Self-expanding intra-annular versus commercially available transcatheter heart valves in high and extreme risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (PORTICO IDE): a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Randomised trial data assessing the safety and efficacy of the self-expanding intra-annular Portico transcatheter aortic valve system (Abbott Structural Heart, St Paul, MN, USA) compared with any commercially available valves are needed to compare performance among designs. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial (the Portico Re-sheathable Transcatheter Aortic Valve System US Investigational Device Exemption trial [PORTICO IDE]), high and extreme risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis were recruited from 52 medical centres experienced in performing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the USA and Australia. Patients were eligible if they were aged 21 years or older, in New York Heart Association functional class II or higher, and had severe native aortic stenosis. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using permuted block randomisation (block sizes of 2 and 4) and stratified by clinical investigational site, surgical risk cohort, and vascular access method, to transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the first generation Portico valve and delivery system or a commercially available valve (either an intra-annular balloon-expandable Edwards-SAPIEN, SAPIEN XT, or SAPIEN 3 valve [Edwards LifeSciences, Irvine, CA, USA]; or a supra-annular self-expanding CoreValve, Evolut-R, or Evolut-PRO valve [Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA]). Investigational site staff, implanting physician, and study participant were unmasked to treatment assignment. Core laboratories and clinical event assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, disabling stroke, life-threatening bleeding requiring transfusion, acute kidney injury requiring dialysis, or major vascular complication at 30 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 1 year. Clinical outcomes and valve performance were assessed up to 2 years after the procedure. Primary analyses were by intention to treat and the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate event rates. The non-inferiority margin was 8·5% for primary safety and 8·0% for primary efficacy endpoints. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02000115, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between May 30 and Sept 12, 2014, and between Aug 21, 2015, and Oct 10, 2017, with recruitment paused for 11 months by the funder, we recruited 1034 patients, of whom 750 were eligible and randomly assigned to the Portico valve group (n=381) or commercially available valve group (n=369). Mean age was 83 years (SD 7) and 395 (52·7%) patients were female. For the primary safety endpoint at 30 days, the event rate was higher in the Portico valve group than in the commercial valve group (52 [13·8%] vs 35 [9·6%]; absolute difference 4·2, 95% CI -0·4 to 8·8 [upper confidence bound {UCB} 8·1%]; pnon-inferiority=0·034, psuperiority=0·071). At 1 year, the rates of the primary efficacy endpoint were similar between the groups (55 [14·8%] in the Portico group vs 48 [13·4%] in the commercial valve group; difference 1·5%, 95% CI -3·6 to 6·5 [UCB 5·7%]; pnon-inferiority=0·0058, psuperiority=0·50). At 2 years, rates of death (80 [22·3%] vs 70 [20·2%]; p=0·40) or disabling stroke (10 [3·1%] vs 16 [5·0%]; p=0·23) were similar between groups. INTERPRETATION: The Portico valve was associated with similar rates of death or disabling stroke at 2 years compared with commercial valves, but was associated with higher rates of the primary composite safety endpoint including death at 30 days. The first-generation Portico valve and delivery system did not offer advantages over other commercially available valves. FUNDING: Abbott.

