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.).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves for treatment of aortic valve stenosis in patients with large aortic annuli: Evaluation of deployment balloon overfilling strategies.

OBJECTIVES: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using balloon-expandable (BE) transcatheter heart valves (THV) in aortic annuli above 29 mm includes particular procedural steps, mainly involving overfilling of the deployment balloon. Data on overfilling strategies in clinical daily practice is scarce. We herein aimed for a retrospective description of utilized overfilling strategies in those patients. METHODS: Between January 2016 and December 2022, 45 patients (100% male, 76.9 ± 6.1 years) received TAVI in aortic annuli above 29 mm using a BE THV. Overfilling volumina of the deployment balloon were left to operators' discretion. Clinical and multislice computed tomography data were retrospectively collected. Clinical endpoints were adjudicated in accordance with the updated standardized VARC-3 definitions. RESULTS: Profound overfilling (+4/5 mL) was used in patients with a mild calcium burden (˂750 mm³) even in aortic annuli of 29.0-30.0 mm. Nominal/slight overfilling (+1 mL) was used in aortic annuli up to 32.5 mm but an intermediate to severe calcific burden (>750-3200 mm³). Accordingly, a low calcification group (˂750 mm³, n = 17) compared to a significant calcification group (≥750 mm³, n = 28), presented with higher overfilling volumina (2.1 ± 1.4 vs. 0.8 ± 1.0; p ˂ 0.001), although aortic annulus diameter was not different (29.8 ± 0.8 vs. 29.9 ± 0.9 mm; p = 0.7). All-cause 30-day mortality was 0%. Device success was 97.8%. Transvalvular mean pressure gradient at discharge was 9.5 ± 3.6 mmHg. No case of PVL >mild was documented. CONCLUSION: Extent of overfilling of the deployment balloon largely depends on calcification burden in addition to aortic annulus diameter with significant and profound overfilling particularly in patients with a calcification burden of the aortic valve complex ˂750 mm³.

Valve-in-valve procedures for degenerated surgical and transcatheter aortic valve bioprostheses using a latest-generation self-expanding intra-annular transcatheter heart valve.

Background: Valve-in-valve (ViV) transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for failing aortic surgical bioprostheses or transcatheter heart valves (THV) has demonstrated a reasonable clinical and hemodynamic efficacy. Traditionally, self-expanding (SE) supra-annular THV are considered to result in superior hemodynamics compared with balloon-expandable intra-annular THV after ViV. However, so far no data are found on latest-generation intra-annular SE THV for aortic ViV procedures which might be superior with regard to coronary access or subsequent valve reintervention. Aim: We herein aim to evaluate a latest-generation SE intra-annular THV for aortic ViV procedures. Materials and methods: Between May 2022 and November 2022, five consecutive patients (4/5 female with mean age of 76.2 years and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality score of 2.9%) received ViV TAVI using the Navitor system (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA) for treatment of failing surgical bioprostheses or THV. Data were retrospectively analyzed according to updated Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) definitions. Results: At 30 days, absence of mortality and VARC-3 adjudicated clinical endpoints were documented. Echocardiography at 30 days revealed complete absence of paravalvular leakage and single-digit mean transvalvular gradients (mean of 6.0 mmHg) in all patients. Conclusion: The investigated intra-annular SE THV results in excellent 30-day outcomes for aortic ViV procedures for failing surgical bioprostheses or THV. Despite the intra-annular design, hemodynamic results were excellent, even in small bioprostheses. Ease of use of this valve platform is reflected by only two cycles of resheathing in five ViV procedures with hemodynamic stability during all steps of valve deployment.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients at low to intermediate surgical risk: rationale and design of the randomised DEDICATE Trial.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the preferred treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and for older patients irrespective of risk. However, in younger, low-risk patients for whom both therapeutic options, TAVI and SAVR, are applicable, the optimal treatment strategy remains controversial, as data on long-term outcomes remain limited. The DEDICATE-DZHK6 Trial is an investigator-initiated, industry-independent, prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial investigating the efficacy and safety of TAVI compared to SAVR in low- to intermediate-risk patients aged 65 years or older. To evaluate both treatment strategies, approximately 1,404 patients determined eligible for both TAVI and SAVR by the interdisciplinary Heart Team were randomised to TAVI or SAVR. Broad inclusion and strict exclusion criteria targeted an all-comers patient population. Procedures were performed according to local best practice with contemporary routine medical devices. The primary endpoints are a composite of mortality or stroke at 1 year and 5 years in order to incorporate midterm efficacy results and complement early safety data. Primary outcomes will be tested sequentially for non-inferiority and superiority. The DEDICATE-DZHK6 Trial has been designed to mirror clinical reality for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis and provide unique information on overall outcomes after TAVI and SAVR that can be directly applied to clinical routines. Its results will help further define optimal treatment strategies for low- to intermediate-risk patients in whom both TAVI and SAVR are currently advisable.

