Strategy to optimize PeriproCeduraL AnticOagulation in structural transseptal interventions: Design and rationale of the STOP CLOT trial.

BACKGROUND: Both transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) of mitral regurgitation or left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) require periprocedural anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin (UFH) that is administered either before or immediately after transseptal puncture (TSP). The optimal timing of UFH administration (before or after TSP) is unknown. The Strategy To Optimize PeriproCeduraL AnticOagulation in Structural Transseptal Interventions trial (STOP CLOT Trial) was designed to determine if early anticoagulation is effective in reducing ischemic complications without increasing the risk of periprocedural bleeding. METHODS: The STOP CLOT trial is a multicenter, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. A total of 410 patients scheduled for TEER or LAAC will be randomized 1:1 either early UFH administration (iv. bolus of 100 units/kg UFH or placebo, given after obtaining femoral vein access and at least 5 minutes prior to the start of the TSP) or late UFH administration (iv. bolus of 100 units/kg UFH or placebo given immediately after TSP). Prespecified preliminary statistical analysis will be performed after complete follow-up of the first 196 randomized subjects. To ensure blinding, a study nurse responsible for randomization and UFH/placebo preparation is not involved in the care of the patients enrolled into the study. The primary study endpoint is a composite of (1) major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (death, stroke, TIA, myocardial infarction, or peripheral embolization) within 30 days post-procedure, (2) intraprocedural fresh thrombus formation in the right or left atrium as assessed with periprocedural transesophageal echocardiography, or (3) occurrence of new ischemic lesions (diameter ≥4 mm) on brain magnetic resonance imaging performed 2 to 5 days after the procedure. The safety endpoint is the occurrence of moderate or severe bleeding complications during the index hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Protocols of periprocedural anticoagulation administration during structural interventions have never been tested in a randomized clinical trial. The Stop Clot trial may help reach consensus on the optimal timing of initiation of periprocedural anticoagulation. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study protocol is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT05305612.

Treatment of late paravalvular regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: prognostic implications.

AIMS: Paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The effect of transcatheter interventions to treat PVR after the index TAVI was investigated. METHODS AND RESULTS: A registry of consecutive patients who underwent transcatheter intervention for ≥ moderate PVR after the index TAVI at 22 centers. The principal outcomes were residual aortic regurgitation (AR) and mortality at 1 year after PVR treatment. A total of 201 patients were identified: 87 (43%) underwent redo-TAVI, 79 (39%) plug closure, and 35 (18%) balloon valvuloplasty. Median TAVI-to-re-intervention time was 207 (35; 765) days. The failed valve was self-expanding in 129 (63.9%) patients. The most frequent devices utilized were a Sapien 3 valve for redo-TAVI (55, 64%), an AVP II as plug (33, 42%), and a True balloon for valvuloplasty (20, 56%). At 30 days, AR ≥ moderate persisted in 33 (17.4%) patients: 8 (9.9%) after redo-TAVI, 18 (25.9%) after plug, and 7 (21.9%) after valvuloplasty (P = 0.036). Overall mortality was 10 (5.0%) at 30 days and 29 (14.4%) at 1 year: 0, 8 (10.1%), and 2 (5.7%) at 30 days (P = 0.010) and 11 (12.6%), 14 (17.7%), and 4 (11.4%) at 1 year (P = 0.418), after redo-TAVI, plug, and valvuloplasty, respectively. Regardless of treatment strategy, patients in whom AR was reduced to ≤ mild had lower mortality at 1 year compared with those with AR persisting ≥ moderate [11 (8.0%) vs. 6 (21.4%); P = 0.007]. CONCLUSION: This study describes the efficacy of transcatheter treatments for PVR after TAVI. Patients in whom PVR was successfully reduced had better prognosis. The selection of patients and the optimal PVR treatment modality require further investigation.

Long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic valves.

AIMS: Due to bioprosthetic valve degeneration, aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) procedures are increasingly performed. There are no data on long-term outcomes after aortic ViV. Our aim was to perform a large-scale assessment of long-term survival and reintervention after aortic ViV. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1006 aortic ViV procedures performed more than 5 years ago [mean age 77.7 ± 9.7 years; 58.8% male; median STS-PROM score 7.3% (4.2-12.0)] were included in the analysis. Patients were treated with Medtronic self-expandable valves (CoreValve/Evolut, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) (n = 523, 52.0%), Edwards balloon-expandable valves (EBEV, SAPIEN/SAPIEN XT/SAPIEN 3, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) (n = 435, 43.2%), and other devices (n = 48, 4.8%). Survival was lower at 8 years in patients with small-failed bioprostheses [internal diameter (ID) ≤ 20 mm] compared with those with large-failed bioprostheses (ID > 20 mm) (33.2% vs. 40.5%, P = 0.01). Independent correlates for mortality included smaller-failed bioprosthetic valves [hazard ratio (HR) 1.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.13)], age [HR 1.21 (95% CI 1.01-1.45)], and non-transfemoral access [HR 1.43 (95% CI 1.11-1.84)]. There were 40 reinterventions after ViV. Independent correlates for all-cause reintervention included pre-existing severe prosthesis-patient mismatch [subhazard ratio (SHR) 4.34 (95% CI 1.31-14.39)], device malposition [SHR 3.75 (95% CI 1.36-10.35)], EBEV [SHR 3.34 (95% CI 1.26-8.85)], and age [SHR 0.59 (95% CI 0.44-0.78)]. CONCLUSIONS: The size of the original failed valve may influence long-term mortality, and the type of the transcatheter valve may influence the need for reintervention after aortic ViV.