Subclinical leaflet thrombosis in surgical and transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valves: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Subclinical leaflet thrombosis of bioprosthetic aortic valves after transcatheter valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has been found with CT imaging. The objective of this study was to report the prevalence of subclinical leaflet thrombosis in surgical and transcatheter aortic valves and the effect of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) on the subclinical leaflet thrombosis and subsequent valve haemodynamics and clinical outcomes on the basis of two registries of patients who had CT imaging done after TAVR or SAVR. METHODS: Patients enrolled between Dec 22, 2014, and Jan 18, 2017, in the RESOLVE registry, and between June 2, 2014, and Sept 28, 2016, in the SAVORY registry, had CT imaging done with a dedicated four-dimensional volume-rendered imaging protocol at varying intervals after TAVR and SAVR. We defined subclinical leaflet thrombosis as the presence of reduced leaflet motion, along with corresponding hypoattenuating lesions shown with CT. We collected data for baseline demographics, antithrombotic therapy, and clinical outcomes. We analysed all CT scans, echocardiograms, and neurological events in a masked fashion. FINDINGS: Of the 931 patients who had CT imaging done (657 [71%] in the RESOLVE registry and 274 [29%] in the SAVORY registry), 890 [96%] had interpretable CT scans (626 [70%] in the RESOLVE registry and 264 [30%] in the SAVORY registry). 106 (12%) of 890 patients had subclinical leaflet thrombosis, including five (4%) of 138 with thrombosis of surgical valves versus 101 (13%) of 752 with thrombosis of transcatheter valves (p=0·001). The median time from aortic valve replacement to CT for the entire cohort was 83 days (IQR 33-281). Subclinical leaflet thrombosis was less frequent among patients receiving anticoagulants (eight [4%] of 224) than among those receiving dual antiplatelet therapy (31 [15%] of 208; p<0·0001); NOACs were equally as effective as warfarin (three [3%] of 107 vs five [4%] of 117; p=0·72). Subclinical leaflet thrombosis resolved in 36 (100%) of 36 patients (warfarin 24 [67%]; NOACs 12 [33%]) receiving anticoagulants, whereas it persisted in 20 (91%) of 22 patients not receiving anticoagulants (p<0·0001). A greater proportion of patients with subclinical leaflet thrombosis had aortic valve gradients of more than 20 mm Hg and increases in aortic valve gradients of more than 10 mm Hg (12 [14%] of 88) than did those with normal leaflet motion (seven [1%] of 632; p<0·0001). Although stroke rates were not different between those with (4·12 strokes per 100 person-years) or without (1·92 strokes per 100 person-years) reduced leaflet motion (p=0·10), subclinical leaflet thrombosis was associated with increased rates of transient ischaemic attacks (TIAs; 4·18 TIAs per 100 person-years vs 0·60 TIAs per 100 person-years; p=0·0005) and all strokes or TIAs (7·85 vs 2·36 per 100 person-years; p=0·001). INTERPRETATION: Subclinical leaflet thrombosis occurred frequently in bioprosthetic aortic valves, more commonly in transcatheter than in surgical valves. Anticoagulation (both NOACs and warfarin), but not dual antiplatelet therapy, was effective in prevention or treatment of subclinical leaflet thrombosis. Subclinical leaflet thrombosis was associated with increased rates of TIAs and strokes or TIAs. Despite excellent outcomes after TAVR with the new-generation valves, prevention and treatment of subclinical leaflet thrombosis might offer a potential opportunity for further improvement in valve haemodynamics and clinical outcomes. FUNDING: RESOLVE (Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute) and SAVORY (Rigshospitalet).

Possible Subclinical Leaflet Thrombosis in Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves.

BACKGROUND: A finding of reduced aortic-valve leaflet motion was noted on computed tomography (CT) in a patient who had a stroke after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) during an ongoing clinical trial. This finding raised a concern about possible subclinical leaflet thrombosis and prompted further investigation. METHODS: We analyzed data obtained from 55 patients in a clinical trial of TAVR and from two single-center registries that included 132 patients who were undergoing either TAVR or surgical aortic-valve bioprosthesis implantation. We obtained four-dimensional, volume-rendered CT scans along with data on anticoagulation and clinical outcomes (including strokes and transient ischemic attacks [TIAs]). RESULTS: Reduced leaflet motion was noted on CT in 22 of 55 patients (40%) in the clinical trial and in 17 of 132 patients (13%) in the two registries. Reduced leaflet motion was detected among patients with multiple bioprosthesis types, including transcatheter and surgical bioprostheses. Therapeutic anticoagulation with warfarin, as compared with dual antiplatelet therapy, was associated with a decreased incidence of reduced leaflet motion (0% and 55%, respectively, P=0.01 in the clinical trial; and 0% and 29%, respectively, P=0.04 in the pooled registries). In patients who were reevaluated with follow-up CT, restoration of leaflet motion was noted in all 11 patients who were receiving anticoagulation and in 1 of 10 patients who were not receiving anticoagulation (P<0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of stroke or TIA between patients with reduced leaflet motion and those with normal leaflet motion in the clinical trial (2 of 22 patients and 0 of 33 patients, respectively; P=0.16), although in the pooled registries, a significant difference was detected (3 of 17 patients and 1 of 115 patients, respectively; P=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Reduced aortic-valve leaflet motion was shown in patients with bioprosthetic aortic valves. The condition resolved with therapeutic anticoagulation. The effect of this finding on clinical outcomes including stroke needs further investigation. (Funded by St. Jude Medical and Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute; Portico-IDE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02000115; SAVORY registry, NCT02426307; and RESOLVE registry, NCT02318342.).

