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.

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.