Reducing length of stay after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the FAST-TAVI II trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The length of stay (LOS) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains extremely variable whereas early discharge has been shown to be feasible and safe. The study objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an intervention aimed at reducing LOS after transfemoral TAVI. METHODS: FAST-TAVI II is a prospective, multicentre, cluster, randomized, controlled study including patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, who had transfemoral TAVI. The intervention consisted in a dedicated training programme to implement 10 quality of care measures to reduce LOS with an implementation phase of eight weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients discharged early within 3 days. Secondary endpoints included: LOS, 30-day mortality and 30-day incidence of readmission for cardiovascular events. RESULTS: During the study period, 969 patients were enrolled in the intervention group and 860 patients in the control group. Mean age was 81.9 ± 6.6 years and mean EuroSCORE II was 4.4 ± 4.5%. Early discharge was achieved in 563 (58.1%) patients in the intervention group vs. 364 (42.3%) patients in the control group (P < .0001). Median LOS was significantly reduced in the intervention group compared to the control group [3 (IQR: 3) vs. 4 days (IQR: 3), P < .0001]. Thirty-day mortality was low and similar in the two groups (0.5% vs. 0.9%, P = .30), as were 30-day readmissions (4.6% vs. 2.8%, P = .28). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was simple and fast to implement, and was effective and safe to reduce LOS and increase the proportion of patients discharged early after TAVI (NCT04503655).

Device innovation in cardiovascular medicine: a report from the European Society of Cardiology Cardiovascular Round Table.

Research performed in Europe has driven cardiovascular device innovation. This includes, but is not limited to, percutaneous coronary intervention, cardiac imaging, transcatheter heart valve implantation, and device therapy of cardiac arrhythmias and heart failure. An important part of future medical progress involves the evolution of medical technology and the ongoing development of artificial intelligence and machine learning. There is a need to foster an environment conducive to medical technology development and validation so that Europe can continue to play a major role in device innovation while providing high standards of safety. This paper summarizes viewpoints on the topic of device innovation in cardiovascular medicine at the European Society of Cardiology Cardiovascular Round Table, a strategic forum for high-level dialogue to discuss issues related to the future of cardiovascular health in Europe. Devices are developed and improved through an iterative process throughout their lifecycle. Early feasibility studies demonstrate proof of concept and help to optimize the design of a device. If successful, this should ideally be followed by randomized clinical trials comparing novel devices vs. accepted standards of care when available and the collection of post-market real-world evidence through registries. Unfortunately, standardized procedures for feasibility studies across various device categories have not yet been implemented in Europe. Cardiovascular imaging can be used to diagnose and characterize patients for interventions to improve procedural results and to monitor devices long term after implantation. Randomized clinical trials often use cardiac imaging-based inclusion criteria, while less frequently trials randomize patients to compare the diagnostic or prognostic value of different modalities. Applications using machine learning are increasingly important, but specific regulatory standards and pathways remain in development in both Europe and the USA. Standards are also needed for smart devices and digital technologies that support device-driven biomonitoring. Changes in device regulation introduced by the European Union aim to improve clinical evidence, transparency, and safety, but they may impact the speed of innovation, access, and availability. Device development programmes including dialogue on unmet needs and advice on study designs must be driven by a community of physicians, trialists, patients, regulators, payers, and industry to ensure that patients have access to innovative care.

Infective Endocarditis After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Scarce data are available comparing infective endocarditis (IE) following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study aimed to compare the clinical presentation, microbiological profile, management, and outcomes of IE after SAVR versus TAVR. METHODS: Data were collected from the "Infectious Endocarditis after TAVR International" (enrollment from 2005 to 2020) and the "International Collaboration on Endocarditis" (enrollment from 2000 to 2012) registries. Only patients with an IE affecting the aortic valve prosthesis were included. A 1:1 paired matching approach was used to compare patients with TAVR and SAVR. RESULTS: A total of 1688 patients were included. Of them, 602 (35.7%) had a surgical bioprosthesis (SB), 666 (39.5%) a mechanical prosthesis, 70 (4.2%) a homograft, and 350 (20.7%) a transcatheter heart valve. In the SAVR versus TAVR matched population, the rate of new moderate or severe aortic regurgitation was higher in the SB group (43.4% vs 13.5%; P < .001), and fewer vegetations were diagnosed in the SB group (62.5% vs 82%; P < .001). Patients with an SB had a higher rate of perivalvular extension (47.9% vs 27%; P < .001) and Staphylococcus aureus was less common in this group (13.4% vs 22%; P = .033). Despite a higher rate of surgery in patients with SB (44.4% vs 27.3%; P < .001), 1-year mortality was similar (SB: 46.5%; TAVR: 44.8%; log-rank P = .697). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical presentation, type of causative microorganism, and treatment differed between patients with an IE located on SB compared with TAVR. Despite these differences, both groups exhibited high and similar mortality at 1-year follow-up.

