Self-Expanding or Balloon-Expandable TAVR in Patients with a Small Aortic Annulus.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe aortic stenosis and a small aortic annulus are at risk for impaired valvular hemodynamic performance and associated adverse cardiovascular clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and an aortic-valve annulus area of 430 mm2 or less in a 1:1 ratio to undergo TAVR with either a self-expanding supraannular valve or a balloon-expandable valve. The coprimary end points, each assessed through 12 months, were a composite of death, disabling stroke, or rehospitalization for heart failure (tested for noninferiority) and a composite end point measuring bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction (tested for superiority). RESULTS: A total of 716 patients were treated at 83 sites in 13 countries (mean age, 80 years; 87% women; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality, 3.3%). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the percentage of patients who died, had a disabling stroke, or were rehospitalized for heart failure through 12 months was 9.4% with the self-expanding valve and 10.6% with the balloon-expandable valve (difference, -1.2 percentage points; 90% confidence interval [CI], -4.9 to 2.5; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the percentage of patients with bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction through 12 months was 9.4% with the self-expanding valve and 41.6% with the balloon-expandable valve (difference, -32.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -38.7 to -25.6; P<0.001 for superiority). The aortic-valve mean gradient at 12 months was 7.7 mm Hg with the self-expanding valve and 15.7 mm Hg with the balloon-expandable valve, and the corresponding values for additional secondary end points through 12 months were as follows: mean effective orifice area, 1.99 cm2 and 1.50 cm2; percentage of patients with hemodynamic structural valve dysfunction, 3.5% and 32.8%; and percentage of women with bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction, 10.2% and 43.3% (all P<0.001). Moderate or severe prosthesis-patient mismatch at 30 days was found in 11.2% of the patients in the self-expanding valve group and 35.3% of those in the balloon-expandable valve group (P<0.001). Major safety end points appeared to be similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe aortic stenosis and a small aortic annulus who underwent TAVR, a self-expanding supraannular valve was noninferior to a balloon-expandable valve with respect to clinical outcomes and was superior with respect to bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction through 12 months. (Funded by Medtronic; SMART ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04722250.).

Edoxaban versus Vitamin K Antagonist for Atrial Fibrillation after TAVR.

BACKGROUND: The role of direct oral anticoagulants as compared with vitamin K antagonists for atrial fibrillation after successful transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) has not been well studied. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, adjudicator-masked trial comparing edoxaban with vitamin K antagonists in patients with prevalent or incident atrial fibrillation as the indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of adverse events consisting of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, systemic thromboembolism, valve thrombosis, or major bleeding. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. On the basis of a hierarchical testing plan, the primary efficacy and safety outcomes were tested sequentially for noninferiority, with noninferiority of edoxaban established if the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.38. Superiority testing of edoxaban for efficacy would follow if noninferiority and superiority were established for major bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 1426 patients were enrolled (713 in each group). The mean age of the patients was 82.1 years, and 47.5% of the patients were women. Almost all the patients had atrial fibrillation before TAVR. The rate of the composite primary efficacy outcome was 17.3 per 100 person-years in the edoxaban group and 16.5 per 100 person-years in the vitamin K antagonist group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.31; P = 0.01 for noninferiority). Rates of major bleeding were 9.7 per 100 person-years and 7.0 per 100 person-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.91; P = 0.93 for noninferiority); the difference between groups was mainly due to more gastrointestinal bleeding with edoxaban. Rates of death from any cause or stroke were 10.0 per 100 person-years in the edoxaban group and 11.7 per 100 person-years in the vitamin K antagonist group (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.11). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mainly prevalent atrial fibrillation who underwent successful TAVR, edoxaban was noninferior to vitamin K antagonists as determined by a hazard ratio margin of 38% for a composite primary outcome of adverse clinical events. The incidence of major bleeding was higher with edoxaban than with vitamin K antagonists. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo; ENVISAGE-TAVI AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02943785.).

Outcomes of transfemoral TAVR using two new-generation devices in patients with horizontal aorta.