Transapical Mitral Valve Replacement: 1-Year Results of the Real-World Tendyne European Experience Registry.

BACKGROUND: Early studies of the Tendyne transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) showed promising results in a small selective cohort. OBJECTIVES: The authors present 1-year data from the currently largest commercial, real-world cohort originating from the investigator-initiated TENDER (Tendyne European Experience) registry. METHODS: All patients from the TENDER registry eligible for 1-year follow-up were included. The primary safety endpoint was 1-year cardiovascular mortality. Primary performance endpoint was reduction of mitral regurgitation (MR) up to 1 year. RESULTS: Among 195 eligible patients undergoing TMVR (median age 77 years [Q1-Q3: 71-81 years], 60% men, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality 5.6% [Q1-Q3: 3.6%-8.9%], 81% in NYHA functional class III or IV, 94% with MR 3+/4+), 31% had "real-world" indications for TMVR (severe mitral annular calcification, prior mitral valve treatment, or others) outside of the instructions for use. The technical success rate was 95%. The cardiovascular mortality rate was 7% at 30 day and 17% at 1 year (all-cause mortality rates were 9% and 29%, respectively). Reintervention or surgery following discharge was 4%, while rates of heart failure hospitalization reduced from 68% in the preceding year to 25% during 1-year follow-up. Durable MR reduction to ≤1+ was achieved in 98% of patients, and at 1 year, 83% were in NYHA functional class I or II. There was no difference in survival and major adverse events between on-label use and "real-world" indications up to 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: This large, real-world, observational registry reports high technical success, durable and complete MR elimination, significant clinical benefits, and a 1-year cardiovascular mortality rate of 17% after Tendyne TMVR. Outcomes were comparable between on-label use and "real-world" indications, offering a safe and efficacious treatment option for patients without alternative treatments. (Tendyne European Experience Registry [TENDER]; NCT04898335).

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).

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Latest-Iteration Self-Expanding or Balloon-Expandable Valves: The Multicenter OPERA-TAVI Registry.

BACKGROUND: The latest iterations of devices for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have brought refinements to further improve patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare early outcomes of patients undergoing TAVR with the self-expanding (SE) Evolut PRO/PRO+ (Medtronic, Inc) or balloon-expandable (BE) Sapien 3 ULTRA (Edwards Lifesciences) devices. METHODS: The OPERA-TAVI (Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO vs Sapien 3 Ultra Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry collected data from 14 high-volume centers worldwide on patients undergoing TAVR with SE or BE devices. After excluding patients who were not eligible for both devices, patients were compared using 1:1 propensity score matching. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 device success and early safety, respectively. RESULTS: Among 2,241 patients eligible for the present analysis, 683 pairs of patients were matched. The primary efficacy outcome did not differ between patients receiving SE or BE transcatheter aortic valves (SE: 87.4% vs BE: 85.9%; P = 0.47), but the BE device recipients showed a higher rate of the primary safety outcome (SE: 69.1% vs BE: 82.6%; P < 0.01). This finding was driven by the higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (SE: 17.9% vs BE: 10.1%; P < 0.01) and disabling stroke (SE: 2.3% vs BE: 0.7%; P = 0.03) in SE device recipients. On post-TAVR echocardiography, the rate of moderate to severe paravalvular regurgitation was similar between groups (SE: 3.2% vs BE: 2.3%; P = 0.41), whereas lower mean transvalvular gradients were observed in the SE cohort (median SE: 7.0 vs BE: 12.0 mm Hg; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The OPERA-TAVI registry showed that SE and BE devices had comparable Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 device success rates, but the BE device had a higher rate of early safety. The higher permanent pacemaker implantation and disabling stroke rates in SE device recipients drove this composite endpoint.

Transapical mitral valve implantation for treatment of symptomatic mitral valve disease: a real-world multicentre experience.

AIMS: Transcatheter mitral valve implantation (TMVI) is a new treatment option for patients with symptomatic mitral valve (MV) disease. Real-world data have not yet been reported. This study aimed to assess procedural and 30-day outcomes of TMVI in a real-world patient cohort. METHOD AND RESULTS: All consecutive patients undergoing implantation of a transapically delivered self-expanding valve at 26 European centres from January 2020 to April 2021 were included in this retrospective observational registry. Among 108 surgical high-risk patients included (43% female, mean age 75 ± 7 years, mean STS-PROM 7.2 ± 5.3%), 25% was treated for an off-label indication (e.g. previous MV intervention or surgery, mitral stenosis, mitral annular calcification). Patients were highly symptomatic (New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class III/IV in 86%) and mitral regurgitation (MR) was graded 3+/4+ in 95% (38% primary, 37% secondary, and 25% mixed aetiology). Technical success rate was 96%, and MR reduction to ≤1+ was achieved in all patients with successful implantation. There were two procedural deaths and 30-day all-cause mortality was 12%. At early clinical follow-up, MR reduction was sustained and there were significant reductions of pulmonary pressure (systolic pulmonary artery pressure 52 vs. 42 mmHg, p < 0.001), and tricuspid regurgitation severity (p = 0.013). Heart failure symptoms improved significantly (73% in NYHA class I/II, p < 0.001). Procedural success rate according to MVARC criteria was 80% and was not different in patients treated for an off-label indication (74% vs. 81% for off- vs. on-label, p = 0.41). CONCLUSION: In a real-world patient population, TMVI has a high technical and procedural success rate with efficient and durable MR reduction and symptomatic improvement.