Pulmonary Vein Isolation With or Without Left Atrial Appendage Ligation in Atrial Fibrillation: The aMAZE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Left atrial appendage elimination may improve catheter ablation outcomes for atrial fibrillation. Objective: To assess the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous left atrial appendage ligation adjunctive to catheter pulmonary vein isolation for nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial evaluated the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous left atrial appendage ligation adjunctive to planned pulmonary vein isolation for nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation present for less than 3 years. Eligible patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to undergo left atrial appendage ligation and pulmonary vein isolation or pulmonary vein isolation alone. Use of a 2:1 randomization ratio was intended to provide more device experience and safety data. Patients were enrolled from October 2015 to December 2019 at 53 US sites, with the final follow-up visit on April 21, 2021. Interventions: Left atrial appendage ligation plus pulmonary vein isolation compared with pulmonary vein isolation alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: A bayesian adaptive analysis was used for primary end points. Primary effectiveness was freedom from documented atrial arrythmias of greater than 30 seconds duration 12 months after undergoing pulmonary vein isolation. Rhythm was assessed by Holter monitoring at 6 and 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation, symptomatic event monitoring, or any electrocardiographic tracing obtained through 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation. Primary safety was a composite of predefined serious adverse events compared with a prespecified 10% performance goal 30 days after the procedure. Left atrial appendage closure was evaluated through 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation. Results: Overall, 404 patients were randomized to undergo left atrial appendage ligation plus pulmonary vein isolation and 206 were randomized to undergo pulmonary vein isolation alone. Primary effectiveness was 64.3% with left atrial appendage ligation and pulmonary vein isolation and 59.9% with pulmonary vein isolation only (difference, 4.3% [bayesian 95% credible interval, -4.2% to 13.2%]; posterior superiority probability, 0.835), which did not meet the statistical criterion to establish superiority (0.977). Primary safety was met, with a 30-day serious adverse event rate of 3.4% (bayesian 95% credible interval, 2.0% to 5.0%; posterior probability, 1.0) which was less than the prespecified threshold of 10%. At 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation, complete left atrial appendage closure (0 mm residual communication) was observed in 84% of patients and less than or equal to 5 mm residual communication was observed in 99% of patients. Conclusions and Relevance: Percutaneous left atrial appendage ligation adjunctive to pulmonary vein isolation did not meet prespecified efficacy criteria for freedom from atrial arrhythmias at 12 months compared with pulmonary vein isolation alone for patients with nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation, but met prespecified safety criteria and demonstrated high rates of closure at 12 months. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02513797.

Clinical outcomes and the impact of valve morphology for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valves: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is present in approximately 0.5%-2% of the general population, causing significant aortic stenosis (AS) in 12%-37% of affected individuals. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is being considered the treatment of choice in patients with symptomatic AS across all risk spectra. AIM: Aim Our study aims to compare TAVR outcomes in patients with BAV versus tricuspid aortic valves (TAV). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane trials. Studies were included if they included BAV and TAV patients undergoing TAVR with quantitative data available for at least one of our predefined outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed by the random-effects model using Stata software. RESULTS: Fifty studies of 203,288 patients were included. BAV patients had increased 30-day all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 1.23 [1.00-1.50], p = 0.05), in-hospital stroke (OR = 1.39 [1.01-1.93], p = 0.05), in-hospital and 30-day PPI (OR = 1.13 [1.00-1.27], p = 0.04; OR = 1.16 [1.04-1.13], p = 0.01) and in-hospital, 30-day and 1-year aortic regurgitation (AR) (OR = 1.48 [1.19-1.83], p < 0.01; OR = 1.79 [1.26-2.52], p < 0.01; OR = 1.64 [1.03-2.60], p = 0.04). Subgroup analysis on new-generation valves showed a reduced 1-year all-cause mortality (OR = 0.86 [CI = 0.75-0.98], p = 0.03), despite higher in-hospital and 30-day PPI (OR = 0.1.21 [1.04-1.41], p = 0.01; OR = 1.17 [1.05-1.31], p = 0.01) and in-hospital AR (OR = 1.62 [1.14-2.31], p = 0.01) in the BAV group. The quality of included studies was moderate-to-high, and only three analyses presented high heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: TAVR is associated with comparable outcomes in patients with BAV and TAV. Careful selection of BAV cases by preprocedural assessment of valve anatomy and burden of calcification, pre- and post-procedural dilation, and implementing newer generations of valves may improve the safety and efficacy of TAVR in BAV patients.

Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Valve in Low-Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at increased risk for death from surgery; less is known about TAVR in low-risk patients. METHODS: We performed a randomized noninferiority trial in which TAVR with a self-expanding supraannular bioprosthesis was compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients who had severe aortic stenosis and were at low surgical risk. When 850 patients had reached 12-month follow-up, we analyzed data regarding the primary end point, a composite of death or disabling stroke at 24 months, using Bayesian methods. RESULTS: Of the 1468 patients who underwent randomization, an attempted TAVR or surgical procedure was performed in 1403. The patients' mean age was 74 years. The 24-month estimated incidence of the primary end point was 5.3% in the TAVR group and 6.7% in the surgery group (difference, -1.4 percentage points; 95% Bayesian credible interval for difference, -4.9 to 2.1; posterior probability of noninferiority >0.999). At 30 days, patients who had undergone TAVR, as compared with surgery, had a lower incidence of disabling stroke (0.5% vs. 1.7%), bleeding complications (2.4% vs. 7.5%), acute kidney injury (0.9% vs. 2.8%), and atrial fibrillation (7.7% vs. 35.4%) and a higher incidence of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation (3.5% vs. 0.5%) and pacemaker implantation (17.4% vs. 6.1%). At 12 months, patients in the TAVR group had lower aortic-valve gradients than those in the surgery group (8.6 mm Hg vs. 11.2 mm Hg) and larger effective orifice areas (2.3 cm2 vs. 2.0 cm2). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding supraannular bioprosthesis was noninferior to surgery with respect to the composite end point of death or disabling stroke at 24 months. (Funded by Medtronic; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02701283.).

Conventional versus modified delivery system technique in commissural alignment from the Evolut low-risk CT substudy.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the impact of conventional delivery system (DS) insertion technique on "Hat-marker" orientation/commissural alignment in patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in the Evolut Low Risk Trial CT substudy versus a modified technique. BACKGROUND: Unlike surgical aortic valve replacement, where alignment of the surgical valve commissures with native commissures can be achieved virtually 100% of the time, commissural alignment during TAVR is not achieved consistently. This may subsequently impact the feasibility of both coronary access and reintervention after TAVR. METHODS: "Hat-marker" orientations during deployment were characterized as outer curve (OC), center front (CF), inner curve, and center back. Severe commissure-to-CA overlap was 0-20°. "Hat-marker" orientations and CA overlap were compared to 240 patients from a single center using the modified 3-o'clock flush port DS technique. RESULTS: In the CT substudy in which conventional DS insertion was performed (flush port at 12 o'clock); 154/249 had both analyzable CT and procedural fluoroscopy to validate "Hat-marker" to C-tab/commissural orientation. On post-TAVR CT, Evolut valve commissural orientation and coronary artery (CA) ostia were identified. Compared to conventional DS technique in the CT substudy, the modified technique had higher rates of "Hat-marker" at OC/CF orientation, improved commissural alignment and reduced severe CA overlap; (left main, 14.2 vs. 27.9%; right coronary artery, 11.7 vs. 27.3% both, 5.0 vs. 13.6%; 1 or both CA, 20.8 vs. 41.6%, all p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The modified technique improved initial "Hat-marker" orientation during Evolut deployment and resulted in better commissural alignment and reduced CA overlap.

Hot topics in interventional cardiology: Proceedings from the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions (SCAI) 2021 think tank.

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) Think Tank is a collaborative venture that brings together interventional cardiologists, administrative partners, and select members of the cardiovascular industry community annually for high-level field-wide discussions. The 2021 Think Tank was organized into four parallel sessions reflective of the field of interventional cardiology: (a) coronary intervention, (b) endovascular medicine, (c) structural heart disease, and (d) congenital heart disease. Each session was moderated by a senior content expert and co-moderated by a member of SCAI's Emerging Leader Mentorship program. This document presents the proceedings to the wider cardiovascular community in order to enhance participation in this discussion, create additional dialog from a broader base, and thereby aid SCAI, the industry community and external stakeholders in developing specific action items to move these areas forward.

