Transcatheter or Surgical Treatment of Aortic-Valve Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Among low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who are eligible for both transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic-valve replacement (SAVR), data are lacking on the appropriate treatment strategy in routine clinical practice. METHODS: In this randomized noninferiority trial conducted at 38 sites in Germany, we assigned patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low or intermediate surgical risk to undergo either TAVI or SAVR. Percutaneous- and surgical-valve prostheses were selected according to operator discretion. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause or fatal or nonfatal stroke at 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 1414 patients underwent randomization (701 to the TAVI group and 713 to the SAVR group). The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 74±4 years; 57% were men, and the median Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was 1.8% (low surgical risk). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the primary outcome at 1 year was 5.4% in the TAVI group and 10.0% in the SAVR group (hazard ratio for death or stroke, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.79; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The incidence of death from any cause was 2.6% in the TAVI group and 6.2% in the SAVR group (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.73); the incidence of stroke was 2.9% and 4.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.06). Procedural complications occurred in 1.5% and 1.0% of patients in the TAVI and SAVR groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe aortic stenosis at low or intermediate surgical risk, TAVI was noninferior to SAVR with respect to death from any cause or stroke at 1 year. (Funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and the German Heart Foundation; DEDICATE-DZHK6 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03112980.).

Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients at Five Years.

BACKGROUND: A previous analysis in this trial showed that among patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, the rate of the composite end point of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year was significantly lower with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) than with surgical aortic-valve replacement. Longer-term outcomes are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either TAVR or surgery. The first primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization related to the valve, the procedure, or heart failure. The second primary end point was a hierarchical composite that included death, disabling stroke, nondisabling stroke, and the number of rehospitalization days, analyzed with the use of a win ratio analysis. Clinical, echocardiographic, and health-status outcomes were assessed through 5 years. RESULTS: A total of 1000 patients underwent randomization: 503 patients were assigned to undergo TAVR, and 497 to undergo surgery. A component of the first primary end point occurred in 111 of 496 patients in the TAVR group and in 117 of 454 patients in the surgery group (Kaplan-Meier estimates, 22.8% in the TAVR group and 27.2% in the surgery group; difference, -4.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.9 to 1.3; P = 0.07). The win ratio for the second primary end point was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.51; P = 0.25). The Kaplan-Meier estimates for the components of the first primary end point were as follows: death, 10.0% in the TAVR group and 8.2% in the surgery group; stroke, 5.8% and 6.4%, respectively; and rehospitalization, 13.7% and 17.4%. The hemodynamic performance of the valve, assessed according to the mean (±SD) valve gradient, was 12.8±6.5 mm Hg in the TAVR group and 11.7±5.6 mm Hg in the surgery group. Bioprosthetic-valve failure occurred in 3.3% of the patients in the TAVR group and in 3.8% of those in the surgery group. CONCLUSIONS: Among low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR or surgery, there was no significant between-group difference in the two primary composite outcomes. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02675114.).

Impact of untreated chronic obstructive coronary artery disease on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) recipients, the optimal management of concomitant chronic obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) remains unknown. Some advocate for pre-TAVR percutaneous coronary intervention, while others manage it expectantly. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of varying degrees and extent of untreated chronic obstructive CAD on TAVR and longer-term outcomes. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study of TAVR recipients from January 2015 to November 2021, separating patients into stable non-obstructive or varying degrees of obstructive CAD. The major outcomes of interest were procedural all-cause mortality and complications, major adverse cardiovascular events, and post-TAVR unplanned coronary revascularization. RESULTS: Of the 1911 patients meeting inclusion, 75%, 6%, 10%, and 9% had non-obstructive, intermediate-risk, high-risk, and extreme-risk CAD, respectively. Procedural complication rates overall were low (death 0.4%, shock 0.1%, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation 0.1%), with no difference across groups. At a median follow-up of 21 months, rates of acute coronary syndrome and unplanned coronary revascularization were 0.7% and 0.5%, respectively, in the non-obstructive population, rising in incidence with increasing severity of CAD (P < .001 for acute coronary syndrome/unplanned coronary revascularization). Multivariable analysis did not yield a significantly greater risk of all-cause mortality or major adverse cardiovascular events across groups. One-year acute coronary syndrome and unplanned coronary revascularization rates in time-to-event analyses were significantly greater in the non-obstructive (98%) vs. obstructive (94%) subsets (Plog-rank< .001). CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement can be performed safely in patients with untreated chronic obstructive CAD, without portending higher procedural complication rates and with relatively low rates of unplanned coronary revascularization and acute coronary syndrome at 1 year.

