Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients at Five Years.

BACKGROUND: A previous analysis in this trial showed that among patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, the rate of the composite end point of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year was significantly lower with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) than with surgical aortic-valve replacement. Longer-term outcomes are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either TAVR or surgery. The first primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization related to the valve, the procedure, or heart failure. The second primary end point was a hierarchical composite that included death, disabling stroke, nondisabling stroke, and the number of rehospitalization days, analyzed with the use of a win ratio analysis. Clinical, echocardiographic, and health-status outcomes were assessed through 5 years. RESULTS: A total of 1000 patients underwent randomization: 503 patients were assigned to undergo TAVR, and 497 to undergo surgery. A component of the first primary end point occurred in 111 of 496 patients in the TAVR group and in 117 of 454 patients in the surgery group (Kaplan-Meier estimates, 22.8% in the TAVR group and 27.2% in the surgery group; difference, -4.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.9 to 1.3; P = 0.07). The win ratio for the second primary end point was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.51; P = 0.25). The Kaplan-Meier estimates for the components of the first primary end point were as follows: death, 10.0% in the TAVR group and 8.2% in the surgery group; stroke, 5.8% and 6.4%, respectively; and rehospitalization, 13.7% and 17.4%. The hemodynamic performance of the valve, assessed according to the mean (±SD) valve gradient, was 12.8±6.5 mm Hg in the TAVR group and 11.7±5.6 mm Hg in the surgery group. Bioprosthetic-valve failure occurred in 3.3% of the patients in the TAVR group and in 3.8% of those in the surgery group. CONCLUSIONS: Among low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR or surgery, there was no significant between-group difference in the two primary composite outcomes. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02675114.).

Transcatheter Repair for Patients with Tricuspid Regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: Severe tricuspid regurgitation is a debilitating condition that is associated with substantial morbidity and often with poor quality of life. Decreasing tricuspid regurgitation may reduce symptoms and improve clinical outcomes in patients with this disease. METHODS: We conducted a prospective randomized trial of percutaneous tricuspid transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) for severe tricuspid regurgitation. Patients with symptomatic severe tricuspid regurgitation were enrolled at 65 centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe and were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either TEER or medical therapy (control). The primary end point was a hierarchical composite that included death from any cause or tricuspid-valve surgery; hospitalization for heart failure; and an improvement in quality of life as measured with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), with an improvement defined as an increase of at least 15 points in the KCCQ score (range, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better quality of life) at the 1-year follow-up. The severity of tricuspid regurgitation and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 350 patients were enrolled; 175 were assigned to each group. The mean age of the patients was 78 years, and 54.9% were women. The results for the primary end point favored the TEER group (win ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 2.13; P = 0.02). The incidence of death or tricuspid-valve surgery and the rate of hospitalization for heart failure did not appear to differ between the groups. The KCCQ quality-of-life score changed by a mean (±SD) of 12.3±1.8 points in the TEER group, as compared with 0.6±1.8 points in the control group (P<0.001). At 30 days, 87.0% of the patients in the TEER group and 4.8% of those in the control group had tricuspid regurgitation of no greater than moderate severity (P<0.001). TEER was found to be safe; 98.3% of the patients who underwent the procedure were free from major adverse events at 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Tricuspid TEER was safe for patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation, reduced the severity of tricuspid regurgitation, and was associated with an improvement in quality of life. (Funded by Abbott; TRILUMINATE Pivotal ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03904147.).

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with high-risk symptomatic native aortic regurgitation (ALIGN-AR): a prospective, multicentre, single-arm study.

