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

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

Risk of Coronary Obstruction During Redo-TAVR in Patients With Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the risk of coronary obstruction during redo–transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) within a previously implanted self-expanding valve in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) versus tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis.BackgroundThe prevalence of BAV in TAVR patients is expected to increase as the indication expands; however, no study has investigated the risk of coronary obstruction for future redo-TAVR in these patients.MethodsComputed tomography (CT) simulation analysis was performed in 86 type 0 BAV, 70 type 1 BAV, and 132 TAV patients who underwent TAVR with 1 VenusA-Valve (Venus Medtech) between January 2014 and December 2019.ResultsCT-identified risk of coronary obstruction during redo-TAVR was observed in 36.1% of patients for the left coronary ostium (LCO) and 27.8% of patients for the right coronary ostium (RCO); however, the incidences were significantly lower in the type 0 BAV group than in the type 1 BAV or TAV group (for LCO: OR: 1.00 [reference] vs OR: 2.49; 95% CI: 1.24-5.01 vs OR: 2.60; 95% CI: 1.40-4.81; for RCO: OR: 1.00 [reference] vs OR: 2.14; 95% CI: 1.02-4.48 vs OR: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.02-3.80). The leaflet laceration technique may be unfeasible to improve coronary flow in 61.5% of the threatened LCOs and 58.8% of the threatened RCOs during redo-TAVR. The percentages were significantly or numerically lower in the type 0 BAV group than other groups (for LCO: 26.3% vs 62.1% vs 73.2%; P overall = 0.001; for RCO: 43.8% vs 65.2% vs 61.0%; P overall = 0.374).ConclusionsDifferences in anatomical features may impact the feasibility of future redo-TAVR. Type 0 BAV anatomy was associated with the lower incidence of CT-identified risk of coronary obstruction during redo-TAVR, and the leaflet laceration technique may be more feasible to ensure coronary flow in this population.     

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

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

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 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.     

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)     

Outcomes of Redo Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement According to the Initial and Subsequent Valve Type

BackgroundAs transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) replacement is increasingly used in patients with longer life expectancy, a sizable proportion will require redo TAV replacement (TAVR). The unique configuration of balloon-expandable TAV (bTAV) vs a self-expanding TAV (sTAV) potentially affects TAV-in-TAV outcome.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to better inform prosthesis selection, TAV-in-TAV outcomes were assessed according to the type of initial and subsequent TAV.MethodsPatients from the Redo-TAVR registry were analyzed using propensity weighting according to their initial valve type (bTAV [n = 115] vs sTAV [n = 106]) and subsequent valve type (bTAV [n = 130] vs sTAV [n = 91]).ResultsPatients with failed bTAVs presented later (vs sTAV) (4.9 ± 2.1 years vs 3.7 ± 2.3 years; P < 0.001), with smaller effective orifice area (1.0 ± 0.7 cm² vs 1.3 ± 0.8 cm²; P = 0.018) and less frequent dominant regurgitation (16.2% vs 47.3%; P < 0.001). Mortality at 30 days was 2.3% (TAV-in-bTAV) vs 0% (TAV-in-sTAV) (P = 0.499) and 1.7% (bTAV-in-TAV) vs 1.0% (sTAV-in-TAV) (P = 0.612); procedural safety was 72.6% (TAV-in-bTAV) vs 71.2% (TAV-in-sTAV) (P = 0.817) and 73.2% (bTAV-in-TAV) vs 76.5% (sTAV-in-TAV) (P = 0.590). Device success was similar according to initial valve type but higher with subsequent sTAV vs bTAV (77.2% vs 64.3%; P = 0.045), primarily because of lower residual gradients (10.3 mm Hg [8.9-11.7 mm Hg] vs 15.2 mm Hg [13.2-17.1 mm Hg]; P < 0.001). Residual regurgitation (moderate or greater) was similar after bTAV-in-TAV and sTAV-in-TAV (5.7%) and nominally higher after TAV-in-bTAV (9.1%) vs TAV-in-sTAV (4.4%) (P = 0.176).ConclusionsIn selected patients, no association was observed between TAV type and redo TAVR safety or mortality, yet subsequent sTAV was associated with higher device success because of lower redo gradients. These findings are preliminary, and more data are needed to guide valve choice for redo TAVR.     

