Age-Related Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From the SwissTAVI Registry

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate age-related outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as assessed in a nationwide, prospective, multicenter cohort study.BackgroundTAVR is the preferred treatment for elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis and is expanding into lower age groups.MethodsData from the SwissTAVI Registry were analyzed. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients 70 years of age or younger (n = 324), 70 to 79 years of age (n = 1,913), 80 to 89 years of age (n = 4,353), and older than 90 years of age (n = 507). Observed deaths were correlated with expected deaths in the general Swiss population using standardized mortality ratios.ResultsBetween February 2011 and June 2018, 7,097 patients (mean age 82.0 ± 6.4 years, 49.6% women) underwent TAVR at 15 hospitals in Switzerland. Procedural characteristics were similar; however, older patients more often had discharge to the referring hospital or a rehabilitation facility after TAVR. Using adjusted analyses, a linear trend for mortality (30-day adjusted hazard ratio [HR_adj]: 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.18 to 1.77; 1-year HR_adj: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.24), cerebrovascular accidents (30-day HR_adj: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.66; 1-year HR_adj: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.45), and pacemaker implantation (30-day HR_adj: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.34; 1-year HR_adj: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.30) was observed with increasing age. Furthermore, standardized mortality ratios were 12.63 (95% CI: 9.06 to 17.58), 4.09 (95% CI: 3.56 to 4.74), 1.63 (95% CI: 1.50 to 1.78), and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.76 to 1.14) for TAVR patients in relation to the Swiss population <70, 70 to 79, 80 to 89 and ≥90 years of age, respectively.ConclusionsIncreasing age is associated with a linear trend for mortality, stroke, and pacemaker implantation during early and longer-term follow-up after TAVR. Standardized mortality ratios were higher for TAVR patients younger than 90 years of age compared with expected rates of mortality in an age- and sex-matched Swiss population. (SWISS TAVI Registry; NCT01368250)     

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.     

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.     

Preventing Coronary Obstruction During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Results From the Multicenter International BASILICA Registry

ObjectivesThis study sought to determine the safety of the BASILICA (bioprosthetic or native aortic scallop intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction) procedure.BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement causes coronary artery obstruction in 0.7% of cases, with 40% to 50% mortality. BASILICA is a procedure to prevent coronary obstruction. Safety and feasibility in a large patient cohort is lacking.MethodsThe international BASILICA registry was a retrospective, multicenter, real-world registry of patients at risk of coronary artery obstruction undergoing BASILICA and transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions were used to adjudicate events.ResultsBetween June 2017 and December 2020, 214 patients were included from 25 centers in North America and Europe; 72.8% had bioprosthetic aortic valves and 78.5% underwent solo BASILICA. Leaflet traversal was successful in 94.9% and leaflet laceration in 94.4%. Partial or complete coronary artery obstruction was seen in 4.7%. Procedure success, defined as successful BASILICA traversal and laceration without mortality, coronary obstruction, or emergency intervention, was achieved in 86.9%. Thirty-day mortality was 2.8% and stroke was 2.8%, with 0.5% disabling stroke. Thirty-day death and disabling stroke were seen in 3.4%. Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 composite safety was achieved in 82.8%. One-year survival was 83.9%. Outcomes were similar between solo and doppio BASILICA, between native and bioprosthetic valves, and with the use of cerebral embolic protection.ConclusionsBASILICA is safe, with low reported rates of stroke and death. BASILICA is feasible in the real-world setting, with a high procedure success rate and low rates of coronary artery obstruction.     

