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.     

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.     

Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Anatomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) versus tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis.BackgroundAt present, limited observational data exist supporting TAVR in the context of bicuspid anatomy.MethodsPrimary endpoints were 1-year survival and device success. Secondary endpoints included moderate to severe paravalvular leak (PVL) and a composite endpoint of periprocedural complications; incidence rates of individual procedural endpoints were also explored individually.ResultsIn the main analysis, 17 studies and 181,433 patients undergoing TAVR were included, of whom 6,669 (0.27%) had BAV. A secondary analysis of 7,071 matched subjects with similar baseline characteristics was also performed. Device success and 1-year survival rates were similar between subjects with BAV and those with TAV (97% vs 94% [P = 0.55] and 91.3% vs 90.8% [P = 0.22], respectively). In patients with BAV, a trend toward a higher risk for periprocedural complications was observed in our main analysis (risk ratio [RR]: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.99-1.27; P = 0.07) but not in the matched population secondary analysis (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.81-1.24; P = 0.99). The risk for moderate to severe PVL was higher in subjects with BAV (RR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.29-1.58; P < 0.0001) as well as the incidence of cerebral ischemic events (2.4% vs 1.6%; P = 0.015) and of annular rupture (0.3% vs 0.02%; P = 0.014) in matched subjects.ConclusionsTAVR is a feasible option among selected patients with BAV anatomy, but the higher rates of moderate to severe PVL, annular rupture, and cerebral ischemic events observed in the BAV group warrant caution and further evidence.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

5-Year Outcomes Comparing Surgical Versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare 5-year cardiovascular, renal, and bioprosthetic valve durability outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).BackgroundPatients with severe AS and CKD undergoing TAVR or SAVR are a challenging, understudied clinical subset.MethodsIntermediate-risk patients with moderate to severe CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/m²) from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) 2A trial (patients randomly assigned to SAPIEN XT TAVR or SAVR) and SAPIEN 3 Intermediate Risk Registry were pooled. The composite primary outcome of death, stroke, rehospitalization, and new hemodialysis was evaluated using Cox regression analysis. Patients with and without perioperative acute kidney injury (AKI) were followed through 5 years. A core laboratory–adjudicated analysis of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure was also performed.ResultsThe study population included 1,045 TAVR patients (512 SAPIEN XT, 533 SAPIEN 3) and 479 SAVR patients. At 5 years, SAVR was better than SAPIEN XT TAVR (52.8% vs 68.0%; P = 0.04) but similar to SAPIEN 3 TAVR (52.8% vs 58.7%; P = 0.89). Perioperative AKI was more common after SAVR than TAVR (26.3% vs 10.3%; P < 0.001) and was independently associated with long-term outcomes. Compared with SAVR, bioprosthetic valve failure and stage 2 or 3 structural valve deterioration were significantly greater for SAPIEN XT TAVR (P < 0.05) but not for SAPIEN 3 TAVR.ConclusionsIn intermediate-risk patients with AS and CKD, SAPIEN 3 TAVR and SAVR were associated with a similar risk for the primary endpoint at 5 years. AKI was more common after SAVR than TAVR, and SAPIEN 3 valve durability was comparable with that of surgical bioprostheses.     

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.     

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

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

Racial Differences in the Incidence and Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the incidence and prognostic significance of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) according to racial groups.BackgroundPPM after TAVR may be of more concern in Asian populations considering their relatively small annular and valve sizes compared with Western populations.MethodsTP-TAVR (Transpacific TAVR Registry) was an international multicenter cohort study of patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR in the United States and South Korea from January 2015 to November 2019. PPM was defined as moderate (0.65-0.85 cm²/m²) or severe (<0.65 cm²/m²) at the indexed effective orifice area. The primary outcome was a composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year.ResultsAmong 1,101 eligible patients (533 Asian and 569 non-Asian), the incidence of PPM was significantly lower in the Asian population (33.6%; moderate, 26.5%; severe, 7.1%) than in the non-Asian population (54.5%; moderate, 29.8%; severe, 24.7%). The 1-year rate of the primary outcome was similar between the PPM and non-PPM groups (27.5% vs 28.1%; P = 0.69); this pattern was consistent between Asian (25.4% vs 25.2%; P = 0.31) and non-Asian (28.7% vs 32.1%; P = 0.97) patients. After multivariable adjustment, the risk for the primary outcome did not significantly differ between the PPM and non-PPM groups in the overall population (HR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.74-1.21), in Asian patients (HR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.74-1.55), and in non-Asian patients (HR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.63-1.19).ConclusionsIn this study of patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR, the incidence of PPM was significantly lower in Asian patients than in non-Asian patients. The 1-year risk for the primary composite outcome was similar between the PPM and non-PPM groups regardless of racial group. (Transpacific TAVR Registry [TP-TAVR]; NCT03826264)     

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.     

