Transcatheter or Surgical Treatment of Aortic-Valve Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Among low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who are eligible for both transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic-valve replacement (SAVR), data are lacking on the appropriate treatment strategy in routine clinical practice. METHODS: In this randomized noninferiority trial conducted at 38 sites in Germany, we assigned patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low or intermediate surgical risk to undergo either TAVI or SAVR. Percutaneous- and surgical-valve prostheses were selected according to operator discretion. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause or fatal or nonfatal stroke at 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 1414 patients underwent randomization (701 to the TAVI group and 713 to the SAVR group). The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 74±4 years; 57% were men, and the median Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was 1.8% (low surgical risk). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the primary outcome at 1 year was 5.4% in the TAVI group and 10.0% in the SAVR group (hazard ratio for death or stroke, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.79; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The incidence of death from any cause was 2.6% in the TAVI group and 6.2% in the SAVR group (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.73); the incidence of stroke was 2.9% and 4.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.06). Procedural complications occurred in 1.5% and 1.0% of patients in the TAVI and SAVR groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe aortic stenosis at low or intermediate surgical risk, TAVI was noninferior to SAVR with respect to death from any cause or stroke at 1 year. (Funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and the German Heart Foundation; DEDICATE-DZHK6 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03112980.).

Preprocedural assessment of coronary artery disease in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Rationale and design of the EASE-IT CT registry.

BACKGROUND: Invasive coronary angiography (ICA) is the standard for pre-procedural assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, it requires hospitalization and can be associated with complications. Computed tomography angiography (CTA) may be a viable alternative to rule out prognostically relevant CAD. METHODS: The EASE-IT CT Registry is an investigator-initiated, prospective, observational, multicentre pilot registry involving patients aged ≥75 years with severe aortic stenosis (AS) intended to implant a transcatheter heart valve (THV) of the SAPIEN family. A total of 150 patients will be recruited from four sites in Germany and Austria. The registry will consist of two prospective cohorts: the investigational CTA-only cohort and the CTA + ICA control cohort. The CTA-only cohort will enrol 100 patients in whom significant (≥50%) left main (LM) and/or proximal left anterior descending artery (LAD) stenosis are ruled out on CTA. The CTA + ICA control cohort will enrol 50 patients who have undergone both CTA and ICA before TAVI and in whom ≥50% LM/proximal LAD stenosis has been ruled out by CTA. Three composite endpoints will be assessed at 3 months post-TAVI: CAD-specific endpoints, VARC-3-defined device success and early safety. CONCLUSION: The EASE-IT CT Registry evaluates whether TAVI can be carried out safely without performing ICA if prognostically relevant CAD of the LM/proximal LAD is ruled out with CTA. If so, the omission of ICA would help streamline the pre-procedural workup of TAVI patients.

Sex differences in lipidomic and bile acid plasma profiles in patients with and without coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Lipids, including phospholipids and bile acids, exert various signaling effects and are thought to contribute to the development of coronary artery disease (CAD). Here, we aimed to compare lipidomic and bile acid profiles in the blood of patients with and without CAD stratified by sex. METHODS: From 2015 to 2022, 3,012 patients who underwent coronary angiography were recruited in the INTERCATH cohort. From the overall cohort, subgroups were defined using patient characteristics such as CAD vs. no CAD, 1st vs. 3rd tertile of LDL-c, and female vs. male sex. Hereafter, a matching algorithm based on age, BMI, hypertension status, diabetes mellitus status, smoking status, the Mediterranean diet score, and the intake of statins, triglycerides, HDL-c and hs-CRP in a 1:1 ratio was implemented. Lipidomic analyses of stored blood samples using the Lipidyzer platform (SCIEX) and bile acid analysis using liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC‒MS/MS) were carried out. RESULTS: A total of 177 matched individuals were analyzed; the median ages were 73.5 years (25th and 75th percentile: 64.1, 78.2) and 71.9 years (65.7, 77.2) for females and males with CAD, respectively, and 67.6 years (58.3, 75.3) and 69.2 years (59.8, 76.8) for females and males without CAD, respectively. Further baseline characteristics, including cardiovascular risk factors, were balanced between the groups. Women with CAD had decreased levels of phosphatidylcholine and diacylglycerol, while no differences in bile acid profiles were detected in comparison to those of female patients without CAD. In contrast, in male patients with CAD, decreased concentrations of the secondary bile acid species glycolithocholic and lithocholic acid, as well as altered levels of specific lipids, were detected compared to those in males without CAD. Notably, male patients with low LDL-c and CAD had significantly greater concentrations of various phospholipid species, particularly plasmalogens, compared to those in high LDL-c subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: We present hypothesis-generating data on sex-specific lipidomic patterns and bile acid profiles in CAD patients. The data suggest that altered lipid and bile acid composition might contribute to CAD development and/or progression, helping to understand the different disease trajectories of CAD in women and men. REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04936438 , Unique identifier: NCT04936438.

