SEVs at BEV-dominant centers and similar with BEVs regardless of center dominance (5.2% vs 2.8% [P < 0.001] and 3.4% vs 3.7% [P = 0.504], respectively). Two-year mortality was higher with SEVs at BEV-dominant centers but not at SEV-dominant centers (21.9% vs 16.9% [P = 0.021] and 16.8% vs 16.5% [P = 0.642], respectively; HR: 1.20; P for interaction = 0.032).ConclusionsPeriprocedural outcomes, aortic regurgitation greater than mild, and 2-year mortality are worse when TAVR is performed using SEVs at BEV-dominant centers. Outcomes are similar regardless of valve type at SEV-dominant centers. The present results stress the need to account for this factor when comparing BEV and SEV outcomes. (The Aortic+Mitral Transcatheter [AMTRAC] Valve Registry; NCT04031274)     

No Antithrombotic Therapy After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insight From the OCEAN-TAVI Registry

BackgroundSeveral trials demonstrated that aspirin monotherapy compared with aspirin plus clopidogrel is associated with a lower incidence of bleeding without an increased risk of ischemic events in patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR); however, there remains a paucity of data to prove the necessity of even aspirin monotherapy.ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare clinical outcomes and valve performance of the 3 different antithrombotic strategies post-TAVR from the OCEAN-TAVI (Optimized transCathEter vAlvular iNtervention) registry.MethodsPatients who received anticoagulation or had procedural complications were excluded. The remaining patients were classified into 3 groups according to the antithrombotic regimen at discharge: 1) nonantithrombotic therapy (None); 2) single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT); and 3) dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). The primary outcome was the incidence of net adverse clinical events (NACEs) (ie, cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and life-threatening or major bleeding).ResultsOverall, 3,575 TAVR patients were included (None, 293; SAPT, 1,354; DAPT, 1,928). The median follow-up period was 841 days (IQR: 597-1,340 days). The incidence of NACEs did not differ between the groups (None vs SAPT: adjusted HR [aHR]: 1.18; P = 0.45; None vs DAPT: aHR: 1.09; P = 0.67). There was a lower incidence of all bleeding in patients with no antithrombotics (None vs SAPT: aHR: 0.63; P = 0.12; None vs DAPT: aHR: 0.51; P = 0.04). The valve performance was similar among the groups. Leaflet thrombosis was detected in 8.5% of the nonantithrombotic group.ConclusionsCompared with SAPT/DAPT, the nonantithrombotic strategy was not associated with an increased risk of NACEs and potentially reduced the risk of bleeding events. The nonantithrombotic strategy may be an acceptable alternative to SAPT/DAPT in selected patients with TAVR.     

Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Following Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: VIVID Registry

BackgroundPermanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) remains one of the main drawbacks of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), but scarce data exist on PPI after valve-in-valve (ViV) TAVR, particularly with the use of newer-generation transcatheter heart valves (THVs).ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to determine the incidence, factors associated with, and clinical impact of PPI in a large series of ViV-TAVR procedures.MethodsData were obtained from the multicenter VIVID Registry and included the main baseline and procedural characteristics, in-hospital and late (median follow-up: 13 months [interquartile range: 3 to 41 months]) outcomes analyzed according to the need of periprocedural PPI. All THVs except CoreValve, Cribier-Edwards, Sapien, and Sapien XT were considered to be new-generation THVs.ResultsA total of 1,987 patients without prior PPI undergoing ViV-TAVR from 2007 to 2020 were included. Of these, 128 patients (6.4%) had PPI after TAVR, with a significant decrease in the incidence of PPI with the use of new-generation THVs (4.7% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.017), mainly related to a reduced PPI rate with the Evolut R/Pro versus CoreValve (3.7% vs. 9.0%; p = 0.002). There were no significant differences in PPI rates between newer-generation balloon- and self-expanding THVs (6.1% vs. 3.9%; p = 0.18). In the multivariable analysis, older age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.05 for each increase of 1 year; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02 to 1.07; p = 0.001), larger THV size (OR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.20; p = 0.02), and previous right bundle branch block (OR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.00 to 4.17; p = 0.05) were associated with an increased risk of PPI. There were no differences in 30-day mortality between the PPI (4.7%) and no-PPI (2.7%) groups (p = 0.19), but PPI patients exhibited a trend toward higher mortality risk at follow-up (hazard ratio: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.91; p = 0.04; p = 0.08 after adjusting for age differences between groups).ConclusionsIn a contemporary large series of ViV-TAVR patients, the rate of periprocedural PPI was relatively low, and its incidence decreased with the use of new-generation THV systems. PPI following ViV-TAVR was associated with a trend toward increased mortality at follow-up.     