BACKGROUND: Surgery remains the only recommended intervention for patients with native aortic regurgitation. A transcatheter therapy to treat patients at high risk for mortality and complications with surgical aortic valve replacement represents an unmet need. Commercial transcatheter heart valves in pure aortic regurgitation are hampered by unacceptable rates of embolisation and paravalvular regurgitation. The Trilogy transcatheter heart valve (JenaValve Technology, Irvine, CA, USA) provides a treatment option for these patients. We report outcomes with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with pure aortic regurgitation using this dedicated transcatheter heart valve. METHODS: The ALIGN-AR trial is a prospective, multicentre, single-arm study. We recruited symptomatic patients (aged ≥18 years) with moderate-to-severe or severe aortic regurgitation at high risk for mortality and complications after surgical aortic valve replacement at 20 US sites for treatment with the Trilogy transcatheter heart valve. The 30-day composite primary safety endpoint was compared for non-inferiority with a prespecified performance goal of 40·5%. The primary efficacy endpoint was 1-year all-cause mortality compared for non-inferiority with a performance goal of 25%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04415047, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between June 8, 2018, and Aug 29, 2022, we screened 346 patients. We excluded 166 (48%) patients and enrolled 180 (52%) patients with symptomatic aortic regurgitation deemed high risk by the heart team and independent screening committee assessments. The mean age of the study population was 75·5 years (SD 10·8), and 85 (47%) were female, 95 (53%) were male, and 131 (73%) were White. Technical success was achieved in 171 (95%) patients. At 30 days, four (2%) deaths, two (1%) disabling strokes, and two (1%) non-disabling strokes occurred. Using standard Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions, the primary safety endpoint was achieved, with events occurring in 48 (27% [97·5% CI 19·2-34·0]) patients (pnon-inferiority<0·0001), with new pacemaker implantation in 36 (24%) patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was achieved, with mortality in 14 (7·8% [3·3-12·3]) patients at 1 year (pnon-inferiority<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: This study shows the safety and effectiveness of treating native aortic regurgitation using a dedicated transcatheter heart valve to treat patients with symptomatic moderate-to-severe or severe aortic regurgitation who are at high risk for mortality or complications after surgical aortic valve replacement. The observed short-term clinical and haemodynamic outcomes are promising as are signs of left ventricular remodelling, but long-term follow-up is necessary. FUNDING: JenaValve Technology.

Cerebral Embolic Protection during Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of aortic stenosis can lead to embolization of debris. Capture of debris by devices that provide cerebral embolic protection (CEP) may reduce the risk of stroke. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with aortic stenosis in a 1:1 ratio to undergo transfemoral TAVR with CEP (CEP group) or without CEP (control group). The primary end point was stroke within 72 hours after TAVR or before discharge (whichever came first) in the intention-to-treat population. Disabling stroke, death, transient ischemic attack, delirium, major or minor vascular complications at the CEP access site, and acute kidney injury were also assessed. A neurology professional examined all the patients at baseline and after TAVR. RESULTS: A total of 3000 patients across North America, Europe, and Australia underwent randomization; 1501 were assigned to the CEP group and 1499 to the control group. A CEP device was successfully deployed in 1406 of the 1489 patients (94.4%) in whom an attempt was made. The incidence of stroke within 72 hours after TAVR or before discharge did not differ significantly between the CEP group and the control group (2.3% vs. 2.9%; difference, -0.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -1.7 to 0.5; P = 0.30). Disabling stroke occurred in 0.5% of the patients in the CEP group and in 1.3% of those in the control group. There were no substantial differences between the CEP group and the control group in the percentage of patients who died (0.5% vs. 0.3%); had a stroke, a transient ischemic attack, or delirium (3.1% vs. 3.7%); or had acute kidney injury (0.5% vs. 0.5%). One patient (0.1%) had a vascular complication at the CEP access site. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral TAVR, the use of CEP did not have a significant effect on the incidence of periprocedural stroke, but on the basis of the 95% confidence interval around this outcome, the results may not rule out a benefit of CEP during TAVR. (Funded by Boston Scientific; PROTECTED TAVR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04149535.).