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.

Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: Although transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is an accepted alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high surgical risk, less is known about comparative outcomes among patients with aortic stenosis who are at intermediate surgical risk. METHODS: We evaluated the clinical outcomes in intermediate-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis in a randomized trial comparing TAVR (performed with the use of a self-expanding prosthesis) with surgical aortic-valve replacement. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause or disabling stroke at 24 months in patients undergoing attempted aortic-valve replacement. We used Bayesian analytical methods (with a margin of 0.07) to evaluate the noninferiority of TAVR as compared with surgical valve replacement. RESULTS: A total of 1746 patients underwent randomization at 87 centers. Of these patients, 1660 underwent an attempted TAVR or surgical procedure. The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 79.8±6.2 years, and all were at intermediate risk for surgery (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality, 4.5±1.6%). At 24 months, the estimated incidence of the primary end point was 12.6% in the TAVR group and 14.0% in the surgery group (95% credible interval [Bayesian analysis] for difference, -5.2 to 2.3%; posterior probability of noninferiority, >0.999). Surgery was associated with higher rates of acute kidney injury, atrial fibrillation, and transfusion requirements, whereas TAVR had higher rates of residual aortic regurgitation and need for pacemaker implantation. TAVR resulted in lower mean gradients and larger aortic-valve areas than surgery. Structural valve deterioration at 24 months did not occur in either group. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR was a noninferior alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, with a different pattern of adverse events associated with each procedure. (Funded by Medtronic; SURTAVI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01586910 .).

The initial U.S. experience with the Tempo active fixation temporary pacing lead in structural heart interventions.

OBJECTIVES: This multicenter retrospective study of the initial U.S. experience evaluated the safety and efficacy of temporary cardiac pacing with the Tempo® Temporary Pacing Lead. BACKGROUND: Despite increasing use of temporary cardiac pacing with the rapid growth of structural heart procedures, temporary pacing leads have not significantly improved. The Tempo lead is a new temporary pacing lead with a soft tip intended to minimize the risk of perforation and a novel active fixation mechanism designed to enhance lead stability. METHODS: Data from 269 consecutive structural heart procedures were collected. Outcomes included device safety (absence of clinically significant cardiac perforation, new pericardial effusion, or sustained ventricular arrhythmia) and efficacy (clinically acceptable pacing thresholds with successful pace capture throughout the index procedure). Postprocedure practices and sustained lead performance were also analyzed. RESULTS: The Tempo lead was successfully positioned in the right ventricle and achieved pacing in 264 of 269 patients (98.1%). Two patients (0.8%) experienced loss of pace capture. Procedural mean pace capture threshold (PCT) was 0.7 ± 0.8 mA. There were no clinically significant perforations, pericardial effusions, or sustained device-related arrhythmias. The Tempo lead was left in place postprocedure in 189 patients (71.6%) for mean duration of 43.3 ± 0.7 hr (range 2.5-221.3 hr) with final PCT of 0.84 ± 1.04 mA (n = 80). Of these patients, 84.1% mobilized out of bed with no lead dislodgment. CONCLUSION: The Tempo lead is safe and effective for temporary cardiac pacing for structural heart procedures, provides stable peri and postprocedural pacing and allows mobilization of patients who require temporary pacing leads.

