Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Symptomatic Severe Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes and transcatheter heart valve hemodynamic parameters after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low-risk patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS).BackgroundTAVR is approved for low-risk patients in the United States. However, patients with bicuspid AS were excluded from the randomized cohorts of the pivotal low-risk trials.MethodsThe LRT (Low Risk TAVR) trial was an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicenter study and was the first and only U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved investigational device exemption trial to evaluate the feasibility of TAVR with either balloon-expandable or self-expanding valves in low-risk patients with bicuspid AS. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 30 days. Baseline and follow-up echocardiography and computed tomography to detect leaflet thickening were analyzed in an independent core laboratory.ResultsSixty-one low-risk patients with symptomatic, severe AS and bicuspid aortic valves (78.3% Sievers type 1 morphology) underwent TAVR at 6 centers from 2016 to 2019. The mean age was 68.6 years, and 42.6% were men. At 30 days, there was zero mortality and no disabling strokes. The rate of new permanent pacemaker implantation was 13.1%; just 1 patient had a moderate paravalvular leak at 30 days. Hypoattenuated leaflet thickening was observed in 10% of patients at 30 days.ConclusionsTAVR appears to be safe in patients with bicuspid AS, with short length of hospital stay, zero mortality, and no disabling strokes at 30 days. Subclinical leaflet thrombosis was observed in a minority of patients at 30 days but did not appear to be associated with clinical events.     

Excellent Outcomes for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Within 1 Year of Opening a Low-Volume Centre and Consideration of Requirements

BackgroundAfter the approval of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for high-risk or inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), many low- and moderate-volume TAVR programs were initiated. Contemporary outcomes from these newly initiated centres remain unknown.MethodsIn March 2013, our institution was authorized by the Québec Ministry of Health to perform 30 TAVR procedures. After thorough clinical screening and imaging evaluation, suitable patients underwent transfemoral TAVR with the balloon-expandable SAPIEN XT (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) transcatheter heart valve (THV). In-hospital and 30-day outcomes were prospectively collected and reported according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 guidelines.ResultsFrom April 2013 to January 2014, 30 consecutive high-risk (n = 16 [53.3%]) or inoperable (n = 14 [46.7%]) patients (mean age, 84.6 years; mean Society of Thoracic Surgery score, 7) with symptomatic severe AS underwent transfemoral TAVR. No catastrophic intraprocedural complications such as annulus rupture, valve embolization, aortic dissection, or coronary occlusion occurred, and there were no deaths at 30 days. Disabling stroke occurred in 1 (3.3%) patient 48 hours after THV implantation. Major vascular complications and major bleeding occurred in 1 (3.3%) patient. No moderate or severe paravalvular leak was observed. The median length of stay was 2 (1-3) days, with 8 (26.7%) patients discharged within 24 hours after the procedure.ConclusionsExcellent outcomes can be achieved in newly initiated relatively low-volume centres, which compares favorably to previously published large series. Important considerations include appropriate team training, rigorous patient screening, use of multimodality imaging techniques, a heart team approach, constant integration of lessons learned from larger published experiences, and maintaining a recommended minimum volume of 25 cases per year.     

Surgical Explantation After TAVR Failure: Mid-Term Outcomes From the EXPLANT-TAVR International Registry

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate clinical characteristics, mechanisms of failure, and outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) explantation.BackgroundSurgical explantation following TAVR may be required for structural valve degeneration, paravalvular leak, infection, or other reasons. However, in-depth data on indications and outcomes are lacking.MethodsData from a multicenter, international registry (EXPLANT-TAVR) of patients who underwent TAVR explantation were reviewed retrospectively. Explantations performed during the same admission as initial TAVR were excluded. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were evaluated. Median follow-up duration was 6.7 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.0-18.8 months) after TAVR explantation and was 97.7% complete at 30 days and 86.1% complete at 1 year.ResultsFrom November 2009 to September 2020, 269 patients across 42 centers with a mean age of 72.7 ± 10.4 years underwent TAVR explantation. About one quarter (25.9%) were deemed low surgical risk at index TAVR, and median Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk at TAVR explantation was 5.6% (IQR: 3.2%-9.6%). The median time to explantation was 11.5 months (IQR: 4.0-32.4 months). Balloon-expandable and self-expanding or mechanically expandable valves accounted for 50.9% and 49.1%, respectively. Indications for explantation included endocarditis (43.1%), structural valve degeneration (20.1%), paravalvular leak (18.2%), and prosthesis-patient mismatch (10.8%). Redo TAVR was not feasible because of unfavorable anatomy in 26.8% of patients. Urgent or emergency cases were performed in 53.1% of patients, aortic root replacement in 13.4%, and 54.6% had concomitant cardiac procedures. Overall survival at last follow-up was 76.1%. In-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year mortality rates were 11.9%, 13.1%, and 28.5%, respectively, and stroke rates were 5.9%, 8.6%, and 18.7%, respectively.ConclusionsThe EXPLANT-TAVR registry reveals that surgical risks associated with TAVR explantation are not negligible and should be taken into consideration in the lifetime management of aortic stenosis.     