Economic Outcomes of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis and Low Surgical Risk: Results from the PARTNER 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis at low surgical risk, transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the SAPIEN 3 valve has been shown to reduce the composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 2-year follow-up compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Whether TAVR is cost-effective compared with SAVR for low-risk patients remains uncertain. METHODS: Between 2016 and 2017, 1000 low-risk patients with aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve or SAVR in the PARTNER 3 trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves). Of these patients, 929 underwent valve replacement, were enrolled in the United States, and were included in the economic substudy. Procedural costs were estimated using measured resource use. Other costs were determined by linkage with Medicare claims or by regression models when linkage was not feasible. Health utilities were estimated using the EuroQOL 5-item questionnaire. With the use of a Markov model informed by in-trial data, lifetime cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the US health care system was estimated in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RESULTS: Although procedural costs were nearly $19 000 higher with TAVR, total index hospitalization costs were only $591 more with TAVR compared with SAVR. Follow-up costs were lower with TAVR such that TAVR led to 2-year cost savings of $2030/patient compared with SAVR (95% CI, -$6222 to $1816) and a gain of 0.05 quality-adjusted life-years (95% CI, -0.003 to 0.102). In our base-case analysis, TAVR was projected to be an economically dominant strategy with a 95% probability that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for TAVR would be <$50 000/quality-adjusted life-year gained (consistent with high economic value from a US health care perspective). These findings were sensitive to differences in long-term survival, however, such that a modest long-term survival advantage with SAVR would render SAVR cost-effective (although not cost saving) compared with TAVR. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk similar to those enrolled in the PARTNER 3 trial, transfemoral TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve is cost saving compared with SAVR at 2 years and is projected to be economically attractive in the long run as long as there are no substantial differences in late death between the 2 strategies. Long-term follow-up will be critical to ultimately determine the preferred treatment strategy for low-risk patients from both a clinical and economic perspective.

Outcomes of repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement with balloon-expandable valves: a registry study.

BACKGROUND: With increasing numbers of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), data on management of failed TAVR, including repeat TAVR procedure, are needed. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of redo-TAVR in a national registry. METHODS: This study included all consecutive patients in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry from Nov 9, 2011, to Dec 30, 2022 who underwent TAVR with balloon-expandable valves in failed transcatheter heart valves (redo-TAVR) or native aortic valves (native-TAVR). Procedural, echocardiographic, and clinical outcomes were compared between redo-TAVR and native-TAVR cohorts using propensity score matching. FINDINGS: Among 350 591 patients (1320 redo-TAVR; 349 271 native-TAVR), 1320 propensity-matched pairs of patients undergoing redo-TAVR and native-TAVR were analysed (redo-TAVR cohort: mean age 78 years [SD 9]; 559 [42·3%] of 1320 female, 761 [57·7%] male; mean predicted surgical risk of 30-day mortality 8·1%). The rates of procedural complications of redo-TAVR were low (coronary compression or obstruction: four [0·3%] of 1320; intraprocedural death: eight [0·6%] of 1320; conversion to open heart surgery: six [0·5%] of 1319) and similar to native-TAVR. There was no significant difference between redo-TAVR and native-TAVR populations in death at 30 days (4·7% vs 4·0%, p=0·36) or 1 year (17·5% vs 19·0%, p=0·57), and stroke at 30 days (2·0% vs 1·9%, p=0·84) or 1 year (3·2% vs 3·5%, p=0·80). Redo-TAVR reduced aortic valve gradients at 1 year, although they were higher in the redo-TAVR group compared with the native-TAVR group (15 mm Hg vs 12 mm Hg; p<0·0001). Moderate or severe aortic regurgitation rates were similar between redo-TAVR and native-TAVR groups at 1 year (1·8% vs 3·3%, p=0·18). Death or stroke after redo-TAVR were not significantly affected by the timing of redo-TAVR (before or after 1 year of index TAVR), or by index transcatheter valve type (balloon-expandable or non-balloon-expandable). INTERPRETATION: Redo-TAVR with balloon-expandable valves effectively treated dysfunction of the index TAVR procedure with low procedural complication rates, and death and stroke rates similar to those in patients with a similar clinical profile and predicted risk undergoing TAVR for native aortic valve stenosis. Redo-TAVR with balloon-expandable valves might be a reasonable treatment for failed TAVR in selected patients. FUNDING: Edwards Lifesciences.

Clinical journey for patients with aortic regurgitation: A retrospective observational study from a multicenter database.

