PCI in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Implantation.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with stable coronary artery disease and severe aortic stenosis who are undergoing transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) remains unclear. METHODS: In an international trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and at least one coronary-artery stenosis with a fractional flow reserve of 0.80 or less or a diameter stenosis of at least 90% either to undergo PCI or to receive conservative treatment, with all patients also undergoing TAVI. The primary end point was a major adverse cardiac event, defined as a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization. Safety, including bleeding events and procedural complications, was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 455 patients underwent randomization: 227 to the PCI group and 228 to the conservative-treatment group. The median age of the patients was 82 years (interquartile range, 78 to 85), and the median Society of Thoracic Surgeons-Procedural Risk of Mortality score (on a scale from 0 to 100%, with higher scores indicating a greater risk of death within 30 days after the procedure) was 3% (interquartile range, 2 to 4). At a median follow-up of 2 years (interquartile range, 1 to 4), a major adverse cardiac event (primary end point) had occurred in 60 patients (26%) in the PCI group and in 81 (36%) in the conservative-treatment group (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.99; P = 0.04). A bleeding event occurred in 64 patients (28%) in the PCI group and in 45 (20%) in the conservative-treatment group (hazard ratio, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.22). In the PCI group, 7 patients (3%) had PCI procedure-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with coronary artery disease who were undergoing TAVI, PCI was associated with a lower risk of a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization at a median follow-up of 2 years than conservative treatment. (Funded by Boston Scientific and the Danish Heart Foundation; NOTION-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03058627.).

Cerebral Embolic Protection during Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of aortic stenosis can lead to embolization of debris. Capture of debris by devices that provide cerebral embolic protection (CEP) may reduce the risk of stroke. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with aortic stenosis in a 1:1 ratio to undergo transfemoral TAVR with CEP (CEP group) or without CEP (control group). The primary end point was stroke within 72 hours after TAVR or before discharge (whichever came first) in the intention-to-treat population. Disabling stroke, death, transient ischemic attack, delirium, major or minor vascular complications at the CEP access site, and acute kidney injury were also assessed. A neurology professional examined all the patients at baseline and after TAVR. RESULTS: A total of 3000 patients across North America, Europe, and Australia underwent randomization; 1501 were assigned to the CEP group and 1499 to the control group. A CEP device was successfully deployed in 1406 of the 1489 patients (94.4%) in whom an attempt was made. The incidence of stroke within 72 hours after TAVR or before discharge did not differ significantly between the CEP group and the control group (2.3% vs. 2.9%; difference, -0.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -1.7 to 0.5; P = 0.30). Disabling stroke occurred in 0.5% of the patients in the CEP group and in 1.3% of those in the control group. There were no substantial differences between the CEP group and the control group in the percentage of patients who died (0.5% vs. 0.3%); had a stroke, a transient ischemic attack, or delirium (3.1% vs. 3.7%); or had acute kidney injury (0.5% vs. 0.5%). One patient (0.1%) had a vascular complication at the CEP access site. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral TAVR, the use of CEP did not have a significant effect on the incidence of periprocedural stroke, but on the basis of the 95% confidence interval around this outcome, the results may not rule out a benefit of CEP during TAVR. (Funded by Boston Scientific; PROTECTED TAVR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04149535.).

Transcatheter or surgical aortic valve implantation: 10-year outcomes of the NOTION trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a viable treatment option for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis across a broad range of surgical risk. The Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention (NOTION) trial was the first to randomize patients at lower surgical risk to TAVI or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The aim of the present study was to report clinical and bioprosthesis outcomes after 10 years. METHODS: The NOTION trial randomized 280 patients to TAVI with the self-expanding CoreValve (Medtronic Inc.) bioprosthesis (n = 145) or SAVR with a bioprosthesis (n = 135). The primary composite outcome was the risk of all-cause mortality, stroke, or myocardial infarction. Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) was classified as structural valve deterioration (SVD), non-structural valve dysfunction (NSVD), clinical valve thrombosis, or endocarditis according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria. Severe SVD was defined as (i) a transprosthetic gradient of 30 mmHg or more and an increase in transprosthetic gradient of 20 mmHg or more or (ii) severe new intraprosthetic regurgitation. Bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) was defined as the composite rate of death from a valve-related cause or an unexplained death following the diagnosis of BVD, aortic valve re-intervention, or severe SVD. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between TAVI and SAVR: age 79.2 ± 4.9 years and 79.0 ± 4.7 years (P = .7), male 52.6% and 53.8% (P = .8), and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score < 4% of 83.4% and 80.0% (P = .5), respectively. After 10 years, the risk of the composite outcome all-cause mortality, stroke, or myocardial infarction was 65.5% after TAVI and 65.5% after SAVR [hazard ratio (HR) 1.0; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7-1.3; P = .9], with no difference for each individual outcome. Severe SVD had occurred in 1.5% and 10.0% (HR 0.2; 95% CI 0.04-0.7; P = .02) after TAVI and SAVR, respectively. The cumulative incidence for severe NSVD was 20.5% and 43.0% (P < .001) and for endocarditis 7.2% and 7.4% (P = 1.0) after TAVI and SAVR, respectively. No patients had clinical valve thrombosis. Bioprosthetic valve failure occurred in 9.7% of TAVI and 13.8% of SAVR patients (HR 0.7; 95% CI 0.4-1.5; P = .4). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe AS and lower surgical risk randomized to TAVI or SAVR, the risk of major clinical outcomes was not different 10 years after treatment. The risk of severe bioprosthesis SVD was lower after TAVR compared with SAVR, while the risk of BVF was similar.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in low-risk tricuspid or bicuspid aortic stenosis: the NOTION-2 trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the first choice to treat older patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). This study aimed to compare TAVI with surgery in low-risk patients ≤75 years of age, including both tricuspid and bicuspid AS. METHODS: The Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention (NOTION)-2 trial enrolled and 1:1 randomized low-risk patients aged ≤75 years with severe symptomatic AS to TAVI or surgery. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, or rehospitalization (related to the procedure, valve, or heart failure) at 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 370 patients were enrolled with a mean age of 71.1 years and a median Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 1.1%. A total of 100 patients had bicuspid AS. The 1-year incidence of the primary endpoint was 10.2% in the TAVI group and 7.1% in the surgery group [absolute risk difference 3.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI), -2.7% to 8.8%; hazard ratio (HR) 1.4; 95% CI, 0.7-2.9; P = .3]. Patients with TAVI, when compared to surgery, had lower risk of major bleeding and new-onset atrial fibrillation and higher risk of non-disabling stroke, permanent pacemaker implantation, and moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation. The risk of the primary composite endpoint was 8.7% and 8.3% in patients with tricuspid AS (HR 1.0; 95% CI, 0.5-2.3) and 14.3% and 3.9% in patients with bicuspid AS (HR 3.8; 95% CI, 0.8-18.5) treated with TAVI or surgery, respectively (P for interaction = .1). CONCLUSIONS: Among low-risk patients aged ≤75 years with severe symptomatic AS, the rate of the composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year was similar between TAVI and surgery. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation outcomes in young bicuspid AS patients warrant caution and should be further investigated. (NOTION-2, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02825134). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02825134.