Timing of Complete Revascularization with Multivessel PCI for Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with multivessel coronary artery disease, the time at which complete revascularization of nonculprit lesions should be performed remains unknown. METHODS: We performed an international, open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial at 37 sites in Europe. Patients in a hemodynamically stable condition who had STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to undergo immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; immediate group) or PCI of the culprit lesion followed by staged multivessel PCI of nonculprit lesions within 19 to 45 days after the index procedure (staged group). The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, or hospitalization for heart failure at 1 year after randomization. The percentages of patients with a primary or secondary end-point event are provided as Kaplan-Meier estimates at 6 months and at 1 year. RESULTS: We assigned 418 patients to undergo immediate multivessel PCI and 422 to undergo staged multivessel PCI. A primary end-point event occurred in 35 patients (8.5%) in the immediate group as compared with 68 patients (16.3%) in the staged group (risk ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.72; P<0.001 for noninferiority and P<0.001 for superiority). Nonfatal myocardial infarction and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization occurred in 8 patients (2.0%) and 17 patients (4.1%), respectively, in the immediate group and in 22 patients (5.3%) and 39 patients (9.3%), respectively, in the staged group. The risk of death from any cause, the risk of stroke, and the risk of hospitalization for heart failure appeared to be similar in the two groups. A total of 104 patients in the immediate group and 145 patients in the staged group had a serious adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients in hemodynamically stable condition with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, immediate multivessel PCI was noninferior to staged multivessel PCI with respect to the risk of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, or hospitalization for heart failure at 1 year. (Supported by Boston Scientific; MULTISTARS AMI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03135275.).

Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonist after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

OBJECTIVE: After transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), the optimal regimen of anticoagulant therapy in patients with an additional indication for oral anticoagulation remains a matter of debate. This study investigates the efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients after TAVI in a real-world population. METHODS: The German Aortic Valve RegistrY (GARY) is a prospective, multicentre registry enrolling patients undergoing invasive treatment for aortic valve disease. From January 2011 to December 2019, 1 41 790 patients from 92 hospitals in Germany were enrolled. Anticoagulatory treatment regimens were assessed at hospital discharge for patients after TAVI procedures. All-cause mortality and the combined endpoint 'cardiac and cerebrovascular events' containing myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischaemic attack, aortic prosthesis reintervention and all-cause mortality in the first year after TAVI were examined by treatment regimen. RESULTS: Of 45 598 patients (mean age 80.7±5.7 years, 49.3% males) undergoing TAVI, 16 974 patients (37.2%) received an anticoagulant regimen that included VKA or DOAC. Hereof, the majority of patients were prescribed VKA (n=11 333, 66.8%) compared with DOAC (n=5641, 33.2%) with an increase of DOAC use from 9.4% in 2011 to 69.9% in 2019. During the 1-year follow-up, the absolute event rates per 100 person-years for all-cause mortality and the combined endpoint cardiac and cerebrovascular events were 1.9 and 1.3 for VKA-treated and 1.7 and 1.2 for DOAC-treated patients, respectively. After adjustment for baseline confounders, all-cause mortality (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, p=0.114) and cardiac and cerebrovascular event-free survival (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01, p=0.071) did not differ significantly between VKA and DOAC groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports evidence of the efficacy of DOAC use after TAVI in patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation.

