Impact of Pre-Existing and New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation on Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate impact of new-onset and pre-existing atrial fibrillation (AF) on transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) long-term outcomes compared with patients without AF.BackgroundPre-existing and new-onset AF in patients undergoing TAVR are associated with poor outcomes.MethodsThe study identified 72,660 patients ≥65 years of age who underwent nonapical TAVR between 2014 and 2016 using Medicare inpatient claims. History of AF was defined by diagnoses on claims during the 3 years preceding the TAVR, and new-onset AF was defined as occurrence of AF during the TAVR admission or within 30 days after TAVR in a patient without prior history of AF. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, and readmission for bleeding, stroke, and heart failure (HF).ResultsOverall, 40.7% had pre-existing AF (n = 29,563) and 6.8% experienced new-onset AF (n = 2,948) after TAVR. Mean age was 81.3, 82.4, and 83.8 years in patients with no AF, pre-existing, and new-onset AF, respectively. Pre-existing AF patients had the highest burden of comorbidities. After follow-up of 73,732 person-years, mortality was higher with new-onset AF compared with pre-existing and no AF (29.7, 22.6, and 12.8 per 100 person-years, respectively; p < 0.001). After adjusting for patient characteristics and hospital TAVR volume, new-onset AF remained associated with higher mortality compared with no AF (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.068, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.92 to 2.20; p < 0.01) and pre-existing AF (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.26 to 1.45; p < 0.01). In competing risk analysis, new-onset AF was associated with higher risk of bleeding (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR]: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.48 to 1.86; p < 0.01), stroke (sHR: 1.92; 95% CI: 1.63 to 2.26; p < 0.01), and HF (sHR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.81 to 2.16; p < 0.01) compared with pre-existing AF.ConclusionsIn patients undergoing TAVR, new-onset AF is associated with increased risk of mortality and bleeding, stroke, and HF hospitalizations compared with pre-existing AF or no AF.     

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.     

New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ObjectivesThe authors aimed to identify risk factors and outcomes associated with new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundNOAF is a common complication after TAVR, although estimates of the precise occurrence are variable. This study sought to quantify the occurrence of NOAF after TAVR and to explore the outcomes and predictors associated with this complication.MethodsWe searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database from 2016 to 2020 for articles that reported NOAF after TAVR. We extracted data for studies published before 2016 from a previous systematic review. We pooled data using a random effects model.ResultsWe identified 179 studies with 241,712 total participants (55,271 participants with pre-existing atrial fibrillation (AF) were excluded) that reported NOAF from 2008 to 2020. The pooled occurrence of NOAF after TAVR was 9.9% (95% CI: 8.1%-12%). NOAF after TAVR was associated with a longer index hospitalization (mean difference = 2.66 days; 95% CI: 1.05-4.27), a higher risk of stroke in the first 30 days (risk ratio [RR]: 2.35; 95% CI: 2.12-2.61), 30-day mortality (RR: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.12-2.76), major or life-threatening bleeding (RR: 1.60; 95% CI: 1.39-1.84), and permanent pacemaker implantation (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.05-1.18). Risk factors for the development of NOAF after TAVR included higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, transapical access, pulmonary hypertension, chronic kidney disease, peripheral vascular disease, and severe mitral regurgitation, suggesting that the risk for NOAF is highest in more comorbid TAVR patients.ConclusionsNOAF is common after TAVR. Whether AF after TAVR is a causal factor or a marker of sicker patients remains unclear.     

Incidence,Predictors, and Outcomes of Endocarditis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in the United States

