Leaflet modification before transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients at risk for coronary obstruction: the ShortCut study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This trial sought to assess the safety and efficacy of ShortCut, the first dedicated leaflet modification device, prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients at risk for coronary artery obstruction. METHODS: This pivotal prospective study enrolled patients with failed bioprosthetic aortic valves scheduled to undergo TAVI and were at risk for coronary artery obstruction. The primary safety endpoint was procedure-related mortality or stroke at discharge or 7 days, and the primary efficacy endpoint was per-patient leaflet splitting success. Independent angiographic, echocardiographic, and computed tomography core laboratories assessed all images. Safety events were adjudicated by a clinical events committee and data safety monitoring board. RESULTS: Sixty eligible patients were treated (77.0 ± 9.6 years, 70% female, 96.7% failed surgical bioprosthetic valves, 63.3% single splitting and 36.7% dual splitting) at 22 clinical sites. Successful leaflet splitting was achieved in all (100%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 94-100.0%, p<0.001) patients. Procedure time, including imaging confirmation of leaflet splitting, was 30.6 ± 17.9 min. Freedom from the primary safety endpoint was achieved in 59 (98.3%; 95% CI [91.1-100%]) patients, with no mortality and one (1.7%) disabling stroke. At 30 days, freedom from coronary obstruction was 95% (95% CI 86.1-99.0%). Within 90 days, freedom from mortality was 95% (95% CI 86.1-99.0%]), without any cardiovascular deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Modification of failed bioprosthetic aortic valve leaflets using ShortCut was safe, achieved successful leaflet splitting in all patients, and was associated with favorable clinical outcomes in patients at risk for coronary obstruction undergoing TAVI.

The Influence of Audiovisual Distraction on Pain Reduction During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Under Monitored Anesthesia Care: A Prospective Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of an audiovisual distraction system on the dose of remifentanil for perioperative sedation during transcatheter aortic valve implantation under monitored anesthesia care. DESIGN: Single-center prospective randomized nonblinded study. SETTING: Tertiary referral academic hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety patients who underwent transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation between July 2019 and July 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to use either a novel audiovisual distraction system during the intervention (n = 45) or standard care without an audiovisual distraction system (n = 45). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Standardized questionnaires were given to each patient at admission and before and after the intervention to assess their levels of anxiety. Primary endpoints were the average and peak infusion rates of remifentanil. All patients were considered for the final analysis according to an intention-to-treat design. No relevant differences in pre- and postinterventional anxiety status were observed between the groups. Similarly, there were no significant differences in reported pain scores (p = 0.364). The average infusion rate (p = 0.028) and peak infusion rate (p = 0.025) of remifentanil were lower in the group with an audiovisual distraction system. CONCLUSIONS: Audiovisual distraction is a useful adjunct to reduce the dose of remifentanil under monitored anesthesia care during transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Larger studies are needed to evaluate potential positive effects on patient satisfaction, incidence of delirium, and possible economic benefits.

Clinical value of CT-derived simulations of transcatheter-aortic-valve-implantation in challenging anatomies the PRECISE-TAVI trial.

BACKGROUND: Preprocedural computed tomography planning improves procedural safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, contemporary imaging modalities do not account for device-host interactions. AIMS: This study evaluates the value of preprocedural computer simulation with FEops HEARTguideTM on overall device success in patients with challenging anatomies undergoing TAVI with a contemporary self-expanding supra-annular transcatheter heart valve. METHODS: This prospective multicenter observational study included patients with a challenging anatomy defined as bicuspid aortic valve, small annulus or severely calcified aortic valve. We compared the heart team's transcatheter heart valve (THV) planning decision based on (1) conventional multislice computed tomography (MSCT) and (2) MSCT imaging with FEops HEARTguideTM simulations. Clinical outcomes and THV performance were followed up to 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 77 patients were included (median age 79.9 years (IQR 74.2-83.8), 42% male). In 35% of the patients, preprocedural planning changed after FEops HEARTguideTM simulations (change in valve size selection [12%] or target implantation height [23%]). A new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) was implanted in 13% and >trace paravalvular leakage (PVL) occurred in 28.5%. The contact pressure index (i.e., simulation output indicating the risk of conduction abnormalities) was significantly higher in patients with a new PPI, compared to those without (16.0% [25th-75th percentile 12.0-21.0] vs. 3.5% [25th-75th percentile 0-11.3], p < 0.01) The predicted PVL was 5.7 mL/s (25th-75th percentile 1.3-11.1) in patients with none-trace PVL, 12.7 (25th-75th percentile 5.5-19.1) in mild PVL and 17.7 (25th-75th percentile 3.6-19.4) in moderate PVL (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: FEops HEARTguideTM simulations may provide enhanced insights in the risk for PVL or PPI after TAVI with a self-expanding supra-annular THV in complex anatomies.