BACKGROUND: Data using real-world assessments of aortic regurgitation (AR) severity to identify rates of Heart Valve Team evaluation and aortic valve replacement (AVR), as well as mortality among untreated patients, are lacking. The present study assessed these trends in care and outcomes for real-world patients with documented AR. METHODS: Using a deidentified data set (January 2018-March 2023) representing 1,002,853 patients >18 years of age from 25 US institutions participating in the egnite Database (egnite, Inc.) with appropriate permissions, patients were classified by AR severity in echocardiographic reports. Rates of evaluation by the Heart Valve Team, AVR, and all-cause mortality without AVR were examined using Kaplan-Meier estimates and compared using the log-rank test. RESULTS: Within the data set, 845,113 patients had AR severity documented. For moderate-to-severe or severe AR, respectively, 2-year rates (95% confidence interval) of evaluation by the Heart Valve Team (43.5% [41.7%-45.3%] and 65.4% [63.3%-67.4%]) and AVR (19.4% [17.6%-21.1%] and 46.5% [44.2%-48.8%]) were low. Mortality at 2 years without AVR increased with greater AR severity, up to 20.7% for severe AR (p < 0.001). In exploratory analyses, 2-year mortality for untreated patients with left ventricular end-systolic dimension index > 25 mm/m2 was similar for moderate (34.3% [29.2%-39.1%]) and severe (37.2% [24.9%-47.5%]) AR. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate or greater AR is associated with poor clinical outcomes among untreated patients at 2 years. Rates of Heart Valve Team evaluation and AVR were low for those with moderate or greater AR, suggesting that earlier referral to the Heart Valve Team could be beneficial.

Prospective Study of Risk Factors for Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation After Cardiac Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: To examine risk factors for new-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) after cardiac surgery. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network multicenter, randomized trial of rate control versus rhythm control for POAF were included. Predictors of POAF were determined using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among the 2104 patients who were enrolled preoperatively, 695 developed POAF (33.0%). Rates of POAF were 28.1% after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), 33.7% after isolated valve repair or replacement, and 47.3% after CABG plus valve repair or replacement. Baseline characteristics associated with an increased risk of POAF identified on multivariable analysis included older age (odds ratio [OR] 1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42-1.73, per 10 y), White race or non-Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.52; CI: 1.11-2.07), history of heart failure (OR 1.55; CI: 1.16-2.08), and history of hypothyroidism (OR 1.42; CI 1.04-1.94). The type of cardiac procedure was associated with an increased risk of POAF with both isolated valve repair or replacement (OR 1.33, CI 1.08-1.64) and combined CABG plus valve repair or replacement (OR 1.64, CI 1.24-2.17) having increased risk of POAF compared to isolated CABG. No preoperative cardiac medication was associated with POAF. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective cohort of patients, older age, a history of hypothyroidism, a history of heart failure, and valve repair or replacement, with or without CABG, and White non-Hispanic race were associated with an increased risk of POAF.

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in lower-risk and higher-risk patients: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

AIMS: Additional randomized clinical trial (RCT) data comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is available, including longer term follow-up. A meta-analysis comparing TAVI to SAVR was performed. A pragmatic risk classification was applied, partitioning lower-risk and higher-risk patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The main endpoints were death, strokes, and the composite of death or disabling stroke, occurring at 1 year (early) or after 1 year (later). A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Eight RCTs with 8698 patients were included. In lower-risk patients, at 1 year, the risk of death was lower after TAVI compared with SAVR [relative risk (RR) 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.96, P = 0.031], as was death or disabling stroke (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92, P = 0.014). There were no differences in strokes. After 1 year, in lower-risk patients, there were no significant differences in all main outcomes. In higher-risk patients, there were no significant differences in main outcomes. New-onset atrial fibrillation, major bleeding, and acute kidney injury occurred less after TAVI; new pacemakers, vascular complications, and paravalvular leak occurred more after TAVI. CONCLUSION: In lower-risk patients, there was an early mortality reduction with TAVI, but no differences after later follow-up. There was also an early reduction in the composite of death or disabling stroke, with no difference at later follow-up. There were no significant differences for higher-risk patients. Informed therapy decisions may be more dependent on the temporality of events or secondary endpoints than the long-term occurrence of main clinical outcomes.