BACKGROUND: Challenging anatomies and comorbidities have impact on success in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). There is controversy whether the extent of the aortic angle (AA) has an impact on procedural outcomes. Matched comparative outcome data of new generation transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in horizontal aorta (HA) are scarce. METHODS: A total of 1582 patients with severe native aortic stenosis (AS) treated with the SAPIEN3 Ultra (Ultra; n = 526) or ACURATE Neo2 (Neo2; n = 1056) THVs from January 2017 to January 2023 were analyzed. Patients with non-horizontal aortas (AA < 51.7°, n = 841) were excluded. The population was matched by 1-to-1 nearest-neighbor matching (Ultra, n = 246; Neo2, n = 246). Clinical and procedural outcome were evaluated according to VARC-3 recommendations. RESULTS: Technical success (93.1% vs. 94.7%, p = 0.572) was high after Ultra and Neo2. Device success (80.5% vs. 89.8%, p = 0.05) was inferior with Ultra. Neo2 reveals superior hemodynamic properties with lower rate of severe prosthesis patient mismatch (12.0% vs. 3.7%, p = 0.001) and elevated gradients ( ≥ $\ge $ 20 mmHg: 11.9% vs. 1.7%, p < 0.001). Ultra showed a lower rate of relevant paravalvular regurgitation ( > $\gt $ mild paravalvular regurgitation or Valve-in-Valve due to paravalvular regurgitation: 0.0% vs. 3.7%, p = 0.004). The rate of procedural bailout maneuvers (0.8% vs. 0.4%, p = 1.000) and thirty-day all-cause mortality (1.3% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.496) was similar. CONCLUSION: Transfemoral TAVR in patients with severe aortic stenosis and HA, using the balloon expandable Sapien3 Ultra and self-expanding ACURATE Neo2 prosthesis, is feasible and safe. Therefore, valve selection between these platforms should be made irrespective of the aortic angle by a team experienced with both valves based on their specific advantages. Large, randomized trials in this sub-group of patients would be necessary to compare long term outcomes.

A Controlled Trial of Rivaroxaban after Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Whether the direct factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban can prevent thromboembolic events after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1644 patients without an established indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR to receive rivaroxaban at a dose of 10 mg daily (with aspirin at a dose of 75 to 100 mg daily for the first 3 months) (rivaroxaban group) or aspirin at a dose of 75 to 100 mg daily (with clopidogrel at a dose of 75 mg daily for the first 3 months) (antiplatelet group). The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of death or thromboembolic events. The primary safety outcome was major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding. The trial was terminated prematurely by the data and safety monitoring board because of safety concerns. RESULTS: After a median of 17 months, death or a first thromboembolic event (intention-to-treat analysis) had occurred in 105 patients in the rivaroxaban group and in 78 patients in the antiplatelet group (incidence rates, 9.8 and 7.2 per 100 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio with rivaroxaban, 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.81; P = 0.04). Major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding (intention-to-treat analysis) had occurred in 46 and 31 patients, respectively (4.3 and 2.8 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.37; P = 0.08). A total of 64 deaths occurred in the rivaroxaban group and 38 in the antiplatelet group (5.8 and 3.4 per 100 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.53). CONCLUSIONS: In patients without an established indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR, a treatment strategy including rivaroxaban at a dose of 10 mg daily was associated with a higher risk of death or thromboembolic complications and a higher risk of bleeding than an antiplatelet-based strategy. (Funded by Bayer and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; GALILEO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02556203.).

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: The relative merits of ticagrelor as compared with prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes for whom invasive evaluation is planned are uncertain. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients who presented with acute coronary syndromes and for whom invasive evaluation was planned to receive either ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year. A major secondary end point (the safety end point) was bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 4018 patients underwent randomization. A primary end-point event occurred in 184 of 2012 patients (9.3%) in the ticagrelor group and in 137 of 2006 patients (6.9%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 1.70; P = 0.006). The respective incidences of the individual components of the primary end point in the ticagrelor group and the prasugrel group were as follows: death, 4.5% and 3.7%; myocardial infarction, 4.8% and 3.0%; and stroke, 1.1% and 1.0%. Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 1.3% of patients assigned to ticagrelor and 1.0% of patients assigned to prasugrel, and definite stent thrombosis occurred in 1.1% and 0.6%, respectively. Major bleeding (as defined by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium scale) was observed in 5.4% of patients in the ticagrelor group and in 4.8% of patients in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.51; P = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who presented with acute coronary syndromes with or without ST-segment elevation, the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was significantly lower among those who received prasugrel than among those who received ticagrelor, and the incidence of major bleeding was not significantly different between the two groups. (Funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Deutsches Herzzentrum München; ISAR-REACT 5 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01944800.).

