Impact of baseline renal dysfunction on cardiac outcomes and end-stage renal disease in heart failure patients with mitral regurgitation: the COAPT trial.

AIMS: Baseline renal dysfunction (RD) adversely impacts outcomes among patients with heart failure (HF) and severe secondary mitral regurgitation (MR). Heart failure and MR, in turn, accelerate progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), worsening prognosis. We sought to determine the impact of RD in HF patients with severe MR and the impact of transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) on new-onset ESRD and the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT). METHODS AND RESULTS: The COAPT trial randomized 614 patients with HF and severe MR to MitraClip plus guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) vs. GDMT alone. Patients were stratified into three RD subgroups based on baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR, mL/min/1.73 m2): none (≥60), moderate (30-60), and severe (<30). End-stage renal disease was defined as eGFR <15 mL/min/1.73 m2 or RRT. The 2-year rates of all-cause death or HF hospitalization (HFH), new-onset ESRD, and RRT according to RD and treatment were assessed. Baseline RD was present in 77.0% of patients, including 23.8% severe RD, 6.0% ESRD, and 5.2% RRT. Worse RD was associated with greater 2-year risk of death or HFH (none 45.3%; moderate 53.9%; severe 69.2%; P < 0.0001). MitraClip vs. GDMT alone improved outcomes regardless of RD (Pinteraction = 0.62) and reduced new-onset ESRD [2.9 vs. 8.1%, hazard ratio (HR) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15-0.76, P = 0.008] and the need for new RRT (2.5 vs. 7.4%, HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14-0.78, P = 0.011). CONCLUSION: Baseline RD was common in the HF patients with severe MR enrolled in COAPT and strongly predicted 2-year death and HFH. MitraClip treatment reduced new-onset ESRD and the need for RRT, contributing to the improved prognosis after TMVr.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis.

After 15 years of successive randomized, controlled trials, indications for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are rapidly expanding. In the coming years, this procedure could become the first line treatment for patients with a symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and a tricuspid aortic valve anatomy. However, randomized, controlled trials have excluded bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), which is the most frequent congenital heart disease occurring in 1% to 2% of the total population and representing at least 25% of patients 80 years of age or older referred for aortic valve replacement. The use of a less invasive transcatheter therapy in this elderly population became rapidly attractive, and approximately 10% of patients currently undergoing TAVR have a BAV. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the "European Conformity" have approved TAVR for low-risk patients regardless of the aortic valve anatomy whereas international guidelines recommend surgical replacement in BAV populations. Given this progressive expansion of TAVR toward younger and lower-risk patients, heart teams are encountering BAV patients more frequently, while the ability of this therapy to treat such a challenging anatomy remains uncertain. This review will address the singularity of BAV anatomy and associated technical challenges for the TAVR procedure. We will examine and summarize available clinical evidence and highlight critical knowledge gaps regarding TAVR utilization in BAV patients. We will provide a comprehensive overview of the role of computed tomography scans in the diagnosis, and classification of BAV and TAVR procedure planning. Overall, we will offer an integrated framework for understanding the current role of TAVR in the treatment of bicuspid aortic stenosis and for guiding physicians in clinical decision-making.

Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement After Surgical Repair or Replacement: Comprehensive Midterm Evaluation of Valve-in-Valve and Valve-in-Ring Implantation From the VIVID Registry.