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

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

First-in-Human Experience With Patient-Specific Computer Simulation of TAVR in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Morphology

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the clinical use of patient-specific computer simulation of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) morphology.BackgroundPatient-specific computer simulation of TAVR in BAV may predict important clinical outcomes, such as paravalvular regurgitation and conduction disturbance.MethodsBetween May 2018 and April 2019, all patients who were referred for TAVR who had BAV identified on work-up cardiac multidetector computed tomographic imaging prospectively underwent patient-specific computer simulation with a self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (THV) using TAVIguide technology.ResultsNine patients were included in the study. Sievers classification was type 0 in 2 patients and type 1 in 7 patients. The simulations altered the treatment strategy in 8 patients (89%). The simulations suggested moderate to severe paravalvular regurgitation in 3 patients, who were referred for consideration of surgery. The remaining 6 patients underwent TAVR with a self-expanding THV. In 5 of these patients (83%), THV size and/or implantation depth was altered to minimize paravalvular regurgitation and/or conduction disturbance. In 1 patient, simulations suggested significant conduction disturbance after TAVR, and a permanent pacemaker was implanted before the procedure. Following treatment, all 9 patients had no to mild paravalvular regurgitation. The patient who had a pre-procedure permanent pacemaker implanted became pacing dependent, with underlying third-degree atrioventricular block.ConclusionsPatient-specific computer simulation of TAVR in BAV can be used to identify those patients where TAVR may be associated with unfavorable clinical outcomes. Patient-specific computer simulation may be useful to guide THV sizing and positioning for potential favorable clinical outcomes.     

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

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

Impact of Anesthesia Strategy and Valve Type on Clinical Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BackgroundThe randomized SOLVE-TAVI (compariSon of secOnd-generation seLf-expandable vs. balloon-expandable Valves and gEneral vs. local anesthesia in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial compared newer-generation self-expanding valves (SEV) and balloon-expandable valves (BEV) as well as local anesthesia with conscious sedation (CS) and general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Both strategies showed similar outcomes at 30 days.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes during 1-year follow-up in the randomized SOLVE-TAVI trial.MethodsUsing a 2 × 2 factorial design 447 intermediate- to high-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to transfemoral TAVR using either the SEV (Evolut R, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota) or the BEV (Sapien 3, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) as well as CS or GA at 7 sites.ResultsIn the valve-comparison strategy, rates of the combined endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, moderate or severe paravalvular leakage, and permanent pacemaker implantation were similar between the BEV and SEV group (n = 84, 38.3% vs. n = 87, 40.4%; hazard ratio: 0.94; 95% confidence interval: 0.70 to 1.26; p = 0.66) at 1 year. Regarding the anesthesia comparison, the combined endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and acute kidney injury occurred with similar rates in the GA and CS groups (n = 61, 25.7% vs. n = 54, 23.8%; hazard ratio: 1.09; 95% confidence interval: 0.76 to 1.57; p = 0.63).ConclusionsIn intermediate- to high-risk patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR, newer-generation SEV and BEV as well as CS and GA showed similar clinical outcomes at 1 year using a combined clinical endpoint. (SecOnd-generation seLf-expandable Versus Balloon-expandable Valves and gEneral Versus Local Anesthesia in TAVI [SOLVE-TAVI]; NCT02737150)     

Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis With a Novel Resheathable Supra-Annular Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve System

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the safety and clinical performance of the CoreValve Evolut R transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) system (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota) in a single-arm, multicenter pivotal study in high- or extreme-risk patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis.BackgroundAlthough outcomes following TAVR are improving, challenges still exist. The repositionable 14-F equivalent CoreValve Evolut R TAVR system was developed to mitigate some of these challenges.MethodsSuitable patients (n = 60) underwent TAVR with a 26- or 29-mm Evolut R valve. Primary safety endpoints were mortality and stroke at 30 days. Primary clinical performance endpoints were device success per the VARC-2 (Valve Academic Research Consortium-2) and the percent of patients with mild or less aortic regurgitation 24 h to 7 days post-procedure.ResultsPatients (66.7% female; mean age 82.8 ± 6.1 years; Society of Thoracic Surgeons Score 7.0 ± 3.7%) underwent TAVR via the transfemoral route in 98.3%, using a 29-mm valve in 68.3% of patients. All attempts at repositioning were successful. No death or stroke was observed up to 30 days. The VARC-2 overall device success rate was 78.6%. Paravalvular regurgitation post TAVR was mild or less in 96.6%, moderate in 3.4%, and severe in 0% at 30 days. Major vascular complications occurred in 8.3%, and permanent pacemaker implantation was required in 11.7% of patients.ConclusionsThe repositionable 14-F equivalent Evolut R TAVR system is safe and effective at treating high-risk symptomatic aortic stenosis patients. Repositioning was successful when required in all patients, with low rates of moderate or severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation and low permanent pacemaker implantation. (The Medtronic CoreValve™ Evolut R™ CE Mark Clinical Study; NCT01876420)     

The Impact of Aortic Angulation on Contemporary Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate whether the degree of aortic angulation (AA) affects outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using newer-generation transcatheter heart valves (THVs).BackgroundAA ≥48° has been reported to adversely influence accurate THV deployment, procedural success, fluoroscopy time, and paravalvular leak (PVL) in patients undergoing TAVR with early generation self-expanding (SE) THVs.MethodsA retrospective observational study was conducted among 841 patients across all risk strata who underwent transfemoral TAVR using the balloon-expandable (BE) SAPIEN 3 or the SE CoreValve Evolut PRO from 2015 to 2020. The previously published cutoff of 48° was used to analyze procedural success and in-hospital outcomes according to THV type. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis was performed to investigate the impact of AA on an in-hospital composite outcome (need for >1 THV, more than mild PVL, new permanent pacemaker implantation, stroke, and death).ResultsAA ≥48° did not influence outcomes in patients with BE THVs. Additionally, AA ≥48° did not influence procedural success (99.1% vs. 99.1%; p = 0.980), number of THVs used (1.02 vs. 1.04; p = 0.484), rates of more than mild PVL (0.4% vs. 0%; p = 0.486), new permanent pacemaker implantation (11.8% vs. 17.1%; p = 0.178), in-hospital stroke (3.9% vs. 1.8%; p = 0.298), or in-hospital death (0.4% vs. 0.9%; p = 0.980) in patients with SE THVs. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis demonstrated similar outcomes irrespective of AA, with areas under the curve of 0.5525 for SE THVs and 0.5115 for BE THVs.ConclusionsAA no longer plays a role with new-generation BE or SE THVs in contemporary TAVR practice. AA ≥48° did not affect procedural success or in-hospital outcomes and should no longer be a consideration when determining THV selection.     

