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 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.     

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 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.     

The Impact of Aortic Angulation on Contemporary Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate whether the degree of aortic angulation (AA) affects outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using newer-generation transcatheter heart valves (THVs).BackgroundAA ≥48° has been reported to adversely influence accurate THV deployment, procedural success, fluoroscopy time, and paravalvular leak (PVL) in patients undergoing TAVR with early generation self-expanding (SE) THVs.MethodsA retrospective observational study was conducted among 841 patients across all risk strata who underwent transfemoral TAVR using the balloon-expandable (BE) SAPIEN 3 or the SE CoreValve Evolut PRO from 2015 to 2020. The previously published cutoff of 48° was used to analyze procedural success and in-hospital outcomes according to THV type. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis was performed to investigate the impact of AA on an in-hospital composite outcome (need for >1 THV, more than mild PVL, new permanent pacemaker implantation, stroke, and death).ResultsAA ≥48° did not influence outcomes in patients with BE THVs. Additionally, AA ≥48° did not influence procedural success (99.1% vs. 99.1%; p = 0.980), number of THVs used (1.02 vs. 1.04; p = 0.484), rates of more than mild PVL (0.4% vs. 0%; p = 0.486), new permanent pacemaker implantation (11.8% vs. 17.1%; p = 0.178), in-hospital stroke (3.9% vs. 1.8%; p = 0.298), or in-hospital death (0.4% vs. 0.9%; p = 0.980) in patients with SE THVs. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis demonstrated similar outcomes irrespective of AA, with areas under the curve of 0.5525 for SE THVs and 0.5115 for BE THVs.ConclusionsAA no longer plays a role with new-generation BE or SE THVs in contemporary TAVR practice. AA ≥48° did not affect procedural success or in-hospital outcomes and should no longer be a consideration when determining THV selection.     

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.     

Development of a Risk Score to Predict New Pacemaker Implantation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to define risk factors and develop a predictive risk score for new pacemaker implantation (PMI) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundTAVR has become an accepted treatment alternative for patients with severe aortic stenosis at elevated surgical risk. New PMI is a common occurrence after TAVR and is associated with poorer outcomes.MethodsAll patients without prior valve procedures undergoing elective TAVR with the Edwards SAPIEN 3 at a single institution (n = 1,266) were evaluated. Multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate for predictors of PMI in this population in a derivation cohort of patients with complete data (n = 778), and this model was used to develop the Emory risk score (ERS), which was tested in a validation cohort (n = 367).ResultsFifty-seven patients (7.3%) in the derivation cohort required PMI. In a regression model, history of syncope (odds ratio [OR]: 2.5; p = 0.026), baseline right bundle branch block (OR: 4.3; p < 0.001), QRS duration ≥138 ms (OR: 2.5; p = 0.017), and valve oversizing >15.6% (OR: 1.9; p = 0.041) remained independent predictors of PMI and were included in the ERS. The ERS was strongly associated with PMI (per point increase OR: 2.2; p < 0.001) with an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.778 (p < 0.001), which was similar to its performance in the derivation cohort.ConclusionsA history of syncope, right bundle branch block, longer QRS duration, and higher degree of oversizing are predictive of the need for PMI after TAVR. Additionally, the ERS for PMI was developed and validated, representing a simple bedside tool to aid in risk stratification for patients for undergoing TAVR.     

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Balloon-Expandable Valves: Comparison of SAPIEN 3 Ultra Versus SAPIEN 3