BACKGROUND: Mitral valve-in-valve (ViV) and valve-in-ring (ViR) are alternatives to surgical reoperation in patients with recurrent mitral valve failure after previous surgical valve repair or replacement. Our aim was to perform a large-scale analysis examining midterm outcomes after mitral ViV and ViR. METHODS: Patients undergoing mitral ViV and ViR were enrolled in the Valve-in-Valve International Data Registry. Cases were performed between March 2006 and March 2020. Clinical endpoints are reported according to the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) definitions. Significant residual mitral stenosis (MS) was defined as mean gradient ≥10 mm Hg and significant residual mitral regurgitation (MR) as ≥ moderate. RESULTS: A total of 1079 patients (857 ViV, 222 ViR; mean age 73.5±12.5 years; 40.8% male) from 90 centers were included. Median STS-PROM score 8.6%; median clinical follow-up 492 days (interquartile range, 76-996); median echocardiographic follow-up for patients that survived 1 year was 772.5 days (interquartile range, 510-1211.75). Four-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 62.5% in ViV versus 49.5% for ViR (P<0.001). Mean gradient across the mitral valve postprocedure was 5.7±2.8 mm Hg (≥5 mm Hg; 61.4% of patients). Significant residual MS occurred in 8.2% of the ViV and 12.0% of the ViR patients (P=0.09). Significant residual MR was more common in ViR patients (16.6% versus 3.1%; P<0.001) and was associated with lower survival at 4 years (35.1% versus 61.6%; P=0.02). The rates of Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium-defined device success were low for both procedures (39.4% total; 32.0% ViR versus 41.3% ViV; P=0.01), mostly related to having postprocedural mean gradient ≥5 mm Hg. Correlates for residual MS were smaller true internal diameter, younger age, and larger body mass index. The only correlate for residual MR was ViR. Significant residual MS (subhazard ratio, 4.67; 95% CI, 1.74-12.56; P=0.002) and significant residual MR (subhazard ratio, 7.88; 95% CI, 2.88-21.53; P<0.001) were both independently associated with repeat mitral valve replacement. CONCLUSIONS: Significant residual MS and/or MR were not infrequent after mitral ViV and ViR procedures and were both associated with a need for repeat valve replacement. Strategies to improve postprocedural hemodynamics in mitral ViV and ViR should be further explored.

Mid- to long-term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement with a new-generation, self-expandable system.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate mid- to late clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with Acurate neo™ (Boston Scientific, Boston, MA). BACKGROUND: TAVR is an established treatment for aortic stenosis (AS). Few data exist on mid- to long-term outcomes and durability after new-generation valves. METHODS: All consecutive patients (n = 104) who underwent Acurate neo™ implantation from 2012 to 2018 were included. Follow-up was systematically performed at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months and yearly thereafter. Outcomes were reported according to VARC-2, and structural valve deterioration (SVD) or bioprosthetic valve failure defined accordingly to new definitions. RESULTS: Mean age was 82 ± 5.4 years, 56.7% were female and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score for mortality was 5.9 ± 4%. Patients were followed for a median of 3 years (1,092 days; IQR 1.5-4 years), and the maximum follow-up was 7 years. All-cause mortality values at 1 and 5 years were 8.5% and 40.5%, respectively. No relevant changes in mean gradient and orifice area occurred (7.9 ± 3.8 mmHg and 1.9 ± 0.3 cm2 at 1 year; 6.6 ± 2.1 mmHg and 1.8 ± 0.3 cm2 at 5 years), and there was a significant rate of paravalvular leaks resolution at 1, 2, and 3 years (p = .004; p < .001; p < .001, respectively). None of the patients had leaflet thrombosis or endocarditis. One patient developed SVD at 84 months. CONCLUSIONS: Acurate neo™ was associated with sustained echocardiographic results. Reassuring mid- to long-term outcomes was observed in this cohort of elderly patients with severe AS.

Predictive role of Selvester QRS score in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