Three-year clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with bicuspid aortic disease: Comparison between self-expanding and balloon-expandable valves.

INTRODUCTION: Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis is a complex anatomical scenario for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Favorable short-term clinical outcomes have been reported with TAVI in this setting, but long-term data are scarce. METHODS: We retrospectively included, in a single-center registry, patients with BAV stenosis who underwent TAVI before 2020. We compared patients treated with self-expanding valves (SEV) versus balloon-expandable valves (BEV). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke and need for aortic valve (AV) reintervention at 3 years. Secondary endpoints included each component of the primary endpoint, cardiovascular mortality, permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rate, mean gradient and ≥moderate paravalvular leak (PVL) rate. RESULTS: A total of 150 consecutive patients (SEV = 83, BEV = 67) were included. No significant differences were reported between SEV and BEV groups for the primary composite endpoint (SEV 35.9% vs. BEV 32%, p = 0.66), neither for clinical secondary endpoints (all-cause mortality SEV 28.1% vs. BEV 28%, p = 0.988; cardiovascular mortality SEV 14.1% vs. BEV 20%, p = 0.399; stroke SEV 12.5% vs. BEV 6%, p = 0.342; need for AV reintervention SEV 0% vs. BEV 0%; PPI SEV 28.1% vs. BEV 24%, p = 0.620). A lower mean gradient persisted up to 3 years in the SEV group (SEV 8.8 ± 3.8 mmHg vs. BEV 10.7 ± 3.2 mmHg, p = 0.063), while no significant difference was found in the rate of ≥ moderate PVL (SEV 3/30 vs. BEV 0/25, p = 0.242). CONCLUSIONS: In this single center registry, we observed favorable 3-year clinical outcomes in nonselected BAV patients treated with different generation devices, without significant differences between patients receiving SEV or BEV.

The role of Matrix Metalloproteinase-2 and Galectin-3 as predictive biomarkers for all-cause mortality in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: Currently available risk scores fail to accurately predict morbidity and mortality in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who undergo transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). In this context, biomarkers like matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2) and Galectin-3 (Gal-3) may provide additional prognostic information. METHODS: Patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing consecutive, elective, transfemoral TAVI were included. Baseline demographic data, functional status, echocardiographic findings, clinical outcomes and biomarker levels were collected and analysed. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 89 patients (age 80.4 ± 5.1 years, EuroScore II 7.1 ± 5.8%). During a median follow-up period of 526 d, 28 patients (31.4%) died. Among those who died, median baseline MMP-2 (alive: 221.6 [170.4; 263] pg/mL vs. deceased: 272.1 [225; 308.8] pg/mL, p < 0.001) and Gal-3 levels (alive: 19.1 [13.5; 24.6] pg/mL vs. deceased: 25 [17.6; 29.5] pg/mL, p = 0.006) were higher than in survivors. In ROC analysis, MMP-2 reached an acceptable level of discrimination to predict mortality (AUC 0.733, 95% CI [0.62; 0.83], p < 0.001), but the predictive value of Gal-3 was poor (AUC 0.677, 95% CI [0.56; 0.79], p = 0.002). Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses showed that patients with MMP-2 and Gal-3 concentrations above the median at baseline had significantly impaired long-term survival (p = 0.004 and p = 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral TAVI, MMP-2 and to a lesser extent Gal-3, seem to have additive value in optimizing risk prediction and streamlining decision-making.