No Antithrombotic Therapy After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insight From the OCEAN-TAVI Registry

BackgroundSeveral trials demonstrated that aspirin monotherapy compared with aspirin plus clopidogrel is associated with a lower incidence of bleeding without an increased risk of ischemic events in patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR); however, there remains a paucity of data to prove the necessity of even aspirin monotherapy.ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare clinical outcomes and valve performance of the 3 different antithrombotic strategies post-TAVR from the OCEAN-TAVI (Optimized transCathEter vAlvular iNtervention) registry.MethodsPatients who received anticoagulation or had procedural complications were excluded. The remaining patients were classified into 3 groups according to the antithrombotic regimen at discharge: 1) nonantithrombotic therapy (None); 2) single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT); and 3) dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). The primary outcome was the incidence of net adverse clinical events (NACEs) (ie, cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and life-threatening or major bleeding).ResultsOverall, 3,575 TAVR patients were included (None, 293; SAPT, 1,354; DAPT, 1,928). The median follow-up period was 841 days (IQR: 597-1,340 days). The incidence of NACEs did not differ between the groups (None vs SAPT: adjusted HR [aHR]: 1.18; P = 0.45; None vs DAPT: aHR: 1.09; P = 0.67). There was a lower incidence of all bleeding in patients with no antithrombotics (None vs SAPT: aHR: 0.63; P = 0.12; None vs DAPT: aHR: 0.51; P = 0.04). The valve performance was similar among the groups. Leaflet thrombosis was detected in 8.5% of the nonantithrombotic group.ConclusionsCompared with SAPT/DAPT, the nonantithrombotic strategy was not associated with an increased risk of NACEs and potentially reduced the risk of bleeding events. The nonantithrombotic strategy may be an acceptable alternative to SAPT/DAPT in selected patients with TAVR.     

Impact of Repositioning on Outcomes Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With a Self-Expandable Valve

ObjectivesThis study sought to compare outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement when valve repositioning was performed (repositioned group) versus procedures without repositioning (nonrepositioned group).BackgroundThe Evolut R and Evolut PRO valves were designed to allow repositioning during deployment, yet the effect of repositioning on clinical outcomes remains unclear.MethodsPatients implanted with the Evolut R or PRO valve from the SURTAVI (Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial continued access study and the Evolut Low Risk Trial between June 2016 and November 2018 were combined. Baseline multidetector computed tomography data were analyzed for the Evolut Low Risk Trial patients. The primary outcomes were the rate of all-cause mortality and the rate of disabling stroke 30 days. Secondary outcomes were per Valve Academic Research Consortium-2.ResultsThe Evolut R or PRO valve was implanted in 946 patients, and repositioning was performed in 318 (33.6%). Compared with patients in the nonrepositioned group, patients in the repositioned group had lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (2.3 ± 1.3% vs. 2.6 ± 1.4%; p < 0.001) and fewer prior percutaneous coronary interventions (11.9% vs. 19.7%; p = 0.003). There were no differences in baseline multidetector computed tomography parameters between groups. There were no differences in the primary outcome of death (0.3% vs. 0.3%; p = 0.99) or disabling stroke (0.3% vs. 0.5%; p = 0.71) at 30 days or 1 year (1.9% vs. 2.9%; p = 0.44; and 0.8% vs. 0.9%%; p = 0.79, respectively).ConclusionsThe utilization of the repositioning feature of the Evolut valves was safe, and no differences in death or disabling stroke were observed at 30 days or 1 year between groups. (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients; NCT02701283; Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System In the Treatment of Severe, Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [SURTAVI]; NCT01586910)     

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.     

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.     