INTRODUCTION: Few data exist regarding the late clinical impact of the Selvester score prediction of myocardial fibrosis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study evaluated the predictive power of the Selvester score on survival in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVR. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with severe AS who had preoperative electrocardiograms were included. Clinical follow-up was obtained retrospectively. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were cardiovascular death and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). Two-hundred twenty-eight patients were included (mean age, 81.5 ± 7.4 years; women, 58.3%). Deceased patients had a higher mean score (4.6 ± 3.2 vs. 1.4 ± 1.3; p < .001). At a mean follow-up of 36.2 ± 21.2 months, the Selvester score was independently associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48-1.84; p < .001), cardiovascular death (HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.38-1.74; p < .001), and MACE (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.30-1.68; p < .001). After 5 years, the mortality risk was incrementally related to the Selvester score. The involvement of the inferior wall of the left ventricle was a lower mortality risk factor (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18-0.98; p = .046). For a Selvester score of 3, the area under the curve showed 0.92, 0.94, and 0.86 (p < .001), respectively, for 1, 2, and 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated Selvester scores increase the risk of poor outcomes in patients with AS undergoing TAVR. The involvement of the anterior or lateral wall presents worse prognosis.

Balloon versus self-expandable transcatheter aortic valve implantation for bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: A meta-analysis of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: There is a rising trend for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in bicuspid aortic stenosis patients. Data on the use of self-expandable (SEV) vs. balloon-expandable (BEV) valves in these patients are scarce. Therefore, we systematically compared clinical outcomes in bicuspid aortic stenosis patients treated with SEV and BEV. METHODS: Data were extracted from PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, ClinicalTrials.gov, SciELO, LILACS, Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant articles. Eight studies published from 2013 to 2020 including a total of 1,080 patients (BEV: n = 620; SEV: n = 460) were selected. Primary endpoints were procedural, 30-day and 1-year mortality. Secondary endpoints were new pacemaker implantation, annular rupture, coronary obstruction, moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak, need of second valve, stroke and acute kidney injury. RESULTS: We found no statistically significant difference in mortality between patients treated with BEV vs. SEV during index procedure, at 30 days and at 1 year. BEVs showed a statistically significant higher risk of annulus rupture (2.5%) in comparison with SEV (0%) (OR 5.81 [95% CI, 3.78-8.92], p < .001). New generation BEVs were also associated with significantly less paravalvular leak when compared to new generation SEVs (OR 0.08 [95% CI, 0.02-0.35], p = .001). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of observational studies of TAVI for bicuspid valves, showed no difference in short- and mid-term TAVI mortality with BEVs and SEVs. BEVs presented a higher risk of annular rupture in comparison with SEV.

Long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic valves.

AIMS: Due to bioprosthetic valve degeneration, aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) procedures are increasingly performed. There are no data on long-term outcomes after aortic ViV. Our aim was to perform a large-scale assessment of long-term survival and reintervention after aortic ViV. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1006 aortic ViV procedures performed more than 5 years ago [mean age 77.7 ± 9.7 years; 58.8% male; median STS-PROM score 7.3% (4.2-12.0)] were included in the analysis. Patients were treated with Medtronic self-expandable valves (CoreValve/Evolut, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) (n = 523, 52.0%), Edwards balloon-expandable valves (EBEV, SAPIEN/SAPIEN XT/SAPIEN 3, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) (n = 435, 43.2%), and other devices (n = 48, 4.8%). Survival was lower at 8 years in patients with small-failed bioprostheses [internal diameter (ID) ≤ 20 mm] compared with those with large-failed bioprostheses (ID > 20 mm) (33.2% vs. 40.5%, P = 0.01). Independent correlates for mortality included smaller-failed bioprosthetic valves [hazard ratio (HR) 1.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.13)], age [HR 1.21 (95% CI 1.01-1.45)], and non-transfemoral access [HR 1.43 (95% CI 1.11-1.84)]. There were 40 reinterventions after ViV. Independent correlates for all-cause reintervention included pre-existing severe prosthesis-patient mismatch [subhazard ratio (SHR) 4.34 (95% CI 1.31-14.39)], device malposition [SHR 3.75 (95% CI 1.36-10.35)], EBEV [SHR 3.34 (95% CI 1.26-8.85)], and age [SHR 0.59 (95% CI 0.44-0.78)]. CONCLUSIONS: The size of the original failed valve may influence long-term mortality, and the type of the transcatheter valve may influence the need for reintervention after aortic ViV.

