Anticoagulation with or without Clopidogrel after Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Implantation.

BACKGROUND: The roles of anticoagulation alone or with an antiplatelet agent after transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) have not been well studied. METHODS: We performed a randomized trial of clopidogrel in patients undergoing TAVI who were receiving oral anticoagulation for appropriate indications. Patients were assigned before TAVI in a 1:1 ratio not to receive clopidogrel or to receive clopidogrel for 3 months. The two primary outcomes were all bleeding and non-procedure-related bleeding over a period of 12 months. Procedure-related bleeding was defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 4 severe bleeding, and therefore most bleeding at the puncture site was counted as non-procedure-related. The two secondary outcomes were a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, non-procedure-related bleeding, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 12 months (secondary composite 1) and a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, ischemic stroke, or myocardial infarction (secondary composite 2), both tested for noninferiority (noninferiority margin, 7.5 percentage points) and superiority. RESULTS: Bleeding occurred in 34 of the 157 patients (21.7%) receiving oral anticoagulation alone and in 54 of the 156 (34.6%) receiving oral anticoagulation plus clopidogrel (risk ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 0.90; P = 0.01); most bleeding events were at the TAVI access site. Non-procedure-related bleeding occurred in 34 patients (21.7%) and in 53 (34.0%), respectively (risk ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.92; P = 0.02). Most bleeding occurred in the first month and was minor. A secondary composite 1 event occurred in 49 patients (31.2%) receiving oral anticoagulation alone and in 71 (45.5%) receiving oral anticoagulation plus clopidogrel (difference, -14.3 percentage points; 95% CI for noninferiority, -25.0 to -3.6; risk ratio, 0.69; 95% CI for superiority, 0.51 to 0.92). A secondary composite 2 event occurred in 21 patients (13.4%) and in 27 (17.3%), respectively (difference, -3.9 percentage points; 95% CI for noninferiority, -11.9 to 4.0; risk ratio, 0.77; 95% CI for superiority, 0.46 to 1.31). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TAVI who were receiving oral anticoagulation, the incidence of serious bleeding over a period of 1 month or 1 year was lower with oral anticoagulation alone than with oral anticoagulation plus clopidogrel. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; POPular TAVI EU Clinical Trials Register number, 2013-003125-28; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02247128.).

Aspirin with or without Clopidogrel after Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Implantation.

BACKGROUND: The effect of single as compared with dual antiplatelet treatment on bleeding and thromboembolic events after transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) in patients who do not have an indication for long-term anticoagulation has not been well studied. METHODS: In a randomized, controlled trial, we assigned a subgroup of patients who were undergoing TAVI and did not have an indication for long-term anticoagulation, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive aspirin alone or aspirin plus clopidogrel for 3 months. The two primary outcomes were all bleeding (including minor, major, and life-threatening or disabling bleeding) and non-procedure-related bleeding over a period of 12 months. Most bleeding at the TAVI puncture site was counted as non-procedure-related. The two secondary outcomes were a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, non-procedure-related bleeding, stroke, or myocardial infarction (secondary composite 1) and a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, ischemic stroke, or myocardial infarction (secondary composite 2) at 1 year, with both outcomes tested sequentially for noninferiority (noninferiority margin, 7.5 percentage points) and superiority. RESULTS: A total of 331 patients were assigned to receive aspirin alone and 334 were assigned to receive aspirin plus clopidogrel. A bleeding event occurred in 50 patients (15.1%) receiving aspirin alone and in 89 (26.6%) receiving aspirin plus clopidogrel (risk ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.77; P = 0.001). Non-procedure-related bleeding occurred in 50 patients (15.1%) and 83 patients (24.9%), respectively (risk ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.83; P = 0.005). A secondary composite 1 event occurred in 76 patients (23.0%) receiving aspirin alone and in 104 (31.1%) receiving aspirin plus clopidogrel (difference, -8.2 percentage points; 95% CI for noninferiority, -14.9 to -1.5; P<0.001; risk ratio, 0.74; 95% CI for superiority, 0.57 to 0.95; P = 0.04). A secondary composite 2 event occurred in 32 patients (9.7%) and 33 patients (9.9%), respectively (difference, -0.2 percentage points; 95% CI for noninferiority, -4.7 to 4.3; P = 0.004; risk ratio, 0.98; 95% CI for superiority, 0.62 to 1.55; P = 0.93). A total of 44 patients (13.3%) and 32 (9.6%), respectively, received oral anticoagulation during the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing TAVI who did not have an indication for oral anticoagulation, the incidence of bleeding and the composite of bleeding or thromboembolic events at 1 year were significantly less frequent with aspirin than with aspirin plus clopidogrel administered for 3 months. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; POPular TAVI EU Clinical Trials Register number, 2013-003125-28; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02247128.).

