Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients at Five Years.

BACKGROUND: A previous analysis in this trial showed that among patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, the rate of the composite end point of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year was significantly lower with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) than with surgical aortic-valve replacement. Longer-term outcomes are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either TAVR or surgery. The first primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization related to the valve, the procedure, or heart failure. The second primary end point was a hierarchical composite that included death, disabling stroke, nondisabling stroke, and the number of rehospitalization days, analyzed with the use of a win ratio analysis. Clinical, echocardiographic, and health-status outcomes were assessed through 5 years. RESULTS: A total of 1000 patients underwent randomization: 503 patients were assigned to undergo TAVR, and 497 to undergo surgery. A component of the first primary end point occurred in 111 of 496 patients in the TAVR group and in 117 of 454 patients in the surgery group (Kaplan-Meier estimates, 22.8% in the TAVR group and 27.2% in the surgery group; difference, -4.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.9 to 1.3; P = 0.07). The win ratio for the second primary end point was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.51; P = 0.25). The Kaplan-Meier estimates for the components of the first primary end point were as follows: death, 10.0% in the TAVR group and 8.2% in the surgery group; stroke, 5.8% and 6.4%, respectively; and rehospitalization, 13.7% and 17.4%. The hemodynamic performance of the valve, assessed according to the mean (±SD) valve gradient, was 12.8±6.5 mm Hg in the TAVR group and 11.7±5.6 mm Hg in the surgery group. Bioprosthetic-valve failure occurred in 3.3% of the patients in the TAVR group and in 3.8% of those in the surgery group. CONCLUSIONS: Among low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR or surgery, there was no significant between-group difference in the two primary composite outcomes. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02675114.).

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with high-risk symptomatic native aortic regurgitation (ALIGN-AR): a prospective, multicentre, single-arm study.

BACKGROUND: Surgery remains the only recommended intervention for patients with native aortic regurgitation. A transcatheter therapy to treat patients at high risk for mortality and complications with surgical aortic valve replacement represents an unmet need. Commercial transcatheter heart valves in pure aortic regurgitation are hampered by unacceptable rates of embolisation and paravalvular regurgitation. The Trilogy transcatheter heart valve (JenaValve Technology, Irvine, CA, USA) provides a treatment option for these patients. We report outcomes with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with pure aortic regurgitation using this dedicated transcatheter heart valve. METHODS: The ALIGN-AR trial is a prospective, multicentre, single-arm study. We recruited symptomatic patients (aged ≥18 years) with moderate-to-severe or severe aortic regurgitation at high risk for mortality and complications after surgical aortic valve replacement at 20 US sites for treatment with the Trilogy transcatheter heart valve. The 30-day composite primary safety endpoint was compared for non-inferiority with a prespecified performance goal of 40·5%. The primary efficacy endpoint was 1-year all-cause mortality compared for non-inferiority with a performance goal of 25%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04415047, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between June 8, 2018, and Aug 29, 2022, we screened 346 patients. We excluded 166 (48%) patients and enrolled 180 (52%) patients with symptomatic aortic regurgitation deemed high risk by the heart team and independent screening committee assessments. The mean age of the study population was 75·5 years (SD 10·8), and 85 (47%) were female, 95 (53%) were male, and 131 (73%) were White. Technical success was achieved in 171 (95%) patients. At 30 days, four (2%) deaths, two (1%) disabling strokes, and two (1%) non-disabling strokes occurred. Using standard Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions, the primary safety endpoint was achieved, with events occurring in 48 (27% [97·5% CI 19·2-34·0]) patients (pnon-inferiority<0·0001), with new pacemaker implantation in 36 (24%) patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was achieved, with mortality in 14 (7·8% [3·3-12·3]) patients at 1 year (pnon-inferiority<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: This study shows the safety and effectiveness of treating native aortic regurgitation using a dedicated transcatheter heart valve to treat patients with symptomatic moderate-to-severe or severe aortic regurgitation who are at high risk for mortality or complications after surgical aortic valve replacement. The observed short-term clinical and haemodynamic outcomes are promising as are signs of left ventricular remodelling, but long-term follow-up is necessary. FUNDING: JenaValve Technology.

Sex-related characteristics and short-term outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention for tricuspid regurgitation.