Two-year clinical outcomes after successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation with balloon-expandable versus self-expanding valves: A subanalysis of the GALILEO trial.

BACKGROUND: Midterm data comparing clinical outcomes after successful implantation of self-expanding and balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves (THV) are limited. We aimed to compare 2-year outcomes after successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the Edwards balloon-expandable or the Medtronic self-expanding THV. METHODS: Two-year outcomes were analyzed according to the implanted THV in the GALILEO trial. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) was a composite of all-cause death or thromboembolic events including stroke, myocardial infarction, symptomatic valve thrombosis, systemic embolism, deep-vein thrombosis, or pulmonary embolism. RESULTS: Among 1644 patients recruited in 136 centers across 16 countries between 2015 and 2018, 499 received a self-expanding and 757 patients received a balloon-expandable THV. Patients treated with a self-expanding THV were more likely to be female, and had higher surgical risk, lower hemoglobin levels, and more frequent valve-in-valve procedures than those with a balloon-expandable THV. After multivariable adjustment, there were no significant differences in major clinical outcomes between self-expanding versus balloon-expandable THV: MACCE (17.0% vs. 13.4%, adjusted-hazard ratios [HR] 1.18, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.82-1.69); all-cause death (11.4% vs. 9.3%, adjusted-HR 1.26; 95% CI: 0.78-2.05); cardiovascular death (8.5% vs. 4.0%, adjusted-HR 1.53; 95% CI: 0.82-2.86), any stroke (5.1% vs. 3.7%, adjusted-HR 0.86; 95% CI: 0.43-1.73); major or life-threatening bleeding (5.9% vs. 6.8%, adjusted-HR 0.93; 95% CI: 0.53-1.63). CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov. NCT02556203. CONCLUSIONS: Two-year follow-up data from the GALILEO trial indicate that successful TAVI either with self-expanding or balloon-expandable THVs according to physician discretion did not show difference in rates of MACCE.

DEtection of ProxImal Coronary stenosis in the work-up for Transcatheter aortic valve implantation using CTA (from the DEPICT CTA collaboration).

OBJECTIVES: Computed tomography angiography (CTA) is performed routinely in the work-up for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), and could potentially replace invasive coronary angiography (ICA) to rule out left main (LM) and proximal coronary stenosis. The objectives were to assess the diagnostic yield and accuracy of pre-TAVI CTA to detect LM and proximal coronary stenosis of ≥ 50% and ≥ 70% diameter stenosis (DS). METHODS: The DEPICT CTA database consists of individual patient data from four studies with a retrospective design that analyzed the diagnostic accuracy of pre-TAVI CTA to detect coronary stenosis, as compared with ICA. Pooled data were used to assess diagnostic accuracy to detect coronary stenosis in the left main and the three proximal coronary segments on a per-patient and a per-segment level. We included 1060 patients (mean age: 81.5 years, 42.7% male). RESULTS: On ICA, the prevalence of proximal stenosis was 29.0% (≥ 50% DS) and 15.7% (≥ 70% DS). Pre-TAVI CTA ruled out ≥ 50% DS in 51.6% of patients with a sensitivity of 96.4%, specificity of 71.2%, PPV of 57.7%, and NPV of 98.0%. For ≥ 70% DS, pre-TAVI CTA ruled out stenosis in 70.0% of patients with a sensitivity of 96.7%, specificity of 87.5%, PPV of 66.9%, and NPV of 99.0%. CONCLUSION: CTA provides high diagnostic accuracy to rule out LM and proximal coronary stenosis in patients undergoing work-up for TAVI. Clinical application of CTA as a gatekeeper for ICA would reduce the need for ICA in 52% or 70% of patients, using a threshold of ≥ 50% or ≥ 70% DS, respectively. KEY POINTS: • Clinical application of CTA as a gatekeeper for ICA would reduce the need for ICA in 52% or 70% of TAVI patients, using a threshold of ≥ 50% or ≥ 70% diameter stenosis. • The diagnostic accuracy of CTA to exclude proximal coronary stenosis in these patients is high, with a sensitivity of 96.4% and NPV of 98.0% for a threshold of ≥ 50%, and a sensitivity of 96.7% and NPV of 99.0% for a threshold of ≥ 70% diameter stenosis. • Atrial fibrillation and heart rate did not significantly affect sensitivity and NPV. However, a heart rate of < 70 b/min during CTA was associated with a significantly improved specificity and PPV.