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate the incidence and outcomes of endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundData about endocarditis after TAVR are limited.MethodsThe study investigated Medicare patients who underwent TAVR from 2012 to 2017 and identified patients admitted with endocarditis during follow-up using a validated algorithm. The main study outcome was all-cause mortality.ResultsOf 134,717 patients who underwent TAVR, 1868 patients developed endocarditis during follow-up (incidence 0.87%/year), with majority of infections (65.0%) occurring within 1 year. Incidence of endocarditis declined in recent years. The most common organisms were Staphylococcus (22.0%), Streptococcus (20.0%), and Enterococcus (15.5%). Important predictors for endocarditis were younger age at TAVR, male sex, prior endocarditis, end-stage renal disease, repeat TAVR procedures, liver and lung disease, and post-TAVR acute kidney injury. Thirty-day and 1-year mortality were 18.5% and 45.6%, respectively. After adjusting for comorbidities and procedural complications, endocarditis after TAVR was associated with 3-fold higher risk of mortality (44.9 vs. 16.2 deaths per 100 person-years; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 2.94; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.77 to 3.12; p < 0.0001). End-stage renal disease (aHR: 2.12; 95% CI: 1.72 to 2.60), endocarditis complicated by cardiogenic shock (aHR: 2.50, 95% CI: 1.56 to 4.02), ischemic stroke (aHR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.07 to 2.28), intracerebral hemorrhage (aHR: 1.67; 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.76), acute kidney injury (aHR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.27 to 1.63), blood transfusion (aHR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.50), staphylococcal (aHR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.49 to 1.97), and fungal endocarditis (aHR: 1.72; 95% CI: 1.23 to 2.39) (p < 0.05 for all) portended higher mortality following endocarditis.ConclusionsThe incidence of endocarditis after TAVR is low and declining. However, it is associated with poor prognosis with one-half the patients dying within 1 year.     

Nursing Home Admission Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Danish Nationwide Cohort Study

BackgroundLoss of autonomy associated with nursing home admission (NHA) is a concern for patients. Yet the incidence of NHA after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is unknown.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the incidence and factors associated with NHA following TAVR compared with the general population.MethodsThrough Danish registries, patients alive at discharge after TAVR were identified from January 2014 to October 2021. Patients were matched 1:5 on sex, age, and calendar year to the general population. The 3-year cumulative incidence and 95% CI of NHA were estimated using the Aalen-Johansen estimator, accounting for the competing risk for death. Through multivariate cause-specific Cox regression models, factors associated with NHA were examined.ResultsIn total, 5,312 TAVR patients were matched to 26,560 control subjects with a median age of 81 years and 56.1% males. Comorbidity burden was higher for TAVR patients. The 3-year cumulative incidence of NHA was 6.3% (95% CI: 5.5%-7.1%) for TAVR patients compared with 5.8% (95% CI: 5.4%-6.1%) for the general population. For TAVR patients >85 years of age, the cumulative incidence of NHA was 11.6% (95% CI: 9.5%-13.8%), and the risk for death was 23.3% (95% CI: 20.4%-26.2%). Factors associated with NHA were increasing age, frailty, living alone, and atrial fibrillation.ConclusionsTAVR was not associated with an increased incidence of NHA compared with the general population. Despite the increased incidence of NHA for TAVR patients >85 years of age, approximately 2 in 3 patients were still alive and not admitted to nursing homes 3 years after TAVR.     

Vascular Access in Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease Undergoing TAVR: The Hostile Registry

BackgroundThe optimal access route in patients with severe peripheral artery disease (PAD) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains undetermined.ObjectivesThis study sought to compare clinical outcomes with transfemoral access (TFA), transthoracic access (TTA), and nonthoracic transalternative access (TAA) in TAVR patients with severe PAD.MethodsPatients with PAD and hostile femoral access (TFA impossible, or possible only after percutaneous treatment) undergoing TAVR at 28 international centers were included in this registry. The primary endpoint was the propensity-adjusted risk of 30-day major adverse events (MAE) defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), or main access site–related Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 major vascular complications. Outcomes were also stratified according to the severity of PAD using a novel risk score (Hostile score).ResultsAmong the 1,707 patients included in the registry, 518 (30.3%) underwent TAVR with TFA after percutaneous treatment, 642 (37.6%) with TTA, and 547 (32.0%) with TAA (mostly transaxillary). Compared with TTA, both TFA (adjusted HR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.45-0.75) and TAA (adjusted HR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.47-0.78) were associated with lower 30-day rates of MAE, driven by fewer access site–related complications. Composite risks at 1 year were also lower with TFA and TAA compared with TTA. TFA compared with TAA was associated with lower 1-year risk of stroke/TIA (adjusted HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.24-0.98), a finding confined to patients with low Hostile scores (P_interaction = 0.049).ConclusionsAmong patients with PAD undergoing TAVR, both TFA and TAA were associated with lower 30-day and 1-year rates of MAE compared with TTA, but 1-year stroke/TIA rates were higher with TAA compared with TFA.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The Effect of Psychosocial Risk Factors on Outcomes After Aortic Valve Replacement

