Coronary artery restenosis treatment with plain balloon, drug-coated balloon, or drug-eluting stent: 10-year outcomes of the ISAR-DESIRE 3 trial.

AIMS: The best interventional strategy for the treatment of drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) is still unclear and no data from randomized trials beyond 3-year follow-up are available. We aimed to define 10-year comparative efficacy and safety of plain balloon (PB), paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB), and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of DES-ISR. METHODS AND RESULTS: Clinical follow-up of patients randomly assigned to PB, PCB, and PES in the ISAR-DESIRE 3 trial was extended to 10 years and events were independently adjudicated. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, target lesion thrombosis, or target lesion revascularization. The major secondary safety endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion thrombosis. The major secondary efficacy endpoint was target lesion revascularization. Incidences by the Kaplan-Meier method were compared by the log-rank test. Risk estimation was primarily performed by Cox proportional hazards regression and supplemented by weighted Cox regression accounting for non-proportional hazards and Royston-Parmar flexible parametric regression with a time-varying coefficient. Primary results were further assessed by landmark, lesion-level, per-protocol, and competing risk analyses. A total of 402 patients (500 lesions) with DES-ISR were randomly assigned to PB angioplasty (134 patients, 160 lesions), PCB angioplasty (137 patients, 172 lesions), and PES implantation (131 patients, 168 lesions). Clinical follow-up did not significantly differ among treatments [PB, 9.62 (4.50-10.02) years; PCB, 10.01 (5.72-10.02) years; PES, 9.08 (3.14-10.02) years; P = 0.300]. At 10 years, the primary composite endpoint occurred in 90 patients (72.0%) assigned to PB, 70 patients (55.9%) assigned to PCB, and 72 patients (62.4%) assigned to PES (P < 0.001). The pairwise comparison between PCB and PES resulted in a non-significant difference [multiplicity-adjusted P = 0.610; Grambsch-Therneau P = 0.004; weighted Cox: hazard ratio (HR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-1.51; Cox: HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.79-1.52; Royston-Parmar: HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.72-1.60]. The major secondary safety endpoint occurred in 39 patients (34.1%) assigned to PB, 39 patients (34.0%) assigned to PCB, and 42 patients (40.0%) assigned to PES (P = 0.564). Target lesion revascularization occurred in 71 patients (58.0%) assigned to PB, 55 patients (43.9%) assigned to PCB, and 42 patients (38.6%) assigned to PES (P < 0.0001). The pairwise comparison between PES and PCB resulted in a non-significant difference (multiplicity-adjusted P = 0.282; Grambsch-Therneau P = 0.002; weighted Cox: HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.56-1.22; Cox: HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54-1.21; Royston-Parmar: HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.47-1.20). Lesion-level and per-protocol analyses were consistent. At landmark analyses, an excess of death and cardiac death associated with PES compared with PCB was observed within 5 years after PCI, though 10-year differences did not formally reach the threshold of statistical significance after adjustment for multiplicity. Competing risk regression confirmed a non-significant difference in target lesion revascularization between PCB and PES and showed an increased risk of death associated with PES compared with PCB. CONCLUSION: Ten years after PCI for DES-ISR, the primary and major secondary endpoints between PCB and PES were not significantly different. However, an excess of death and cardiac death within 5 years associated with PES and the results of the competing risk analysis are challenging to interpret and warrant further analysis. PES and PCB significantly reduced target lesion revascularization compared with PB.