Relationship Between Hospital Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Volume and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to examine whether hospital surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) volume was associated with corresponding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) outcomes.BackgroundRecent studies have demonstrated a volume-outcome relationship for TAVR.MethodsIn total, 208,400 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries were analyzed for all aortic valve replacement procedures from 2012 to 2015. Claims for patients <65 years of age, concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting surgery, other heart valve procedures, or other major open heart procedures were excluded, as were secondary admissions for aortic valve replacement. Hospital SAVR volumes were stratified on the basis of mean annual SAVR procedures during the study period. The primary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year post-operative TAVR survival. Adjusted survival following TAVR was assessed using multivariate Cox regression.ResultsA total of 65,757 SAVR and 42,967 TAVR admissions were evaluated. Among TAVR procedures, 21.7% (n = 9,324) were performed at hospitals with <100 (group 1), 35.6% (n = 15,298) at centers with 100 to 199 (group 2), 22.9% (n = 9,828) at centers with 200 to 299 (group 3), and 19.8% (n = 8,517) at hospitals with ≥300 SAVR cases/year (group 4). Compared with group 4, 30-day TAVR mortality risk-adjusted odds ratios were 1.32 (95% confidence interval: 1.18 to 1.47) for group 1, 1.25 (95% confidence interval: 1.12 to 1.39) for group 2, and 1.08 (95% confidence interval: 0.82 to 1.25) for group 3. These adjusted survival differences in TAVR outcomes persisted at 1 year post-procedure.ConclusionsTotal hospital SAVR volume appears to be correlated with TAVR outcomes, with higher 30-day and 1-year mortality observed at low-volume centers. These data support the importance of a viable surgical program within the heart team, and the use of minimum SAVR hospital thresholds may be considered as an additional metric for TAVR performance.     

Transcatheter Replacement of Transcatheter Versus Surgically Implanted Aortic Valve Bioprostheses

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

Hybrid Approach Using the Cusp-Overlap Technique for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With a Balloon-Expandable Valve

BackgroundThe cusp-overlap (CO) technique has recently been advocated and is being increasingly adopted for self-expandable transcatheter heart valve (THV) implantation.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, implantation depth, and outcomes of the CO technique for the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 THV.MethodsThe CO technique was used in consecutive patients undergoing balloon-expandable THV implantation at one center between April 2021 and March 2022. Optimal fluoroscopic angles were determined from preprocedural computed tomography and confirmed on predeployment angiography. The THV radiolucent line was positioned 2 to 4 mm below the noncoronary cusp in the CO view, and positioning was confirmed in the 3-cusp view. Postdeployment THV implantation depth was assessed in both views. One-month outcomes were assessed using Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 criteria.ResultsAmong 137 patients eligible for the CO technique, the CO view was not used because of unfavorable ergonomics in 27 patients (26.5%) and hemodynamic instability in 8 patients (7.8%). Among 102 patients, the mean age was 81.1 ± 6.6 years, the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 3.3% ± 2.2%, and 64.7% were men. The mean measured THV implantation depth was 3.0 ± 1.4 mm in the CO view and 2.5 ± 1.4 mm in the 3-cusp view. At 1-month follow-up, 1 patient (1.0%) had died, 1 (1.0%) had had a stroke, and 7 (6.8%) had undergone permanent pacemaker implantation.ConclusionsThe CO technique is feasible and safe and may facilitate more accurate balloon-expandable THV positioning, especially when deep implantation needs to be avoided. Further studies are required to explore potential reduction in atrioventricular conduction block, pacemakers, or paravalvular regurgitation.     

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)     

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.     

Outcomes of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Following Supra-Annular Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: From the STS/ACC TVT Registry