Effect of periprocedural furosemide-induced diuresis with matched isotonic intravenous hydration in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a serious complication which is associated with increased mortality. The RenalGuard system was developed to reduce the risk of AKI after contrast media exposition by furosemide-induced diuresis with matched isotonic intravenous hydration. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of the RenalGuard system on the occurrence of AKI after TAVI in patients with chronic kidney disease. METHODS: The present study is a single-center randomized trial including patients with severe aortic valve stenosis undergoing TAVI. Overall, a total of 100 patients treated by TAVI between January 2017 and August 2018 were randomly assigned to a periprocedural treatment with the RenalGuard system or standard treatment by pre- and postprocedural intravenous hydration. Primary endpoint was the occurrence of AKI after TAVI, and secondary endpoints were assessed according to valve academic research consortium 2 criteria. RESULTS: Overall, the prevalence of AKI was 18.4% (n = 18). The majority of these patients developed mild AKI according to stage 1. Comparing RenalGuard to standard therapy, no significant differences were observed in the occurrence of AKI (RenalGuard: 21.3%; control group: 15.7%; p = 0.651). In addition, there were no differences between the groups with regard to 30-day and 12-month mortality and procedure-associated complication rates. CONCLUSION: In this randomized trial, we did not detect a reduction in AKI after TAVI by using the RenalGuard system. A substantial number of patients with chronic kidney disease developed AKI after TAVI, whereas the majority presented with mild AKI according to stage 1 (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT04537325).

Temporal changes of patient characteristics over 12 years in a single-center transcatheter aortic valve implantation cohort.

BACKGROUND: Beneficial results of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients at all risk strata have led to substantial changes in guideline recommendations for valvular heart disease. AIM: To examine influence of these guideline changes on a real-world TAVI cohort, we evaluated how risk profiles and outcomes of TAVI patients developed in our single-center patient cohort over a period of 12 years. METHODS: Baseline, procedural and 30-day outcome parameters of TAVI patients were retrospectively compared between three time periods (period 1: 2008-2012, period 2: 2013-2017, period 3: 2018-2020). RESULTS: Between 03/2008 and 12/2020, a total of 3678 patients underwent TAVI at our center. The median age was 81.1 years (25th, 75th percentile: 76.7, 84.9) with no significant change over time. The EuroSCORE II showed a continuous and significant decline from 5.3% (3.3, 8.6) in period 1 to 2.8% (1.7, 5.0) in period 3 (p < 0.001). Furthermore, rates of permanent pacemaker implantation, acute kidney injury, and paravalvular leakage ≥ moderate continuously declined over time. Accordingly, the 30-day mortality fell from 9.3% in period 1 to 4.3% in period 3 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Despite substantial guideline alterations, median patient age remained largely unchanged in our TAVI cohort over the past 12 years. Therefore, increased age still appears to be the main reason to choose TAVI over SAVR. However, risk profiles declined substantially. Significant improvements in early outcomes suggest favorable influence of less invasive access routes, improved device platforms and growing user experience.

Prognostic impact and diagnostic value of invasively derived hemodynamic measures in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI.

BACKGROUND: Ejection time (ET), acceleration time (AT) and time between left ventricular and aortic systolic pressure peaks (T-LVAo) might be of diagnostic and prognostic use in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). AIM: We aimed to assess the diagnostic value and prognostic impact of invasively measured ET, AT, and T-LVAo in patients undergoing TAVI. METHODS: A total of 1274 patients received invasive measurement of ET, AT and T-LVAo prior to TAVI. Anatomic AS severity was assessed by CT-derived aortic valve calcification density (AVCd). Impact on all-cause mortality was retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: In multivariable linear regression, T-LVAo showed the strongest correlation with AVCd. No prognostic impact of T-LVAo was found according to uni- and multivariable analyses. In contrast, using an individual C-statistic derived cutoff (CD), patients with ET or AT ≥ CD showed lower mortality rates compared to patients with ET or AT < CD (1-year mortality: ET ≥ vs. < CD: 15.01vs. 33.1%, AT ≥ vs < CD 16.3 vs. 26.5%, p < 0.001). Moreover, multivariable analysis identified ET ≥ CD (HR 0.61 [95% CI 0.43-0.87; p < 0.007]) to be associated with beneficial outcome after TAVI, independent from clinical risk factors and echocardiography-derived parameters. CONCLUSION: Among the studied hemodynamic parameters T-LVAo provides the highest diagnostic value, whereas ET is an outcome predictor beyond clinical risk factors and echocardiographic parameters in AS patients following TAVI. These parameters could be of considerable use in diagnostic evaluation and risk assessment of patients scheduled for TAVI. T-LVAo (yellow): defined as time between left ventricular and aortic systolic pressure peaks. ET (green): Ejection Time defined as time from the start to flow end. AT (orange): Acceleration time defined as time from the start to the peak flow. AOP: aortic pressure, AVC: aortic valve calcification, CI: confidence interval, HGAS: high-gradient aortic stenosis, LGAS: low-gradient aortic stenosis, LVP: left ventricular pressure, SD: standard deviation.