AIMS: The impact of sexuality in patients with significant tricuspid regurgitation (TR) undergoing transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention (TTVI) is unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate sex-specific outcomes in patients with significant TR treated with TTVI vs. medical therapy alone. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Therapies (TriValve) registry collected data on patients with significant TR from 24 centres who underwent TTVI from 2016 to 2021. A control cohort was formed by medically managed patients with ≥severe isolated TR diagnosed in 2015-18. The primary endpoint was freedom from all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were heart failure (HF) hospitalization, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional status, and TR severity. One-year outcomes were assessed for the TriValve cohort and compared with the control cohort with the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). A total of 556 and 2072 patients were included from the TriValve and control groups, respectively. After TTVI, there was no difference between women and men in 1-year freedom from all-cause mortality 80.9% vs. 77.9%, P = 0.56, nor in HF hospitalization (P = 0.36), NYHA Functional Classes III and IV (P = 0.17), and TR severity >2+ at last follow-up (P = 0.42). Multivariable Cox-regression weighted by IPTW showed improved 1-year survival after TTVI compared with medical therapy alone in both women (adjusted hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.23-0.83, P = 0.01) and men (adjusted hazard ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.18-0.89, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: After TTVI in high-risk patients, there were no sex-related differences in terms of survival, HF hospitalization, functional status, and TR reduction up to 1 year. The IPTW analysis shows a survival benefit of TTVI over medical therapy alone in both women and men.

Five-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: There are scant data on long-term clinical outcomes and bioprosthetic-valve function after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis and intermediate surgical risk. METHODS: We enrolled 2032 intermediate-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at 57 centers. Patients were stratified according to intended transfemoral or transthoracic access (76.3% and 23.7%, respectively) and were randomly assigned to undergo either TAVR or surgical replacement. Clinical, echocardiographic, and health-status outcomes were followed for 5 years. The primary end point was death from any cause or disabling stroke. RESULTS: At 5 years, there was no significant difference in the incidence of death from any cause or disabling stroke between the TAVR group and the surgery group (47.9% and 43.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.25; P = 0.21). Results were similar for the transfemoral-access cohort (44.5% and 42.0%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.20), but the incidence of death or disabling stroke was higher after TAVR than after surgery in the transthoracic-access cohort (59.3% vs. 48.3%; hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.71). At 5 years, more patients in the TAVR group than in the surgery group had at least mild paravalvular aortic regurgitation (33.3% vs. 6.3%). Repeat hospitalizations were more frequent after TAVR than after surgery (33.3% vs. 25.2%), as were aortic-valve reinterventions (3.2% vs. 0.8%). Improvement in health status at 5 years was similar for TAVR and surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with aortic stenosis who were at intermediate surgical risk, there was no significant difference in the incidence of death or disabling stroke at 5 years after TAVR as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01314313.).

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation within stentless landing zones: Procedural insights from a single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive therapeutic option compared with redo surgical valve replacement for high-risk patients. Relative to procedures within stented surgical valves, VIV-TAVI within stentless valves is associated with a higher complication rate due to challenging underlying anatomy and absence of fluoroscopic landmarks. AIMS: We share a single-center experience with VIV-TAVI in stentless valves, discussing our procedural insights and associated outcomes. METHODS: Our institutional database was queried, and 25 patients who had undergone VIV-TAVI within a stentless bioprosthesis, homograft, or valve-sparing aortic root replacement between 2013 and 2022 were found. Outcome endpoints were based on the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria. RESULTS: The mean age of the cohort was 69.5 ± 13.6 years. VIV implantation was performed within a homograft in 11 patients, a stentless bioprothesis in 10 patients, and a valve-sparing aortic root replacement in 4 patients. Nineteen (76%) balloon-expandable valves, 5 (20%) self-expanding valves, and one mechanically-expandable (4%) valve were implanted with 100% procedural success, with no instances of significant paravalvular leak, coronary occlusion, or device embolization. There was one (4%) in-hospitality mortality after an emergency procedure; one (4%) patient experienced a transient ischemic attack; and two (8%) patients required permanent pacemaker implantation. The median length of hospital stay was 2 days. After a median follow-up time of 16.5 months, valve function was acceptable in all patients with available data. CONCLUSION: VIV-TAVI within stentless valves can be safely performed with methodical procedural technique and can provide clinical benefit in patients at high reoperation risk.

Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Balloon-Expandable Valve in Low-Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with aortic stenosis who are at intermediate or high risk for death with surgery, major outcomes are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic-valve replacement. There is insufficient evidence regarding the comparison of the two procedures in patients who are at low risk. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either TAVR with transfemoral placement of a balloon-expandable valve or surgery. The primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year. Both noninferiority testing (with a prespecified margin of 6 percentage points) and superiority testing were performed in the as-treated population. RESULTS: At 71 centers, 1000 patients underwent randomization. The mean age of the patients was 73 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was 1.9% (with scores ranging from 0 to 100% and higher scores indicating a greater risk of death within 30 days after the procedure). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of the primary composite end point at 1 year was significantly lower in the TAVR group than in the surgery group (8.5% vs. 15.1%; absolute difference, -6.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -10.8 to -2.5; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.79; P = 0.001 for superiority). At 30 days, TAVR resulted in a lower rate of stroke than surgery (P = 0.02) and in lower rates of death or stroke (P = 0.01) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (P<0.001). TAVR also resulted in a shorter index hospitalization than surgery (P<0.001) and in a lower risk of a poor treatment outcome (death or a low Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score) at 30 days (P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in major vascular complications, new permanent pacemaker insertions, or moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, the rate of the composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year was significantly lower with TAVR than with surgery. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02675114.).

Reasons for lesion uncrossability as assessed by intravascular ultrasound.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the current study was to use intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) to clarify anatomical and morphological lesion characteristics of uncrossable lesions. BACKGROUND: Uncrossable lesions are not always severely calcified. The prevalence of uncrossable lesions that are nonseverely calcified as well as other mechanisms for uncrossability has not been well clarified. METHODS: A total of 252 de novo uncrossable lesions in native coronary arteries that underwent either rotational or orbital atherectomy due to inability of any balloon to cross the lesion and 38 lesions with severe calcium in which IVUS crossed preatherectomy were included. Severe calcium is defined as maximum arc of calcium ≥270°. RESULTS: Severe calcification was absent in 16% of uncrossable lesions, 83% of which had a significant vessel bend. Compared with crossable lesions with severe calcium, uncrossable lesions with severe calcium more often had a bend in the vessel (71% vs. 21%, p < 0.001) and a longer length of continuous severe calcium (median length of calcium ≥270° 3.8 mm vs. 1.9 mm, p = 0.001). Other than severe calcium (especially long continuous calcium) or a bend in the vessel, anatomical factors associated with uncrossabilty were aorto-ostial lesion location and small vessels. CONCLUSIONS: Uncrossable lesions are not always severely calcified. The interaction of lesion morphology (continuous long and large arcs of calcium) and vessel geometry (bend in the vessel or ostial lesion location) affect lesion crossability.

Three-year survival of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in dialysis.

To highlight the trends of surgical (open) aortic valve replacement (SAVR) as well as to compare the outcome between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and SAVR in elderly dialysis patients. TAVR has evolved as an effective alternative to surgery (SAVR) for aortic stenosis. We identified dialysis-dependent patients who underwent SAVR or TAVR from 2000 to 2015 from the United States Renal Data System using ICD-9 codes. We defined high-risk surgical patients as age over 70 or older. The primary endpoint was survival at 3 years and we compared the outcome between SAVR and TAVR groups using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). A total of 4332 and 1280 dialysis patients underwent SAVR and TAVR, respectively, during the study period. Among SAVR cohort, 3312 patients underwent SAVR before June 2012 and 1020 after June 2012. In-hospital mortality was significantly worse before 2012 (14.6% vs. 11.3% after 2012, p = 0.007) as well as estimated 3-year mortality (69.1% vs. 60.3% after 2012, p < 0.001). After June 2012, the TAVR cohort was older and had more comorbidities including coronary artery disease and congestive heart failure compared to the SAVR cohort. After IPTW, in-hospital mortality was significantly lower after TAVR versus SAVR (odds ratio 0.38 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-0.52], p < 0.001). However, TAVR had a significantly higher risk of 3-year mortality than SAVR (hazard ratio 1.24 [95% CI 1.1-1.39], p < 0.001). TAVR may be a reasonable and potentially preferable alternative to SAVR in the elderly dialysis population in the short-term period.

