Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibition and Cardiac Damage in Patients Who Have Undergone Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: The optimal medical treatment strategy after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has not been established, and might be affected by the extent of extravalvular cardiac damage. We aimed to investigate the prognostic effect of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors in TAVR patients stratified according to the extent of extravalvular cardiac damage. METHODS: In a prospective TAVR registry, patients were retrospectively evaluated for baseline cardiac damage and classified into 5 stages of cardiac damage (0-4) according to established criteria. Clinical outcomes at 1 year were compared according to RAS inhibitor prescription at discharge. RESULTS: Among 2247 eligible patients who underwent TAVR between August 2007 and June 2021, 1634 (72.7%) were prescribed RAS inhibitors at discharge. Eighty-three patients (3.7%) were classified as stage 0, 276 (12.3%) as stage 1, 889 (39.6%) as stage 2, 489 (21.8%) as stage 3, and 510 (22.7%) as stage 4. RAS inhibitor prescription after TAVR was associated with a reduced risk of 1-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HRadjusted], 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.77). The protective effect was accentuated among patients with cardiac stages 3 and 4 (HRadjusted, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.32-0.92]; and HRadjusted, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.36-0.92], respectively), but not statistically significant in for those with stage 2 (HRadjusted, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.43-1.14). CONCLUSIONS: In patients who underwent TAVR, we found a strong association of RAS inhibitor prescription and improved clinical outcome in the overall population, and there were no signs of heterogeneity across stages of cardiac damage. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01368250.

Sex-Specific Differences in Upstream Cardiac Damage in Patients With Aortic Stenosis Undergoing TAVR.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac damage caused by aortic stenosis (AS) can be categorized into stages, which are associated with a progressively increasing risk of death after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). OBJECTIVES: The authors investigated sex-related differences in cardiac damage among patients with symptomatic AS and the prognostic value of cardiac damage classification in women and men undergoing TAVR. METHODS: In a prospective registry, pre-TAVR echocardiograms were used to categorize patients into 5 stages of cardiac damage caused by AS. Differences in the extent of cardiac damage were compared according to sex, and its implications on clinical outcomes after TAVR were explored. RESULTS: Among 2,026 patients undergoing TAVR between August 2007 and June 2022 (995 [49.1%] women and 1,031 [50.9%] men), we observed sex-specific differences in the pattern of cardiac damage (women vs men; stage 0: 2.6% vs 3.1%, stage 1: 13.4% vs 10.1%, stage 2: 37.1% vs 39.5%, stage 3: 27.5% vs 15.6%, and stage 4: 19.4% vs 31.7%). There was a stepwise increase in 5-year all-cause mortality according to stage in women (HRadjusted: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.28-1.60, for linear trend) and men (HRadjusted: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.14-1.38, for linear trend). Female sex was associated with a lower 5-year mortality in early stages (stage 0, 1, or 2) but not in advanced stages (stage 3 or 4). CONCLUSIONS: The pattern of cardiac damage secondary to AS differed by sex. In early stages of cardiac damage, women had a lower 5-year mortality than men, whereas in more advanced stages, mortality was comparable between sexes. (SwissTAVI Registry; NCT01368250).

Long-Term Impact of Cardiac Damage Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Extravalvular cardiac damage caused by aortic stenosis affects prognosis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The long-term impact of changes in cardiac damage in response to relief from mechanical obstruction has not been fully investigated. OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to investigate changes in cardiac damage early after TAVR and the prognostic impact of the cardiac damage classification after TAVR. METHODS: In this single-center observational study, patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR were retrospectively evaluated for cardiac damage before and after TAVR and classified into 5 stages of cardiac damage (0-4). RESULTS: Among 1,863 patients undergoing TAVR between January 2007 and June 2022, 56 patients (3.0%) were classified as stage 0, 225 (12.1%) as stage 1, 729 (39.1%) as stage 2, 388 (20.8%) as stage 3, and 465 (25.0%) as stage 4. Cardiac stage changed in 47.7% of patients (improved: 30.1% in stages 1-4 and deteriorated: 24.7% in stages 0-3) early after TAVR. Five-year all-cause mortality was associated with cardiac damage both at baseline (HRadjusted: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.24-1.44; P < 0.001 for linear trend) and after TAVR (HRadjusted: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.30-1.51; P < 0.001 for linear trend). Five-year all-cause mortality was stratified by changes in cardiac damage (improved, unchanged, or worsened) in patients with cardiac stage 2, 3, and 4 (log-rank P < 0.001 for stage 2, 0.005 for stage 3, and <0.001 for stage 4). CONCLUSIONS: The extent of extra-aortic valve cardiac damage before and after TAVR and changes in cardiac stage early after TAVR have important prognostic implications during long-term follow-up. (SwissTAVI Registry; NCT01368250).