Incidence, Clinical Characteristics, and Impact of Absent Echocardiographic Signs in Patients With Infective Endocarditis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

BACKGROUND: Echocardiography is the primary imaging modality for diagnosis of infective endocarditis (IE) in prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) including IE after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). This study aimed to evaluate the characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with absent compared with evident echocardiographic signs of TAVI-IE. METHODS: Patients with definite TAVI-IE derived from the Infectious Endocarditis after TAVI International Registry were investigated comparing those with absent and evident echocardiographic signs of IE defined as vegetation, abscess, pseudo-aneurysm, intracardiac fistula, or valvular perforation or aneurysm. RESULTS: Among 578 patients, 87 (15.1%) and 491 (84.9%) had absent (IE-neg) and evident (IE-pos) echocardiographic signs of IE, respectively. IE-neg were more often treated via a transfemoral access with a self-expanding device and had higher rates of peri-interventional complications (eg, stroke, major vascular complications) during the TAVI procedure (P < .05 for all). IE-neg had higher rates of IE caused by Staphylococcus aureus (33.7% vs 23.2%; P = .038) and enterococci (37.2% vs 23.8%; P = .009) but lower rates of coagulase-negative staphylococci (4.7% vs 20.0%, P = .001). IE-neg was associated with the same dismal prognosis for in-hospital mortality in a multivariate binary regression analysis (odds ratio: 1.51; 95% confidence interval [CI]: .55-4.12) as well as a for 1-year mortality in Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio: 1.10; 95% CI: .67-1.80). CONCLUSIONS: Even with negative echocardiographic imaging, patients who have undergone TAVI and presenting with positive blood cultures and symptoms of infection are a high-risk patient group having a reasonable suspicion of IE and the need for an early treatment initiation.

Left bundle branch area pacing in patients with baseline narrow, left, or right bundle branch block QRS patterns: insights into electrocardiographic and echocardiographic features.

AIMS: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a recent technique aiming at preservation of physiological ventricular electrical activation. Our goal was to assess mechanical synchrony parameters in relation to electrocardiographic features during LBBAP performed in routine practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: From June 2020 to August 2021, all patients of our institution with permanent pacemaker implantation indication were eligible for LBBAP. A 'qR' pattern in V1 and a delay from pacing spike to the peak of the R-wave in V6 < 80 ms defined a successful LBBAP. Electrocardiogram and echocardiography were performed during spontaneous rhythm and LBBAP: left ventricular mechanical synchrony (LVMS) parameters using 2D Speckle tracking and interventricular mechanical delay (IVMD) were collected. LBBAP was attempted with success in 134/163 patients (82.2%). During LBBAP, the mean QRS width was 104 ± 12 ms. In patients with left bundle branch block (n = 47), LBBAP provided a significant decrease of QRS width from 139 ± 16 to 105 ± 12 ms (P < 0.001) with reduction of LVMS (53 ± 21 vs. 90 ± 46 ms, P = 0.009), and IVMD (14 ± 13 vs. 49 ± 18 ms, P < 0.001). In patients with right bundle branch block (n = 38), LBBAP led to a significant decrease of QRS width from 134 ± 14 to 106 ± 13 ms (P < 0.001) with no effect on LVMS and a reduction of IVMD (17 ± 14 vs. 50 ± 16 ms, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: LBBAP in routine practice preserved intra-ventricular mechanical synchrony in patients with narrow and RBBB QRS and improved asynchrony parameters in patients with LBBB.

Patterns of Aortic Valve Replacement in Europe: Adoption by Age.