Procedural and one-year outcomes of robotic-assisted versus manual percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (rPCI) has proven to be feasible and safe. Comparative analyses of rPCI versus manual PCI (mPCI) are scarce. AIMS: We aimed to investigate procedural aspects and outcomes of rPCI using the second-generation CorPath GRX Vascular Robotic System compared with mPCI in patients with chronic coronary syndrome and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: From January to April 2021, 70 patients underwent rPCI at the University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg-Eppendorf and were recruited into the INTERCATH study. By propensity score matching, a control cohort of 210 patients who underwent mPCI from 2015-2021 was identified. Co-primary endpoints were one-year all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) as a composite of cardiovascular death, unplanned target lesion revascularisation, myocardial infarction, and stroke. RESULTS: The median age of the patients (n=280) was 70.7 (25th percentile-75th percentile: 62.0-78.0) years, and 24.6% were female. The Gensini score (28.5 [16.2-48.1] vs 28.0 [15.5-47.0]; p=0.78) was comparable between rPCI versus mPCI. During the PCI procedure, total contrast fluid volume did not differ, whilst longer fluoroscopy times (20.4 min [13.8-27.2] vs 14.4 min [10.4-24.3]; p=0.001) were documented in the rPCI versus mPCI cohort. After 12 months of follow-up, neither all-cause mortality (p=0.22) nor MACE (p=0.25) differed between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: rPCI was associated with longer fluoroscopy times compared with mPCI, though without increased use of contrast medium. One-year follow-up revealed no differences in all-cause mortality or MACE, supporting the safety of a robotic-assisted approach.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with significant septal hypertrophy.

BACKGROUND: Previous reports suggest septal hypertrophy with an interventricular septum depth (IVSD) ≥ 14 mm may adversely affect outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) due to suboptimal valve placement, valve migration, or residual increased LVOT pressure gradients. AIMS: This analysis investigates the impact of interventricular septal hypertrophy on acute outcomes after TAVI. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2021, 1033 consecutive patients (55.8% male, 80.5 ± 6.7 years, EuroSCORE II 6.3 ± 6.5%) with documented IVSD underwent TAVI at our center and were included for analysis. Baseline, periprocedural, and 30-day outcome parameters of patients with normal IVSD (< 14 mm; group 1) and increased IVSD (≥ 14 mm; group 2) were compared. Data were retrospectively analyzed according to updated Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 (VARC-3) definitions. Comparison of outcome parameters was adjusted for baseline differences between groups using logistic and linear regression analyses. RESULTS: Of 1033 patients, 585 and 448 patients were allocated to groups 1 and 2, respectively. There was no significant difference between groups regarding transfemoral access rate (82.6% (n = 478) vs. 86.0% (n = 381), p = 0.157). Postprocedural mean transvalvular pressure gradient was significantly increased in group 2 (group 1, 7.8 ± 4.1 mmHg, vs. group 2, 8.9 ± 4.9 mmHg, p = 0.046). Despite this finding, there was no significant difference between groups regarding the rates of VARC-3 adjudicated composite endpoint device success (90.0% (n = 522) vs. 87.6% (n = 388), p = 0.538) or technical success (92.6% (n = 542) vs. 92.6% (n = 415), p = 0.639). Moreover, the groups showed no significant differences regarding the rates of paravalvular leakage ≥ moderate (3.1% (n = 14) vs. 2.6% (n = 9), p = 0.993), postprocedural permanent pacemaker implantation (13.4% (n = 77) vs. 13.8% (n = 61), p = 0.778), or 30-day mortality (5.1% (n = 30) vs. 4.5% (n = 20), p = 0.758). CONCLUSION: Although transvalvular mean pressure gradients were significantly higher in patients with increased IVSD after TAVI, acute outcomes were comparable between groups suggesting no early impact of adverse hemodynamics due to elevated IVSD. However, how these differences in hemodynamic findings may affect mid- and long-term outcomes, especially in terms of valve durability, needs to be evaluated in further investigations.

