Validation of the Valve Academic Research Consortium High Bleeding Risk Definition in Patients Undergoing TAVR.

Background: The Valve Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (VARC-HBR) has recently introduced a consensus document that outlines risk factors to identify high bleeding risk (HBR) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The objective of the present study was to evaluate the prevalence and predictive value of the VARC-HBR definition in a contemporary, large-scale TAVR population. Methods: Multicenter study including 10,449 patients undergoing TAVR. Based on consensus, twenty-one clinical and laboratory criteria were identified and classified as major or minor. Patients were stratified as at low, moderate, high, and very high bleeding risk according to VARC-HBR definition. The primary endpoint was the rate of BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding at 1 year, defined as the composite of peri-procedural (within 30 days) or late (after 30 days) bleeding. Results: Patients with at least one VARC-HBR criterion (n=9,267, 88.7%) had a higher risk of BARC 3 or 5 bleeding, proportional to the severity of risk assessment (10.8%, 16.1%, and 24.6% for moderate, high, and very high-risk groups, respectively). However, a comparable rate of bleeding events was observed in the low-risk and moderate-risk groups. The area under ROC curve was 0.58. Patients with VARC-HBR criteria also exhibited a gradual increase in 1-year all-cause mortality, with an up to 2-fold increased mortality risk for high and very high-risk groups (HR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.04-1.70; and HR: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.53-2.53, respectively). Conclusions: The VARC-HBR consensus offered a pragmatic approach to guide bleeding risk stratification in TAVR. The results of the present study would support the predictive validity of the newly definition and promote its application in clinical practice to minimize bleeding risk and improve patient outcomes.

Clinical impact of complex percutaneous coronary intervention in the pre-TAVR workup.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the workup pre-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the clinical impact of coronary revascularization complexity remains unknown. This study sought to examine the impact of PCI complexity on clinical outcomes after TAVR in patients undergoing PCI in the preprocedural workup. METHODS: This was a multicenter study including consecutive patients scheduled for TAVR with concomitant significant coronary artery disease. Complex PCI was defined as having at least 1 of the following features: 3 vessels treated, ≥ 3 stents implanted, ≥ 3 lesions treated, bifurcation with 2 stents implanted, total stent length >60mm, or chronic total occlusion. The rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularization were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 1550 patients were included, of which 454 (29.3%) underwent complex PCI in the pre-TAVR workup. After a median follow-up period of 2 [1-3] years after TAVR, the incidence of MACE was 9.6 events per 100 patients-years. Complex PCI significantly increased the risk of cardiac death (HR, 1.44; 95%CI, 1.01-2.07), nonperiprocedural myocardial infarction (HR, 1.52; 95%CI, 1.04-2.21), and coronary revascularization (HR, 2.46; 95%CI, 1.44-4.20). In addition, PCI complexity was identified as an independent predictor of MACE after TAVR (HR, 1.31; 95%CI, 1.01-1.71; P=.042). CONCLUSIONS: In TAVR candidates with significant coronary artery disease requiring percutaneous treatment, complex revascularization was associated with a higher risk of MACE. The degree of procedural complexity should be considered a strong determinant of prognosis in the PCI-TAVR population.

Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and Small Aortic Annulus: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment in patients with severe aortic stenosis and small aortic annulus (SAA) remains to be determined. This study aimed to compare the hemodynamic and clinical outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with a SAA. METHODS: This prospective multicenter international randomized trial was performed in 15 university hospitals. Participants were 151 patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA (mean diameter <23 mm) randomized (1:1) to TAVR (n=77) versus SAVR (n=74). The primary outcome was impaired valve hemodynamics (ie, severe prosthesis patient mismatch or moderate-severe aortic regurgitation) at 60 days as evaluated by Doppler echocardiography and analyzed in a central echocardiography core laboratory. Clinical events were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The mean age of the participants was 75.5±5.1 years, with 140 (93%) women, a median Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality of 2.50% (interquartile range, 1.67%-3.28%), and a median annulus diameter of 21.1 mm (interquartile range, 20.4-22.0 mm). There were no differences between groups in the rate of severe prosthesis patient mismatch (TAVR, 4 [5.6%]; SAVR, 7 [10.3%]; P=0.30) and moderate-severe aortic regurgitation (none in both groups). No differences were found between groups in mortality rate (TAVR, 1 [1.3%]; SAVR, 1 [1.4%]; P=1.00) and stroke (TAVR, 0; SAVR, 2 [2.7%]; P=0.24) at 30 days. After a median follow-up of 2 (interquartile range, 1-4) years, there were no differences between groups in mortality rate (TAVR, 7 [9.1%]; SAVR, 6 [8.1%]; P=0.89), stroke (TAVR, 3 [3.9%]; SAVR, 3 [4.1%]; P=0.95), and cardiac hospitalization (TAVR, 15 [19.5%]; SAVR, 15 [20.3%]; P=0.80). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA (women in the majority), there was no evidence of superiority of contemporary TAVR versus SAVR in valve hemodynamic results. After a median follow-up of 2 years, there were no differences in clinical outcomes between groups. These findings suggest that the 2 therapies represent a valid alternative for treating patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA, and treatment selection should likely be individualized according to baseline characteristics, additional anatomical risk factors, and patient preference. However, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution because of the limited sample size leading to an underpowered study, and need to be confirmed in future larger studies. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03383445.

