Incidence, predictors, and prognostic impact of new permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVR with self-expanding valves

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with contemporary self-expanding valves (SEV). BACKGROUND: Need for PPI is frequent post-TAVR, but conflicting data exist on new-generation SEV and on the prognostic impact of PPI. METHODS: This study included 3,211 patients enrolled in the multicenter NEOPRO (A Multicenter Comparison of Acurate NEO Versus Evolut PRO Transcatheter Heart Valves) and NEOPRO-2 (A Multicenter Comparison of ACURATE NEO2 Versus Evolut PRO/PRO+ Transcatheter Heart Valves 2) registries (January 2012 to December 2021) who underwent transfemoral TAVR with SEV. Implanted transcatheter heart valves (THV) were Acurate neo (n = 1,090), Acurate neo2 (n = 665), Evolut PRO (n = 1,312), and Evolut PRO+ (n = 144). Incidence and predictors of new PPI and 1-year outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: New PPI was needed in 362 patients (11.3%) within 30 days after TAVR (8.8%, 7.7%, 15.2%, and 10.4%, respectively, after Acurate neo, Acurate neo2, Evolut PRO, and Evolut PRO+). Independent predictors of new PPI were Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score, baseline right bundle branch block and depth of THV implantation, both in patients treated with Acurate neo/neo2 and in those treated with Evolut PRO/PRO+. Predischarge reduction in ejection fraction (EF) was more frequent in patients requiring PPI (P = 0.014). New PPI was associated with higher 1-year mortality (16.9% vs 10.8%; adjusted HR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.13-2.43; P = 0.010), particularly in patients with baseline EF <40% (P for interaction = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: New PPI was frequently needed after TAVR with SEV (11.3%) and was associated with higher 1-year mortality, particularly in patients with EF <40%. Baseline right bundle branch block and depth of THV implantation independently predicted the need of PPI.

Risk stratification of new persistent left bundle branch block after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

ABSTRACT Previous studies reported that new-onset persistent left bundle branch block (NOP-LBBB) was related to worse outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, these results can be confounded by the presence of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation before and after TAVI. Long-term outcomes and the risk stratification of NOP-LBBB not having PPM implantation before and after TAVI have not been fully investigated. This is an international, multicenter, retrospective study of patients who underwent TAVI from July 31, 2007, to May 8, 2020. A total of 2,240 patients were included, and 17.5% of patients developed NOP-LBBB. NOP-LBBB was associated with cardiac mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.419, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.014 to 1.985, p = 0.041) and the composite outcomes of cardiac mortality and/or heart failure readmission (aHR 1.313, 95% CI 1.027 to 1.678, p = 0.030). Patients who developed NOP-LBBB with pre-TAVI left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <40% were significantly associated with cardiac mortality (aHR 2.049, 95% CI 1.039 to 4.041, p = 0.038), heart failure (aHR 3.990, 95% CI 2.362 to 6.741, p <0.001), and the composite outcome (aHR 2.729, 95% CI 1.703 to 4.374, p <0.001). Although NOP-LBBB with pre-TAVI LVEF >40% had a significant decrease in LVEF 6 to 12 months after TAVI (-1.8 ± 9.7% vs +0.6 ± 8.1%, p = 0.003), NOP-LBBB with pre-TAVI LVEF <40% had a significant increase in LVEF 6 to 12 months after TAVI (+9.7 ± 13.6% vs +13.0 ± 11.7%, p = 0.157). In conclusion, patients with NOP-LBBB without pre-TAVI and post-TAVI PPM developed significantly worse long-term outcomes, especially in patients with pre-TAVI LVEF <40%. Further prospective investigation should be undertaken.

