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.     

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

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

Incidence,Predictors, and Implications of Permanent Pacemaker Requirement After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a safe and feasible alternative to surgery in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis regardless of the surgical risk. Conduction abnormalities requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation remain a common finding after TAVR due to the close proximity of the atrioventricular conduction system to the aortic root. High-grade atrioventricular block and new onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) are the most commonly reported conduction abnormalities after TAVR. The overall rate of PPM implantation after TAVR varies and is related to pre-procedural and intraprocedural factors. The available literature regarding the impact of conduction abnormalities and PPM requirement on morbidity and mortality is still conflicting. Pre-procedural conduction abnormalities such as right bundle branch block and LBBB have been linked with increased PPM implantation and mortality after TAVR. When screening patients for TAVR, heart teams should be aware of various anatomical and pathophysiological conditions that make patients more susceptible to increased risk of conduction abnormalities and PPM requirement after the procedure. This is particularly important as TAVR has been recently approved for patients with low surgical risk. The purpose of this review is to discuss the incidence, predictors, impact, and management of the various conduction abnormalities requiring PPM implantation in patients undergoing TAVR.     

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.     

Late Cerebrovascular Events Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

ObjectivesThis study sought to determine the incidence, clinical characteristics, associated factors, and outcomes of late cerebrovascular events (LCVEs) (>30 days post-procedure) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundScarce data exist on LCVEs following TAVR.MethodsThis was a multicenter study including 3,750 consecutive patients (mean age, 80 ± 8 years; 50.5% of women) who underwent TAVR and survived beyond 30 days. LCVEs were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 (VARC 2) criteria.ResultsLCVEs occurred in 192 (5.1%) patients (stroke, 80.2%; transient ischemic attack, 19.8%) after a median follow-up of 2 (1 to 4) years. Late stroke was of ischemic, hemorrhagic, and undetermined origin in 80.5%, 18.8%, and 0.7% of patients, respectively. Older age, previous cerebrovascular disease, higher mean aortic gradient at baseline, the occurrence of stroke during the periprocedural TAVR period, and the lack of anticoagulation (novel oral anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists) post-TAVR were independent factors associated with late ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack (p < 0.05 for all). Echocardiographic data at the time of the LCVE showed no signs of valve thrombosis or degeneration in the vast majority (97%) patients. Late stroke was disabling in 107 (69.5%) patients (ischemic, 68%; hemorrhagic, 79%), and associated with an in-hospital mortality rate of 29.2%.ConclusionsLCVEs occurred in 5.1% of TAVR recipients after a median follow-up of 2 years. LCVEs were ischemic in most cases, with older age, previous cerebrovascular events, higher mean aortic gradient at baseline, the occurrence during the periprocedural TAVR period, and lack of anticoagulation (but not valve thrombosis/degeneration) determining an increased risk. Late stroke was disabling in most cases and associated with dreadful early and midterm outcomes.     

Sex Difference in Outcomes Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Bicuspid Aortic Stenosis

BackgroundIt is unknown whether the sex difference whereby female transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) candidates had a lower risk profile, a higher incidence of in-hospital complications, but more favorable short- and long-term survival observed in tricuspid cohorts undergoing TAVR would persist in patients with bicuspid aortic valves (BAVs).ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to reexamine the impact of sex on outcomes following TAVR in patients with BAVs.MethodsIn this single-center study, patients with BAVs undergoing TAVR for severe aortic stenosis from 2012 to 2021 were retrospectively included. Baseline characteristics, aortic root anatomy, and in-hospital and 1-year valve hemodynamic status and survival were compared between sexes.ResultsA total of 510 patients with BAVs were included. At baseline, women presented with fewer comorbidities. Men had a greater proportion of Sievers type 1 BAV, higher calcium volumes (549.2 ± 408.4 mm³ vs 920.8 ± 654.3 mm³; P < 0.001), and larger aortic root structures. Women experienced more vascular complications (12.9% vs 4.9%; P = 0.002) and bleeding (11.1% vs 5.3%; P = 0.019) and higher residual gradients (16.9 ± 7.7 mm Hg vs 13.2 ± 6.4 mm Hg; P < 0.001), while men were more likely to undergo second valve implantations during index TAVR (6.3% vs 15.9%; P = 0.001). Death at 1 year was not significantly different between sexes (HR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.56-2.35; P = 0.70). Bleeding (adjusted HR: 4.62; 95% CI: 1.51-14.12; P = 0.007) was the single independent predictor of 1-year death for women.ConclusionsIn patients with BAVs undergoing TAVR, women presented with fewer comorbidities, while men had a greater proportion of type 1 BAV, more calcification, and larger aortic roots. In-hospital outcomes favored men, with fewer complications except for the need for second valve implantation, but 1-year survival was comparable between sexes.     