The Impact of Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices on Characteristics and Outcomes of Stroke Complicating TAVR.

BACKGROUND: Acute ischemic stroke remains a serious complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPD) were developed to mitigate the risk of acute ischemic stroke complicating TAVR (AISCT). However, the existing body of evidence does not clearly support CEPD efficacy in AISCT prevention. OBJECTIVES: In a cohort of patients with AISCT, we aimed to compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients who have had unprotected TAVR (CEPD-) vs CEPD-protected TAVR (CEPD+). METHODS: Data were derived from an international multicenter registry focusing on AISCT. We included all patients who experienced ischemic stroke within 72 hours of TAVR. Stroke severity was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). Primary outcomes were neurologic disability status according to the modified Rankin Score at 30 days, and 6-month all-cause death. Propensity score matched analysis was used to control for differences between groups. RESULTS: In 18,725 TAVR procedures, 416 AISCT (2.2%) within 72 hours were documented, of which 376 were in the CEPD- TAVR group and 40 in the CEPD+ TAVR group. Although the middle cerebral artery stroke rate was similar in both groups (29.7% CEPD- vs 33.3% CEPD+; P = 0.71), AISCT in the CEPD+ group was characterized by a lower rate of internal carotid artery occlusion (0% vs 4.7%) and higher rate of vertebrobasilar system strokes (15.4% vs 5.7%; P = 0.04). AISCT was severe (NIHSS ≥15) in 21.6% CEPD- and 23.3% CEPD+ AISCT (P = 0.20). Disabling stroke rates (modified Rankin Score >1 at 30 days) were 47.3% vs 42.5% (P = 0.62), and 6-month mortality was 31.3% vs 23.3% (P = 0.61), in the CEPD- and CEPD+ groups, respectively. In the propensity score matched cohort, disabling stroke rates were 56.5% vs 41.6% (P = 0.16), and 6-month mortality was 33% vs 19.5% (P = 0.35), in the CEPD- and CEPD+ groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of patients with AISCT, the use of CEPD had little effect on stroke distribution, severity, and outcomes.

Evolut PRO and SAPIEN ULTRA Performance in Small Aortic Annuli: The OPERA-TAVI Registry.

BACKGROUND: The performance of latest iteration transcatheter aortic valve replacement platforms in patients with small aortic anatomy remains underexplored. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate effectiveness and performance between the self-expanding (SE) Evolut PRO and PRO+ and the balloon-expandable (BE) SAPIEN ULTRA in patients with small aortic annuli. METHODS: Data from the OPERA-TAVI (Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO vs. SAPIEN 3 ULTRA Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry were used, with 1:1 propensity score matching. Primary endpoints included 1-year effectiveness composite (all-cause mortality, disabling stroke, or heart failure hospitalization) and 30-day device-related (hemodynamic structural valve dysfunction and nonstructural valve dysfunction) outcomes. RESULTS: Among 3,516 patients, 251 matched pairs with aortic annular area <430 mm2 were assessed. The 1-year primary effectiveness outcome did not differ significantly between cohorts (SE 10.8% vs BE 11.2%; P = 0.91). The 30-day device-oriented composite outcome was more favorable in the Evolut PRO group (SE 4.8% vs BE 10.4%; P = 0.027). Notably, SE valve recipients showed higher rates of disabling stroke (SE 4.0% vs BE 0.0%; P < 0.01) and paravalvular leaks (mild or greater: SE 48.5% vs BE 18.6% [P < 0.001]; moderate: SE 4.5% vs BE 1.2% [P = 0.070]). The BE group had higher rates of prosthesis-patient mismatch (moderate or greater: SE 16.0% vs BE 47.1% [P < 0.001]; severe: SE 1.3% vs BE 5.7% [P = 0.197]) and more patients with residual mean gradients >20 mm Hg (SE 1.0% vs BE 13.5%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with small aortic annuli, transcatheter aortic valve replacement with latest iteration devices is safe. SE platforms are associated with more favorable device performance in terms of hemodynamic structural and nonstructural dysfunction. Randomized data are needed to validate these findings and guide informed device selection.