Near-infrared spectroscopy-intravascular ultrasound to improve assessment of coronary artery disease severity in patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (The IMPACTavi registry): Design and rationale.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) was established as a standard treatment for high-operative risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Although coronary artery disease (CAD) often coexists with AS, clinical and angiographic evaluations of stenosis severity are unreliable in this specific setting. To provide precise risk stratification of coronary lesions, combined near-infrared spectroscopy and intravascular ultrasound (NIRS-IVUS) was developed to integrate morphological and molecular information on plaque composition. However, there is a lack of evidence on the association between NIRS-IVUS derived findings such as maximum 4mm lipid core burden index (maxLCBI4mm) and clinical outcomes in AS patients undergoing TAVI. This registry aims to assess feasibility and safety of NIRS-IVUS imaging in the setting of routine pre-TAVI coronary angiography to improve assessment of CAD severity. METHODS: The registry is designed as a non-randomized, prospective, observational, multicenter cohort registry. Patients referred for TAVI with angiographic evidence of CAD receive NIRS-IVUS imaging and are followed up to 24 months. Enrolled patients are classified as NIRS-IVUS positive and NIRS-IVUS negative, respectively, based on their maxLCBI4mm to compare their clinical outcomes. The primary endpoint of the registry is major adverse cardiovascular events over a 24-month follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Identification of patients likely or unlikely to benefit from revascularization prior to TAVI represents an important unmet clinical need. This registry is designed to investigate whether NIRS-IVUS-derived atherosclerotic plaque characteristics can identify patients and lesions at risk for future adverse cardiovascular events after TAVI, in order to refine interventional decision-making in this challenging patient population.

Iliofemoral artery predilation prior to transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with aortic valve stenosis and advanced peripheral artery disease.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the feasibility and safety of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) of the iliofemoral arteries (IFA) before transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (Tf-TAVI) in patients with advanced peripheral artery disease (PAD). BACKGROUND: Although Tf-TAVI represents the access of choice, alternative vascular access routes are preferred for patients displaying advanced PAD. PTA of the IFA represents a less invasive option, broadening the spectrum of patients eligible for Tf-TAVI. METHODS: All patients requiring PTA of the IFA before Tf-TAVI, between 2012 and 2021, were included. Primary efficacy endpoint was the rate of successful transcatheter heart valve (THV) delivery and implantation. Primary safety endpoint was the rate of PTA and access-site-related vascular complications, procedural- and in-hospital complications. RESULTS: Among 2726 Tf-TAVI procedures, 59 patients required IFA predilation. Successful THV delivery and implantation was achieved in 57 (96.6%) patients, respectively. Sheath placement was achieved in 59 (100%) patients with only one minor dissection and no major vascular complications following iliofemoral PTA. Regarding access site complications, two (3.4%) vessel perforations and one (1.7%) vessel rupture were observed, with eight (13.5%) patients requiring unplanned endovascular interventions. There was one intraprocedural death due to THV-induced vessel laceration, while in-hospital all-cause mortality was 8.5% in the present high-risk patient cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Predilation of IFA is safe and effective in patients with advanced PAD. Careful preprocedural planning is paramount in improving procedural safety and efficacy. This strategy has the potential to broaden the spectrum of patients eligible for Tf-TAVI.

Implantation depth of balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves and risks for permanent pacemaker implantation and midterm adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) remains a relevant complication after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and its impact on outcome remains controversial. AIMS: This study aimed to analyze the effects of implantation depth on PPI at 30 days and assess its impact on outcome with the balloon-expandable Sapien 3 (S3) prosthesis. METHODS: Between 2014 and 2018, 849 patients without previous pacemaker undergoing transfemoral TAVI with the S3 were included. Prosthesis implantation depth was measured and divided into Quintiles. An ordinal logistic regression was used to assess its association with PPI, while a multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of PPI. Survival analyses were performed with the Kaplan-Meier method and a multivariable Cox regression was performed to ascertain the impact of PPI on mortality. RESULTS: Overall, incidence of PPI at 30 days was 9.7%. Implantation depth decreased consistently from a median of 6.7 mm [5.55-8.00] in 2014 to 2.7 mm [2.30-3.50] in 2018 (p < 0.001). When considering Quintiles of implantation depth, incidence of PPI was significantly higher in upper Quintiles and risk for PPI was significantly lower for the 1. Quintile compared to the 5. Quintile (OR: 0.34, 95% CI: [0.16-0.73]; p = 0.003). In the adjusted multivariable logistic regression implantation depth persisted ad independent predictor of PPI at 30 days. Patients requiring PPI at 30 days displayed significantly higher mortality at 4 years compared to patients without PPI (49.5% vs. 40.0%; log-rank = 0.022). In a multivariate analysis, increased logistic EuroScore, diabetes mellitus, and history of atrial fibrillation, were independent predictors of all-cause mortality at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Higher prosthesis implantation relative to the virtual aortic annulus was significantly associated with reduced risk for PPI at 30 days. Patients with PPI at 30 days exhibited higher mortality during follow-up, however, only logistic EuroScore, diabetes mellitus, and history of atrial fibrillation were identified as independent predictors of mortality at 2 years.

