Self-Expanding or Balloon-Expandable TAVR in Patients with a Small Aortic Annulus.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe aortic stenosis and a small aortic annulus are at risk for impaired valvular hemodynamic performance and associated adverse cardiovascular clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and an aortic-valve annulus area of 430 mm2 or less in a 1:1 ratio to undergo TAVR with either a self-expanding supraannular valve or a balloon-expandable valve. The coprimary end points, each assessed through 12 months, were a composite of death, disabling stroke, or rehospitalization for heart failure (tested for noninferiority) and a composite end point measuring bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction (tested for superiority). RESULTS: A total of 716 patients were treated at 83 sites in 13 countries (mean age, 80 years; 87% women; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality, 3.3%). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the percentage of patients who died, had a disabling stroke, or were rehospitalized for heart failure through 12 months was 9.4% with the self-expanding valve and 10.6% with the balloon-expandable valve (difference, -1.2 percentage points; 90% confidence interval [CI], -4.9 to 2.5; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the percentage of patients with bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction through 12 months was 9.4% with the self-expanding valve and 41.6% with the balloon-expandable valve (difference, -32.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -38.7 to -25.6; P<0.001 for superiority). The aortic-valve mean gradient at 12 months was 7.7 mm Hg with the self-expanding valve and 15.7 mm Hg with the balloon-expandable valve, and the corresponding values for additional secondary end points through 12 months were as follows: mean effective orifice area, 1.99 cm2 and 1.50 cm2; percentage of patients with hemodynamic structural valve dysfunction, 3.5% and 32.8%; and percentage of women with bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction, 10.2% and 43.3% (all P<0.001). Moderate or severe prosthesis-patient mismatch at 30 days was found in 11.2% of the patients in the self-expanding valve group and 35.3% of those in the balloon-expandable valve group (P<0.001). Major safety end points appeared to be similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe aortic stenosis and a small aortic annulus who underwent TAVR, a self-expanding supraannular valve was noninferior to a balloon-expandable valve with respect to clinical outcomes and was superior with respect to bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction through 12 months. (Funded by Medtronic; SMART ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04722250.).

Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Valve in Low-Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at increased risk for death from surgery; less is known about TAVR in low-risk patients. METHODS: We performed a randomized noninferiority trial in which TAVR with a self-expanding supraannular bioprosthesis was compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients who had severe aortic stenosis and were at low surgical risk. When 850 patients had reached 12-month follow-up, we analyzed data regarding the primary end point, a composite of death or disabling stroke at 24 months, using Bayesian methods. RESULTS: Of the 1468 patients who underwent randomization, an attempted TAVR or surgical procedure was performed in 1403. The patients' mean age was 74 years. The 24-month estimated incidence of the primary end point was 5.3% in the TAVR group and 6.7% in the surgery group (difference, -1.4 percentage points; 95% Bayesian credible interval for difference, -4.9 to 2.1; posterior probability of noninferiority >0.999). At 30 days, patients who had undergone TAVR, as compared with surgery, had a lower incidence of disabling stroke (0.5% vs. 1.7%), bleeding complications (2.4% vs. 7.5%), acute kidney injury (0.9% vs. 2.8%), and atrial fibrillation (7.7% vs. 35.4%) and a higher incidence of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation (3.5% vs. 0.5%) and pacemaker implantation (17.4% vs. 6.1%). At 12 months, patients in the TAVR group had lower aortic-valve gradients than those in the surgery group (8.6 mm Hg vs. 11.2 mm Hg) and larger effective orifice areas (2.3 cm2 vs. 2.0 cm2). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding supraannular bioprosthesis was noninferior to surgery with respect to the composite end point of death or disabling stroke at 24 months. (Funded by Medtronic; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02701283.).

Rationale and design of the SMall Annuli Randomized To Evolut or SAPIEN Trial (SMART Trial).

BACKGROUND: The SMall Annuli Randomized To Evolut or SAPIEN (SMART) Trial was designed to compare the performance of the two most widely available commercial transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) devices in patients with symptomatic severe native aortic stenosis with a small aortic valve annulus undergoing transfemoral TAVR. Patients with small aortic valve annuli are typically female and are often underrepresented in clinical trials. METHODS: The SMART Trial is an international, prospective, multi-center, randomized controlled, post-market trial. The trial will be conducted in approximately 700 subjects at approximately 90 sites globally. Inclusion criteria include severe aortic stenosis, aortic valve annulus area of ≤430 mm2 based on multi-detector computed tomography, and appropriate anatomy for both the Medtronic Evolut PRO/PRO+ self-expanding and Edwards SAPIEN 3/3 Ultra balloon-expandable devices. The primary clinical outcome composite endpoint is defined as mortality, disabling stroke or heart failure rehospitalization at 12 months. The co-primary valve function composite endpoint is defined as bioprosthetic valve dysfunction at 12 months which includes hemodynamic structural valve dysfunction, defined as a mean gradient ≥20 mmHg, non-structural valve dysfunction, defined as severe prothesis-patient mismatch or ≥moderate aortic regurgitation, thrombosis, endocarditis, and aortic valve re-intervention. Powered secondary endpoints will be assessed hierarchically. CONCLUSIONS: The SMART trial will be the largest head-to-head comparative trial of transfemoral TAVR using the two most widely available contemporary TAVR devices in the setting of small aortic annuli and the largest trial to enroll primarily women. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov, Unique identifier: NCT04722250.