[Myocardial revascularization : Controversy over noninvasive and invasive detection of ischemia]. / Myokardiale Revaskularisation : Kontroverse um den nicht-invasiven und den invasiven Ischämienachweis.

With some exceptions, myocardial revascularization in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) is generally decided on the basis of the extent of myocardial ischemia. Current data indicate that a patient will benefit from revascularization if ischemia is present in more than 10% of the myocardium. Accordingly, all patients presenting with CCS should undergo a noninvasive ischemia test that can answer this question before diagnostic coronary angiography. In order to be able to make a recommendation for revascularization based on scientific data even in those patients who previously had no clear evidence of ischemia, e.g., because of discrepant findings, measurement of the hemodynamic significance of coronary stenoses with a lumen diameter reduction ≥ 50% should be performed during coronary angiography. A decision to revascularize based on hemodynamic significance was shown to be beneficial to patients in several studies.

Latest Advances in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (2022).

Since the last decade, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the treatment of choice in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) who are ineligible or at higher risk for surgery. Due to the high safety profile of current device generation, TAVI has emerged as a qualified alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with classic aortic stenosis and intermediate surgical risk, severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis, and isolated pure aortic regurgitation. Moderate aortic stenosis, with and without concomitant heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, are under investigation in randomized controlled clinical trials from which we will gain exciting insights on the best timing of TAVI to protect the left ventricle from further functional deterioration due to increasing AS. In these cases, a meticulous diagnostic approach including advanced imaging is becoming more and more important. Current evidence on antithrombotic strategies after TAVI is weak, contributing to poor levels of standardization and high variability in daily clinical practice. This review will provide a short overview of recent clinical trials including best timing for TAVI with moderate AS and antithrombotic strategies after TAVI with current and future TAVI generations.

Comparison of Self-Expanding Bioprostheses for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis: SCOPE 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Few randomized trials have compared bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and no trials have compared bioprostheses with supra-annular design. The SCOPE 2 trial (Safety and Efficacy Comparison of Two TAVI Systems in a Prospective Randomized Evaluation 2) was designed to compare the clinical outcomes of the ACURATE neo and CoreValve Evolut bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. METHODS: SCOPE 2 was a randomized trial performed at 23 centers in 6 countries between April 2017 and April 2019. Patients ≥75 years old with an indication for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement as agreed by the heart team were randomly assigned to receive treatment with either the ACURATE neo (n=398) or the CoreValve Evolut bioprostheses (n=398). The primary end point, powered for noninferiority of the ACURATE neo bioprosthesis, was all-cause death or stroke at 1 year. The key secondary end point, powered for superiority of the ACURATE neo bioprosthesis, was new permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days. RESULTS: Among 796 randomized patients (mean age, 83.2±4.3 years; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score, 4.6±2.9%), clinical follow-up information was available for 778 (98%) patients. Within 1 year, the primary end point occurred in 15.8% of patients in the ACURATE neo group and in 13.9% of patients in the CoreValve Evolut group (absolute risk difference, 1.8%, upper 1-sided 95% confidence limit, 6.1%; P=0.0549 for noninferiority). The 30-day rates of new permanent pacemaker implantation were 10.5% in the ACURATE neo group and 18.0% in the CoreValve Evolut group (absolute risk difference, -7.5% [95% CI, -12.4 to -2.60]; P=0.0027). No significant differences were observed in the components of the primary end point. Cardiac death at 30 days (2.8% versus 0.8%; P=0.03) and 1 year (8.4% versus 3.9%; P=0.01), and moderate or severe aortic regurgitation at 30 days (10% versus 3%; P=0.002) were significantly increased in the ACURATE neo group. CONCLUSIONS: Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the self-expanding ACURATE neo did not meet noninferiority compared with the self-expanding CoreValve Evolut in terms of all-cause death or stroke at 1 year, and it was associated with a lower incidence of new permanent pacemaker implantation. In secondary analyses, the ACURATE neo was associated with more moderate or severe aortic regurgitation at 30 days and cardiac death at 30 days and 1 year. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03192813.