The effect of transcatheter aortic valve implantation approaches on mortality.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the effect of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) approaches on mortality and identify effect modifiers and predictors for mortality. BACKGROUND: Alternative access routes to transfemoral (TF) TAVI include the surgical intra-thoracic direct-aortic (DA) and transapical (TA) approach. TA TAVI has been associated with a higher mortality rate. We hypothesized that this is related to effect modifiers, in particular the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS: This multicentre study derived its data from prospective registries. To adjust for confounders, we used propensity-score based, stabilized inverse probability weighted Cox regression models. RESULTS: In total, 5,910 patients underwent TAVI via TF (N = 4,072), DA (N = 524), and TA (N = 1,314) access. Compared to TF, 30-day mortality was increased among DA (HR 1.87, 95%CI 1.26-2.78, p = .002) and TA (HR 3.34, 95%CI 2.28-4.89, p < .001) cases. Compared to TF, 5-year mortality was increased among TA cases (HR 1.50, 95%CI 1.24-1.83, p < .001). None of the variables showed a significant interaction between the approaches and mortality. An impaired LVEF (≤35%) increased mortality in all approaches. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical intra-thoracic TA and DA TAVI are both associated with a higher 30-day mortality than TF TAVI. TA TAVI is associated with a higher 5-year mortality than TF TAVI. The DA approach may therefore have some advantages over the TA approach when TF access is not feasible.

Can TAVR Be Effectively and Safely Performed Without Intraprocedural TEE?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The TAVR procedure is a well-established therapy for patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate/high risk for surgery and a potential treatment for low-risk patients. It is much less invasive with short hospital stays and presents similar results compared with SAVR. Different "minimalist approach strategies" were proposed in order to obtain this performance. In these settings, transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) became less relevant for the TAVR procedure. The present review provides an update regarding the safety of TAVR without intraprocedural TEE. RECENT FINDINGS: Transthoracic echocardiography and fluoroscopy are the primary imaging tools during TAVR. Several studies proved that TAVR under local anesthesia without TEE is as safe as that performed under TEE guidance. However, not all patients have a proper window for TTE, and particular cases with complex anatomy can benefit from TEE support during the intervention. Intraprocedural TEE no longer plays a crucial role in the TAVR procedure, but in some instances, it remains of great help to detect and avoid complications.

Insight on patient specific computer modeling of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with bicuspid aortic valve disease.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the early use of dedicated patient specific computer modeling in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), in predicting procedure feasibility and patient related outcome. BACKGROUND: Dedicated patient specific computer modeling, used for optimizing TAVI procedures, is currently validated for the prediction of contact pressure, valve morphology and paravalvular leakage (PVL). The simulation of TAVI procedures is increasingly used in patients with tricuspid aortic valve stenosis. Currently, BAV disease is considered as a relative contra-indication for TAVI due to its specific anatomical characteristics. METHODS: This single center study consisted of seven patients with BAV undergoing TAVI. A patient specific computer simulation was performed based on multislice computer tomography images. The model advised the best fitting prosthetic valve size or sizes and simulated this valve on different implantation depths with the corresponding presence and severity of PVL and prosthetic valve morphology. The simulation results were compared with the procedural outcomes using transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and fluoroscopy. RESULTS: The patient specific computer modeling predicted accurately the outcome (PVL and valve morphology) of TAVI in all cases. In one case, the TAVI procedure was unsuccessful and retrospectively not suitable for TAVI, which was correctly predicted by the model. CONCLUSION: The patient specific computer modeling adequately predicts feasibility and outcome of TAVI in patients with BAV disease and may extend the applicability of TAVI. Moreover, it improves decision-making and therefore individual procedural outcomes in this difficult patient population.

Sex Differences in Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A POPular TAVI Subanalysis.