Pushing the limits for interventional treatment of aortic valve stenosis.

As we approach 20 years of clinical experience with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), a vast portfolio of high-quality clinical data has accumulated, confirming the safety and efficacy of TAVR across the entire spectrum of surgical risk. Although many aspects of this innovative therapy have been thoroughly studied, several challenges remain. As TAVR is expanding to include younger low-risk patients, with longer life expectancy, one major unsolved issue is represented by transcatheter heart valve (THV) durability, since robust THV durability data are currently limited to approximately 5-6 years. Additionally, steric interactions between THV components and coronary ostia may render coronary access particularly difficult, and thus personalized decisions regarding THV type and implanting techniques are of paramount importance to secure future coronary access. Since bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis may be associated with unfavorable anatomic factors, it has represented an exclusion criterion in major randomized TAVR trials. Albeit promising data are available from multicenter registries, results of specifically designed randomized trials are eagerly needed to inform use of TAVR for BAV stenosis. Although valve-in-valve (ViV) TAVR has emerged as an effective treatment option for degenerated aortic bioprostheses, ViV procedures are associated with specific risks, which mandated the development of specific techniques aimed at reducing the occurrence of periprocedural adverse events. Despite the transfemoral approach represents the access of choice for TAVR, a significant proportion of patients have significant peripheral artery disease and alternative vascular access routes have been increasingly evaluated with encouraging data regarding their safety and feasibility.

Incidence of systemic inflammatory response syndrome and patient outcome following transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair.

OBJECTIVES: Systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) is a common finding after cardiovascular interventions. Data on the incidence of SIRS and its impact on outcome in patients undergoing transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (MV-TEER) for mitral regurgitation (MR) is lacking. METHODS: From January 2013 to December 2020, 373 patients with moderate or severe MR undergoing MV-TEER were included. SIRS was defined as at least two of the following criteria within 48 h after the procedure: leucocyte count > 12.0 or < 4.0 × 109/l, respiratory rate > 20 breaths per minute or PaCO2 ≤ 4.3 kPa/32 mmHg, heart rate > 90 bpm and temperature > 38.0 °C or < 36.0 °C. The primary endpoint was 3-years all-cause mortality. RESULTS: SIRS was observed in 49.6% (185/373) of patients. Patients who developed SIRS presented more frequently with NYHA III/IV at baseline [SIRS: 82.4% (149/185) vs. no SIRS: 79.0% (147/188); p = 0.029]. Patients who developed SIRS spent more days on ICU (p < 0.001) and overall length of stay was longer (p < 0.001). Relevant residual MR, defined as MR ≥ III in-hospital, was present more often in patients who developed SIRS [SIRS: 11.3% (20/177) vs. no SIRS: 3.93% (7/178), p = 0.036]. At 3 years, all-cause mortality in the entire population was 33.5% (125/373) with an increased all-cause mortality in patients with SIRS compared to patients without SIRS (HR 1.49, [CI 95% 1.04, 2.13]; p = 0.0264). In the multivariate analysis development of SIRS (HR 1.479 [CI 95% 1.016, 2.154]; p = 0.041) was identified as predictor for 3-years all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: SIRS is a common finding after MV-TEER occurring in approximately half of patients. SIRS after MV-TEER was associated with a longer in-hospital stay. In addition, we observed an increased 3-years all-cause mortality in patients with SIRS.