Five-year follow-up of patients who underwent everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold implantation.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate very long-term results after unrestricted everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) implantation. BACKGROUND: Previous randomized studies mainly included selected patients differing from those seen during daily routine and long-term data from all-comers registries are sparse. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing BRS implantation were included in this observational, single center study. Clinical follow-up was conducted up to 5 years. Endpoint of interest was the composite of target lesion failure (TLF), including target-vessel myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization and cardiac death. Furthermore, ARC-defined scaffold thrombosis (ScT) were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 176 patients with a median age of 64 (55 - 72) years were analyzed, of which 59.6% presented an acute coronary syndrome. A total of 183 mainly complex lesions (55.8%) were treated. At 5 years, the rate for TLF was 21.6%. Definite or probable ScT rate was 4.1%. The rate of ScT within the first year was 2.8% and afterwards 1.2%. Notably, no ScT was seen later than 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Although this real-world registry displays high rates of clinical events during long-term follow-up, no ScT was seen after 2 years.

Does the severity of low-gradient aortic stenosis classified by computed tomography-derived aortic valve calcification determine the outcome of patients after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)?

OBJECTIVES: Aortic valve calcification (AVC) determined by computed tomography has emerged as a complementary measure of aortic stenosis (AS) severity and as a predictor of adverse events. Thus, AVC can guide further treatment decisions in patients with low-gradient AS (LG-AS). We compared the symptomatic and prognostic outcome of patients with low vs. high AVC after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). METHODS: Patients with an aortic valve area index ≤ 0.6 cm2/m2 and a mean pressure gradient (MPG) < 40 mmHg were classified as low-flow, low-gradient AS (LFLG-AS; stroke volume index [SVI] ≤ 35 ml/m2, left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] < 50%, n = 173), paradoxical LFLG-AS (pLFLG-AS, SVI ≤ 35 ml/m2, LVEF ≥ 50%, n = 233), or normal-flow, low-gradient AS (NFLG-AS, SVI > 35 ml/m2, LVEF ≥ 50%, n = 244); patients with MPG ≥ 40 mmHg (n = 1142) served as controls. Patients were further categorized according to published AVC thresholds. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics and cardiovascular risk were not different between patients with high vs. low AVC in any of the subgroups. Patients with low AVC had a lower MPG. Symptom improvement at 30 days was observed in the majority of patients but was less pronounced in LFLG-AS patients with low vs. those with high AVC. Kaplan-Meier 1-year survival curves were identical between patients with low and high AVC in all three LG-AS groups. CONCLUSIONS: The severity of LG-AS based on AVC has no impact on 1-year prognosis once TAVI has been performed. KEY POINTS: • Aortic valve calcification (AVC) determined by computed tomography has emerged as a complementary measure of aortic stenosis (AS) severity and is of prognostic value in selected patients. • Patients with inconsistent echocardiographic measures can be classified as having severe or nonsevere AS by the computed tomography-derived AVC score. • The prognostic value of AVC in patients with low-gradient AS is abrogated after correction of afterload by TAVI.

Predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation after ACURATE neo transcatheter heart valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: Rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) have been low using the self-expanding ACURATE neo device, but data regarding risk factors of PPI for this specific device are scarce. METHODS: The study cohort consisted of patients (n = 1000) with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using the ACURATE neo prosthesis in our center between May 2012 and December 2019. For the present analysis, we excluded patients with previous permanent pacemaker (n = 110), high-grade AV block prior to TAVI (n = 3), and patients requiring conversion to surgical valve replacement (n = 4) or the implantation of a second prosthesis as valve-in-valve (n = 15). Preexisting conduction abnormalities were determined, and the implantation depth of the prosthesis was measured on final angiography. Differences across quartiles based on the original consecutive cohort were analyzed with respect to implantation depth and PPI rate. Predictors of PPI were identified using logistic regression. RESULTS: The PPI rate was 10%. Preexisting AV block I°, right bundle branch block (RBBB), and the implantation depth were independent predictors of PPI. Across quartiles, the implantation depth differed significantly with lowest values in the last quartile, whereas differences of PPI rates across quartiles were not statistically significant, but showed a notable decrease in the last quartile. CONCLUSION: Preexisting RBBB, AV block I°, and low implantation depth were independent predictors of PPI following TAVI using the ACURATE neo device. Instead of deliberately aiming at a high position, avoidance of a low implantation depth may represent a reasonable compromise to reduce the rate of PPI without increasing the risk of malpositioning.