TAVR in Low-Risk Patients: 1-Year Results From the LRT Trial

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate clinical outcomes and transcatheter heart valve hemodynamics at 1 year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low-risk patients.BackgroundEarly results from the LRT (Low Risk TAVR) trial demonstrated that TAVR is safe in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who are at low risk for surgical valve replacement.MethodsThe LRT trial was an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicenter study and was the first Food and Drug Administration–approved Investigational Device Exemption trial to evaluate feasibility of TAVR in low-risk patients. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 30 days. Secondary endpoints included clinical outcomes and valve hemodynamics at 1 year.ResultsThe LRT trial enrolled 200 low-risk patients with symptomatic severe AS to undergo TAVR at 11 centers. Mean age was 73.6 years and 61.5% were men. At 30 days, there was zero mortality, zero disabling stroke, and low permanent pacemaker implantation rate (5.0%). At 1-year follow-up, mortality was 3.0%, stroke rate was 2.1%, and permanent pacemaker implantation rate was 7.3%. Two (1.0%) subjects underwent surgical reintervention for endocarditis. Of the 14% of TAVR subjects who had evidence of hypoattenuated leaflet thickening at 30 days, there was no impact on valve hemodynamics at 1 year, but the stroke rate was numerically higher (3.8% vs. 1.9%; p = 0.53).ConclusionsTAVR in low-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis appears to be safe at 1 year. Hypoattenuated leaflet thickening, observed in a minority of TAVR patients at 30 days, did not have an impact on valve hemodynamics in the longer term.     

Transcatheter Versus Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement: A Propensity-Matched Analysis From the German Aortic Valve Registry

ObjectivesThis study sought to compare patient characteristics, procedural outcomes, and valve hemodynamics of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with current-generation rapid-deployment valves (RDVs) versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with current-generation transcatheter heart valves (THVs).BackgroundThe patient population currently treated with RDVs may have potential similarities with the current TAVR population, but comparative studies in a large patient population remain scarce.MethodsA total of 16,473 patients who underwent isolated SAVR using current-generation RDVs or isolated transfemoral TAVR with current-generation THVs between 2011 and 2017 were enrolled into the German Aortic Valve Registry. Baseline, procedural, and in-hospital outcome parameters were analyzed for RDVs and THVs before and after 1:1 propensity score matching. Furthermore, RDVs and THVs with similar design characteristics were compared with each other.ResultsA total of 1,743 patients received SAVR with an RDV, whereas 14,730 patients were treated with transfemoral TAVR. Patients treated with TAVR were significantly older and had higher surgical risk scores. Following valve replacement, patients treated with an RDV had a significantly higher rate of disabling stroke (1.7% vs. 1.1%; p = 0.03), need for transfusion of >4 red blood cell units (8.5% vs. 1.4%; p < 0.001), and new onset renal replacement therapy (1.9% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.01), whereas the need for a new permanent pacemaker was lower (8.4% vs. 14.9%; p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was similar (1.6% vs. 1.8%; p = 0.62). These findings persisted after 1:1 propensity score matching, but in-hospital mortality was significantly higher after RDVs (1.7% vs. 0.6%; p = 0.003). Balloon-expandable (BE) RDVs had significantly lower residual gradients compared with BE-THVs, while self-expanding (SE)-RDVs had significantly higher residual gradients compared with SE-THVs.ConclusionsIn a large all-comers’ registry, TAVR with current-generation THVs was associated with improved in-hospital outcomes compared with SAVR with current-generation RDVs. The pacemaker rate is significantly higher with TAVR. Post-procedural hemodynamic function varied between individual RDVs and THVs.     

Single-Center Experience With the LOTUS Edge Transcatheter Heart Valve

BackgroundBefore its voluntary recall, the mechanically expandable LOTUS Edge transcatheter heart valve (THV) offered a number of unique features, notably sealing against paravalvular leak (PVL) and the ability to be fully deployed, re-captured, and re-deployed.MethodsWe performed a detailed review of all patients at our institution who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using the LOTUS Edge THV from 2019 to 2020. We describe procedural and in-hospital outcomes.ResultsIn brief, 59 patients underwent TAVR using the LOTUS Edge, of whom 18 were high-risk (most of whom had moderate or severe left ventricular outflow tract [LVOT] calcium), 36 were intermediate-risk enrolled in the REPRISE IV trial (one of whom had a bicuspid valve), and 5 were low-risk bicuspid patients enrolled in the LRT trial. Conduction disturbances were common (new left bundle branch block in 64.4%), with high rates of new permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation across all risk groups (16.9%). Overall, stroke occurred in 11.9% of patients, and in 3/5 low-risk bicuspid patients, but occurred less frequently in patients with cerebral embolic protection.ConclusionsIn our experience, in patients with heavy LVOT calcium burden and/or bicuspid valves, the LOTUS Edge THV offered excellent seal against PVL. However, the high rates of periprocedural stroke and new PPM implantation were a concern.     

