Durability of transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A translational review

Central illustration. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: deterioration biomarkers, pathophysiology and data durability. BVT: bioprosthetic valve thrombosis; ¹⁸FDG: ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose; HOMA index: homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance; Lp(a): lipoprotein(a); MDCT: multidetector computed tomography; PCSK9: proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9; PET-CT: positron emission tomography; computed tomography; SVD: structural valve deterioration; TAVI: transcatheter aortic valve implantation; TTE: transthoracic echocardiography; y: years.

     

Watchful waiting care or early intervention in asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: Where we are

Central illustration. Patient-centred benefit versus risk analysis of early aortic valve replacement (AVR) for asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis. AKI: acute kidney injury; PM: pacemaker; PPM: patient prosthesis mismatch.

     

Lipoprotein(a): Pathophysiology,measurement, indication and treatment in cardiovascular disease. A consensus statement from the Nouvelle Société Francophone d’Athérosclérose (NSFA)

Central Illustration. Pathophysiological pathways providing a causal link between high plasma concentrations of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) and atherosclerotic vascular disease and aortic valve stenosis (AVS). Clinical outcomes are related to accelerated atherosclerosis complicated by atherothrombosis (myocardial infarction, stroke), peripheral artery disease (PAD) or aortic valve replacement (AVR) caused by valve calcification and aortic stenosis. Apo(a): apolipoprotein(a); LDL: low-density lipoprotein; OxPL: oxidized phospholipids; NSFA: Nouvelle Société Francophone d’Athérosclérose; SP: serine-protease domain; V: plasminogen kringle V (reproduced with permission).

     

Impact of Right Ventricle-Pulmonary Artery Coupling on Clinical Outcomes in the PARTNER 3 Trial

BackgroundPhysiologic right ventricle–pulmonary artery (RV-PA) coupling may be impaired in patients with aortic stenosis (AS).ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess the incidence and prognostic significance of impaired RV-PA coupling in low-risk patients with symptomatic severe AS undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement.MethodsRV-PA coupling was measured by transthoracic echocardiography as the ratio of tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) to pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) in patients in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) 3 trial. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, and rehospitalization at the 2-year follow-up.ResultsAmong 570 low-risk patients included in the analysis, RV-PA uncoupling was defined by a TAPSE/PASP ratio ≤ 0.55 mm/mm Hg. At baseline, 222 of 570 (38.9%) patients had RV-PA uncoupling. At 2 years, patients with baseline RV-PA uncoupling had an increased incidence of the primary endpoint (19.1% vs 9.9%, P = 0.002), all-cause mortality (5.9% vs 0.6%, P < 0.001), cardiovascular mortality (4.1% vs 0.6%, P = 0.003), and rehospitalization (13.5% vs 7.3%, P = 0.018). On multivariable analysis, baseline RV-PA uncoupling remained an independent predictor of the primary endpoint at 2 years (HR: 1.92; 95% CI: 1.04-3.57; P = 0.038).ConclusionsIn patients with symptomatic severe AS at low surgical risk undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement, baseline RV-PA uncoupling defined by TAPSE/PASP ≤ 0.55 mm Hg was associated with adverse clinical outcomes at 2 years, including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and rehospitalization.     

Mitral valve repair is better than mitral valve replacement in native mitral valve endocarditis: Results from a prospective matched cohort

Central Illustration. Main result of the study, including feasibility of mitral valve repair in 76% of cases, and better survival in the mitral valve replacement group.

     

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.     

Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Leaflet Thickening in the Evolut Low Risk Sub-Study

BackgroundSubclinical leaflet thrombosis has been reported after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, characterized using 4-dimensional computed tomographic imaging by hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT) and reduced leaflet motion (RLM). The incidence and clinical implications of these findings remain unclear.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the frequency, predictors, and hemodynamic and clinical correlates of HALT and RLM after aortic bioprosthetic replacement.MethodsA prospective subset of patients not on oral anticoagulation enrolled in the Evolut Low Risk randomized trial underwent computed tomographic imaging 30 days and 1 year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgery. The primary endpoint was the frequency of HALT at 30 days and 1 year, analyzed by an independent core laboratory using standardized definitions. Secondary endpoints included RLM, mean aortic gradient, and clinical events at 30 days and 1 year.ResultsAt 30 days, the frequency of HALT was 31 of 179 (17.3%) for TAVR and 23 of 139 (16.5%) for surgery; the frequency of RLM was 23 of 157 (14.6%) for TAVR and 19 of 133 (14.3%) for surgery. At 1 year, the frequency of HALT was 47 of 152 (30.9%) for TAVR and 33 of 116 (28.4%) for surgery; the frequency of RLM was 45 of 145 (31.0%) for TAVR and 30 of 111 (27.0%) for surgery. Aortic valve hemodynamic status was not influenced by the presence or severity of HALT or RLM at either time point. The rates of HALT and RLM were similar after the implantation of supra-annular, self-expanding transcatheter, or surgical bioprostheses.ConclusionsThe presence of computed tomographic imaging abnormalities of aortic bioprostheses were frequent but dynamic in the first year after self-expanding transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement, but these findings did not correlate with aortic valve hemodynamic status after aortic valve replacement in patients at low risk for surgery. (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients; NCT02701283)     