EAPCI Position Statement on Invasive Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses an unprecedented challenge to healthcare worldwide. The infection can be life threatening and require intensive care treatment. The transmission of the disease poses a risk to both patients and healthcare workers. The number of patients requiring hospital admission and intensive care may overwhelm health systems and negatively affect standard care for patients presenting with conditions needing emergency interventions. This position statements aims to assist cardiologists in the invasive management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. To that end, we assembled a panel of interventional cardiologists and acute cardiac care specialists appointed by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) and from the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association (ACVC) and included the experience from the first and worst affected areas in Europe. Modified diagnostic and treatment algorithms are proposed to adapt evidence-based protocols for this unprecedented challenge. Various clinical scenarios, as well as management algorithms for patients with a diagnosed or suspected COVID-19 infection, presenting with ST- and non-ST-segment elevation ACS are described. In addition, we address the need for re-organization of ACS networks, with redistribution of hub and spoke hospitals, as well as for in-hospital reorganization of emergency rooms and cardiac units, with examples coming from multiple European countries. Furthermore, we provide a guidance to reorganization of catheterization laboratories and, importantly, measures for protection of healthcare providers involved with invasive procedures.

Latest Developments in Robotic Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Interventional cardiovascular medicine has seen constant progress over the last few decades. Since the first angiograms and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty were carried out, this progress has been tremendous and has led to a substantial decline in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this article is to report and review the latest developments and evidence in robotics-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (rPCI) and its potential future applications, opportunities, and limitations. Contemporary evidence shows that rPCI can lead to a significant reduction in radiation exposure as well as medical hazards for cardiologists. Rates of device and procedural success remain high and there is no evidence of a disadvantage for the patient. The accuracy of implantation with a reduced geographic mismatch is a further advantage that can result in a higher quality of treatment. Even in complex coronary lesions and procedures, rPCI seems to be safe and efficient. The latest developments include telestenting over hundreds of kilometers from a remote platform. Currently, the main limitations are the absence of large-scale randomized trials for the valid assessment of the benefits and disadvantages of rPCI as well as the technical limitations of the currently available rPCI systems. rPCI is a forward-looking innovation in cardiology that is applicable to a wide range of coronary interventions. Despite the present lack of knowledge and the limited data concerning the outcome for the patient, the available literature reveals promising results that should lead to improvements for physicians and patients.

Safety and efficacy of a self-expanding versus a balloon-expandable bioprosthesis for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is the preferred treatment option for older patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Differences in the properties of available TAVR systems can affect clinical outcomes. Among patients undergoing TAVR, we compared the self-expanding ACURATE neo TAVR system with the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 TAVR system with regard to early safety and efficacy. METHODS: In this randomised non-inferiority trial, patients (aged ≥75 years) undergoing transfemoral TAVR for treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, and who were deemed to be at increased surgical risk, were recruited at 20 tertiary heart valve centres in Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the UK. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive treatment with the ACURATE neo or the SAPIEN 3 with a computer-based randomly permuted block scheme, stratified by study centre and Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) category. The primary composite safety and efficacy endpoint comprised all-cause death, any stroke, life-threatening or disabling bleeding, major vascular complications, coronary artery obstruction requiring intervention, acute kidney injury (stage 2 or 3), rehospitalisation for valve-related symptoms or congestive heart failure, valve-related dysfunction requiring repeat procedure, moderate or severe prosthetic valve regurgitation, or prosthetic valve stenosis within 30 days of the procedure. Endpoint assessors were masked to treatment allocation. Non-inferiority of ACURATE neo compared with SAPIEN 3 was assessed in the intention-to-treat population on the basis of a risk-difference margin of 7·7% for the primary composite endpoint, with a one-sided α of 0·05. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT03011346) and is ongoing but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2017, and Feb 2, 2019, up to 5132 patients were screened and 739 (mean age 82·8 years [SD 4·1]; median STS-PROM score 3·5% [IQR 2·6-5·0]) were enrolled. 30-day follow-up was available for 367 (99%) of 372 patients allocated to the ACURATE neo group, and 364 (99%) of 367 allocated to the SAPIEN 3 group. Within 30 days, the primary endpoint occurred in 87 (24%) patients in the ACURATE neo and in 60 (16%) in the SAPIEN 3 group; thus, non-inferiority of the ACURATE neo was not met (absolute risk difference 7·1% [upper 95% confidence limit 12·0%], p=0·42). Secondary analysis of the primary endpoint suggested superiority of the SAPIEN 3 device over the ACURATE neo device (95% CI for risk difference -1·3 to -12·9, p=0·0156). The ACURATE neo and SAPIEN 3 groups did not differ in incidence of all-cause death (nine patients [2%] vs three [1%]) and stroke (seven [2%] vs 11 [3%]); whereas acute kidney injury (11 [3%] vs three [1%]) and moderate or severe prosthetic aortic regurgitation (34 [9%] vs ten [3%]) were more common in the ACURATE neo group. INTERPRETATION: TAVR with the self-expanding ACURATE neo did not meet non-inferiority compared to the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 device in terms of early safety and clinical efficacy outcomes. An early composite safety and efficacy endpoint was useful in discriminating the performance of different TAVR systems. FUNDING: Boston Scientific (USA).