Haemodynamic performance and clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the self-expanding ACURATE neo2

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the ACURATE neo device has been associated with a non-negligible incidence of paravalvular aortic regurgitation (AR). The new-generation ACURATE neo2 has been designed to mitigate this limitation. AIMS: The aim of the study was to compare TAVR with the ACURATE neo and neo2 devices. METHODS: The NEOPRO and NEOPRO-2 registries retrospectively included patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR with self-expanding valves at 24 and 20 centres, respectively. Patients receiving the ACURATE neo and neo2 devices (from January 2012 to December 2021) were included in this study. Predischarge and 30-day VARC-3 defined outcomes were evaluated. The primary endpoint was predischarge moderate or severe paravalvular AR. Subgroup analyses per degree of aortic valve calcification were performed. RESULTS: A total of 2,026 patients (neo: 1,263, neo2: 763) were included. Predischarge moderate or severe paravalvular AR was less frequent for the neo2 group (2% vs 5%; p<0.001), resulting in higher VARC-3 intended valve performance (96% vs 90%; p<0.001). Furthermore, more patients receiving the neo2 had none/trace paravalvular AR (59% vs 38%; p<0.001). The reduction in paravalvular AR with neo2 was mainly observed with heavy aortic valve calcification. New pacemaker implantation and VARC-3 technical and device success rates were similar between the 2 groups; there were more frequent vascular and bleeding complications for the neo device. Similar 1-year survival was detected after TAVR (neo2: 90% vs neo: 87%; p=0.14). CONCLUSIONS: TAVR with the ACURATE neo2 device was associated with a lower prevalence of moderate or severe paravalvular AR and more patients with none/trace paravalvular AR. This difference was particularly evident with heavy aortic valve calcification.

Temporal Trends, Characteristics, and Outcomes of Infective Endocarditis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND: Procedural improvements combined with the contemporary clinical profile of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may have influenced the incidence and outcomes of infective endocarditis (IE) following TAVR. We aimed to determine the temporal trends, characteristics, and outcomes of IE post-TAVR. METHODS: Observational study including 552 patients presenting definite IE post-TAVR. Patients were divided in 2 groups according to the timing of TAVR (historical cohort [HC]: before 2014; contemporary cohort [CC]: after 2014). RESULTS: Overall incidence rates of IE were similar in both cohorts (CC vs HC: 5.45 vs 6.52 per 1000 person-years; P = .12), but the rate of early IE was lower in the CC (2.29‰ vs 4.89‰, P < .001). Enterococci were the most frequent microorganism. Most patients presented complicated IE (CC: 67.7%; HC: 69.6%; P = .66), but the rate of surgical treatment remained low (CC: 20.7%; HC: 17.3%; P = .32). The CC exhibited lower rates of in-hospital acute kidney injury (35.1% vs 44.6%; P = .036) and in-hospital (26.6% vs 36.4%; P = .016) and 1-year (37.8% vs 53.5%; P < .001) mortality. Higher logistic EuroScore, Staphylococcus aureus etiology, and complications (stroke, heart failure, and acute renal failure) were associated with in-hospital mortality in multivariable analyses (P < .05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Although overall IE incidence has remained stable, the incidence of early IE has declined in recent years. The microorganism, high rate of complications, and very low rate of surgical treatment remained similar. In-hospital and 1-year mortality rates were high but progressively decreased over time.

Balloon-expandable or self-expandable valves in valve-in valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation?

