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.

Transcatheter mitral valve repair in proportionate and disproportionate functional mitral regurgitation-insights from a small cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) can be subclassified based on its proportionality relative to left ventricular function and end-diastolic volume. FMR proportionality could help identify responders to transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (MitraClip) in terms of residual FMR and/or clinical improvement. METHODS: This single-centre retrospective cohort study evaluated the feasibility of determining FMR proportionality in symptomatic heart failure patients with reduced left ventricular function who were treated with MitraClip for ≥ moderate-to-severe FMR. Baseline proportionate (pFMR) and disproportionate FMR (dFMR) were distinguished. Patient characteristics and MitraClip procedural outcomes were described. RESULTS: From an overall cohort of 81 eligible FMR patients, 23/81 (28%) had to be excluded due to missing transthoracic echocardiogram parameters, 22/81 were excluded based on FMR severity. The remaining cohort, of 36/81 patients (44%), could be classified into dFMR (n = 26) or pFMR (n = 10). Conduction disorders were numerically increased in dFMR. All cases requiring > 2 clips were in the dFMR group and absence of FMR reduction occurred more frequently with dFMR. POINT OF VIEW/CONCLUSION: Important limitations in terms of imaging acquisition affect the translation of the FMR proportionality concept to a real-world data set. We did observe different demographic and FMR response patterns in patients with proportionate and disproportionate FMR that warrant further investigation.

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.

2-year outcomes of MitraClip as a bridge to heart transplantation: The international MitraBridge registry.

BACKGROUND: In the first report from the MitraBridge registry, MitraClip as a bridge to heart transplantation (HTx) proved to be at 1-year an effective treatment strategy for 119 patients with advanced heart failure (HF) who were potential candidates for HTx. We aimed to determine if benefits of MitraClip procedure as a bridge-to-transplant persist up to 2-years. METHODS: By the end of the enrollment period, a total of 153 advanced HF patients (median age 59 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 26.9 ± 7.7%) with significant secondary mitral regurgitation, who were potential candidates for HTx and were treated with MitraClip as a bridge-to-transplant strategy, were included in the MitraBridge registry. The primary endpoint was the 2-year composite adverse events rate of all-cause death, first hospitalization for HF, urgent HTx or LVAD implantation. RESULTS: Procedural success was achieved in 89.5% of cases. Thirty-day mortality was 0%. At 2-year, Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from primary endpoint was 47%. Through 24 months, the annualized rate of HF rehospitalization per patient-year was 44%. After an overall median follow-up time of 26 (9-52) months, elective HTx was successfully performed in 30 cases (21%), 19 patients (13.5%) maintained or obtained the eligibility for transplant, and 32 patients (22.5%) no longer had an indication for HTx because of significant clinical improvement. CONCLUSIONS: After 2-years of follow-up, the use of MitraClip as a bridge-to-transplant was confirmed as an effective strategy, allowing elective HTx or eligibility for transplant in one third of patients, and no more need for transplantation in 22.5% of cases.

MitraClip in secondary mitral regurgitation as a bridge to heart transplantation: 1-year outcomes from the International MitraBridge Registry.

BACKGROUND: Patients awaiting heart transplantation (HTx) often need bridging therapies to reduce worsening and progression of underlying disease. Limited data are available regarding the use of the MitraClip procedure in secondary mitral regurgitation for this clinical condition. METHODS: We evaluated an international, multicenter (17 centers) registry including 119 patients (median age: 58 years) with moderate-to-severe or severe secondary mitral regurgitation and advanced heart failure (HF) (median left ventricular ejection fraction: 26%) treated with MitraClip as a bridge strategy according to 1 of the following criteria: (1) patients active on HTx list (in list group) (n = 31); (2) patients suitable for HTx but awaiting clinical decision (bridge to decision group) (n = 54); or (3) patients not yet suitable for HTx because of potentially reversible relative contraindications (bridge to candidacy group) (n = 34). RESULTS: Procedural success was achieved in 87.5% of cases, and 30-day survival was 100%. At 1 year, Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from the composite primary end-point (death, urgent HTx or left ventricular assist device implantation, first rehospitalization for HF) was 64%. At the time of last available follow-up (median: 532 days), 15% of patients underwent elective transplant, 15.5% remained or could be included in the HTx waiting list, and 23.5% had no more indication to HTx because of clinical improvement. CONCLUSIONS: MitraClip procedure as a bridge strategy to HTx in patients with advanced HF with significant mitral regurgitation was safe, and two thirds of patients remained free from adverse events at 1 year. These findings should be considered exploratory and hypothesis-generating to guide further study for percutaneous intervention in high-risk patients with advanced HF.