BACKGROUND: Stroke and bleeding are complications after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). A higher incidence of bleeding and stroke has been reported in women, but the role of antithrombotic management pre- and post-TAVR has not been studied. OBJECTIVES: The study sought to compare bleeding and ischemic complications after TAVR between women and men stratified by antiplatelet and oral anticoagulant (OAC) regimen. METHODS: The POPular TAVI (Antiplatelet Therapy for Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial was a randomized clinical trial to test the hypothesis that monotherapy with aspirin or OAC after TAVR is safer than the addition of clopidogrel. The primary endpoints of interest of this post hoc subanalysis were: 1) all bleeding; and 2) a composite of ischemic events consisting of stroke and myocardial infarction. Secondary endpoints were: 1) nonprocedural bleeding; 2) major or life-threatening bleeding; 3) minor bleeding; 4) stroke; 5) myocardial infarction; and 6) all-cause death. RESULTS: A total of 978 patients (466 [47.6%] women) were included in this study. All bleeding and the composite of myocardial infarction and stroke rates were similar between sexes (all bleeding: 106 [22.8%] women vs 121 [23.6%] men; P = 0.815; ischemic events: 26 [5.6%] vs 36 [7.0%]; P = 0.429). However, major or life-threatening bleeding occurred more often in women (58 [12.5%]) vs men (38 [7.4%]) (P = 0.011), most of which were access site bleedings. The use of aspirin pre- and post-TAVR increased major or life-threatening bleeding in women but not in men. CONCLUSIONS: After TAVR, overall bleeding and ischemic outcomes were similar between women and men. However, women had more major or life-threatening bleedings, especially those receiving aspirin pre- and post-TAVR.

Temporal Trends and Contemporary Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Evolut PRO/PRO+ Self-Expanding Valves: Insights From the NEOPRO/NEOPRO-2 Registries.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) techniques and technology have continuously improved. Data regarding the impact of these advancements on outcomes in large real-world settings are still limited. The aim of this study was to investigate temporal trends and assess contemporary outcomes after TAVR with Evolut PRO/PRO+ supra-annular self-expanding valves. METHODS: This study included patients enrolled in the multicenter NEOPRO (A Multicenter Comparison of Acurate NEO Versus Evolut PRO Transcatheter Heart Valves) and NEOPRO-2 (A Multicenter Comparison of ACURATE NEO2 Versus Evolut PRO/PRO+ Transcatheter Heart Valves 2) registries who underwent transfemoral TAVR with Evolut PRO/PRO+. Procedural dates (August 2017 through November 2021) were stratified in quartiles (Q) and used to investigate temporal trends in TAVR outcomes. Predischarge, 30-day Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 defined, and 1-year outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 1616 patients from 28 centers were included. Over time, patients had lower Society of Thoracic Surgeon-Predicted Risk of Mortality score (Q1-4, 4.1% [2.8-6.3%], 3.7% [2.6-5.3%], 3.3% [2.4-4.9%], 2.9% [2.2-4.3%]; P<0.001) and more moderate or heavy valve calcification (Q1-4, 80%, 80%, 82%, 88%; P=0.038). Overall Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 technical success was 94.1%, with 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality of 2.4% and 10%, respectively. Throughout the study period, procedures were associated with higher rates of 30-day device success (Q1-4, 81.2%, 82.2%, 82.0%, 88.0%; Cochran-Armitage P=0.023) and early safety (Q1-4, 66.8%, 67.5%, 74.0%, 77.6%; Cochran-Armitage P<0.001), with fewer permanent pacemaker implantations (Q1-4: 15.3%, 20.0%, 12.1%, 11.6%; Cochran-Armitage P=0.023) and residual mild or greater paravalvular leaks (Q1-4, 50.4%, 42.1%, 36.5%, 35.8%; Cochran-Armitage P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: TAVR with Evolut PRO/PRO+ self-expanding valve is safe and effective. Despite the treatment of heavier calcified anatomies, procedural outcomes are improving over time with less need for pacemaker implantation and less significant paravalvular leaks.

Periprocedural continuation versus interruption of oral anticoagulant drugs during transcatheter aortic valve implantation: rationale and design of the POPular PAUSE TAVI trial.

About one-third of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) use oral anticoagulants (OAC), mainly due to atrial fibrillation. General guidelines advise interrupting OAC in patients with a high risk of bleeding undergoing interventions. However, preliminary observational data suggest that the continuation of OAC during TAVI is safe and may reduce the risk of periprocedural thromboembolic events. The Periprocedural Continuation Versus Interruption of Oral Anticoagulant Drugs During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (POPular PAUSE TAVI) is a multicentre, randomised clinical trial with open-label treatment and blinded endpoint assessment. Patients are randomised 1:1 to periprocedural continuation versus interruption of OAC and are stratified for vitamin K antagonist or direct oral anticoagulant use. The primary endpoint is a composite of cardiovascular mortality, all stroke, myocardial infarction, major vascular complications and type 2-4 bleeding within 30 days after TAVI, according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria. Secondary endpoints include separate individual and composite outcomes, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Since continuation of OAC is associated with the ancillary benefit that it simplifies periprocedural management, the primary outcome is first analysed for non-inferiority; if non-inferiority is proven, superiority will be tested. Recruitment started in November 2020, and the trial will continue until a total of 858 patients have been included and followed for 90 days. In summary, POPular PAUSE TAVI is the first randomised clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of periprocedural continuation versus interruption of OAC in patients undergoing TAVI.