BACKGROUND Bioprosthetic valves are increasingly implanted in patients with aortic valve stenosis. These valves have a limited durability. Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implanta tion (TAVI) is a treatment option for bioprosthetic valve failure. Both balloon-expandable (BE) and self-expandable (SE) valves are widely used in ViV-TAVI procedures. However, studies comparing outcomes between these fundamentally different valve designs in ViV-TAVI are lacking. METHODS The CENTER study is a patient pooled analysis, comprising data of 12,381 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI in 6 countries. We assessed differences in clinical outcomes between SE and BE valves in ViV-TAVI patients, as defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium. RESULTS A total of 256 patients were treated with transfemoral ViV TAVI. Of these, 50% were female, median age was 82 (IQR: 78-85) years, and median STS-PROM was 6.3% (IQR: 4.0%-10.4%). SE valves were used in 162 patients (63%) and BE valves in 94 (37%) patients. SE and BE valve recipients were similar regarding female sex (53% vs 47%; P » 0.38), age (82 years [78-85] vs 81 [78-84]; P » 0.24), and STS PROM (6.5% [4.2%-10.2%] vs 6.2% [4.0%-10.9%]; P » 1.00). Third generation valves were used in 91 (56%) of SE valves and in 40 (43%) of BE valves. There was a trend towards lower 30-day mortality in SE valve patients (3% vs 7%; RR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.11-1.26; P » 0.10). In addition, 30-day major bleeding was less frequent in SE valve patients (3% vs 13%; RR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.09-0.79; P » 0.01). Rates of conversion to surgery (1% vs 0; P » 0.44) and device success were similar (90% vs 92%; P » 0.62). Moreover, 30-day rates of stroke (1.9% vs 4.6%; P » 0.22), myocardial infarction (0.7% vs 1.8%; P » 0.46), and permanent pacemaker implantation (9.3% vs 7.9%; P » 0.70) were similar. There was no difference in 1-year mortality (12.5% vs 17.6%; P » 0.32) and stroke rates (3.7% vs 7.4%; P » 0.25). CONCLUSION There was a trend toward lower 30-day mortality in ViV-TAVI patients treated with SE valves. Moreover, the use of SE valves in ViV-TAVI was associated with lower rates of major bleeding than BE valves. Our findings warrant randomized controlled trials directly comparing SE and BE valves in ViV-TAVI patients.

Atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation is associated with increased mortality

BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in patients with aortic valve stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implanta tion (TAVI). We compared clinical outcomes between TAVI patients with baseline AF versus TAVI patients without AF. METHODS The CENTER study is an international collaboration including 12,381 patients treated with transfemoral TAVI. This pooled analysis consists of patient level data from 10 different studies. End points were stroke and mortality rates at 30 days and 1 year after TAVI as defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium. RESULTS Of the 12,381 patients, 58% were female, the mean age was 81.5 7.0 years, and the median logistic EuroSCORE was 14.4% (9.0%- 23.0%). A total of 3,354 patients (27%) had known baseline AF. In patients with AF, there was a trend toward higher in-hospital mor tality (5.3% vs 3.5%; relative risk [RR]: 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.99-1.41; P » 0.06). Moreover, 30-day mortality (7.1% vs 5.3%; RR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.16-1.59; P < 0.001) as well as 1-year mortality (20.8% vs 15.3%; RR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.23-1.52; P < 0.001) was higher in AF patients. In contrast, stroke rates were comparable in patients with versus without AF during hospital admission (2.2% vs 2.0%, P » 0.60), at 30 days (2.9% vs 2.4%, P » 0.18), and 1 year after TAVI (5.3% vs 5.1%, P » 0.75). Also, 30-day rates of myocardial infarction (0.8% vs 1.0%, P » 0.38) and major bleeding (7.6% vs 7.3%, P » 0.53) were similar between both patient groups. However, permanent pace makers were more frequently implanted in AF patients (14.8% vs 13.4%; RR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.00-1.23; P » 0.05). CONCLUSION In this global study of >12,000 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI, AF was associated with higher 30-day and 1-year mortality. Moreover, patients with AF more frequently required a permanent pacemaker. Although AF is a common condition in pa tients undergoing TAVI, it is undoubtedly not a benign arrhythmia. Therefore, our results underscore the evident need for further research in treatment options for patients with AF undergoing TAVI.

Impact of predilatation prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the self-expanding acurate neo device (From the Multicenter NEOPRO Registry)