Standardized Definition of Structural Valve Degeneration for Surgical and Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves.

Bioprostheses are prone to structural valve degeneration, resulting in limited long-term durability. A significant challenge when comparing the durability of different types of bioprostheses is the lack of a standardized terminology for the definition of a degenerated valve. This issue becomes especially important when we try to compare the degeneration rate of surgically inserted and transcatheter bioprosthetic valves. This document, by the VIVID (Valve-in-Valve International Data), proposes practical and standardized definitions of valve degeneration and provides recommendations for the timing of clinical and imaging follow-up assessments accordingly. Its goal is to improve the quality of research and clinical care for patients with deteriorated bioprostheses by providing objective and strict criteria that can be utilized in future clinical trials. We hope that the adoption of these criteria by both the cardiological and surgical communities will lead to improved comparability and interpretation of durability analyses.

Incidence, predictors, and clinical outcomes of coronary obstruction following transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: insights from the VIVID registry.

Aims: There are limited data on coronary obstruction following transcatheter valve-in-valve (ViV) implantation inside failed aortic bioprostheses. The objectives of this study were to determine the incidence, predictors, and clinical outcomes of coronary obstruction in transcatheter ViV procedures. Methods and results: A total of 1612 aortic procedures from the Valve-in-Valve International Data (VIVID) Registry were evaluated. Data were subject to centralized blinded corelab computed tomography (CT) analysis in a subset of patients. The virtual transcatheter valve to coronary ostium distance (VTC) was determined. A total of 37 patients (2.3%) had clinically evident coronary obstruction. Baseline clinical characteristics in the coronary obstruction patients were similar to controls. Coronary obstruction was more common in stented bioprostheses with externally mounted leaflets or stentless bioprostheses than in stented with internally mounted leaflets bioprostheses (6.1% vs. 3.7% vs. 0.8%, respectively; P < 0.001). CT measurements were obtained in 20 (54%) and 90 (5.4%) of patients with and without coronary obstruction, respectively. VTC distance was shorter in coronary obstruction patients in relation to controls (3.24 ± 2.22 vs. 6.30 ± 2.34, respectively; P < 0.001). Using multivariable analysis, the use of a stentless or stented bioprosthesis with externally mounted leaflets [odds ratio (OR): 7.67; 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.14-18.7; P < 0.001] associated with coronary obstruction for the global population. In a second model with CT data, a shorter VTC distance predicted this complication (OR: 0.22 per 1 mm increase; 95% CI: 0.09-0.51; P < 0.001), with an optimal cut-off level of 4 mm (area under the curve: 0.943; P < 0.001). Coronary obstruction was associated with a high 30-day mortality (52.9% vs. 3.9% in the controls, respectively; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Coronary obstruction following aortic ViV procedures is a life-threatening complication that occurred more frequently in patients with prior stentless or stented bioprostheses with externally mounted leaflets and in those with a short VTC.

Mortality prediction after transcatheter treatment of failed bioprosthetic aortic valves utilizing various international scoring systems: Insights from the Valve-in-Valve International Data (VIVID).

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) is commonly used to deploy new bioprosthetic valves inside degenerated surgically implanted aortic valves in high risk patients. The three scoring systems used to assess risk of postprocedural mortality are: Logistic EuroSCORE (LES), EuroSCORE II (ES II), and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to analyze the accuracy of LES, ES II, and STS in estimating all-cause mortality after transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) implantations, which was not assessed before. METHODS: Using the Valve-in-Valve International Data (VIVID) registry, a total of 1,550 patients from 110 centers were included. The study compared the observed 30-day overall mortality vs. the respective predicted mortalities calculated by risk scores. The accuracy of prediction models was assessed based on calibration and discrimination. RESULTS: Observed mortality at 30 days was 5.3%, while average expected mortalities by LES, ES II and STS were 29.49 (± 17.2), 14.59 (± 8.6), and 9.61 (± 8.51), respectively. All three risk scores overestimated 30-day mortality with ratios of 0.176 (95% CI 0.138-0.214), 0.342 (95% CI 0.264-0.419), and 0.536 (95% CI 0.421-0.651), respectively. 30-day mortality ROC curves demonstrated that ES II had the largest AUC at 0.722, followed by STS at 0.704, and LES at 0.698. CONCLUSIONS: All three scores overestimated mortality at 30 days with ES II showing the highest predictability compared to LES and STS; and therefore, should be recommended for ViV procedures. There is a need for a dedicated scoring system for patients undergoing ViV interventions.