Clinical impact of baseline chronic kidney disease in patients undergoing transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the treatment effect of TAVR versus SAVR on clinical outcomes to 3 years in patients stratified by chronic kidney disease (CKD) by retrospectively studying patients randomized to TAVR or SAVR. BACKGROUND: The impact of CKD on mid-term outcomes of patients undergoing TAVR versus SAVR is unclear. METHODS: Patients randomized to TAVR or SAVR in the CoreValve US Pivotal High Risk Trial were retrospectively stratified by eGFR: none/mild or moderate/severe CKD. To evaluate the impact of baseline CKD in TAVR patients only, all patients undergoing an attempted TAVR implant in the US Pivotal Trial and CAS were stratified by baseline eGFR into none/mild, moderate, and severe CKD. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular and renal events (MACRE), a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke/TIA, and new requirement of dialysis. RESULTS: Moderate/severe CKD was present in 62.7% and 60.7% of high-risk patients randomized to TAVR or SAVR, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar between TAVR and SAVR patients in both CKD subgroups, except for higher rates of diabetes and higher serum creatinine in SAVR patients. Among high-risk patients with moderate/severe CKD, TAVR provided a lower 3-year MACRE rate compared with SAVR: 42.1% vs. 51.0, P = .04. Of 3,733 extreme- and high-risk TAVR patients, 39.9% had none/mild, 53.8% moderate, and 6.4% severe CKD. Worsening baseline CKD was associated with increased 3-year MACRE rates [none/mild 51.5%, moderate 54.5%, severe 63.1%, P = .001]. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR results in lower 3-year MACRE versus SAVR in high-risk patients with moderate/severe CKD. In patients undergoing TAVR, worsening CKD increases mid-term mortality and MACRE. Randomized trials of TAVR vs. SAVR in patients with moderate-severe CKD would help elucidate the best treatment for these complex patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CoreValve US Pivotal Trial: NCT01240902. CoreValve Continued Access Study: NCT01531374.

Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis.

BACKGROUND: We compared transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR), using a self-expanding transcatheter aortic-valve bioprosthesis, with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis and an increased risk of death during surgery. METHODS: We recruited patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at increased surgical risk as determined by the heart team at each study center. Risk assessment included the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predictor Risk of Mortality estimate and consideration of other key risk factors. Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to TAVR with the self-expanding transcatheter valve (TAVR group) or to surgical aortic-valve replacement (surgical group). The primary end point was the rate of death from any cause at 1 year, evaluated with the use of both noninferiority and superiority testing. RESULTS: A total of 795 patients underwent randomization at 45 centers in the United States. In the as-treated analysis, the rate of death from any cause at 1 year was significantly lower in the TAVR group than in the surgical group (14.2% vs. 19.1%), with an absolute reduction in risk of 4.9 percentage points (upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval, -0.4; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P = 0.04 for superiority). The results were similar in the intention-to-treat analysis. In a hierarchical testing procedure, TAVR was noninferior with respect to echocardiographic indexes of valve stenosis, functional status, and quality of life. Exploratory analyses suggested a reduction in the rate of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and no increase in the risk of stroke. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at increased surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding transcatheter aortic-valve bioprosthesis was associated with a significantly higher rate of survival at 1 year than surgical aortic-valve replacement. (Funded by Medtronic; U.S. CoreValve High Risk Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01240902.).

Durability of quality of life benefits of transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Long-term results from the CoreValve US extreme risk trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at extreme surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) leads to improved survival and health status when compared with medical therapy. Whether the early health status benefits of TAVR in these patients are sustained beyond 1 year of follow-up is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Six hundred thirty-nine patients with severe AS at extreme surgical risk underwent TAVR in the CoreValve US Extreme Risk Pivotal trial. Health status was evaluated at baseline and at 1, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), the Short-Form-12, and the EuroQoL-5D. Analyses were performed using pattern mixture models to account for both death and missing data and were stratified by iliofemoral (IF) and non-iliofemoral (non-IF) access. After TAVR, there was substantial health status improvement in disease-specific and generic scales by 6 to 12 months. Although there were small declines in health status after 12 months, the initial benefits of TAVR were largely sustained through 3 years for both IF and non-IF cohorts (change from baseline in KCCQ Overall Summary score 19.0 points in IF patients and 14.9 points in non-IF patients; P<.01 for both comparisons). Among surviving patients, clinically meaningful (≥10 point) improvements in the KCCQ Overall Summary Score at 3 years were observed in 85.0% and 83.4% of IF and non-IF patients respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among extreme risk patients with severe AS, TAVR resulted in large initial health status benefits that were sustained through 3-year follow-up. Although late mortality was high in this population, these findings demonstrate that TAVR offers substantial and durable health status improvements for surviving patients.