Comparison of hemodynamics in biological surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve implantation: An in-silico study.

OBJECTIVES: In aortic valve replacement (AVR), the treatment strategy as well as the model and size of the implanted prosthesis have a major impact on the postoperative hemodynamics and thus on the clinical outcome. Preinterventional prediction of the hemodynamics could support the treatment decision. Therefore, we performed paired virtual treatment with transcatheter AVR (TAVI) and biological surgical AVR (SAVR) and compared hemodynamic outcomes using numerical simulations. METHODS: 10 patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI were virtually treated with both biological SAVR and TAVI to compare post-interventional hemodynamics using numerical simulations of peak-systolic flow. Virtual treatment procedure was done using an in-house developed tool based on position-based dynamics methodology, which was applied to the patient's anatomy including LVOT, aortic root and aorta. Geometries were automatically segmented from dynamic CT-scans and patient-specific flow rates were calculated by volumetric analysis of the left ventricle. Hemodynamics were assessed using the STAR CCM+ software by solving the RANS equations. RESULTS: Virtual treatment with TAVI resulted in realistic hemodynamics comparable to echocardiographic measurements (median difference in transvalvular pressure gradient [TPG]: -0.33 mm Hg). Virtual TAVI and SAVR showed similar hemodynamic functions with a mean TPG with standard deviation of 8.45 ± 4.60 mm Hg in TAVI and 6.66 ± 3.79 mm Hg in SAVR (p = 0.03) while max. Wall shear stress being 12.6 ± 4.59 vs. 10.2 ± 4.42 Pa (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Using the presented method for virtual treatment of AS, we were able to reliably predict post-interventional hemodynamics. TAVI and SAVR show similar hemodynamics in a pairwise comparison.

Which patients with aortic stenosis should be referred to surgery rather than transcatheter aortic valve implantation?

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has matured into a standard treatment option for patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis (AS) across the whole spectrum of risk. The advances in the interventional treatment of AS raise the question of which patients with severe AS should be referred to surgery. The myriad of clinical permutations does not allow providing a single, uniform treatment strategy. Rather, the advent of TAVI along with established surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) fundamentally enforces the role of the multidisciplinary heart team for decision-making recommending the best individual choice of the two options based on a thorough review of clinical and anatomical factors as well as lifetime management considerations. Involvement of the informed patient expressing treatment preferences is a key for a shared decision-making process. Herein, we provide an in-depth review of evidence informing the decision-making process between TAVI and SAVR and key elements for treatment selection. Special attention is given to the populations that have been excluded from randomized clinical trials, and also lifetime management strategies of patients with severe AS are proposed.

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.

Lifetime management of aortic valve disease: Aligning surgical and transcatheter armamentarium to set the tone for the present and the future.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has already received the green light for high-, intermediate- and low-risk profiles and is an alternative for all patients regardless of age. It is clear that there has been a push towards the use of TAVR in younger and younger patients (<65 years), which has never been formally tested in randomized controlled trials but seems inevitable as TAVR technology makes steady progress. Lifetime management as a concept will set the tone in the field of the structural heart. Some subjects in this scenario arise, including the importance of optimized prosthetic hemodynamics for lifetime care; surgical procedures in the aortic root; management of structural valve degeneration with valve-in-valve procedures (TAVR-in-surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR] and TAVR-in-TAVR) and redo SAVR; commissural alignment and cusp overlap for TAVR; the rise in the number of surgical procedures for TAVR explantation; and the renewed interest in the Ross procedure. This article reviews all these issues which will become commonplace during heart team meetings and preoperative conversations with patients in the coming years.

Transcatheter mitral valve implantation in the ongoing structural heart revolution.