Diagnostic Performance of CCTA and CT-FFR for the Detection of CAD in TAVR Work-Up.

BACKGROUND: The work-up for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) currently uses computed tomography to evaluate the annulus diameter and peripheral vascular access plus invasive coronary angiography (ICA) to assess significant coronary artery disease (CAD). ICA might partially be redundant with the use of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). Prior studies found an improvement of the diagnostic accuracy of CCTA with the use of computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of CT-FFR for the diagnosis of CAD in the work-up for TAVR. METHODS: Consecutive patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis who underwent TAVR work-up between 2015 and 2019 were included in this retrospective cross-sectional study. All patients underwent CCTA and ICA within 3 months, and the diagnostic performance of both CCTA and CT-FFR was assessed using ICA as the reference. RESULTS: Seventy-six of the 338 patients included in the analysis had ≥1 significant coronary stenosis on ICA. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy per patient were 76.9%, 64.5%, 34.0%, 92.1%, and 66.9% for CCTA and 84.6%, 88.3%, 63.2%, 96.0%, and 87.6% for CT-FFR. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve was significantly different between CCTA and CT-FFR (0.84 vs 0.90, P = 0.02). A CT-FFR-guided approach could avoid ICA in 57.1% versus 43.6% of patients using CCTA. CONCLUSIONS: CT-FFR significantly improves the diagnostic accuracy of CCTA without additional testing and increases the proportion of patients in whom ICA could have been safely avoided. It has the potential to be integrated in the current clinical work-up for TAVR for diagnosing stable CAD requiring treatment.

Aspirin Alone Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Patient-Level Meta-Analysis.

Background In patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation without an indication for oral anticoagulation, it is unclear whether single or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is necessary to minimize both the bleeding and thromboembolic risk. In this patient-level meta-analysis, we further investigate the effect of aspirin alone compared with DAPT for preventing both thromboembolic and bleeding events after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Methods and Results We conducted a systematic review of all available randomized controlled trials comparing aspirin with DAPT. In total, 1086 patients were included across 4 eligible trials. The primary outcomes were the composite of all-cause mortality, major or life-threatening bleeding, stroke or myocardial infarction (first composite outcome), and the same composite excluding bleeding (second composite outcome), both tested at 30 days and 3 months. The first composite outcome occurred significantly less in the aspirin-alone group at 30 days (10.3% versus 14.7%, odds ratio [OR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.46-0.97, P=0.034) and 3 months (11.0% versus 16.5%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.94, P=0.02), compared with the DAPT group. The second composite outcome occurred in 5.5% and 6.6% at 30 days (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.50-1.38, P=0.47) and in 6.9% and 8.5% at 3 months in the aspirin-alone group compared with the DAPT group (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.52-1.29, P=0.39), respectively. Conclusions In patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation, aspirin alone significantly reduced the composite of thromboembolic and bleeding events, and does not increase the composite of thromboembolic events after transcatheter aortic valve implantation, compared with DAPT.

Unplanned Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization After TAVR: A Multicenter International Registry.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the incidence and causes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at different time periods following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) and aortic stenosis frequently coexist, but the optimal management of CAD following TAVR remains incompletely elucidated. METHODS: Patients undergoing unplanned PCI after TAVR were retrospectively included in an international multicenter registry. RESULTS: Between July 2008 and March 2019, a total of 133 patients (0.9%; from a total cohort of 15,325) underwent unplanned PCI after TAVR (36.1% after balloon-expandable bioprosthesis, 63.9% after self-expandable bioprosthesis). The median time to PCI was 191 days (interquartile range: 59 to 480 days). The daily incidence of PCI was highest during the first week after TAVR and then declined over time. Overall, the majority of patients underwent PCI due to an acute coronary syndrome, and specifically 32.3% had non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, 15.4% had unstable angina, 9.8% had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and 2.2% had cardiac arrest. However, chronic coronary syndromes are the main indication beyond 2 years. PCI success was reported in almost all cases (96.6%), with no significant differences between patients treated with balloon-expandable and self-expandable bioprostheses (100% vs. 94.9%; p = 0.150). CONCLUSIONS: Unplanned PCI after TAVR is rare, with an incidence declining over time after TAVR. The main indication to PCI is acute coronary syndrome in the first 2 years after TAVR, and thereafter chronic coronary syndromes become prevalent. Unplanned PCIs are frequently successfully performed after TAVR, with no apparent differences between balloon-expandable and self-expandable bioprostheses. (Revascularization After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation [REVIVAL]; NCT03283501).