An overview of left atrial appendage occlusion devices.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) places patients at increased risk of thromboembolic events that can be devastating. The left atrial appendage (LAA) has been identified as the source of thrombus formation in nonvalvular AF. Traditionally, systemic anticoagulation has been used to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism. However, anticoagulation is not well tolerated in all patients and is underutilized. As a potential alternative to anticoagulation, novel therapies have been developed to remove the LAA. Three main techniques are being utilized to accomplish LAA exclusion: percutaneous intracardiac, percutaneous epicardial, and surgical approaches. Emerging evidence suggests that LAA exclusion may be an effective means of reducing the risk of stroke in patients with nonvalvular AF.

Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Women With Small Annuli at Low or Intermediate Surgical Risk.

There are limited data from randomized controlled trials assessing the impact of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgery in women with aortic stenosis and small aortic annuli. We evaluated 2-year clinical and hemodynamic outcomes after aortic valve replacement to understand acute valve performance and early and midterm clinical outcomes. This post hoc analysis pooled women enrolled in the randomized, prospective, multicenter Evolut Low Risk and Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (SURTAVI) intermediate risk trials. Women with severe aortic stenosis at low or intermediate surgical risk who had a computed tomography-measured annular perimeter of ≤72.3 mm were included and underwent self-expanding, supra-annular TAVR or surgery. The primary end point was 2-year all-cause mortality or disabling stroke rate. The study included 620 women (323 TAVR, 297 surgery) with a mean age of 78 years. At 2 years, the all-cause mortality or disabling stroke was 6.5% for TAVR and 8.0% for surgery, p = 0.47. Pacemaker rates were 20.0% for TAVR and 8.3% for surgery, p <0.001. The mean effective orifice area at 2 years was 1.9 ± 0.5 cm2 for TAVR and 1.6 ± 0.5 cm2 for surgery and the mean gradient was 8.0 ± 4.1 versus 12.7 ± 6.0 mm Hg, respectively (both p <0.001). Moderate or severe patient-prothesis mismatch at discharge occurred in 10.9% of patients who underwent TAVR and 33.2% of patients who underwent surgery, p <0.001. In conclusion, in women with small annuli, the clinical outcomes to 2 years were similar between self-expanding, supra-annular TAVR and surgery, with better hemodynamics in the TAVR group and fewer pacemakers in the surgical group.

Decreasing pacemaker implantation rates with Evolut supra-annular transcatheter aortic valves in a large real-world registry.

BACKGROUND: Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rates following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remain a concern. We assessed the PPI rates over time in patients implanted with an Evolut supra-annular, self-expanding transcatheter valve from the US STS/ACC TVT Registry. METHODS: Patients who underwent TAVR with an Evolut R, Evolut PRO or Evolut PRO+ valve between July 2018 (Q3) and June 2021 (Q2) were included. PPI rates were reported by calendar quarter. In-hospital PPI rates were reported as proportions and 30-day rates as Kaplan-Meier estimates. A Cox regression model was used to determine potential predictors of a new PPI within 30 days of the TAVR procedure. RESULTS: From July 2018 to June 2021, 54,014 TAVR procedures were performed using Evolut valves. Mean age was 79.3 ± 8.8 years and 49.2 % were male. The 30-day PPI rate was 16.6 % in 2018 (Q3) and 10.8 % in 2021 (Q2, 34.9 % decrease, p < 0.001 for trend across all quarters). The in-hospital PPI rate decreased by 40.1 %; from 14.7 % in 2018 (Q3) to 8.8 % in 2021 (Q2) (p < 0.001 for trend across all quarters). Significant predictors of a new PPI within 30 days included a baseline conduction defect, history of atrial fibrillation, home oxygen, and diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSION: From 2018 to 2021, TAVR with an Evolut transcatheter heart valve in over 50,000 patients showed a significant decreasing trend in the rates of in-hospital and 30-day PPI, representing the lowest rate of PPI in any large real-world registry of Evolut. During the same evaluated period, high device success and shorter length of stay was also observed.

2-Year Clinical and Echocardiography Follow-Up of Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement With the Transapical Intrepid System.