Myocardial analysis from routine 4D cardiac-CT to predict reverse remodeling and clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

PURPOSE: Our study aimed to determine whether 4D cardiac computed tomography (4DCCT) based quantitative myocardial analysis may improve risk stratification and can predict reverse remodeling (RRM) and mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing clinically indicated 4DCCT prior to TAVI were prospectively enrolled. 4DCCT-derived left- (LV) and right ventricular (RV), and left atrial (LA) dimensions, mass, ejection fraction (EF) and myocardial strain were evaluated to predict RRM and survival. RRM was defined by either relative increase in LVEF by 5% or relative decline in LV end diastolic diameter (LVEDD) by 5% assessed by transthoracic echocardiography prior TAVI, at discharge, and at 12-month follow-up compared to baseline prior to TAVI. RESULTS: Among 608 patients included in this study (55 % males, age 81 ± 6.6 years), RRM was observed in 279 (54 %) of 519 patients at discharge and in 218 (48 %) of 453 patients at 12-month echocardiography. While no CCT based measurements predicted RRM at discharge, CCT based LV mass index and LVEF independently predicted RRM at 12-month (ORadj = 1.012; 95 %CI:1.001-1.024; p = 0.046 and ORadj = 0.969; 95 %CI:0.943-0.996; p = 0.024, respectively). The most pronounced changes in LVEF and LVEDD were observed in patients with impaired LV function at baseline. In multivariable analysis age (HRadj = 1.037; 95 %CI:1.005-1.070; p = 0.022) and CCT-based LVEF (HRadj = 0.972; 95 %CI:0.945-0.999; p = 0.048) and LAEF (HRadj = 0.982; 95 %CI:0.968-0.996; p = 0.011) independently predicted survival. CONCLUSION: Comprehensive myocardial functional information derived from routine 4DCCT in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI could predict reverse remodeling and clinical outcomes at 12-month following TAVI.

Sex-Related Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Self-Expanding or Balloon-Expandable Valves: Insights from the OPERA-TAVI Registry.

Evidence regarding gender-related differences in response to transcatheter aortic valve implantation according to the valve type is lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of gender on the treatment effect of Evolut PRO/PRO+ (PRO) or SAPIEN 3 Ultra (ULTRA) devices on clinical outcomes. The Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO vs SAPIEN 3 Ultra Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (OPERA-TAVI) is a multicenter, multinational registry including patients who underwent the latest-iteration PRO or ULTRA implantation. Overall, 1,174 of 1,897 patients were matched based on valve type and compared according to gender, whereas 470 men and 630 women were matched and compared according to valve type. The 30-day and 1-year outcomes were evaluated. In the PRO and ULTRA groups, men had a higher co-morbidity burden, whereas women had smaller aortic root. The 30-day (device success [DS], early safety outcome, permanent pacemaker implantation, patient-prosthesis mismatch, paravalvular regurgitation, bleedings, vascular complications, and all-cause death) and 1-year outcomes (all-cause death, stroke, and heart failure hospitalization) did not differ according to gender in both valve groups. However, the male gender decreased the likelihood of 30-day DS with ULTRA versus PRO (p for interaction = 0.047). A higher risk of 30-day permanent pacemaker implantation and 1-year stroke and a lower risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch was observed in PRO versus ULTRA, regardless of gender. In conclusion, gender did not modify the treatment effect of PRO versus ULTRA on clinical outcomes, except for 30-day DS, which was decreased in men (vs women) who received ULTRA (vs PRO).