Gender-related differences in patients undergoing transcatheter mitral valve interventions in clinical practice: 1-year results from the German TRAMI registry.

OBJECTIVES: Information on gender-related differences in terms of baseline characteristics and clinical outcome of patients undergoing MitraClip® implantation in daily clinical practice have been studied in smaller populations previously. This study sought to additionally evaluate gender-related differences in a larger German real-world patient population. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed data from the prospective and multicenter German TRAMI Registry. Between 08/2010 and 07/2013 327 women and 501 men underwent MitraClip® implantation for significant mitral valve regurgitation. Female patients were significantly older and showed higher rates of frailty compared to men. In contrast, men had significantly higher rates of comorbidities compared to women. The majority of patients underwent MitraClip® implantation for secondary mitral regurgitation, with no significant gender-related differences. MitraClip® treatment was equally effective in terms of procedural results and residual mitral regurgitation in women and men and complication rates were low. However, in this real-world analysis severe bleeding complications were significantly higher in women (p = .02) and re-intervention rates were significantly higher in men after MitraClip® treatment (p = .02). Women showed less improvement in functional NYHA class after MitraClip® treatment compared to men at 1-year follow-up (FU; p < .001). No significant differences between female and male patients were found in 1-year mortality and in re-hospitalization rates. CONCLUSION: In this analysis from a large prospective, multicenter real-world registry MitraClip® implantation is safe and effective for treatment of significant mitral regurgitation with equal postprocedural results and mortality rates during 1-year follow-up. Men and women showed a persisting and significant clinical benefit at 1-year FU after treatment. Complication and re-intervention rates were low. Additional studies are needed to further evaluate our findings on increased bleeding complications and decreased functional improvement in women at 1-year follow-up after MitraClip® therapy.

Patients at low surgical risk as defined by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Score undergoing isolated interventional or surgical aortic valve implantation: in-hospital data and 1-year results from the German Aortic Valve Registry (GARY).

AIMS: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the standard treatment for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at high surgical risk and may be considered for patients with intermediate risk. During the last few years, an increasing number of patients with low surgical risk have been treated with TAVI. In this study, low-risk patients undergoing isolated TAVI or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) were analysed using data from the German Aortic Valve Registry (GARY). METHODS AND RESULTS: All patients with a Society of Thoracic Surgeons Score of <4% undergoing TAVI or SAVR in 2014 and 2015 were evaluated. A total of 20 549 low surgical risk patients remained for further analysis, comprising 14 487 surgical patients and 6062 TAVI patients. Since TAVI patients were significantly older and had significantly more co-morbidities, a weighted propensity score model was used to compare SAVR and TAVI patients for in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year mortality. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation patients showed a significantly higher in-hospital and 30-day survival than SAVR patients (in hospital survival TAVI vs. SAVR: 98.5% vs. 97.3%; P = 0.003; 30-day survival TAVI vs. SAVR: 98.1% vs. 97.1%; P = 0.014). At 1 year, survival rates did not differ significantly (survival TAVI vs. SAVR: 90.0% vs. 91.2%; P = 0.158). CONCLUSION: In this first GARY analysis of low-risk patients, weighted comparison showed similar 1-year survival for TAVI and SAVR and higher in-hospital survival for TAVI patients.