Transfemoral tricuspid valve replacement and one-year outcomes: the TRISCEND study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: For patients with symptomatic, severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR), early results of transcatheter tricuspid valve (TV) intervention studies have shown significant improvements in functional status and quality of life associated with right-heart reverse remodelling. Longer-term follow-up is needed to confirm sustained improvements in these outcomes. METHODS: The prospective, single-arm, multicentre TRISCEND study enrolled 176 patients to evaluate the safety and performance of transcatheter TV replacement in patients with ≥moderate, symptomatic TR despite medical therapy. Major adverse events, reduction in TR grade and haemodynamic outcomes by echocardiography, and clinical, functional, and quality-of-life parameters are reported to one year. RESULTS: Enrolled patients were 71.0% female, mean age 78.7 years, 88.0% ≥ severe TR, and 75.4% New York Heart Association classes III-IV. Tricuspid regurgitation was reduced to ≤mild in 97.6% (P < .001), with increases in stroke volume (10.5 ± 16.8 mL, P < .001) and cardiac output (0.6 ± 1.2 L/min, P < .001). New York Heart Association class I or II was achieved in 93.3% (P < .001), Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score increased by 25.7 points (P < .001), and six-minute walk distance increased by 56.2 m (P < .001). All-cause mortality was 9.1%, and 10.2% of patients were hospitalized for heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: In an elderly, highly comorbid population with ≥moderate TR, patients receiving transfemoral EVOQUE transcatheter TV replacement had sustained TR reduction, significant increases in stroke volume and cardiac output, and high survival and low hospitalization rates with improved clinical, functional, and quality-of-life outcomes to one year. Funded by Edwards Lifesciences, TRISCEND ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04221490.

Five-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: There are scant data on long-term clinical outcomes and bioprosthetic-valve function after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis and intermediate surgical risk. METHODS: We enrolled 2032 intermediate-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at 57 centers. Patients were stratified according to intended transfemoral or transthoracic access (76.3% and 23.7%, respectively) and were randomly assigned to undergo either TAVR or surgical replacement. Clinical, echocardiographic, and health-status outcomes were followed for 5 years. The primary end point was death from any cause or disabling stroke. RESULTS: At 5 years, there was no significant difference in the incidence of death from any cause or disabling stroke between the TAVR group and the surgery group (47.9% and 43.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.25; P = 0.21). Results were similar for the transfemoral-access cohort (44.5% and 42.0%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.20), but the incidence of death or disabling stroke was higher after TAVR than after surgery in the transthoracic-access cohort (59.3% vs. 48.3%; hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.71). At 5 years, more patients in the TAVR group than in the surgery group had at least mild paravalvular aortic regurgitation (33.3% vs. 6.3%). Repeat hospitalizations were more frequent after TAVR than after surgery (33.3% vs. 25.2%), as were aortic-valve reinterventions (3.2% vs. 0.8%). Improvement in health status at 5 years was similar for TAVR and surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with aortic stenosis who were at intermediate surgical risk, there was no significant difference in the incidence of death or disabling stroke at 5 years after TAVR as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01314313.).

Association of ACEI/ARB and statin prescribing patterns with mortality after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR): Findings from real-world claims data.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the standard of care for most patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), but the impact of medical therapy prescribing patterns on post-TAVR patients has not been thoroughly investigated. METHODS: We analyzed Optum claims data from 9,012 adults who received TAVR for AS (January 2014-December 2018). Pharmacy claims data were used to identify patients who filled ACEI/ARB and/or statin prescriptions during the study's 90-day landmark period post-TAVR. Kaplan-Meier and adjusted Cox Proportional Hazards models were used to evaluate the association of prescribing patterns with mortality during the 3-year follow-up period. Subgroup analyses were performed to examine the impact of 11 potential confounders on the observed associations. RESULTS: A significantly lower adjusted 3-year mortality was observed for patients with post-TAVR prescription for ACEI/ARBs (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.91, P = .0003) and statins (HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.77-0.94, P = .0018) compared to patients who did not fill prescriptions for these medications post-TAVR. Subgroup analyses revealed that the survival benefit associated with ACEI/ARB prescription was not affected by any of the potential confounding variables, except preoperative ACEI/ARB prescription was associated with significantly lower risk of mortality vs postoperative prescription only. No other subgroup variables had significant interactions associated with survival benefits, including preoperative use of statins. CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale, real-world analysis of patients undergoing TAVR, the prescription of ACEI/ARB and statins was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality at 3-years, especially in those where the medications were initiated preoperatively.