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the SAPIEN 3 Ultra (Ultra) and SAPIEN 3 (S3) transcatheter heart valves (THVs).BackgroundThe latest generation balloon-expandable Ultra THV incorporates new technical features and might improve outcomes following TAVR.MethodsThis registry included all consecutive patients who underwent TAVR with either the Ultra or S3 between January 2014 and January 2020. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to account for differences in baseline characteristics. In-hospital and 30-day Valve Academic Research Consortium-2–defined outcomes were investigated.ResultsA total of 310 patients (n = 155 Ultra, n = 155 S3) were included. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics after propensity score matching. Procedures were significantly more often performed under conscious sedation with Ultra compared with S3 (97.4% vs. 71.6%; p < 0.001). Pre-dilatation was more frequent with S3 compared with Ultra (85.2% vs. 42.6%; p < 0.001). In-hospital outcomes, including device success (91.6% vs. 95.5%; p = 0.165), major vascular complications (12.3% vs. 11.0%; p = 0.723), and new pacemaker implantation (5.8% vs. 4.5%; p = 0.608), were comparable between S3 and Ultra patients, respectively. Post-procedural mean transprosthetic gradients (13.2 ± 5.7 mm Hg vs. 13.1 ± 4.7 mm Hg; p = 0.829) and rate of moderate or greater paravalvular leakage (PVL) (1.3% vs. 2.7%; p = 0.414) were comparable, whereas mild PVL was more frequent with S3 compared with Ultra (43.0% vs. 18.7%; p < 0.001).ConclusionsDevice success rates were high with both balloon-expandable THVs, with overall low rates of adverse events up to 30 days after TAVR. Despite a lower frequency of pre-dilatation, significant reduction of mild PVL confirms improved annular sealing properties of the novel Ultra THV.     

Impact of Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Calcification on Procedural Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

ObjectivesThis study aimed to systematically assess the importance of left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) calcification on procedural outcomes and device performances with contemporary transcatheter heart valve (THV) systems.BackgroundLVOT calcification has been associated with adverse clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, the available evidence is limited to observational data with modest numbers and incomplete assessment of the effect of the different THV systems.MethodsIn a retrospective analysis of a prospective single-center registry, LVOT calcification was assessed in a semiquantitative fashion. Moderate or severe LVOT calcification was documented in the presence of 2 nodules of calcification, or 1 extending >5 mm in any direction, or covering >10 % of the perimeter of the LVOT.ResultsAmong 1,635 patients undergoing TAVR between 2007 and 2018, moderate or severe LVOT calcification was found in 407 (24.9%). Patients with moderate or severe LVOT calcification had significantly higher incidences of annular rupture (2.3% vs. 0.2%; p < 0.001), bailout valve-in-valve implantation (2.9% vs. 0.8%; p = 0.004), and residual aortic regurgitation (11.1% vs. 6.3%; p = 0.002). Balloon-expandable valves conferred a higher risk of annular rupture in the presence of moderate or severe LVOT calcification (4.0% vs. 0.4%; p = 0.002) as compared with the other valve designs. There was no significant interaction of valve design or generation and LVOT calcification with regard to the occurrence of bailout valve-in-valve implantation and residual aortic regurgitation.ConclusionsModerate or severe LVOT calcification confers increased risks of annular rupture, residual aortic regurgitation, and implantation of a second valve. The risk of residual aortic regurgitation is consistent across valve designs and generations. (SWISS TAVI Registry; NCT01368250)     

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.     

Prolonged Continuous Electrocardiographic Monitoring Prior to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The PARE Study