Low-Risk Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement – An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

ObjectivesTo perform a meta-analysis including all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to date comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and low surgical risk.BackgroundCurrent guidelines recommend SAVR for patients with severe symptomatic AS and low surgical risk. A few RCTs have evaluated TAVR in low surgical risk patients but equipoise exists related to TAVR valve durability, paravalvular leak (PVL) and role of TAVR in younger, low surgical risk patients.MethodsFive databases were analyzed from January-2000 to March-2019 for RCTs comparing SAVR to TAVR in low-risk severe AS patients.ResultsFour RCTs on low-risk TAVR patients with 2887 patients were included. Mean follow-up was ~24.1 ± 24 months. Early mortality was lower with TAVR compared to SAVR (RR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.20–0.95, P = 0.038) whereas long-term mortality was similar (RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.39–1.14, P = 0.141). Both early and long-term stroke rates were similar. TAVR was associated with lower risk of atrial fibrillation, major bleeding, acute kidney injury (AKI) and rehospitalization, but higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPM) and moderate or severe PVL. There was no difference in major vascular complications, myocardial infarction, endocarditis, aortic valve gradients and valve area at follow-up.ConclusionsIn low-risk patients with severe AS, TAVR has a lower early mortality compared to SAVR with no difference in long-term mortality. Although complication rates varied between TAVR and SAVR, our study findings suggest that transfemoral-TAVR is an appropriate treatment option for severe symptomatic AS in patients with low surgical risk.     

Long-Term Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: The U.K. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Registry

ObjectivesThe U.K. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Registry reported 30-day and 1-year mortality rates of 7.1% and 21.4%, respectively, for patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in the United Kingdom between 2007 and 2009. The study aim was to report long-term outcomes in this same cohort of patients.BackgroundThere are few data on outcomes beyond 3 years after TAVR in any notable number of patients.MethodsData from all TAVR procedures performed in the United Kingdom between January 2007 and December 2009 were prospectively collected. All-cause mortality status was reported in March 2014. Mortality tracking was achieved in 97.7% patients.ResultsThe minimal time from replacement to census was 4.1 years, and the maximal time was 7.0 years. The 3- and 5-year survival rates were 61.2% and 45.5%, respectively. Independent predictors of 3-year mortality were renal dysfunction (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.65), atrial fibrillation (HR: 1.36), logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) ≥18.5 (HR: 1.33), respiratory dysfunction (HR: 1.28), and ventricular dysfunction (left ventricular ejection fraction <30%) (HR: 1.53). Coronary artery disease (HR: 1.28) and age (HR: 1.03) were additional independent predictors of mortality at 5 years. Stroke within 30 days of TAVR was the only independent procedural predictor of mortality at 3 and 5 years (HR: 2.17 at 3 years). Device type, access route, and paravalvular leak did not independently predict long-term outcome.ConclusionsIn the large U.K. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Registry, long-term outcomes after TAVR are favorable with 3- and 5-year survival rates of 61.2% and 45.5%, respectively. Long-term survival after TAVR is largely determined by intrinsic patient factors. Other than stroke, procedural variables, including paravalvular aortic leak, did not appear to be independent predictors of long-term survival.     

Conscious Sedation Versus General Anesthesia for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Variation in Practice and Outcomes

ObjectivesThe aims of this study were to examine variation in the use of conscious sedation (CS) for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) across hospitals and over time and to evaluate outcomes of CS compared with general anesthesia (GA) using instrumental variable analysis, a quasi-experimental method to control for unmeasured confounding.BackgroundDespite increasing use of CS for TAVR, contemporary data on utilization patterns are lacking, and existing studies evaluating the impact of sedation choice on outcomes may suffer from unmeasured confounding.MethodsAmong 120,080 patients in the TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry who underwent transfemoral TAVR between January 2016 and March 2019, the relationship between anesthesia choice and TAVR outcomes was evaluated using hospital proportional use of CS as an instrumental variable.ResultsOver the study period, the proportion of TAVR performed using CS increased from 33% to 64%, and CS was used in a median of 0% and 91% of cases in the lowest and highest quartiles of hospital CS use, respectively. On the basis of instrumental variable analysis, CS was associated with decreases in in-hospital mortality (adjusted risk difference: 0.2%; p = 0.010) and 30-day mortality (adjusted risk difference: 0.5%; p < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (adjusted difference: 0.8 days; p < 0.001), and more frequent discharge to home (adjusted risk difference: 2.8%; p < 0.001) compared with GA. The magnitude of benefit for most endpoints was less than in a traditional propensity score–based approach, however.ConclusionsIn contemporary U.S. practice, the use of CS for TAVR continues to increase, although there remains wide variation across hospitals. The use of CS for TAVR is associated with improved outcomes (including reduced mortality) compared with GA, although the magnitude of benefit appears to be less than in previous studies.     