Incidence and outcome of peri-procedural transcatheter heart valve embolization and migration: the TRAVEL registry (TranscatheteR HeArt Valve EmboLization and Migration).

AIMS: Peri-procedural transcatheter valve embolization and migration (TVEM) is a rare but potentially devastating complication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We sought to assess the incidence, causes, and outcome of TVEM in a large multicentre cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: We recorded cases of peri-procedural TVEM in patients undergoing TAVI between January 2010 and December 2017 from 26 international sites. Peri-procedural TVEM occurred in 273/29 636 (0.92%) TAVI cases (age 80.8 ± 7.3 years; 53.8% female), of which 217 were to the ascending aorta and 56 to the left ventricle. The use of self-expanding or first-generation prostheses and presence of a bicuspid aortic valve were independent predictors of TVEM. Bail-out measures included repositioning attempts using snares or miscellaneous tools (41.0%), multiple valve implantations (83.2%), and conversion to surgery (19.0%). Using 1:4-propensity matching, we identified a cohort of 235 patients with TVEM (TVEMPS) and 932 patients without TVEM (non-TVEMPS). In the matched cohort, all-cause mortality was higher in TVEMPS than in non-TVEMPS at 30 days (18.6% vs. 4.9%; P < 0.001) and after 1 year (30.5% vs. 16.6%; P < 0.001). Major stroke was more frequent in TVEMPS at 30 days (10.6% vs. 2.8%; P < 0.001), but not at 1 year (4.6% vs. 1.9%; P = 0.17). The need for emergent cardiopulmonary support, major stroke at 30 days, and acute kidney injury Stages 2 and 3 increased the risk of 1-year mortality, whereas a better renal function at baseline was protective. CONCLUSION: Transcatheter valve embolization and migration occurred in approximately 1% and was associated with increased morbidity and mortality.

Patients at Intermediate Surgical Risk Undergoing Isolated Interventional or Surgical Aortic Valve Implantation for Severe Symptomatic Aortic Valve Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly being used for treatment of severe aortic valve stenosis in patients at intermediate risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Currently, real-world data comparing indications and clinical outcomes of patients at intermediate surgical risk undergoing isolated TAVR with those undergoing SAVR are scarce. METHODS: We compared clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with intermediate surgical risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 4%-8%) who underwent isolated TAVR or conventional SAVR within the prospective, all-comers German Aortic Valve Registry. RESULTS: A total of 7613 patients at intermediate surgical risk underwent isolated TAVR (n=6469) or SAVR (n=1144) at 92 sites in Germany between 2012 and 2014. Patients treated by TAVR were significantly older (82.5±5.0 versus 76.6±6.7 years, P<0.001) and had higher risk scores (logistic EuroSCORE [European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation]: 21.2±12.3% versus 14.2±9.5%, P<0.001; Society of Thoracic Surgeons score: 5.6±1.1 versus 5.2±1.0, P<0.001). Multivariable analyses revealed that advanced age, coronary artery disease, New York Heart Association class III/IV, pulmonary hypertension, prior cardiac decompensation, elective procedure, arterial occlusive disease, no diabetes mellitus, and a smaller aortic valve area were associated with performing TAVR instead of SAVR (all P<0.001). Unadjusted in-hospital mortality rates were equal for TAVR and SAVR (3.6% versus 3.6%, P=0.976), whereas unadjusted 1-year mortality was significantly higher in patients after TAVR (17.5% versus 10.8%, P<0.001). After propensity score matching, the difference in 1-year mortality between patients with TAVR and SAVR was no longer significant (17.1% versus 15.7%, P=0.59). CONCLUSIONS: Patients at intermediate risk undergoing TAVR differ significantly from those treated with SAVR with regard to age and baseline characteristics. Isolated TAVR and SAVR were associated with an in-hospital mortality rate of 3.6%. In the propensity score analysis, there was no significant difference in 1-year mortality between patients with TAVR and SAVR.