Prognostic Value of Left Ventricular Global Longitudinal Strain for Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Aortic Valve Disease: A Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Valvular heart disease is one of the most common heart diseases. It is characterized by abnormal function or structure of the heart valves. There may be no clinical symptoms in the early stages. Clinical symptoms of arrhythmia, heart failure, or thromboembolic events may occur in the late stages of the disease, such as palpitation after activities, breathing difficulties, fatigue, and so on. Aortic valve disease is a major part of valvular heart disease. The main treatment for aortic valve disease is valve replacement or repair surgery, but it is extremely risky. Therefore, a rigorous prognostic assessment is extremely important for patients with aortic valve disease. The global longitudinal strain is an index that describes the deformation capacity of myocardium. There is evidence that it provides a test for systolic dysfunction other than LVEF (left ventricular ejection fraction) and provides additional prognostic information. METHOD: Search literature published between 2010 and 2023 on relevant platforms and contain the following keywords: "Aortic valve disease," "Aortic stenosis," "Aortic regurgitation," and "longitudinal strain" or "strain." The data is then extracted and collated for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 15 articles were included. The total population involved in this study was 3,678 individuals. The absolute value of LVGLS was higher in the no-MACE group than in the MACE group in patients with aortic stenosis (Z = 8.10, p < 0.00001), and impaired LVGLS was a risk factor for MACE in patients with aortic stenosis (HR = 1.14, p < 0.00001, 95% CI: 1.08-1.20). There was also a correlation between impaired LVGLS and aortic valve surgery in patients with aortic valve disease (HR = 1.16, p < 0.0001, 95% CI: 1.08-1.25) or patients with aortic valve regurgitation (HR = 1.21, p = 0.0004, 95% CI: 1.09-1.34). We also found that impaired LVGLS had no significant association between LVGLS and mortality during the period of follow-up in patients with aortic valve stenosis (HR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.94-1.25, p = 0.28), but it was associated with mortality in studies of prospective analyses (HR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.02-1.75, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Impaired LVGLS correlates with major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with aortic valve disease, and it has predictive value for the prognosis of patients with aortic valve disease.

The evolution of TAVI performance overtime: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a well-established treatment for high and intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Recent studies have demonstrated non-inferiority of TAVI compared to surgery in low-risk patients. In the past decade, numerous literature reviews (SLRs) have assessed the use of TAVI in different risk groups. This is the first attempt to provide an overview of SRs (OoSRs) focusing on secondary studies reporting clinical outcomes/process indicators. This research aims to summarize the findings of extant literature on the performance of TAVI over time. METHODS: A literature search took place from inception to April 2024. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library for SLRs. SLRs reporting at least one review of clinical indicators were included. Subsequently, a two-step inclusion process was conducted: [1] screening based on title and abstracts and [2] screening based on full-text papers. Relevant data were extracted and the quality of the reviews was assessed. RESULTS: We included 33 SLRs with different risks assessed via the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score. Mortality rates were comparable between TAVI and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR) groups. TAVI is associated with lower rates of major bleeding, acute kidney injury (AKI) incidence, and new-onset atrial fibrillation. Vascular complications, pacemaker implantation, and residual aortic regurgitation were more frequent in TAVI patients. CONCLUSION: This study summarizes TAVI performance findings over a decade, revealing a shift to include both high and low-risk patients since 2020. Overall, TAVI continues to evolve, emphasizing improved outcomes, broader indications, and addressing challenges.

[Perioperative stroke after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis - incidence, risk factors and short-term outcome].

INTRODUCTION: One of the most serious complications of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is stroke that can result in increased rates of complications, morbidity and mortality postoperatively. The aim of this study was to investigate incidence, risk factors and short-term outcome in a well defined cohort of SAVR-patients. MATERIALS AND METHOD: A retrospective study on 740 consecutive aortic stenosis patients who underwent SAVR in Iceland 2002-2019. Patients with stroke were compared with non-stroke patients; including preoperative risk factors of cardiovascular disease, echocardiogram-results, rate of early postoperative complications other than stroke and 30 day mortality. RESULTS: Mean age was 71 yrs (34% females) with 57% of the patients receiving stented bioprosthesis, 31% a stentless Freestyle®-valve and 12% a mechanical valve. Mean EuroSCORE-II was 3.6, with a maximum preop-gradient of 70 mmHg and an estimated valvular area of 0.73 cm2. Thirteen (1.8%) patients were diagnosed with stroke where hemiplegia (n=9), loss of consciousness (n=3) and/or aphasia (n=4) were the most common presenting symptoms. In 70% of cases the neurological symptoms resolved or disappeared in the first weeks and months after surgery. Only one patient out of 13 died within 30-days (7.7%). Stroke-patients had significantly lower BMI than non-stroke patients, but other risk factors of cardiovascular diseases, intraoperative factors or the rate of other severe postoperative complications than stroke were similar between groups. Total length of stay was 14 days vs. 10 days median, including 2 vs. 1 days in the ICU, in the stroke and non-stroke-groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of stroke after SAVR was low (1.8%) and in line with other similar studies. Although a severe complication, most patients with perioperative stroke survived 30 days postoperatively and in majority of cases neurological symptoms recovered.

Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Conservative Treatment in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis: The AVATAR Trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) represents a class I indication in symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, indications for early SAVR in asymptomatic patients with severe AS and normal left ventricular function remain debated. METHODS: The AVATAR trial (Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Conservative Treatment in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis) is an investigator-initiated international prospective randomized controlled trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of early SAVR in the treatment of asymptomatic patients with severe AS, according to common criteria (valve area ≤1 cm2 with aortic jet velocity >4 m/s or a mean transaortic gradient ≥40 mm Hg), and with normal left ventricular function. Negative exercise testing was mandatory for inclusion. The primary hypothesis was that early SAVR would reduce the primary composite end point of all-cause death, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned hospitalization for heart failure compared with a conservative strategy according to guidelines. The trial was designed as event-driven to reach a minimum of 35 prespecified events. The study was performed in 9 centers in 7 European countries. RESULTS: Between June 2015 and September 2020, 157 patients (mean age, 67 years; 57% men) were randomly allocated to early surgery (n=78) or conservative treatment (n=79). Follow-up was completed in May 2021. Overall median follow-up was 32 months: 28 months in the early surgery group and 35 months in the conservative treatment group. There was a total of 39 events, 13 in early surgery and 26 in the conservative treatment group. In the early surgery group, 72 patients (92.3%) underwent SAVR with operative mortality of 1.4%. In an intention-to-treat analysis, patients randomized to early surgery had a significantly lower incidence of primary composite end point than those in the conservative arm (hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.23-0.90]; P=0.02). There was no statistical difference in secondary end points, including all-cause mortality, first heart failure hospitalizations, major bleeding, or thromboembolic complications, but trends were consistent with the primary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In asymptomatic patients with severe AS, early surgery reduced a primary composite of all-cause death, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned hospitalization for heart failure compared with conservative treatment. This randomized trial provides preliminary support for early SAVR once AS becomes severe, regardless of symptoms. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02436655.

Early Surgery or Conservative Care for Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: The timing and indications for surgical intervention in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis remain controversial. METHODS: In a multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 145 asymptomatic patients with very severe aortic stenosis (defined as an aortic-valve area of ≤0.75 cm2 with either an aortic jet velocity of ≥4.5 m per second or a mean transaortic gradient of ≥50 mm Hg) to early surgery or to conservative care according to the recommendations of current guidelines. The primary end point was a composite of death during or within 30 days after surgery (often called operative mortality) or death from cardiovascular causes during the entire follow-up period. The major secondary end point was death from any cause during follow-up. RESULTS: In the early-surgery group, 69 of 73 patients (95%) underwent surgery within 2 months after randomization, and there was no operative mortality. In an intention-to-treat analysis, a primary end-point event occurred in 1 patient in the early-surgery group (1%) and in 11 of 72 patients in the conservative-care group (15%) (hazard ratio, 0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01 to 0.67; P = 0.003). Death from any cause occurred in 5 patients in the early-surgery group (7%) and in 15 patients in the conservative-care group (21%) (hazard ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.90). In the conservative-care group, the cumulative incidence of sudden death was 4% at 4 years and 14% at 8 years. CONCLUSIONS: Among asymptomatic patients with very severe aortic stenosis, the incidence of the composite of operative mortality or death from cardiovascular causes during the follow-up period was significantly lower among those who underwent early aortic-valve replacement surgery than among those who received conservative care. (Funded by the Korean Institute of Medicine; RECOVERY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01161732.).

Five-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: There are scant data on long-term clinical outcomes and bioprosthetic-valve function after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis and intermediate surgical risk. METHODS: We enrolled 2032 intermediate-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at 57 centers. Patients were stratified according to intended transfemoral or transthoracic access (76.3% and 23.7%, respectively) and were randomly assigned to undergo either TAVR or surgical replacement. Clinical, echocardiographic, and health-status outcomes were followed for 5 years. The primary end point was death from any cause or disabling stroke. RESULTS: At 5 years, there was no significant difference in the incidence of death from any cause or disabling stroke between the TAVR group and the surgery group (47.9% and 43.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.25; P = 0.21). Results were similar for the transfemoral-access cohort (44.5% and 42.0%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.20), but the incidence of death or disabling stroke was higher after TAVR than after surgery in the transthoracic-access cohort (59.3% vs. 48.3%; hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.71). At 5 years, more patients in the TAVR group than in the surgery group had at least mild paravalvular aortic regurgitation (33.3% vs. 6.3%). Repeat hospitalizations were more frequent after TAVR than after surgery (33.3% vs. 25.2%), as were aortic-valve reinterventions (3.2% vs. 0.8%). Improvement in health status at 5 years was similar for TAVR and surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with aortic stenosis who were at intermediate surgical risk, there was no significant difference in the incidence of death or disabling stroke at 5 years after TAVR as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01314313.).

Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Balloon-Expandable Valve in Low-Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with aortic stenosis who are at intermediate or high risk for death with surgery, major outcomes are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic-valve replacement. There is insufficient evidence regarding the comparison of the two procedures in patients who are at low risk. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either TAVR with transfemoral placement of a balloon-expandable valve or surgery. The primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year. Both noninferiority testing (with a prespecified margin of 6 percentage points) and superiority testing were performed in the as-treated population. RESULTS: At 71 centers, 1000 patients underwent randomization. The mean age of the patients was 73 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was 1.9% (with scores ranging from 0 to 100% and higher scores indicating a greater risk of death within 30 days after the procedure). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of the primary composite end point at 1 year was significantly lower in the TAVR group than in the surgery group (8.5% vs. 15.1%; absolute difference, -6.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -10.8 to -2.5; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.79; P = 0.001 for superiority). At 30 days, TAVR resulted in a lower rate of stroke than surgery (P = 0.02) and in lower rates of death or stroke (P = 0.01) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (P<0.001). TAVR also resulted in a shorter index hospitalization than surgery (P<0.001) and in a lower risk of a poor treatment outcome (death or a low Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score) at 30 days (P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in major vascular complications, new permanent pacemaker insertions, or moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, the rate of the composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year was significantly lower with TAVR than with surgery. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02675114.).

Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Valve in Low-Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at increased risk for death from surgery; less is known about TAVR in low-risk patients. METHODS: We performed a randomized noninferiority trial in which TAVR with a self-expanding supraannular bioprosthesis was compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients who had severe aortic stenosis and were at low surgical risk. When 850 patients had reached 12-month follow-up, we analyzed data regarding the primary end point, a composite of death or disabling stroke at 24 months, using Bayesian methods. RESULTS: Of the 1468 patients who underwent randomization, an attempted TAVR or surgical procedure was performed in 1403. The patients' mean age was 74 years. The 24-month estimated incidence of the primary end point was 5.3% in the TAVR group and 6.7% in the surgery group (difference, -1.4 percentage points; 95% Bayesian credible interval for difference, -4.9 to 2.1; posterior probability of noninferiority >0.999). At 30 days, patients who had undergone TAVR, as compared with surgery, had a lower incidence of disabling stroke (0.5% vs. 1.7%), bleeding complications (2.4% vs. 7.5%), acute kidney injury (0.9% vs. 2.8%), and atrial fibrillation (7.7% vs. 35.4%) and a higher incidence of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation (3.5% vs. 0.5%) and pacemaker implantation (17.4% vs. 6.1%). At 12 months, patients in the TAVR group had lower aortic-valve gradients than those in the surgery group (8.6 mm Hg vs. 11.2 mm Hg) and larger effective orifice areas (2.3 cm2 vs. 2.0 cm2). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding supraannular bioprosthesis was noninferior to surgery with respect to the composite end point of death or disabling stroke at 24 months. (Funded by Medtronic; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02701283.).

Cumulative incidence and predictors of acquired aortic stenosis in a large population of men followed for up to 43 years.

BACKGROUND: Acquired aortic stenosis (AS) increases with age and has high mortality without intervention. Factors predicting its development are unclear, although atherosclerotic factors are assumed to be involved. Our aim in this study is to estimate the lifetime cumulative incidence and predictors of AS in middle-aged men. METHODS: We included a random sample of men (n = 9998) born 1915-1925 in Gothenburg, Sweden. From them, 7,494 were examined and followed until a diagnosis of AS or death (maximum follow-up time 42.8 years). We identified AS diagnosis from the Swedish National Patient Registry and deaths from the Swedish Cause of Death Registry by using International Classification of Disease (ICD) diagnostic criteria. To study time-dependent relationships between AS and risk factors with death as the competing risk, we divided the cohort into three overlapping follow-up groups: 25-43, 30-43 and 35-43 years. We used age-adjusted Cox proportional hazards model to identify predictors of AS. RESULTS: The lifelong cumulative incidence of AS was 3.2%. At baseline, participants in the third group had a healthier lifestyle, lower body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, and serum cholesterol levels. Higher BMI, obesity, cholesterol, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, smoking and heredity for stroke were associated with AS. With BMI of 20-22.5 as a reference, hazard ratios of being diagnosed with AS for men with a baseline BMI of 25-27.5 kg/m2, 27.5-30 kg/m2 and > 30 kg/m2 were 1.99 (95% CI 1.12-3.55), 2.98 (95% CI 1.65-5.40) and 3.55 (95% CI 1.84-6.87), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The lifetime cumulative incidence of AS in middle-aged male population was 3.2%. Multiple atherosclerotic risk factors, particularly high BMI might be associated with a higher risk of developing AS.