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 Aortic Valve Replacement in Failed Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Valves

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly being performed in younger and lower surgical risk patients. Given the longer life expectancy of these patients, the bioprosthetic valve will eventually fail, and aortic valve reintervention may be necessary. Although currently rare, redo-TAVR will likely increase in the future as younger patients are expected to outlive their transcatheter bioprosthesis. This review provides a contemporary overview of the indications, procedural planning, implantation technique, and outcomes of TAVR in failed transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valves.     

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the SAPIEN 3 valve to treat aortic regurgitation: The French multicentre S3AR study

BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve implantation now has a major role in the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis. However, evidence is scarce on its feasibility and safety to treat patients with pure aortic regurgitation.AimsWe sought to evaluate the results of transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) in patients with pure aortic regurgitation on native non-calcified valves.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective and prospective French multicentre observational study. We included all patients with symptomatic severe pure aortic regurgitation on native non-calcified valves, contraindicated to or at high risk for surgical valve replacement, who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve.ResultsA total of 37 patients (male sex, 73%) with a median age of 81 years (interquartile range 69–85 years) were screened using transthoracic echocardiography and computed tomography and were included at eight French centres. At baseline, 83.8% of patients (n = 31) had dyspnoea New York Heart Association class ≥ III. The device success rate was 94.6% (n = 35). At 30 days, the all-cause mortality rate was 8.1% (n = 3) and valve migration occurred in 10.8% of cases (n = 4). Dyspnoea New York Heart Association class ≤ II was seen in 86.5% of patients (n = 32), and all survivors had aortic regurgitation grade ≤ 1. At 1-year follow-up, all-cause mortality was 16.2% (n = 6), 89.7% (n = 26/29) of survivors were in New York Heart Association class ≤ II and all had aortic regurgitation grade ≤ 2.ConclusionTranscatheter aortic valve implantation using the SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve seems promising to treat selected high-risk patients with pure aortic regurgitation on non-calcified native valves, contraindicated to surgical aortic valve replacement.     

Transcatheter Replacement of Transcatheter Versus Surgically Implanted Aortic Valve Bioprostheses

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

Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Outside Randomized Trials

BackgroundRecent randomized trials including low-risk patients showed positive results for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), but patients with non-tricuspid aortic valve (NTAV), severe coronary artery disease (SevCAD), and those requiring concomitant mitral/tricuspid valve (CMTV) or concomitant ascending aorta replacement (CAAR) interventions were excluded.ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate the presence and impact of the main clinical variables not evaluated in TAVR versus SAVR trials (NTAV, SevCAD, and CMTV or CAAR intervention) in a large series of consecutive low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (SAS) undergoing SAVR.MethodsSingle-center study including consecutive patients with SAS and low surgical risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of <4%) undergoing SAVR. Baseline, procedural characteristics, and 30-day outcomes were prospectively collected.ResultsOf 6,772 patients with SAS who underwent SAVR between 2000 and 2019, 5,310 (78.4%) exhibited a low surgical risk (mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score: 1.94 ± 0.87%). Of these, 2,165 patients (40.8%) had at least 1 of the following: NTAV (n = 1,468, 27.6%), SevCAD (n = 307, 5.8%), CMTV (n = 306, 5.8%), and CAAR (n = 560, 10.5%). The 30-day mortality and stroke rates for the overall low-risk SAS cohort were 1.9% and 2.4%, respectively. The mortality rate was similar in the SevCAD (2.6%) and CAAR (2.1%) groups versus the rest of the cohort (odds ratio [OR]: 1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85 to 3.75, and OR: 1.64; 95% CI: 0.88 to 3.05, respectively), lower in the NTAV group (0.9%; OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.81), and higher in the CMTV group (5.9%; OR: 2.61; 95% CI: 1.51 to 4.5).ConclusionsIn a real-world setting, close to one-half of the low-risk patients with SAS undergoing SAVR exhibited at least 1 major criterion not evaluated in TAVR versus SAVR randomized trials. Clinical outcomes were better than or similar to those predicted by surgical scores in all groups but those patients requiring CMTV intervention. These results may help determine the impact of implementing the results of TAVR-SAVR trials in real practice and may inform future trials in specific groups.     