BACKGROUND: Thirty-day outcomes with the investigational Intrepid transapical (TA) transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) system have previously demonstrated good technical success, but longer-term outcomes in larger cohorts need to be evaluated. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the 2-year safety and performance of the Intrepid TA-TMVR system in patients with symptomatic, ≥moderate-severe mitral regurgitation (MR) and high surgical risk. METHODS: Patient eligibility was determined by local heart teams and approved by a central screening committee. Clinical events were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee. Echocardiography was evaluated by an independent core laboratory. RESULTS: The cohort included 252 patients that were enrolled at 58 international sites before February 2021 as part of the global Pilot Study (n = 95) or APOLLO trial (primary cohort noneligible + TA roll-ins, n = 157). Mean age was 74.2 years, mean STS-PROM was 6.3%, 60.3% were male, and 80.6% were in NYHA functional class III/IV. Most presented with secondary MR (70.1%), and nearly all had ≥moderate-severe MR (98.4%). All-cause mortality was 13.1% (30-day), 27.3% (1-year), and 36.2% (2-year). The 30-day ≥major bleeding event rate was 22.3%. Heart failure rehospitalization was 9.6% (30-day) and 36.2% (2-year). At 2 years, >50% of patients were alive with improvement in NYHA functional class (82.1%, class I/II), and all patients with available echocardiograms had ≤mild MR. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis represents the largest reported TA-TMVR experience with the longest follow-up in high-risk ≥moderate-severe MR patients. Early mortality and heart failure rehospitalizations were significant, exacerbated by early TA-related bleeding events; however, meaningful improvements in clinical outcomes and marked reductions in MR severity were observed through 2 years.

Redo-TAVI with the ACURATE neo2 and Prime XL for balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve failure.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data regarding treatment for failed balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in redo-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). AIMS: We aimed to assess THV performance, neoskirt height and expansion when performing redo-TAVI with the ACURATE platform inside a SAPIEN 3 (S3) compared to redo-TAVI with an S3 in an S3. METHODS: Redo-TAVI was performed on the bench using each available size of the S3, the ACURATE neo2 (ACn2) and the next-generation ACURATE Prime XL (AC XL) implanted at 2 different depths within 20 mm/23 mm/26 mm/29 mm S3s serving as the "failed" index THV. Hydrodynamic testing was performed to assess THV function. Multimodality assessment was performed using photography, X-ray, microcomputed tomography (micro-CT), and high-speed videos. RESULTS: The ACURATE in S3 combinations had favourable hydrodynamic performance compared to the S3 in S3 for all size combinations. In the 20 mm S3, redo-TAVI with the ACn2 had lower gradients compared to the S3 (mean gradient 16.3 mmHg for the ACn2 vs 24.7 mmHg for the 20 mm S3 in 20 mm S3). Pinwheeling was less marked for the ACURATE THVs than for the S3s. On micro-CT, the S3s used for redo-TAVI were underexpanded across all sizes. This was also observed for the ACURATE platform, but to a lesser extent. CONCLUSIONS: Redo-TAVI with an ACn2/AC XL within an S3 has favourable hydrodynamic performance and less pinwheeling compared to an S3 in S3. This comes at the price of a taller neoskirt.

Quality of Life 5 Years Following Transfemoral TAVR or SAVR in Intermediate Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) sustain comparable improvements in health status over 5 years after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or SAVR. Whether a similar long-term benefit is observed among intermediate-risk AS patients is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess health status outcomes through 5 years in intermediate risk patients treated with a self-expanding TAVR prosthesis or SAVR using data from the SURTAVI (Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial. METHODS: Intermediate-risk patients randomized to transfemoral TAVR or SAVR in the SURTAVI trial had disease-specific health status assessed at baseline, 30 days, and annually to 5 years using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). Health status was compared between groups using fixed effects repeated measures modelling. RESULTS: Of the 1,584 patients (TAVR, n = 805; SAVR, n = 779) included in the analysis, health status improved more rapidly after TAVR compared with SAVR. However, by 1 year, both groups experienced large health status benefits (mean change in KCCQ-Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OS) from baseline: TAVR: 20.5 ± 22.4; SAVR: 20.5 ± 22.2). This benefit was sustained, albeit modestly attenuated, at 5 years (mean change in KCCQ-OS from baseline: TAVR: 15.4 ± 25.1; SAVR: 14.3 ± 24.2). There were no significant differences in health status between the cohorts at 1 year or beyond. Similar findings were observed in the KCCQ subscales, although a substantial attenuation of benefit was noted in the physical limitation subscale over time in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In intermediate-risk AS patients, both transfemoral TAVR and SAVR resulted in comparable and durable health status benefits to 5 years. Further research is necessary to elucidate the mechanisms for the small decline in health status noted at 5 years compared with 1 year in both groups. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System in the Treatment of Severe, Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [SURTAVI]; NCT01586910).

