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.     

Impact of Pulmonary Hypertension Hemodynamic Status on Long-Term Outcome After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic impact and development of pulmonary hypertension (PH) in the different hemodynamic subtypes of PH in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundPH is a frequent finding in patients with severe AS and predicts outcome after TAVR. Nevertheless, outcomes among PH subtypes and the impact of residual PH after TAVR are controversial.MethodsA total of 1,400 patients with symptomatic AS and full invasive hemodynamic assessment before and after TAVR were included. Patients were stratified into 4 groups: no PH (n = 658); isolated pre-capillary PH (n = 139), isolated post-capillary PH (Ipc-PH; n = 534), and combined post-capillary and pre-capillary PH (n = 69).ResultsThe mean overall patient age was 81.5 ± 6.8 years, and 46.3% were men. Acute device success was achieved in 94.9%. Patients without PH showed significantly lower mortality rates compared with patients with PH (1 year, 13.8% vs. 22.4% [p < 0.001]; 4 years, 37.2% vs. 51.5% [p < 0.001]). Patients with pre-capillary PH showed 1.9-fold increased 1-year mortality and those with Ipc-PH showed 1.5-fold increased 1-year mortality compared with patients without pH (p = 0.001). No differences regarding survival were found among the subgroups. Only in patients with Ipc-PH, residual PH was associated with 2.1-fold increased mortality (p = 0.010). All patients benefited in terms of functional capacity after TAVR.ConclusionsPatients with pre-capillary PH and those with Ipc-PH showed significantly higher risk for death after TAVR compared with those without PH. Reversible PH had no benefit for survival except in patients with Ipc-PH. Hemodynamic stratification of PH is helpful for risk and response prediction in patients with AS undergoing TAVR.     

Identifying Cardiac Amyloid in Aortic Stenosis: ECV Quantification by CT in TAVR Patients

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to validate computed tomography measured ECV (ECV_CT) as part of routine evaluation for the detection of cardiac amyloid in patients with aortic stenosis (AS)-amyloid.BackgroundAS-amyloid affects 1 in 7 elderly patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Bone scintigraphy with exclusion of a plasma cell dyscrasia can diagnose transthyretin-related cardiac amyloid noninvasively, for which novel treatments are emerging. Amyloid interstitial expansion increases the myocardial extracellular volume (ECV).MethodsPatients with severe AS underwent bone scintigraphy (Perugini grade 0, negative; Perugini grades 1 to 3, increasingly positive) and routine TAVR evaluation CT imaging with ECV_CT using 3- and 5-min post-contrast acquisitions. Twenty non-AS control patients also had ECV_CT performed using the 5-min post-contrast acquisition.ResultsA total of 109 patients (43% male; mean age 86 ± 5 years) with severe AS and 20 control subjects were recruited. Sixteen (15%) had AS-amyloid on bone scintigraphy (grade 1, n = 5; grade 2, n = 11). ECV_CT was 32 ± 3%, 34 ± 4%, and 43 ± 6% in Perugini grades 0, 1, and 2, respectively (p < 0.001 for trend) with control subjects lower than lone AS (28 ± 2%; p < 0.001). ECV_CT accuracy for AS-amyloid detection versus lone AS was 0.87 (0.95 for ^99mTc-3,3-diphosphono-1,2-propanodicarboxylic acid Perugini grade 2 only), outperforming conventional electrocardiogram and echocardiography parameters. One composite parameter, the voltage/mass ratio, had utility (similar AUC of 0.87 for any cardiac amyloid detection), although in one-third of patients, this could not be calculated due to bundle branch block or ventricular paced rhythm.ConclusionsECV_CT during routine CT TAVR evaluation can reliably detect AS-amyloid, and the measured ECV_CT tracks the degree of infiltration. Another measure of interstitial expansion, the voltage/mass ratio, also performed well.     

Effect of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement on Concomitant Mitral Regurgitation and Its Impact on Mortality