ObjectivesThis study sought to determine, using continuous electrocardiographic monitoring (CEM) pre–transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the incidence and type of unknown pre-existing arrhythmic events (AEs) in TAVR candidates, and to evaluate the occurrence and impact of therapeutic changes secondary to the detection of AEs pre-TAVR.BackgroundScarce data exist on the arrhythmic burden of TAVR candidates (pre-procedure).MethodsThis was a prospective study including 106 patients with severe aortic stenosis and no prior permanent pacemaker screened for TAVR. A prolonged (1 week) CEM was implanted within the 3 months pre-TAVR. Following heart team evaluation, 90 patients underwent elective TAVR.ResultsNew AEs were detected by CEM in 51 (48.1%) patients, leading to a treatment change in 14 of 51 (27.5%) patients. Atrial fibrillation or tachycardia was detected in 8 of 79 (10.1%) patients without known atrial fibrillation or tachycardia, and nonsustained ventricular arrhythmias were detected in 31 (29.2%) patients. Significant bradyarrhythmias were observed in 22 (20.8%) patients, leading to treatment change and permanent pacemaker in 8 of 22 (36.4%) and 4 of 22 (18.2%) patients, respectively. The detection of bradyarrhythmias increased up to 30% and 47% among those patients with pre-existing first-degree atrioventricular block and right bundle branch block, respectively. Chronic renal failure, higher valve calcification, and left ventricular dysfunction determined (or tended to determine) an increased risk of AEs pre-TAVR (p = 0.028, 0.052, and 0.069, respectively). New onset AEs post-TAVR occurred in 22.1% of patients, and CEM pre-TAVR allowed early arrhythmia diagnosis in one-third of them.ConclusionsProlonged CEM in TAVR candidates allowed identification of previously unknown AEs in nearly one-half of the patients, leading to prompt therapeutic measures (pre-TAVR) in about one-fourth of them. Pre-existing conduction disturbances (particularly right bundle branch block) and chronic renal failure were associated with a higher burden of AEs.     

Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With New-Onset Persistent Left Bundle Branch Block Following TAVR

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the impact of new-onset persistent (NOP) left bundle branch block (LBBB) on long-term (>2 year) outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundThe impact of NOP-LBBB after TAVR remains controversial and no data exist regarding long-term outcomes.MethodsA total of 1,020 consecutive patients without pre-existing LBBB or permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) undergoing TAVR were included. NOP-LBBB was defined as any new LBBB post-TAVR that persisted at hospital discharge. Follow-up clinical and echocardiographic data were obtained at a median of 3 years (interquartile range: 2 to 5 years) post-TAVR.ResultsNOP-LBBB occurred in 212 patients (20.1%) following TAVR. There were no differences between NOP-LBBB and no NOP-LBBB groups, except for a higher use of the self-expandable CoreValve system in the NOP-LBBB group (p < 0.001). At follow-up, there were no differences between NOP-LBBB and no NOP-LBBB groups in all-cause mortality (45.3% vs. 42.5%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR]:1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82 to 1.47; p = 0.54), cardiovascular mortality (14.2% vs. 14.4%; adjusted HR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.87; p = 0.95), or heart failure rehospitalization (19.8% vs. 15.6%; adjusted HR: 1.44; 95% CI: 0.85 to 2.46; p = 0.18). NOP-LBBB was associated with an increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation at follow-up (15.5% vs. 5.4%; adjusted HR: 2.45; 95% CI: 1.37 to 4.38; p = 0.002), with the highest risk within the first 12 months. Left ventricular ejection fraction increased over time in patients with no NOP-LBBB but slightly decreased in those with NOP-BBB (p < 0.001 for changes in left ventricular ejection fraction between groups).ConclusionsAfter a median follow-up of 3 years post-TAVR, NOP-LBBB was not associated with a higher mortality or heart failure rehospitalization. However, NOP-LBBB increased the risk of permanent pacemaker implantation and negatively impacted left ventricular function over time. These results should inform future efforts for improving the management of patients with NOP-LBBB post-TAVR.     

First-in-Human Experience With Patient-Specific Computer Simulation of TAVR in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Morphology

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the clinical use of patient-specific computer simulation of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) morphology.BackgroundPatient-specific computer simulation of TAVR in BAV may predict important clinical outcomes, such as paravalvular regurgitation and conduction disturbance.MethodsBetween May 2018 and April 2019, all patients who were referred for TAVR who had BAV identified on work-up cardiac multidetector computed tomographic imaging prospectively underwent patient-specific computer simulation with a self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (THV) using TAVIguide technology.ResultsNine patients were included in the study. Sievers classification was type 0 in 2 patients and type 1 in 7 patients. The simulations altered the treatment strategy in 8 patients (89%). The simulations suggested moderate to severe paravalvular regurgitation in 3 patients, who were referred for consideration of surgery. The remaining 6 patients underwent TAVR with a self-expanding THV. In 5 of these patients (83%), THV size and/or implantation depth was altered to minimize paravalvular regurgitation and/or conduction disturbance. In 1 patient, simulations suggested significant conduction disturbance after TAVR, and a permanent pacemaker was implanted before the procedure. Following treatment, all 9 patients had no to mild paravalvular regurgitation. The patient who had a pre-procedure permanent pacemaker implanted became pacing dependent, with underlying third-degree atrioventricular block.ConclusionsPatient-specific computer simulation of TAVR in BAV can be used to identify those patients where TAVR may be associated with unfavorable clinical outcomes. Patient-specific computer simulation may be useful to guide THV sizing and positioning for potential favorable clinical outcomes.     