Multicenter comparison of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the self-expanding ACURATE neo2 versus Evolut PRO transcatheter heart valves.

BACKGROUND: New-generation self-expanding transcatheter aortic heart valves (THV) were designed to overcome technical constraints of their preceding generations. We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of the self-expanding ACURATE neo2 (Neo2) versus Evolut PRO (PRO) devices. METHODS: Seven hundred nine patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with either Neo2 (n = 496) or PRO (n = 213) were included. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to account for differences in baseline characteristics. In-hospital and 30-day clinical outcomes were evaluated according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between both groups after PSM (Neo2: n = 155, Evolut Pro: n = 155). Technical success rates were high in both groups (Neo2: 94.8% vs PRO: 97.4%; p = 0.239). Need for permanent pacemaker implantation was less frequent with Neo2 compared with PRO (7.5% vs 20.6%; p = 0.002), whereas major vascular complications were more frequent with Neo2 (Neo2: 11.6% vs PRO: 4.5%; p = 0.022). Intended valve performance at discharge was high in both groups without relevant differences among groups (Neo2: 97.4% vs. 95.3%; p = 0.328). CONCLUSIONS: Short-term outcomes after TAVI using latest-generation self-expanding THV were excellent, with overall low rates of adverse events. However, Neo2 was associated with lower pacemaker rates and reduced the prevalence of moderate-severe paravalvular leakage. Transprosthetic gradients after TAVI were higher with Neo2 compared with PRO.

ACURATE neo2 versus SAPIEN 3 Ultra for transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: No comparative data exist with the latest generation self-expanding ACURATE neo2 (Neo2) and the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 Ultra (Ultra) transcatheter heart valves (THV). AIMS: We aimed to compare the outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using the Neo2 and the Ultra THV. METHODS: A total of 1,356 patients at 4 centres were treated either with the Neo2 (n=608) or the Ultra (n=748). The primary endpoint was device success according to the latest Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions. The association of the THV used and the primary endpoint was assessed using inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) and 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), which identified 472 matched pairs.  Results: After PSM, there were no relevant differences between the groups. While rates of moderate to severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) were overall low (0.6% vs 1.1%; p=0.725), elevated transvalvular gradients (≥20 mmHg) were less frequent with the Neo2 (2.4% vs 7.7%; p<0.001), which translated into a significantly higher rate of device success with the Neo2 compared with the Ultra (91.9% vs 85.0%; p<0.001). Consistently, the Neo2 was associated with higher rates of device success in the IPTW analysis (odds ratio [OR] 1.961, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.269-3.031; p=0.002). Rates of mild PVL were significantly lower with the Ultra compared with the Neo2 (20.0% vs 32.8%; p<0.001). Clinical events at 30 days were comparable between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term outcomes after TAVI using the Neo2 or Ultra THV were excellent and, overall, comparable. However, transvalvular gradients were lower with the Neo2, which translated into higher rates of device success. Rates of mild PVL were significantly lower with the Ultra THV.

Challenges of the newer generation of resorbable magnesium scaffolds: Lessons from failure mechanisms of the past generation.

Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were developed to overcome the obstacles of metallic stents, mostly related to sustained presence of metallic foreign body in the coronary vessel. Following earlier success of single-arm BRS studies, randomized controlled trials of Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) showed poor long-term clinical outcomes, particularly in terms of scaffold thrombosis. BRS made from magnesium alloy provide a promising alternative in terms of radial force, strut thickness and, potentially lower thrombogenicity. A recent clinical study demonstrated that magnesium-based BRS seems to be promising with regards to the risk of scaffold thrombosis. In this review, our aim is to describe the issues that prevented Absorb BVS from achieving favorable outcomes, provide current status of existing BRS technologies and the challenges that newer generation BRSs need to overcome, and the results of clinical studies for commercially available magnesium-based BRS, which remain the only BRS actively studied in clinical practice.

