Acute Reduction in Left Ventricular Function Following Transcatheter Mitral Edge-to-Edge Repair.

Background Little is known about the impact of transcatheter mitral valve edge-to-edge repair on changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and the effect of an acute reduction in LVEF on prognosis. We aimed to assess changes in LVEF after transcatheter mitral valve edge-to-edge repair for both primary and secondary mitral regurgitation (PMR and SMR, respectively), identify rates and predictors of LVEF reduction, and estimate its impact on prognosis. Methods and Results In this international multicenter registry, patients with both PMR and SMR undergoing transcatheter mitral valve edge-to-edge repair were included. We assessed rates of acute LVEF reduction (LVEFR), defined as an acute relative decrease of >15% in LVEF, its impact on all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac event (composite end point of all-cause death, mitral valve surgery, and residual mitral regurgitation grade ≥2), and LVEF at 12 months, as well as predictors for LVEFR. Of 2534 patients included (727 with PMR, and 1807 with SMR), 469 (18.5%) developed LVEFR. Patients with PMR were older (79.0±9.2 versus 71.8±8.9 years; P<0.001) and had higher mean LVEF (54.8±14.0% versus 32.7±10.4%; P<0.001) at baseline. After 6 to 12 months (median, 9.9 months; interquartile range, 7.8-11.9 months), LVEF was significantly lower in patients with PMR (53.0% versus 56.0%; P<0.001) but not in patients with SMR. The 1-year mortality was higher in patients with PMR with LVEFR (16.9% versus 9.7%; P<0.001) but not in those with SMR (P=0.236). LVEF at baseline (odds ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.01-1.05]; P=0.002) was predictive of LVEFR for patients with PMR, but not those with SMR (P=0.092). Conclusions Reduction in LVEF is not uncommon after transcatheter mitral valve edge-to-edge repair and is correlated with worsened prognosis in patients with PMR but not patients with SMR. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT05311163.

Changes in demographics, treatment and outcomes in a consecutive cohort who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation between 2005 and 2020.

INTRODUCTION: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has matured to the treatment of choice for most patients with aortic stenosis (AS). We sought to identify trends in patient and procedural characteristics, and clinical outcomes in all patients who underwent TAVI between 2005 and 2020. METHODS: A single-centre analysis was performed on 1500 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI, divided into three tertiles (T) of 500 patients treated between November 2005 and December 2014 (T1), January 2015 and May 2018 (T2) and June 2018 and April 2020 (T3). RESULTS: Over time, mean age and gender did not change (T1 to T3: 80, 80 and 79 years and 53%, 55% and 52% men, respectively), while the Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score declined (T1: 4.5% to T3: 2.7%, p < 0.001). Use of general anaesthesia also declined over time (100%, 24% and 1% from T1 to T3) and transfemoral TAVI remained the default approach (87%, 94% and 92%). Median procedure time and contrast volume decreased significantly (186, 114 and 56 min and 120, 100 and 80 ml, respectively). Thirty-day mortality (7%, 4% and 2%), stroke (7%, 3% and 3%), need for a pacemaker (19%, 22% and 8%) and delirium (17%, 12% and 8%) improved significantly, while major bleeding/vascular complications did not change (both approximately 9%, 6% and 6%). One-year survival was 80%, 88% and 92%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Over our 15 years' experience, patient age remained unchanged but the patient risk profile became more favourable. Simplification of the TAVI procedure occurred in parallel with major improvement in outcomes and survival. Bleeding/vascular complications and the need for pacemaker implantation remain the Achilles' heel of TAVI.

Clinical consequences of consecutive self-expanding transcatheter heart valve iterations.

OBJECTIVE: To compare early clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with three consecutive generations of self-expanding valves (SEVs). METHODS: Clinical endpoints of consecutive patients who underwent TAVI with CoreValve, Evolut R or Evolut PRO were included in a prospective database. RESULTS: TAVI was performed with CoreValve (n = 116), Evolut R (n = 160) or Evolut PRO (n = 92). Evolut R and Evolut PRO showed a tendency towards lower permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rates compared to CoreValve (CoreValve 27% vs Evolut R 16% vs Evolut PRO 18%, p = 0.091). By multivariable regression analysis CoreValve had a significantly higher risk for PPI (odds ratio (OR) 2.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31-5.94, p = 0.008) compared to Evolut R, while Evolut R and PRO were similar. Severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) occurred only with CoreValve, but no significant difference was observed in moderate PVL (10% vs 8% vs 6%, p = 0.49). CoreValve had a tendency towards a higher risk for more-than-mild PVL as compared with the Evolut platform (R + PRO) (OR 2.46, 95% CI 0.98-6.16, p = 0.055). No significant differences in all-cause mortality (7% vs 4% vs 1%, p = 0.10), stroke (6% vs 3% vs 2%, p = 0.21) or major vascular complications (10% vs 12% vs 4%, p = 0.14) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: TAVI with self-expanding valves was safe, and device iterations may result in a lower need for PPI. More-than-mild PVL seemed to occur less often with repositionable technology.