Echocardiographic Results of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients: The PARTNER 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare echocardiographic findings in low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS: The PARTNER 3 trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) randomized 1000 patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either transfemoral TAVR with the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 valve or SAVR. Transthoracic echocardiograms obtained at baseline and at 30 days and 1 year after the procedure were analyzed by a consortium of 2 echocardiography core laboratories. RESULTS: The percentage of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation (AR) was low and not statistically different between the TAVR and SAVR groups at 30 days (0.8% versus 0.2%; P=0.38). Mild AR was more frequent after TAVR than SAVR at 30 days (28.8% versus 4.2%; P<0.001). At 1 year, mean transvalvular gradient (13.7±5.6 versus 11.6±5.0 mm Hg; P=0.12) and aortic valve area (1.72±0.37 versus 1.76±0.42 cm2; P=0.12) were similar in TAVR and SAVR. The percentage of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch at 30 days was low and similar between TAVR and SAVR (4.6 versus 6.3%; P=0.30). Valvulo-arterial impedance (Zva), which reflects total left ventricular hemodynamic burden, was lower with TAVR than SAVR at 1 year (3.7±0.8 versus 3.9±0.9 mm Hg/mL/m2; P<0.001). Tricuspid annulus plane systolic excursion decreased and the percentage of moderate or severe tricuspid regurgitation increased from baseline to 1 year in SAVR but remained unchanged in TAVR. Irrespective of treatment arm, high Zva and low tricuspid annulus plane systolic excursion, but not moderate to severe AR or severe prosthesis-patient mismatch, were associated with increased risk of the composite end point of mortality, stroke, and rehospitalization at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk, TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve was associated with similar percentage of moderate or severe AR compared with SAVR but higher percentage of mild AR. Transprosthetic gradients, valve areas, percentage of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch, and left ventricular mass regression were similar in TAVR and SAVR. SAVR was associated with significant deterioration of right ventricular systolic function and greater tricuspid regurgitation, which persisted at 1 year. High Zva and low tricuspid annulus plane systolic excursion were associated with worse outcome at 1 year whereas AR and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch were not. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02675114.

Anatomic classification of mitral annular calcification for surgical and transcatheter mitral valve replacement.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: A systematic approach to quantify mitral annular calcification (MAC) in all-comers by multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) is essential to guide treatment, but lacking. METHODS: From September 2015 to July 2019, 82 patients with MAC underwent MDCT at two institutions to evaluate for surgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR), transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR), or medical management. Type 1 MAC was defined as <270° annular calcium and Type 2 as ≥270°. Absence/presence of predicted left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction with virtual valve placement was used to further define Type 2 MAC into 2A/B for our treatment algorithm. RESULTS: Type 1 MAC was present in 51.2%, Type 2A in 18.3%, and Type 2B in 30.5%. Operable Type 1 patients (50.0%) underwent hybrid transatrial TMVR or SMVR. Type 2A underwent a variety of treatments, and Type 2B surgical candidates (40.0%) underwent hybrid transatrial TMVR secondary to difficult suture anchoring with significant MAC and predicted LVOT obstruction. At a follow-up of 29.6 ± 12.0 months, mortality was 42.7% with 46.3% in the intervention group and 39.0% in the medical group (p = 0.47). All percutaneous TMVR patients expired. This translated to a disproportionate number of Type 2A deaths (80.0% with intervention), but all were high/extreme surgical risk. The hybrid TMVR group consisted of 95.0% Type 1/2B patients and had a lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of operative mortality (7.4% vs. 9.2%, p = 0.43)/mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The highest mortality was seen in percutaneous TMVR Type 2A MAC patients, but they were at the greatest risk. Here we provide an objective MAC treatment algorithm for all-comers based on operability/anatomy.

Impact of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors on clinical outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: an analysis of from the PARTNER 2 trial and registries.