Proposal criteria of paradoxical low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis for predicting prognosis in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: Paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient (PLF-LG) aortic stenosis (AS) is associated with poor prognosis in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). This study aimed to verify the conventional criteria of PLF-LG AS (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] > 50%, mean aortic valve pressure gradient [AVPG] < 40 mm Hg and stroke volume index [SVI] < 35 ml/m2 by measuring Doppler method) compatible for predicting prognosis in patients undergoing TAVI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 128 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI for AS with LVEF > 50% were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the hospital readmission due to heart failure (HRHF) and the secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality after hospital discharge. The patients were classified by both the conventional criteria of PLF-LG AS and the proposal criteria of PLF-LG AS if mean aortic valve pressure gradient (AVPG) < 40 mmHg and SVI by measuring Simpson's method < cut off value based on the ROC curve for predicting HRHF. RESULTS: According to the conventional criteria, only 6 patients were diagnosed with PLF-LG AS. However, according to the proposal criteria, 16 patients were diagnosed with PLF-LG AS. Fourteen patients developed HRHF during the follow-up period after TAVI. Based on the ROC curves, SVI by measuring Simpson's method (cut off value = 25 ml/m2) had higher sensitivity and specificity for predicting HRHF (AUC = 0.74, p = 0.0013) than SVI by measuring Doppler method (AUC = 0.63, p = 0.045). The multivariate analysis revealed that PLF-LG AS defined by the proposal criteria (HR: 5.25; 95% CI: 1.60-17.16; p = 0.0073) but not by the conventional criteria was independently associated with HRHF. PLF-LG AS defined by the conventional criteria and the proposal criteria were not associated with all-cause mortality in the univariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated that new criteria of PLF-LG AS defined as SVI < 25 ml/m2 measured by Simpson's method could predict HRHF in patients with severe AS who underwent TAVI.

Effect of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement on All-Cause Mortality in Patients With Aortic Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement and is the treatment of choice for patients at high operative risk. The role of TAVI in patients at lower risk is unclear. Objective: To determine whether TAVI is noninferior to surgery in patients at moderately increased operative risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized clinical trial conducted at 34 UK centers, 913 patients aged 70 years or older with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and moderately increased operative risk due to age or comorbidity were enrolled between April 2014 and April 2018 and followed up through April 2019. Interventions: TAVI using any valve with a CE mark (indicating conformity of the valve with all legal and safety requirements for sale throughout the European Economic Area) and any access route (n = 458) or surgical aortic valve replacement (surgery; n = 455). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 1 year. The primary hypothesis was that TAVI was noninferior to surgery, with a noninferiority margin of 5% for the upper limit of the 1-sided 97.5% CI for the absolute between-group difference in mortality. There were 36 secondary outcomes (30 reported herein), including duration of hospital stay, major bleeding events, vascular complications, conduction disturbance requiring pacemaker implantation, and aortic regurgitation. Results: Among 913 patients randomized (median age, 81 years [IQR, 78 to 84 years]; 424 [46%] were female; median Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality risk score, 2.6% [IQR, 2.0% to 3.4%]), 912 (99.9%) completed follow-up and were included in the noninferiority analysis. At 1 year, there were 21 deaths (4.6%) in the TAVI group and 30 deaths (6.6%) in the surgery group, with an adjusted absolute risk difference of -2.0% (1-sided 97.5% CI, -∞ to 1.2%; P < .001 for noninferiority). Of 30 prespecified secondary outcomes reported herein, 24 showed no significant difference at 1 year. TAVI was associated with significantly shorter postprocedural hospitalization (median of 3 days [IQR, 2 to 5 days] vs 8 days [IQR, 6 to 13 days] in the surgery group). At 1 year, there were significantly fewer major bleeding events after TAVI compared with surgery (7.2% vs 20.2%, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.33 [95% CI, 0.24 to 0.45]) but significantly more vascular complications (10.3% vs 2.4%; adjusted HR, 4.42 [95% CI, 2.54 to 7.71]), conduction disturbances requiring pacemaker implantation (14.2% vs 7.3%; adjusted HR, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.43 to 2.94]), and mild (38.3% vs 11.7%) or moderate (2.3% vs 0.6%) aortic regurgitation (adjusted odds ratio for mild, moderate, or severe [no instance of severe reported] aortic regurgitation combined vs none, 4.89 [95% CI, 3.08 to 7.75]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients aged 70 years or older with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and moderately increased operative risk, TAVI was noninferior to surgery with respect to all-cause mortality at 1 year. Trial Registration: isrctn.com Identifier: ISRCTN57819173.

Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Propensity-Matched Comparison From the FRANCE-TAVI Registry.

BACKGROUND: No randomized study powered to compare balloon expandable (BE) with self expanding (SE) transcatheter heart valves (THVs) on individual end points after transcatheter aortic valve replacement has been conducted to date. METHODS: From January 2013 to December 2015, the FRANCE-TAVI nationwide registry (Registry of Aortic Valve Bioprostheses Established by Catheter) included 12 141 patients undergoing BE-THV (Edwards, n=8038) or SE-THV (Medtronic, n=4103) for treatment of native aortic stenosis. Long term mortality status was available in all patients (median 20 months; interquartile range, 14 to 30). Patients treated with BE-THV (n=3910) were successfully matched 1:1 with 3910 patients treated with SE-THV by using propensity score (25 clinical, anatomical, and procedural variables) and by date of the procedure (within 3 months). The first coprimary outcome was ≥ moderate occurrence of paravalvular regurgitation or in-hospital mortality, or both. The second coprimary outcome was 2-year all-cause mortality. RESULTS: In propensity-matched analyses, the incidence of the first coprimary outcome was higher with SE-THV (19.8%) compared with BE-THV (11.9%; relative risk, 1.68 [95% CI, 1.46-1.91]; P<0.0001). Each component of the outcome was also higher in patients receiving SE-THV: ≥ moderate paravalvular regurgitation (15.5% versus 8.3%; relative risk, 1.90 [95% CI, 1.63-2.22]; P<0.0001) and in hospital mortality (5.6% versus 4.2%; relative risk, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.07-1.66]; P=0.01). During follow up, all cause mortality occurred in 899 patients treated with SE-THV (2-year mortality, 29.8%) and in 801 patients treated with BE-THV (2-year mortality, 26.6%; hazard ratio, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.06-1.29]; P=0.003). Similar results were found using inverse probability of treatment weighting using propensity score analysis. CONCLUSION: The present study suggests that use of SE-THV was associated with a higher risk of paravalvular regurgitation and higher in-hospital and 2-year mortality compared with use of BE-THV. These data strongly support the need for a randomized trial sufficiently powered to compare the latest generation of SE-THV and BE-THV. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01777828.

Impact of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Durability on Life Expectancy in Low-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Recent clinical trial results showed that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is noninferior and may be superior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for mortality, stroke, and rehospitalization. However, the impact of transcatheter valve durability remains uncertain. METHODS: Discrete event simulation was used to model hypothetical scenarios of TAVR versus SAVR durability in which TAVR failure times were varied to determine the impact of TAVR valve durability on life expectancy in a cohort of low-risk patients similar to those in recent trials. Discrete event simulation modeling was used to estimate the tradeoff between a less invasive procedure with unknown valve durability (TAVR) and that of a more invasive procedure with known durability (SAVR). Standardized differences were calculated, and a difference >0.10 was considered clinically significant. In the base-case analysis, patients with structural valve deterioration requiring reoperation were assumed to undergo a valve-in-valve TAVR procedure. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the impact of TAVR valve durability on life expectancy in younger age groups (40, 50, and 60 years). RESULTS: Our cohort consisted of patients with aortic stenosis at low surgical risk with a mean age of 73.4±5.9 years. In the base-case scenario, the standardized difference in life expectancy was <0.10 between TAVR and SAVR until transcatheter valve prosthesis failure time was 70% shorter than that of surgical prostheses. At a transcatheter valve failure time <30% compared with surgical valves, SAVR was the preferred option. In younger patients, life expectancy was reduced when TAVR durability was 30%, 40%, and 50% shorter than that of surgical valves in 40-, 50-, and 60-year-old patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: According to our simulation models, the durability of TAVR valves must be 70% shorter than that of surgical valves to result in reduced life expectancy in patients with demographics similar to those of recent trials. However, in younger patients, this threshold for TAVR valve durability was substantially higher. These findings suggest that durability concerns should not influence the initial treatment decision concerning TAVR versus SAVR in older low-risk patients on the basis of current evidence supporting TAVR valve durability. However, in younger low-risk patients, valve durability must be weighed against other patient factors such as life expectancy.

