Increased Rate of New-onset Left Bundle Branch Block in Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (From a National Registry).

There is a growing interest in transcutaneous aortic valve implantation (TAVI) therapy among patients with bicuspid severe aortic stenosis (BAV). Conduction disturbances remain a frequent complication of TAVI, and new-onset permanent LBBB (NOP-LBBB) post-TAVI may be a marker of worse outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the rate of NOP-LBBB following TAVI among patients with BAV as compared to tricuspid severe aortic stenosis (TAV). Patients enrolled in the multicenter (5 centers) Bicuspid AS TAVI Registry were reviewed and compared with patients with TAV. Patients with previous aortic valve replacement, other valve morphologies and those with preprocedural LBBB or pacemaker were excluded. NOP-LBBB was defined as LBBB first detected and persisting 30-days following TAVI. A total of 387 patients (66 with BAV, 321 with TAV), age 80.3 ± 7.3, 47% females were analyzed. The device success rates were 95% in both groups without any conversions to surgery. The rate of NOP-LBBB was significantly higher among patients with BAV versus TAV (29.2% vs 16.9%, p = 0.02). However, the rate of post procedural pacemaker implantation was similar (14.8% vs 12.5%; respectively, p = 0.62). In BAV and TAV groups, 1-year mortality (6.1% vs 7.2%; respectively, p = 0.75) and stroke rates (6.1% vs 3.5%; respectively, p = 0.30) were not significantly different. Multivariate analysis identified BAV as an independent predictor of NOP-LBBB (AdjOR = 2.7, 95%CI 1.3 to 5.4). Furthermore, BAV subtypes with raphe (type 1) were identified as independent predictors of NOP-LBBB (AdjOR = 3.2, 95%CI: 1.5 to 6.7). In conclusion, patients with BAV undergoing TAVI have greater risk for developing NOP-LBBB compared with patients with TAV and the presence of raphe was associated with increased risk of NOP-LBBB. The prognostic significance for this finding warrants further evaluation in future studies.

Transcatheter Replacement of Transcatheter Versus Surgically Implanted Aortic Valve Bioprostheses.

BACKGROUND: Surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are now both used to treat aortic stenosis in patients in whom life expectancy may exceed valve durability. The choice of initial bioprosthesis should therefore consider the relative safety and efficacy of potential subsequent interventions. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare TAVR in failed transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) versus surgical aortic valves (SAVs). METHODS: Data were collected on 434 TAV-in-TAV and 624 TAV-in-SAV consecutive procedures performed at centers participating in the Redo-TAVR international registry. Propensity score matching was applied, and 330 matched (165:165) patients were analyzed. Principal endpoints were procedural success, procedural safety, and mortality at 30 days and 1 year. RESULTS: For TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV, procedural success was observed in 120 (72.7%) versus 103 (62.4%) patients (p = 0.045), driven by a numerically lower frequency of residual high valve gradient (p = 0.095), ectopic valve deployment (p = 0.081), coronary obstruction (p = 0.091), and conversion to open heart surgery (p = 0.082). Procedural safety was achieved in 116 (70.3%) versus 119 (72.1%) patients (p = 0.715). Mortality at 30 days was 5 (3%) after TAV-in-TAV and 7 (4.4%) after TAV-in-SAV (p = 0.570). At 1 year, mortality was 12 (11.9%) and 10 (10.2%), respectively (p = 0.633). Aortic valve area was larger (1.55 ± 0.5 cm2 vs. 1.37 ± 0.5 cm2; p = 0.040), and the mean residual gradient was lower (12.6 ± 5.2 mm Hg vs. 14.9 ± 5.2 mm Hg; p = 0.011) after TAV-in-TAV. The rate of moderate or greater residual aortic regurgitation was similar, but mild aortic regurgitation was more frequent after TAV-in-TAV (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: In propensity score-matched cohorts of TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV patients, TAV-in-TAV was associated with higher procedural success and similar procedural safety or mortality.

