Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Complex Coronary Artery Disease.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare, in a cohort of patients with complex coronary artery disease (CAD) and severe aortic stenosis (AS), the clinical outcomes associated with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (plus percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) (plus coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]). BACKGROUND: Patients with complex CAD were excluded from the main randomized trials comparing TAVR with SAVR, and no data exist comparing TAVR + PCI vs SAVR + CABG in such patients. METHODS: A multicenter study was conducted including consecutive patients with severe AS and complex CAD (SYNTAX [Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery] score >22 or unprotected left main disease). A 1:1 propensity-matched analysis was performed to account for unbalanced covariates. The rates of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), including all-cause mortality, nonprocedural myocardial infarction, need for new coronary revascularization, and stroke, were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 800 patients (598 undergoing SAVR + CABG and 202 undergoing transfemoral TAVR + PCI) were included, and after propensity matching, a total of 156 pairs of patients were generated. After a median follow-up period of 3 years (interquartile range: 1-6 years), there were no significant differences between groups for MACCE (HR for transfemoral TAVR vs SAVR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.89-1.98), all-cause mortality (HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.81-1.94), myocardial infarction (HR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.41-3.27), and stroke (HR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.13-1.32), but there was a higher rate of new coronary revascularization in the TAVR + PCI group (HR: 5.38; 95% CI: 1.73-16.7). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe AS and complex CAD, TAVR + PCI and SAVR + CABG were associated with similar rates of MACCE after a median follow-up period of 3 years, but TAVR + PCI recipients exhibited a higher risk for repeat coronary revascularization. Future trials are warranted.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve overexpansion for treating a large dysfunctional tricuspid bioprosthesis.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation within dysfunctional surgical bioprosthesis has become an alternative to redo open-heart surgery. However, suitability for valve-in-valve implantation in the tricuspid position is often limited by large surgical valve sizes. We report a case of a transcatheter tricuspid valve-in-valve implantation with a 29-mm balloon-expandable prosthesis within a 33-mm failed bioprosthesis (exceeding manufacturer's sizing recommendations). Overexpansion of a 29-mm SAPIEN XT valve by 1-ml overfilling of the deployment balloon was successfully performed, with no valve dislocation/embolization or residual tricuspid regurgitation. This case illustrates the feasibility of tricuspid valve-in-valve procedures in selected patients with large failed tricuspid bioprostheses.