Complications after Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with a Balloon-Expandable Prosthesis: The Importance of Preventative Measures and Contingency Planning.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with balloon-expandable Edwards-SAPIEN valve was superior to standard therapy in inoperable patients and noninferior to surgical aortic valve replacement in high surgical-risk, but operable patients, with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis in the randomized controlled PARTNER trial. Since the first case of TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve in 2002, several groups have reported their experience with balloon-expandable valves with high-procedural success. In the United States, the balloon-expandable Edwards-SAPIEN valve is the only transcatheter heart valve approved by the FDA for commercial use. Moreover, this is only in high-risk inoperable patients. Despite increasing experience with the TAVR procedure, it can be associated with complications, which can be technically challenging, even for an experienced operator. Complications associated with TAVR include vascular complications, valve malpositioning, regurgitation, embolization, coronary compromise, conduction abnormalities, stroke/transient ischemic attack, acute kidney injury, cardiac tamponade, and hemodynamic collapse. A thorough understanding of the procedure is essential for pre-emptive planning for procedural complications and early identification and management of complications are necessary for procedural success. We hereby review our experience of transfemoral TAVR with balloon-expandable valves, offer practical tips to maximize the likelihood of procedural success, describe pre-emptive strategies to prevent peri-procedural complications and bailout measures to manage them, should they occur. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with standard treatment for patients with inoperable aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Based on the early results of the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an accepted treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are not suitable for surgery. However, little information is available about the late clinical outcomes in such patients. METHODS: We did this randomised controlled trial at 21 experienced valve centres in Canada, Germany, and the USA. We enrolled patients with severe symptomatic inoperable aortic stenosis and randomly assigned (1:1) them to transfemoral TAVR or to standard treatment, which often included balloon aortic valvuloplasty. Patients and their treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The randomisation was done centrally, and sites learned of the assignment only after a patient had been screened, consented, and entered into the database. The primary outcome of the trial was all-cause mortality at 1 year in the intention-to-treat population, here we present the prespecified findings after 5 years. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00530894. FINDINGS: We screened 3015 patients, of whom 358 were enrolled (mean age 83 years, Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality 11·7%, 54% female). 179 were assigned to TAVR treatment and 179 were assigned to standard treatment. 20 patients crossed over from the standard treatment group and ten withdrew from study, leaving only six patients at 5 years, of whom five had aortic valve replacement treatment outside of the study. The risk of all-cause mortality at 5 years was 71·8% in the TAVR group versus 93·6% in the standard treatment group (hazard ratio 0·50, 95% CI 0·39-0·65; p<0·0001). At 5 years, 42 (86%) of 49 survivors in the TAVR group had New York Heart Association class 1 or 2 symptoms compared with three (60%) of five in the standard treatment group. Echocardiography after TAVR showed durable haemodynamic benefit (aortic valve area 1·52 cm(2) at 5 years, mean gradient 10·6 mm Hg at 5 years), with no evidence of structural valve deterioration. INTERPRETATION: TAVR is more beneficial than standard treatment for treatment of inoperable aortic stenosis. TAVR should be strongly considered for patients who are not surgical candidates for aortic valve replacement to improve their survival and functional status. Appropriate selection of patients will help to maximise the benefit of TAVR and reduce mortality from severe comorbidities. FUNDING: Edwards Lifesciences.

5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial showed that mortality at 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years is much the same with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. We report here the 5-year outcomes. METHODS: We did this randomised controlled trial at 25 hospitals, in Canada (two), Germany (one), and the USA (23). We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence to randomly assign high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis to either SAVR or TAVR with a balloon-expandable bovine pericardial tissue valve by either a transfemoral or transapical approach. Patients and their treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome of the trial was all-cause mortality in the intention-to-treat population at 1 year, we present here predefined outcomes at 5 years. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00530894. FINDINGS: We screened 3105 patients, of whom 699 were enrolled (348 assigned to TAVR, 351 assigned to SAVR). Overall mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 11·7%. At 5 years, risk of death was 67·8% in the TAVR group compared with 62·4% in the SAVR group (hazard ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·86-1·24; p=0·76). We recorded no structural valve deterioration requiring surgical valve replacement in either group. Moderate or severe aortic regurgitation occurred in 40 (14%) of 280 patients in the TAVR group and two (1%) of 228 in the SAVR group (p<0·0001), and was associated with increased 5-year risk of mortality in the TAVR group (72·4% for moderate or severe aortic regurgitation vs 56·6% for those with mild aortic regurgitation or less; p=0·003). INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that TAVR as an alternative to surgery for patients with high surgical risk results in similar clinical outcomes. FUNDING: Edwards Lifesciences.