Transcatheter mitral valve implantation (TMVI) has emerged as a less invasive approach potentially surmounting some of the current hurdles associated with transcatheter edge-to-edge repair and high-risk mitral valve surgery. In this review, we aimed to outline the main scenarios in the TMVI field, highlight current and upcoming devices, and describe challenges and clinical results. Finally, we briefly discuss the future perspectives for this emerging field and how TMVI might further advance the field of transcatheter treatments of mitral valve disease.

Right Antero-Lateral Mini-Thoracotomy Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.

Over the past few decades, the field of minimally invasive cardiac surgery has significantly broadened. Novel surgical and endovascular techniques have been developed for the treatment of aortic valve pathologies. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) through a right antero-lateral (mini-)thoracotomy (RALT) has gained approval due to its limited postoperative trauma, faster rehabilitation and sufficient pain control. Nevertheless, SAVR RALT has not been adopted by a significant proportion of cardiac surgeons, due, in part, to its technical complexity and steep learning curve. In this review, we discuss the data for minimally invasive aortic valve surgery and describe our operative technique for SAVR RALT.

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.

Percutaneous mitral valve repair assisted by a catheter-based circulatory support device in a heart transplant patient.

BACKGROUND: Systemic infections and chronic graft rejection represent common causes of mortality and morbidity in heart transplant patients. In severe cases, cardiogenic shock (CS) may occur and require hemodynamic stabilization with temporary mechanical circulatory support (tempMCS). Under these devastating circumstances, treatment of sequelae of left ventricular dysfunction, such as secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) is challenging, especially when surgical repair is deemed futile. In nontransplant patients, interventional mitral valve repair strategies such as the MitraClip system (Abbott Cardiovascular) have been used to successfully treat secondary MR and allow for weaning from tempMCS. CASE SUMMARY: We report about the first patient in whom profound CS after heart transplantation was stabilized with tempMCS followed by interventional elimination of secondary MR.

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.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation and its impact on mitral valve geometry and function.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) on mitral valve geometry and function. METHODS: Eighty-four patients underwent TAVI. Forty-four (52%) patients received a balloon-expandable valve and 40 (48%) were implanted with a self-expandable valve. All patients underwent three-dimensional-volumetric transesophageal echocardiography of the mitral valve before and immediately after TAVI. A dedicated software was used for assisted semiautomatic measurement of mitral annular geometry. RESULTS: During systole, the anterior to posterior (AP) diameter was significantly reduced after the procedure (3.4 ± 0.5 cm vs 3.2 ± 0.5 cm; P < .05). The mitral annular area (10.8 ± 2.8cm2 vs 9.9 ± 2.6cm2 ; P < .05) as well as the tenting area (1.6 ± 0.7 cm2 vs 1.2 ± 0.6 cm2 ; P < .001) measured at mid-systole were reduced after TAVI. Diastolic measures were similar. Patients treated with balloon-expandable valves showed a significantly larger reduction in the AP diameter compared to self-expandable valves (-0.25 cm vs -0.11 cm; P < .05). The reduction of the annular area was higher in the balloon-expandable group (-1.2 ± 1.59 vs -0.22 ± 1.41; P < .05). Grade of mitral regurgitation did improve or remained stable after TAVI. CONCLUSION: TAVI significantly impacts the mitral valve and mitral annular geometry and morphology. The choice of the prosthesis (balloon- vs self-expandable) may be relevant for those changes.

Minimally invasive surgical aortic valve replacement: The RALT approach.

Less-invasive techniques for cardiothoracic surgical procedures are designed to limit surgical trauma, but the technical requirements and preoperative planning are more demanding than those for conventional sternotomy. Patient selection, interdisciplinary collaboration, and surgical skills are key factors for procedural success. Aortic valve replacement is frequently performed through an upper hemisternotomy, but the right anterior minithoracotomy represents an even less traumatic, technical advancement. Preoperative assessment of the ascending aorta in relation to the sternum is mandatory to select patients and the intercostal access site. This description of the surgical technique focuses on the specific procedural details including the obligatory planning with computed tomography and our cannulation strategy. We also sought to define the anatomical ascending aorta-sternal relationship, as it is of utmost importance in preoperative computed tomographic planning.

Outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement for degenerated bioprostheses, failed annuloplasty rings, and mitral annular calcification.

