Comparison of a Complete Percutaneous Versus Surgical Approach to Aortic Valve Replacement and Revascularization in Patients at Intermediate Surgical Risk: Results From the Randomized SURTAVI Trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients with severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease, the completely percutaneous approach to aortic valve replacement and revascularization has not been compared with the standard surgical approach. METHODS: The prospective SURTAVI trial (Safety and Efficiency Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Severe, Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement) enrolled intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis from 87 centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe between June 2012 and June 2016. Complex coronary artery disease with SYNTAX score (Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery Trial) >22 was an exclusion criterion. Patients were stratified according to the need for revascularization and then randomly assigned to treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Patients assigned to revascularization in the TAVR group underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, whereas those in the SAVR group had coronary artery bypass grafting. The primary end point was the rate of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. RESULTS: Of 1660 subjects with attempted aortic valve implants, 332 (20%) were assigned to revascularization. They had a higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score for mortality (4.8±1.7% versus 4.4±1.5%; P<0.01) and were more likely to be male (65.1% versus 54.2%; P<0.01) than the 1328 patients not assigned to revascularization. After randomization to treatment, there were 169 patients undergoing TAVR and percutaneous coronary intervention, 163 patients undergoing SAVR and coronary artery bypass grafting, 695 patients undergoing TAVR, and 633 patients undergoing SAVR. No significant difference in the rate of the primary end point was found between TAVR and percutaneous coronary intervention and SAVR and coronary artery bypass grafting (16.0%; 95% CI, 11.1-22.9 versus 14.0%; 95% CI, 9.2-21.1; P=0.62), or between TAVR and SAVR (11.9%; 95% CI, 9.5-14.7 versus 12.3%; 95% CI, 9.8-15.4; P=0.76). CONCLUSIONS: For patients at intermediate surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis and noncomplex coronary artery disease (SYNTAX score ≤22), a complete percutaneous approach of TAVR and percutaneous coronary intervention is a reasonable alternative to SAVR and coronary artery bypass grafting. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov. Unique identifier: NCT01586910.

One-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Using the Direct Aortic Approach.

BACKGROUND: The direct aortic (DA) approach allows for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with difficult peripheral vascular anatomy. The CoreValve ADVANCE Direct Aortic (ADVANCE DA) study was performed to assess the outcomes of DA TAVI with the CoreValve System (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) in routine practice. METHODS: Patients were selected for the DA approach by local cardiac surgical teams, and TAVI was performed with patients under general anesthesia. Safety events were adjudicated according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions by an independent clinical events committee. All imaging data, including that from multislice computed tomography and follow-up echocardiography, were analyzed by an independent core laboratory. RESULTS: From September 2012 to February 2014, 100 patients were enrolled (52.0% male, age 81.9 ± 5.9 years, The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Score 5.9 ± 3.2%) at 9 centers in Europe. Peripheral vascular disease was present in 51.0% of patients, and 38.0% had diabetes. Of the 100 patients enrolled, 92 underwent TAVI. At 30 days after TAVI, 98.1% were free of moderate or severe paravalvular leak. At 1 year, 16 patients had died (Kaplan-Meier rate 17.9%), 1 (1.1%) patient had had a stroke, classified as nondisabling, and 15 (17.0%) patients had received a permanent pacemaker. Most patients experienced improved quality of life as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score (mean change from baseline to 1 year, 39.6 ± 26.3; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The DA approach provides a feasible alternative for patients with challenging anatomic features that may otherwise preclude use of the TAVI procedure.

Relation Between Clinical Best Practices and 6-Month Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With CoreValve (from the ADVANCE II Study).