Risk of Coronary Obstruction During Redo-TAVR in Patients With Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the risk of coronary obstruction during redo–transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) within a previously implanted self-expanding valve in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) versus tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis.BackgroundThe prevalence of BAV in TAVR patients is expected to increase as the indication expands; however, no study has investigated the risk of coronary obstruction for future redo-TAVR in these patients.MethodsComputed tomography (CT) simulation analysis was performed in 86 type 0 BAV, 70 type 1 BAV, and 132 TAV patients who underwent TAVR with 1 VenusA-Valve (Venus Medtech) between January 2014 and December 2019.ResultsCT-identified risk of coronary obstruction during redo-TAVR was observed in 36.1% of patients for the left coronary ostium (LCO) and 27.8% of patients for the right coronary ostium (RCO); however, the incidences were significantly lower in the type 0 BAV group than in the type 1 BAV or TAV group (for LCO: OR: 1.00 [reference] vs OR: 2.49; 95% CI: 1.24-5.01 vs OR: 2.60; 95% CI: 1.40-4.81; for RCO: OR: 1.00 [reference] vs OR: 2.14; 95% CI: 1.02-4.48 vs OR: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.02-3.80). The leaflet laceration technique may be unfeasible to improve coronary flow in 61.5% of the threatened LCOs and 58.8% of the threatened RCOs during redo-TAVR. The percentages were significantly or numerically lower in the type 0 BAV group than other groups (for LCO: 26.3% vs 62.1% vs 73.2%; P overall = 0.001; for RCO: 43.8% vs 65.2% vs 61.0%; P overall = 0.374).ConclusionsDifferences in anatomical features may impact the feasibility of future redo-TAVR. Type 0 BAV anatomy was associated with the lower incidence of CT-identified risk of coronary obstruction during redo-TAVR, and the leaflet laceration technique may be more feasible to ensure coronary flow in this population.     

5-Year Outcomes With Self-Expanding vs Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Small Annuli

BackgroundSelf-expanding transcatheter heart valves (THVs) are associated with better echocardiographic hemodynamic performance than balloon-expandable THVs and are considered preferable in patients with small annuli.ObjectivesThis study sought to compare 5-year outcomes between self-expanding vs balloon-expandable THVs in severe aortic stenosis (AS) patients with small annuli.MethodsConsecutive severe AS patients with an aortic valve annulus area <430 mm² who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with either the CoreValve Evolut (Medtronic) or SAPIEN (Edwards Lifesciences) THV between 2012 and 2021 were enrolled from the Bern TAVI registry. A 1:1 propensity-matched analysis was performed to account for baseline differences between groups.ResultsA total of 723 patients were included, and propensity score matching resulted in 171 pairs. Technical success was achieved in over 85% of both groups with no significant difference. Self-expanding THVs were associated with a lower transvalvular gradient (8.0 ± 4.8 mm Hg vs 12.5 ± 4.5 mm Hg; P < 0.001), a larger effective orifice area (1.81 ± 0.46 cm² vs 1.49 ± 0.42 cm²; P < 0.001), and a lower incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (19.7% vs 51.8%; P < 0.001) than balloon-expandable THVs. At 5 years, there were no significant differences in mortality (50.4% vs 39.6%; P = 0.269) between groups. Disabling stroke occurred more frequently in patients with a self-expanding THV than those with a balloon-expandable THV (6.6% vs 0.6%; P = 0.030). Similar results were obtained using inverse probability of treatment weighting in the Bern TAVI registry and the nationwide Swiss TAVI registry.ConclusionsThe echocardiographic hemodynamic advantage of self-expanding THVs was not associated with better clinical outcomes compared with balloon-expandable THVs up to 5 years in patients with small annuli. (Swiss TAVI Registry; NCT01368250)     

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Aortic Valve Replacement in the PARTNER 2 Trial and Registry

ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare incidence and impact of measured prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM_M) versus predicted PPM (PPM_P) after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundTAVR studies have used measured effective orifice area indexed (EOAi) to body surface area (BSA) to define PPM, but most SAVR series have used predicted EOAi. This difference may contribute to discrepancies in incidence and outcomes of PPM between series.MethodsThe study analyzed SAVR patients from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2A trial and TAVR patients from the PARTNER 2 SAPIEN 3 Intermediate Risk registry. PPM was classified as moderate if EOAi ≤0.85 cm²/m² (≤0.70 if obese: body mass index ≥30 kg/m²) and severe if EOAi ≤0.65 cm²/m² (≤0.55 if obese). PPM_M was determined by the core lab–measured EOAi on 30-day echocardiogram. PPM_P was determined by 2 methods: 1) using normal EOA reference values previously reported for each valve model and size (PPM_P1; n = 929 SAVR, 1,069 TAVR) indexed to BSA; and 2) using normal reference EOA predicted from aortic annulus size measured by computed tomography (PPM_P2; n = 864 TAVR only) indexed to BSA. Primary endpoint was the composite of 5-year all-cause death and rehospitalization.ResultsThe incidence of moderate and severe PPM_P was much lower than PPM_M in both SAVR (PPM_P1: 28.4% and 1.2% vs. PPM_M: 31.0% and 23.6%) and TAVR (PPM_P1: 21.0% and 0.1% and PPM_P2: 17.0% and 0% vs. PPM_M: 27.9% and 5.7%). The incidence of severe PPM_M and severe PPM_P1 was lower in TAVR versus SAVR (P < 0.001). The presence of PPM by any method was associated with higher transprosthetic gradient. Severe PPM_P1 was independently associated with events in SAVR after adjustment for sex and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (hazard ratio: 3.18;95% CI: 1.69-5.96; P < 0.001), whereas no association was observed between PPM by any method and outcomes in TAVR.ConclusionsEOAi measured by echocardiography results in a higher incidence of PPM following SAVR or TAVR than PPM based on predicted EOAi. Severe PPM_P is rare (<1.5%), but is associated with increased all-cause death and rehospitalization after SAVR, whereas it is absent following TAVR.     

Outcomes of Redo Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement According to the Initial and Subsequent Valve Type

BackgroundAs transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) replacement is increasingly used in patients with longer life expectancy, a sizable proportion will require redo TAV replacement (TAVR). The unique configuration of balloon-expandable TAV (bTAV) vs a self-expanding TAV (sTAV) potentially affects TAV-in-TAV outcome.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to better inform prosthesis selection, TAV-in-TAV outcomes were assessed according to the type of initial and subsequent TAV.MethodsPatients from the Redo-TAVR registry were analyzed using propensity weighting according to their initial valve type (bTAV [n = 115] vs sTAV [n = 106]) and subsequent valve type (bTAV [n = 130] vs sTAV [n = 91]).ResultsPatients with failed bTAVs presented later (vs sTAV) (4.9 ± 2.1 years vs 3.7 ± 2.3 years; P < 0.001), with smaller effective orifice area (1.0 ± 0.7 cm² vs 1.3 ± 0.8 cm²; P = 0.018) and less frequent dominant regurgitation (16.2% vs 47.3%; P < 0.001). Mortality at 30 days was 2.3% (TAV-in-bTAV) vs 0% (TAV-in-sTAV) (P = 0.499) and 1.7% (bTAV-in-TAV) vs 1.0% (sTAV-in-TAV) (P = 0.612); procedural safety was 72.6% (TAV-in-bTAV) vs 71.2% (TAV-in-sTAV) (P = 0.817) and 73.2% (bTAV-in-TAV) vs 76.5% (sTAV-in-TAV) (P = 0.590). Device success was similar according to initial valve type but higher with subsequent sTAV vs bTAV (77.2% vs 64.3%; P = 0.045), primarily because of lower residual gradients (10.3 mm Hg [8.9-11.7 mm Hg] vs 15.2 mm Hg [13.2-17.1 mm Hg]; P < 0.001). Residual regurgitation (moderate or greater) was similar after bTAV-in-TAV and sTAV-in-TAV (5.7%) and nominally higher after TAV-in-bTAV (9.1%) vs TAV-in-sTAV (4.4%) (P = 0.176).ConclusionsIn selected patients, no association was observed between TAV type and redo TAVR safety or mortality, yet subsequent sTAV was associated with higher device success because of lower redo gradients. These findings are preliminary, and more data are needed to guide valve choice for redo TAVR.     