Safety and feasibility of transfemoral Acurate neo implantation without systematic predilatation are not fully investigated. Our aim was to evaluate the use and impact of pre-implantation balloon aortic valvuloplasty (pre-BAV) before transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with Acurate neo. The NEOPRO Registry retrospectively included 1,263 patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI with Acurate neo at 18 centers between January 2012 and March 2018. Information on preBAV was available for 1,262 patients (99.9%). Primary endpoints were pre-discharge moderate-tosevere paravalvular aortic regurgitation (PAR II+), 30-day new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), and 30-day all-cause mortality or stroke. A total of 1,262 patients who underwent TAVI with (n=1,051) or without predilatation (n=211) were included. A reduction in the pre-BAV rate was observed during the study period (from 95.7% in the first date quintile to 78.4% in the last date quintile). Patients who underwent pre-BAV had higher degrees of aortic valve (AV) and left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) calcification. Primary endpoints were similar between pre-BAV and no pre-BAV groups (PAR II+ 5.5% vs. 3.4%, p=0.214; 30-day PPI 9.0% vs. 8.0%, p=0.660; 30-day death or stroke 4.9% vs. 4.4%, p=0.743). The need for postdilatation and other procedural outcomes were comparable between groups. Predilatation did not have a significant impact on primary endpoints across AV and LVOT calcification subgroups (subgroup analyses) and was not independently associated with primary endpoints (multivariate analyses). In conclusion, transfemoral Acurate neo implantation without predilatation appears to be feasible and safe, especially in patients with milder degrees of AV and LVOT calcification. (AU)

Infective endocarditis following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: comparison of balloon- versus self-expandable valves

BACKGROUND: No data exist about the characteristics of infective endocarditis (IE) post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) according to transcatheter valve type. We aimed to determine the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients with IE post-TAVR treated with balloon-expandable valve (BEV) versus self-expanding valve (SEV) systems. METHODS: Data from the multicenter Infectious Endocarditis After TAVR International Registry was used to compare IE patients with BEV versus SEV. RESULTS: A total of 245 patients with IE post-TAVR were included (SEV, 47%; BEV, 53%). The timing between TAVR and IE was similar between groups (SEV, 5.5 [1.2-15] months versus BEV, 5.3 [1.7-11.4] months; P=0.89). Enterococcal IE was more frequent in the SEV group (36.5% versus 15.4%; P<0.01), and vegetation location differed according to valve type (stent frame, SEV, 18.6%; BEV, 6.9%; P=0.01; valve leaflet, SEV, 23.9%; BEV, 38.5%; P=0.01). BEV recipients had a higher rate of stroke/systemic embolism (20.0% versus 8.7%, adjusted OR: 2.46, 95% CI: 1.04-5.82, P=0.04). Surgical explant of the transcatheter valve (SEV, 8.7%; BEV, 13.8%; P=0.21), and in-hospital death at the time of IE episode (SEV, 35.6%; BEV, 37.7%; P=0.74) were similar between groups. After a mean follow-up of 13±12 months, 59.1% and 54.6% of the SEV and BEV recipients, respectively, had died (P=0.66). CONCLUSIONS: The characteristics of IE post-TAVR, including microorganism type, vegetation location, and embolic complications but not early or late mortality, differed according to valve type. These results may help to guide the diagnosis and management of IE and inform future research studies in the field. (AU)

Current generation balloon-expandable transcatheter valve positioning strategies during aortic valve-in-valve procedures and clinical outcomes

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate SAPIEN 3 (S3) (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) positioning using different strategies. BACKGROUND: Aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) is associated with high risk of elevated gradients. METHODS: S3 aortic ViV procedures in stented bioprostheses were studied. Transcatheter heart valve (THV) positioning was analyzed in a centralized core lab blinded to clinical outcomes. A combined endpoint of severely elevated mean gradient ($30 mm Hg) or pacemaker need was established. Two positioning strategies were compared: central marker method and top of S3 method. Optimal final depth was defined as S3 depth #20%. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients met inclusion criteria and were analyzed (76.5 _ 9.7 years of age, 65.8% male, STS score 8 _ 7.6%). THVs had incomplete shortening in comparison to fully expanded valves (92 _ 3.4%), and expansion was more complete in optimal positioning cases compared with others (93.2 _ 2.7% vs. 91.5 _ 3.5%; p » 0.027). The central marker method demonstrated greater correlation with final implantation depth than the top of S3 method (R2 of 0.48 and 0.14; p < 0.001 and p » 0.001, respectively). The combined endpoint rate was 4.3% in the optimal (higher than 3 mm) implantation group, 12% in the intermediate group, and 50% in the low group (p < 0.001). There were no cases of THV embolization. In cases with central marker higher than 3 mm, 72.4% had optimal final depth. In those with central marker higher than 6 mm, 90% had optimal final depth. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal S3 positioning in aortic ViV is associated with better outcomes. Central marker positioning is more reliable than top of S3 positioning. Central marker bottom position should be 3 mm to 6 mm above the ring. (AU)