Incidence, predictors, and prognostic significance of impaired functional status early after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: There are scarce data on the factors associated with impaired functional status after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and its clinical impact. This study aimed to determine the incidence, predictors, and prognostic implications of impaired functional class (NYHA class III-IV) following TAVR. METHODS: This multicenter study included 3462 transarterial TAVR patients receiving newer generation devices. The patients were compared according to their NYHA class at 1 month of follow-up (NYHA I-II vs NYHA III-IV). A multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify the predictors of 30-day NYHA class III-IV. Patient survival was compared with the Kaplan-Meier method and factors associated with decreased survival were identified with Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: The mean age of the study population was 80.3±7.3 years, with 47% of women, and a median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 3.8% [IQR, 2.5-5.8]. A total of 208 patients (6%) were in NYHA class III-IV 1 month after TAVR. Predictors of 30-day NYHA class III-IV were baseline NYHA class III-IV (OR, 1.76; 95%CI, 1.08-2.89; P=.02), chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (OR, 1.80; 95%CI, 1.13-2.83; P=.01), and post-TAVR severe mitral regurgitation (OR, 2.00; 95%CI, 1.21-3.31; P<.01). Patients in NYHA class III-IV 1 month after TAVR were at higher risk of death (HR, 3.68; 95%CI, 2.39-5.70; P<.01) and heart failure-related hospitalization (HR, 6.00; 95%CI, 3.76-9.60; P<.01) at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Up to 6% of contemporary TAVR patients exhibited an impaired functional status following TAVR. Worse baseline NYHA class, chronic pulmonary obstructive disease, and severe mitral regurgitation predicted 30-day NYHA class III/IV, and this determined a higher risk of mortality and heart failure hospitalization at 1-year follow-up. Further studies on the prevention and treatment optimization of patients with impaired functional status after TAVR are needed.

Balloon- vs Self-Expanding Transcatheter Valves for Failed Small Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses: 1-Year Results of the LYTEN Trial.

BACKGROUND: Data comparing valve systems in the valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) field have been obtained from retrospective studies. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the 1-year hemodynamic performance and clinical outcomes between balloon-expandable valves (BEV) SAPIEN 3/ULTRA (Edwards Lifesciences) and self-expanding valves (SEV) Evolut R/PRO/PRO+ (Medtronic) in ViV-TAVR. METHODS: Patients with a failed small (≤23 mm) surgical valve undergoing ViV-TAVR were randomized to receive a SEV or a BEV. Patients had a clinical and valve hemodynamic (Doppler echocardiography) evaluation at 1-year follow-up. Study outcomes were defined according to VARC-2/VARC-3 criteria. Intended performance of the valve was defined as mean gradient <20 mm Hg, peak velocity <3 m/s, Doppler velocity index ≥0.25 and less than moderate AR. RESULTS: A total of 98 patients underwent ViV-TAVR (46 BEV, 52 SEV). At 1-year follow-up, patients receiving a SEV had a lower mean transaortic gradient (22 ± 8 mm Hg BEV vs 14 ± 7 mm Hg SEV; P < 0.001), and a higher rate of intended valve performance (BEV: 30%, SEV:76%; P < 0.001). There were no cases of greater than mild aortic regurgitation. There were no differences in functional status (NYHA functional class >II, BEV: 7.3%, SEV: 4.1%; P = 0.505) or quality of life (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, BEV: 77.9 ± 21.2, SEV: 81.8 ± 14.8; P = 0.334). No differences in all-cause mortality (BEV: 6.5%, SEV: 3.8; P = 0.495), heart failure hospitalization (BEV: 6.5%, SEV: 1.9%; P = 0.214), stroke (BEV: 0%, SEV: 1.9%; P = 0.369), myocardial infarction (BEV: 0%, SEV: 1.9%; P = 0.347), or pacemaker implantation (BEV: 2.2%, SEV: 1.9%; P = 0.898) were found. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who underwent ViV-TAVR for failed small aortic bioprostheses, those receiving a SEV exhibited a better valve hemodynamic profile at 1-year follow-up. There were no differences between SEV and BEV regarding functional status, quality of life, or clinical outcomes.