INTRODUCTION: The management of patients with severe aortic stenosis may differ according to patients' age. The aim of this analysis was to describe patterns of aortic valve replacement (AVR) use in European countries stratified by age. METHODS: Procedure volume data for AVR, including surgical aortic valve replacement (sAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), for the years 2015-2020 were obtained from national databases for twelve European countries (Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, England, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland). Procedure volumes were reported by patient age (<50 years, 5-year age groups between 50 and 85 years, and ≥85 years). Patients per million (PPM) population undergoing AVR each year were calculated using population estimates from Eurostat. RESULTS: AVR PPM varied widely between countries, from 508 PPM in Germany to 174 PPM in Poland in 2020. TAVI rates ranged from 61% in Switzerland and Finland to 25% in Poland. AVR PPM increased with age to a peak at 80-84 years, after which it decreased again. AVR procedures increased from 2015 to 2019 at an average annual rate of 3.9%. AVR increased more substantially in people aged ≥80 years than in younger age groups; these older age groups accounted for 30% of all AVR procedures in 2015 and 35% in 2019. TAVI accounted for an increasing proportion of all AVR procedures as patient age increased; an overall average of 96% of males and 98% of females aged ≥85 years received TAVI as the treatment modality, although adoption of TAVI differed between countries. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variation in the rates of AVR use and the adoption of TAVI versus sAVR between European countries. The use of TAVI has increased in recent years, particularly for older patients.

Trends in aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis: a French nationwide study.

AIMS: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has profoundly changed the management of patients with aortic valve stenosis (AS). Large unbiased nationwide data regarding TAVR implementation, impact on SAVR and their respective outcomes are scarce. METHODS AND RESULTS: Based on a French administrative hospital-discharge database, we collected data on all consecutive aortic valve replacements (AVRs) performed in France for AS between 2007 and 2019 [106 253 isolated SAVR (49%), 46 514 combined SAVR (21%), and 65 651 TAVR (30%)]. The number of AVR linearly increased between 2007 and 2019 (from 10 892 to 23 109, P for trend < 0.0001) due to a marked increase in TAVR (from 253 to 13 030, P for trend < 0.0001), while SAVR increased up to 2013 and then declined (10 892 in 2007, 12 699 in 2013, and 10 079 in 2019). The Charlson index decreased linearly for TAVR, but in two steps for SAVR (2011 and 2017). In-hospital mortality rates of both SAVR and TAVR declined (both P for trend < 0.0001) and were similar or lower for TAVR than for isolated SAVR in patients 75 years or above in the last 3 years (2017-19). Complication rates of TAVR also declined but permanent pacemaker rates remained high and length of stay substantial (16.7% and median 6 days, respectively, in 2017-19). CONCLUSION: The number of AVR has doubled in a decade and TAVR has become the dominant form of AVR in 2018. The improvement in patient profiles seems to have anticipated the demonstrated benefit of TAVR in intermediate and low-risk patients. In patients 75 years or older, TAVR should be considered as the first option. We also highlight two important areas for improvement, the high permanent pacemaker rates, and the long length of stay even in the contemporary era. Our results may have major implications for clinical practice and policymakers.

Trends in aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis: a French nationwide study.

AIMS: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has profoundly changed the management of patients with aortic valve stenosis (AS). Large unbiased nationwide data regarding TAVR implementation, impact on SAVR and their respective outcomes are scarce. METHODS AND RESULTS: Based on a French administrative hospital-discharge database, we collected data on all consecutive aortic valve replacements (AVRs) performed in France for AS between 2007 and 2019 [106 253 isolated SAVR (49%), 46 514 combined SAVR (21%), and 65 651 TAVR (30%)]. The number of AVR linearly increased between 2007 and 2019 (from 10 892 to 23 109, P for trend < 0.0001) due to a marked increase in TAVR (from 253 to 13 030, P for trend < 0.0001), while SAVR increased up to 2013 and then declined (10 892 in 2007, 12 699 in 2013, and 10 079 in 2019). The Charlson index decreased linearly for TAVR, but in two steps for SAVR (2011 and 2017). In-hospital mortality rates of both SAVR and TAVR declined (both P for trend < 0.0001) and were similar or lower for TAVR than for isolated SAVR in patients 75 years or above in the last 3 years (2017-19). Complication rates of TAVR also declined but permanent pacemaker rates remained high and length of stay substantial (16.7% and median 6 days, respectively, in 2017-19). CONCLUSION: The number of AVR has doubled in a decade and TAVR has become the dominant form of AVR in 2018. The improvement in patient profiles seems to have anticipated the demonstrated benefit of TAVR in intermediate and low-risk patients. In patients 75 years or older, TAVR should be considered as the first option. We also highlight two important areas for improvement, the high permanent pacemaker rates, and the long length of stay even in the contemporary era. Our results may have major implications for clinical practice and policymakers.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Procedure Compared With Surgery in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis at Low Risk of Surgical Mortality in France.