Current Devices in Mitral Valve Replacement and Their Potential Complications.

Mitral regurgitation is one of the most prevalent valvulopathies worldwide, and its surgical treatment is not feasible in all cases. The elderly and frail with several comorbidities and left ventricular dysfunction are often managed conservatively. Percutaneous treatment (repair or replacement) of the mitral valve has emerged as a potential option for those patients who are at a high risk for surgery. Mitral valve repair with the Mitraclip device proved both increased safety and mortality reduction in patients with severe mitral regurgitation. On the other hand, in the last decade, percutaneous mitral replacement opened new frontiers in the field of cardiac structural interventions. There are few mitral devices; some are in the early phase of development and some are waiting for CE mark of approval. The evolution of these devices was more complicated compared to the aortic technology due to the native mitral valve's complexity and access. This review aims to provide an overview of the current devices, their specific features, and their potential complications.

Left Ventricular Size Predicts Clinical Benefit After Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair for Secondary Mitral Regurgitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of percutaneous mitral valve repair (PMVR) in patients with secondary MR is still debated. We aimed to compare the outcome of PMVR with optimal medical therapy (OMT) versus OMT alone in patients with secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) and to assess the role of potential effect modifiers. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of 2 randomized clinical trials (RCT) and 7 non-randomized observational studies (nROS). Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled through inverse variance random-effects model to compute the summary effect size for all-cause death, cardiovascular death and cardiac-related hospitalization. Subgroup and meta-regression analysis were also performed. RESULTS: An overall population of 3118 individuals (67% men; mean age, 73 years) was included: 1775 PMVR+OMT and 1343 OMT patients, with mean follow-up of 24 ±â€¯15 months. PMVR+OMT was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.68-0.87), cardiovascular death (HR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.34-0.89) and cardiac-related hospitalization (HR:0.77; 95% CI: 0.64-0.92). Meta-regression analysis showed that larger left ventricular end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI) portends higher risk of all-cause death, cardiovascular death and cardiac-related hospitalization after PMVR (p < 0.001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: This study-level meta-analysis shows that PMVR+OMT is associated with reduced all-cause death, cardiovascular death and cardiac-related hospitalization when compared with OMT alone in secondary MR. LVEDVI is a predictive marker of efficacy, as patients with smaller LVEDVI have been shown to derive the largest benefit from PMVR.

Impact of Predilatation Prior to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With the Self-Expanding Acurate neo Device (from the Multicenter NEOPRO Registry).

Safety and feasibility of transfemoral Acurate neo implantation without systematic predilatation are not fully investigated. Our aim was to evaluate the use and impact of pre-implantation balloon aortic valvuloplasty (pre-BAV) before transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with Acurate neo. The NEOPRO Registry retrospectively included 1,263 patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI with Acurate neo at 18 centers between January 2012 and March 2018. Information on pre-BAV was available for 1,262 patients (99.9%). Primary end points were pre-discharge moderate-to-severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation (PAR II+), 30-day new permanent pacemaker implantation, and 30-day all-cause mortality or stroke. A total of 1,262 patients who underwent TAVI with (n = 1,051) or without predilatation (n = 211) were included. A reduction in the pre-BAV rate was observed during the study period (from 95.7% in the first date quintile to 78.4% in the last date quintile). Patients who underwent pre-BAV had higher degrees of aortic valve (AV) and left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) calcification. Primary endpoints were similar between pre-BAV and no pre-BAV groups (PAR II+ 5.5% vs 3.4%, p = 0.214; 30-day permanent pacemaker implantation 9.0% vs 8.0%, p = 0.660; 30-day death or stroke 4.9% vs 4.4%, p = 0.743). The need for postdilatation and other procedural outcomes were comparable between groups. Predilatation did not have a significant impact on primary endpoints across AV and LVOT calcification subgroups (subgroup analyses) and was not independently associated with primary endpoints (multivariate analyses). In conclusion, transfemoral Acurate neo implantation without predilatation appears to be feasible and safe, especially in patients with milder degrees of AV and LVOT calcification.

Antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

This review provides a comprehensive overview of the available data on antithrombotic therapy after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). In the absence of large randomised clinical trials, clinical practice is leaning towards evidence reported in other populations. Due to the greater risk of major bleeding associated with oral anticoagulation using a vitamin-K antagonist (VKA), antiplatelet therapy (APT) may be considered as the first-line treatment of patients undergoing TAVI. Overall, single rather than dual APT is preferred. However, dual APT should be considered in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome (ie, within 6 months), complex coronary stenting, large aortic arch atheromas or previous non-cardioembolic stroke. Monotherapy with VKA should be considered if concomitant atrial fibrillation or any other indication for long-term oral anticoagulation is present. APT on top of VKA seems only reasonable in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome, extensive or recent coronary stenting or large aortic arch atheromas. A direct-acting oral anticoagulant may be considered if oral anticoagulation is indicated in the absence of contraindications. Initiation of VKA is indicated in clinical valve thrombosis, for example, with high transvalvular gradient, whereas the role of VKA in the case of subclinical leaflet thrombosis is currently uncertain.

Early Outcomes After Percutaneous Closure of Access Site in Transfemoral Transcatheter Valve Implantation Using the Novel Vascular Closure Device Collagen Plug-Based MANTA.

A new collagen-based MANTA vascular closure device (VCD) was developed for closing large-bore arteriotomies after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We evaluated safety and feasibility at 30-day follow-up in terms of vascular and bleeding complications and mortality of the collagen-based MANTA VCD compared with the suture-based Prostar XL VCD in a cohort of 366 patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI between January 2015 and April 2018. The MANTA VCD was used in 168 patients and the Prostar XL VCD in 198 patients, with successful closure of 98.8% and 98.5%, respectively. VARC-2 defined as major vascular and bleeding complications was similar in both groups (MANTA vs Prostar XL): 0.6% versus 1.0% (p = 0.661) and 0.6% versus 1.5% (p = 0.102). Minor vascular and bleeding complications, were significantly more frequent (10.7 vs 18.8 %, p = 0.003 and 13.7 vs 19.7%, p = 0.080, respectively) in the Prostar XL cohort. Thirty-day all-cause mortality was 2.7%, without significant difference between the groups (p = 0.278). The MANTA device is a safe and feasible option for vascular access closure in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Next-Generation Self-Expanding Devices: A Multicenter, Retrospective, Propensity-Matched Comparison of Evolut PRO Versus Acurate neo Transcatheter Heart Valves.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the Acurate neo (NEO) and Evolut PRO (PRO) devices. BACKGROUND: The NEO and PRO bioprostheses are 2 next-generation self-expanding devices developed for TAVR. METHODS: The NEOPRO (A Multicenter Comparison of Acurate NEO Versus Evolut PRO Transcatheter Heart Valves) registry retrospectively included patients who underwent transfemoral TAVR with either NEO or PRO valves at 24 centers between January 2012 and March 2018. One-to-one propensity score matching resulted in 251 pairs. Pre-discharge and 30-day Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 defined outcomes were evaluated. Binary logistic regression was performed to adjust the treatment effect for propensity score quintiles. RESULTS: A total of 1,551 patients (n = 1,263 NEO; n = 288 PRO) were included. The mean age was 82 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 5.1%. After propensity score matching (n = 502), VARC-2 device success (90.6% vs. 91.6%; p = 0.751) and pre-discharge moderate to severe (II+) paravalvular aortic regurgitation (7.3% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.584) were comparable between the NEO and PRO groups. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in any 30-day clinical outcome between matched NEO and PRO pairs, including all-cause mortality (3.2% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.221), stroke (2.4% vs. 2.8%; p = 1.000), new permanent pacemaker implantation (11.0% vs. 12.8%; p = 0.565), and VARC-2 early safety endpoint (10.6% vs. 10.4%; p = 1.000). Logistic regression on the unmatched cohort confirmed a similar risk of VARC-2 device success, paravalvular aortic regurgitation II+, and 30-day clinical outcomes after NEO and PRO implantation. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter registry, transfemoral TAVR with the NEO and PRO bioprostheses was associated with high device success, acceptable rates of paravalvular aortic regurgitation II+, and good 30-day clinical outcomes. After adjusting for potential confounders, short-term outcomes were similar between the devices.