Aims: We sought to evaluate the outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) for patients with degenerated bioprostheses [valve-in-valve (ViV)], failed annuloplasty rings [valve-in-ring (ViR)], and severe mitral annular calcification [valve-in-mitral annular calcification (ViMAC)]. Methods and results: From the TMVR multicentre registry, procedural and clinical outcomes of ViV, ViR, and ViMAC were compared according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) criteria. A total of 521 patients with mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 9.0 ± 7.0% underwent TMVR (322 patients with ViV, 141 with ViR, and 58 with ViMAC). Trans-septal access and the Sapien valves were used in 39.5% and 90.0%, respectively. Overall technical success was excellent at 87.1%. However, left ventricular outflow tract obstruction occurred more frequently after ViMAC compared with ViR and ViV (39.7% vs. 5.0% vs. 2.2%; P < 0.001), whereas second valve implantation was more frequent in ViR compared with ViMAC and ViV (12.1% vs. 5.2% vs. 2.5%; P < 0.001). Accordingly, technical success rate was higher after ViV compared with ViR and ViMAC (94.4% vs. 80.9% vs. 62.1%; P < 0.001). Compared with ViMAC and ViV groups, ViR group had more frequent post-procedural mitral regurgitation ≥moderate (18.4% vs. 13.8% vs. 5.6%; P < 0.001) and subsequent paravalvular leak closure (7.8% vs. 0.0% vs. 2.2%; P = 0.006). All-cause mortality was higher after ViMAC compared with ViR and ViV at 30 days (34.5% vs. 9.9% vs. 6.2%; log-rank P < 0.001) and 1 year (62.8% vs. 30.6% vs. 14.0%; log-rank P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, patients with failed annuloplasty rings and severe MAC were at increased risk of mortality after TMVR [ViR vs. ViV, hazard ratio (HR) 1.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27-3.12; P = 0.003; ViMAC vs. ViV, HR 5.29, 95% CI 3.29-8.51; P < 0.001]. Conclusion: The TMVR provided excellent outcomes for patients with degenerated bioprostheses despite high surgical risk. However, ViR and ViMAC were associated with higher rates of adverse events and mid-term mortality compared with ViV.

Incidence and outcome of peri-procedural transcatheter heart valve embolization and migration: the TRAVEL registry (TranscatheteR HeArt Valve EmboLization and Migration).

AIMS: Peri-procedural transcatheter valve embolization and migration (TVEM) is a rare but potentially devastating complication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We sought to assess the incidence, causes, and outcome of TVEM in a large multicentre cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: We recorded cases of peri-procedural TVEM in patients undergoing TAVI between January 2010 and December 2017 from 26 international sites. Peri-procedural TVEM occurred in 273/29 636 (0.92%) TAVI cases (age 80.8 ± 7.3 years; 53.8% female), of which 217 were to the ascending aorta and 56 to the left ventricle. The use of self-expanding or first-generation prostheses and presence of a bicuspid aortic valve were independent predictors of TVEM. Bail-out measures included repositioning attempts using snares or miscellaneous tools (41.0%), multiple valve implantations (83.2%), and conversion to surgery (19.0%). Using 1:4-propensity matching, we identified a cohort of 235 patients with TVEM (TVEMPS) and 932 patients without TVEM (non-TVEMPS). In the matched cohort, all-cause mortality was higher in TVEMPS than in non-TVEMPS at 30 days (18.6% vs. 4.9%; P < 0.001) and after 1 year (30.5% vs. 16.6%; P < 0.001). Major stroke was more frequent in TVEMPS at 30 days (10.6% vs. 2.8%; P < 0.001), but not at 1 year (4.6% vs. 1.9%; P = 0.17). The need for emergent cardiopulmonary support, major stroke at 30 days, and acute kidney injury Stages 2 and 3 increased the risk of 1-year mortality, whereas a better renal function at baseline was protective. CONCLUSION: Transcatheter valve embolization and migration occurred in approximately 1% and was associated with increased morbidity and mortality.

Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve and Valve-in-Ring Interventions for Failing Bioprostheses and Annuloplasty Rings.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation has dramatically changed the treatment of valvular heart disease over the past decade. At the same time, the indications for bioprosthesis implantation have been continuously extended toward younger patients, driven by excellent clinical results and improved durability. While the omission of oral anticoagulation reduces the risk of severe bleeding complications, the long-term durability of bioprostheses is still limited. In light of the growing number of elderly transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) patients, the prevalence of patients with failed bioprostheses and advanced comorbidities is expected to rise. Currently, transcatheter valve-in-valve (ViV) and valve-in-ring (ViR) interventions represent a valuable alternative treatment option for patients with a high risk for surgical reoperation. Several reports have described a high procedural success rate and low postprocedural morbidity and mortality during mid-term follow-up. We are still facing valve-specific and procedure-related challenges in all types of procedures, but especially in transcatheter ViR interventions. Considering the high technical demand of these interventions, a strong and highly specialized heart team in heart valve centers is the cornerstone of successful patient treatment. This review focuses on individualized patient selection, procedure-specific risk factors and technical aspects of transcatheter ViV/R interventions, and explores the currently available literature on postinterventional outcome.

Transcatheter management of pure native aortic valve regurgitation in patients with left ventricular assist device.

OBJECTIVES: Aortic valve regurgitation (AR) frequently complicates the clinical course after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in this cohort with a mostly high surgical risk profile. The unique challenges in LVAD patients, such as presence of non-calcified aortic valves and annular dilatation, raise concerns about device migration and paravalvular leakage (PVL) leading to missing device success. This study evaluates procedural outcomes and survival rates in LVAD patients who underwent TAVI, emphasizing strategies to enhance device success. METHODS: Between January 2017 and April 2023, 27 LVAD patients with clinically significant AR underwent elective or urgent TAVI at our centre. Primary end-points were procedural success rates, without the need for a second transcatheter heart valve (THV) and postprocedural AR/PVL. Secondary outcomes included survival rates and adverse events. RESULTS: Among the cohort, 14.8% received AR-dedicated TAVI devices, with none requiring a second THV. There was no intraprocedural AR, and 1 patient (25%) had AR > 'trace' at discharge. Additionally, 25.9% underwent device landing zone (DLZ) pre-stenting with a standard TAVI device, all without needing a second THV. There was no intraprocedural AR, and none to trace AR at discharge. Among the 59.3% receiving standard TAVI devices, 37.5% required a second THV. In this subgroup, intraprocedural AR > 'trace' occurred in 12.5%, decreasing to 6.25% at discharge. In-hospital mortality was 3.7%, and median follow-up survival was 388 days (interquartile range 208-1167 days). CONCLUSIONS: TAVI yields promising procedural outcomes and early survival rates in LVAD patients with AR. Tailored TAVI devices and pre-stenting techniques enhance procedural success. Continued research into these strategies is essential to optimize outcomes in this complex patient cohort.

Chimney Stenting vs BASILICA for Prevention of Acute Coronary Obstruction During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Coronary obstruction (CO) is a potentially life-threatening complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Chimney stenting or leaflet laceration with transcatheter electrosurgery (Bioprosthetic or Native Aortic Scallop Intentional Laceration to Prevent Iatrogenic Coronary Artery Obstruction [BASILICA]) are 2 techniques developed to prevent CO. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to compare periprocedural and 1-year outcomes of chimney and BASILICA in TAVR patients at high risk of CO. METHODS: This multicenter observational registry enrolled consecutive TAVR patients at high risk of CO, undergoing either preventive chimney stenting or BASILICA. Clinical success was defined as successful performance of the chimney or BASILICA technique without clinically relevant ostial CO. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events, a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned target lesion coronary revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients were included: 71 (42.3%) received chimney stenting, and 97 (57.7%) underwent BASILICA. Patients undergoing BASILICA had higher preprocedural risk of CO, as indicated by lower sinotubular junction height (18.2 ± 4.8 mm vs 14.8 ± 3.4 mm; P < 0.001) and diameter (28.2 ± 4.5 vs 26.8 ± 3.4; P = 0.029). Rates of periprocedural complications were similar between the 2 groups. Clinical success was 97.2% and 96.9% in chimney and BASILICA, respectively (P = 0.92). At 1-year follow-up, the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was 18.7% (95% CI: 11%-30.6%) in the chimney group and 19.9% (95% CI: 12.1%-31.5%) in the BASILICA group (log-rank P = 0.848), whereas chimney was associated with a numerically higher cardiovascular mortality than BASILICA (6.7% vs 1.3%; log-rank P = 0.168). CONCLUSIONS: Chimney stenting and BASILICA effectively prevent TAVR-induced acute CO. Both techniques seem to have comparable acceptable periprocedural and 1-year outcomes.