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.     

Neosinus and Sinus Flow After Self-Expanding and Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate flow dynamics in the aortic sinus and the neosinus (NS) after transcatheter heart valve (THV) implantation in valve-in-valve (ViV).BackgroundLeaflet thrombosis may occur on THVs and affect performance and durability. Differences in flow dynamics may affect the risk for leaflet thrombosis.MethodsHemodynamic assessment following THV implantation in a surgical aortic valve was performed in a left heart simulator under pulsatile physiological conditions. Assessment was performed using a 23-mm polymeric surgical aortic valve (not diseased) and multiple THV platforms, including self-expanding devices (26-mm Evolut, 23-mm Allegra, small ACURATE neo) and a balloon-expandable device (23-mm SAPIEN 3). Particle image velocimetry was performed to assess flow in the sinus and NS. Sinus and NS washout, shear stress, and velocity were calculated.ResultsSinus and NS washout was fastest and approximately 1 cardiac cycle for each with the Evolut, ACURATE neo, and Allegra compared with the SAPIEN 3, with washout in 2 and 3 cardiac cycles, respectively. The Allegra showed the largest shear stress distribution in the sinus, followed by the SAPIEN 3. In the NS, all 4 valves showed equal likelihoods of occurrence of shear stress <1 Pa, but the Allegra showed the highest likelihoods of occurrence for shear stress >1 Pa. The velocities in the sinus and NS were 0.05, 0.078, 0.080, and 0.075 m/s for Evolut, SAPIEN 3, ACURATE neo, and Allegra ViV, respectively.ConclusionsSinus and NS flow dynamics differ substantially among THVs after ViV. Self-expanding supra-annular valves seem to have faster washouts compared with an equivalent-size balloon-expandable THV.     

Feasibility and Safety of Same-Day Discharge Following Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

ObjectivesThis study evaluated the feasibility and safety of same-day discharge (SDD) following transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) compared with next-day discharge (NDD).BackgroundReducing hospital length of stay is an important goal for patients and hospitals. Cleveland Clinic implemented a post-TAVR SDD pathway beginning in March 2020.MethodsThe study retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent “minimalist” outpatient TF-TAVR in 2019 to 2020. SDD was applied to patients who met the predefined criteria. Outcomes included in-hospital and 30-day events and were compared between SDD and NDD (during and prior to availability of the SDD pathway).ResultsIn 2020, SDD and NDD accounted for 22.1% (n = 114 of 516) and 63.8% (n = 329 of 516) of outpatient TF-TAVR, respectively. SDD patients in 2020, compared with NDD patients in 2019 (n = 481), were younger, were more often male, and had a lower surgical risk. There were no significant differences in in-hospital events and 30-day readmissions (cardiovascular readmission: 3.5% vs 6.2%; P = 0.37; noncardiovascular readmission: 2.6% vs 4.0%; P = 0.78), and there were no deaths after SDD. These outcomes remained consistent after propensity score matching. Only 1 (0.9%) patient required pacemaker implantation after SDD (post-TAVR day 25). As expected based on SDD criteria, multivariable logistic regression analysis identified procedure end-time as the strongest predictor of SDD (adjusted OR: 7.74; 95% CI: 4.39-13.63), while male sex and baseline hemoglobin level were also associated with SDD.ConclusionsSDD after TF-TAVR was feasible in this early experience without impairing post-discharge safety. Our SDD pathway may serve as a useful strategy to improve bed utilization and reduce hospital stay for TAVR recipients.     

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Residual Lesion of the Aortic Valve Following “Healed” Infective Endocarditis

ObjectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the safety and mid-term efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in the setting of aortic valve (AV) infective endocarditis (IE) with residual lesion despite successful antibiotic treatment.BackgroundPatients with AV-IE presenting residual lesion despite successful antibiotic treatment are often rejected for cardiac surgery due to high-risk. The use of TAVR following IE is not recommended.MethodsThis was a multicenter retrospective study across 10 centers, gathering baseline, in-hospital, and 1-year follow-up characteristics of patients with healed AV-IE treated with TAVR. Matched comparison according to sex, EuroSCORE, chronic kidney disease, left ventricular function, prosthesis type, and valve-in-valve procedure was performed with a cohort of patients free of prior IE treated with TAVR (46 pairs).ResultsAmong 2,920 patients treated with TAVR, 54 (1.8%) presented with prior AV-IE with residual valvular lesion and healed infection. They had a higher rate of multivalvular disease and greater surgical risk scores. A previous valvular prosthesis was more frequent than a native valve (50% vs. 7.5%; p < 0.001). The in-hospital and 1-year mortality rates were 5.6% and 11.1%, respectively, comparable to the control cohort. After matching, the 1-year III to IV aortic regurgitation rate was 27.9% (vs. 10%; p = 0.08) and was independently associated with higher mortality. There was only 1 case of IE relapse (1.8%); however, 18% of patients were complicated with sepsis, and 43% were readmitted due to heart failure.ConclusionsTAVR is a safe therapeutic alternative for residual valvular lesion after successfully healed AV-IE. At 1-year follow-up, the risk of IE relapse was low and mortality rate did not differ from TAVR patients free of prior IE, but one-fourth presented with significant aortic regurgitation and >50% required re-admission.     

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: An Updated Meta-Analysis

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate early results of valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for structural valve degeneration (SVD).BackgroundViV TAVR has been increasingly used for SVD, but it remains unknown whether it produces better or at least comparable results as redo SAVR.MethodsObservational studies comparing ViV TAVR and redo SAVR were identified in a systematic search of published research. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed, comparing clinical outcomes between the 2 groups.ResultsTwelve publications including a total of 16,207 patients (ViV TAVR, n = 8,048; redo SAVR, n = 8,159) were included from studies published from 2015 to 2020. In the pooled analysis, ViV TAVR was associated with lower rates of 30-day mortality overall (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39 to 0.68; p < 0.001) and for matched populations (OR: 0.419; 95% CI: 0.278 to 0.632; p = 0.003), major bleeding (OR 0.48; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.80; p = 0.013), as well as with shorter hospital stay (OR: ?3.30; 95% CI: ?4.52 to ?2.08; p < 0.001). In contrast, ViV TAVR was associated with higher rates of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (OR: 4.63; 95% CI: 3.05 to 7.03; p < 0.001). The search revealed an important lack of comparative studies with long-term results.ConclusionsViV TAVR is a valuable option in the treatment of patients with SVD because of its lower incidence of post-operative complications and better early survival compared with redo SAVR. However, ViV TAVR is associated with higher rates of myocardial infarction and severe patient-prosthesis mismatch.     

Transcatheter 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.     

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.     

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

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

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.     

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.     

Infective Endocarditis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

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

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.     

Antithrombotic Therapy After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

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

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Latest-Iteration Self-Expanding or Balloon-Expandable Valves: The Multicenter OPERA-TAVI Registry

BackgroundThe latest iterations of devices for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have brought refinements to further improve patient outcomes.ObjectivesThis study sought to compare early outcomes of patients undergoing TAVR with the self-expanding (SE) Evolut PRO/PRO+ (Medtronic, Inc) or balloon-expandable (BE) Sapien 3 ULTRA (Edwards Lifesciences) devices.MethodsThe OPERA-TAVI (Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO vs Sapien 3 Ultra Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry collected data from 14 high-volume centers worldwide on patients undergoing TAVR with SE or BE devices. After excluding patients who were not eligible for both devices, patients were compared using 1:1 propensity score matching. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 device success and early safety, respectively.ResultsAmong 2,241 patients eligible for the present analysis, 683 pairs of patients were matched. The primary efficacy outcome did not differ between patients receiving SE or BE transcatheter aortic valves (SE: 87.4% vs BE: 85.9%; P = 0.47), but the BE device recipients showed a higher rate of the primary safety outcome (SE: 69.1% vs BE: 82.6%; P < 0.01). This finding was driven by the higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (SE: 17.9% vs BE: 10.1%; P < 0.01) and disabling stroke (SE: 2.3% vs BE: 0.7%; P = 0.03) in SE device recipients. On post-TAVR echocardiography, the rate of moderate to severe paravalvular regurgitation was similar between groups (SE: 3.2% vs BE: 2.3%; P = 0.41), whereas lower mean transvalvular gradients were observed in the SE cohort (median SE: 7.0 vs BE: 12.0 mm Hg; P < 0.01).ConclusionsThe OPERA-TAVI registry showed that SE and BE devices had comparable Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 device success rates, but the BE device had a higher rate of early safety. The higher permanent pacemaker implantation and disabling stroke rates in SE device recipients drove this composite endpoint.