Long-term outcomes of inoperable patients with aortic stenosis randomly assigned to transcatheter aortic valve replacement or standard therapy.

BACKGROUND: The long-term outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis remain unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) study, 358 patients were randomly assigned to TAVR or standard therapy. We report the 3-year outcomes on these patients, and the pooled outcomes for all randomly assigned inoperable patients (n=449) in PARTNER, as well, including the randomized portion of the continued access study (n=91). The 3-year mortality rate in the TAVR and standard therapy groups was 54.1% and 80.9%, respectively (P<0.001; hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.68; P<0.001). In survivors, there was significant improvement in New York Heart Association functional class sustained at 3 years. The cumulative incidence of strokes at 3-year follow-up was 15.7% in TAVR patients versus 5.5% in patients undergoing standard therapy (hazard ratio, 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-6.26; P=0.012); however, the composite of death or strokes was significantly lower after TAVR versus standard therapy (57.4% versus 80.9%, P<0.001; hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.77; P<0.001). Echocardiography showed a sustained increase in aortic valve area and decrease in transvalvular gradient after TAVR. Analysis of the 449 pooled randomly assigned patients (TAVR, n=220; standard therapy, n=229) demonstrated significant improvement in all-cause mortality and functional status during early and 3-year follow-up. The results of the pooled cohort were similar to the results obtained from the pivotal PARTNER trial. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR resulted in better survival and functional status in inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis with durable hemodynamic benefit on long-term follow-up. However, high residual mortality, even in successfully treated TAVR patients, highlights the need for more strategic patient selection. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00530894.

Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement for inoperable severe aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is the recommended therapy for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are not suitable candidates for surgery. The outcomes beyond 1 year in such patients are not known. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients to transfemoral TAVR or to standard therapy (which often included balloon aortic valvuloplasty). Data on 2-year outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 358 patients underwent randomization at 21 centers. The rates of death at 2 years were 43.3% in the TAVR group and 68.0% in the standard-therapy group (P<0.001), and the corresponding rates of cardiac death were 31.0% and 62.4% (P<0.001). The survival advantage associated with TAVR that was seen at 1 year remained significant among patients who survived beyond the first year (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36 to 0.92; P=0.02 with the use of the log-rank test). The rate of stroke was higher after TAVR than with standard therapy (13.8% vs. 5.5%, P=0.01), owing, in the first 30 days, to the occurrence of more ischemic events in the TAVR group (6.7% vs. 1.7%, P=0.02) and, beyond 30 days, to the occurrence of more hemorrhagic strokes in the TAVR group (2.2% vs. 0.6%, P=0.16). At 2 years, the rate of rehospitalization was 35.0% in the TAVR group and 72.5% in the standard-therapy group (P<0.001). TAVR, as compared with standard therapy, was also associated with improved functional status (P<0.001). The data suggest that the mortality benefit after TAVR may be limited to patients who do not have extensive coexisting conditions. Echocardiographic analysis showed a sustained increase in aortic-valve area and a decrease in aortic-valve gradient, with no worsening of paravalvular aortic regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: Among appropriately selected patients with severe aortic stenosis who were not suitable candidates for surgery, TAVR reduced the rates of death and hospitalization, with a decrease in symptoms and an improvement in valve hemodynamics that were sustained at 2 years of follow-up. The presence of extensive coexisting conditions may attenuate the survival benefit of TAVR. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00530894.).

Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial showed that among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, the 1-year survival rates are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical replacement. However, longer-term follow-up is necessary to determine whether TAVR has prolonged benefits. METHODS: At 25 centers, we randomly assigned 699 high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis to undergo either surgical aortic-valve replacement or TAVR. All patients were followed for at least 2 years, with assessment of clinical outcomes and echocardiographic evaluation. RESULTS: The rates of death from any cause were similar in the TAVR and surgery groups (hazard ratio with TAVR, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.15; P=0.41) and at 2 years (Kaplan-Meier analysis) were 33.9% in the TAVR group and 35.0% in the surgery group (P=0.78). The frequency of all strokes during follow-up did not differ significantly between the two groups (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.23; P=0.52). At 30 days, strokes were more frequent with TAVR than with surgical replacement (4.6% vs. 2.4%, P=0.12); subsequently, there were 8 additional strokes in the TAVR group and 12 in the surgery group. Improvement in valve areas was similar with TAVR and surgical replacement and was maintained for 2 years. Paravalvular regurgitation was more frequent after TAVR (P<0.001), and even mild paravalvular regurgitation was associated with increased late mortality (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A 2-year follow-up of patients in the PARTNER trial supports TAVR as an alternative to surgery in high-risk patients. The two treatments were similar with respect to mortality, reduction in symptoms, and improved valve hemodynamics, but paravalvular regurgitation was more frequent after TAVR and was associated with increased late mortality. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00530894.).

Available transcatheter aortic valve replacement technology.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative and now recommended therapy for patients who meet indications for surgical valve replacement and are high or prohibitive surgical risk. Available TAVR technologies are rapidly emerging to treat this complex patient population. This review discusses the specific valve designs of the transcatheter heart valves currently used, newer generation modifications to overcome limitations of earlier valve designs, and novel imaging modalities, such as computed tomographic angiography-fluoroscopy and echocardiography-fluoroscopy fusion imaging, available for pre-procedural planning and intra-procedural guidance.

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: The use of transcatheter aortic-valve replacement has been shown to reduce mortality among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis who are not candidates for surgical replacement. However, the two procedures have not been compared in a randomized trial involving high-risk patients who are still candidates for surgical replacement. METHODS: At 25 centers, we randomly assigned 699 high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis to undergo either transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable bovine pericardial valve (either a transfemoral or a transapical approach) or surgical replacement. The primary end point was death from any cause at 1 year. The primary hypothesis was that transcatheter replacement is not inferior to surgical replacement. RESULTS: The rates of death from any cause were 3.4% in the transcatheter group and 6.5% in the surgical group at 30 days (P=0.07) and 24.2% and 26.8%, respectively, at 1 year (P=0.44), a reduction of 2.6 percentage points in the transcatheter group (upper limit of the 95% confidence interval, 3.0 percentage points; predefined margin, 7.5 percentage points; P=0.001 for noninferiority). The rates of major stroke were 3.8% in the transcatheter group and 2.1% in the surgical group at 30 days (P=0.20) and 5.1% and 2.4%, respectively, at 1 year (P=0.07). At 30 days, major vascular complications were significantly more frequent with transcatheter replacement (11.0% vs. 3.2%, P<0.001); adverse events that were more frequent after surgical replacement included major bleeding (9.3% vs. 19.5%, P<0.001) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (8.6% vs. 16.0%, P=0.006). More patients undergoing transcatheter replacement had an improvement in symptoms at 30 days, but by 1 year, there was not a significant between-group difference. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, transcatheter and surgical procedures for aortic-valve replacement were associated with similar rates of survival at 1 year, although there were important differences in periprocedural risks. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; Clinical Trials.gov number, NCT00530894.).

Complete percutaneous approach for arterial access in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a comparison with surgical cut-down and closure.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the immediate safety and feasibility of complete percutaneous access/closure of arteriotomy for device deployment compared to the surgical approach for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: The percutaneous approach for arterial access for device deployment in transfemoral TAVR is a potential alternative to the surgical approach. METHODS: In 274 patients who underwent transfemoral TAVR using Edward Sapien heart valve, 140 had a complete percutaneous approach using a "pre-closure" technique whereas 134 had surgical cut-down/repair for arterial access/closure of device deployment. Immediate vascular access/closure success, associated complications and clinical outcomes were compared. RESULTS: While overall acute success of access/closure and in-hospital access-related events were similar, significant isolated stenosis/dissection at the access site developed more frequently in the percutaneous group (7.1% vs. 0.7%, P = 0.007). Contrary, wound infections requiring prolonged antibiotics use or surgical debridement occurred more frequently in the surgical group (0.7% vs. 6.7%, P = 0.007). Although the rate of major vascular complications was not different, the surgical group developed more frequent minor bleeding (27.1% vs. 38.8%, P = 0.04) and underwent transfusion of packed red blood cells of ≤3 units (25.7% vs. 43.3%, P = 0.002). Median hospital stay was shorter in the percutaneous group (3 days vs. 4 days, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The percutaneous approach is a feasible access/closure method with a potential of lowering access site infection and bleeding, and shortening hospital stay, while maintaining similar rates of major vascular complications compared to the surgical approach.

