ACURATE neo2 Versus SAPIEN 3 Ultra Transcatheter Heart Valve in Severe Aortic Valve Calcification: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Comparative data on transcatheter self-expanding ACURATE neo2 (NEO2) and balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 Ultra prostheses in technically challenging anatomy of severe aortic valve calcified aortic annuli are scarce. METHODS: A total of 1987 patients with severe native aortic stenosis treated with the self-expanding NEO2 (n=1457) or balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 Ultra (n=530) from January 2017 to April 2023 were evaluated. The primary end point was procedural outcome according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 definitions. Propensity matching defined 219 pairs with severe calcification (calcium density cutoff, 758 AU/cm2) of the native aortic valve. RESULTS: Technical success (90.4% versus 91.8%; risk difference, 1.4% [95% CI, -4.4 to -7.2]; P=0.737) and device success at 30 days (80.8% versus 75.8%; risk difference, -5.0% [95% CI, -13.2 to 3.1]; P=0.246) were comparable between NEO2 and SAPIEN 3 Ultra. The rate of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (1.1% versus 10.1%; risk difference, 10.0% [95% CI, 4.0-13.9]; P<0.001) and mean transvalvular gradient ≥20 mm Hg (2.8% versus 14.3%; risk difference, 11.5% [95% CI, 5.8-17.1]; P<0.001) was lower with NEO2. The rate of more-than-mild paravalvular leakage or valve-in-valve due to paravalvular leakage was significantly higher (6.2% versus 0.0%; risk difference, 6.2% [95% CI, -10.1 to -2.7]; P=0.002), and there was a tendency for a higher rate of device embolization or migration (1.8% versus 0.0%; risk difference, -1.8% [95% CI, -4.1 to 0.4]; P=0.123) with NEO2. Multivarate regression revealed no independent impact of transcatheter heart valve selection on device success (odds ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.48-1.77]; P=0.817). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severely calcified annuli, supraannular implantation of NEO2 showed hemodynamic advantages. Nevertheless, NEO2 was associated with a higher incidence of relevant paravalvular leakage and a numerically higher rate of device embolization than SAPIEN 3 Ultra in this particular patient group.

Comparison of the New-Generation Self-Expanding NAVITOR Transcatheter Heart Valve with Its Predecessor, the PORTICO, in Severe Native Aortic Valve Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Third-generation transcatheter heart valves (THVs) are designed to improve outcomes. Data on the new intra-annular self-expanding NAVITOR are scarce. AIMS: The aim of this analysis was to compare outcomes between the PORTICO and the NAVITOR systems. METHODS: Data from 782 patients with severe native aortic stenosis treated with PORTICO (n = 645) or NAVITOR (n = 137) from 05/2012 to 09/2022 were evaluated. The clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of 276 patients (PORTICO, n = 139; NAVITOR, n = 137) were evaluated according to VARC-3 recommendations. RESULTS: Rates of postprocedural more-than-mild paravalvular leakage (PVL) were significantly lower for NAVITOR than for PORTICO (7.2% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.041). In addition, severe bleeding rates (27.3% vs. 13.1%, p = 0.005) and major vascular complications (5.8% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.036) were lower in the NAVITOR group. The mean gradients (7 vs. 8 mmHg, p = 0.121) and calculated aortic valve areas (1.90 cm2 vs. 1.99 cm2, p = 0.235) were comparable. Rates of PPI were similarly high in both groups (15.3 vs. 21.6, p = 0.299). CONCLUSIONS: The NAVITOR demonstrated favorable in-hospital procedural outcome data, with lower rates of relevant PVL, major vascular complications, and severe bleeding than its predecessor the PORTICO and preserved favorable hemodynamic outcomes.