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with next-generation self-expanding devices: a multicenter, retrospective, propensity-matched comparison of evolut pro versus acurate neo transcatheter heart valves

Abstract OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the Acurate neo (NEO) and Evolut PRO (PRO) devices. BACKGROUND: The NEO and PRO bioprostheses are 2 next-generation self-expanding devices developed for TAVR. METHODS: The NEOPRO (A Multicenter Comparison of Acurate NEO Versus Evolut PRO Transcatheter Heart Valves) registry retrospectively included patients who underwent transfemoral TAVR with either NEO or PRO valves at 24 centers between January 2012 and March 2018. One-to-one propensity score matching resulted in 251 pairs. Pre-discharge and 30-day Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 defined outcomes were evaluated. Binary logistic regression was performed to adjust the treatment effect for propensity score quintiles. RESULTS: A total of 1,551 patients (n = 1,263 NEO; n = 288 PRO) were included. The mean age was 82 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 5.1%. After propensity score matching (n = 502), VARC-2 device success (90.6% vs. 91.6%; p = 0.751) and pre-discharge moderate to severe (II+) paravalvular aortic regurgitation (7.3% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.584) were comparable between the NEO and PRO groups. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in any 30-day clinical outcome between matched NEO and PRO pairs, including all-cause mortality (3.2% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.221), stroke (2.4% vs. 2.8%; p = 1.000), new permanent pacemaker implantation (11.0% vs. 12.8%; p = 0.565), and VARC-2 early safety endpoint (10.6% vs. 10.4%; p = 1.000). Logistic regression on the unmatched cohort confirmed a similar risk of VARC-2 device success, paravalvular aortic regurgitation II+, and 30-day clinical outcomes after NEO and PRO implantation. CONCLUSIONS: (AU)

Comparison of balloon-expandable vs. self-expandable valves in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation: from the CENTER-collaboration

AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with balloon-expandable (BE) valves vs. self-expandable (SE) valves. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is a minimally invasive and lifesaving treatment in patients with aortic valve stenosis. Even though BE-valves and SE-valves are both commonly used on a large scale, adequately sized trials comparing clinical outcomes in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis treated with BE-valves compared with SE-valves are lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this CENTER-collaboration, data from 10 registries or clinical trials, selected through a systematic search, were pooled and analyzed. Propensity score methodology was used to reduce treatment selection bias and potential confounding. The primary endpoints were mortality and stroke at 30 days follow-up in patients treated with BE-valves compared with SE-valves. Secondary endpoints included clinical outcomes, e.g. bleeding during hospital admission. All outcomes were split for early-generation BE-valves compared with early-generation SE-valves and new-generation BE-valves with new-generation SE-valves. The overall patient population (N = 12 381) included 6239 patients undergoing TAVI with BE-valves and 6142 patients with SE-valves. The propensity matched population had a mean age of 81 ± 7 years and a median STS-PROM score or 6.5% [interquartile range (IQR) 4.0-13.0%]. At 30-day follow-up, the mortality rate was not statistically different in patients undergoing TAVI with BE-valves compared with SE-valves [BE: 5.3% vs. SE: 6.2%, relative risk (RR) 0.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7-1.0, P = 0.10]. Stroke occurred less frequently in patients treated with BE-valves (BE: 1.9% vs. SE: 2.6%, RR 0.7; 95% CI 0.5-1.0, P = 0.03). Also, patients treated with BE-valves had a three-fold lower risk of requiring pacemaker implantation (BE: 7.8% vs. SE: 20.3%, RR 0.4; 95% CI 0.3-0.4, P < 0.001). In contrast, patients treated with new-generation BE-valves more frequently experienced major and life-threatening bleedings compared with new-generation SE-valves (BE: 4.8% vs. SE: 2.1%, RR 2.3; 95% CI 1.6-3.3, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this study, which is the largest study to compare valve types in TAVI, we demonstrated that the incidence of stroke and pacemaker implantation was lower in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI with BE-valves compared with SE-valves. In contrast, patients treated with new-generation BE-valves more often suffered from major or life-threatening bleedings than patients with new-generation SE-valves. Mortality at 30-days was not statistically different in patients treated with BE-valves compared with SE-valves. This study was a propensity-matched analysis generated from observational data, accordingly current outcomes will have to be confirmed in a large scale randomized controlled trial. (AU)

