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.).

Comparison of Local Versus General Anesthesia Following Transfemoral Transcatheter Self-Expanding Aortic Valve Implantation (from the Transcatheter Valve Therapeutics Registry).

Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) is mostly performed under general anesthesia (GA) in most US centers. We examined in-hospital and 30-day outcomes in patients who underwent TF-TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis using local anesthesia (LA) or GA. Patients from the Transcatheter Valve Therapeutics Registry who underwent TF-TAVR from January 2014 to June 2016 with LA or GA were evaluated. Propensity matching was performed and procedural and clinical outcomes compared up to 30 days. A total of 11,006 patients were included (GA: 8,239 [74.9%] and LA: 2,767 [25.1%]). After propensity matching (n = 1,988 matched sets), device success was similar (94.5% vs 94.6%, p = 0.905). No differences in in-hospital stroke (2.7% vs 2.3%, p = 0.413) or paravalvular regurgitation grade (p = 0.113) were noted. Fewer LA patients were converted to open heart surgery (0.2% vs 0.6%, p = 0.076) or experienced an in-hospital major vascular complication (0.7% vs 1.4%, p = 0.026). Intensive care unit time (40.1 ± 58.4 vs 50.9 ± 72.1 hours, p < 0.001) and postprocedure length of stay (4.1 ± 3.6 vs 5.0 ± 4.5 days, p < 0.001) were significantly shorter with LA. In-hospital and 30-day all-cause mortality were lower in the LA cohort compared to the GA cohort ([1.1% vs 2.7%, p < 0.001] and [2.1% vs 3.9%, p = 0.001]). In conclusion, in the largest series of self-expanding bioprostheses for TF-TAVR, these propensity-matched cohorts demonstrate that LA is an acceptable alternative to GA with comparable success, lower safety outcomes, complications rates, and in-hospital and 30-day all-cause mortality.

Novel Multiphase Assessment for Predicting Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Obstruction Before Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: This study proposes a physiologic assessment of left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (LVOTO) that accommodates changes in systolic flow and accounts for the dynamic neo-left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT). BACKGROUND: Patients considered for transcatheter mitral valve replacement trials often screen-fail because of the perceived risk of LVOTO. In the Intrepid Global Pilot Study, assumed risk of LVOTO was based on computed tomography estimates of the neo-LVOT area computed at end-systole. However, this may overestimate actual risk. METHODS: Retrospective analyses were performed for screen-failed patients for potential LVOTO (n = 33) and treated patients (n = 29) with available dynamic computed tomography. A multiphase assessment of the neo-LVOT area was performed and represented as: 1) multiphase average; and 2) early systolic value. Prospective evaluation was performed in 9 patients approved for enrollment with multiphase and early systole methods that would have previously screen-failed with the end-systolic approach. RESULTS: Of 166 patients screened for possible inclusion; 32 were screen-failed for nonanatomical reasons. Screen failure for assumed LVOTO risk occurred in 37 of 134 (27.6%) patients. Retrospective analysis indicated a potential enrollment increase of 11 of 33 (33.3%) and 18 of 33 (54.5%) patients using multiphase and early systolic assessment methods. In the prospective cohort, there were no clinical observations of LVOTO 30 days post-procedure, despite assumed risk based on end-systolic estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Multiphase, and specifically early systolic, assessment of the neo-LVOT may better determine risk of LVOTO with transcatheter mitral valve replacement compared with end-systolic estimates. This novel approach has the potential to significantly increase patient eligibility, with over one-half of patients previously screen-failed now eligible for treatment.