A randomized evaluation of the TriGuard™ HDH cerebral embolic protection device to Reduce the Impact of Cerebral Embolic LEsions after TransCatheter Aortic Valve ImplanTation: the REFLECT I trial.

AIMS: The REFLECT I trial investigated the safety and effectiveness of the TriGuard™ HDH (TG) cerebral embolic deflection device in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS AND RESULTS: This prospective, multicentre, single-blind, 2:1 randomized (TG vs. no TG) study aimed to enrol up to 375 patients, including up to 90 roll-in patients. The primary combined safety endpoint (VARC-2 defined early safety) at 30 days was compared with a performance goal. The primary efficacy endpoint was a hierarchical composite of (i) all-cause mortality or any stroke at 30 days, (ii) National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) worsening at 2-5 days or Montreal Cognitive Assessment worsening at 30 days, and (iii) total volume of cerebral ischaemic lesions detected by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 2-5 days. Cumulative scores were compared between treatment groups using the Finkelstein-Schoenfeld method. A total of 258 of the planned, 375 patients (68.8%) were enrolled (54 roll-in and 204 randomized). The primary safety outcome was met compared with the performance goal (21.8% vs. 35%, P < 0.0001). The primary hierarchical efficacy endpoint was not met (mean efficacy score, higher is better: -5.3 ± 99.8 TG vs. 11.8 ± 96.4 control, P = 0.31). Covert central nervous system injury was numerically lower with TG both in-hospital (46.1% vs. 60.3%, P = 0.0698) and at 5 days (61.7 vs. 76.2%, P = 0.054) compared with controls. CONCLUSION: REFLECT I demonstrated that TG cerebral protection during TAVR was safe in comparison with historical TAVR data but did not meet the predefined effectiveness endpoint compared with unprotected TAVR controls.

Effect of Mechanically Expanded vs Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement on Mortality and Major Adverse Clinical Events in High-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis: The REPRISE III Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is established for selected patients with severe aortic stenosis. However, limitations such as suboptimal deployment, conduction disturbances, and paravalvular leak occur. Objective: To evaluate if a mechanically expanded valve (MEV) is noninferior to an approved self-expanding valve (SEV) in high-risk patients with aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR. Design, Setting, and Participants: The REPRISE III trial was conducted in 912 patients with high or extreme risk and severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at 55 centers in North America, Europe, and Australia between September 22, 2014, and December 24, 2015, with final follow-up on March 8, 2017. Interventions: Participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either an MEV (n = 607) or an SEV (n = 305). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary safety end point was the 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, life-threatening or major bleeding, stage 2/3 acute kidney injury, and major vascular complications tested for noninferiority (margin, 10.5%). The primary effectiveness end point was the 1-year composite of all-cause mortality, disabling stroke, and moderate or greater paravalvular leak tested for noninferiority (margin, 9.5%). If noninferiority criteria were met, the secondary end point of 1-year moderate or greater paravalvular leak was tested for superiority in the full analysis data set. Results: Among 912 randomized patients (mean age, 82.8 [SD, 7.3] years; 463 [51%] women; predicted risk of mortality, 6.8%), 874 (96%) were evaluable at 1 year. The primary safety composite end point at 30 days occurred in 20.3% of MEV patients and 17.2% of SEV patients (difference, 3.1%; Farrington-Manning 97.5% CI, -∞ to 8.3%; P = .003 for noninferiority). At 1 year, the primary effectiveness composite end point occurred in 15.4% with the MEV and 25.5% with the SEV (difference, -10.1%; Farrington-Manning 97.5% CI, -∞ to -4.4%; P<.001 for noninferiority). The 1-year rates of moderate or severe paravalvular leak were 0.9% for the MEV and 6.8% for the SEV (difference, -6.1%; 95% CI, -9.6% to -2.6%; P < .001). The superiority analysis for primary effectiveness was statistically significant (difference, -10.2%; 95% CI, -16.3% to -4.0%; P < .001). The MEV had higher rates of new pacemaker implants (35.5% vs 19.6%; P < .001) and valve thrombosis (1.5% vs 0%) but lower rates of repeat procedures (0.2% vs 2.0%), valve-in-valve deployments (0% vs 3.7%), and valve malpositioning (0% vs 2.7%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, use of the MEV compared with the SEV did not result in inferior outcomes for the primary safety end point or the primary effectiveness end point. These findings suggest that the MEV may be a useful addition for TAVR in high-risk patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02202434.

The outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a cohort of patients with end-stage renal disease.

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a safe and effective treatment option for aortic stenosis in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). BACKGROUND: Patients with ESRD undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement have an operative mortality approaching 20% and a 10-year survival of approximately 12%. We investigated whether TAVR is a more reasonable option. METHODS: This is a multicenter, retrospective study of all patients with ESRD who underwent TAVR in 8 institutions between 12/2011 and 02/2013. Demographic characteristics, mortality, major, and minor complications were evaluated. Outcomes were stratified by operative approach. RESULTS: Forty-three patients with a mean age 76.2 ± 11.0 years and a mean STS predicted risk of mortality of 15.53 ± 8.70% underwent TAVR. Mean duration of dialysis was 45.2 ± 52.3 months (median 29.5 months). Transfemoral (TF) TAVR was performed in 31/43 (72.1%), transapical in 11/43 (25.6%), and transaortic in 1/43 (2.3%). Operative mortality was 14.0% (6/43) with TF mortality 6.5% (2/31) and 33.3% (4/12) in non-TF patients. Six-month mortality was 11/43 (25.6%: 16.1% TF, 50.0% non-TF). Complications included stroke in 2.3% (1/43) and life-threatening or major bleeding in 14.0% (6/43). Discharge to another healthcare facility was 27.0% (10/37). Readmission within 30 days of procedure for any cause was 18.9% (7/37). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ESRD who undergo TAVR are at high risk for mortality and complications. TAVR outcomes are comparable to but not substantially better than those with SAVR. Transfemoral TAVR seems to be at least as safe and effective as the current standard SAVR in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Results of a prospective multicenter trial of CTAG thoracic endograft.

OBJECTIVE: As thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAAs) are more frequently being treated with endografts, the anatomic challenges of the thoracic aorta have led to design modifications of endografts. The Conformable GORE TAG (CTAG) device (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz) was specifically designed to be more conformable in tortuous anatomy, more resistant to compression, and more accommodating to various aortic diameters compared with the original GORE TAG device. This prospective, multicenter study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the CTAG endograft in the repair of descending TAA. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter regulatory study with a primary end point of freedom from major device event through 1 month after treatment. Two-year outcomes included aneurysm-related morbidity (endoleaks and morphology changes), aneurysm-related mortality, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were enrolled between October 2009 and October 2010, with at least one endograft implanted in 50 patients. After the regulatory study successfully completed its primary end point and expanded to a continued-access phase, 15 additional patients were enrolled in the continued-access arm of the study from February 2011 until September 2011, for a total treatment group of 66 patients for the early results and 65 patients for the long-term clinical results with imaging evaluation. There was one 30-day death (1.5%), two patients (3%) with spinal cord ischemia, and two central strokes (3%) ≤30 days. Five patients (7.6%) died ≤1 year; 1 of ascending aortic aneurysm rupture, 2 of cardiac disease, and 2 of respiratory failure. The core laboratory adjudicated 1-month imaging in 60 patients (92.3%), where nine endoleaks (15.0%) were identified (1 type Ia, 4 type II, and 4 indeterminate). Forty-five patients (69.2%) had 2-year imaging with five endoleaks (11.1%; two type II and three indeterminate), and one patient had a distal aortic dilatation that required a secondary intervention. At 2 years, 20 of 38 imaged patients (52.6%) had aneurysm shrinkage ≥5 mm, 15 (39.5%) had no change in diameter, and three patients (7.9%) had an increase in aneurysm diameter of ≥5 mm. There were no conversions, fractures, compressions, or aneurysm ruptures of the treated segment through 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: This next-generation thoracic endograft has a low rate of major device events through 2 years, with no graft compressions or device failures. The data for this new endograft demonstrate favorable outcomes and confirm low risks for treatment for patients with TAA. Follow-up will be continued for 5 years.