Cardiac Death After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Contemporary Devices.

BACKGROUND: The burden of cardiac death after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), particularly from advanced heart failure (HF) and sudden cardiac death (SCD), remains largely unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the incidence and predictors of SCD and HF-related death in TAVR recipients treated with newer-generation devices. METHODS: This study included a total of 5,421 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR with newer-generation devices using balloon (75.7%) or self-expandable (24.3%) valves. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 2 (IQR: 1-3) years, 976 (18.0%) patients had died, 50.8% from cardiovascular causes. Advanced HF and SCD accounted for 11.6% and 7.5% of deaths, respectively. Independent predictors of HF-related death were atrial fibrillation (HR: 2.17; 95% CI: 1.47-3.22; P < 0.001), prior pacemaker (HR: 1.79; 95% CI: 1.10-2.92; P = 0.01), reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HR: 1.08 per 5% decrease; 95% CI: 1.01-1.14; P = 0.02), transthoracic approach (HR: 2.50; 95% CI: 1.37-4.55; P = 0.003), and new-onset persistent left bundle branch block (HR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.14-3.02; P = 0.01). Two baseline characteristics (diabetes, HR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.13-2.89; P = 0.01; and chronic kidney disease, HR: 1.72; 95% CI: 1.02-2.90; P = 0.04) and 3 procedural findings (valve in valve, HR: 2.17; 95% CI: 1.01-4.64; P = 0.04; transarterial nontransfemoral approach, HR: 2.23; 95% CI: 1.23-4.48; P = 0.01; and periprocedural ventricular arrhythmia, HR: 7.19; 95% CI: 2.61-19.76; P < 0.001) were associated with an increased risk of SCD after TAVR. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced HF and SCD accounted for a fifth of deaths after TAVR in contemporary practice. Potentially treatable factors leading to increased risk of HF deaths and SCD were identified, such as arrhythmia/dyssynchrony factors for HF and valve-in-valve TAVR or periprocedural ventricular arrhythmias for SCD.

Late Bleeding Events in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Workup Pre-TAVR.

BACKGROUND: In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the work-up pre-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the incidence and clinical impact of late bleeding events (LBEs) remain largely unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the incidence, clinical characteristics, associated factors, and outcomes of LBEs in patients undergoing PCI in the work-up pre-TAVR. METHODS: This was a multicenter study including 1,457 consecutive patients (mean age 81 ± 7 years; 41.5% women) who underwent TAVR and survived beyond 30 days. LBEs (>30 days post-TAVR) were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. RESULTS: LBEs occurred in 116 (7.9%) patients after a median follow-up of 23 (IQR: 12-40) months. Late bleeding was minor, major, and life-threatening or disabling in 21 (18.1%), 63 (54.3%), and 32 (27.6%) patients, respectively. Periprocedural (<30 days post-TAVR) major bleeding and the combination of antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy at discharge were independent factors associated with LBEs (P ≤ 0.02 for all). LBEs conveyed an increased mortality risk at 4-year follow-up compared with no bleeding (43.9% vs 36.0; P = 0.034). Also, LBE was identified as an independent predictor of all-cause mortality after TAVR (HR: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.05-1.83; P = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: In TAVR candidates with concomitant significant coronary artery disease requiring percutaneous treatment, LBEs after TAVR were frequent and associated with increased mortality. Combining antiplatelet and anticoagulation regimens and the occurrence of periprocedural bleeding determined an increased risk of LBEs. Preventive strategies should be pursued for preventing late bleeding after TAVR, and further studies are needed to provide more solid evidence on the most safe and effective antithrombotic regimen post-TAVR in this challenging group of patients.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with extra-small aortic annuli.