Impact of Sapien 3 Balloon-Expandable Versus Evolut R Self-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Aortic Stenosis: Data From a Nationwide Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Two competing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) technologies are currently available. Head-to-head comparisons of the relative performances of these 2 devices have been published. However, long-term clinical outcome evaluation remains limited by the number of patients analyzed, in particular, for recent-generation devices. METHODS: Based on the French administrative hospital-discharge database, the study collected information for all consecutive patients treated with a TAVR device commercialized in France between 2014 and 2018. Propensity score matching was used for the analysis of outcomes during follow-up. The objective of this study was to analyze the outcomes of TAVR according to Sapien 3 balloon-expandable (BE) versus Evolut R self-expanding TAVR technology at a nationwide level in France. RESULTS: A total of 31 113 patients treated with either Sapien 3 BE or Evolut R self-expanding TAVR were found in the database. After matching on baseline characteristics, 20 918 patients were analyzed (10 459 in each group with BE or self-expanding valves). During follow-up (mean [SD], 358 [384]; median [interquartile range], 232 [10-599] days), BE TAVR was associated with a lower yearly incidence of all-cause death (relative risk, 0.88; corrected P=0.005), cardiovascular death (relative risk, 0.82; corrected P=0.002), and rehospitalization for heart failure (relative risk, 0.84; corrected P<0.0001). BE TAVR was also associated with lower rates of pacemaker implantation after the procedure (relative risk, 0.72; corrected P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the largest cohort available, we observed that Sapien 3 BE valves were associated with lower rates of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, rehospitalization for heart failure, and pacemaker implantation after a TAVR procedure.

Comparison of Self-Expanding Bioprostheses for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis: SCOPE 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Few randomized trials have compared bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and no trials have compared bioprostheses with supra-annular design. The SCOPE 2 trial (Safety and Efficacy Comparison of Two TAVI Systems in a Prospective Randomized Evaluation 2) was designed to compare the clinical outcomes of the ACURATE neo and CoreValve Evolut bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. METHODS: SCOPE 2 was a randomized trial performed at 23 centers in 6 countries between April 2017 and April 2019. Patients ≥75 years old with an indication for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement as agreed by the heart team were randomly assigned to receive treatment with either the ACURATE neo (n=398) or the CoreValve Evolut bioprostheses (n=398). The primary end point, powered for noninferiority of the ACURATE neo bioprosthesis, was all-cause death or stroke at 1 year. The key secondary end point, powered for superiority of the ACURATE neo bioprosthesis, was new permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days. RESULTS: Among 796 randomized patients (mean age, 83.2±4.3 years; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score, 4.6±2.9%), clinical follow-up information was available for 778 (98%) patients. Within 1 year, the primary end point occurred in 15.8% of patients in the ACURATE neo group and in 13.9% of patients in the CoreValve Evolut group (absolute risk difference, 1.8%, upper 1-sided 95% confidence limit, 6.1%; P=0.0549 for noninferiority). The 30-day rates of new permanent pacemaker implantation were 10.5% in the ACURATE neo group and 18.0% in the CoreValve Evolut group (absolute risk difference, -7.5% [95% CI, -12.4 to -2.60]; P=0.0027). No significant differences were observed in the components of the primary end point. Cardiac death at 30 days (2.8% versus 0.8%; P=0.03) and 1 year (8.4% versus 3.9%; P=0.01), and moderate or severe aortic regurgitation at 30 days (10% versus 3%; P=0.002) were significantly increased in the ACURATE neo group. CONCLUSIONS: Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the self-expanding ACURATE neo did not meet noninferiority compared with the self-expanding CoreValve Evolut in terms of all-cause death or stroke at 1 year, and it was associated with a lower incidence of new permanent pacemaker implantation. In secondary analyses, the ACURATE neo was associated with more moderate or severe aortic regurgitation at 30 days and cardiac death at 30 days and 1 year. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03192813.