AIMS: Left ventricular pressure overload is associated with activation of the cardiac renin-angiotensin system, which may contribute to myocardial fibrosis and worse clinical outcomes. We sought to assess the association between treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) at baseline and clinical outcomes in patients with symptomatic, severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in the PARTNER 2 trial and registries. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 3979 intermediate, high, or prohibitive risk patients who underwent TAVR in the PARTNER 2 trial and registries (excluding the valve in valve registry) were included in the study. Clinical outcomes at 2 years were compared according to baseline ACEI/ARB treatment status using Kaplan-Meier event rates and study-stratified multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using propensity score matching. Of 3979 patients who were included in the current analysis, 1736 (43.6%) were treated and 2243 (56.4%) were not treated with ACEI/ARB at baseline. Treatment with ACEI/ARB was associated with lower 2-year all-cause mortality (18.6% vs. 27.5%, P < 0.0001), cardiovascular mortality (12.3% vs. 17.9%, P < 0.0001), and non-cardiovascular mortality (7.2% vs. 11.7%, P < 0.0001). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/ARB treatment at baseline remained independently associated with a lower hazard of 2-year all-cause and cardiovascular mortality after multivariable adjustment, and propensity score matching. CONCLUSION: In a large cohort of patients with severe symptomatic AS from the PARTNER 2 trial and registries, ACEI/ARB treatment at baseline was independently associated with a lower risk of 2-year all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.

Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis After TAVR and SAVR: Insights From the PARTNER Trials.

BACKGROUND: Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) is a rare but critical mechanism of valve failure and death after transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR, SAVR) warranting further analysis in modern aortic valve replacement experience. We characterize the incidence, risk factors, microbiological profile and outcomes of PVE from the PARTNER trials and registries (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve). METHODS: We analyzed a pooled cohort of all patients in PARTNER 1 and PARTNER 2 trials and registries. Patients had severe aortic stenosis, were treated with TAVR or SAVR, and were analyzed with respect to development of PVE. PVE adjudication by a clinical events committee was based on modified Duke Criteria. The incidence, infection timing, organism, and association between PVE and all-cause mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: 8530 patients were included. PVE occurred in 107 cases (5.06 PVE events per 1000 person-years over a mean follow-up of 2.69±1.55 years [95% CI, 4.19-6.12]). The incidence of TAVR-PVE (5.21 PVE per 1000 person-years [95% CI, 4.26-6.38]) was not significantly different from SAVR-PVE (4.10 per 1000 person-years [95% CI, 2.33-7.22]; incident rate ratio, 1.27 [95% CI, 0.70-2.32]; P=0.44). Temporal risk of PVE was similar for TAVR and SAVR, even after adjusting for competing risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.58-2.28]; P=0.69). Through multivariable analysis, PVE was associated with baseline cirrhosis (incident rate ratio, 2.86 [95% CI, 1.33-6.16]; P=0.007), pulmonary disease (incident rate ratio, 1.70 [95% CI, 1.16-2.48]; P=0.006), and renal insufficiency (incident rate ratio, 1.71 [95% CI, 1.03-2.83]; P=0.04). Timing of PVE was similar between TAVR and SAVR (<30 days: 4.2% vs 8.3%; 31 days to 1 year: 52.6% vs 66.7%; >1 year: 43.2% vs 25.0%; P=0.28). Staphylococcus occurred more commonly after SAVR (58.3% vs 28.4% in TAVR; P=0.04). PVE was strongly associated with all-cause mortality after endocarditis diagnosis (hazard ratio, 4.4 [95% CI, 3.42-5.72]; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The widespread adoption of TAVR and application to lower-risk patients makes understanding mechanisms of valve failure increasingly important. PVE is an established mechanism of prosthetic valve failure post-SAVR and TAVR with unclear differences between approaches. We herein demonstrate in the largest trials and registries of TAVR that PVE remains rare, but often fatal, in modern AVR experience and that there is no difference in incidence, predictors, or risk of PVE between TAVR and SAVR. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT00530894 (PARTNER 1), NCT01314313 (PARTNER 1IA), NCT02184442 (PARTNER 1IB), NCT03222141 (PII S3HR), NCT03222128 (PII S3i).

The initial U.S. experience with the Tempo active fixation temporary pacing lead in structural heart interventions.

OBJECTIVES: This multicenter retrospective study of the initial U.S. experience evaluated the safety and efficacy of temporary cardiac pacing with the Tempo® Temporary Pacing Lead. BACKGROUND: Despite increasing use of temporary cardiac pacing with the rapid growth of structural heart procedures, temporary pacing leads have not significantly improved. The Tempo lead is a new temporary pacing lead with a soft tip intended to minimize the risk of perforation and a novel active fixation mechanism designed to enhance lead stability. METHODS: Data from 269 consecutive structural heart procedures were collected. Outcomes included device safety (absence of clinically significant cardiac perforation, new pericardial effusion, or sustained ventricular arrhythmia) and efficacy (clinically acceptable pacing thresholds with successful pace capture throughout the index procedure). Postprocedure practices and sustained lead performance were also analyzed. RESULTS: The Tempo lead was successfully positioned in the right ventricle and achieved pacing in 264 of 269 patients (98.1%). Two patients (0.8%) experienced loss of pace capture. Procedural mean pace capture threshold (PCT) was 0.7 ± 0.8 mA. There were no clinically significant perforations, pericardial effusions, or sustained device-related arrhythmias. The Tempo lead was left in place postprocedure in 189 patients (71.6%) for mean duration of 43.3 ± 0.7 hr (range 2.5-221.3 hr) with final PCT of 0.84 ± 1.04 mA (n = 80). Of these patients, 84.1% mobilized out of bed with no lead dislodgment. CONCLUSION: The Tempo lead is safe and effective for temporary cardiac pacing for structural heart procedures, provides stable peri and postprocedural pacing and allows mobilization of patients who require temporary pacing leads.

New-onset left bundle branch block after transcatheter aortic valve replacement is associated with adverse long-term clinical outcomes in intermediate-risk patients: an analysis from the PARTNER II trial.

AIMS: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now an established therapy for intermediate-risk surgical candidates with symptomatic, severe aortic stenosis. The clinical impact of new-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) after TAVR remains controversial and has not been studied in intermediate-risk patients. We therefore sought to analyse outcomes associated with new LBBB in a large cohort of intermediate-risk patients treated with TAVR. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 2043 patients underwent TAVR in the PARTNER II trial and S3 intermediate-risk registry and survived to hospital discharge. Patients were excluded from the current analysis due to baseline conduction disturbances, pre-existing permanent pacemaker (PPM), and new PPM during the index hospitalization. Clinical outcomes at 2 years were compared between patients with and without persistent, new-onset LBBB at hospital discharge, and multivariable analysis was performed to identify predictors of mortality. Among 1179 intermediate-risk patients, new-onset LBBB at discharge occurred in 179 patients (15.2%). Patients with new LBBB were similar to those without except for more frequent diabetes and more frequent treatment with SAPIEN 3 vs. SAPIEN XT. At 2 years, new LBBB was associated with increased rates of all-cause mortality (19.3% vs. 10.8%, P = 0.002), cardiovascular mortality (16.2% vs. 6.5%, P < 0.001), rehospitalization, and new PPM implantation. By multivariable analysis, new LBBB remained an independent predictor of 2-year all-cause [hazard ratio (HR) 1.98, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.33, 2.96; P < 0.001] and cardiovascular (HR 2.66 95% CI 1.67, 4.24; P < 0.001) mortality. New LBBB was also associated with worse left ventricular systolic function at 1 and 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of intermediate-risk patients from the PARTNER II trial and registry, persistent, new-onset LBBB occurred in 15.2% of patients without baseline conduction disturbances or pacemaker. New LBBB was associated with adverse clinical outcomes at 2 years, including all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, rehospitalization, new pacemaker implantation, and worsened left ventricular systolic function. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01314313 and NCT03222128.

Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials have shown that among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, survival rates are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic-valve replacement. We evaluated the two procedures in a randomized trial involving intermediate-risk patients. METHODS: We randomly assigned 2032 intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, at 57 centers, to undergo either TAVR or surgical replacement. The primary end point was death from any cause or disabling stroke at 2 years. The primary hypothesis was that TAVR would not be inferior to surgical replacement. Before randomization, patients were entered into one of two cohorts on the basis of clinical and imaging findings; 76.3% of the patients were included in the transfemoral-access cohort and 23.7% in the transthoracic-access cohort. RESULTS: The rate of death from any cause or disabling stroke was similar in the TAVR group and the surgery group (P=0.001 for noninferiority). At 2 years, the Kaplan-Meier event rates were 19.3% in the TAVR group and 21.1% in the surgery group (hazard ratio in the TAVR group, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.09; P=0.25). In the transfemoral-access cohort, TAVR resulted in a lower rate of death or disabling stroke than surgery (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.00; P=0.05), whereas in the transthoracic-access cohort, outcomes were similar in the two groups. TAVR resulted in larger aortic-valve areas than did surgery and also resulted in lower rates of acute kidney injury, severe bleeding, and new-onset atrial fibrillation; surgery resulted in fewer major vascular complications and less paravalvular aortic regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: In intermediate-risk patients, TAVR was similar to surgical aortic-valve replacement with respect to the primary end point of death or disabling stroke. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01314313.).