BACKGROUND: A small aortic annulus (SAA) is a risk factor for prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) in patients undergoing surgical or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Data regarding TAVI in patients with extra-SAA are scarce. AIMS: The aim of this study was to analyse the safety and efficacy of TAVI in patients with extra-SAA. METHODS: A multicentre registry study including patients with extra-SAA (defined as an aortic annulus area <280 mm2 and/or perimeter <60 mm) undergoing TAVI was established. Primary efficacy and safety endpoints were defined as device success and early safety at 30 days, respectively, using the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria, and were analysed according to valve type: self-expanding (SEV) versus balloon-expandable (BEV). RESULTS: A total of 150 patients were included, of which 139 (92.7%) were women, and 110 (73.3%) received an SEV. Intraprocedural technical success was 91.3%, with a higher rate in patients receiving an SEV (96.4% vs 77.5% with BEV; p=0.001). Overall, 30-day device success was 81.3%, (85.5% with SEV vs 70.0% with BEV; p=0.032). The primary safety endpoint occurred in 72.0% of patients (with no difference between groups; p=0.118). Severe PPM occurred in 12% (9.0% with SEV and 24.0% with BEV; p=0.039), with no impact on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or heart failure readmission at 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: TAVI is a safe and feasible treatment in patients with extra-SAA with a high rate of technical success. The use of SEV was associated with a lower rate of intraprocedural complications, higher device success at 30 days and better haemodynamic outcomes compared to BEV.

Coronary Obstruction After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From the Spanish TAVI Registry.

BACKGROUND: Coronary obstruction (CO) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a life-threatening complication, scarcely studied. OBJECTIVES: The authors analyzed the incidence of CO after TAVR, presentation, management, and in-hospital and 1-year clinical outcomes in a large series of patients undergoing TAVR. METHODS: Patients from the Spanish TAVI (Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry who presented with CO in the procedure, during hospitalization or at follow-up were included. Computed tomography (CT) risk factors were assessed. In-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year all-cause mortality rates were analyzed and compared with patients without CO using logistic regression models in the overall cohort and in a propensity score-matched cohort. RESULTS: Of 13,675 patients undergoing TAVR, 115 (0.80%) presented with a CO, mainly during the procedure (83.5%). The incidence of CO was stable throughout the study period (2009-2021), with a median annual rate of 0.8% (range 0.3%-1.3%). Preimplantation CT scans were available in 105 patients (91.3%). A combination of at least 2 CT-based risk factors was less frequent in native than in valve-in-valve patients (31.7% vs 78.3%; P < 0.01). Percutaneous coronary intervention was the treatment of choice in 100 patients (86.9%), with a technical success of 78.0%. In-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year mortality rates were higher in CO patients than in those without CO (37.4% vs 4.1%, 38.3% vs 4.3%, and 39.1% vs 9.1%, respectively; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this large, nationwide TAVR registry, CO was a rare, but often fatal, complication that did not decrease over time. The lack of identifiable predisposing factors in a subset of patients and the frequently challenging treatment when established may partly explain these findings.

Optimal Degree of Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Valve Oversizing in Patients With Borderline Aortic Annulus Measurements: Insights From a Multicenter Real-World Experience.

BACKGROUND: The potential benefit of using larger or smaller transcatheter heart valves (THV) in patients with borderline aortic annulus measurement (BAM) remains uncertain. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with the selection of larger or smaller THV in the context of BAM. METHODS: This was a multicenter observational study including patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the SAPIEN 3 or SAPIEN 3 Ultra-valve systems (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) from April 2014 to June 2021. BAM was defined according to the manufacturer sizing chart and included the following annulus areas: 314 to 346, 400 to 430, 500 to 546 mm2. A 1:1 propensity score matching was used to compare outcomes of patients with larger or smaller THV. RESULTS: From a total of 2467 patients, BAM was identified in 852 patients (34.5%). A larger and smaller THV was selected in 338 (39.7%) and 514 patients (60.3%) patients, respectively. The choice of a larger THV was associated (before and after propensity matching) with a higher risk of new-onset left bundle branch block (HR, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.39-3.65; P=0.001) and permanent pacemaker implantation (HR, 1.86 [95% CI, 1.11-3.09]; P=0.016) without any impact on gradients or the risk of moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation at discharge (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.41-1.45]; P=0.427). The risk of periprocedural complications such as aortic rupture and tamponade was low (<1%) and similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patient with BAM, selecting a larger SAPIEN 3/Ultra THV increased the risk of conduction disturbances without any benefit on valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes.