Systemic inflammatory response syndrome in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: Data on systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are scarce and limited to small cohorts. We aimed to investigate its incidence and mid-term impact in a large cohort of TAVI patients. METHODS: From January 2018 to December 2020, 717 patients with severe aortic valve stenosis undergoing TAVI were included. SIRS was defined as fulfilling at least two of the following criteria within 48 h from the procedure: leucocyte count >12.0 or <4.0 × 109/l, respiratory rate > 20 breaths per minute or PaCO2 ≤ 4.3 kPa/32 mmHg, heart rate > 90 beats per minute and temperature > 38.0 °C or <36.0 °C. Clinical endpoints were 1-year rehospitalization for chronic heart failure (CHF) and 2-years all-cause mortality. Event rates during follow-up were calculated as Kaplan-Meier estimates. RESULTS: SIRS developed in 56.3 % (404/717) of patients after TAVI. SIRS occurred more frequently in patients with post-dilatation (SIRS 34.7 % (140/404) vs. no SIRS 23.3 % (73/313); p < 0.001) and major vascular complications (SIRS 16.1 % (65/404) vs. no SIRS 8.6 % (27/313); p = 0.004). Further, ICU days were more in patients who developed SIRS (SIRS 1.56 ± 1.50 days vs. no SIRS 1.22 ± 1.02 days; p = 0.001). At 2-years, all-cause mortality in the entire population was 23.9 %. However, there was no difference in CHF at 1-year (5.9 % vs. 4.1 %; log-rank = 0.347) nor in all-cause mortality at 2-years (22.0 % vs. 26.2 %; log-rank = 0.690) between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: SIRS is a common finding after TAVI, which may prolong hospital stay but is without effect on mortality during 2-years follow-up.

Bioprosthetic Valve Fracturing: In vitro Testing of Edwards PERIMOUNT Model P 2900.

Background: Bioprosthetic valve fracturing (BVF) results in low gradients following valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR). For the commonly used Edwards PERIMOUNT valve data from bench-testing are lacking to provide technical specifications for successful BVF during ViV-TAVR. Methods: Using four Perimount 19- and 21-mm valves, in-vitro high-pressure balloon valvuloplasty with the True Dilatation Balloon Valvuloplasty Catheter and Atlas Gold PTA Dilatation Catheter was performed to analyze balloon-oversizing and pressure-thresholds to successfully achieve BVF. Results: High-pressure balloons one millimeter larger than the labeled valve size and pressure rates of 20 atm (for Perimount 19-mm) and > 22 atm (for Perimount 21-mm) were required to achieve BVF. Caliper measurements demonstrated 2.5 mm (Perimount 19-mm) and 1.5 mm (Perimount 21-mm) enlarged inner prosthetic diameters after BVF. The Atlas TM Gold PTA Dilatation Catheter achieved BVF with the Perimount 21-mm, whereas the True TM Dilatation Balloon Valvuloplasty Catheter failed in the Perimount 21-mm either for balloon-rupture or pinhole-defect. Conclusion: Both 19-mm and 21-mm Perimount P 2900 are amendable to BVF, thereby increasing the inner prosthetic diameter. High-pressure balloons 1 mm larger than the labeled valves are essential for this purpose, and the Atlas Gold PTA Dilatation Catheter alone should ensure success in the 21-mm prosthetics.