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the outcomes of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) in the TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry in patients undergoing supra-annular transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for de novo stenosis or failed surgical bioprostheses (transcatheter aortic valve [TAV]–in–surgical aortic valve [SAV]).BackgroundSevere PPM has been associated with adverse outcomes following TAVR, yet the clinical outcome of severe PPM after supra-annular TAVR is largely unknown.MethodsSupra-annular TAVR was performed in patients enrolled in the TVT Registry with de novo stenosis (n = 42,174) or TAV-in-SAV (n = 5,446). Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria were used to define severe PPM. The clinical impact of severe PPM on 1-year mortality and valve-related readmission was assessed using multivariate regression. A generalized linear mixed model was used to evaluate predictors of severe PPM.ResultsSevere PPM was found in 5.3% of patients undergoing de novo TAVR and 27.0% of patients undergoing TAV-in-SAV. The presence of severe PPM was not significantly associated with 1-year mortality or valve-related readmissions in both groups. Mean aortic gradients were higher in patients with severe PPM than in those without severe PPM at 1 month (9.7 ± 5.7 mm Hg vs. 7.3 ± 4.0 mm Hg; p < 0.001) and 1 year (10.2 ± 6.4 mm Hg vs. 8.0 ± 4.3 mm Hg; p < 0.001). Pre-procedural factors, including a <20-mm aortic annulus, were positive predictors of severe PPM in patients undergoing de novo TAVR (area under the curve = 0.795) and TAV-in-SAV (area under the curve = 0.764).ConclusionsSevere PPM after supra-annular TAVR was not associated with increased 1-year mortality or valve-related readmissions. Longer-term follow-up is needed to determine if higher residual gradients in patients with severe PPM predict long-term outcomes. (STS/ACC Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry [TVT Registry]; NCT01737528)     

Preventing Coronary Obstruction During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: From Computed Tomography to BASILICA

Coronary artery obstruction is an uncommon but devastating complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Computed tomography appears to be a sensitive but nonspecific predictor of coronary artery obstruction. Transcatheter approaches to prevent and treat coronary artery obstruction, such as “snorkel” stenting, are unsatisfactory because of serious early and late ischemic complications. Bioprosthetic or native aortic scallop intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction during TAVR (BASILICA) is an early-stage transcatheter procedure to prevent coronary artery obstruction. It works by splitting the native or bioprosthetic leaflets so that they splay after TAVR and preserve coronary artery inflow. Because of the paucity of suitable alternatives, there is interest in the BASILICA technique despite its infancy. This tutorial review summarizes current thinking about how to predict and prevent coronary artery obstruction using BASILICA. First, the authors depict the main pathophysiological mechanisms of TAVR-associated coronary artery obstruction, along with the factors thought to contribute to coronary obstruction. Next, the authors provide a step-by-step guide to analyzing pre-procedural computed tomographic findings to assess obstruction risk and, if desirable, to plan BASILICA. Next, the authors describe the mechanisms underlying transcatheter electrosurgery. Finally, they provide step-by-step guidance on how to perform the procedure, along with a required equipment list.     

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

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

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.     

Temporal Trends and Outcomes of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to assess the temporal trends of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS), and to compare the outcomes between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in this population.BackgroundRandomized trials comparing TAVR to SAVR in AS with bicuspid valve are lacking.MethodsThe study queried the National Inpatient Sample database (years 2012 to 2016) to identify hospitalizations for bicuspid AS who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement. A propensity-matched analysis was used to compare outcomes of hospitalizations for TAVR versus SAVR for bicuspid AS and TAVR for bicuspid AS versus tricuspid AS.ResultsThe analysis included 31,895 hospitalizations with bicuspid AS, of whom 1,055 (3.3%) underwent TAVR. TAVR was increasingly utilized during the study period for bicuspid AS (p_trend = 0.002). After matching, TAVR and SAVR had similar in-hospital mortality (3.1% vs. 3.1%; odds ratio: 1.00; 95% confidence interval: 0.60 to 1.67). There was no difference between TAVR and SAVR in the rates of cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, acute kidney injury, hemopericardium, cardiac tamponade, or acute stroke. TAVR was associated with lower rates of acute myocardial infarction, post-operative bleeding, vascular complications, and discharge to nursing facility as well as a shorter length of hospital stay. On the contrary, TAVR was associated with a higher incidence of complete heart block and permanent pacemaker insertion. TAVR for bicuspid AS was associated with similar in-hospital mortality compared with tricuspid AS.ConclusionsThis nationwide analysis showed similar in-hospital mortality for TAVR and SAVR in patients with bicuspid AS. TAVR for bicuspid AS was also associated with similar in-hospital mortality compared with tricuspid AS. Further studies are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes of TAVR for bicuspid AS.     

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)     

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.