Balloon- vs Self-Expanding Valve Systems for Failed Small Surgical Aortic Valve Bioprostheses.

BACKGROUND: Data comparing valve systems in the valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) field have been obtained from retrospective studies. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the hemodynamic results between the balloon-expandable valve (BEV) SAPIEN (3/ULTRA, Edwards Lifesciences) and self-expanding valve (SEV) Evolut (R/PRO/PRO+, Medtronic) in ViV-TAVR. METHODS: Patients with a failed small (≤23 mm) surgical valve were randomized to receive a BEV or an SEV. The primary endpoint was valve hemodynamics (maximal/mean residual gradients, severe prosthesis patient mismatch [PPM], or moderate-severe aortic regurgitation) at 30 days as evaluated by Doppler echocardiography. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients were randomized, and of these, 98 patients finally underwent a ViV-TAVR procedure (BEV: n = 46, SEV: n = 52). The procedure was successful in all cases, with no differences in clinical outcomes at 30 days between groups (no death or stroke events). Patients in the SEV group exhibited lower mean and maximal transvalvular gradient values (15 ± 8 mm Hg vs 23 ± 8 mm Hg; P ˂ 0.001; 28 ± 16 mm Hg vs 40 ± 13 mm Hg, P ˂ 0.001), and a tendency toward a lower rate of severe PPM (44% vs 64%; P = 0.07). There were no cases of moderate-severe aortic regurgitation. In total, 55 consecutive patients (SEV: n = 27; BEV: n = 28) underwent invasive valve hemodynamic evaluation during the procedure, with no differences in mean and peak transvalvular gradients between both groups (P = 0.41 and P = 0.70, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with small failed aortic bioprostheses, ViV-TAVR with an SEV was associated with improved valve hemodynamics as evaluated by echocardiography. There were no differences between groups in intraprocedural invasive valve hemodynamics and 30-day clinical outcomes (Comparison of the Balloon-Expandable Edwards Valve and Self-Expandable CoreValve Evolut R or Evolut PRO System for the Treatment of Small, Severely Dysfunctional Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses. The 'LYTEN' Trial; NCT03520101).

Mitral Valve Infective Endocarditis after Trans-Catheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Scarce data exist on mitral valve (MV) infective endocarditis (IE) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). This multicenter study included a total of 579 patients with a diagnosis of definite IE after TAVI from the IE after TAVI International Registry and aimed to evaluate the incidence, characteristics, management, and outcomes of MV-IE after TAVI. A total of 86 patients (14.9%) had MV-IE. These patients were compared with 284 patients (49.1%) with involvement of the transcatheter heart valve (THV) only. Two factors were found to be associated with MV-IE: the use of self-expanding valves (adjusted odds ratio 2.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23 to 5.07, p = 0.012), and the presence of an aortic regurgitation ≥2 at discharge (adjusted odds ratio 3.33; 95% CI 1.43 to 7.73, p <0.01). There were no differences in IE timing and causative microorganisms between groups, but surgical management was significantly lower in patients with MV-IE (6.0%, vs 21.6% in patients with THV-IE, p = 0.001). All-cause mortality rates at 2-year follow-up were high and similar between patients with MV-IE (51.4%, 95% CI 39.8 to 64.1) and patients with THV-IE (51.5%, 95% CI 45.4 to 58.0) (log-rank p = 0.295). The factors independently associated with increased mortality risk in patients with MV-IE were the occurrence of heart failure (adjusted p <0.001) and septic shock (adjusted p <0.01) during the index hospitalization. One of 6 IE episodes after TAVI is localized on the MV. The implantation of a self-expanding THV and the presence of an aortic regurgitation ≥2 at discharge were associated with MV-IE. Patients with MV-IE were rarely operated on and had a poor prognosis at 2-year follow-up.

Can an ultrathin strut stent design and a polymer free, proendothelializing probucol matrix coating improve early strut healing? The FRIENDLY-OCT trial. An intra-patient randomized study with OCT, evaluating early strut coverage of a novel probucol coated polymer-free and ultra-thin strut sirolimus-eluting stent compared to a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent.