Evaluation and Management of Aortic Stenosis in Chronic Kidney Disease: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Aortic stenosis with concomitant chronic kidney disease (CKD) represents a clinical challenge. Aortic stenosis is more prevalent and progresses more rapidly and unpredictably in CKD, and the presence of CKD is associated with worse short-term and long-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement. Because patients with advanced CKD and end-stage kidney disease have been excluded from randomized trials, clinicians need to make complex management decisions in this population that are based on retrospective and observational evidence. This statement summarizes the epidemiological and pathophysiological characteristics of aortic stenosis in the context of CKD, evaluates the nuances and prognostic information provided by noninvasive cardiovascular imaging with echocardiography and advanced imaging techniques, and outlines the special risks in this population. Furthermore, this statement provides a critical review of the existing literature pertaining to clinical outcomes of surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in this high-risk population to help guide clinical decision making in the choice of aortic valve replacement and specific prosthesis. Finally, this statement provides an approach to the perioperative management of these patients, with special attention to a multidisciplinary heart-kidney collaborative team-based approach.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis.

After 15 years of successive randomized, controlled trials, indications for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are rapidly expanding. In the coming years, this procedure could become the first line treatment for patients with a symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and a tricuspid aortic valve anatomy. However, randomized, controlled trials have excluded bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), which is the most frequent congenital heart disease occurring in 1% to 2% of the total population and representing at least 25% of patients 80 years of age or older referred for aortic valve replacement. The use of a less invasive transcatheter therapy in this elderly population became rapidly attractive, and approximately 10% of patients currently undergoing TAVR have a BAV. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the "European Conformity" have approved TAVR for low-risk patients regardless of the aortic valve anatomy whereas international guidelines recommend surgical replacement in BAV populations. Given this progressive expansion of TAVR toward younger and lower-risk patients, heart teams are encountering BAV patients more frequently, while the ability of this therapy to treat such a challenging anatomy remains uncertain. This review will address the singularity of BAV anatomy and associated technical challenges for the TAVR procedure. We will examine and summarize available clinical evidence and highlight critical knowledge gaps regarding TAVR utilization in BAV patients. We will provide a comprehensive overview of the role of computed tomography scans in the diagnosis, and classification of BAV and TAVR procedure planning. Overall, we will offer an integrated framework for understanding the current role of TAVR in the treatment of bicuspid aortic stenosis and for guiding physicians in clinical decision-making.

Composite Metric for Benchmarking Site Performance in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Results From the STS/ACC TVT Registry.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a transformative therapy for aortic stenosis. Despite rapid improvements in technology and techniques, serious complications remain relatively common and are not well described by single outcome measures. The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is site-level variation in TAVR outcomes in the United States using a novel 30-day composite measure. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapies Registry to develop a novel ranked composite performance measure that incorporates mortality and serious complications. The selection and rank order of the complications for the composite was determined by their adjusted association with 1-year outcomes. Sites with risk-adjusted outcomes significantly more or less frequent than the national average based on a 95% probability interval were classified as performing worse or better than expected. RESULTS: The development cohort consisted of 52 561 patients who underwent TAVR between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. Based on associations with 1-year risk-adjusted mortality and health status, we identified 4 periprocedural complications to include in the composite risk model in addition to mortality. Ranked empirically according to severity, these included stroke, major, life-threatening or disabling bleeding, stage III acute kidney injury, and moderate or severe perivalvular regurgitation. Based on these ranked outcomes, we found that there was significant site-level variation in quality of care in TAVR in the United States. Overall, better than expected site performance was observed in 25/301 (8%) sites, performance as expected was observed in 242/301 sites (80%), and worse than expected performance was observed in 34/301 (11%) sites. Thirty-day mortality; stroke; major, life-threatening, or disabling bleeding; and moderate or severe perivalvular leak were each substantially more common in sites with worse than expected performance as compared with other sites. There was good aggregate reliability of the model. CONCLUSIONS: There are substantial variations in the quality of TAVR care received in the United States and 11% of sites were identified as providing care below the average level of performance. Further study is necessary to determine structural, process-related, and technical factors associated with high- and low-performing sites.