Comparison of thoracic aortic diameter changes after endograft placement in patients with traumatic and aneurysmal disease.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate acute changes in aortic size before and after endograft placement for traumatic injury and aneurysmal disease. We hypothesize that there are inherent differences between trauma and aneurysm populations undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and that these factors may affect device choice and sizing for each group. METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated the existing digital imaging of traumatic injury and aneurysmal patients enrolled in the 0802 and 0803 multi-site trials that received the GORE Conformable TAG thoracic device. Pre- and post-treatment imaging was available for 70 traumatic injury and 54 aneurysmal patients. Post-treatment imaging was defined as being complete within 30 days of treatment. A standardized protocol was used to complete measurements of the proximal and distal maximum neck diameters through the use of the orthogonal view before imaging and at 30-day imaging. The resultant changes in diameter for each group were analyzed by means of t-tests. RESULTS: Mean increases in proximal (3.0 mm vs 2.0 mm; P < .05) and distal neck diameters (2.9 mm vs 0.7 mm; P < .01) after TEVAR are significantly greater in traumatic injury patients than in aneurysm patients between pretreatment and 30-day imaging. In both study populations, smaller pretreatment aortic neck diameters showed a larger change in neck diameter than did larger pretreatment aortic diameters. Aneurysm patients were oversized significantly more than were trauma patients at the proximal neck (9.1% vs 4.5%; P < .05). However, at the distal neck, the trauma patients were oversized more than were the aneurysm patients (17.5% vs 13.6%; P = .06). A strong correlation was found between the percentage of oversizing and change in the distal neck diameter after TEVAR in both patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that there are differences between trauma and aneurysm populations. Careful device selection may contribute to the avoidance of complications related to both undersized and oversized devices. Short-term analysis shows that TEVAR can be successfully accomplished in both trauma and aneurysm groups over a wide sizing range. Further data regarding long-term device complications are needed to better characterize this relationship.

Management of Postprocedural Conduction Disturbances Using a Prespecified Algorithm in the Optimize PRO Study.

Background: Lack of standardization in posttranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) conduction disturbance (CD) identification and treatment may affect permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rates and clinical outcomes. The safety and efficacy of a standardized TAVR CD algorithm has not been analyzed. This study analyzes the Optimize PRO post-TAVR CD management algorithm with Evolut PRO/PRO+ valves. Methods: Optimize PRO is a prospective, postmarket study implementing 2 strategies to reduce pacemaker rates: TAVR with cusp overlap technique and a post-TAVR CD algorithm. The 2-hour postprocedural electrocardiogram (ECG) stratified patients to early discharge in the absence of new ECG changes or to CD algorithms for (1) ECG changes with preexisting right or left bundle branch block (LBBB), interventricular conduction delay or first-degree atrioventricular block, (2) new LBBB, or (3) high-degree atrioventricular block (HAVB). Results: The interim analysis of the CD cohort consisted of 125/400 TAVR recipients. In the CD cohort, the 30-day new PPI rate was higher (28.1% vs 1.5%; P <.001), and 60 (48%) patients were discharged with a 30-day continuous ECG monitor. At 30 days, 90% of patients discharged with a monitor did not require PPI. Clinical outcomes, including mortality, stroke, bleeding, and reintervention, were similar in patients with and without CDs. No patient experienced sudden cardiac death. Conclusions: Effective management of CDs using a standard algorithm following Evolut TAVR provides similar 30-day safety outcomes to patients without CDs who undergo routine next day discharge. The CD algorithm may provide an effective strategy to recognize arrhythmias early, improve PPI utilization, and facilitate safe monitoring of patients after discharge.

Decreasing pacemaker implantation rates with Evolut supra-annular transcatheter aortic valves in a large real-world registry.

BACKGROUND: Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rates following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remain a concern. We assessed the PPI rates over time in patients implanted with an Evolut supra-annular, self-expanding transcatheter valve from the US STS/ACC TVT Registry. METHODS: Patients who underwent TAVR with an Evolut R, Evolut PRO or Evolut PRO+ valve between July 2018 (Q3) and June 2021 (Q2) were included. PPI rates were reported by calendar quarter. In-hospital PPI rates were reported as proportions and 30-day rates as Kaplan-Meier estimates. A Cox regression model was used to determine potential predictors of a new PPI within 30 days of the TAVR procedure. RESULTS: From July 2018 to June 2021, 54,014 TAVR procedures were performed using Evolut valves. Mean age was 79.3 ± 8.8 years and 49.2 % were male. The 30-day PPI rate was 16.6 % in 2018 (Q3) and 10.8 % in 2021 (Q2, 34.9 % decrease, p < 0.001 for trend across all quarters). The in-hospital PPI rate decreased by 40.1 %; from 14.7 % in 2018 (Q3) to 8.8 % in 2021 (Q2) (p < 0.001 for trend across all quarters). Significant predictors of a new PPI within 30 days included a baseline conduction defect, history of atrial fibrillation, home oxygen, and diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSION: From 2018 to 2021, TAVR with an Evolut transcatheter heart valve in over 50,000 patients showed a significant decreasing trend in the rates of in-hospital and 30-day PPI, representing the lowest rate of PPI in any large real-world registry of Evolut. During the same evaluated period, high device success and shorter length of stay was also observed.