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.     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Multivalvular Heart Disease

As transcatheter aortic valve replacement becomes a more dominant treatment option across all risk profiles, the frequency of encountering patients with multivalvular disease will increase. Furthermore, percutaneous interventions to treat other valvular lesions are also evolving. Understanding the clinical implications and treatment options for a second valvular lesion is becoming increasingly important to guide heart team decisions, and this paper aims to review the evidence around these situations. Diagnosis of multivalvular disease can be challenging because of changes in physiology. There are little randomized data to guide therapy in multivalvular disease. Multidisciplinary heart team decisions can be invaluable in integrating the plethora of clinical, hemodynamic, and imaging data on which an optimal management strategy can be planned. Prospective studies to assess the role of structural valve interventions in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement era would greatly help improve outcomes for structural heart patients.     

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

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

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

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

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease

BackgroundIn patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), surgical aortic valve replacement is associated with higher early and late mortality, and adverse outcomes compared with patients without renal disease. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers another alternative, but there are limited reported outcomes.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine the outcomes of TAVR in patients with ESRD.MethodsAmong the first 72,631 patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) treated with TAVR enrolled in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapies) registry, 3,053 (4.2%) patients had ESRD and were compared with patients who were not on dialysis for demographics, risk factors, and outcomes.ResultsCompared with the nondialysis patients, ESRD patients were younger (76 years vs. 83 years; p < 0.01) and had higher rates of comorbidities leading to a higher STS predicted risk of mortality (median 13.5% vs. 6.2%; p < 0.01). ESRD patients had a higher in-hospital mortality (5.1% vs. 3.4%; p < 0.01), although the observed to expected ratio was lower (0.32 vs. 0.44; p < 0.01). ESRD patients also had a similar rate of major vascular complications (4.5% vs. 4.6%; p = 0.86), but a higher rate of major bleeding (1.4% vs. 1.0%; p = 0.03). The 1-year mortality was significantly higher in dialysis patients (36.8% vs. 18.7%; p < 0.01).ConclusionsPatients undergoing TAVR with ESRD are at higher risk and had higher in-hospital mortality and bleeding, but similar vascular complications, when compared with those who are not dialysis dependent. The 1-year survival raises concerns regarding diminished benefit in this population. TAVR should be used judiciously after full discussion of the risk-benefit ratio in patients on dialysis.     

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.     

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)     

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

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

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.     

Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Anatomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) versus tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis.BackgroundAt present, limited observational data exist supporting TAVR in the context of bicuspid anatomy.MethodsPrimary endpoints were 1-year survival and device success. Secondary endpoints included moderate to severe paravalvular leak (PVL) and a composite endpoint of periprocedural complications; incidence rates of individual procedural endpoints were also explored individually.ResultsIn the main analysis, 17 studies and 181,433 patients undergoing TAVR were included, of whom 6,669 (0.27%) had BAV. A secondary analysis of 7,071 matched subjects with similar baseline characteristics was also performed. Device success and 1-year survival rates were similar between subjects with BAV and those with TAV (97% vs 94% [P = 0.55] and 91.3% vs 90.8% [P = 0.22], respectively). In patients with BAV, a trend toward a higher risk for periprocedural complications was observed in our main analysis (risk ratio [RR]: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.99-1.27; P = 0.07) but not in the matched population secondary analysis (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.81-1.24; P = 0.99). The risk for moderate to severe PVL was higher in subjects with BAV (RR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.29-1.58; P < 0.0001) as well as the incidence of cerebral ischemic events (2.4% vs 1.6%; P = 0.015) and of annular rupture (0.3% vs 0.02%; P = 0.014) in matched subjects.ConclusionsTAVR is a feasible option among selected patients with BAV anatomy, but the higher rates of moderate to severe PVL, annular rupture, and cerebral ischemic events observed in the BAV group warrant caution and further evidence.     

Impact of Repositioning on Outcomes Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With a Self-Expandable Valve

ObjectivesThis study sought to compare outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement when valve repositioning was performed (repositioned group) versus procedures without repositioning (nonrepositioned group).BackgroundThe Evolut R and Evolut PRO valves were designed to allow repositioning during deployment, yet the effect of repositioning on clinical outcomes remains unclear.MethodsPatients implanted with the Evolut R or PRO valve from the SURTAVI (Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial continued access study and the Evolut Low Risk Trial between June 2016 and November 2018 were combined. Baseline multidetector computed tomography data were analyzed for the Evolut Low Risk Trial patients. The primary outcomes were the rate of all-cause mortality and the rate of disabling stroke 30 days. Secondary outcomes were per Valve Academic Research Consortium-2.ResultsThe Evolut R or PRO valve was implanted in 946 patients, and repositioning was performed in 318 (33.6%). Compared with patients in the nonrepositioned group, patients in the repositioned group had lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (2.3 ± 1.3% vs. 2.6 ± 1.4%; p < 0.001) and fewer prior percutaneous coronary interventions (11.9% vs. 19.7%; p = 0.003). There were no differences in baseline multidetector computed tomography parameters between groups. There were no differences in the primary outcome of death (0.3% vs. 0.3%; p = 0.99) or disabling stroke (0.3% vs. 0.5%; p = 0.71) at 30 days or 1 year (1.9% vs. 2.9%; p = 0.44; and 0.8% vs. 0.9%%; p = 0.79, respectively).ConclusionsThe utilization of the repositioning feature of the Evolut valves was safe, and no differences in death or disabling stroke were observed at 30 days or 1 year between groups. (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients; NCT02701283; Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System In the Treatment of Severe, Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [SURTAVI]; NCT01586910)     

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

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

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.     

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.     

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.     

Mid-Term Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Extremely Large Annuli With Edwards SAPIEN 3 Valve

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to report the 1-year results of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the Edwards SAPIEN 3 (S3) valve in extremely large annuli.BackgroundFavorable 30-day outcomes of S3 TAVR in annuli >683 mm² have previously been reported. Pacemaker implantation rates were acceptable, and a larger left ventricular outflow tract and more eccentric annular anatomy were associated with increasing paravalvular leak.MethodsFrom December 2013 to December 2018, 105 patients across 15 centers with mean area 721.3 ± 36.1 mm² (range 683.5 to 852.0 mm²) underwent TAVR using an S3 device. Clinical, anatomic, and procedural characteristics were analyzed. One-year survival and echocardiographic follow-up were reached in 94.3% and 82.1% of patients, respectively. Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 30-day and 1-year outcomes were reported.ResultsThe mean age was 76.9 ± 10.4 years, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk score averaged 5.2 ± 3.4%. One-year overall mortality and stroke rates were 18.2% and 2.4%, respectively. Quality-of-life index improved from baseline to 30 days and at 1 year (p < 0.001 for both). Mild paravalvular aortic regurgitation occurred in 21.7% of patients, while moderate or greater paravalvular aortic regurgitation occurred in 4.3%. Mild and moderate or severe transvalvular aortic regurgitation occurred in 11.6% and 0%, respectively. Valve gradients remained stable at 1 year.ConclusionsS3 TAVR in annular areas >683 mm² is feasible, with favorable mid-term outcomes.