Intravascular Lithotripsy-Assisted Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients with Severe Iliofemoral Calcifications: Expanding Transfemoral Indications.

(1) Background: Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the standard treatment for most patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Intravascular lithotripsy may facilitate transfemoral TAVI (IVL-TAVI) even in patients with severely calcified iliofemoral disease. We assessed technical aspects and clinical outcomes of this novel approach compared to alternative transaxillary access (TAX-TAVI). (2) Methods: IVL-TAVI was performed for severe iliofemoral calcifications precluding standard transfemoral access in 30 patients from 2019 to 2022 at a single academic heart center. IVL was performed as part of the TAVI procedure in all cases. Results were compared to a control group of 44 TAX-TAVI procedures performed for the same indication from 2016 to 2021. The safety outcome was a composite of all-cause death, stroke, access-related bleeding ≥ type 2 within 24 h and major vascular access site complications at 30 days. The efficacy outcome was defined as a technical success according to VARC-3. (3) Results: Median age was 78.2 [74.3, 82.6] years, 45.9% were female and mean STS-PROM was 3.6% [2.3, 6.0]. Iliofemoral calcifications were more severe in the IVL-TAVI vs. TAX-TAVI groups (lesion length: 63.0 mm [48.6, 80.3] vs. 48.5 mm [33.1, 68.8]; p = 0.043, severe calcification at target lesion: 90.0% vs. 68.2%; p = 0.047, and median arc calcification 360.0° [297.5, 360.0] vs. 360.0° [180.0, 360.0]; p = 0.033). Technical success was achieved in 93.3% vs. 81.8% (p = 0.187) in IVL- and TAX-TAVI and the safety outcome occurred in 10.0% vs. 31.8% in IVL- and TAX-TAVI (p = 0.047), respectively. (4) Conclusions: IVL-assisted transfemoral TAVI was feasible and safe with favorable outcomes compared to TAX-TAVI. IVL may further expand the number of patients eligible for transfemoral TAVI and may help overcome limitations of an alternative access.

Non-femoral focused transaxillary access in TAVI: GARY data analysis and future trends.

BACKGROUND: In patients not suitable for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), several access strategies can be chosen. AIM: To evaluate the use and patient outcomes of transaxillary (TAx), transapical (TA), and transaortic (TAo) as alternative access for TAVI in Germany; to further evaluate surgical cutdown vs. percutaneous TAx access. METHODS: All patients entered the German Aortic Valve Registry (GARY) between 2011 and 2019 who underwent non-transfemoral TAVI were included in this analysis. Patients with TA, TAo, or TAx TAVI were compared using a weighted propensity score model. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis was performed for TAx regarding the percutaneous or surgical cutdown approach. RESULTS: Overall, 9686 patients received a non-transfemoral access. A total of 8918 patients (92.1%) underwent TA, 398 (4.1%) TAo, and 370 (3.8%) TAx approaches. Within the TAx subgroup, 141 patients (38.1%) received subclavian cutdown, while 200 (54.1%) underwent a percutaneous approach. The TA patients had a significantly lower 30-day survival than TAx patients (TA 90.92% vs. TAx 95.59%, p = 0.006; TAo 92.22% vs. TAx 95.59%, p = 0.102). Comparing percutaneous and cutdown TAx approaches, no significant differences were seen. However, more vascular complications occurred (TA 1.8%, TAo 2.4%, TAx 12.2%; p < .001), and the hospital length of stay was shorter (TA 12.9 days, TAo 14.1 days, TAx 12 days; p < .001) after TAx access. CONCLUSION: It may be reasonable to consider TAx access first in patients not suitable for TF-TAVI, because the 30-day survival was higher compared with TA access and the 1-year survival was higher compared with TAo access. It remains important for the heart teams to offer alternative access modalities for patients not amenable to the standard TF-TAVI approaches.

Left and Right Ventricular Hemodynamic Response After Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement.