Leadless pacemaker implantation: A feasible and reasonable option in transcatheter heart valve replacement patients.

BACKGROUND: Leadless pacemakers (LPMs) have been shown to have lower postoperative complications than traditional permanent pacemakers but there have been no studies on the outcomes of LPMs in patients with transcatheter heart valve replacements (THVRs). This study determined outcomes of LPMs compared to transvenous single-chamber pacemakers (SCPs) post-THVR. METHODS: This is a retrospective single-center study including 10 patients who received LPMs post-THVR between February 2017 and August 2018 and a comparison group of 23 patients who received SCP post-THVR between July 2008 and August 2018. LPM or SCP was implanted at the discretion of electrophysiologists for atrial fibrillation with slow ventricular response or sinus node dysfunction with need for single-chamber pacing only. RESULTS: LPMs were associated with decreased tricuspid regurgitation (P = 0.04) and decreased blood loss during implantation (7.5 ± 2.5 cc for LPMs vs 16.8 ± 3.2 cc for SCPs, P = 0.03). Five LPM patients had devices positioned in the right ventricular septum as seen on transthoracic echocardiogram. Frequency of ventricular pacing was similar between LPM and SCP groups. In the LPM group, one case was complicated by a pseudoaneurysm and one death was due to noncardiac causes. There was one pneumothorax and one pocket infection in the SCP group. CONCLUSIONS: In this small retrospective study, LPMs were feasible post-THVR and found to perform as well as SCPs, had less intraprocedural blood loss, and were associated with less tricuspid regurgitation. Further, larger studies are required to follow longer-term outcomes and complications.

Impact of small prosthesis size on transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Determine the comparative impact of small prosthesis size on transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) outcomes. BACKGROUND: Patients with small aortic annuli tend to have worse postoperative outcomes and hemodynamics. We sought to describe surgical outcomes in patients with very small aortic annuli and then compare early hemodynamic and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the smallest available valves to assist in optimal prosthesis selection for this challenging patient population. METHODS: A retrospective single-center study comparing patient data from 2143 patients undergoing SAVR with valves having a true internal diameter (ID) of ≥19 mm with 130 patients receiving surgical valves with true ID's <19 mm (SmSAVR). Outcomes of SmSAVR patients were then compared with 40 patients undergoing TAVR receiving small valves (SmTAVR). A representative SmSAVR cohort was then compared with the SmTAVR patients for post-operative hemodynamics. RESULTS: Receiving a small surgical valve may significantly increase 1-year mortality compared with standard-sized surgical valves (HR 1.93; 95% confidence interval 1.03-3.61). SmTAVR patients had significantly shorter lengths of stay than SmSAVR (median 5 vs. 9 days), and significantly better postoperative hemodynamic profiles (mean gradient 13.4 ± 7.8 vs. 18.1 ± 8.4 mm Hg, P = 0.006, peak velocity of 2.5 ± 0.6 vs. 2.9 ± 0.6 m/s, P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: TAVR is a safe and reasonable option for patients with small aortic annuli and is associated with shorter hospital stays and more favorable postoperative hemodynamic outcomes compared with SAVR. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Staging classification of aortic stenosis based on the extent of cardiac damage.

AIMS: In patients with aortic stenosis (AS), risk stratification for aortic valve replacement (AVR) relies mainly on valve-related factors, symptoms and co-morbidities. We sought to evaluate the prognostic impact of a newly-defined staging classification characterizing the extent of extravalvular (extra-aortic valve) cardiac damage among patients with severe AS undergoing AVR. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with severe AS from the PARTNER 2 trials were pooled and classified according to the presence or absence of cardiac damage as detected by echocardiography prior to AVR: no extravalvular cardiac damage (Stage 0), left ventricular damage (Stage 1), left atrial or mitral valve damage (Stage 2), pulmonary vasculature or tricuspid valve damage (Stage 3), or right ventricular damage (Stage 4). One-year outcomes were compared using Kaplan-Meier techniques and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify 1-year predictors of mortality. In 1661 patients with sufficient echocardiographic data to allow staging, 47 (2.8%) patients were classified as Stage 0, 212 (12.8%) as Stage 1, 844 (50.8%) as Stage 2, 413 (24.9%) as Stage 3, and 145 (8.7%) as Stage 4. One-year mortality was 4.4% in Stage 0, 9.2% in Stage 1, 14.4% in Stage 2, 21.3% in Stage 3, and 24.5% in Stage 4 (Ptrend < 0.0001). The extent of cardiac damage was independently associated with increased mortality after AVR (HR 1.46 per each increment in stage, 95% confidence interval 1.27-1.67, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: This newly described staging classification objectively characterizes the extent of cardiac damage associated with AS and has important prognostic implications for clinical outcomes after AVR.