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to examine the impact of residual mitral regurgitation (MR) on mortality in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundMR is common in patients undergoing TAVR. Data on optimal management of patients with significant MR after TAVR are limited.MethodsThe registry consisted of 16 TAVR centers (n = 7,303). Outcomes of patients with ≥ moderate versus lesser grade MR after TAVR were compared.ResultsIn 1,983 (27.2%) patients, baseline MR grade was ≥ moderate. MR regressed in 874 (44.1%) patients and persisted in 1,109 (55.9%) after TAVR. Four-year mortality was higher for those with MR persistence, but not for those with MR regression after TAVR, compared with nonsignificant baseline MR (43.8% vs. 35.1% vs. 32.4%; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.38; p = 0.008; HR: 1.02; p = 0.383, respectively). New York Heart Association functional class III to IV after TAVR was more common in those with MR persistence vs. regression (14.4% vs. 3.9%; p < 0.001). In a propensity score–matched cohort (91 patients’ pairs), with significant residual MR after TAVR who did or did not undergo staged mitral intervention, staged intervention was associated with a better functional class through 1 year of follow-up (82.4% vs. 33.3% New York Heart Association functional class I or II; p < 0.001), and a numerically lower 4-year mortality, which was not statistically significant (64.6% vs. 37.5%; HR: 1.66; p = 0.097).ConclusionsRisk stratification based on improvement in MR and symptoms after TAVR can identify patients at increased mortality risk after TAVR. These patients may benefit from a staged transcatheter mitral intervention, but this requires further proof from future studies. (Transcatheter Treatment for Combined Aortic and Mitral Valve Disease. The Aortic+Mitral TRAnsCatheter [AMTRAC] Valve Registry [AMTRAC]; NCT04031274).     

1-Year Survival After TAVR of Patients With Low-Flow,Low-Gradient and High-Gradient Aortic Valve Stenosis in Matched Study Populations

ObjectivesThis study sought to examine whether the prognosis of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) having high versus low transvalvular mean pressure gradients (MPGs) is intrinsically different after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), even after strict matching of baseline parameters.BackgroundPatients with low MPG are characterized by higher cardiovascular risk and more comorbidities than other AS patients are.MethodsIn this retrospective, single-center study involving 2,282 patients, 3 groups were derived according to the following criteria: 1) high-gradient AS (HG-AS) (MPG ≥40 mm Hg); 2) low-flow, low-gradient AS (LFLG-AS) (MPG <40 mm Hg, ejection fraction [EF] ≤40%, stroke volume index ≤35 ml/m²); 3) paradoxical LFLG-AS (pLFLG-AS) (similar to LFLG-AS but with EF ≥50%). Propensity score matching that included EF was used to compare 1-year survival.ResultsA total of 136 patients with HG-AS or LFLG-AS were identified. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were significantly different (p = 0.039), with death occurring in 11 versus 21 patients (hazard ratio: 2.12; 95% confidence interval: 1.02 to 4.39; p = 0.044), respectively. A total of 226 patients with HG-AS or pLFLG-AS were identified and here the curves were identical (p = 0.468), with death occurring in 18 versus 21 patients (hazard ratio: 1.26; 95% confidence interval: 0.67 to 2.38; p = 0.469).ConclusionsThis is the first study comparing survival after TAVR of patients with high versus low MPG in matched study populations. Mortality in patients with LFLG-AS was twice that of HG-AS patients. However, it appears that patients with pLFLG-AS might benefit from TAVR to the same extent as patients with HG-AS. There must be still unmasked factors that influence mortality of patients with LFLG-AS.     

Left Ventricular Hypertrophy and Clinical Outcomes Over 5 Years After TAVR: An Analysis of the PARTNER Trials and Registries

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate the association between severity of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) before transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and outcomes out to 5 years.BackgroundPrior studies assessing the association between baseline LVH and outcomes after surgical or TAVR for aortic stenosis (AS) have yielded conflicting results.MethodsPatients with severe symptomatic AS at intermediate or high risk in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) 1, 2, and S3 trials and registries who received TAVR and had baseline measurements for left ventricular mass index (LVMi) were analyzed. The presence and severity of LVH was determined by LVMi using American Society of Echocardiography sex-specific cutoffs.ResultsAmong 4,280 patients, those with no (n = 1,325), mild (n = 777), moderate (n = 628), and severe (n = 1,550) LVH had 5-year rates of death of 32.8%, 37.3%, 37.2%, and 44.8%, respectively (p < 0.001), and 5-year rates of cardiovascular (CV) death or rehospitalization of 33.6%, 39.2%, 42.4%, and 49.2%, respectively (p < 0.001). After adjustment, severe LVH (compared with no LVH) was associated with increased all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.16; 95% confidence interval: 1.00 to 1.34; p = 0.04) and CV death or rehospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.34; 95% confidence interval: 1.16 to 1.54; p < 0.001), but no increased hazard was observed for mild or moderate LVH. In spline analyses performed in males and females separately, there was a consistent linear association between increased LVMi and an increased adjusted hazard of CV mortality or rehospitalization. A similar relationship was observed for all-cause death in females, but not males.ConclusionsSevere baseline LVH is associated with higher 5-year death and rehospitalization rates after TAVR. These findings may have implications for the optimal timing of valve replacement and the potential role for medical therapy to slow or prevent LVH as AS progresses before valve replacement, but further studies are needed.     

Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation or Flutter Following Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: PARTNER 3 Trial

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the incidence and prognostic impact of early and late postoperative atrial fibrillation or flutter (POAF) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).BackgroundThere is an ongoing controversy regarding the incidence, recurrence rate, and prognostic impact of early (in-hospital) POAF and late (postdischarge) POAF in patients with AS undergoing TAVR or SAVR.MethodsIn the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) 3 trial, patients with severe AS at low surgical risk were randomized to TAVR or SAVR. Analyses were performed in the as-treated population excluding patients with preexistent atrial fibrillation or flutter.ResultsAmong 781 patients included in the analysis, early POAF occurred in 152 (19.5%) (18 of 415 [4.3%] and 134 of 366 [36.6%] following TAVR and SAVR, respectively). Following discharge, 58 new or recurrent late POAF events occurred within 1 year following the index procedure in 55 of 781 patients (7.0%). Early POAF was not an independent predictor of late POAF following discharge (odds ratio: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.52-2.08; P = 0.90). Following adjustment, early POAF was not an independent predictor of the composite outcome of death, stroke, or rehospitalization (hazard ratio: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.64-1.92; P = 0.72), whereas late POAF was associated with an increased adjusted risk for the composite outcome (hazard ratio: 8.90; 95% CI: 5.02-15.74; P < 0.0001), irrespective of treatment modality.ConclusionsIn the PARTNER 3 trial, early POAF was more frequent following SAVR compared with TAVR. Late POAF, but not early POAF, was significantly associated with worse outcomes at 2 years, irrespective of treatment modality.     

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.     

ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BackgroundAmong patients with acute coronary syndrome following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), those presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are at highest risk.ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to determine the clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes of STEMI after TAVR.MethodsThis was a multicenter study including 118 patients presenting with STEMI at a median of 255 days (interquartile range: 9 to 680 days) after TAVR. Procedural features of STEMI after TAVR managed with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were compared with all-comer STEMI: 439 non-TAVR patients who had primary PCI within the 2 weeks before and after each post-TAVR STEMI case in 5 participating centers from different countries.ResultsMedian door-to-balloon time was higher in TAVR patients (40 min [interquartile range: 25 to 57 min] vs. 30 min [interquartile range: 25 to 35 min]; p = 0.003). Procedural time, fluoroscopy time, dose-area product, and contrast volume were also higher in TAVR patients (p < 0.01 for all). PCI failure occurred more frequently in patients with previous TAVR (16.5% vs. 3.9%; p < 0.001), including 5 patients in whom the culprit lesion was not revascularized owing to coronary ostia cannulation failure. In-hospital and late (median of 7 months [interquartile range: 1 to 21 months]) mortality rates were 25.4% and 42.4%, respectively (20.6% and 38.2% in primary PCI patients), and estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.02; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.42 to 6.43; p = 0.004), Killip class ≥2 (HR: 2.74; 95% CI: 1.37 to 5.49; p = 0.004), and PCI failure (HR: 3.23; 95% CI: 1.42 to 7.31; p = 0.005) determined an increased risk.ConclusionsSTEMI after TAVR was associated with very high in-hospital and mid-term mortality. Longer door-to-balloon times and a higher PCI failure rate were observed in TAVR patients, partially due to coronary access issues specific to the TAVR population, and this was associated with poorer outcomes.     

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

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

Prognosis of Severe Low-Flow,Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis by Stroke Volume Index and Transvalvular Flow Rate

ObjectivesThis study determined whether flow state classified by stroke volume index (SVi) or transvalvular flow rate (FR) improved risk stratification of all-cause mortality, hospitalization due to heart failure, and aortic valvular interventions for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).BackgroundSVi is a widely accepted classification for flow state in severe low-flow, low-gradient (LFLG) AS. Recent studies suggest that FR more closely approximates true AS severity and provides more useful prognostication than SVi.MethodsPatients with severe AS over a 7-year period were subclassified by echocardiographic parameters. LFLG-AS was defined as severe AS (aortic valve area index [AVAi]: <0.6 cm²/m²), with a mean transvalvular pressure gradient of <40 mm Hg in the setting of low flow state: SVi of <35 ml/m² and/or FR of <200 ml/s and subclassified into preserved (≥50%; paradoxical) or reduced (<50%; classical) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).ResultsAmong 621 consecutive patients with severe AS, the proportions of patients classified as LFLG-AS were different between SVi and FR (p < 0.001). Classification using SVi, FR, and LVEF was a strong predictor of the composite endpoint at the 2-year follow-up. The addition of SVi to the echocardiographic and clinical model provided significant improvement in reclassification (net reclassification improvement: 0.089; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.045 to 0.133; p = 0.04), whereas addition of FR did not (net reclassification improvement: 0.061; 95% CI: 0.016 to 0.106; p = 0.17). C-statistics indicated improved risk discrimination when AVAi, LVEF, and SVi or FR were added as predictive variables to the clinical model (p = 0.006).ConclusionsLow SVi or FR was associated with adverse cardiovascular events and showed improvement in discrimination, but only SVi, not FR, significantly improved risk reclassification compared to other conventional clinical and echocardiographic predictors. This suggests that FR is not superior to SVi in distinguishing true severe from pseudosevere forms of AS and identification of patients with LFLG-AS who have worse outcomes.     