When Aortic Stenting Alone Does Not Solve It: Mass Effect of Thoracic Aneurysms.

Thoracic aneurysms can potentially cause substantial compression of adjacent structures, creating substantial symptoms. We present a case of a 56-year-old woman with fatigue and dyspnea for 6 months. We discuss her initial endovascular treatment, which was insufficient to improve symptoms, and further surgical intervention was needed to solve the issue.

Comparison of vascular closure devices for access site closure after transfemoral aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: The majority of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedures are currently performed by percutaneous transfemoral approach. The potential contribution of the type of vascular closure device to the incidence of vascular complications is not clear. AIM: To compare the efficacy of a Prostar XL- vs. Perclose ProGlide-based vascular closure strategy. METHODS: The ClOsure device iN TRansfemoral aOrtic vaLve implantation (CONTROL) multi-center study included 3138 consecutive percutaneous transfemoral TAVI patients, categorized according to vascular closure strategy: Prostar XL- (Prostar group) vs. Perclose ProGlide-based vascular closure strategy (ProGlide group). Propensity-score matching was used to assemble a cohort of patients with similar baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Propensity matching identified 944 well-matched patients (472 patient pairs). Composite primary end point of major vascular complications or in-hospital mortality occurred more frequently in Prostar group when compared with ProGlide group (9.5 vs. 5.1%, P = 0.016), and was driven by higher rates of major vascular complication (7.4 vs. 1.9%, P < 0.001) in the Prostar group. However, in-hospital mortality was similar between groups (4.9 vs. 3.5%, P = 0.2). Femoral artery stenosis occurred less frequently in the Prostar group (3.4 vs. 0.5%, P = 0.004), but overall, Prostar use was associated with higher rates of major bleeding (16.7 vs. 3.2%, P < 0.001), acute kidney injury (17.6 vs. 4.4%, P < 0.001) and with longer hospital stay (median 6 vs. 5 days, P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Prostar XL-based vascular closure in transfemoral TAVI procedures is associated with higher major vascular complication rates when compared with ProGlide; however, in-hospital mortality is similar with both devices.

Insight Into the Optimal Timing of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Patients being considered for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are frequently diagnosed with coronary artery disease. In patients requiring revascularization, there is a paucity of data informing when to perform percutaneous coronary artery intervention (PCI). We evaluated the impact of PCI timing on clinical outcomes and readmissions after TAVR. From the National Readmissions Database 2016 to 2019, we stratified the duration between PCI and TAVR into 3 groups: same-day PCI and TAVR, TAVR ≤30 days after PCI, and TAVR >30 days after PCI. We then compared primary and secondary outcomes among them. A total of 5207 patients were included, 1413 (27.1%) of whom underwent PCI and TAVR on the same day, while 2161 (41.5%) underwent TAVR ≤30 days after PCI, and 1632 (31.3%) underwent TAVR >30 days after PCI. There was no significant difference for in-hospital mortality among the groups (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16-1.48, p = 0.203 for same-day versus ≤30 days; aOR 2.07, 95% CI 0.68-6.30, p = 0.199 for same-day versus >30 days). Patients who underwent TAVR ≤30 days after PCI had higher odds of acute kidney injury (aOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.05-2.10, p = 0.024), nonhome discharge (aOR 1.53, 95% CI 1.20-1.96, p = 0.001), and 90-day readmission (aOR 1.35, 95% CI 1.04-1.76, p = 0.026) compared with those who underwent same-day PCI and TAVR. Concomitant PCI and TAVR was associated with lower rates of 90-day readmissions and acute kidney injury compared with TAVR shortly after PCI (<30 days) and should be considered in select patients.