Prognostic Impact of the Get-with-the-Guidelines Heart-Failure Risk Score (GWTG-HF) after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Low-Flow-Low-Gradient Aortic Valve Stenosis.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the prognostic value of the get-with-the-guidelines heart-failure risk score (GWTG-HF) on mortality in patients with low-flow-low-gradient aortic valve stenosis (LFLG-AS) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). BACKGROUND: Data on feasibility of TAVI and mortality prediction in the LFLG-AS population are scarce. Clinical risk assessment in this particular population is difficult, and a score has not yet been established for this purpose. METHODS: A total of 212 heart failure (HF) patients with real LFLG-AS were enrolled. Patients were classified into low-risk (n = 108), intermediate-risk (n = 90) and high-risk (n = 14) groups calculated by the GWTG-HF score. Clinical outcomes of cardiovascular events according to Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC-2) recommendations and composite endpoint of death and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) were assessed at discharge and 1 year of follow-up. RESULTS: Baseline parameters of the groups showed a median age of 81.0 years [77.0; 84.0] (79.0 vs. 82.0 vs. 86.0, respectively p < 0.001), median EuroSCORE II of 6.6 [4.3; 10.7] (5.5 vs. 7.2 vs. 9.1, p = 0.004) and median indexed stroke volume of 26.7 mL/m2 [22.0; 31.0] (28.2 vs. 25.8 vs. 25.0, p = 0.004). The groups significantly differed at follow-up in terms of all-cause mortality (10.2 vs. 21.1 vs. 28.6%; p < 0.035). There was no difference in intrahospital event rate (VARC). Postprocedural mean gradients were lower in high-risk group (7.0 vs. 7.0 vs. 5.0 mmHg, p = 0.011). No differences in postprocedural aortic valve area (1.9 vs. 1.7 vs. 1.9 cm2, p = 0.518) or rate of device failure (5.6 vs. 6.8 vs. 7.7%, p = 0.731) could be observed. After adjustment for known predictors, the GWTG score (HR 1.07 [1.01-1.14], p = 0.030) as well as pacemaker implantation (HR 3.97 [1.34-11.75], p = 0.013) turned out to be possible predictors for mortality. An increase in stroke volume index (SVI) was, in contrast, protective (HR 0.90 [0.83-0.97]; p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: The GWTG score may predict mortality after TAVI in LFLG-AS HF patients. Interestingly, all groups showed similar intrahospital event and mortality rates, independent of calculated mortality risk. Low SVI and new conduction disturbances associated with PPI after THV implantation had negative impact on mid-term outcome in post-TAVI HF-patients.

Procedural Outcomes of a Self-Expanding Transcatheter Heart Valve in Small Annuli.

BACKGROUND: Self-expanding transcatheter valves (THV) seem superior to balloon-expanding valves in regard to the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM). Data on the occurrence of PPM with the ACURATE neo/neo2 system as a representative of self-expanding prostheses in very small annuli, even below the applicable instructions for use (IFU), are scarce. METHODS: Data from 654 patients with severe native aortic stenosis treated with the smallest size ACURATE neo/neo2 valve (size S, 23 mm) at two German high-volume centers from 06/2012 to 12/2021 were evaluated. We compared clinical and hemodynamic outcomes among patients with implantation in adherence to the recommended sizing (on-label n = 529) and below the recommended sizing range (off-label n = 125) and identified predictors for PPM in the overall population. BMI-adjusted PPM was defined according to VARC-3 recommendations. RESULTS: Post-procedure, the mean gradient (10.0 mmHg vs. 9.0 mmHg, p = 0.834) and the rate of paravalvular leakage (PVL) ≥ moderate (3.2% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.770) were similar between on-label and off-label implantations. The rate of moderate to severe PPM (24%) was comparably low in ACURATE neo/neo2 S, with a very low proportion of severe PPM whether implanted off- or on-label (4.9% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.552). Thirty-day all-cause mortality was higher among patients with off-label implantations (6.5% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.036). In the subgroup of these patients, no device-related deaths occurred, and cardiac causes did not differ (each 5). Besides small annulus area and high BMI, a multivariate analysis identified a greater cover index (OR 3.26), deep implantation (OR 2.25) and severe calcification (OR 2.07) as independent predictors of PPM. CONCLUSIONS: The ACURATE neo/neo2 S subgroup shows a convincing hemodynamic outcome according to low mean gradient even outside the previous IFUs without a relevant increase in the rate of PVL or PPM. In addition to known factors such as annulus area and BMI, potential predictors for PPM are severe annulus calcification and implantation depth. Nevertheless, the ACURATE neo/neo2 system seems to be a reliable option in patients with very small annuli.

Multi-Center Comparison of Two Self-Expanding Transcatheter Heart Valves: A Propensity Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: During the last years, several transcatheter aortic heart valves entered the clinical market and are commercially available. The prostheses differ regarding several technical and functional aspects. However, little is known regarding head-to-head comparative data of the ACURATE neo and the PORTICO valve prostheses. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare two self-expanding transcatheter aortic heart valves (THV), the ACURATE neo and the PORTICO, with regard to in-hospital and 30-day outcomes, as well as early device failures. METHODS: A total of 1591 consecutive patients with severe native aortic valve stenosis from two centers were included in the analyses and matched by 1:1 nearest neighbor matching to identify one patient treated with PORTICO (n = 344) for each patient treated with ACURATE neo (n = 344). RESULTS: In-hospital complications were comparable between both valves, including any kind of stroke (ACURATE neo = 3.5% vs. PORTICO = 3.8%; p = 1.0), major vascular complications (ACURATE neo = 4.5% vs. PORTICO = 5.4%; p = 0.99) or life-threatening bleeding (ACURATE neo = 1% vs. PORTICO = 2%; p = 0.68). The rate of device failure defined by the VARC-2 criteria were comparable, including elevated gradients and moderate-to-severe paravalvular leakage (ACURATE neo = 7.3% vs. PORTICO = 7.6%; p = 1.0). However, the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) was significantly more frequent after the use of PORTICO THV (9.5% vs. 18.7%; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In this two-center case-matched comparison, short-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes showed comparable results between PORTICO and ACURATE neo prostheses. However, PORTICO was associated with a significant higher incidence of PPI.