Review of surgical prosthetic paravalvular leaks: diagnosis and catheter-based closure.

Paravalvular leak (PVL) is an uncommon yet serious complication associated with surgical prosthetic valve implantation. Paravalvular leak can have significant clinical consequence such as congestive heart failure, haemolytic anaemia, and infective endocarditis. Recently, transcatheter therapy has been applied to the treatment of this disorder with reasonable procedural and clinical success. This review discusses the current state of PVLs, the utilization of multi-modality imaging in their diagnosis and treatment, and the available therapeutic options. Further aim of this review is to examine transcatheter therapy of PVLs including the principles, outcomes, and procedural-related complications.

Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with severe aortic stenosis and coexisting conditions are not candidates for surgical replacement of the aortic valve. Recently, transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) has been suggested as a less invasive treatment for high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with severe aortic stenosis, whom surgeons considered not to be suitable candidates for surgery, to standard therapy (including balloon aortic valvuloplasty) or transfemoral transcatheter implantation of a balloon-expandable bovine pericardial valve. The primary end point was the rate of death from any cause. RESULTS: A total of 358 patients with aortic stenosis who were not considered to be suitable candidates for surgery underwent randomization at 21 centers (17 in the United States). At 1 year, the rate of death from any cause (Kaplan­Meier analysis) was 30.7% with TAVI, as compared with 50.7% with standard therapy (hazard ratio with TAVI, 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 0.74; P<0.001). The rate of the composite end point of death from any cause or repeat hospitalization was 42.5% with TAVI as compared with 71.6% with standard therapy (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.59; P<0.001). Among survivors at 1 year, the rate of cardiac symptoms (New York Heart Association class III or IV) was lower among patients who had undergone TAVI than among those who had received standard therapy (25.2% vs. 58.0%, P<0.001). At 30 days, TAVI, as compared with standard therapy, was associated with a higher incidence of major strokes (5.0% vs. 1.1%, P=0.06) and major vascular complications (16.2% vs. 1.1%, P<0.001). In the year after TAVI, there was no deterioration in the functioning of the bioprosthetic valve, as assessed by evidence of stenosis or regurgitation on an echocardiogram. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis who were not suitable candidates for surgery, TAVI, as compared with standard therapy, significantly reduced the rates of death from any cause, the composite end point of death from any cause or repeat hospitalization, and cardiac symptoms, despite the higher incidence of major strokes and major vascular events. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00530894.).

30-Day Clinical Outcomes of a Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve: The International PORTICO NG Study.

BACKGROUND: The self-expanding, intra-annular Navitor (Abbott Structural Heart) valve includes an outer cuff to reduce paravalvular leak (PVL) and large stent cells for future coronary access. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the PORTICO NG (Evaluation of the Portico NG [Next Generation] Transcatheter Aortic Valve in High and Extreme Risk Patients With Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis) study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Navitor valve in patients with symptomatic, severe aortic stenosis who are at high or extreme surgical risk. METHODS: PORTICO NG is a prospective, multicenter, global study with follow-up at 30 days, 1 year, and annually through 5 years. The primary endpoints are all-cause mortality and moderate or greater PVL at 30 days. Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 events and valve performance are assessed by an independent clinical events committee and echocardiographic core laboratory. RESULTS: A total of 260 subjects were treated at 26 clinical sites across Europe, Australia, and the United States between September 2019 and August 2022. The mean age was 83.4 ± 5.4 years, 57.3% were female, and the average Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 3.9% ± 2.1%. At 30 days, the rate of all-cause mortality was 1.9%, and no subjects had moderate or greater PVL. The rate of disabling stroke was 1.9%, life-threatening bleeding was 3.8%, stage 3 acute kidney injury was 0.8%, major vascular complications were 4.2%, and new permanent pacemaker implantation was 19.0%. Hemodynamic performance included a mean gradient of 7.4 ± 3.5 mm Hg and an effective orifice area of 2.00 ± 0.47 cm2. CONCLUSIONS: The Navitor valve is safe and effective for the treatment of subjects with severe aortic stenosis who are at high or greater risk for surgery, which is supported by low rates of adverse events and PVL. (Evaluation of the Portico NG [Next Generation] Transcatheter Aortic Valve in High and Extreme Risk Patients With Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis [PORTICO NG]; NCT04011722).