Impact of Preexisting Left Bundle Branch Block in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Recipients

BACKGROUND: The impact of preexisting left bundle branch block (LBBB) in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) recipients is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of preexisting LBBB on clinical outcomes after TAVR. METHODS AND RESULTS: This multicenter study evaluated 3404 TAVR candidates according to the presence or absence of LBBB on baseline ECG. TAVR complications and causes of death were defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions. Follow-up outpatient visits or telephone interviews were conducted at 30 days, 12 months, and yearly thereafter. Echocardiography examinations were performed at baseline, at hospital discharge, and at 1-year follow-up. Preexisting LBBB was present in 398 patients (11.7%) and was associated with an increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI; 21.1% versus 14.8%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.12­2.04) but not death (7.3% versus 5.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.84­2.12) at 30 days. At a mean follow-up of 22±21 months, there were no differences between patients with and without preexisting LBBB in overall mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75­1.18) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.68­1.21). In a subanalysis of 2421 patients without PPI at 30 days and with complete follow-up about the PPI, preexisting LBBB was not associated with an increased risk of PPI or sudden cardiac death. Patients with preexisting LBBB had a lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at baseline and at 1-year follow-up (P <0.001 for both), but those with low LVEF exhibited a similar increase in LVEF over time after TAVR compared with patients with no preexisting LBBB (P=0.327). CONCLUSIONS: Preexisting LBBB significantly increased the risk of early (but not late) PPI after TAVR, without any significant effect on overall mortality or cardiovascular mortality. Preexisting LBBB was associated with lower LVEF pre-TAVR but did not prevent an increase in LVEF post-TAVR similar to patients without LBBB.

The Learning Curve and Annual Procedure Volume Standards for Optimum Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Findings From an International Registry

OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to determine the procedural learning curve and minimum annual institutional volumes associated with optimum clinical outcomes for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a complex procedure requiring significant training and experience for successful outcome. Despite increasing use of TAVR across institutions, limited information is available for its learning curve characteristics and minimum annual volumes required to optimize clinical outcomes. METHODS: The study collected data for patients at 16 centers participating in the international TAVR registry since initiation of the respective TAVR program. All cases were chronologically ordered into initial (1 to 75), early (76 to 150), intermediate (151 to 225), high (226 to 300), and very high (>300) experience operators for TAVR learning curve characterization. In addition, participating institutions were stratified by annual TAVR case volume into low-volume (<50), moderate-volume (50 to 100), and high-volume (>100) groups for comparative analysis. Procedural and 30-day clinical outcomes were collected and multivariate regression analysis performed for 30-day mortality and the early safety endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 3,403 patients comprised the study population. On multivariate analysis, all-cause mortality was significantly higher for initial (odds ratio [OR]: 3.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.93 to 7.60), early (OR: 2.41; 95%CI: 1.51 to 5.03), and intermediate (OR: 2.53; 95% CI: 1.19 to 5.40) experience groups compared with the very high experience operators. In addition, the early safety endpoint was significantly worse for all experience groups compared with the very high experience operators. Low annual volume (<50) TAVR institutions had significantly higher all-cause30-day mortality (OR: 2.70; 95% CI: 1.44 to 5.07) and worse early safety endpoint (OR: 1.60; 95% CI: 1.17 to 2.17) compared with the moderate- and high-volume groups. There was no difference in patient outcomes between intermediate and high annual volume groups. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR procedures display important learning curve characteristics with both greater procedural safety and a lower mortality when performed by experienced operators. In addition, TAVR performed at low annual volume (<50 procedures) institutions is associated with decreased procedural safety and higher patient mortality. These findings have important implications for operator training and patient care at centers performing TAVR.