Quality and transparency of evidence for implantable cardiovascular medical devices assessed by the CORE-MD consortium.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The European Union Medical Device Regulation 2017/745 challenges key stakeholders to follow transparent and rigorous approaches to the clinical evaluation of medical devices. The purpose of this study is a systematic evaluation of published clinical evidence underlying selected high-risk cardiovascular medical devices before and after market access in the European Union (CE-marking) between 2000 and 2021. METHODS: Pre-specified strategies were applied to identify published studies of prospective design evaluating 71 high-risk cardiovascular devices in seven different classes (bioresorbable coronary scaffolds, left atrial appendage occlusion devices, transcatheter aortic valve implantation systems, transcatheter mitral valve repair/replacement systems, surgical aortic and mitral heart valves, leadless pacemakers, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator). The search time span covered 20 years (2000-21). Details of study design, patient population, intervention(s), and primary outcome(s) were summarized and assessed with respect to timing of the corresponding CE-mark approval. RESULTS: At least one prospective clinical trial was identified for 70% (50/71) of the pre-specified devices. Overall, 473 reports of 308 prospectively designed studies (enrolling 97 886 individuals) were deemed eligible, including 81% (251/308) prospective non-randomized clinical trials (66 186 individuals) and 19% (57/308) randomized clinical trials (31 700 individuals). Pre-registration of the study protocol was available in 49% (150/308) studies, and 16% (48/308) had a peer-reviewed publicly available protocol. Device-related adverse events were evaluated in 82% (253/308) of studies. An outcome adjudication process was reported in 39% (120/308) of the studies. Sample size was larger for randomized in comparison to non-randomized trials (median of 304 vs. 100 individuals, P < .001). No randomized clinical trial published before CE-mark approval for any of the devices was identified. Non-randomized clinical trials were predominantly published after the corresponding CE-mark approval of the device under evaluation (89%, 224/251). Sample sizes were smaller for studies published before (median of 31 individuals) than after (median of 135 individuals) CE-mark approval (P < .001). Clinical trials with larger sample sizes (>50 individuals) and those with longer recruitment periods were more likely to be published after CE-mark approval, and were more frequent during the period 2016-21. CONCLUSIONS: The quantity and quality of publicly available data from prospective clinical investigations across selected categories of cardiovascular devices, before and after CE approval during the period 2000-21, were deemed insufficient. The majority of studies was non-randomized, with increased risk of bias, and performed in small populations without provision of power calculations, and none of the reviewed devices had randomized trial results published prior to CE-mark certification.

One-year clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the latest iteration of self-expanding or balloonexpandable devices: insights from the OPERA-TAVI registry.

BACKGROUND: Midterm comparative analyses of the latest iterations of the most used Evolut and SAPIEN platforms for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are lacking. AIMS: We aimed to compare 1-year clinical outcomes of TAVI patients receiving Evolut PRO/PRO+ (PRO) or SAPIEN 3 Ultra (ULTRA) devices in current real-world practice. METHODS: Among patients enrolled in the OPERA-TAVI registry, patients with complete 1-year follow-up were considered for the purpose of this analysis. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to compare TAVI patients receiving PRO or ULTRA devices. The primary endpoint was a composite of 1-year all-cause death, disabling stroke and rehospitalisation for heart failure. Five prespecified subgroups of patients were considered according to leaflet and left ventricular outflow tract calcifications, annulus dimensions and angulation, and leaflet morphology. RESULTS: Among a total of 1,897 patients, 587 matched pairs of patients with similar clinical and anatomical characteristics were compared. The primary composite endpoint did not differ between patients receiving PRO or ULTRA devices (Kaplan-Meier [KM] estimates 14.0% vs 11.9%; log-rank p=0.27). Patients receiving PRO devices had higher rates of 1-year disabling stroke (KM estimates 2.6% vs 0.4%; log-rank p=0.001), predominantly occurring within 30 days after TAVI (1.4% vs 0.0%; p=0.004). Outcomes were consistent across all the prespecified subsets of anatomical scenarios (all pinteraction>0.10). CONCLUSIONS: One-year clinical outcomes of patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI and receiving PRO or ULTRA devices in the current clinical practice were similar, but PRO patients had higher rates of disabling stroke. Outcomes did not differ across the different anatomical subsets of the aortic root.