Antithrombotic Therapy With or Without Aspirin After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Acute Coronary Syndrome in Patients Taking Oral Anticoagulation: A Meta-Analysis and Network Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Trials investigating aspirin omission in patients taking oral anticoagulation (OAC) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or acute coronary syndrome (ACS) were not powered to assess rates of major bleeding or ischemic events. METHODS: We performed an updated meta-analysis and network analysis of randomized trials comparing treatment with or without aspirin in patients taking OAC and a P2Y12-inhibitor after PCI or ACS. The primary outcome was TIMI major bleeding. RESULTS: Five trials enrolling 11,542 patients allocated to antithrombotic regimens omitting (n = 5795) or including aspirin (n = 5747) were included. Aspirin omission was associated with a lower risk of TIMI major bleeding (RR = 0.56, 95% CI [0.44-0.71]; P < 0.001) but a trend towards a higher risk of MI (RR = 1.21, 95% CI [0.99-1.47]; P = 0.06), which was significantly higher when only non-vitamin K antagonist OAC (NOAC)-based trials were considered (Pinteraction = 0.02). The risk of stent thrombosis was comparable with both strategies (RR = 1.29, 95% CI [0.87-1.90]; P = 0.20), with a trend towards a higher risk of ST with aspirin omission when only NOAC-based trials were considered (Pinteraction = 0.06). Risks of stroke and death were similar with both strategies. Network meta-analysis ranked dabigatran (low dose) without aspirin as the best strategy for bleeding reduction (P-score = 0.86) and apixaban with aspirin as the best strategy for MI reduction (P-score = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: In patients taking OAC after PCI or ACS, aspirin omission is associated with a lower risk of TIMI major bleeding, with a numerically increased risk of MI, which is statistically significant when only NOAC-based trials are considered. This supports individualization of the treatment regimen based on patient risk.

The impact of extra-valvular cardiac damage on mid-term clinical outcome following transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Aims: To quantify extra-valvular cardiac damage associated with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS), a novel staging model was proposed. This study aimed to validate this model in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as well as to assess its prognostic impact. Methods and results: Based on echocardiographic findings, the following stages were applied: isolated AS (stage 0), left ventricular (LV) damage (stage 1), left atrial or mitral valve damage (stage 2), pulmonary hypertension or tricuspid regurgitation (stage 3), or right ventricular dysfunction (stage 4). The primary endpoint was 2-year all-cause mortality. The distribution across stages was 0.8% at stage 0, 7.5% at stage 1, 63.3% at stage 2, 18.3% at stage 3, and 10.1% at stage 4. All-cause mortality increased at all stages 1-4 (12.1%, 18.2%, 26.6%, and 28.2%; p = 0.023). In the multivariate model, the stage of cardiac damage, age, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV, peripheral artery disease, and previous pacemaker were independent predictors of the primary endpoint. Conclusions: Patients treated for severe AS show a high prevalence of extra-valvular cardiac damage. An increase in stage is associated with higher 2-year all-cause mortality. The application of this staging model may add value to current treatment algorithms.

Multicenter comparison of latest-generation balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter heart valves: Ultra versus Evolut.

BACKGROUND: Direct comparisons of latest-generation balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter heart valves (THV) are scarce. To compare outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with SAPIEN 3 Ultra (Ultra) versus Evolut R or Pro (Evolut) THVs. METHODS: 1612 consecutive patients undergoing TAVR with either Ultra (n = 616) or Evolut (n = 996) were included. After propensity score matching (PSM), 467 and 205 matched pairs were identified in the entire cohort and with latest-generation THVs, respectively. Outcomes were investigated up to 30 days after TAVR. RESULTS: After PSM, baseline characteristics were comparable in the entire cohort (n = 934). Device success (92.7% vs. 87.6%; p = 0.011) and need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) (15.2% vs. 8.4%; p = 0.002) were higher for Evolut compared with Ultra. Elevated gradients (≥20 mm Hg) were less frequent (1.6% vs. 10.4%; p < 0.001), whereas rates of ≥ moderate paravalvular leakage (PVL II+) were more frequent for Evolut compared with Ultra (3.7% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.019). With latest-generation THVs (n = 410), device success was comparable (93.2% vs. 89.8%; p = 0.216), whereas the need for PPI was higher for Evolut Pro compared with Ultra (15.6% vs. 9.8%; p = 0.075). Elevated gradients were less frequent (0% vs. 8%; p < 0.001), whereas rates of PVL II+ were more frequent for Evolut compared with Ultra (5.4% vs. 1.5%; p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: Device success rates were high with both THV platforms with low rates of adverse events up to 30 days after TAVR. Compared with Ultra, Evolut was associated with higher pacemaker rates as well as PVL II+, but with less elevated gradients.