BACKGROUND: incomplete strut coverage determines the risk of stent thrombosis in the first months after stent implantation. AIMS: To evaluate the potential better early healing of a novel probucol coated polymer free ultra-thin strut sirolimus eluting stent (PF-SES). [Clinical trial unique identifier: NCT02785237]. METHODS: Patients with two (angiographically similar) lesions with clinical indication for PCI were enrolled. The investigated stent was compared to a thin strut, bioresorbable polymer, sirolimus eluting stent (BP-SES). Every patient received both stents, one in each lesion, assigned in a randomized sequence. OCT was systematically performed at 3 months. Primary end point was the difference in the proportion of covered struts at 3 months (defined as ≥20 µm of tissue coverage). Secondary end points included differences in percentage of uncovered struts (0 µm coverage), mean strut coverage thickness, and malapposed struts' coverage proportion. Major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and definite or probable stent thrombosis) at 12 months were also evaluated. RESULTS: 70 patients were included. At 3 months, a consistent and significantly higher strut coverage rate (≥20 µm) was observed in PF-SES as compared to BP-SES, both for well apposed (87.3% versus 79.1%, p < 0.001) and malapposed struts (50.4% vs 37.8%, p 0.00). Uncoverage rate (0 µm) was also significantly lower for the PF-SES (3.1% vs 5.3%, p < 0.001). There were no differences in clinical endpoints. CONCLUSION: The probucol coated non-polymeric ultra-thin strut sirolimus eluting stent showed a significantly better early strut coverage at 3 months.

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with morbid obesity: a multicentre propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Morbidly obese (MO) patients are increasingly undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the best therapeutic strategy for these patients remains a matter for debate. AIMS: Our aim was to compare the periprocedural and mid-term outcomes in MO patients undergoing TAVR versus SAVR. METHODS: A multicentre retrospective study including consecutive MO patients (body mass index ≥40 kg/m2, or ≥35 kg/m2 with obesity-related comorbidities) from 18 centres undergoing either TAVR (n=860) or biological SAVR (n=696) for severe AS was performed. Propensity score matching resulted in 362 pairs. RESULTS: After matching, periprocedural complications, including blood transfusion (14.1% versus 48.1%; p<0.001), stage 2-3 acute kidney injury (3.99% versus 10.1%; p=0.002), hospital-acquired pneumonia (1.7% versus 5.8%; p=0.005) and access site infection (1.5% versus 5.5%; p=0.013), were more common in the SAVR group, as was moderate to severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM; 9.9% versus 39.4%; p<0.001). TAVR patients more frequently required permanent pacemaker implantation (14.4% versus 5.6%; p<0.001) and had higher rates of ≥moderate residual aortic regurgitation (3.3% versus 0%; p=0.001). SAVR was an independent predictor of moderate to severe PPM (hazard ratio [HR] 1.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25-2.59; p=0.002), while TAVR was not. In-hospital mortality was not different between groups (3.9% for TAVR versus 6.1% for SAVR; p=0.171). Two-year outcomes (including all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and readmissions) were similar in both groups (log-rank p>0.05 for all comparisons). Predictors of all-cause 2-year mortality differed between the groups; moderate to severe PPM was a predictor following SAVR (HR 1.78, 95% CI: 1.10-2.88; p=0.018) but not following TAVR (p=0.737). CONCLUSIONS: SAVR and TAVR offer similar mid-term outcomes in MO patients with severe AS, however, TAVR offers some advantages in terms of periprocedural morbidity.

Surgical Treatment of Patients With Infective Endocarditis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment of patients developing infective endocarditis (IE) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to investigate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with TAVI-IE treated with cardiac surgery and antibiotics (IE-CS) compared with patients treated with antibiotics alone (IE-AB). METHODS: Crude and inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses were applied for the treatment effect of cardiac surgery vs medical therapy on 1-year all-cause mortality in patients with definite TAVI-IE. The study used data from the Infectious Endocarditis after TAVI International Registry. RESULTS: Among 584 patients, 111 patients (19%) were treated with IE-CS and 473 patients (81%) with IE-AB. Compared with IE-AB, IE-CS was not associated with a lower in-hospital mortality (HRunadj: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.58-1.25) and 1-year all-cause mortality (HRunadj: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.64-1.22) in the crude cohort. After adjusting for selection and immortal time bias, IE-CS compared with IE-AB was also not associated with lower mortality rates for in-hospital mortality (HRadj: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.80-1.05) and 1-year all-cause mortality (HRadj: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.84-1.07). Results remained similar when patients with and without TAVI prosthesis involvement were analyzed separately. Predictors for in-hospital and 1-year all-cause mortality included logistic EuroSCORE I, Staphylococcus aureus, acute renal failure, persistent bacteremia, and septic shock. CONCLUSIONS: In this registry, the majority of patients with TAVI-IE were treated with antibiotics alone. Cardiac surgery was not associated with an improved all-cause in-hospital or 1-year mortality. The high mortality of patients with TAVI-IE was strongly linked to patients' characteristics, pathogen, and IE-related complications.