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.     

Evaluating Out-of-Hospital 30-Day Mortality After Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: An STS/ACC TVT Analysis

ObjectivesThis study sought to better understand out-of-hospital 30-day mortality following transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and identify factors associated with poor outcomes.BackgroundDespite improvements in outcomes with TAVR for severe aortic stenosis, out-of-hospital 30-day mortality has not been evaluated.MethodsThis study examined patients in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry undergoing TAVR for severe aortic stenosis from January 2015 to March 2018. Primary and secondary endpoints were 30-day out-of-hospital all-cause mortality and out-of-hospital cardiovascular mortality, respectively. Logistic regression models were used to assess association between pre-specified factors and endpoints.ResultsA total of 106,749 patients underwent TAVR and were eligible for analysis. Transfemoral TAVR was performed in 92.3% of patients. A total of 2,137 (2.2%) transfemoral patients died within 30 days of the procedure, and 623 (29%) patients of these patients experienced out-of-hospital 30-day mortality. Cardiovascular and pulmonary etiologies accounted for the majority of observed mortality. Multivariable regression analysis identified older age, gender, lower body surface area, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, lower hemoglobin, atrial fibrillation or flutter, severe lung disease, home oxygen use, lack of moderate-to-severe aortic insufficiency, urgent TAVR, lower Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score, longer hospital length of stay, and in-hospital complications as being independently associated with the primary endpoint. New onset or pre-existent atrial fibrillation or flutter was also independently associated with 30-day out-of-hospital cardiovascular mortality in the transfemoral population.ConclusionsWe identified 30-day all-cause mortality rate for TAVR of 2.2%. Approximately one-third of patients experienced out-of-hospital mortality at 30 days. Several factors were identified as being independently associated with 30-day out-of-hospital all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Further work is needed to understand how best to improve out-of-hospital mortality following TAVR.     

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Balloon-Expandable Valves: Comparison of SAPIEN 3 Ultra Versus SAPIEN 3

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the SAPIEN 3 Ultra (Ultra) and SAPIEN 3 (S3) transcatheter heart valves (THVs).BackgroundThe latest generation balloon-expandable Ultra THV incorporates new technical features and might improve outcomes following TAVR.MethodsThis registry included all consecutive patients who underwent TAVR with either the Ultra or S3 between January 2014 and January 2020. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to account for differences in baseline characteristics. In-hospital and 30-day Valve Academic Research Consortium-2–defined outcomes were investigated.ResultsA total of 310 patients (n = 155 Ultra, n = 155 S3) were included. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics after propensity score matching. Procedures were significantly more often performed under conscious sedation with Ultra compared with S3 (97.4% vs. 71.6%; p < 0.001). Pre-dilatation was more frequent with S3 compared with Ultra (85.2% vs. 42.6%; p < 0.001). In-hospital outcomes, including device success (91.6% vs. 95.5%; p = 0.165), major vascular complications (12.3% vs. 11.0%; p = 0.723), and new pacemaker implantation (5.8% vs. 4.5%; p = 0.608), were comparable between S3 and Ultra patients, respectively. Post-procedural mean transprosthetic gradients (13.2 ± 5.7 mm Hg vs. 13.1 ± 4.7 mm Hg; p = 0.829) and rate of moderate or greater paravalvular leakage (PVL) (1.3% vs. 2.7%; p = 0.414) were comparable, whereas mild PVL was more frequent with S3 compared with Ultra (43.0% vs. 18.7%; p < 0.001).ConclusionsDevice success rates were high with both balloon-expandable THVs, with overall low rates of adverse events up to 30 days after TAVR. Despite a lower frequency of pre-dilatation, significant reduction of mild PVL confirms improved annular sealing properties of the novel Ultra THV.     