OBJECTIVES: The clinical and cost-saving benefits of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high or intermediate risk of surgical mortality are supported by a growing evidence base. The PARTNER 3 trial (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial) demonstrated clinical benefits with SAPIEN 3 TAVI compared with SAVR in selected patients at low risk of surgical mortality. This study uses PARTNER 3 outcomes in combination with a French national hospital claim database to inform a cost-utility model and examine the cost implications of TAVI over SAVR in a low-risk population. METHODS: A 2-stage cost-utility analysis was developed to estimate changes in both direct healthcare costs and health-related quality of life using TAVI with SAPIEN 3 compared with SAVR. Early adverse events associated with TAVI were captured using the PARTNER 3 data set. These data fed into a Markov model that captured longer-term outcomes of patients, after TAVI or SAVR intervention. RESULTS: TAVI with SAPIEN 3 offers meaningful benefits over SAVR in providing both cost saving (€12 742 per patient) and generating greater quality-adjusted life-years (0.89 per patient). These results are robust with TAVI with SAPIEN 3 remaining dominant across several scenarios and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This model demonstrated that TAVI with SAPIEN 3 was dominant compared with SAVR in the treatment of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who are at low risk of surgical mortality. These findings should help policy makers in developing informed approaches to intervention selection for this patient population.

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

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

Can permanent His bundle pacing be safely started by operators new to this technique? Data from a multicenter registry.

BACKGROUND: Right ventricular pacing (RVP) induces ventricular asynchrony in patients with normal QRS and increases the risk of heart failure and atrial fibrillation in long term. His bundle pacing (HBP) is a physiological alternative to RVP, and could overcome its drawbacks. Recent studies assessed the feasibility and safety of HBP in expert centers with a vast experience of this technique. These results may not apply to less experienced centers. We aim to evaluate the feasibility and safety of permanent HBP performed by physicians who are new to this technique. METHODS: We included all patients who underwent pacemaker implantation with attempt of HBP in three hospitals between September 2017 and January 2020. Indication for HBP was left to operators' discretion. All the operators were new for HBP. His bundle (HB) electrical parameters were recorded at implant, 3- and 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: HBP was successful in 141 of 170 patients (82.9%); selective HBP was obtained in 96 patients and nonselective HBP in 45. The mean procedure and fluoroscopy durations were 67.0 ± 28.8 min, and 7.3 ± 8.1 min (3.1 ± 4.1 Gy·cm2 ), respectively. The mean HB paced QRS duration was 106 ± 18 ms. The mean HB capture threshold was 1.29 ± 0.77 V and did not increase at 3- and 12-month follow-up. The ventricular lead revision was required in five patients. Our results showed a rapid technical learning allowing a high procedure success rate (89.8%) after 15 procedures. CONCLUSION: HBP performed by operators new to this technique appeared feasible and safe. This should encourage HBP to be performed in patients expected to experience high RVP burden.

Rationale and design of a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of transcatheter heart valve replacement in female patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis requiring aortic valve intervention (Randomized researcH in womEn all comers wIth Aortic stenosis [RHEIA] trial).

