Comparison of clinical outcomes between use of overexpanding an undersized versus nominal-sized SAPIEN 3 ultra transcatheter heart valve in patients with borderline annulus area.

BACKGROUND: For patients with borderline annulus areas that fall between two valve sizes, overinflating a smaller balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve (THV) may be preferable to nominal sizing of a larger THV. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the outcomes of nominal preparation versus over-expanding an under-sized SAPIEN 3 Ultra (S3U) transcatheter heart valve (OE-THV) in cases with borderline annuli. METHODS: 958 patients that underwent TAVR with the S3U at four high-volume TAVR centers between January 2017 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. 336 patients were identified as borderline annuli size, of which 146 (44%) received OE-THVs and 190 (56%) received nominal-sized THVs. The primary composite endpoint included: in-hospital mortality, aortic injury, moderate/severe paravalvular leak (PVL), permanent pacemaker implant (PPM), stroke, or conversion to surgery. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar except for a larger percentage of females in the OE-THV (53.42% vs. 42.11%, p = 0.04). TAVR with OE-THV resulted a reduction in the primary composite endpoint (13.69% vs. 22.63%, p = 0.04). On subgroup analysis, there was no difference between 20 mm OE-THV versus 23 mm nominal or 23 mm OE-THV versus 26 mm nominal, but there was a reduction in the primary composite endpoint in patients with larger annuli that received a 26 mm OE-THV compared to the 29 mm nominally sized THV (9.7% vs. 27.4%, p = 0.02). At 1 month and 1 year follow-up, there was no significant difference in mortality, PVL rates, NYHA class, and/or KCCQ score. CONCLUSION: Overinflating a smaller-sized S3U THV may be a safer option in comparison to nominal sizing in patients with borderline annular area.

Transcatheter heart valve selection in patients with low ejection fraction and aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of transcatheter heart valve (THV) choice in patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction. BACKGROUND: The management congestive heart failure with combined LV systolic dysfunction and severe aortic stenosis (AS) is challenging, yet transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a suitable treatment option in such patients. Head-to-head comparisons among the balloon-expandable (BEV) and self-expandable (SEV) THV remain limited in this subgroup of patients. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we included patients with severe AS with LV systolic dysfunction (LVEF ≤40%) who underwent TAVR at four high volume centers. Two thousand and twenty-eight consecutive patients were analyzed, of which 335 patients met inclusion criteria. One hundred fourty-six patients (43%) received a SEV, and 189 patients (57%) received a BEV. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar except for a higher proportion of females in the SEV group. The primary composite endpoint of in-hospital mortality, moderate or greater paravalvular (PVL), stroke, conversion to open surgery, aortic valve reintervention, and/or need for permanent pacemaker (PPM) was no different among THV choice. There was more PVL in the SEV group, but higher transaortic gradients in the BEV group. Clinical outcomes and quality of life measures were similar up to 1 year follow-up. CONCLUSION: The choice of THV in patients with severe AS and systolic dysfunction must be weighed on a case-by-case basis.