Late Survival After Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Balloon- Versus Self-Expandable Valves: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data.

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with failed bioprostheses arose as an alternative to redo surgical aortic valve replacement. There is an increasing interest in exploring the differences between self-expanding valves (SEVs) and balloon-expandable valves (BEVs). Our study aimed to evaluate the all-cause mortality in ViV-TAVI with SEV versus BEV in patients with failed bioprostheses. We performed a study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of studies published by March 30, 2023. A total of 5 studies met our eligibility criteria and included 1,454 patients who underwent ViV-TAVI (862 with SEV and 592 with BEV). Almost all BEVs were iterations of the Edwards BEVs (SAPIEN, SAPIEN XT, and SAPIEN 3) and almost all SEVs were iterations of the Medtronic SEVs (CoreValve/Evolut). During the first year after ViV-TAVI, 67 deaths (11.8%) occurred in patients treated with BEV compared with 92 deaths (11.1%) in patients treated with SEV (hazard ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.27, p = 0.632). At 8 years of follow-up, the all-cause death was not statistically significantly different between the groups, with mortality rates of 65.4% in the group treated BEV and 58.8% in the group treated with SEV (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.09, p = 0.302). The restricted mean survival time was overall 0.25 years greater with SEV than BEV, but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.278), which indicates no lifetime gain or loss with SEV in comparison with BEV. There seems to be no difference in terms of all-cause death in ViV-TAVI with SEV versus BEV. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate our results.

Late outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus re-replacement: Meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data.

AIMS: To evaluate all-cause mortality in ViV-TAVI versus redo SAVR in patients with failed bioprostheses. METHODS: Study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of non-randomized studies published by September 30, 2021. RESULTS: Ten studies met our eligibility criteria and included a total of 3345 patients (1676 patients underwent ViV-TAVI and 1669 patients underwent redo SAVR). Pooling all the studies, ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 44 days [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.93, P = 0.017], with an HR reversal after 197 days favoring redo SAVR (HR 1.53; 95% CI 1.22-1.93; P < 0.001). Pooling only the matched populations (1143 pairs), ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 55 days [hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-0.89, P < 0.001], with a reversal HR after 212 days favoring redo SAVR (HR 1.57; 95% CI 1.22-2.03; P < 0.001). The Cox regression model showed a statistically significant association of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) with all-cause mortality during follow-up for ViV-TAVI (HR 1.03 per percentage increase in the study- and treatment arm-level proportion of PPM, 95% 1.02-1.05, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: ViV-TAVI is associated with a strong protective effect immediately after the procedure in comparison with redo SAVR, however, this initial advantage reverses over time and redo SAVR seems to be a protective factor for all-cause mortality after 6 months. Considering that these results are the fruit of pooling data from observational studies, they should be interpreted with caution and trials are warranted.

Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy Tolerability in Patients With Heart Failure and Mitral Regurgitation: The COAPT Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation) trial, a central committee of heart failure (HF) specialists optimized guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) and documented medication and goal dose intolerances before patient enrollment. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to assess the rates, reasons, and predictors of GDMT intolerance in the COAPT trial. METHODS: Baseline use, dose, and intolerances of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) were analyzed in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%, in whom maximally tolerated doses of these agents as assessed by an independent HF specialist were required before enrollment. RESULTS: A total of 464 patients had LVEF ≤40% and complete medication information. At baseline, 38.8%, 39.4%, and 19.8% of patients tolerated 3, 2, and 1 GDMT classes, respectively (any dose); only 1.9% could not tolerate any GDMT. Beta-blockers were the most frequently tolerated GDMT (93.1%), followed by ACEIs/ARBs/ARNIs (68.5%), and then MRAs (55.0%). Intolerances differed by GDMT class, but hypotension and kidney dysfunction were most common. Goal doses were uncommonly achieved for beta-blockers (32.3%) and ACEIs/ARBs/ARNIs (10.2%) due to intolerances limiting titration. Only 2.2% of patients tolerated goal doses of all 3 GDMT classes. CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary trial population with HF, severe mitral regurgitation, and systematic HF specialist-directed GDMT optimization, most patients had medical intolerances prohibiting 1 or more GDMT classes and achieving goal doses. The specific intolerances noted and methods used for GDMT optimization provide important lessons for the implementation of GDMT optimization in future clinical trials. (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation [The COAPT Trial] [COAPT]; NCT01626079).

Minimum Core Data Elements for Transcatheter Mitral Therapies: Scientific Statement by PASSION CV, HVC, and TVTR.

Mitral regurgitation is the most common valvular disease and is estimated to affect over 5 million Americans. Real-world data collection contributes to safety and effectiveness evidence for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, quality evaluation for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and hospitals, and clinical best practice research. We aimed to establish a minimum core data set in mitral interventions to promote efficient, reusable real-world data collection for all of these purposes. Two expert task forces separately evaluated and reconciled a list of candidate elements derived from: 1) 2 ongoing transcatheter mitral trials; and 2) a systemic literature review of high-impact mitral trials and U.S multicenter, multidevice registries. From 703 unique data elements considered, unanimous consensus agreement was achieved on 127 "core" data elements, with the most common reasons for exclusion from the minimum core data set being burden or difficulty in accurate assessment (41.2%), duplicative information (25.0%), and low likelihood of affecting outcomes (19.6%). After a systematic review and extensive discussions, a multilateral group of academicians, industry representatives, and regulators established and implemented into the national Society of Thoracic Surgery/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapies Registry 127 interoperable, reusable core data elements to support more efficient, consistent, and informative transcatheter mitral device evidence for regulatory submissions, safety surveillance, best practice development, and hospital quality assessments.

Clinical and Hemodynamic Outcomes of Balloon-Expandable Mitral Valve-in-Valve Positioning and Asymmetric Deployment: The VIVID Registry.

BACKGROUND: Mitral valve-in-valve (ViV) is associated with suboptimal hemodynamics and rare left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine whether device position and asymmetry are associated with these outcomes. METHODS: Patients undergoing SAPIEN 3 (Edwards Lifesciences) mitral ViV included in the VIVID (Valve-in-Valve International Data) Registry were studied. Clinical endpoints are reported according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions. Residual mitral valve stenosis was defined as mean gradient ≥5 mm Hg. Depth of implantation (percentage of transcatheter heart valve [THV] atrial to the bioprosthesis ring) and asymmetry (ratio of 2 measures of THV height) were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 222 patients meeting the criteria for optimal core lab evaluation were studied (age 74 ± 11.6 years; 61.9% female; STS score = 8.3 ± 7.1). Mean asymmetry was 6.2% ± 4.4%. Mean depth of implantation was 19.0% ± 10.3% atrial. Residual stenosis was common (50%; mean gradient 5.0 ± 2.6 mm Hg). LVOT obstruction occurred in 7 cases (3.2%). Implantation depth was not a predictor of residual stenosis (OR: 1.19 [95% CI: 0.92-1.55]; P = 0.184), but more atrial implantation was protective against LVOT obstruction (0.7% vs 7.1%; P = 0.009; per 10% atrial, OR: 0.48 [95% CI: 0.24-0.98]; P = 0.044). Asymmetry was found to be an independent predictor of residual stenosis (per 10% increase, OR: 2.30 [95% CI: 1.10-4.82]; P = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Valve stenosis is common after mitral ViV. Asymmetry was associated with residual stenosis. Depth of implantation on its own was not associated with residual stenosis but was associated with LVOT obstruction. Technical considerations to reduce postdeployment THV asymmetry should be considered.