Early Experience With New Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) is a potential therapy for patients with symptomatic, severe mitral regurgitation (MR). The feasibility of this therapy remains to be defined. OBJECTIVES: The authors report their early experience with TMVR using a new valve system. METHODS: The valve is a self-expanding, nitinol valve with bovine pericardial leaflets that is placed using a transapical delivery system. Patients with symptomatic MR who were deemed high or extreme risk by the local heart teams were enrolled in a global pilot study at 14 sites (United States, Australia, and Europe). RESULTS: Fifty consecutively enrolled patients (mean age: 73 ± 9 years; 58.0% men; 84% secondary MR) underwent TMVR with the valve. The mean Society for Thoracic Surgery score was 6.4 ± 5.5%; 86% of patients were New York Heart Association functional class III or IV, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 43 ± 12%. Device implant was successful in 48 patients with a median deployment time of 14 min (interquartile range: 12 to 17 min). The 30-day mortality was 14%, with no disabling strokes, or repeat interventions. Median follow-up was 173 days (interquartile range: 54 to 342 days). At latest follow-up, echocardiography confirmed mild or no residual MR in all patients who received implants. Improvements in symptom class (79% in New York Heart Association functional class I or II at follow-up; p < 0.0001 vs. baseline) and Minnesota Heart Failure Questionnaire scores (56.2 ± 26.8 vs. 31.7 ± 22.1; p = 0.011) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: TMVR with the valve was feasible in a study group at high or extreme risk for conventional mitral valve replacement. These results inform trial design of TMVR in lower-risk patients with severe mitral valve regurgitation (Evaluation of the Safety and Performance of the Twelve Intrepid Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement System in High Risk Patients with Severe, Symptomatic Mitral Regurgitation - The Twelve Intrepid TMVR Pilot Study; NCT02322840).

Outcomes for the Commercial Use of Self-Expanding Prostheses in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Report From the STS/ACC TVT Registry.

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the outcomes of commercial transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the repositionable Evolut R platform to those observed with the CoreValve device in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) Transcatheter Valve Therapy (TVT) Registry. BACKGROUND: TAVR continues to evolve, with rapid adoption of iterative changes for commercial practice. Insight into the outcomes of this adoption is needed. METHODS: Patients in the TVT Registry who had TAVR using a 23-, 26-, or 29-mm self-expanding prosthesis were enrolled. Site-reported events for procedural, in-hospital, and 30-day outcomes were examined. RESULTS: Between January 2014 and April 2016, 9,616 patients underwent TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis with data entered in the TVT Registry. Compared with patients treated with CoreValve TAVR, those who received Evolut R TAVR had a lower STS-PROM score (8.0 ± 5.4% vs. 8.7 ± 5.3%; p < 0.001), more iliofemoral access (91.6% vs. 89.2%; p < 0.001), and more frequently had conscious sedation (27.4% vs. 12.7%; p < 0.001). With Evolut R TAVR, there was less need for a second prosthesis (2.2% vs. 4.5%; p < 0.001), less device migration (0.2% vs. 0.6%; p = 0.01), a lower incidence of moderate/severe paravalvular regurgitation (post-procedure, 4.4% vs. 6.2%; p < 0.001), and shorter median hospital stay (4.0 vs. 5.0 days; p < 0.001). Patients treated with Evolut R TAVR had greater device success (96.3% vs. 94.9%; p = 0.001). At 30 days, Evolut R patients had both lower mortality (3.7% vs. 5.3%; p < 0.001) and less need for a pacemaker (18.3% vs. 20.1%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Commercial adoption of the Evolut R platform is associated with significant improvements in acute outcomes for patients undergoing TAVR for aortic stenosis.

