LANDMARK comparison of early outcomes of newer-generation Myval transcatheter heart valve series with contemporary valves (Sapien and Evolut) in real-world individuals with severe symptomatic native aortic stenosis: a randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is an established, guideline-endorsed treatment for severe aortic stenosis. Precise sizing of the balloon-expandable Myval transcatheter heart valve (THV) series with the aortic annulus is facilitated by increasing its diameter in 1•5 mm increments, compared with the usual 3 mm increments in valve size. The LANDMARK trial aimed to show non-inferiority of the Myval THV series compared with the contemporary THVs Sapien Series (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) or Evolut Series (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA). METHODS In this prospective, multinational, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial across 31 hospitals in 16 countries (Germany, France, Sweden, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, New Zealand, Portugal, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Estonia, and Brazil), 768 participants with severe symptomatic native aortic stenosis were randomly assigned (1:1) to the Myval THV or a contemporary THV. Eligibility was primarily decided by the heart team in accordance with 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. As per the criteria of the third Valve Academic Research Consortium, the primary endpoint at 30 days was a composite of all-cause mortality, all stroke, bleeding (types 3 and 4), acute kidney injury (stages 2­4), major vascular complications, moderate or severe prosthetic valve regurgitation, and conduction system disturbances resulting in a permanent pacemaker implantation. Non-inferiority of the study device was tested in the intention-to-treat population using a non-inferiority margin of 10•44% and assuming an event rate of 26•10%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04275726, and EudraCT, 2020-000137-40, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS Between Jan 6, 2021, and Dec 5, 2023, 768 participants with severe symptomatic native aortic stenosis were randomly assigned, 384 to the Myval THV and 384 to a contemporary THV. 369 (48%) participants had their sex recorded as female, and 399 (52%) as male. The mean age of participants was 80•0 years (SD 5•7) for those treated with the Myval THV and 80•4 years (5•4) for those treated with a contemporary THV. Median Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores were the same in both groups (Myval 2•6% [IQR 1•7­4•0] vs contemporary 2•6% [1•7­4•0]). The primary endpoint showed non-inferiority of the Myval (25%) compared with contemporary THV (27%), with a risk difference of ­2•3% (one-sided upper 95% CI 3•8, pnon-inferiority<0•0001). No significant difference was seen in individual components of the primary composite endpoint. INTERPRETATION In individuals with severe symptomatic native aortic stenosis, the Myval THV met its primary endpoint at 30 days.

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.

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.

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)

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)

Transfemoral TAVI using the self-expanding ACURATE neo prosthesis: one-year outcomes of the multicentre “CE-approval cohort”

Aims: The aim of this study was to assess the safety and performance of the ACURATE neo transcatheter heart valve and its transfemoral delivery system.Methods and results: The prospective, multicentre “CE-approval cohort” consists of a prospective series of the first 89 patients implanted with the ACURATE neo prosthesis. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 30 days. Mean patient age was 83.7±4.4 years and logistic EuroSCORE I was 26.5±7.7%.Procedural success was obtained in 84 patients (94.4%). At 30 days, three patients had died, and two major strokes and one reintervention for a ventricular septal defect occurred, leading to a major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rate of 6.7%. Eight patients (10.3%) received a permanent pacemaker.At one year, 20 patients (22.5%) had died and the MACCE rate was 27%. Effective orifice area was 1.76±0.34 cm2, and mean gradient 7.5±2.8 mmHg. Only three patients (4.5%) had moderate paravalvular regurgitation. NYHA Class III/IV was present in 94.4% of patients at baseline, in 9.9% at 30 days and in 4.5% at one year post procedure.Conclusions: This first-in-human experience with a novel self-expanding heart valve showed low rates of procedural mortality, major stroke and pacemaker implantation, and good performance outcomes.

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...