Procedural Volume and Outcomes for Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: During the introduction of transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) in the United States, requirements regarding procedural volume were mandated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as a condition of reimbursement. A better understanding of the relationship between hospital volume of TAVR procedures and patient outcomes could inform policy decisions. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry regarding procedural volumes and outcomes from 2015 through 2017. The primary analyses examined the association between hospital procedural volume as a continuous variable and risk-adjusted mortality at 30 days after transfemoral TAVR. Secondary analysis included risk-adjusted mortality according to quartile of hospital procedural volume. A sensitivity analysis was performed after exclusion of the first 12 months of transfemoral TAVR procedures at each hospital. RESULTS: Of 113,662 TAVR procedures performed at 555 hospitals by 2960 operators, 96,256 (84.7%) involved a transfemoral approach. There was a significant inverse association between annualized volume of transfemoral TAVR procedures and mortality. Adjusted 30-day mortality was higher and more variable at hospitals in the lowest-volume quartile (3.19%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.78 to 3.67) than at hospitals in the highest-volume quartile (2.66%; 95% CI, 2.48 to 2.85) (odds ratio, 1.21; P = 0.02). The difference in adjusted mortality between a mean annualized volume of 27 procedures in the lowest-volume quartile and 143 procedures in the highest-volume quartile was a relative reduction of 19.45% (95% CI, 8.63 to 30.26). After the exclusion of the first 12 months of TAVR procedures at each hospital, 30-day mortality remained higher in the lowest-volume quartile than in the highest-volume quartile (3.10% vs. 2.61%; odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.40). CONCLUSIONS: An inverse volume-mortality association was observed for transfemoral TAVR procedures from 2015 through 2017. Mortality at 30 days was higher and more variable at hospitals with a low procedural volume than at hospitals with a high procedural volume. (Funded by the American College of Cardiology Foundation National Cardiovascular Data Registry and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.).

Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Balloon-Expandable Valve in Low-Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with aortic stenosis who are at intermediate or high risk for death with surgery, major outcomes are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic-valve replacement. There is insufficient evidence regarding the comparison of the two procedures in patients who are at low risk. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either TAVR with transfemoral placement of a balloon-expandable valve or surgery. The primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year. Both noninferiority testing (with a prespecified margin of 6 percentage points) and superiority testing were performed in the as-treated population. RESULTS: At 71 centers, 1000 patients underwent randomization. The mean age of the patients was 73 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was 1.9% (with scores ranging from 0 to 100% and higher scores indicating a greater risk of death within 30 days after the procedure). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of the primary composite end point at 1 year was significantly lower in the TAVR group than in the surgery group (8.5% vs. 15.1%; absolute difference, -6.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -10.8 to -2.5; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.79; P = 0.001 for superiority). At 30 days, TAVR resulted in a lower rate of stroke than surgery (P = 0.02) and in lower rates of death or stroke (P = 0.01) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (P<0.001). TAVR also resulted in a shorter index hospitalization than surgery (P<0.001) and in a lower risk of a poor treatment outcome (death or a low Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score) at 30 days (P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in major vascular complications, new permanent pacemaker insertions, or moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, the rate of the composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year was significantly lower with TAVR than with surgery. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02675114.).

Rationale and design of the safe and timely antithrombotic removal - ticagrelor (STAR-T) trial: A prospective, multi-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial evaluating reductions in postoperative bleeding with intraoperative removal of ticagrelor by the drugsorb™-ATR device in patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery within 48 hours from last ticagrelor dose.