BACKGROUND: Limited data suggest that transcatheter (TAVR) as compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) may be more effective in female than male patients. To date, most evidence is derived from subgroup analyses of large trials, and a dedicated randomized trial evaluating whether there is a difference in outcomes between these interventions in women is warranted. The RHEIA trial will compare the safety and efficacy of TAVR with SAVR in women with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis requiring aortic valve intervention, irrespective of surgical risk. METHODS/DESIGN: The RHEIA trial is a prospective, randomized, controlled study that will enroll up to 440 patients across 35 sites in Europe. Women with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, with any but prohibitive surgical risk status, will be randomized 1:1 to undergo aortic valve intervention with either transfemoral TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 or SAPIEN 3 Ultra device or SAVR and followed up for 1 year. The objective is to determine whether TAVR is non-inferior to SAVR in this patient population and, if this is fulfilled whether TAVR is actually superior to SAVR. The primary safety/efficacy endpoint is a composite of all-cause mortality, all stroke, and re-hospitalization (for valve or procedure-related symptoms or worsening congestive heart failure) at 1 year post-procedure. Other outcomes (assessed at 30 days and/or 1 year) include all-cause mortality; bleeding, vascular, cardiac, cerebrovascular and renal complications; aortic valve prosthesis and left ventricular function; cognitive function, health status, and quality of life. DISCUSSION: The RHEIA study has been designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of TAVR compared with SAVR specifically in women with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, irrespective of the level of surgical risk. The results will be the first to provide specific randomized evidence to guide treatment selection in female patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04160130.

Very long-term outcomes after catheter ablation of atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia: How does cryoenergy differ from radiofrequency?

INTRODUCTION: Either cryoenergy or radiofrequency can be used during atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) ablation. There are still limited data comparing their respective long-term efficacy (>1 year). This study sought to compare the very long-term outcomes of AVNRT ablation using radiofrequency or cryotherapy. METHODS: We retrospectively included all patients who had undergone a first AVNRT ablation in our institution between January 2010 and December 2017. The primary endpoint was recurrence of documented AVNRT. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 409 patients (274 females; mean age, 49.9 years). Ablation was performed using cryoenergy in 260 patients and radiofrequency in 149. High acute procedural success rate (>98%) was obtained and no permanent AV block was observed using both techniques. During a mean follow-up of 3.3 ± 2.3 years, documented AVNRT recurrence occurred in 24 (9.2%) and 4 patients (2.7%) in the cryoablation (CA) and radiofrequency (RF) group, respectively. The risk of AVNRT recurrence was significantly higher in the CA group as compared with the RF group (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-5.9). Most of the recurrences after CA occurred between 1- and 6-year follow-up (14/24; 58.3%), with one-third of late recurrences after 3-year follow-up. In multivariable analysis, only Koch's triangle anatomical variant was associated with AVNRT recurrence after CA (HR = 6.7; 95% CI, 2.7-16.3). CONCLUSION: While AVNRT recurrence rates were similar at 1 year of follow-up regardless of the energy used, long-term efficacy appeared higher after radiofrequency ablation. Strikingly, recurrences occured much later after cryotherapy compared with radiofrequency ablation.

General Anesthesia or Conscious Sedation for Transfemoral Aortic Valve Replacement with the SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve.

Differences in the benefits of conscious sedation (CS) and general anesthesia (GA) during transfemoral aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are unclear.We aimed to assess differences in procedural and clinical outcomes based on the type of anesthesia received during TAVI.We analyzed SOURCE 3 Registry data for patients who received the SAPIEN 3 valve by type of anesthesia used during TAVI.Of the 1694 TAVI patients, 1027 received CS and 667 received GA. Patients were similar at baseline (81.5 years; Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score 7.0). Compared with the GA group, the CS group had fewer intra-procedural transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and post implantation dilatations performed, and less contrast medium was used. The CS group had significantly less kidney injury at 7 days post-procedure than the GA group (0.4% versus 1.5%, P = 0.014). Moderate paravalvular leaks (PVL) occurred more frequently in the CS group versus the GA group (2.2% versus 0.8%; P = 0.041). No severe PVL were reported. Median total hospital length of stay (LOS) after TAVI was 10 days in the CS group and 11 days in the GS group. At 30 days, all-cause death was 2.1% in CS and 1.7% in GS (P = 0.47), and myocardial infarction was 0.2% in CS and 0.1% in GS (P = 0.83).Our analyses found no significant major outcome differences between CS and GA during TAVI.