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Self-Expanding ACURATE neo2: Postprocedural Hemodynamic and Short-Term Clinical Outcomes

BackgroundThe first-generation ACURATE neo transcatheter heart valve (THV) (Boston Scientific) was associated with a non-negligible occurrence of moderate or greater paravalvular aortic regurgitation (AR) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. To overcome this issue, the ACURATE neo2 iteration, which incorporates a taller outer skirt aimed at reducing the occurrence of paravalvular AR, has recently been developed.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of the ACURATE neo2 (Boston Scientific) THV in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis.MethodsITAL-neo was an observational, retrospective, multicenter registry enrolling consecutive patients with severe aortic valve stenosis, treated with first- and second-generation ACURATE neo THVs, via transfemoral and trans-subclavian access, in 13 Italian centers. One-to-one propensity score matching was applied to account for baseline characteristics unbalance. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of moderate or greater paravalvular AR on predischarge echocardiographic assessment. Secondary endpoints included postprocedural technical success and 90-day device success and safety.ResultsAmong 900 patients included in the registry, 220 received the ACURATE neo2 THV, whereas 680 were treated with the first-generation device. A total of 410 patients were compared after 1:1 propensity score matching. The ACURATE neo2 THV was associated with a 3-fold lower frequency of postprocedural moderate or greater paravalvular AR (11.2% vs 3.5%; P < 0.001). No other hemodynamic differences were observed. Postprocedural technical success was similar between the 2 cohorts. Fewer adverse events were observed in patients treated with the ACURATE neo2 at 90 days.ConclusionsTransfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement using the ACURATE neo2 was associated with a significant lower frequency of moderate or greater paravalvular AR compared with the earlier generation ACURATE neo device, with encouraging short-term safety and efficacy.     

Novel Pressure-Regulated Deployment Strategy for Improving the Safety and Efficacy of Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valves

ObjectivesThe authors propose a novel pressure-regulated method for balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve (THV) deployment, aimed at optimizing prosthesis-annulus apposition while preventing significant tissue injury.BackgroundThe optimal method for balloon-expandable THV deployment remains debated. Current protocols are volume dependent, relying on under- and overfilling of the deployment apparatus. During deployment, the annular wall tension exerted by the expanding prosthesis is determined by maximal THV diameter and balloon pressure (Laplace’s law).MethodsThree hundred thirty consecutive patients with severe native aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR with SAPIEN 3 THVs were included. One hundred and six patients were considered at high risk for annular rupture. THVs were deployed until reaching a predetermined balloon pressure. Postdilatation was performed to reduce mild or greater angiographic paravalvular regurgitation (PVR). Using a biomechanical model, annular wall stress was estimated for each case and assessed against rates of postdilatation, mild or greater PVR on transthoracic echocardiography, new permanent pacemaker placement or left bundle branch block, and annular rupture.ResultsPatients with wall stress >3 MPa had reduced postdilatation rate (P < 0.001) and reduced final PVR (P = 0.014). Annular rupture occurred in 2 of 3 high-risk patients with wall stress >3.5 MPa (3.69 and 3.84 MPa); no rupture occurred in 95 high-risk patients with wall stress ≤3.5 MPa. We defined a single target deployment pressure per THV size to ensure deployment within target wall stress levels of 3 to 3.5 MPa: 6.25 atm for 23-mm THVs, 5.5 atm for 26-mm THVs, and 5 atm for 29-mm THVs. Patients within this target range (n = 136) had a 10.0% postdilatation rate, 12.7% mild PVR, and no moderate to severe PVR. The relationship between balloon filling volume and associated pressure and wall stress was inconsistent.ConclusionsPressure-regulated THV deployment is a simple, reproducible, safe, and effective method, regardless of high-risk anatomical complexities.     

Institutional Experience With Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair and Clinical Outcomes: Insights From the TVT Registry

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to examine the relation between institutional experience and procedural results of transcatheter mitral valve repair.BackgroundTranscatheter mitral valve repair for the treatment of mitral regurgitation (MR) is a complex procedure requiring navigation of the left atrium, left ventricle, and mitral valve apparatus using echocardiographic guidance.MethodsMitraClip procedures from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry were stratified into tertiles on the basis of site-specific case sequence (1 to 18, 19 to 51, and 52 to 482). In-hospital outcomes of procedural success, procedural time, and procedural complications were examined. To evaluate the learning curve for the procedure, generalized linear mixed models were developed using case sequence number as a continuous variable.ResultsMitraClip procedures (n = 12,334) performed at 275 sites between November 2013 and September 2017 were analyzed. Optimal procedural success (≤1+ residual MR without mortality or need for cardiac surgery) increased across tertiles of case experience (62.0%, 65.5%, and 72.5%; p < 0.001), whereas procedural time and procedural complications decreased. Acceptable procedural success (≤2+ residual MR without death or need for cardiac surgery) also increased across tertiles of case experience, but the differences were smaller (91.2%, 91.2%; and 92.9%; p = 0.006). In the learning-curve analysis, visual inflection points for procedural time, procedural success, and procedural complications were evident after about 50 cases, with continued improvements observed up to 200 cases.ConclusionsFor transcatheter mitral valve repair with the MitraClip, increasing institutional experience was associated with improvements in procedural success, procedure time, and procedural complications. The impact of institutional experience was larger when considering the goal of achieving optimal MR reduction.     