Consequences of Inaccurate Assumptions in Coronary Stent Noninferiority Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: The outcome and interpretation of noninferiority trials depend on the magnitude of the noninferiority margin and whether a relative or absolute noninferiority margin is used and may be affected by imprecision in event rate estimation. OBJECTIVE: To assess the consequence of imprecise event rate estimations on interpretation of peer-reviewed randomized clinical trials. DATA SOURCES: PubMed/MEDLINE was searched for articles published between January 1, 2015, and April 30, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Noninferiority randomized clinical trials of coronary stents published in selected journals with clinical events as the primary end point. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers (M.S. and F.V.) independently extracted data on trial characteristics, noninferiority assumptions, primary end point clinical outcomes, and study conclusions. Overestimation or underestimation of the control event rate was evaluated by dividing the assumed control event rate by the observed control event rate. For noninferiority end points with absolute margins, the assumed corresponding relative margin was defined as the ratio of the absolute margin and the assumed event rate, and the observed corresponding relative margin as the ratio between the absolute margin and the observed event rate in the control arm. Noninferiority comparisons with absolute margins were reanalyzed using the assumed corresponding relative margin and the Farrington-Manning score test for relative risk. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Overestimation or underestimation, assumed and observed corresponding relative margins, and relative reanalysis of the primary end points of trials with absolute margins. RESULTS: A total of 106 989 patients from 58 trials were included. The event rate in the control arms was overestimated by a median (IQR) of 28% (2%-74%). Most noninferiority trials used absolute rather than relative margins (55 of 58 trials [94.8%]). Owing to overestimation, absolute noninferiority margins became more permissive than originally assumed (median [IQR] of observed relative noninferiority margin, 1.62 [1.50-1.80] vs assumed relative noninferiority margin, 1.47 [1.39-1.55]; P < .001). Among trial comparisons that met noninferiority with an absolute noninferiority margin, 17 of 50 trials (34.0%) would not have met noninferiority with a corresponding assumed relative noninferiority margin. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, assumed event rates were often overestimated in noninferiority coronary stent trials. Because most of these trials use absolute margins to define noninferiority, such overestimation results in excessively permissive relative noninferiority margins.

Ambient temperature and infarct size, microvascular obstruction, left ventricular function and clinical outcomes after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES: Incidence and prognosis of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) vary according to ambient temperature and season. We sought to assess whether season and temperature on the day of STEMI are associated with infarct size, microvascular obstruction (MVO), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and clinical outcomes after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: Individual patient data from 1598 patients undergoing primary PCI in six randomized clinical trials were pooled. Infarct size was evaluated by cardiac magnetic resonance within 30 days in all trials. Patients were categorized either by whether they presented on a day of temperature extremes (minimum temperature <0 °C or maximum temperature >25 °C) or according to season. RESULTS: A total of 558/1598 (34.9%) patients presented with STEMI on a day of temperature extremes, and 395 (24.7%), 374 (23.4%), 481 (30.1%) and 348 (21.8%) presented in the spring, summer, fall and winter. After multivariable adjustment, temperature extremes were independently associated with larger infarct size (adjusted difference 2.8%; 95% CI, 1.3-4.3; P < 0.001) and smaller LVEF (adjusted difference -2.3%; 95% CI, -3.5 to -1.1; P = 0.0002) but not with MVO (adjusted P = 0.12). In contrast, infarct size, MVO and LVEF were unrelated to season (adjusted P = 0.67; P = 0.36 and P = 0.95, respectively). Neither temperature extremes nor season were independently associated with 1-year risk of death or heart failure hospitalization (adjusted P = 0.79 and P = 0.90, respectively). CONCLUSION: STEMI presentation during temperature extremes was independently associated with larger infarct size and lower LVEF but not with MVO after primary PCI, whereas season was unrelated to infarct severity.