Transcatheter Replacement of Transcatheter Versus Surgically Implanted Aortic Valve Bioprostheses

BackgroundSurgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are now both used to treat aortic stenosis in patients in whom life expectancy may exceed valve durability. The choice of initial bioprosthesis should therefore consider the relative safety and efficacy of potential subsequent interventions.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare TAVR in failed transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) versus surgical aortic valves (SAVs).MethodsData were collected on 434 TAV-in-TAV and 624 TAV-in-SAV consecutive procedures performed at centers participating in the Redo-TAVR international registry. Propensity score matching was applied, and 330 matched (165:165) patients were analyzed. Principal endpoints were procedural success, procedural safety, and mortality at 30 days and 1 year.ResultsFor TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV, procedural success was observed in 120 (72.7%) versus 103 (62.4%) patients (p = 0.045), driven by a numerically lower frequency of residual high valve gradient (p = 0.095), ectopic valve deployment (p = 0.081), coronary obstruction (p = 0.091), and conversion to open heart surgery (p = 0.082). Procedural safety was achieved in 116 (70.3%) versus 119 (72.1%) patients (p = 0.715). Mortality at 30 days was 5 (3%) after TAV-in-TAV and 7 (4.4%) after TAV-in-SAV (p = 0.570). At 1 year, mortality was 12 (11.9%) and 10 (10.2%), respectively (p = 0.633). Aortic valve area was larger (1.55 ± 0.5 cm² vs. 1.37 ± 0.5 cm²; p = 0.040), and the mean residual gradient was lower (12.6 ± 5.2 mm Hg vs. 14.9 ± 5.2 mm Hg; p = 0.011) after TAV-in-TAV. The rate of moderate or greater residual aortic regurgitation was similar, but mild aortic regurgitation was more frequent after TAV-in-TAV (p = 0.003).ConclusionsIn propensity score–matched cohorts of TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV patients, TAV-in-TAV was associated with higher procedural success and similar procedural safety or mortality.     

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Symptomatic Severe Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes and transcatheter heart valve hemodynamic parameters after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low-risk patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS).BackgroundTAVR is approved for low-risk patients in the United States. However, patients with bicuspid AS were excluded from the randomized cohorts of the pivotal low-risk trials.MethodsThe LRT (Low Risk TAVR) trial was an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicenter study and was the first and only U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved investigational device exemption trial to evaluate the feasibility of TAVR with either balloon-expandable or self-expanding valves in low-risk patients with bicuspid AS. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 30 days. Baseline and follow-up echocardiography and computed tomography to detect leaflet thickening were analyzed in an independent core laboratory.ResultsSixty-one low-risk patients with symptomatic, severe AS and bicuspid aortic valves (78.3% Sievers type 1 morphology) underwent TAVR at 6 centers from 2016 to 2019. The mean age was 68.6 years, and 42.6% were men. At 30 days, there was zero mortality and no disabling strokes. The rate of new permanent pacemaker implantation was 13.1%; just 1 patient had a moderate paravalvular leak at 30 days. Hypoattenuated leaflet thickening was observed in 10% of patients at 30 days.ConclusionsTAVR appears to be safe in patients with bicuspid AS, with short length of hospital stay, zero mortality, and no disabling strokes at 30 days. Subclinical leaflet thrombosis was observed in a minority of patients at 30 days but did not appear to be associated with clinical events.     