Clinical impact of baseline right bundle branch block in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement

This study sought to assess the influence of baseline right bundle branch block (RBBB) on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality as well as sudden cardiac death (SCD) among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Few data exist regarding the late clinical impact of pre-existing RBBB in TAVR recipients. A total of 3,527 patients (mean age 82 8 years, 50.1% men) were evaluated according to the presence of RBBB on baseline electrocardiography. Intraventricular conduction abnormalities were classified according to the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology Foundation, and Heart Rhythm Society recommendations for standardization and interpretation of the electrocardiogram. TAVR complications and causes of death were defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 definitions. RBBB was present on baseline electrocardiography in 362 patients (10.3%) and associated with higher 30-day rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) (40.1% vs. 13.5%; p < 0.001) and death (10.2% vs. 6.9%; p » 0.024). At a mean follow-up of 20 18 months, pre-existing RBBB was independently associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06 to 1.63; p » 0.014) and cardiovascular mortality (HR: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.89; p » 0.006) but not with SCD (HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.22 to 2.32; p » 0.57). Patients with pre-existing RBBB and without PPI at discharge from the index hospitalization had the highest 2-year risk for cardiovascular death (27.8%; 95% CI: 20.9% to 36.1%; log-rank p » 0.007). In a subanalysis of 1,245 patients without PPI at discharge from the index hospitalization and with complete follow-up regarding the need for PPI, pre-existing RBBB was independently associated with the composite of SCD and PPI (HR: 2.68; 95% CI: 1.16 to 6.17; p » 0.023)

Association between transcatheter aortic valve replacement and subsequent infective endocarditis and in-hospital death

IMPORTANCE: Limited data exist on clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients who had infective endocarditis after undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). OBJECTIVE: To determine the associated factors, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients who had infective endocarditis after TAVR. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Infectious Endocarditis after TAVR International Registry included patients with definite infective endocarditis after TAVR from 47 centers from Europe, North America, and South America between June 2005 and October 2015. EXPOSURE: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for incidence of infective endocarditis and infective endocarditis for in-hospital mortality. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Infective endocarditis and in-hospital mortality after infective endocarditis. RESULTS: A total of 250 cases of infective endocarditis occurred in 20 006 patients after TAVR (incidence, 1.1% per person-year; 95% CI, 1.1%-1.4%; median age, 80 years; 64% men). Median time from TAVR to infective endocarditis was 5.3 months (interquartile range [IQR], 1.5-13.4 months). The characteristics associated with higher risk of progressing to infective endocarditis after TAVR was younger age (78.9 years vs 81.8 years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.97 per year; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99), male sex (62.0% vs 49.7%; HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13-2.52), diabetes mellitus (41.7% vs 30.0%; HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.29), and moderate to severe aortic regurgitation (22.4% vs 14.7%; HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.28-3.28). Health care-associated infective endocarditis was present in 52.8% (95% CI, 46.6%-59.0%) of patients...

Late cardiac death in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND Little evidence exists of the burden and predictors of cardiac death after transcatheter aortic valvereplacement (TAVR).OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence and predictors of cardiac death from advancedheart failure (HF) and sudden cardiac death (SCD) in a large patient cohort undergoing TAVR.METHODS The study included a total of 3,726 patients who underwent TAVR using balloon (57%) or self-expandable(43%) valves. Causes of death were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium–2.RESULTS At a mean follow-up of 22 18 months, 155 patients had died due to advanced HF (15.2% of total deaths,46.1% of deaths from cardiac causes) and 57 had died due to SCD (5.6% of deaths, 16.9% of cardiac deaths). Baselinecomorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, left ventricular ejection fraction #40%, lowermean transaortic gradient, pulmonary artery systolic pressure >60 mm Hg; p 160 ms had a greater SCD risk (HR: 4.78, 95% CI: 1.56 to 14.63; p » 0.006).CONCLUSIONS Advanced HF and SCD accounted for two-thirds of cardiac deaths in patients after TAVR.Potentially modifiable or treatable factors leading to increased risk of mortality for HF and SCD were identified. Future.