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.     

Repeat Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Transcatheter Prosthesis Dysfunction

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

Transcatheter 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 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.     

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 Mitral Valve Replacement With the Transseptal EVOQUE System

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to examine the initial experience with a novel transseptal transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) system.BackgroundTransseptal TMVR may offer a less invasive option than surgery for mitral regurgitation (MR) with greater efficacy and fewer anatomic limitations than transcatheter repair.MethodsPatients were treated with the EVOQUE TMVR system from September 2018 to October 2019. Key inclusion criteria were moderate or greater MR, New York Heart Association functional class ≥II, and high or prohibitive surgical risk. The primary outcome was technical success, defined by Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria.ResultsFourteen patients were treated, all with at least moderate to severe MR. The median age was 84 years, and the median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 4.6%. MR was degenerative in 4 (28.6%), functional in 3 (21.4%), and mixed in 7 (50%). Technical success was achieved in 13 patients (92.9%), and 1 patient was converted to surgery. At 30 days there was 1 noncardiovascular mortality (7.1%), 2 strokes (14.3%), no myocardial infarctions, and no rehospitalizations. Two patients (14.3%) underwent paravalvular leak closure. One patient (7.1%) underwent alcohol septal ablation for left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. Including the 2 patients with paravalvular leak closure, MR was mild or less in all implanted patients at 30 days, with no MR in 10 (83.3%). Mean mitral gradient was 5.8 mm Hg (median). New York Heart Association functional class improved to ≤II in 9 patients (81.8%).ConclusionsThis first-in-human experience has demonstrated the feasibility of the transseptal EVOQUE TMVR system. Further clinical studies are required to establish safety and clinical outcomes.     

Ischemic Stroke With Cerebral Protection System During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to evaluate in-hospital outcomes with use of the Sentinel cerebral protection system (CPS) in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundThe role of the Sentinel CPS in preventing clinical ischemic stroke has been controversial.MethodsThe Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from the last three quarters of 2017, after the approval of the Sentinel CPS device, was queried to identify hospitalizations for TAVR. A 1:2 propensity score–matched analysis to compare in-hospital outcomes with versus without use of the CPS. The primary outcome was the occurrence of ischemic strokes.ResultsA total of 36,220 weighted discharges of patients who underwent TAVR (525 with the CPS and 35,695 without) were identified. The overall percentages of ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes were 2.4% and 0.2%, respectively. After propensity score matching (525 CPS, 1,050 no CPS), the risk for ischemic stroke was lower with use of the CPS (1 % vs. 3.8%, odd ratio [OR]: 0.243 (95% confidence interval: 0.095 to 0.619); p = 0.003). The cost of the index hospitalization was higher with use of the CPS ($47,783 vs. $44,578; p = 0.002). In multivariate regression analysis, use of the CPS was independently associated with a lower risk for ischemic stroke (OR: 0.380; 95% confidence interval: 0.157 to 0.992; p = 0.032).ConclusionsUse of the Sentinel CPS in patients undergoing TAVR is associated with a lower incidence of ischemic stroke and in-hospital mortality, without an increased risk for procedural complications but with an increased cost of the index hospitalization.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Infective Endocarditis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BackgroundInfective endocarditis may affect patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to provide detailed information on incidence rates, types of microorganisms, and outcomes of infective endocarditis after TAVR.MethodsBetween February 2011 and July 2018, consecutive patients from the SwissTAVI Registry were eligible. Infective endocarditis was classified into early (peri-procedural [<100 days] and delayed-early [100 days to 1 year]) and late (>1 year) endocarditis. Clinical events were adjudicated according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 endpoint definitions.ResultsDuring the observational period, 7,203 patients underwent TAVR at 15 hospitals in Switzerland. During follow-up of 14,832 patient-years, endocarditis occurred in 149 patients. The incidence for peri-procedural, delayed-early, and late endocarditis after TAVR was 2.59, 0.71, and 0.40 events per 100 person-years, respectively. Among patients with early endocarditis, Enterococcus species were the most frequently isolated microorganisms (30.1%). Among those with peri-procedural endocarditis, 47.9% of patients had a pathogen that was not susceptible to the peri-procedural antibiotic prophylaxis. Younger age (subhazard ratio [SHR]: 0.969; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.944 to 0.994), male sex (SHR: 1.989; 95% CI: 1.403 to 2.818), lack of pre-dilatation (SHR: 1.485; 95% CI: 1.065 to 2.069), and treatment in a catheterization laboratory as opposed to hybrid operating room (SHR: 1.648; 95% CI: 1.187 to 2.287) were independently associated with endocarditis. In a case-control matched analysis, patients with endocarditis were at increased risk of mortality (hazard ratio: 6.55; 95% CI: 4.44 to 9.67) and stroke (hazard ratio: 4.03; 95% CI: 1.54 to 10.52).ConclusionsInfective endocarditis after TAVR most frequently occurs during the early period, is commonly caused by Enterococcus species, and results in considerable risks of mortality and stroke. (NCT01368250)     

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.     

