Multicenter experience with valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with primary, native valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers an alternative to reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement. The short- and intermediate-term outcomes after ViV TAVR in the real world are not entirely clear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of 121 ViV TAVR patients and 2200 patients undergoing primary native valve TAVR from 2012 to 2017 at six medical centers. The main outcome measures were in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury, and pacemaker implantation. RESULTS: ViV patients were more likely male, younger, prior coronary artery bypass graft, "hostile chest," and urgent. 30% of the patients had Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score <4%, 36.3% were 4%-8% and 33.8% were >8%. In both groups many patients had concomitant coronary artery disease. Median time to prosthetic failure was 9.6 years (interquartile range: 5.5-13.5 years). 82% of failed surgical valves were size 21, 23, or 25 mm. Access was 91% femoral. After ViV, 87% had none or trivial aortic regurgitation. Mean gradients were <20 mmHg in 54.6%, 20-29 mmHg in 30.6%, 30-39 mmHg in 8.3% and ≥40 mmHg in 5.87%. Median length of stay was 4 days. In-hospital mortality was 0%. 30-day mortality was 0% in ViV and 3.7% in native TAVR. There was no difference in in-hospital mortality, postprocedure myocardial infarction, stroke, or acute kidney injury. CONCLUSION: Compared to native TAVR, ViV TAVR has similar peri-procedural morbidity with relatively high postprocedure mean gradients. A multidisciplinary approach will help ensure patients receive the ideal therapy in the setting of structural bioprosthetic valve degeneration.

Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: 2-year follow-up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the 2-year outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). BACKGROUND: In patients with multivessel CAD undergoing PCI, coronary angiography is the standard method for guiding stent placement. The FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study showed that routine FFR in addition to angiography improves outcomes of PCI at 1 year. It is unknown if these favorable results are maintained at 2 years of follow-up. METHODS: At 20 U.S. and European medical centers, 1,005 patients with multivessel CAD were randomly assigned to PCI with drug-eluting stents guided by angiography alone or guided by FFR measurements. Before randomization, lesions requiring PCI were identified based on their angiographic appearance. Patients randomized to angiography-guided PCI underwent stenting of all indicated lesions, whereas those randomized to FFR-guided PCI underwent stenting of indicated lesions only if the FFR was 0.80, the rate of myocardial infarction was 0.2% and the rate of revascularization was 3.2 % after 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Routine measurement of FFR in patients with multivessel CAD undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents significantly reduces mortality and myocardial infarction at 2 years when compared with standard angiography-guided PCI. (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation [FAME]; NCT00267774).