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 Self-Expandable Valve Implantation for Aortic Stenosis in Small Aortic Annuli: The TAVI-SMALL Registry

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the outcomes of transcatheter self-expandable prostheses in patients with small annuli.BackgroundTranscatheter aortic heart valves appear to have better performance than surgical valves in terms of prosthesis-patient mismatch, especially in patients with aortic stenosis with small aortic annuli.MethodsTAVI-SMALL (International Multicenter Registry to Evaluate the Performance of Self-Expandable Valves in Small Aortic Annuli) is a retrospective registry of patients with severe aortic stenosis and small annuli (annular perimeter <72 mm or area <400 mm² on computed tomography) treated with transcatheter self-expandable valves (n = 859; Evolut R, n = 397; Evolut PRO, n = 84; ACURATE, n = 201; Portico, n = 177). Primary endpoints were post-procedural mean aortic gradient, indexed effective orifice area, and rate of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch.ResultsPre-discharge gradients were consistently low in every group, with a slight benefit with the Evolut R (8.1 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.7 to 8.5 mm Hg) and Evolut PRO (6.9 mm Hg; 95% CI: 6.3 to 7.6 mm Hg) compared with the ACURATE (9.6 mm Hg; 95% CI: 8.9 to 10.2 mm Hg) and Portico (8.9 mm Hg; 95% CI: 8.2 to 9.6 mm Hg) groups (p < 0.001). Mean indexed effective orifice area was 1.04 cm²/m² (95% CI: 1.01 to 1.08 cm²/m²) with a trend toward lower values with the Portico. No significant differences were reported in terms of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (overall rate 9.4%; p = 0.134), permanent pacemaker implantation (15.6%), and periprocedural and 1-year adverse events. Pre-discharge more than mild paravalvular leaks were significantly more common with the Portico (19.2%) and less common with the Evolut PRO (3.6%) compared with the Evolut R (11.8%) and ACURATE (9%) groups.ConclusionsTranscatheter self-expandable valves showed optimal clinical and echocardiographic results in patients with small aortic annuli, although supra-annular functioning transcatheter heart valves seemed to slightly outperform intra-annular functioning ones. The role of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with self-expandable valves for the treatment of aortic stenosis in patients with small annuli needs to be confirmed in larger trials.     

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.     

5-Year Outcomes After TAVR With Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expanding Valves: Results From the CHOICE Randomized Clinical Trial

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical and echocardiographic outcome data of the CHOICE (Randomized Comparison of Transcatheter Heart Valves in High Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis: Medtronic CoreValve Versus Edwards SAPIEN XT) trial at 5 years.BackgroundThe CHOICE trial was designed to compare device performance of a balloon-expandable (BE) transcatheter heart valve (THV) versus a self-expanding (SE) THV.MethodsThe CHOICE trial is an investigator-initiated trial that randomized 241 high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and an anatomy suitable for treatment with both BE and SE THVs to transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with either device. The primary endpoint was device success. Patients were followed up to 5 years, with assessment of clinical outcomes, and echocardiographic evaluation of valve function and THV durability.ResultsAfter 5 years, there were no statistically significant differences between BE and SE valves in the cumulative incidence of death from any cause (53.4% vs. 47.6%; p = 0.38), death from cardiovascular causes (31.6% vs. 21.5%; p = 0.12), all strokes (17.5% vs. 16.5%; p = 0.73), and repeat hospitalization for heart failure (28.9% vs. 22.5%; p = 0.75). SE patients had larger prosthetic valve area (1.6 ± 0.5 cm² vs. 1.9 ± 0.5 cm²; p = 0.02) with a lower mean transprosthetic gradient (12.2 ± 8.7 mm Hg vs. 6.9 ± 2.7 mm Hg; p = 0.001) at 5 years. No differences were observed in the rates of paravalvular regurgitation. Clinical valve thrombosis occurred in 7 BE patients (7.3%) and 1 SE patient (0.8%; p = 0.06), and moderate or severe structural valve deterioration in 6 BE patients (6.6%) and no SE patient (0%; p = 0.018). The rate of bioprosthetic valve failure was low and not significantly different between both groups (4.1% vs. 3.4%; p = 0.63).ConclusionsFive-year follow-up of patients in the CHOICE trial revealed clinical outcomes after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with early-generation BE and SE valves that were not statistically significantly different, with limited statistical power. Forward flow hemodynamics were significantly better with the SE valve. Moderate or severe structural valve deterioration was uncommon but occurred more frequently with the BE valve. (A Comparison of Transcatheter Heart Valves in High Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: The CHOICE Trial [CHOICE]; NCT01645202)