Reinterventions After CoreValve/Evolut Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Data on valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are limited. OBJECTIVES: The authors compared the 5-year incidence of valve reintervention after self-expanding CoreValve/Evolut TAVR vs SAVR. METHODS: Pooled data from CoreValve and Evolut R/PRO (Medtronic) randomized trials and single-arm studies encompassed 5,925 TAVR (4,478 CoreValve and 1,447 Evolut R/PRO) and 1,832 SAVR patients. Reinterventions were categorized by indication, timing, and treatment. The cumulative incidence of reintervention was compared between TAVR vs SAVR, Evolut vs CoreValve, and Evolut vs SAVR. RESULTS: There were 99 reinterventions (80 TAVR and 19 SAVR). The cumulative incidence of reintervention through 5 years was higher with TAVR vs SAVR (2.2% vs 1.5%; P = 0.017), with differences observed early (≤1 year; adjusted subdistribution HR: 3.50; 95% CI: 1.53-8.02) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.48-2.28). The most common reason for reintervention was paravalvular regurgitation after TAVR and endocarditis after SAVR. Evolut had a significantly lower incidence of reintervention than CoreValve (0.9% vs 1.6%; P = 0.006) at 5 years with differences observed early (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12-0.73) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.21-1.74). The 5-year incidence of reintervention was similar for Evolut vs SAVR (0.9% vs 1.5%; P = 0.41). CONCLUSIONS: A low incidence of reintervention was observed for CoreValve/Evolut R/PRO and SAVR through 5 years. Reintervention occurred most often at ≤1 year for TAVR and >1 year for SAVR. Most early reinterventions were with the first-generation CoreValve and managed percutaneously. Reinterventions were more common following CoreValve TAVR compared with Evolut TAVR or SAVR.

Ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention: a consensus statement from the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.

Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) may be performed during the same session as diagnostic catheterization (ad hoc PCI) or at a later session (delayed PCI). Randomized trials comparing these strategies have not been performed; cohort studies have not identified consistent differences in safety or efficacy between the two strategies. Ad hoc PCI has increased in prevalence over the past decade and is the default strategy for treating acute coronary syndromes. However, questions about its appropriateness for some patients with stable symptoms have been raised by the results of recent large trials comparing PCI to medical therapy or bypass surgery. Ad hoc PCI for stable ischemic heart disease requires preprocedural planning, and reassessment after diagnostic angiography must be performed to ensure its appropriateness. Patients may prefer ad hoc PCI because it is convenient. Payers may prefer ad hoc PCI because it is cost-efficient. The majority of data confirm equivalent outcomes in ad hoc versus delayed PCI. However, there are some situations in which delayed PCI may be safer or yield better outcomes. This document reviews patient subsets and clinical situations in which one strategy is preferable over the other.

Site-Level Variation and Predictors of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Following TAVR in the Evolut Low-Risk Trial.

We evaluated predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) following self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), examined site-to-site variability of PPI rates, and explored the relationship of implantation methods on the need for PPI. Despite the benefits of TAVR compared to surgical aortic valve replacement, increased PPI remains a limitation. A total of 699 patients without baseline PPI were included in the study. Clinical, echocardiographic, and procedural characteristics were compared in patient with and without new PPI. Clinical outcomes were assessed at 30 days and 1 year. Funnel plots were constructed to display site-to- site variability and identify outliers in PPI. Clinical outcomes were similar in patients with and without PPI. Predictors of a new PPI within 7 days included a baseline right bundle branch block (p < 0.001) and not using general anesthesia (p = 0.003). There was substantial site to site variability in the rate of PPI. Patients at sites with a lower PPI rate had shallower implantation depth at the non-coronary (p < 0.001) and the left coronary sinus (p < 0.001), and fewer patients with an implantation depth > 5 mm below the annulus (p = 0.004). In low-risk patients undergoing TAVR with Evolut valves, baseline conduction disorders and implant depth were important predictors of PPI. Implantation method may have contributed to this variability in PPI rates across clinical sites.