One-Year Clinical Outcomes With SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in High-Risk and Inoperable Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: In the initial PARTNER trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for high-risk (HR) and inoperable patients, mortality at 1 year was 24% in HR and 31% in inoperable patients. A recent report of the 30-day outcomes with the low-profile SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve replacement system demonstrated very low rates of adverse events, but little is known about the longer-term outcomes with this device. METHODS: Between October 2013 and September 2014, 583 HR (65%) or inoperable (35%) patients were treated via the transfemoral (84%) or transapical/transaortic (16%) access route at 29 US sites. Major clinical events at 1 year were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee, and echocardiographic results were analyzed by a core laboratory. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics included age of 83 years, 42% female, and median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 8.4%. At the 1-year follow-up, survival (all-cause) was 85.6% for all patients, 87.3% in the HR subgroup, and 82.3% in the inoperable subgroup. Survival free of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in the transfemoral patients from the HR cohort was 87.7% and 93.3%, respectively. There was no severe paravalvular leak. Moderate paravalvular leak (2.7%) was associated with an increase in mortality at 1 year, whereas mild paravalvular leak had no significant association with mortality. Symptomatic improvement as assessed by the percentage of patients in New York Heart Association class III and IV (90.1% to 7.7% at 1 year; P<0.0001) and by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score (improved from 46.9 to 72.4; P<0.0001) was marked. Multivariable predictors of 1-year mortality included alternative access, Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, and disabling stroke. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, adjudicated registry of SAPIEN 3 HR and inoperable patients, the very low rates of important complications resulted in a strikingly low mortality rate at 1 year. Between 30 and 365 days, the incidence of moderate paravalvular aortic regurgitation did not increase, and no association between mild paravalvular leak and 1-year mortality was observed, although a small increase in disabling stroke occurred. These results, which likely reflect device iteration and procedural evolution, support the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement as the preferred therapy in HR and inoperable patients with aortic stenosis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01314313.

Propensity-matched comparisons of clinical outcomes after transapical or transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a placement of aortic transcatheter valves (PARTNER)-I trial substudy.

BACKGROUND: The higher risk of adverse outcomes after transapical (TA) versus transfemoral (TF) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) could be attributable to TA-TAVR being an open surgical procedure or to clinical differences between TA- and TF-TAVR patients. We compared outcomes after neutralizing patient differences using propensity score matching. METHODS AND RESULTS: From April 2007 to February 2012, 1100 Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER)-I patients underwent TA-TAVR and 1521 underwent TF-TAVR with Edwards SAPIEN balloon-expandable bioprostheses. Propensity matching based on 111 preprocedural variables, exclusive of femoral access morphology, identified 501 well-matched patient pairs (46% of possible matches), 95% of whom had peripheral arterial disease. Matched TA-TAVR patients experienced more adverse procedural events, longer length of stay (5 versus 8 days; P<0.0001), and slower recovery (New York Heart Association class I, 31% versus 38% at 30 days, equalizing by 6 months at 51% versus 47%); stroke risk was similar (3.4% versus 3.3% at 30 days and 6.0% versus 6.7% at 3 years); mortality was elevated for the first 6 postprocedural months (19% versus 12%; P=0.01); but aortic regurgitation was less (34% versus 52% mild and 8.9% versus 12% moderate to severe at discharge, P=0.001; 36% versus 50% mild and 10% versus 15% moderate to severe at 6 months, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The likelihood of adverse periprocedural events and prolonged recovery is greater after TA-TAVR than TF-TAVR in vasculopathic patients after accounting for differences in cardiovascular risk factors, although stroke risk is equivalent and aortic regurgitation is less. As smaller delivery systems permit TF-TAVR in many of these patients, we recommend a TF-first access strategy for TAVR when anatomically feasible. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00530894.