Best practices for transcatheter aortic valve implantation with CoreValve include patient screening and valve size selection using multislice computed tomography, adherence to manufacturer recommendations for oversizing, control of implant depth to 6 mm or less, and management of conduction disturbances according to international guidelines. The ADVANCE II study implemented these strategies and demonstrated their relation to clinical outcomes. From October 2011 to April 2013, 200 patients with severe aortic stenosis were enrolled, and 194 were implanted. All imaging and electrocardiographic data were analyzed by an independent core laboratory, and adverse events were adjudicated to valve academic research consortium-2 definitions. The mean age was 80.2 ± 6.7 years and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 7.2 ± 6.8% for the enrolled patients. At 6 months, all-cause mortality was 9.2%, stroke was 2.6%, and permanent pacemaker implantation was 19.2% for class I and II indications. In patients with implant depth ≤6 mm, both mortality and permanent pacemaker implantation were lower than in patients with depth >6 mm (2.5% vs 14.5%, p <0.01 and 18.1% vs 31.7%, p = 0.03, respectively). The rate of moderate and severe paravalvular leak was 9.8% at 7 days after transcatheter aortic valve implantation, decreasing to 4.3% at 6 months (p = 0.02). Valves were significantly more oversized in patients with mild or less paravalvular leak at day 7 compared with those with moderate or severe (15.8 ± 8.0% vs 11.8 ± 4.9%, p = 0.01). In conclusion, findings from the ADVANCE II study reinforce that adherence to best clinical practices improves patient outcomes.

Three-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Varying Levels of Surgical Risk (from the CoreValve ADVANCE Study).

This study compared 3-year clinical outcomes of patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score ≤7% to those of patients with a score >7%. Data were drawn from the ADVANCE study, a multinational post-market clinical trial that enrolled real-world patients with severe aortic stenosis treated with the CoreValve bioprosthesis. Events were independently adjudicated using Valve Academic Research Consortium-1 definitions. A total of 996 patients were implanted: STS ≤7% (n = 697, median STS 4.3%, interquartile range 3.1% to 5.4%) and STS >7% (n = 298, median STS 9.7%, interquartile range 8.0% to 12.4%). At 3 years, the STS ≤7% group had lower rates of all-cause mortality (28.6 vs 45.9, p <0.01) and cardiovascular mortality (19.0 vs 30.2, p <0.01) than the STS >7% group. No differences were observed in cerebrovascular accidents, vascular complications, bleeding, or myocardial infarction. In patients with STS ≤7%, mortality at 3 years was higher in those with moderate or severe aortic regurgitation (AR) at discharge than in those with mild or less AR (39.9% vs 22.9%; hazard ratio 1.98; 95% confidence interval 1.37 to 2.86; p <0.01). Conversely, the severity of AR at discharge did not affect 3-year mortality in patients with STS >7% (42.9% vs 44.6%, moderate/severe vs mild/less; hazard ratio 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.62 to 1.75; p = 0.861; p for interaction = 0.047). In conclusion, patients with STS ≤7% had lower rates of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality at 3 years after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Complication rates were low and stable in both groups, demonstrating the safety of this procedure for patients at various levels of surgical risk.

Optimal Implantation Depth and Adherence to Guidelines on Permanent Pacing to Improve the Results of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Medtronic CoreValve System: The CoreValve Prospective, International, Post-Market ADVANCE-II Study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the CoreValve prospective, international, post-market ADVANCE-II study was to define the rates of conduction disturbances and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the Medtronic CoreValve System (Minneapolis, Minnesota) using optimized implantation techniques and application of international guidelines on cardiac pacing. BACKGROUND: Conduction disturbances are a frequent complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement. The rates of PPI in the published reports vary according to bioprosthesis type and the indications for PPI. METHODS: The primary endpoint was the 30-day incidence of PPI with Class I/II indications when the Medtronic CoreValve System was implanted at an optimal depth (≤6 mm below the aortic annulus). The timing and resolution of all new-onset conduction disturbances were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 194 patients were treated. The overall rate of PPI for Class I/II indications was 18.2%. An optimal depth was reached in 43.2% of patients, with a nonsignificantly lower incidence of PPI in patients with depths ≤6 mm, compared with those with deeper implants (13.3% vs. 21.1%; p = 0.14). In a paired analysis, new-onset left bundle branch block and first-degree atrioventricular block occurred in 45.4% and 39.0% of patients, respectively, and resolved spontaneously within 30 days in 43.2% and 73.9%, respectively. In patients with new PPI, the rate of intrinsic sinus rhythm increased from 25.9% at 7 days to 59.3% at 30 days (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Optimal Medtronic CoreValve System deployment and adherence to international guidelines on cardiac pacing are associated with a lower rate of new PPI after transcatheter aortic valve replacement, compared with results reported in previous studies. (CoreValve Advance-II Study: Prospective International Post-Market Study [ADVANCE II]; NCT01624870).