BackgroundPsychosocial risk factors (PSRFs) have emerged as important nontraditional risk factors that are associated with worse surgical outcomes but have not been well-characterized in valvular disease.ObjectivesThis study evaluates the impact of PSRFs on 30-day outcomes following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).MethodsAll adult patients (≥18 years of age) who underwent isolated TAVR or SAVR in the Nationwide Readmissions Database from 2016 to 2018 were included. Patients were classified as having 0 PSRFs vs ≥1 PSRF. PSRFs included limited cognitive understanding, substance use, psychiatric disease, low socioeconomic status, or uninsured status. Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, readmission, and composite morbidity (stroke, pulmonary embolus, pacemaker implantation, bleeding complications, acute kidney injury, myocardial infarction, or new atrial fibrillation).ResultsA nationally weighted total of 74,763 SAVR and 87,142 TAVR patients met inclusion criteria. For SAVR, patients with PSRFs had significantly higher 30-day mortality (4.2% vs 3.7%; P = 0.048) and readmissions (13.1% vs 11.3%; P < 0.001), but there was no difference in composite morbidity. For TAVR, patients with PSRFs had significantly higher 30-day readmission (11.7% vs 10.7%; P = 0.012) but no difference in 30-day mortality or composite morbidity. On risk-adjusted analysis, presence of PSRFs was a significant predictor of higher 30-day readmissions following SAVR (adjusted OR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.02-1.19).ConclusionsThe presence of PSRFs is associated with worse short-term outcomes following SAVR and TAVR, with a more profound impact in SAVR. This study highlights the importance of identifying at-risk patients and suggests that TAVR may be beneficial in patients with less social support.     

Impact of Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the impact of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on survival in patients with each subclass of low-gradient (LG) aortic stenosis (AS) and to compare outcomes following surgical AVR (SAVR) and transcatheter AVR (TAVR).BackgroundLG severe AS encompasses a wide variety of pathophysiology, including classical low-flow, LG (LF-LG), paradoxical LF-LG, and normal-flow, LG (NF-LG) AS, and uncertainty exists regarding the impact of AVR on each subclass of LG AS.MethodsPubMed and Embase were queried through October 2020 to identify studies comparing survival with different management strategies (SAVR, TAVR, and conservative) in patients with LG AS. Pairwise meta-analysis comparing AVR versus conservative management and network meta-analysis comparing SAVR versus TAVR versus conservative management were performed.ResultsThirty-two studies with a total of 6,515 patients and a median follow-up time of 24.2 months (interquartile range: 36.5 months) were included. AVR was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality in classical LF-LG (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36 to 0.48), paradoxical LF-LG (HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.57), and NF-LG (HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.62) AS compared with conservative management. SAVR and TAVR were each associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality in classical LF-LG (HR: 0.46 [95% CI: 0.38 to 0.55] and 0.49 [95% CI: 0.37 to 0.64], respectively), paradoxical LF-LG (HR: 0.42 [95% CI: 0.28 to 0.65] and 0.42 [95% CI: 0.25 to 0.72], respectively), and NF-LG (HR: 0.40 [95% CI: 0.21 to 0.77] and 0.46 [95% CI: 0.26 to 0.84], respectively) AS compared with conservative management. No significant difference was observed between SAVR and TAVR.ConclusionsIn all subclasses of LG AS, AVR was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality regardless of surgical or transcatheter approach.     

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.     