Repeat Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Transcatheter Prosthesis Dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) use is increasing in patients with longer life expectancy, yet robust data on the durability of transcatheter heart valves (THVs) are limited. Redo-TAVR may play a key strategy in treating patients in whom THVs fail. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to examine outcomes following redo-TAVR. METHODS: The Redo-TAVR registry collected data on consecutive patients who underwent redo-TAVR at 37 centers. Patients were classified as probable TAVR failure or probable THV failure if they presented within or beyond 1 year of their index TAVR, respectively. RESULTS: Among 63,876 TAVR procedures, 212 consecutive redo-TAVR procedures were identified (0.33%): 74 within and 138 beyond 1 year of the initial procedure. For these 2 groups, TAVR-to-redo-TAVR time was 68 (38 to 154) days and 5 (3 to 6) years. The indication for redo-TAVR was THV stenosis in 12 (16.2%) and 51 (37.0%) (p = 0.002) and regurgitation or combined stenosis-regurgitation in 62 (83.8%) and 86 (62.3%) (p = 0.028), respectively. Device success using VARC-2 criteria was achieved in 180 patients (85.1%); most failures were attributable to high residual gradients (14.1%) or regurgitation (8.9%). At 30-day and 1-year follow-up, residual gradients were 12.6 ± 7.5 mm Hg and 12.9 ± 9.0 mm Hg; valve area 1.63 ± 0.61 cm2 and 1.51 ± 0.57 cm2; and regurgitation ≤mild in 91% and 91%, respectively. Peri-procedural complication rates were low (3 stroke [1.4%], 7 valve malposition [3.3%], 2 coronary obstruction [0.9%], 20 new permanent pacemaker [9.6%], no mortality), and symptomatic improvement was substantial. Survival at 30 days was 94.6% and 98.5% (p = 0.101) and 83.6% and 88.3% (p = 0.335) at 1 year for patients presenting with early and late valve dysfunction, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Redo-TAVR is a relatively safe and effective option for selected patients with valve dysfunction after TAVR. These results are important for applicability of TAVR in patients with long life expectancy in whom THV durability may be a concern.

Treatment of Tricuspid Regurgitation With the FORMA Repair System.

Background: Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is common and undertreated as the risk of surgery is high in this patient population. Transcatheter devices offer treatment with a lower procedural risk. The FORMA Tricuspid Valve Therapy system (Edwards Lifesciences) will be reviewed here. Device Description: The system combines a spacer placed in the regurgitant orifice and a rail, over which the spacer is delivered, that is anchored to the endocardial surface of the RV. The spacer provides a surface for leaflet coaptation. Outcomes: Eighteen compassionate care patients and 29 patients included in the US EFS trial are reviewed. Patients were elderly (76 years) and high risk (Euroscore 2 was 9.0 and 8.1%, respectively). There were 2 procedural failures in both groups. Mortality at 30 days was 0% in the compassionate group and 7% in the EFS trial. TR was reduced in both groups; 2D/3D EROA 2.1 ± 1.8 to 1.1 ± 0.9 cm2 in the EFS trial and vena contracta width 12.1 ± 3.3 to 7.1 ± 2.2 mm. Symptomatic improvement was seen in both groups; the proportion of patients in NYHA class III/IV decreased from 84 to 28% at 30 days in the EFS group, and from 94 to 21% at 1 year, in the compassionate group. Conclusions: Reduction of TR with FORMA system is feasible and sustained. Despite residual TR post-procedure, the significant relative reduction in TR severity contributes to substantial clinical improvements in patients with a FORMA device in place.

First transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation in an apicoaortic conduit.

Apicoaortic conduit surgery is an option for treating severe aortic stenosis. The implanted conduit valve may eventually fail and require replacement; this is usually performed by repeat surgery. Treating the conduit valve with a standard transcatheter heart valve is an option that has become feasible in recent years. We describe a case of a failed 23 mm CE bioprosthesis that was successfully treated with a 23 mm Sapien XT valve as a valve-in-valve procedure. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Outcomes in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is being increasingly performed in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (AS). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the procedural and clinical outcomes in patients with bicuspid versus tricuspid AS from the Bicuspid AS TAVR multicenter registry. METHODS: Outcomes of 561 patients with bicuspid AS and 4,546 patients with tricuspid AS were compared after propensity score matching, assembling 546 pairs of patients with similar baseline characteristics. Procedural and clinical outcomes were recorded according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. RESULTS: Compared with patients with tricuspid AS, patients with bicuspid AS had more frequent conversion to surgery (2.0% vs. 0.2%; p = 0.006) and a significantly lower device success rate (85.3% vs. 91.4%; p = 0.002). Early-generation devices were implanted in 320 patients with bicuspid and 321 patients with tricuspid AS, whereas new-generation devices were implanted in 226 and 225 patients with bicuspid and tricuspid AS, respectively. Within the group receiving early-generation devices, bicuspid AS had more frequent aortic root injury (4.5% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.015) when receiving the balloon-expanding device, and moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak (19.4% vs. 10.5%; p = 0.02) when receiving the self-expanding device. Among patients with new-generation devices, however, procedural results were comparable across different prostheses. The cumulative all-cause mortality rates at 2 years were comparable between bicuspid and tricuspid AS (17.2% vs. 19.4%; p = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with tricuspid AS, TAVR in bicuspid AS was associated with a similar prognosis, but lower device success rate. Procedural differences were observed in patients treated with the early-generation devices, whereas no differences were observed with the new-generation devices.