Bioprosthetic Valve Leaflet Displacement During Valve-in-Valve Intervention: An Ex Vivo Bench Study

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to examine the effect of different transcatheter heart valves (THVs) on valve leaflet displacement when deployed within bioprosthetic surgical valves and, thereby, risk for coronary obstruction.BackgroundCoronary obstruction is a potentially devastating complication during valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Strategies such as provisional stenting and intentional bioprosthetic valve leaflet laceration have been developed to mitigate this risk. Alternatively, the use of a THV that retracts the bioprosthetic leaflet away from the coronary ostium may prevent coronary obstruction.MethodsA 25-mm J-Valve, a 26-mm Evolut Pro, and a 23-mm JenaValve were implanted into both a 25-mm Trifecta surgical valve and a 25-mm Mitroflow surgical valve. A 23-mm and a 26-mm SAPIEN 3 were deployed into the Trifecta and Mitroflow, respectively. Displacement of the surgical valve leaflets (retraction vs. expansion) was measured with implantation of each THV by measuring displacement angle and maximal displacement distance.ResultsWithin both the Trifecta and Mitroflow valves, implantation of the J-Valve and JenaValve resulted in retraction of the surgical valve leaflets, and placement of the Evolut Pro and SAPIEN 3 resulted in tubular expansion of the surgical valve leaflets. There were significant differences in displacement angles and distances between both the J-Valve and JenaValve and the SAPIEN 3 and Evolut Pro (p < 0.0001).ConclusionsViV implantation with new-generation THVs that directly interact with bioprosthetic valve leaflets results in surgical valve leaflet retraction. This might mitigate the risk for coronary obstruction in selected cases of ViV transcatheter aortic valve replacement and also facilitate coronary reaccess after ViV TAVR.     

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Self-Expanding ACURATE neo2: Postprocedural Hemodynamic and Short-Term Clinical Outcomes

BackgroundThe first-generation ACURATE neo transcatheter heart valve (THV) (Boston Scientific) was associated with a non-negligible occurrence of moderate or greater paravalvular aortic regurgitation (AR) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. To overcome this issue, the ACURATE neo2 iteration, which incorporates a taller outer skirt aimed at reducing the occurrence of paravalvular AR, has recently been developed.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of the ACURATE neo2 (Boston Scientific) THV in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis.MethodsITAL-neo was an observational, retrospective, multicenter registry enrolling consecutive patients with severe aortic valve stenosis, treated with first- and second-generation ACURATE neo THVs, via transfemoral and trans-subclavian access, in 13 Italian centers. One-to-one propensity score matching was applied to account for baseline characteristics unbalance. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of moderate or greater paravalvular AR on predischarge echocardiographic assessment. Secondary endpoints included postprocedural technical success and 90-day device success and safety.ResultsAmong 900 patients included in the registry, 220 received the ACURATE neo2 THV, whereas 680 were treated with the first-generation device. A total of 410 patients were compared after 1:1 propensity score matching. The ACURATE neo2 THV was associated with a 3-fold lower frequency of postprocedural moderate or greater paravalvular AR (11.2% vs 3.5%; P < 0.001). No other hemodynamic differences were observed. Postprocedural technical success was similar between the 2 cohorts. Fewer adverse events were observed in patients treated with the ACURATE neo2 at 90 days.ConclusionsTransfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement using the ACURATE neo2 was associated with a significant lower frequency of moderate or greater paravalvular AR compared with the earlier generation ACURATE neo device, with encouraging short-term safety and efficacy.     

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.     