Evaluation of a Low-Dose Radiation Protocol During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a low-dose imaging protocol to reduce intraprocedural radiation during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Observational analysis: 802 transfemoral TAVI patients receiving balloon-expandable devices ≥23 mm at a high-volume centre. After propensity score matching, a standard-dose group (SD, n = 333) treated between January 2014 and February 2016 was compared with a low-dose group (LD, n = 333) treated between August 2017 and March 2019 after departmental uptake of a low-dose imaging protocol (reduced field size, high table height, use of "fluoro save," 3.75 frames/second acquisition, increased filtering). Primary end point was dose-area product (DAP). Secondary safety end points were VARC-2 device success and a composite of in-hospital complications. The LD protocol was associated with lower DAP (4.64 [2.93, 8.42] vs 22.73 [12.31, 34.58] Gy⋅cm2, p <0.001) and fluoroscopy time (10.4 [8.1, 13.9] vs 11.5 [9.1, 15.3] minutes, p = 0.001). Contrast use was higher in the LD group (LD 110 [94, 130] vs SD 100 [80, 135] milliliters, p = 0.042). Device success (LD 88.3% vs SD 91.3%, p = 0.25), and the composite end point (LD 8.1% vs SD 11.4%, p = 0.19) were similar. In multivariate analysis, the low-dose protocol was associated with a 19.8 Gy⋅cm2 reduction in procedural DAP (p <0.001). In conclusion, compared with standard imaging, a low-dose protocol for TAVI significantly reduced radiation dose without compromising outcomes.

Safety and efficacy of minimalist transcatheter aortic valve implantation using a new-generation balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve in bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves.

BACKGROUND: Bicuspid aortic valve may be associated with increased complications during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). AIMS: Compare balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve (THV) safety and efficacy in severe tricuspid (TAV) and bicuspid (BAV) aortic stenosis. METHODS: Transfemoral TAVI was performed in 743 patients (Jan 2014-June 2019) using the SAPIEN 3 THV. Aortic valve morphology was determined using computed tomography. Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) derived safety and efficacy endpoints at 1 year were evaluated. RESULTS: BAV patients (n = 78), were younger (77 [72, 81] vs. 81 [78, 85] years, p < 0.001) with lower surgical risk (EuroSCORE II 2.96% vs. 4.51% p < 0.001). Bicuspid valves were more calcified (BAV 1308mm3, TAV 848mm3 p < 0.001) with more asymmetric calcification (BAV 63/78 (81%), TAV 239/665 (36%), p < 0.001). Device success (BAV 94%, TAV 90%, p = 0.45) and major vascular complications (BAV 6%, TAV 9%, p = 0.66) were comparable. At 1 year, there was a trend toward lower combined all-cause mortality and rehospitalization for congestive heart failure in BAV patients (BAV 7%, TAV 13%, p = 0.08) with significantly lower all-cause mortality in this cohort (BAV 1%, TAV 9%, p = 0.020). VARC-2 time-related valve safety (BAV 22%, TAV 20%, p = 0.60) was comparable; however, bioprosthetic valve thrombosis remained more common in BAV patients (BAV 7%, TAV 2%, p = 0.010, Hazard ratio 3.57 [95% confidence interval 1.26, 10.10]). After propensity score matching, only bioprosthetic valve thrombosis remained significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Safety and efficacy of the SAPIEN 3 balloon-expandable THV in BAV is comparable with TAV. Higher rates of bioprosthetic valve thrombosis require further investigation.

Comparison of latest generation supra-annular and intra-annular self-expanding transcatheter heart valves.