Background: Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) represents a novel treatment option for patients with mitral regurgitation (MR), but little is known about the hemodynamic impact of MR elimination following TMVR. We sought to investigate the hemodynamic impact of TMVR on left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) function using noninvasive pressure-volume loops. Methods: All consecutive patients undergoing TMVR with dedicated devices between May 2016 and August 2022 were enrolled. The end-diastolic and end-systolic pressure-volume relationships were estimated from 26 patients using single-beat echocardiographic measurements at baseline and after TMVR at discharge. RV function was assessed by RV-pulmonary artery (PA) coupling and RV fractional area change. One-year follow-up was available for 19 patients. The prognostic impact of calculated end-diastolic volume at an end-diastolic pressure of 20 mmHg (VPed20) reduction was assessed by Cox regression. Results: A total of 26 patients (77.0 years [interquartile range 73.9-80.1], N = 17 [65.4%] male) with successful TMVR were included (secondary MR [N = 21, 80.8%]; median LV ejection fraction was 37.0% [interquartile range 30.7-50.7]). At discharge, a decrease in VPed20 (p < 0.001) indicating leftward shift of end-diastolic pressure-volume relationship, and an increase of the end-systolic elastance slope (p = 0.007) were observed after TMVR. No changes were observed for RV-PA coupling (p = 0.19) and RV fractional area change (p = 0.22). At 1-year follow-up, LV contractility (end-systolic elastance) and RV-PA coupling remained stable. Vped20 reduction at discharge was significantly associated with 1-year all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio 0.16, 95% CI 0.04-0.71, p = 0.016). Conclusions: Noninvasive assessment of pressure-volume loops demonstrated early LV reverse remodeling and improved LV contractility, while RV performance was preserved. These results indicate the potential prognostic impact of complete MR elimination after TMVR.

Impact of Small Aortic Annuli on the Performance of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Bioprostheses: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Recent Studies.

A metanalysis of available randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing self-expanding (SE) and balloon-expandable (BE) bioprostheses in patients with small aortic annulus and aortic stenosis for short- and midterm hemodynamic and clinical outcomes was performed. A total of 21 studies with a total 8,647 patients (SE: n = 4,336 patients vs BE: n = 4,311 patients) were included. SE bioprostheses had a lower postoperative mean gradient at 30 days (MD -5.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.7 to 5.5, p <0.001) and at 1 year (MD -6.6, 95%CI 6.1 to 7.03, p <0.001), with a larger indexed effective orifice area (0.17, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.22, p <0.001 and 0.17, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.27, p <0.001) at both time intervals. BE bioprostheses had a higher risk of 30-day and 1-year severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (risk ratio [RR] 1.07, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.09, p <0.001; RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.11, p <0.001). The 30-day and 1 year paravalvular leaks (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 0.99, p <0.001; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95, p <0.001) and permanent pacemaker implantation (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.99, p 0.01, I2 = 40%,) were lower in the BE group. BE bioprostheses were associated with a lower risk of in-hospital stroke (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1, p = 0.01). In conclusion, in patients with small aortic annulus and aortic stenosis, SE bioprostheses have superior hemodynamic performance but higher rates of paravalvular leak, permanent pacemaker implantation, and in-hospital stroke. BE bioprostheses were associated with a higher risk of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch.

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.

Comparison of two self-expanding transcatheter heart valves for degenerated surgical bioprostheses: the AVENGER multicentre registry.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of comparative data on transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in degenerated surgical prostheses (valve-in-valve [ViV]). AIMS: We sought to compare outcomes of using two self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (THV) systems for ViV. METHODS: In this retrospective multicentre registry, we included consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral ViV using either the ACURATE neo/neo2 (ACURATE group) or the Evolut R/PRO/PRO+ (EVOLUT group). The primary outcome measure was technical success according to Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3. Secondary outcomes were 30-day all-cause mortality, device success (VARC-3), coronary obstruction (CO) requiring intervention, rates of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), and aortic regurgitation (AR) ≥moderate. Comparisons were made after 1:1 propensity score matching. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 835 patients from 20 centres (ACURATE n=251; EVOLUT n=584). In the matched cohort (n=468), technical success (ACURATE 92.7% vs EVOLUT 88.9%; p=0.20) and device success (69.7% vs 73.9%; p=0.36) as well as 30-day mortality (2.8% vs 1.6%; p=0.392) were similar between the two groups. The mean gradients and rates of severe PPM, AR ≥moderate, or CO did not differ between the groups. Technical and device success were higher for the ACURATE platform among patients with a true inner diameter (ID) >19 mm, whereas a true ID ≤19 mm was associated with higher device success - but not technical success - among Evolut recipients. CONCLUSIONS: ViV TAVI using either ACURATE or Evolut THVs showed similar procedural outcomes. However, a true ID >19 mm was associated with higher device success among ACURATE recipients, whereas in patients with a true ID ≤19 mm, device success was higher when using Evolut.