Predictors and Clinical Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Self-Expandable TAVR in Small Annuli

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to define predictors of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and its impact on mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with self-expandable valves (SEVs) in patients with small annuli.BackgroundTAVR seems to reduce the risk for PPM compared with surgical aortic valve replacement, especially in patients with small aortic annuli. Nevertheless, predictors and impact of PPM in this population have not been clarified yet.MethodsPredictors of PPM and all-cause mortality were investigated using multivariable logistic regression analysis from the cohort of the TAVI-SMALL (International Multicenter Registry to Evaluate the Performance of Self-Expandable Valves in Small Aortic Annuli) registry, which included patients with severe aortic stenosis and small annuli (annular perimeter <72 mm or area <400 mm² on computed tomography) treated with transcatheter SEVs: 445 patients with (n = 129) and without (n = 316) PPM were enrolled.ResultsIntra-annular valves conferred increased risk for PPM (odds ratio [OR]: 2.36; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16 to 4.81), while post-dilation (OR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.25–0.84) and valve oversizing (OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.28–1.00) seemed to protect against PPM occurrence. At a median follow-up of 354 days, patients with severe PPM, but not those with moderate PPM, had a higher all-cause mortality rate compared with those without PPM (log-rank p = 0.008). Multivariable Cox regression confirmed severe PPM as an independent predictor of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 4.27; 95% CI: 1.34 to 13.6).ConclusionsAmong patients with aortic stenosis and small aortic annuli undergoing transcatheter SEV implantation, use of intra-annular valves yielded higher risk for PPM; conversely, post-dilation and valve oversizing protected against PPM occurrence. Severe PPM was independently associated with all-cause mortality.     

Mitral Regurgitation in Low-Flow,Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis Patients Undergoing TAVR: Insights From the TOPAS-TAVI Registry

ObjectivesThis study sought to determine the incidence, clinical impact, and changes over time of mitral regurgitation (MR) in patients with low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis (LFLG-AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundFew data exist on the clinical impact and changes in severity over time of MR in patients with LFLG-AS undergoing TAVR.MethodsA total of 308 TAVR candidates with LFLG-AS were included. Patients were categorized according to MR severity at baseline, and presence of MR improvement at 12-month follow-up. Clinical outcomes were assessed at 1 and 12 months (+ echocardiography), and yearly thereafter.ResultsBaseline mild and moderate-to-severe MR were present in 118 (38.3%) and 115 (37.3%) patients, respectively. MR was of functional and mixed etiology in 77.2% and 22.7% of patients, respectively. A total of 131 patients (42.5%) died after a median follow-up of 2 (1 to 3) years. Baseline moderate-or-greater MR had no impact on mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72 to 2.48) or heart failure hospitalization (HR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.49 to 2.10). At 1-year follow-up, MR improved in 44.3% of patients and remained unchanged/worsened in 55.7%. The lack of MR improvement was associated with a higher risk of all-cause and cardiac mortality (HR: 2.02; 95% CI: 1.29 to 3.17; HR: 3.03; 95% CI: 1.27 to 7.23, respectively), rehospitalization for cardiac causes (HR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.04 to 2.15), and an increased overall-mortality/heart failure rehospitalization (HR: 1.94; 95% CI: 1.25 to 3.02). A higher baseline left ventricular end-diastolic diameter and a higher increase in left ventricular ejection fraction were found to be independent predictors of MR improvement at 1-year follow-up (odds ratio: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.94; and odds ratio: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.96, respectively).ConclusionsMost TAVR candidates with LFLG-AS had some degree of MR, of functional origin in most cases. MR improved in about one-half of patients, with larger left ventricular size and a higher increase in left ventricular ejection fraction post-TAVR determining MR improvement over time. The lack of MR improvement at 1 year was associated with poorer outcomes.     

Validation of the VARC-3 Technical Success Definition in Patients Undergoing TAVR