Perivalvular Extension of Infective Endocarditis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Infective endocarditis (IE) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been associated with a dismal prognosis. However, scarce data exist on IE perivalvular extension (PEE) in such patients. METHODS: This multicenter study included 579 patients who had the diagnosis of definite IE at a median of 171 (53-421) days following TAVR. PEE was defined as the presence of an intracardiac abscess, pseudoaneurysm, or fistula. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients (18.1%) were diagnosed with PEE (perivalvular abscess, pseudoaneurysm, fistula, or a combination in 87, 7, 7, and 4 patients, respectively). A history of chronic kidney disease (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj], 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.27-3.41; P = .003) and IE secondary to coagulase-negative staphylococci (ORadj, 2.71; 95% CI: 1.57-4.69; P < .001) were associated with an increased risk of PEE. Surgery was performed at index IE episode in 34 patients (32.4%) with PEE (vs 15.2% in patients without PEE, P < .001). In-hospital and 2-year mortality rates among PEE-IE patients were 36.5% and 69.4%, respectively. Factors independently associated with an increased mortality were the occurrence of other complications (stroke post-TAVR, acute renal failure, septic shock) and the lack of surgery at index IE hospitalization (padj < 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: PEE occurred in about one-fifth of IE post-TAVR patients, with the presence of coagulase-negative staphylococci and chronic kidney disease determining an increased risk. Patients with PEE-IE exhibited high early and late mortality rates, and surgery during IE hospitalization seemed to be associated with better outcomes.

Infective Endocarditis Caused by Staphylococcus aureus After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus (SA) has been extensively studied as causative microorganism of surgical prosthetic-valve infective endocarditis (IE). However, scarce evidence exists on SA IE after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS: Data were obtained from the Infectious Endocarditis After TAVR International Registry, including patients with definite IE after TAVR from 59 centres in 11 countries. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to microbiologic etiology: non-SA IE vs SA IE. RESULTS: SA IE was identified in 141 patients out of 573 (24.6%), methicillin-sensitive SA in most cases (115/141, 81.6%). Self-expanding valves were more common than balloon-expandable valves in patients presenting with early SA IE. Major bleeding and sepsis complicating TAVR, neurologic symptoms or systemic embolism at admission, and IE with cardiac device involvement (other than the TAVR prosthesis) were associated with SA IE (P < 0.05 for all). Among patients with IE after TAVR, the likelihood of SA IE increased from 19% in the absence of those risk factors to 84.6% if ≥ 3 risk factors were present. In-hospital (47.8% vs 26.9%; P < 0.001) and 2-year (71.5% vs 49.6%; P < 0.001) mortality rates were higher among patients with SA IE vs non-SA IE. Surgery at the time of index SA IE episode was associated with lower mortality at follow-up compared with medical therapy alone (adjusted hazard ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.22-0.96; P = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: SA IE represented approximately 25% of IE cases after TAVR and was associated with very high in-hospital and late mortality. The presence of some features determined a higher likelihood of SA IE and could help to orientate early antibiotic regimen selection. Surgery at index SA IE was associated with improved outcomes, and its role should be evaluated in future studies.

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Complex Coronary Artery Disease.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare, in a cohort of patients with complex coronary artery disease (CAD) and severe aortic stenosis (AS), the clinical outcomes associated with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (plus percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) (plus coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]). BACKGROUND: Patients with complex CAD were excluded from the main randomized trials comparing TAVR with SAVR, and no data exist comparing TAVR + PCI vs SAVR + CABG in such patients. METHODS: A multicenter study was conducted including consecutive patients with severe AS and complex CAD (SYNTAX [Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery] score >22 or unprotected left main disease). A 1:1 propensity-matched analysis was performed to account for unbalanced covariates. The rates of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), including all-cause mortality, nonprocedural myocardial infarction, need for new coronary revascularization, and stroke, were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 800 patients (598 undergoing SAVR + CABG and 202 undergoing transfemoral TAVR + PCI) were included, and after propensity matching, a total of 156 pairs of patients were generated. After a median follow-up period of 3 years (interquartile range: 1-6 years), there were no significant differences between groups for MACCE (HR for transfemoral TAVR vs SAVR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.89-1.98), all-cause mortality (HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.81-1.94), myocardial infarction (HR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.41-3.27), and stroke (HR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.13-1.32), but there was a higher rate of new coronary revascularization in the TAVR + PCI group (HR: 5.38; 95% CI: 1.73-16.7). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe AS and complex CAD, TAVR + PCI and SAVR + CABG were associated with similar rates of MACCE after a median follow-up period of 3 years, but TAVR + PCI recipients exhibited a higher risk for repeat coronary revascularization. Future trials are warranted.