Safety and Efficacy of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Continuation of Vitamin K Antagonists or Direct Oral Anticoagulants

ObjectivesThis study investigated whether transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with peri-procedural continuation of oral anticoagulation is equally safe and efficacious as TAVR with peri-procedural interruption of anticoagulation.BackgroundA significant proportion of patients undergoing TAVR have an indication for long-term oral anticoagulation. The optimal peri-procedural management of such patients is unknown.MethodsConsecutive patients on oral anticoagulation who underwent transfemoral TAVR at 5 European centers were enrolled. Oral anticoagulation was either stopped 2 to 4 days before TAVR or continued throughout the procedure. Primary safety outcome was major bleeding. Secondary efficacy endpoints included vascular complications, stroke, and mortality.ResultsOf 4,459 patients, 584 patients were treated with continuation of anticoagulation and 733 with interruption of anticoagulation. At 30 days, major or life-threatening bleedings occurred in 66 (11.3%) versus 105 (14.3%; odds ratio [OR]: 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61 to 1.21; p = 0.39) and major vascular complications in 64 (11.0%) versus 90 (12.3%; OR: 0.89; CI: 0.62 to 1.27; p = 0.52) of patients with continuation and with interruption of anticoagulation, respectively. Transfusion of packed red blood cells was less often required in patients with continuation of anticoagulation (80 [13.7%] vs. 130 [17.7%]; OR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.81; p = 0.001). Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival at 12 months were 85.3% in patients with continuation of anticoagulation and 84.0% in patients with interruption of anticoagulation (hazard ratio: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.12; p = 0.36).ConclusionsContinuation of oral anticoagulation throughout TAVR did not increase bleeding or vascular complication rates. Moreover, packed red blood cell transfusions were less often required in patients with continuation of oral anticoagulation.     

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.     

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)     

Regression of Left Ventricular Mass After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The PARTNER Trials and Registries

BackgroundGreater early left ventricular mass index (LVMi) regression is associated with fewer hospitalizations 1 year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The association between LVMi regression and longer-term post-TAVR outcomes is unclear.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine the association between LVMi regression at 1-year post-TAVR and clinical outcomes between 1 and 5 years.MethodsAmong intermediate- and high-risk patients who received TAVR in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) I, II, and S3 trials or registries and were alive at 1 year, we included patients with baseline moderate or severe left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and paired measurements of LVMi at baseline and 1 year. The associations between LVMi regression (percent change between baseline and 1 year) and death or rehospitalization from 1 to 5 years were examined.ResultsAmong 1,434 patients, LVMi was 146 g/m² (interquartile range [IQR]: 133 to 168 g/m²) at baseline and decreased 14.5% (IQR: 4.2% to 26.1%) to 126 g/m² (IQR: 106 to 148 g/m²) at 1 year. After adjustment, greater LVMi regression at 1 year was associated with lower all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.95 per 10% decrease in LVMi; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91 to 0.98; p = 0.004; aHR of the quartile with greatest vs. least LVMi regression: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.86; p = 0.005). Severe LVH at 1 year was observed in 39%, which was independently associated with increased all-cause death (aHR of severe LVH vs. no LVH: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.20 to 2.44; p = 0.003). Similar associations were found for rates of cardiovascular mortality and rehospitalization.ConclusionsAmong patients with moderate or severe LVH treated with TAVR who are alive at 1 year, greater LVMi regression at 1 year is associated with lower death and hospitalization rates to 5 years. These findings may have implications for the timing of valve replacement and the role of adjunctive medical therapy after TAVR.     