ObjectivesThe authors aimed to investigate the rates, predictors, and prognostic impact of technical success in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundThe Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 (VARC-3) has introduced a composite endpoint to assess the immediate technical success of TAVR.MethodsIn the prospective Bern TAVR registry, patients were stratified according to VARC-3 technical success. Technical failure differentiated between vascular and cardiac complications.ResultsIn a total of 1,624 patients undergoing TAVR between March 2012 and December 2019, 1,435 (88.4%) patients had technical success. Among 189 patients with technical failure, 140 (8.6%) had vascular and 49 (3.0%) had cardiac technical failure. Female, larger device landing zone calcium volume, and the early term of the study period were associated with an increased risk for cardiac technical failure, whereas higher body mass index and the use of the Prostar (Abbott Vascular Inc) MANTA (Teleflex) (compared with the ProGlide [Abbott Vascular Inc]) were predictors of vascular technical failure. In multivariable analysis, technical failure conferred an increased risk for cardiovascular death or stroke (HR: 2.01; 95% CI: 1.37-2.95). The adverse effect remained when stratified to cardiac (HR: 2.62; 95% CI: 1.38-4.97) or vascular technical failure (HR: 1.95; 95% CI: 1.28-2.95) and limited to the periprocedural period (0-30 days: HR: 3.42 [95% CI: 2.05-5.69]; 30-360 days: HR: 1.36 [95% CI: 0.79-2.35]; P for interaction = 0.002).ConclusionsTechnical failure according to VARC-3 was observed in 1 of 10 patients undergoing TAVR and was associated with a 2-fold increased risk of the composite outcome at 1 year after TAVR. (Swiss TAVI Registry; NCT01368250)     

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)     

Clinical Outcomes Associated With Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Versus Direct Oral Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation

ObjectivesThis study sought to investigate clinical outcomes associated with left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) versus direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with high-risk atrial fibrillation (AF).BackgroundLAAO has been shown to be noninferior to warfarin for stroke prevention in AF. However, anticoagulation with DOACs is now preferred over warfarin as thromboprophylaxis in AF.MethodsPatients with AF enrolled in the Amulet Observational Registry (n = 1,088) who had successful LAAO with the Amplatzer Amulet device (n = 1,078) were compared with a propensity score–matched control cohort of incident AF patients (n = 1,184) treated by DOACs identified from Danish national patient registries. Propensity score matching was based on the covariates of the CHA₂DS₂-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack or thromboembolism, vascular disease, age 65–74 years, sex category) and HAS-BLED (hypertension, abnormal renal or liver function, stroke, bleeding, labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs or alcohol) scores for predicting stroke and bleeding. The primary outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium ≥3), or all-cause mortality, and follow-up was 2 years.ResultsAF patients treated with LAAO had a significantly lower risk of the primary composite outcome as compared with patients treated with DOACs (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49 to 0.67). Total events and event rates per 100 patient-years were (LAAO vs. DOACs) 256 vs. 461 and 14.5 vs. 25.7, respectively. The risk of ischemic stroke was comparable between groups (HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.75), while risk of major bleeding (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.79) and all-cause mortality (HR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.64) were significantly lower in patients treated with LAAO.ConclusionsAmong high-risk AF patients, LAAO in comparison with DOACs may have similar stroke prevention efficacy but lower risk of major bleeding and mortality.     

TAVR Patients Requiring Anticoagulation: Direct Oral Anticoagulant or Vitamin K Antagonist?

ObjectivesUsing French transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) registries linked with the nationwide administrative databases, the study compared the rates of long-term mortality, bleeding, and ischemic events after TAVR in patients requiring oral anticoagulation with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs).BackgroundThe choice of optimal drug for anticoagulation after TAVR remains debated.MethodsData from the France-TAVI and FRANCE-2 registries were linked to the French national health single-payer claims database, from 2010 to 2017. Propensity score matching was used to reduce treatment-selection bias. Two primary endpoints were death from any cause (efficacy) and major bleeding (safety).ResultsA total of 24,581 patients who underwent TAVR were included and 8,962 (36.4%) were treated with OAC. Among anticoagulated patients, 2,180 (24.3%) were on DOACs. After propensity matching, at 3 years, mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-1.67; P < 0.005) and major bleeding including hemorrhagic stroke (HR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.17-2.29; P < 0.005) were lower in patients on DOACs compared with those on VKAs. The rates of ischemic stroke (HR: 1.32; 95% CI: 0.81-2.15; P = 0.27) and acute coronary syndrome (HR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.68-1.99; P = 0.57) did not differ among groups.ConclusionsIn these large multicenter French TAVR registries with an exhaustive clinical follow-up, the long-term mortality and major bleeding were lower with DOACs than VKAs at discharge. The present study supports preferential use of DOACs rather than VKAs in patients requiring oral anticoagulation therapy after TAVR.     

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.