Prognostic impact of cardiac damage staging classification in each aortic stenosis subtype undergoing TAVI.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of cardiac damage staging classifications across the haemodynamic spectrum of severe aortic stenosis (AS) remains unknown. AIMS: We aimed to investigate the prognostic impact of cardiac damage staging classifications in patients with high-gradient AS (HG-AS) and low-gradient AS (LG-AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). METHODS: In a prospective TAVI registry, five-year mortality was evaluated for early stages of cardiac damage (stage 0, 1, or 2) and advanced stages of cardiac damage (stage 3 or 4) in patients with HG-AS, classical low-flow (LF) LG-AS, LF LG-AS with preserved ejection fraction (pEF), and normal-flow (NF) LG-AS. RESULTS: Among 2,090 patients undergoing TAVI, 1,045 patients had HG-AS, 337 patients had classical LF LG-AS, 394 patients had LF LG-AS with pEF, and 314 patients had NF LG-AS. The majority of patients with classical LF LG-AS exhibited advanced cardiac damage (73.6%), followed by LF LG-AS with pEF (55.6%), NF LG-AS (51.6%), and HG-AS (50.6%). Patients with advanced stage cardiac damage had significantly higher mortality after TAVI than those with early stage cardiac damage in all subtypes of AS (adjusted hazard ratio [HRadjusted] 1.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-2.06 for HG-AS; HRadjusted 1.49, 95% CI: 1.02-2.16 for classical LF LG-AS; HRadjusted 1.69, 95% CI: 1.22-2.35 for LF LG-AS with pEF; and HRadjusted 1.52, 95% CI: 1.04-2.32 for NF LG-AS). CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac damage staging classifications stratified mortality after TAVI irrespective of AS subtype.

Clinical and Hemodynamic Outcomes of Balloon-Expandable Mitral Valve-in-Valve Positioning and Asymmetric Deployment: The VIVID Registry.

BACKGROUND: Mitral valve-in-valve (ViV) is associated with suboptimal hemodynamics and rare left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine whether device position and asymmetry are associated with these outcomes. METHODS: Patients undergoing SAPIEN 3 (Edwards Lifesciences) mitral ViV included in the VIVID (Valve-in-Valve International Data) Registry were studied. Clinical endpoints are reported according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions. Residual mitral valve stenosis was defined as mean gradient ≥5 mm Hg. Depth of implantation (percentage of transcatheter heart valve [THV] atrial to the bioprosthesis ring) and asymmetry (ratio of 2 measures of THV height) were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 222 patients meeting the criteria for optimal core lab evaluation were studied (age 74 ± 11.6 years; 61.9% female; STS score = 8.3 ± 7.1). Mean asymmetry was 6.2% ± 4.4%. Mean depth of implantation was 19.0% ± 10.3% atrial. Residual stenosis was common (50%; mean gradient 5.0 ± 2.6 mm Hg). LVOT obstruction occurred in 7 cases (3.2%). Implantation depth was not a predictor of residual stenosis (OR: 1.19 [95% CI: 0.92-1.55]; P = 0.184), but more atrial implantation was protective against LVOT obstruction (0.7% vs 7.1%; P = 0.009; per 10% atrial, OR: 0.48 [95% CI: 0.24-0.98]; P = 0.044). Asymmetry was found to be an independent predictor of residual stenosis (per 10% increase, OR: 2.30 [95% CI: 1.10-4.82]; P = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Valve stenosis is common after mitral ViV. Asymmetry was associated with residual stenosis. Depth of implantation on its own was not associated with residual stenosis but was associated with LVOT obstruction. Technical considerations to reduce postdeployment THV asymmetry should be considered.

