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.

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)