Secondary Femoral Access Hemostasis During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Impact of Vascular Closure Devices.

BACKGROUND: Vascular and bleeding complications related to secondary femoral access site are frequent in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), and their occurrence is associated to poorer outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the clinical impact of vascular closure devices (VCDs) for secondary femoral access hemostasis in TAVR procedures. METHODS: This was a multicenter study including 4031 patients who underwent TAVR (mean age, 81 ± 8 years; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons [STS] score, 4.9 [interquartile range, 3.3-7.6]), and had a secondary femoral access. The 30-day clinical outcomes were analyzed according to femoral access-site hemostasis (manual compression vs VCD), and according to the type of VCD (Perclose [Abbott Cardiovascular] vs Angio-Seal [Terumo Interventional Systems]) using a propensity-matched, multivariable, logistic regression model. RESULTS: Manual compression was used in 941 patients (23.3%) and VCDs were used in 3090 patients (76.7%; Perclose in 1549 patients [38.4%] and Angio-Seal in 1541 patients [38.2%]) for secondary femoral access hemostasis. Vascular complications related to secondary access site occurred in 162 patients (4%), and were more frequent in patients who underwent manual compression (7.2%) compared with VCD hemostasis (3%; adjusted P<.001). In the VCD group, the use of Angio-Seal (vs Perclose) was associated with a higher rate of vascular complications (3.7% vs 2.4%, respectively; adjusted P=.02), femoral artery pseudoaneurysm (1.3% vs 0.4%, respectively; adjusted P<.01), invasive treatment requirement for treating vascular complications (surgery: 0.8% vs 0.3%, respectively [adjusted P=.03]; and thrombin injection: 0.9% vs 0%, respectively [adjusted P<.001]). CONCLUSION: VCDs represented a safer and more effective alternative compared with manual compression for secondary femoral access-site hemostasis in patients undergoing TAVR procedures, and the Perclose VCD was associated with the lowest risk of vascular complications. Future randomized studies are warranted.

Late arrhythmias in patients with new-onset persistent left bundle branch block after transcatheter aortic valve replacement using a balloon-expandable valve.

BACKGROUND: The arrhythmic burden after discharge in patients with new-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 (S3) valve remains largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of late arrhythmias in patients with new-onset LBBB undergoing TAVR with the balloon-expandable S3 valve. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective study that included 104 consecutive TAVR patients with new-onset persistent LBBB following TAVR with the S3 valve. An implantable cardiac monitor (Reveal XT, Reveal LINQ) was implanted before discharge. The primary endpoint was the incidence of high-degree atrioventricular block or complete heart block (HAVB/CHB). RESULTS: A total of 40 patients (38.5%) had at least 1 significant arrhythmic event, leading to a treatment change in 17 (42.5%). Significant bradyarrhythmias occurred in 20 of 104 patients (19.2%) (34 HAVB/CHB episodes, 252 severe bradycardia episodes), with 10 of 20 patients (50%) exhibiting at least 1 episode of HAVB/CHB. Most HAVB/CHB episodes (60%) occurred within 4 weeks after discharge. Nine patients (8.7%) underwent permanent pacemaker implantation at 12 months based on the Reveal findings (6 HAVB/CHB, 3 severe bradycardia). CONCLUSION: S3 valve recipients with new-onset LBBB have a high arrhythmic burden, with more than one-third of patients exhibiting at least 1 significant arrhythmic episode within 12 months (HAVB/CHB in 10% of patients). About one-half of bradyarrhythmic events occurred within 4 weeks after discharge. These results should inform future strategies on the use of continuous electrocardiographic monitoring in TAVR S3 patients with new conduction disturbances following the procedure.