Cusp Symmetry and Coronary Ostial Eccentricity and its Impact on Coronary Access Following TAVR

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess cusp symmetry and coronary ostial eccentricity and its impact on coronary access following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using a patient-specific commissural alignment implantation technique.BackgroundTAVR implantation techniques to obtain neocommissural alignment have been introduced. The impact of cusp symmetry and coronary ostial eccentricity on coronary access after TAVR remains unknown.MethodsCardiac computed tomographic scans from 200 tricuspid aortic valves (TAVs) and 200 type 1 bicuspid aortic valves (BAVs) were studied. Cusp symmetry and coronary ostial eccentricity were assessed. In addition, the right coronary cusp/left coronary cusp and right coronary artery (RCA)/left coronary artery (LCA) ostia overlap views were calculated and compared.ResultsSevere cusp asymmetry (>135°) was more frequent in BAVs (52.5%) than in TAVs (2.5%) (P < 0.001), with the noncoronary cusp being the most common dominant cusp. The RCA ostium was found to be more often eccentric (>20°) than the LCA ostium (28% vs 6%, respectively; P < 0.001). Considering the right/left cusp overlap view, there was <20° deviation between the right coronary cusp–left coronary cusp centered line and the RCA-LCA centered line in 95% of all patients (TAV, 97%; BAV, 93%). The right/left cusp and coronary ostia overlap view differed by <10° and <20° fluoroscopic angulation in 75% and 98% of all cases, respectively.ConclusionsUsing the right/left cusp overlap view to obtain commissural alignment in TAVR is also an effective approach to implant one of the transcatheter heart valve commissures in the near center between both coronary ostia in most TAVs and type 1 BAVs. Preprocedural CT assessment remains crucial to assess cusp symmetry and coronary ostial eccentricity.     

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.     

Aortic Stenosis Progression,Cardiac Damage,and Survival: Comparison Between Bicuspid and Tricuspid Aortic Valves

ObjectivesThis study sought to compare aortic stenosis (AS) progression rates, AS-related cardiac damage (AS-CD) indicator incidence and determinants, and survival between patients with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV)-AS and those with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV)-AS.BackgroundDifferences in AS progression and AS-CD between patients with BAV and patients with TAV are unknown.MethodsWe retrospectively studied consecutive patients with baseline peak aortic valve velocity (peakV) ≥2.5 m/s and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%. Follow-up echocardiograms (n = 4,818) provided multiparametric AS progression rates and AS-CD.ResultsThe study included 330 BAV (age 54 ± 14 years) and 581 patients with TAV (age 72 ± 11 years). At last echocardiogram (median: 5.9 years; interquartile range: 3.9 to 8.5 years), BAV-AS exhibited similar peakV and mean pressure gradient (MPG) as TAV-AS, but larger calculated aortic valve area due to larger aortic annulus (p < 0.0001). Multiparametric progression rates were similar between BAV-AS and TAV-AS (all p ≥ 0.08) and did not predict age-/sex-adjusted survival (p ≥ 0.45). Independent determinants of rapid progression were male sex and baseline AS severity for TAV (all p ≤ 0.024), and age, baseline AS severity, and cardiac risk factors (age interaction: p = 0.02) for BAV (all p ≤ 0.005). At 12 years, patients with TAV-AS had a higher incidence of AS-CD than BAV-AS patients (p < 0.0001), resulting in significantly worse survival compared to BAV-AS (p < 0.0001). AS-CD were independently determined by multiple factors (MPG, age, sex, comorbidities, cardiac function; all p ≤ 0.039), and BAV was independently protective of most AS-CD (all p ≤ 0.05).ConclusionsIn this cohort, TAV-AS and BAV-AS progression rates were similar. Rapid progression did not affect survival and was determined by cardiac risk factors for BAV-AS (particularly in patients with BAV <60 years of age) and unmodifiable factors for TAV-AS. AS-CD and mortality were significantly higher in TAV-AS. Independent determinants of AS-CD were multifactorial, and BAV morphology was AS-CD protective. Therefore, the totality of AS burden (cardiac damage) is clinically crucial for TAV-AS, whereas attention to modifiable risk factors may be preventive for BAV-AS.     