Five-Year Clinical Outcome and Valve Durability After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: The FRANCE-2 registry (French Aortic National Corevalve and Edwards) previously reported good early- and medium-term clinical and echocardiographic efficacy for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. We here report 5-year follow-up results from the registry. METHODS: The registry includes all consecutive patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis in France. Follow-up is scheduled at 30 days, 6 months, then annually from 1 to 5 years. Clinical events were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria, and hemodynamic structural valve deterioration (SVD) was defined according to the consensus statement by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions. RESULTS: Between January 2010 and January 2012, 4201 patients were enrolled in 34 centers. Five-year vital status was available for 95.5% of patients; 88.1% had clinical evaluation or died. Overall, at 5 years, all-cause mortality was 60.8% (n=2478; 95% CI, 59.3% to 62.3%). The majority of cardiovascular events occurred in the first month after valve implantation, and incidence remained low thereafter, at <2% per year up to 5 years, except for heart failure. The rate of heart failure was 14.3% at 1 year, then decreased over time to <5% per year. In cumulative incidence function, the rates of severe SVD and moderate/severe SVD at 5 years were 2.5% and 13.3%, respectively. Mortality did not differ between patients with or without severe SVD (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.47-1.07; P=0.1). Finally, in the population of patients with severe SVD, 1 patient (1.7%) experienced a stroke, and 8 patients presented ≥1 heart failure event (13.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The 5-year follow-up results of the FRANCE-2 registry represent the largest long-term data set available in a high-risk population. In surviving patients, the low rate of clinical events and the low level of SVD after 1 year support the long-term efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in both types of transcatheter prosthesis featuring in the registry.

Pacemaker memory in post-TAVI patients: Who should benefit from permanent pacemaker implantation?

BACKGROUND: One of the most frequent complications of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the occurrence of atrioventricular (AV) conduction disorders secondary to AV node or His bundle injury leading to permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI). The objective was to quantify the rate of ventricular pacing (VP), according to post-TAVI indication for PPI using recorded pacemaker memory. METHODS: From October 2009 to January 2017' all patients who had PPI following TAVI performed at Rouen University Hospital were included. Indications for PPI were: ≥ 1 episode of complete atrioventricular block (CAVB) or 2:1 atrioventricular block, and new-onset persistent left bundle branch block (NOP-LBBB) with either prolonged PR interval (> 200 ms) or HV interval (>70 ms). The primary endpoint was VP percentage at the first pacemaker interrogation (a VP percentage ≥ 1% was considered as significant). RESULTS: Out of 936 TAVI patients (Sapien-3' n = 379 [Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA]; Sapien-XT' n = 513; CoreValve' n = 44, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA), 87 (9.3%) had PPI. Eighty of these 87 patients were followed-up and analyzed. At the first pacemaker interrogation, a significant VP percentage was observed in 60/80 followed-up patients (75%), in 46/51 patients (90.2%) implanted for CAVB, and 12/23 patients (52.2%) implanted for NOP-LBBB associated with either prolonged PR or HV interval. No clinical predictive factor of significant VP percentage was found. CONCLUSION: In the post-TAVI period, our data support PPI in patients with CAVB even if paroxysmal. Our data also suggest PPI may be considered in patients with NOP-LBBB associated with either prolonged PR or HV interval.

Stopping or continuing clopidogrel 12 months after drug-eluting stent placement: the OPTIDUAL randomized trial.

AIM: This open-label, randomized, and multicentre trial tested the hypothesis that, on a background of aspirin, continuing clopidogrel would be superior to stopping clopidogrel at 12 months following drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients (N = 1799) who had undergone placement of ≥1 DES for stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome were included in 58 French sites (January 2009-January 2013). Patients (N = 1385) free of major cardiovascular/cerebrovascular events or major bleeding and on aspirin and clopidogrel 12 months after stenting were eligible for randomization (1:1) between continuing clopidogrel 75 mg daily (extended-dual antiplatelet therapy, DAPT, group) or discontinuing clopidogrel (aspirin group). The primary outcome was net adverse clinical events defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding. Follow-up was planned from a minimum of 6 to a maximum of 36 months after randomization. Owing to slow recruitment, the study was stopped after enrolment of 1385 of a planned 1966 patients. Median follow-up after stenting was 33.4 months. The primary outcome occurred in 40 patients (5.8%) in the extended-DAPT group and 52 in the aspirin group (7.5%; hazard ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.50-1.28; P = 0.17). Rates of death were 2.3% in the extended-DAPT group and 3.5% in the aspirin group (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.34-1.22; P = 0.18). Rates of major bleeding were identical (2.0%, P = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Extended DAPT did not achieve superiority in reducing net adverse clinical events compared to 12 months of DAPT after DES placement. The power of the OPTIDUAL trial was however low and reduced by premature termination of enrolment. CLINICALTRIALSGOV NUMBER: NCT00822536.