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

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

CT-Determined Tricuspid Annular Dilatation Is Associated With Increased 2-Year Mortality in TAVR Patients

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence and prognostic impact of tricuspid annular dilatation (TAD) measured in multislice computed tomography datasets in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis.BackgroundTAD is an increasingly recognized entity associated with poor outcomes in patients with valvular heart disease.MethodsThe maximal septolateral diameter of the tricuspid annulus was measured in consecutive patients with 3-dimensional multidetector row computed tomographic datasets undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Receiver-operating curve characteristic analysis was performed to obtain an ideal, body surface area–normalized cutoff for TAD. Ethical approval was obtained from the institutional ethics board.ResultsThe study included 1,137 patients, of whom 299 died within a mean follow-up period of 1.8 ± 1.0 years. TAD was identified in 446 patients (39.2%) on the basis of a receiver-operating characteristic cutoff of 23 mm/m². TAD had no impact on procedural outcomes, including device failure defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium–2 criteria. Patients with TAD experienced significantly greater mortality (hazard ratio: 1.99; 95% confidence interval: 1.59 to 2.51; p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis including clinical and echocardiographic parameters confirmed the predictive value of TAD (hazard ratio: 1.78; 95% confidence interval: 1.33 to 2.38; p < 0.001), while echocardiographic variables, including estimated pulmonary artery pressure and the severity of tricuspid regurgitation, did not reach statistical significance. The predictive value of TAD was incremental to a baseline model of clinical and echocardiographic parameters (continuous net reclassification improvement 0.204; p < 0.01) and incremental to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (continuous net reclassification improvement 0.209; p < 0.001).ConclusionsTAD is an independent predictor of all-cause mortality in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.     

Outcomes of surgical bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement for aortic insufficiency

BackgroundResults and durability of aortic valve replacement in aortic stenosis are well known, but no study has focused on the results of aortic valve replacement in aortic insufficiency.AimThe aim of this retrospective study was to describe our mid-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement for aortic insufficiency.MethodsAll consecutive adult patients who underwent bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement for aortic insufficiency at two European centres (in France and Germany) between May 2005 and December 2020 were analysed.ResultsDuring the study period, 289 patients were included. Mean age was 56.9 ± 12.5 years. Overall operative mortality was 1.5%, and the 10-year survival estimate rate was 75.0%, which was significantly lower than in the age- and sex-matched general population, with a standardized mortality ratio of 2.88 (95% confidence interval 1.96–4.08; P < 0001). Freedom from aortic valve-related death was 87.6%, and from aortic valve-related reoperation was 87.4%. No patient aged > 60 years was reoperated on during follow-up. Freedom from severe structural valve deterioration at 10 years was 73.3%, and freedom from moderate structural valve deterioration at 10 years was 50.3%. Freedom from major adverse valve-related events at 10 years was 69.7%.ConclusionsAlthough bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement for aortic insufficiency shows good early results, 10-year mortality and major adverse valve-related event rates in young patients may be a concern, with a reduction in life expectancy compared with the general population.     

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.     

Three Generations of Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valves: A Report From the STS/ACC TVT Registry

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the evolution of early outcomes for 3 iterative self-expanding transcatheter aortic valves.BackgroundOver the past decade there have been rapid advancements in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) technologies, including 3 generations of supra-annular self-expanding transcatheter systems.MethodsData from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry for patients undergoing TAVR with CoreValve, Evolut R, or Evolut PRO valves to treat tricuspid aortic stenosis between January 2014 and September 2017 were obtained. Patient risk and echocardiographic data are site reported. Valves analyzed included 23-, 26-, and 29-mm sizes to fit 18- to 26-mm annular diameters. Propensity score matching was performed using the Evolut PRO group as the common reference.ResultsOf 18,874 patients undergoing TAVR at 381 centers, 5,514 patients were implanted with CoreValve, 11,295 with Evolut R, and 2,065 with Evolut PRO valves. At 30 days, there were significantly fewer patients with more than mild aortic regurgitation for the unmatched (7.8% CoreValve, 5.2% Evolut R, and 2.8% Evolut PRO; p < 0.001) and matched populations (8.3% CoreValve, 5.4% Evolut R, and 3.4% Evolut PRO; p = 0.032). The mean aortic valve gradients at 30 days in the matched populations were <8 mm Hg for all 3 valves (7.3 mm Hg CoreValve, 7.5 mm Hg Evolut R, 7.2 mm Hg Evolut PRO).ConclusionsAdvancements in transcatheter valve technologies and expanding indications for TAVR have resulted in improved outcomes for patients undergoing TAVR in the United States with self-expanding, supra-annular valves. In particular, the addition of an outer pericardial tissue wrap designed to enhance sealing at the level of the aortic annulus has resulted in very low rates of significant aortic regurgitation while maintaining excellent hemodynamic status.