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.     

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.     

Navigating the “Optimal Implantation Depth” With a Self-Expandable TAVR Device in Daily Clinical Practice

ObjectivesThis study sought to predict whether different methods of calculating the implantation depth (ID) influence clinical and hemodynamic outcome reporting in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expandable device.BackgroundDifferent approaches exist to calculate the ID, which may influence uniform and reliable reporting because the updated Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC-2) criteria do not provide specific instructions.MethodsThe clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of 258 patients undergoing TAVR with a third-generation self-expandable device were analyzed with regard to the method used to assess the ID as follows: arithmetic mean, the arithmetic mean of the measured distances from the noncoronary cusp and the left coronary cusp to the distal prosthesis end; noncoronary cusp distance, the distance from the noncoronary cusp to the distal prosthesis end; and deepest edge, the deepest edge of the distal prosthesis end.ResultsRegardless of the measurement method, the optimal ID (OID) was reached in <30% (arithmetic mean, 25.4%; noncoronary cusp distance, 28.4%; deepest edge, 20.5%; p = 0.008). The deepest edge method is the most stringent to differentiate the relevant outcome parameters, such as the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (OID 3.7% vs. no OID 14.6%; p = 0.033). The hemodynamic outcome (i.e., mean pressure gradient reduction after TAVR: OID 7.4 ± 3.4 mm Hg vs. no OID 8.3 ± 4.0 mm Hg; p = 0.093) was not affected.ConclusionsThe OID was reached in <30% of TAVR procedures. The various methods applied for ID calculation significantly influence the outcome reporting and do not allow a uniform perception of the ID. (Multi Modal Cardiac Imaging Prior Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation; NCT01805739)     

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.     

Alignment of Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Neo-Commissures (ALIGN TAVR): Impact on Final Valve Orientation and Coronary Artery Overlap

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of initial deployment orientation of SAPIEN 3, Evolut, and ACURATE-neo transcatheter heart valves on their final orientation and neocommissural overlap with coronary arteries.BackgroundCoronary artery access and redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) following initial TAVR may be influenced by transcatheter heart valve orientation. In this study the impact of transcatheter heart valve deployment orientation on commissural alignment was evaluated.MethodsPre-TAVR computed tomography and procedural fluoroscopy were analyzed in 828 patients who underwent TAVR (483 SAPIEN 3, 245 Evolut, and 100 ACURATE-neo valves) from March 2016 to September 2019 at 5 centers. Coplanar fluoroscopic views were coregistered to pre-TAVR computed tomography to determine commissural alignment. Severe overlap between neocommissural posts and coronary arteries was defined as 0° to 20° apart. The SAPIEN 3 had 1 commissural post crimped at 3, 6, 9, and 12 o’clock. The Evolut “Hat” marker and ACURATE-neo commissural post at deployment were classified as center back (CB), inner curve (IC), outer curve (OC), or center front (CF) and matched with final orientation.ResultsInitial SAPIEN 3 crimped orientation had no impact on commissural alignment. Evolut “Hat” at OC or CF at initial deployment had less severe overlap than IC or CB (p < 0.001) against the left main (15.7% vs. 66.0%) and right coronary (7.1% vs. 51.1%) arteries. Tracking Evolut “Hat” at OC of the descending aorta (n = 107) improved OC at deployment from 70.2% to 91.6% (p = 0.002) and reduced coronary artery overlap by 36% to 60% (p < 0.05). ACURATE-neo commissural post at CB or IC during deployment had less coronary artery overlap compared to CF or OC (p < 0.001), with intentional alignment successful in 5 of 7 cases.ConclusionsThis is the first systematic evaluation of commissural alignment in TAVR. More than 30% to 50% of cases had overlap with 1 or both coronary arteries. Initial SAPIEN 3 orientation had no impact on alignment, but specific initial orientations of Evolut and ACURATE improved alignment. Optimizing valve alignment to avoid coronary artery overlap will be important in coronary artery access and redo TAVR.