BACKGROUND: Ticagrelor is often administered to patients with acute coronary syndromes. However, when these patients require urgent or emergent cardiothoracic (CT) surgery the presence of ticagrelor significantly increases surgical bleeding. The goal of the current trial is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the DrugSorb-ATR hemoadsorption device for the intraoperative removal of ticagrelor to reduce postoperative bleeding in the above patient population. The Safe and Timely Antithrombotic Removal - Ticagrelor (STAR-T) Trial is a multi-center, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial enrolling patients who require cardiothoracic surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) within 48 hours of last ticagrelor dose. METHODS: Subjects will be randomized 1:1 to receive either the DrugSorb-ATR device or an identical sham device during CPB. The study will enroll up to 120 subjects at 20 U.S centers, and the primary outcome is the composite of fatal perioperative bleeding, moderate/severe/massive bleeding according to the Universal Definition of Perioperative Bleeding in Cardiac Surgery (UDPB), and 24 hours chest tube drainage. The components of the composite are hierarchically ranked according to clinical significance and the primary analysis will utilize the Win Ratio method. Percent change in ticagrelor levels before and after CPB (drug removal) will be the key secondary endpoint. An independent Clinical Events Committee will adjudicate all clinical endpoints including safety endpoints relating to postoperative thrombotic events. Subjects will be followed through 30 days after the index operation. CONCLUSIONS: The results from STAR-T, if positive, will potentially support FDA market approval for DrugSorb-ATR, and provide a solution to an important unmet clinical need.

Impact of blood pressure on coronary perfusion and valvular hemodynamics after aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the impact of various blood pressures (BPs) on coronary perfusion and valvular hemodynamics following aortic valve replacement (AVR). BACKGROUND: Lower systolic and diastolic (SBP/DBP) pressures from the recommended optimal target range of SBP < 120-130 mmHg and DBP < 80 mmHg after AVR have been independently associated with increased cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. METHODS: The hemodynamic assessment of a 26 mm SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve (TAV), 29 mm Evolut R TAV, and 25 mm Magna Ease surgical aortic valve (SAV) was performed in a pulsed left heart simulator with varying SBP, DBP, and heart rate (HR) conditions (60 and 120 bpm) at 5 L/min cardiac output (CO). Average coronary flow (CF), effective orifice areas (EOAs), and valvulo-arterial impedance (Zva) were calculated. RESULTS: At HR of 60 bpm, at SBP < 120 mmHg and DBP < 60 mmHg, CF decreased below the physiological lower limit with several different valves. Zva and EOA were found to increase and decrease respectively with increasing SBP and DBP. The same results were found with an HR of 120 bpm. The trends of CF variation with BP were similar in all valves however the drop below the lower physiological CF limit was valve dependent. CONCLUSION: In a controlled in vitro system, with different aortic valve prostheses in place, CF decreased below the physiologic minimum when SBP and DBP were in the range targeted by blood pressure guidelines. Combined with recent observations from patients treated with AVR, these findings underscore the need for additional studies to identify the optimal BP in patients treated with AVR for AS.

Characteristics and clinical outcomes in patients with prior chest radiation undergoing TAVR: Observations from PARTNER-2.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to investigate the viability of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) in patients with prior chest radiation therapy (cXRT). BACKGROUND: Since patients with prior cXRT perform poorly with surgical aortic valve replacement, TAVR can be a viable alternative. However, clinical outcomes after TAVR in this patient population have not been well studied. METHODS: From the pooled registry of the placement of aortic transcatheter valves II trial, we identified patients with and without prior cXRT who underwent TAVR (n = 64 and 3923, respectively). The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death and any stroke at 2 years. Time to event analyses were shown as Kaplan-Meier event rates and compared by log-rank testing. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated and compared by Cox proportional hazards regression model. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between the patients with and without prior cXRT (30.7% vs. 27.0%; p = 0.75; HR, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.77). Rates of myocardial infarction, vascular complications, acute kidney injury, or new pacemaker implant after TAVR were not statistically different between the two groups. The rate of immediate reintervention with a second valve for aortic regurgitation after TAVR was higher among the patients with prior cXRT. However, no further difference was observed during 2 years follow-up after discharge from the index-procedure hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR is a viable alternative for severe symptomatic AS in patients who had cXRT in the past.