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.     

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)     

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.     

5-Year Outcomes Comparing Surgical Versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare 5-year cardiovascular, renal, and bioprosthetic valve durability outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).BackgroundPatients with severe AS and CKD undergoing TAVR or SAVR are a challenging, understudied clinical subset.MethodsIntermediate-risk patients with moderate to severe CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/m²) from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) 2A trial (patients randomly assigned to SAPIEN XT TAVR or SAVR) and SAPIEN 3 Intermediate Risk Registry were pooled. The composite primary outcome of death, stroke, rehospitalization, and new hemodialysis was evaluated using Cox regression analysis. Patients with and without perioperative acute kidney injury (AKI) were followed through 5 years. A core laboratory–adjudicated analysis of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure was also performed.ResultsThe study population included 1,045 TAVR patients (512 SAPIEN XT, 533 SAPIEN 3) and 479 SAVR patients. At 5 years, SAVR was better than SAPIEN XT TAVR (52.8% vs 68.0%; P = 0.04) but similar to SAPIEN 3 TAVR (52.8% vs 58.7%; P = 0.89). Perioperative AKI was more common after SAVR than TAVR (26.3% vs 10.3%; P < 0.001) and was independently associated with long-term outcomes. Compared with SAVR, bioprosthetic valve failure and stage 2 or 3 structural valve deterioration were significantly greater for SAPIEN XT TAVR (P < 0.05) but not for SAPIEN 3 TAVR.ConclusionsIn intermediate-risk patients with AS and CKD, SAPIEN 3 TAVR and SAVR were associated with a similar risk for the primary endpoint at 5 years. AKI was more common after SAVR than TAVR, and SAPIEN 3 valve durability was comparable with that of surgical bioprostheses.     

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.     

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.     

Coronary Cannulation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The RE-ACCESS Study

ObjectivesThe aims of this study were to investigate the feasibility of coronary ostia cannulation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and to assess potential predictors of coronary access impairment.BackgroundCertain data concerning the feasibility and reproducibility of coronary cannulation after TAVR are lacking.MethodsRE-ACCESS (Reobtain Coronary Ostia Cannulation Beyond Transcatheter Aortic Valve Stent) was an investigator-driven, single-center, prospective, registry-based study that enrolled consecutive patients undergoing TAVR using all commercially available devices. All patients underwent coronary angiography before and after TAVR. The primary endpoint was the rate of unsuccessful coronary ostia cannulation after TAVR. Secondary endpoints were the identification of factors associated with the inability to selectively cannulate coronary ostia after TAVR.ResultsAmong 300 patients enrolled in the RE-ACCESS study from December 2018 to January 2020, a total of 23 cases (7.7%) of unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR were documented. This issue occurred in 22 of 23 cases with the use of Evolut R/PRO transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) (17.9% vs. 0.4%; p < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, the use of Evolut R/PRO TAVs (odds ratio [OR]: 29.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.6 to 335.0; p < 0.01), the TAV–sinus of Valsalva relation (OR: 1.1 per 1-mm increase; 95% CI: 1.0 to 1.2; p < 0.01), and the mean TAV implantation depth (OR: 1.7 per 1-mm decrease; 95% CI: 1.3 to 2.3; p < 0.01) were found to be independent predictors of unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR. A model combining these factors was demonstrated to predict with very high accuracy the risk for unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR (area under the curve: 0.94; p < 0.01).ConclusionsUnsuccessful coronary cannulation following TAVR was observed in 7.7% of patients and occurred almost exclusively in those receiving Evolut TAVs. The combination of Evolut TAV, a higher TAV–sinus of Valsalva relation, and implantation depth predicts with high accuracy the risk for unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR. (Reobtain Coronary Ostia Cannulation Beyond Transcatheter Aortic Valve Stent [RE-ACCESS]; NCT04026204)     

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.     

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

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

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.