Comparison of Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Performed in the Catheterization Laboratory (Minimalist Approach) Versus Hybrid Operating Room (Standard Approach): Outcomes and Cost Analysis

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF TAVR) performed in a catheterization laboratory (minimalist approach [MA]) with TF TAVR performed in a hybrid operating room (standard approach [SA]).BackgroundA MA-TF TAVR can be performed without general anesthesia, transesophageal echocardiography, or a surgical hybrid room. The outcomes and cost of MA-TF TAVR compared with those of the SA have not been described.MethodsPatients who underwent elective, percutaneous TF TAVR using the Edwards Sapien valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) were studied. Baseline characteristics, outcomes, and hospital costs of MA-TF TAVR and SA-TF TAVR were compared.ResultsA total of 142 patients were studied (MA-TF TAVR, n = 70 and SA-TF TAVR, n = 72). There were no differences in baseline comorbidities (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, 10.6 ± 4.3 vs. 11.4 ± 5.8; p = 0.35). All procedures in the MA-TF TAVR group were successful; 1 patient was intubated. Three patients in the SA-TF TAVR group had procedure-related death. Procedure room time (150 ± 48 min vs. 218 ± 56 min, p < 0.001), total intensive care unit time (22 h vs. 28 h, p < 0.001), length of stay from procedure to discharge (3 days vs. 5 days, p < 0.001), and cost ($45,485 ± 14,397 vs. $55,377 ± 22,587, p < 0.001) were significantly less in the MA-TF TAVR group. Mortality at 30 days was not significantly different in the MA-TF TAVR group (0 vs. 6%, p = 0.12) and 30-day stroke/transient ischemic attack was similar (4.3% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.35). Moderate or severe paravalvular leak and device success were similar in the MA-TF TAVR and SA-TF TAVR groups (3% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.4 and 90% vs. 88%, p = 0.79, respectively) at 30 days. At a median follow-up of 435 days, there was no significant difference in survival (MA-TF TAVR, 83% vs. SA-TF TAVR, 82%; p = 0.639).ConclusionsMA-TF TAVR can be performed with minimal morbidity and mortality and equivalent effectiveness compared with SA-TF TAVR. The shorter length of stay and lower resource use with MA-TF TAVR significantly lowers hospital costs.     

5-Year Follow-Up From the PARTNER 2 Aortic Valve-in-Valve Registry for Degenerated Aortic Surgical Bioprostheses

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to report the outcomes of valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) at 5 years.BackgroundTAVR for degenerated surgical bioprostheses in patients at high risk for reoperative surgery is an important treatment option that may delay or obviate the need for surgical intervention; however, long-term outcomes of this procedure are unknown.MethodsThe PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2 ViV and continued access registries prospectively enrolled patients with failed surgical bioprostheses at high risk for reoperation. Five-year clinical and echocardiographic follow-up data were obtained in 95.9% of patients.ResultsIn 365 (96 registry and 269 continued access) patients, the mean age was 78.9 ± 10.2 years, the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of surgical mortality score was 9.1 ± 4.7%, and New York Heart Association functional class was III or IV in 90.4%. At 5 years, the Kaplan-Meier rates of all-cause mortality and any stroke were 50.6% and 10.5%, respectively. Using Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 definitions, the incidence of structural valve deterioration, related hemodynamic valve deterioration, or bioprosthetic valve failure at 5 years was 6.6%. Aortic valve re-replacement was performed in 6.3% (n = 14), the majority of which was due to stenosis (n = 6) and combined aortic insufficiency/paravalvular regurgitation (n = 3). The mean gradient, Doppler velocity index, paravalvular regurgitation, and quality of life measured by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores in survivors remained stable from 30 days postprocedure through 5 years.ConclusionsAt the 5-year follow-up, TAVR for bioprosthetic aortic valve failure in high surgical risk patients was associated with sustained improvement in clinical and echocardiographic outcomes.