Impact of COVID-19 Surge Periods on Clinical Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Healthcare systems adopted various strategies to minimize the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical outcomes of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We aimed to compare baseline characteristics and procedural and clinical outcomes of patients who underwent TAVI during COVID-19 surge periods with those of patients who underwent TAVI during the nonsurge and prepandemic periods. In the prospective Bern TAVI registry, the pandemic period was divided into surge and nonsurge periods on the basis of the mean number of occupied beds in the intensive care unit in each month and matched with 11 months immediately preceding the pandemic. A total of 1,069 patients underwent TAVI between April 1, 2019 and December 31, 2021. Patients who underwent TAVI during surge periods had a higher surgical risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality) than that of patients who underwent TAVI during nonsurge and prepandemic periods. Diagnosis-to-procedure time (in days) was longer for patients who underwent TAVI during the surge period than during the nonsurge and prepandemic periods (95.20 ± 121.07 vs 70.99 ± 72.25 and 60.46 ± 75.43, both p <0.001). At 30 days, all-cause mortality was higher in the surge than in the nonsurge group (4.9 vs 1.1%, hazard ratio 4.68, 95% confidence interval 1.55 to 14.10, p = 0.006), and in the surge than in the prepandemic group (4.9 vs 1.3%, hazard ratio 3.67, 95% confidence interval 1.34 to 10.11, p = 0.012). In conclusion, TAVI during COVID-19 surge periods was associated with higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality score, delayed procedure scheduling, and increased 30-day mortality than that of TAVI during nonsurge and prepandemic periods.

Long-term outcomes of measured and predicted prosthesis-patient mismatch following transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: Both measured and predicted effective orifice area (EOA) indexed to the body surface area (EOAi) have been suggested to define prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The impact of PPM on clinical outcomes may accumulate with extended follow-up and vary according to the definition used. AIMS: We aimed to investigate the long-term clinical impact of PPM in patients undergoing TAVR. METHODS: Patients in a prospective TAVR registry were stratified by the presence of moderate (0.65-0.85 or 0.55-0.70 cm2/m2 if obese) or severe (≤0.65 or ≤0.55 cm2/m2 if obese) PPM according to echocardiographically measured EOAi (measured PPM), predicted EOAi based on published EOA reference values for each valve model and size (predicted PPMTHV), or predicted EOAi based on EOA reference values derived from computed tomography measurements of aortic annulus dimensions (predicted PPMCT). RESULTS: In an analysis of 2,463 patients, the frequency of measured PPM (moderate: 27.0%; severe: 8.7%) was higher than the frequency of predicted PPMTHV (moderate: 11.3%; severe: 1.2%) or predicted PPMCT (moderate: 12.0%; severe: 0.1%). During a median follow-up of 429 days, 10-year mortality was comparable in patients with versus without measured PPM or predicted PPMCT. In contrast, patients with moderate predicted PPMTHV had a lower risk of 10-year all-cause mortality compared with those without PPM (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.73, 95% confidence interval: 0.55-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: The use of predicted versus measured EOAi results in a lower estimate of PPM severity. We observed no increased risk of death in patients with PPM over a median follow-up time of 429 days. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT01368250.

Comparison of different percutaneous revascularisation timing strategies in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing to perform percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) patients remains unknown. AIMS: We sought to compare different PCI timing strategies in TAVI patients. METHODS: The REVASC-TAVI registry is an international registry including patients undergoing TAVI with significant, stable coronary artery disease (CAD) at preprocedural workup. In this analysis, patients scheduled to undergo PCI before, after or concomitantly with TAVI were included. The main endpoints were all-cause death and a composite of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) or rehospitalisation for congestive heart failure (CHF) at 2 years. Outcomes were adjusted using the inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) method. RESULTS: A total of 1,603 patients were included. PCI was performed before, after or concomitantly with TAVI in 65.6% (n=1,052), 9.8% (n=157) or 24.6% (n=394), respectively. At 2 years, all-cause death was significantly lower in patients undergoing PCI after TAVI as compared with PCI before or concomitantly with TAVI (6.8% vs 20.1% vs 20.6%; p<0.001). Likewise, the composite endpoint was significantly lower in patients undergoing PCI after TAVI as compared with PCI before or concomitantly with TAVI (17.4% vs 30.4% vs 30.0%; p=0.003). Results were confirmed at landmark analyses considering events from 0 to 30 days and from 31 to 720 days. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis and stable coronary artery disease scheduled for TAVI, performance of PCI after TAVI seems to be associated with improved 2-year clinical outcomes compared with other revascularisation timing strategies. These results need to be confirmed in randomised clinical trials.