Nationally Representative Repeat Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes: Report From the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to examine real-world experience with repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in a population-based national database.BackgroundRepeat TAVR is a growing option in patients requiring reintervention for TAVR. However, large-scale studies with longitudinal follow-up are limited.MethodsAll Medicare beneficiaries who underwent TAVR from 2012 to 2017 were included. Outcomes included 30-day and longitudinal mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, stroke, pacemaker insertion, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, or cardiac arrest. Outcomes of repeat TAVR were compared with surgical explantation after TAVR (TAVR explantation) in a matched analysis.ResultsOf 133,250 patients who underwent TAVR, 617 (0.46%) underwent subsequent repeat TAVR at a median interval of 154 days (interquartile range: 58-537 days). Mortality at 30 days and 1 year was 6.0% and 22.0%, respectively. Rates of 30-day stroke and pacemaker insertion were 1.8% and 4.2%. Mortality at 30 days was lower in those who underwent their first TAVR during the later era (2015-2017) compared with earlier years (2012-2014) (4.6% vs 8.7%; P = 0.049). Repeat TAVR was associated with lower 30-day mortality compared with a matched group undergoing TAVR explantation (6.2% vs 12.3%; P = 0.05), although 1-year mortality was similar (21.0% vs 20.8%; P = 1.000). The incidence of 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events was higher with TAVR explantation compared with repeat TAVR (risk ratio: 2.92; 95% CI: 1.88-4.99; P ≤ 0.001).ConclusionsRepeat TAVR was performed with acceptable 30-day mortality in this high-risk population. Short-term outcomes were superior to surgical explantation, but 1-year outcomes were similar. Repeat TAVR will likely be an important option for aortic valve reintervention after TAVR.     

The Effect of Coronary Lesion Complexity and Preprocedural Revascularization on 5-Year Outcomes After TAVR

BackgroundAortic stenosis and coronary artery disease (CAD) frequently coincide. However, the management of coexisting CAD in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains controversial.ObjectivesThis study sought to determine whether the presence of CAD, its complexity, and angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are associated with outcomes after TAVR.MethodsAll patients undergoing TAVR at a tertiary referral center between 2008 and 2020 were included in a prospective observational study. Baseline SYNTAX (Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score (SS) and, whenever applicable, a residual SS after PCI were calculated. A multivariate analysis was performed to determine the effect of CAD, stratified according to complexity, and PCI on 5-year outcomes.ResultsIn 604 patients, the presence of CAD and its complexity were significantly associated with worse 5-year survival (SS 0: 67.9% vs SS 1-22: 56.1% vs SS >22: 53.0%; log-rank P = 0.027) and increased cardiovascular mortality (SS 0: 15.1% vs SS 1-22: 24.0% vs SS >22: 27.8%; log-rank P = 0.024) after TAVR. Having noncomplex CAD (SS 1-22) was an independent predictor for increased all-cause mortality (HR: 1.43; P = 0.046), while complex CAD (SS >22) increased cardiovascular mortality significantly (HR: 1.84; P = 0.041). Angiography-guided PCI or completeness of revascularization was not associated with different outcomes.ConclusionsThe presence of CAD and its anatomical complexity in patients undergoing TAVR are associated with significantly worse 5-year outcomes. However, angiography-guided PCI did not improve outcomes, highlighting the need for further research into physiology-guided PCI.     

Cusp Symmetry and Coronary Ostial Eccentricity and its Impact on Coronary Access Following TAVR

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess cusp symmetry and coronary ostial eccentricity and its impact on coronary access following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using a patient-specific commissural alignment implantation technique.BackgroundTAVR implantation techniques to obtain neocommissural alignment have been introduced. The impact of cusp symmetry and coronary ostial eccentricity on coronary access after TAVR remains unknown.MethodsCardiac computed tomographic scans from 200 tricuspid aortic valves (TAVs) and 200 type 1 bicuspid aortic valves (BAVs) were studied. Cusp symmetry and coronary ostial eccentricity were assessed. In addition, the right coronary cusp/left coronary cusp and right coronary artery (RCA)/left coronary artery (LCA) ostia overlap views were calculated and compared.ResultsSevere cusp asymmetry (>135°) was more frequent in BAVs (52.5%) than in TAVs (2.5%) (P < 0.001), with the noncoronary cusp being the most common dominant cusp. The RCA ostium was found to be more often eccentric (>20°) than the LCA ostium (28% vs 6%, respectively; P < 0.001). Considering the right/left cusp overlap view, there was <20° deviation between the right coronary cusp–left coronary cusp centered line and the RCA-LCA centered line in 95% of all patients (TAV, 97%; BAV, 93%). The right/left cusp and coronary ostia overlap view differed by <10° and <20° fluoroscopic angulation in 75% and 98% of all cases, respectively.ConclusionsUsing the right/left cusp overlap view to obtain commissural alignment in TAVR is also an effective approach to implant one of the transcatheter heart valve commissures in the near center between both coronary ostia in most TAVs and type 1 BAVs. Preprocedural CT assessment remains crucial to assess cusp symmetry and coronary ostial eccentricity.     

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.