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Valves From the STS/ACC TVT Registry

ObjectivesThis study sought to compare outcomes in patients with bicuspid versus tricuspid anatomy undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundTAVR has shown excellent safety and efficacy in patients with tricuspid aortic valve stenosis, but limited data are available on the use of self-expanding valves in patients with bicuspid valves.MethodsThe Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology TVT Registry was used to analyze patients who underwent TAVR with the Evolut R or Evolut PRO valves. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were analyzed through 1-year follow-up.ResultsBetween July 2015 and September 2018 a total of 932 patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis underwent elective TAVR with the self-expanding Evolut R or Evolut PRO valve. These patients were compared with a group of 26,154 patients with tricuspid aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR during that same time period. At baseline, patients with bicuspid valves were younger, had fewer cardiac comorbidities, and had lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality scores (5.3 ± 4.2% vs. 6.9 ± 4.8%; p < 0.001). To account for these differences, propensity matching was performed, which resulted in 929 matched pairs. Within these match groups, the rates of all-cause mortality at 30 days (2.6% vs. 1.7%; p = 0.18) and 1 year (10.4% vs. 12.1%; p = 0.63), as well the rate of stroke at 30 days (3.4% vs. 2.7%; p = 0.41) and 1 year (3.9% vs. 4.4%; p = 0.93), were comparable.ConclusionsAll-cause mortality, stroke, and valve hemodynamics did not differ at 30 days or 1 year between patient groups. In patients at increased surgical risk, TAVR for bicuspid aortic valve stenosis indicates acceptable safety outcomes with low complications rates.     

Development of a Risk Score to Predict New Pacemaker Implantation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to define risk factors and develop a predictive risk score for new pacemaker implantation (PMI) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundTAVR has become an accepted treatment alternative for patients with severe aortic stenosis at elevated surgical risk. New PMI is a common occurrence after TAVR and is associated with poorer outcomes.MethodsAll patients without prior valve procedures undergoing elective TAVR with the Edwards SAPIEN 3 at a single institution (n = 1,266) were evaluated. Multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate for predictors of PMI in this population in a derivation cohort of patients with complete data (n = 778), and this model was used to develop the Emory risk score (ERS), which was tested in a validation cohort (n = 367).ResultsFifty-seven patients (7.3%) in the derivation cohort required PMI. In a regression model, history of syncope (odds ratio [OR]: 2.5; p = 0.026), baseline right bundle branch block (OR: 4.3; p < 0.001), QRS duration ≥138 ms (OR: 2.5; p = 0.017), and valve oversizing >15.6% (OR: 1.9; p = 0.041) remained independent predictors of PMI and were included in the ERS. The ERS was strongly associated with PMI (per point increase OR: 2.2; p < 0.001) with an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.778 (p < 0.001), which was similar to its performance in the derivation cohort.ConclusionsA history of syncope, right bundle branch block, longer QRS duration, and higher degree of oversizing are predictive of the need for PMI after TAVR. Additionally, the ERS for PMI was developed and validated, representing a simple bedside tool to aid in risk stratification for patients for undergoing TAVR.     

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.     

Routine Ultrasound or Fluoroscopy Use and Risk of Vascular/Bleeding Complications After Transfemoral TAVR

ObjectivesThis study aimed to examine the benefits of routine use of 2D-US in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundTwo-dimensional ultrasound (2D-US) reduces access-related vascular complications (VCs) and bleeding in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention via transfemoral approach. Potential similar benefits in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR have not been systemically investigated.MethodsRates of access-related VCs or bleeding were compared using 5-year retrospective observational data from 2 neighboring high-volume UK TAVR centers systemically using 2 different techniques (center 1: fluoroscopy and contralateral angiography [FCA], center 2: 2D-US) for femoral puncture at the time of transfemoral TAVR.ResultsOverall, 1,171 patients were included in the study (FCA, n = 624; 2D-US, n = 529). Baseline clinical and procedural characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. There was no difference in the risk of VCs, bleeding, or their composite according to femoral puncture technique (FCA vs. 2D-US: 6.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.9% to 8.9%] vs. 6.8% [95% CI: 4.8% to 9.3%]; p = 0.63; 6.1% [95% CI: 4.4% to 8.2%] vs. 6.4% [95% CI: 4.8% to 9.3%]; p = 0.70; and 9.8% [95% CI: 7.6% to 12.4%] vs. 9.8% [95% CI: 7.4% to 12.7%]; p = 0.76, respectively) and no difference when analysis was restricted to a composite of major VCs or major and life-threatening bleeding.ConclusionsVascular and bleeding complications can be achieved using either FCA or 2D-US guidance. Further studies are required to identify and assess alternative strategies to reduce periprocedural VCs and bleeding in this patient population.     

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)