Antithrombotic Therapy After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a treatment option for symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis who are candidates for a bioprosthesis across the entire spectrum of risk. However, TAVR carries a risk for thrombotic and bleeding events, underscoring the importance of defining the optimal adjuvant antithrombotic regimen. Antithrombotic considerations are convoluted by the fact that many patients undergoing TAVR are generally elderly and present with multiple comorbidities, including conditions that may require long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) (eg, atrial fibrillation) and antiplatelet therapy (eg, coronary artery disease). After TAVR among patients without baseline indications for OAC, recent data suggest dual-antiplatelet therapy to be associated with an increased risk for bleeding events, particularly early postprocedure, compared with single-antiplatelet therapy with aspirin. Concerns surrounding the potential for thrombotic complications have raised the hypothesis of adjunctive use of OAC for patients with no baseline indications for anticoagulation. Although effective in modulating thrombus formation at the valve level, the bleeding hazard has shown to be unacceptably high, and the net benefit of combining antiplatelet and OAC therapy is unproven. For patients with indications for the use of long-term OAC, such as those with atrial fibrillation, the adjunctive use of antiplatelet therapy increases bleeding. Whether direct oral anticoagulant agents achieve better outcomes than vitamin K antagonists remains under investigation. Overall, single-antiplatelet therapy and OAC appear to be reasonable strategies in patients without and with indications for concurrent anticoagulation. The aim of the present review is to appraise the current published research and recommendations surrounding the management of antithrombotic therapy after TAVR, with perspectives on evolving paradigms and ongoing trials.     

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.     

Outcomes Following Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: SWEDEHEART Observational Study

ObjectivesThis study was performed to investigate long-term, clinically important outcomes in patients who underwent permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundThe impact of permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVR is unknown, and prior studies have produced conflicting results.MethodsIn this nationwide, population-based cohort study, the study included all patients who underwent transfemoral TAVR in Sweden from 2008 to 2018 from the SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web-system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based care in Heart disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies) register. Additional baseline characteristics and information about outcomes were obtained by individual crosslinking with other national health data registers. Unadjusted and multivariable-adjusted analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazards regression.ResultsOf 3,420 patients, 481 (14.1%) underwent permanent pacemaker implantation within 30 days after TAVR. The survival rate at 1, 5, and 10 years was 90.0%, 52.7%, and 10.9% in the pacemaker group and 92.7%, 53.8%, and 15.3% in the nonpacemaker group, respectively (HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.88-1.22; P = 0.692). The median follow-up was 2.7 years (interquartile range: 2.5, and maximum 11.8 years). There was no difference in the risk of cardiovascular death (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.71-1.18; P = 0.611), heart failure (HR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.92-1.63; P = 0.157), or endocarditis (HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.47-1.69; P = 0.734) between the groups.ConclusionsThe study found no difference in long-term survival between patients who did and did not undergo permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVR. As the use of TAVR expands to include younger and low-risk patients with a long life expectancy, it will become increasingly important to understand the impact of permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVR.     

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.     

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)     

Infective Endocarditis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a rare but serious complication following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Despite substantial improvements in the TAVR procedure (less invasive) and its expansion to younger and healthier patients, the incidence of IE after TAVR remains stable, with incidence rates similar to those reported after surgical aortic valve replacement. Although IE after TAVR is recognized as a subtype of prosthetic valve endocarditis, this condition represents a particularly challenging scenario given its unique clinical and microbiological profile, the high incidence of IE-related complications, the uncertain role of cardiac surgery, and the dismal prognosis in most patients with TAVR-IE. The number of TAVR procedures is expected to grow exponentially in the coming years, increasing the number of patients at risk of developing this life-threatening complication. Therefore, a detailed understanding of this disease and its complications will be essential to improve clinical outcomes.     

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.     

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)