The risk and extent of neurologic events are equivalent for high-risk patients treated with transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to characterize the incidence of new clinically detectable neurologic events, or any comparative change in indices of higher cognitive function following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) within the framework of a prospective, randomized clinical trial for high-risk patients. METHODS: High-risk patients (predicted SAVR mortality 15%) with severe aortic stenosis (n = 750) were randomized 1:1 to TAVR or SAVR and underwent evaluation using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and modified Rankin Scale assessment at each follow-up and any suspected event. Neurologic outcomes were ascertained by a neurologist and further evaluated by Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), visual fields testing, gait assessment, hand function, writing evaluation, and drawing assessment. RESULTS: The 30-day, 1-year, and 2-year stroke rates were 4.9%, 8.7%, and 10.9%, respectively, for TAVR and 6.2%, 12.5%, and 16.6%, respectively, for SAVR (P = .46, .11, and .05, respectively). All-cause mortality in patients with a major stroke was 83.3% for TAVR and 54.5% for SAVR at 2 years (P = .29). Late major stroke was disproportionately higher (23.8% at 2 years) among patients with poor iliofemoral access randomized to SAVR. Peripheral vascular disease and falls within 6 months predicted early stroke, and severe aortic calcification and high Charlson score (≥5) predicted 1-year stroke post-TAVR. NIHSS and MMSE scores trended higher after SAVR than after TAVR. Lack of dual antiplatelet therapy use during and after TAVR was associated with early stroke. CONCLUSIONS: This study defines an equivalent postprocedural stroke risk, stroke extent, and degree of cognitive change after TAVR or SAVR in a high-risk population, and also defines several predictors of stroke after TAVR.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using a self-expanding bioprosthesis in patients with severe aortic stenosis at extreme risk for surgery.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the CoreValve transcatheter heart valve (THV) for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in patients at extreme risk for surgery. BACKGROUND: Untreated severe aortic stenosis is a progressive disease with a poor prognosis. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding bioprosthesis is a potentially effective therapy. METHODS: We performed a prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized investigation evaluating the safety and efficacy of self-expanding TAVR in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis with prohibitive risks for surgery. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality or major stroke at 12 months, which was compared with a pre-specified objective performance goal (OPG). RESULTS: A total of 41 sites in the United States recruited 506 patients, of whom 489 underwent attempted treatment with the CoreValve THV. The rate of all-cause mortality or major stroke at 12 months was 26.0% (upper 2-sided 95% confidence bound: 29.9%) versus 43.0% with the OPG (p < 0.0001). Individual 30-day and 12-month events included all-cause mortality (8.4% and 24.3%, respectively) and major stroke (2.3% and 4.3%, respectively). Procedural events at 30 days included life-threatening/disabling bleeding (12.7%), major vascular complications (8.2%), and need for permanent pacemaker placement (21.6%). The frequency of moderate or severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation was lower 12 months after self-expanding TAVR (4.2%) than at discharge (10.7%; p = 0.004 for paired analysis). CONCLUSIONS: TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis was safe and effective in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis at prohibitive risk for surgical valve replacement. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902).

Self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement using alternative access sites in symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis deemed extreme risk of surgery.

OBJECTIVES: The CoreValve Extreme Risk US Pivotal Trial enrolled patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis deemed unsuitable for surgical aortic valve replacement. Implants were attempted using transfemoral access (n = 489) or an alternative access (n = 150). In present analysis, we sought to examine the safety and efficacy of CoreValve transcatheter aortic valve replacement using alternative access. METHODS: The present study included 150 patients with prohibitive iliofemoral anatomy who were treated with the CoreValve transcatheter heart valve delivered by way of the subclavian artery (n = 70) or a direct aortic approach (n = 80). The echocardiograms were read by an independent core laboratory. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality or major stroke at 12 months. RESULTS: The preoperative aortic valve area was 0.72 ± 0.27 cm(2) and mean aortic valve gradient was 49.5 ± 17.0 mm Hg. After the transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the effective aortic valve area was 1.82 ± 0.64 cm(2) at 1 month and 1.85 ± 0.51 cm(2) at 12 months. The mean aortic valve gradient was 9.7 ± 5.8 mm Hg at 30 days and 9.5 ± 5.7 mm Hg at 12 months. The death or major stroke rate was 15.3% at 30 days and 39.4% at 12 months. The individual rate of all-cause mortality and major stroke was 11.3% and 7.5% at 30 days and 36.0% and 9.1% at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that the CoreValve transcatheter heart valve delivered by an alternative access provides a suitable alternative for treatment of extreme risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, who have prohibitive iliofemoral anatomy and no surgical options.