Assessment of the MANTA closure device in real-life transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A single-centre observational study.

BACKGROUND: Vascular complications increase morbidity and mortality in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Data involving suture-based percutaneous vascular closure devices (VCDs) have been extensive. Although promising, data regarding the efficacy and safety of the MANTA VCD (Teleflex) are scarce. We sought to assess the safety and effectiveness of the MANTA device in a real-life unselected cohort of patients undergoing transfemoral-TAVR (TF-TAVR). METHODS: This single-center retrospective observational study included a cohort of consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) treated by our team using TAVR between January 2020 to December 2022. The primary outcome measure was access-related major and minor vascular complications according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC-3) definition criteria. RESULTS: From January 2020 to December 2022, a total of 347 patients underwent TF-TAVR were treated using the MANTA 18 Fr VCD system for vascular closure. Mean age was 82.4 ± 6.1 years (56-98 years). There were no significant differences in preoperative and procedural characteristics between patients with and without VCD-related major vascular complications. Access site-related major and minor vascular complications occurred in 20 of 347 patients (5.7%). Overall, major vascular complications occurred in 5 patients (1.4%) and device failure was seen in 17 patients (4.9%). CONCLUSION: This French real world evaluation of large-bore arteriotomy closure in TF-TAVR indicated that MANTA VCD is a feasible alternative with an acceptable low rate of access-site-related complications.

Prospective, single-centre evaluation of the safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary interventions following a decision tree proposing a no-stent strategy in stable patients with coronary artery disease (SCRAP study).

AIM: We evaluated a decision algorithm for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) based on a no-stent strategy, corresponding to a combination of scoring balloon angioplasty (SCBA) and drug-coated balloon (DCB), as a first line approach. Stents were used only in unstable patients, or in case of mandatory bailout stenting (BO-stent). METHODS: From April 2019 to March 2020, 984 consecutive patients, including 1922 lesions, underwent PCI. The 12-month primary end-point was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and target lesion revascularization. Patients were classified into conventional or no-stent strategy groups according to the PCI strategy. In the no-stent strategy group, they were further classified into BO-stent or DCB-only groups. Their metal index was calculated by stent length divided by the total lesion length. RESULTS: The no-stent strategy was applied in 85% of the patients, and it was successful for 65% of them. MACE occurred in 7.1% of the study population, including 4.2% of all-cause death. Target lesion revascularization was required in 1.4%, 3.6%, and 1.5% of patients in the conventional DES, BO-stent, and DCB-only groups, respectively. MACE occurred more often in the elderly and in those treated with at least one stent (metal index greater than 0). CONCLUSIONS: The no-stent strategy, i.e., revascularization of coronary lesions by SCBA followed by DCB and with DES bailout stenting, was effective and safe at 1 year. This PCI approach was applicable on a daily practice in our cath lab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03893396, first posted on March 28, 2019). Feasibility, safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary interventions following a decision tree proposing a no-stent strategy in stable patients with coronary artery disease. DES: drug eluting stent; SCBA: scoring balloon angioplasty; BO-stent: at least one stent; DCB: drug coated balloon; BMS: bare metal stent; Bailout (dash lines); MACE: major adverse cardiac event.

Left Ventricular Rapid Pacing Via the Valve Delivery Guidewire in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated whether left ventricular (LV) stimulation via a guidewire-reduced procedure duration while maintaining efficacy and safety compared with standard right ventricular (RV) stimulation. BACKGROUND: Rapid ventricular pacing is necessary to ensure cardiac standstill during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS: This is a prospective, multicenter, single-blinded, superiority, randomized controlled trial. Patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR with a SAPIEN valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) were allocated to LV or RV stimulation. The primary endpoint was procedure duration. Secondary endpoints included efficacy, safety, and cost at 30 days. RESULTS: Between May 2017 and May 2018, 307 patients were randomized, but 4 were excluded because they did not receive the intended treatment: 303 patients were analyzed in the LV (n = 151) or RV (n = 152) stimulation groups. Mean procedure duration was significantly shorter in the LV stimulation group (48.4 ± 16.9 min vs. 55.6 ± 26.9 min; p = 0.0013), with a difference of -0.12 (95% confidence interval: -0.20 to -0.05) in the log-transformed procedure duration (p = 0.0012). Effective stimulation was similar in the LV and RV stimulation groups: 124 (84.9%) versus 128 (87.1%) (p = 0.60). Safety of stimulation was also similar in the LV and RV stimulation groups: procedural success occurred in 151 (100%) versus 151 (99.3%) patients (p = 0.99); 30-day MACE-TAVR (major adverse cardiovascular event-transcatheter aortic valve replacement) occurred in 21 (13.9%) versus 26 (17.1%) patients (p = 0.44); fluoroscopy time (min) was lower in the LV stimulation group (13.48 ± 5.98 vs. 14.60 ± 5.59; p = 0.02), as was cost (€18,807 ± 1,318 vs. €19,437 ± 2,318; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with RV stimulation, LV stimulation during TAVR was associated with significantly reduced procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, and cost, with similar efficacy and safety. (Direct Left Ventricular Rapid Pacing Via the Valve Delivery Guide-wire in TAVR [EASY TAVI]; NCT02781896).