BACKGROUND: This study compares two latest-generation self-expanding transcatheter heart valves (THV), the supra-annular ACURATE neo (Boston Scientific) and the intra-annular Centera THV (Edwards Lifesciences). METHODS: In this single center observational cohort trial 317 patients treated with the ACURATE neo and 78 patients treated with the Centera TVH were included. The main endpoints were device success and the early safety endpoint at 30 days. RESULTS: Besides higher incidence of diabetes mellitus and higher body mass index in patients treated with the ACURATE neo THV, there were no baseline differences between the groups. Device success was similar in both groups (neo: 91.8% vs. Centera: 93.6%; P=0.598), with numerically higher rates of moderate to severe paravalvular leakage in the ACURATE neo group (4.7% vs. 1.3%; P=0.214). At 30 days all-cause mortality rates were low in both groups (0.3% vs. 0%; P=0.620) and no difference occurred in the early safety at 30 days (19.3% vs. 16.7%; P=0.599). However, all-cause stroke rates were significantly higher in patients treated with the Centera THV (6.4 vs. 1.6%; P=0.015). CONCLUSIONS: The ACURATE neo and the Centera THV show low mortality rates as well as comparable, favorable hemodynamics. The finding of higher stroke rates at 30 days with the repositionable Centera SE-THV needs further assessment.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Balloon-Expandable Valves: Comparison of SAPIEN 3 Ultra Versus SAPIEN 3.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the SAPIEN 3 Ultra (Ultra) and SAPIEN 3 (S3) transcatheter heart valves (THVs). BACKGROUND: The latest generation balloon-expandable Ultra THV incorporates new technical features and might improve outcomes following TAVR. METHODS: This registry included all consecutive patients who underwent TAVR with either the Ultra or S3 between January 2014 and January 2020. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to account for differences in baseline characteristics. In-hospital and 30-day Valve Academic Research Consortium-2-defined outcomes were investigated. RESULTS: A total of 310 patients (n = 155 Ultra, n = 155 S3) were included. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics after propensity score matching. Procedures were significantly more often performed under conscious sedation with Ultra compared with S3 (97.4% vs. 71.6%; p < 0.001). Pre-dilatation was more frequent with S3 compared with Ultra (85.2% vs. 42.6%; p < 0.001). In-hospital outcomes, including device success (91.6% vs. 95.5%; p = 0.165), major vascular complications (12.3% vs. 11.0%; p = 0.723), and new pacemaker implantation (5.8% vs. 4.5%; p = 0.608), were comparable between S3 and Ultra patients, respectively. Post-procedural mean transprosthetic gradients (13.2 ± 5.7 mm Hg vs. 13.1 ± 4.7 mm Hg; p = 0.829) and rate of moderate or greater paravalvular leakage (PVL) (1.3% vs. 2.7%; p = 0.414) were comparable, whereas mild PVL was more frequent with S3 compared with Ultra (43.0% vs. 18.7%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Device success rates were high with both balloon-expandable THVs, with overall low rates of adverse events up to 30 days after TAVR. Despite a lower frequency of pre-dilatation, significant reduction of mild PVL confirms improved annular sealing properties of the novel Ultra THV.

Early Outcome in Patients Requiring Conversion to General Anesthesia During Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (tf-TAVI) has become an established therapy-option for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Conscious sedation (CS) has proven to be an alternative to general anesthesia . So far, the outcome of patients undergoing unplanned periprocedural conversion from CS to general anesthesia has not been investigated. All patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation in CS between 2014 and 2019 were included. The primary end point was early safety at 30 days according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. The reasons for conversion and length of ICU-/ hospital stay were further analyzed. Of 1,058 included patients 35 (3.3%) required a conversion. The end point was documented in 13 (37%) of the converted and 110 (11%) of nonconverted patients (p < 0.001). The causes were: unrest in 11/35 patients, procedural complications in 10/35 patients, respiratory distress in 8/35, and cardiovascular decompensation in 6 patients (17.1%). Compared with the group without conversion (Median (interquartile range ), 4 [4-5] days), length of hospital stay was longest in the group with procedural complications (6 [1-11] days) followed by cardiovascular decompensation (5 [4-7] days). In conclusion, the conversion rate to general anesthesia was low in a large cohort of unselected transcatheter aortic valve implantation patients. Additionally, hospital stay was longer dependent on the reason for conversion.