Transcatheter-based aortic valve replacement vs. isolated surgical aortic valve replacement in 2020.

BACKGROUND: Based on the results of several recent randomized trials, European and American guidelines on valvular heart disease management have substantially expanded the indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We present an all-comer data on peri-operative risk profile and in-hospital outcomes from Germany for patients treated by TAVI or isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (iSAVR) in 2020, providing an opportunity to compare study data with data from daily clinical practice. METHODS: Data concerning all isolated aortic valve procedures performed in Germany in 2020 were retrieved from the mandatory nationwide quality control program. Expected mortality was calculated with the annually revised German Aortic valve score (AKL-score) based on the data of either catheter-based (AKL-CATH) or isolated surgical (AKL-CHIR) aortic valve replacement in Germany from the previous year (2019). RESULTS: In 2020 21,903 TAVI procedures (20,810 transvascular (TV; vs. 2019: 22.973; - 9.4%), 1093 transapical (TA; vs. 2019: 1413; - 22.6%)) and 6144 (vs. 2019 7905; - 22.5%) iSAVR were performed in Germany. Patients who received TAVI showed a significantly higher perioperative risk profile than patients undergoing iSAVR based on older age and more severe co-morbidities. While in-hospital mortality after TAVI (2.3%) was numerically lower than in 2019 (2.5%), this difference was not significant (p = 0.11). In-hospital mortality after iSAVR was identical in 2020 and 2019 (2.8%) and thus higher than after TAVI (p = 0.003), resulting in an observed expected mortality ratio of 1.02 after TAVI and 1.05 after iSAVR. After exclusion of the emergency procedures, in-hospital mortality did not differ significantly between the groups (TAVI 2.2% vs. iSAVR 1.9%, p = 0.26). CONCLUSION: Total numbers of both iSAVR and TAVI in Germany were lower in 2020 than in 2019, most likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the relative number of patients treated by TAVI as compared to iSAVR continues to increase. Despite older age and more severe comorbidities compared to patients undergoing iSAVR the in-hospital mortality after TAVI continued to decrease in 2020 and remains significantly lower than after iSAVR.

Latest Advances in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (2022).

Since the last decade, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the treatment of choice in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) who are ineligible or at higher risk for surgery. Due to the high safety profile of current device generation, TAVI has emerged as a qualified alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with classic aortic stenosis and intermediate surgical risk, severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis, and isolated pure aortic regurgitation. Moderate aortic stenosis, with and without concomitant heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, are under investigation in randomized controlled clinical trials from which we will gain exciting insights on the best timing of TAVI to protect the left ventricle from further functional deterioration due to increasing AS. In these cases, a meticulous diagnostic approach including advanced imaging is becoming more and more important. Current evidence on antithrombotic strategies after TAVI is weak, contributing to poor levels of standardization and high variability in daily clinical practice. This review will provide a short overview of recent clinical trials including best timing for TAVI with moderate AS and antithrombotic strategies after TAVI with current and future TAVI generations.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in High-Risk/Inoperable Patients: Repositionable versus Non-Repositionable Self-Expanding Valve.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Although next-generation cardiac prostheses have shown favorable results in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), these have mostly been documented in intermediate-risk patients. Whether this could be translated to high-risk patients is not known. Hence, the safety and clinical performance of the new, repositionable CoreValve Evolut R-System (ERS) was evaluated by comparison with a non-repositionable CoreValve-System (CVS), in 96 high-risk/inoperable (HRI) patients. METHODS: The primary safety end points were mortality and stroke, defined by VARC-2 criteria, at 30 days. Clinical performance end points were described by VARC-2 criteria, focusing on: (i) higher-grade atrioventricular conduction blocks with concomitant permanent pacemaker (PM) implantation; (ii) vascular complications (VCs); and (iii) aortic regurgitation (AR). The ERS and CVS patients underwent TAVI in equal proportions. RESULTS: In this study, 63% of patients in the CVS group and 82% in the ERS group were defined as HRI. One in-hospital death was documented after 30 days. With regards to the HRI cohort, no difference in rates of PM use were noted (ERS 20% versus CVS 20%; p >0.9999). ERS patients were characterized by a higher prevalence of peripheral vascular disease (PVD) (46% versus 21%; p <0.05), but fewer VCs (13% versus 41%; p <0.01). Both cohorts showed low rates of moderate-to-severe paravalvular AR (ERS 6% versus CVS 5%; p = 0.8639). However, ERS seemed to offer a favorable hemodynamic performance, with a significantly improved AR index (26.3 versus 22.3; p <0.05). TAVI with the ERS was associated with a higher stroke rate (3% versus 0%; p = 0.1232) after necessary postdilatation processes. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to last-generation CVS, the repositionable ERS is safe and effective in HRI patients. Similar rates of PM use were noted for each group. together with a favorable hemodynamic performance and fewer vascular complications.