Meta-analysis of complications in aortic valve replacement: comparison of Medtronic-Corevalve, Edwards-Sapien and surgical aortic valve replacement in 8,536 patients.

BACKGROUND: We sought to establish the complication rates following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in the context of high risk and octogenarian surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in the contemporary literature, and to critically analyze population characteristics and outcomes. METHODS: TAVR studies were selected from nonoverlapping series and SAVR studies for comparison if they met similar entry criteria. Bayesian meta-analytic methods were employed. RESULTS: For the 5024 TAVR and 3512 SAVR patients included in the study, TAVR subjects had greater baseline renal impairment (P < 0.001), a higher incidence of prior myocardial infarction (P = 0.032) and respiratory disease (P = 0.005) and a higher logistic EuroSCORE (P = 0.039). There were no significant differences observed in complications studied in SAVR and TAVR: 30 day mortality (9% vs 8.5%, P = 0.31), 1 year mortality (18.4% vs 22.8%, P = 0.65), 30 day stroke (2.4% vs 2.6%, P = 0.72), new permanent pacemaker (5.9% vs 12.1%, P = 0.055) and dialysis inception (2.4% vs 4.1%, P = 0.70). We also compared demographics and outcomes between the two types of transcatheter valves. Apart from some variation in functional status, there were no significant differences at baseline with different TAVR designs. The only difference in complications was the need for pacemaker insertion, higher with the Medtronic-Corevalve than with the Edwards-Sapien design (24.5% vs 5.9% P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Complications for elderly and high risk aortic stenosis patients being treated by TAVR appear comparable to those selected for SAVR in the real-world.

Evaluation of Multimodality LAA Leak Closure Methods Following Incomplete Occlusion: The LAA Leak Study.

BACKGROUND: Incomplete left atrial appendage (LAA) closure is an evolving topic of clinical significance and thromboembolic potential, with recent long-term studies suggesting lower cutoffs for relevant leak size. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this prospective observational study was to assess 3 different closure techniques for persistent peridevice leaks after incomplete LAA closure and compare their efficacy and safety outcomes. METHODS: We studied 160 patients (mean age 72 ± 9 years; 71% men) who underwent 1 of the 3 available modalities (detachable embolization coils, vascular plugs or septal occluders, and radiofrequency ablation) for residual central or eccentric leak closure. Both acute postprocedural success (closure or <1-mm leak at the end of the procedure) and closure at 1-year follow-up transesophageal echocardiography imaging were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 160 patients, 0.6%, 41.3%, and 58.1% had mild (1-2 mm), moderate (3-5 mm), and severe (≥5 mm) leaks, respectively. Baseline LAA closure type was 72.5% Watchman FLX, 16.3% Lariat, 5.6% surgical ligation, 1.9% AtriClip, and 1.9% Amulet. Successful closure (0- or <1-mm leak) was seen in 100% of patients in all cohorts following intervention, with overall complete closure (0-1 mm) or mild or minimal leaks (1-2 mm) on 1-year follow-up transesophageal echocardiography seen in 100% of the atrial septal occluder or vascular plug cohort, 85.9% of the coil cohort, and 83.3% of the radiofrequency ablation cohort (P < 0.001). Two patients (1.3%) experienced cardiac tamponade, and there were no deaths or other complications. CONCLUSIONS: Peridevice leaks can safely and effectively be closed using 3 different modalities depending on size and location.

Missed diagnosis of limited ascending aortic dissection by multiple imaging modalities leading to fatal cardiac tamponade and aortic rupture.

Modern diagnostic imaging modalities for ascending aortic dissection include transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), computed tomography angiography (CTA), and magnetic imaging resonance (MRI). All have extremely high sensitivity and specificity for detection of an intimal flap to diagnose ascending aortic dissection. We present a case of fatal cardiac tamponade caused by a limited aortic dissection not detected by multiple imaging modalities. This may represent a class of aortic dissection variant that cannot be detected by conventional testing. A high index of suspicion should be maintained in the appropriate clinical setting and should prompt serial imaging and even consideration for preemptive surgical exploration.