[Interventional treatment of heart failure : Stents and valves]. / Interventionelle Therapie der Herzinsuffizienz : Stents und Klappen.

The pharmacotherapy of heart failure has evolved in recent years and with the aid of new classes of drugs symptomatic and prognostic improvements can be achieved in patients with heart failure. Heart failure is particularly frequently associated with coronary artery disease or higher grade, often functional valve defects. In the context of the underlying disease, the operative risk is often increased, so that interventional treatment is preferred over surgical treatment options in interdisciplinary heart teams. Promising approaches with very different challenges are emerging for interventional myocardial revascularization and percutaneous correction of high-grade aortic valve stenosis or functional mitral or tricuspid valve regurgitation. It has consistently been shown that an elaborate diagnostic work-up and differentiated patient selection are decisive to achieve a prognostic or symptomatic benefit in these patients using interventional treatment. While awaiting further study data on this topic, the integration of a multidisciplinary heart team is essential to ensure a complementary and balanced therapeutic approach for patient-centered care in this complex patient population.

Mechanical thrombectomy in ischemic stroke after cardiovascular procedures: a propensity-matched cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Stroke after a cardiovascular procedure (CVP) is a devastating complication adversely affecting outcome. Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) has not been investigated systematically in this population. OBJECTIVE: To carry out a retrospective study in patients undergoing MT for early stroke after CVP, aiming to further characterize this cohort of patients, and to evaluate the efficacy, safety, procedural characteristics, and outcome of MT. METHODS: A single-center stroke registry of patients who received MT was analyzed. Baseline and procedural parameters, mortality, functional outcome, recanalization rates, and complications were evaluated. Propensity score matching was carried out, identifying a control cohort with non-periprocedural large vessel occlusion (LVO). RESULTS: Overall 913 patients were included (mean age 73.0 (±13.0) years, 52.5% female, median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score 15 (10-19)). Eleven patients with a LVO after a recent (<30 days postoperatively) CVP were identified (n=3 transcatheter aortic valve and n=1 surgical aortic valve replacements (SAVR), n=3 coronary bypass grafting (CABG) surgeries, n=2 SAVR+CABG, and n=2 aortic surgeries). After matching, 8 patients in the CVP group were compared with 16 patients in the matched cohort. Comparable rates of reperfusion were achieved. Time from symptom onset to groin puncture (171.5 min (136.3, 178.3) vs 284.0 min (215.0, 490.5); p=0.039), as well as recanalization (195.0 min (146.0, 201.0) vs 419.0 min (274.0, 613.0); p=0.028) was faster in the CVP group. However, this was not reflected by an improved outcome (modified Rankin Scale score after 90 days: 5.5 (3.3, 6.0) vs 5.0 (4.0, 6.0), mortality after 90 days 50.0% vs 37.5%). Complications did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Use of MT for LVO stroke in patients after a recent CVP is a safe and efficient treatment in comparison with patients with a non-periprocedural LVO undergoing MT.

Management and Outcome of Acute Ischemic Stroke Complicating Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), periprocedural acute ischemic stroke remains a concern. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to investigate acute ischemic stroke complicating TAVR (AISCT) and to describe the indications and outcomes of interventions to treat AISCT. METHODS: An international multicenter registry was established focusing on AISCT within 30 days of TAVR. Stroke severity was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale. Primary outcomes were 1-year all-cause death and neurologic disability status at 90 days according to modified Rankin scale score. RESULTS: Of 16,615 TAVR procedures, 387 patients with AISCT were included (2.3%). Rates of 1-year death were 28.9%, 35.9%, and 77.5% in patients with mild, moderate, and severe stroke, respectively (P < 0.001). Although 348 patients were managed conservatively, 39 patients (10.1%) underwent neurointervention (NI) with either mechanical thrombectomy (n = 26) or thrombolytic therapy (n = 13). In a subanalysis excluding patients with mild stroke, there was no clear 1-year survival benefit for NI compared with conservative management (47.6% vs 41.1%, respectively; P = 0.78). In a logistic regression model controlling for stroke severity, NI was associated with 2.9-fold odds (95% CI: 1.2-7.0; P = 0.016) of independent survival at 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: AISCT carries significant morbidity and mortality, which is correlated with stroke severity. The present findings suggest that neurologic disability for patients with moderate or worse stroke could potentially be improved by timely intervention and highlight the importance of collaboration between cardiologists and neurologists to optimize AISCT outcomes.