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.

Prospective study on the impact of different antithrombotic therapies on subclinical leaflet thickening and its temporal dynamics in transcatheter aortic valves-The NOTION-4 trial.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the standard-of-care treatment for a majority of patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis. The postprocedural antithrombotic therapeutic management is still a topic of debate and could affect the incidence of HALT, a phenomenon which can be assessed by 4-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT). TRIAL DESIGN: The NOTION-4 trial is a randomized controlled trial comprising TAVR patients with no indication for oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy, comparing lifelong single antiplatelet therapy (standard arm) versus early 3-month direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy followed by single antiplateletet therapy (experimental arm). The incidence of HALT and clinical endpoints will be evaluated in both groups at 3 months, 1 year and 5 years after randomization. The primary endpoint is the number of patients with at least 1 bioprosthetic aortic valve leaflet with HALT as assessed by cardiac 4DCT imaging at 1 year. The trial is powered for superiority testing and started enrollment in 2021. In total, 324 patients will be included. The last patient is expected to be enrolled by the end of 2024 and the primary endpoint is to be presented in 2026. CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVE: The NOTION-4 trial aims to study whether an early 3-month DOAC therapy after TAVR can result in a sustained lower incidence of HALT in transcatheter aortic valves. This trial holds the potential to give valuable insights into whether early OAC therapy should be integrated in future guidelines for post-TAVR antithrombotic therapeutic management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NOTION-4, ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT06449469, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06449469.

Strategy to optimize PeriproCeduraL AnticOagulation in structural transseptal interventions: Design and rationale of the STOP CLOT trial.

BACKGROUND: Both transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) of mitral regurgitation or left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) require periprocedural anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin (UFH) that is administered either before or immediately after transseptal puncture (TSP). The optimal timing of UFH administration (before or after TSP) is unknown. The Strategy To Optimize PeriproCeduraL AnticOagulation in Structural Transseptal Interventions trial (STOP CLOT Trial) was designed to determine if early anticoagulation is effective in reducing ischemic complications without increasing the risk of periprocedural bleeding. METHODS: The STOP CLOT trial is a multicenter, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. A total of 410 patients scheduled for TEER or LAAC will be randomized 1:1 either early UFH administration (iv. bolus of 100 units/kg UFH or placebo, given after obtaining femoral vein access and at least 5 minutes prior to the start of the TSP) or late UFH administration (iv. bolus of 100 units/kg UFH or placebo given immediately after TSP). Prespecified preliminary statistical analysis will be performed after complete follow-up of the first 196 randomized subjects. To ensure blinding, a study nurse responsible for randomization and UFH/placebo preparation is not involved in the care of the patients enrolled into the study. The primary study endpoint is a composite of (1) major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (death, stroke, TIA, myocardial infarction, or peripheral embolization) within 30 days post-procedure, (2) intraprocedural fresh thrombus formation in the right or left atrium as assessed with periprocedural transesophageal echocardiography, or (3) occurrence of new ischemic lesions (diameter ≥4 mm) on brain magnetic resonance imaging performed 2 to 5 days after the procedure. The safety endpoint is the occurrence of moderate or severe bleeding complications during the index hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Protocols of periprocedural anticoagulation administration during structural interventions have never been tested in a randomized clinical trial. The Stop Clot trial may help reach consensus on the optimal timing of initiation of periprocedural anticoagulation. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study protocol is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT05305612.

Extent of cardiac damage and hospitalization burden in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac damage has gained increasing attention as a valid prognostic marker of mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, studies investigating the possible association between cardiac damage and hospitalization burden in TAVR patients are lacking. AIMS: This study aimed to investigate the impact of baseline cardiac damage on the hospitalization burden before, during, and after TAVR in an all-comers population. METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent TAVR between 2016 and 2020 were included. Electronic medical records of all patients were examined to validate cardiovascular (CV) and heart failure (HF) related hospitalizations from 6 months before to 1 year after TAVR. Baseline cardiac damage was defined according to the staging classification by Généreux et al. RESULTS: Among 1397 TAVR patients, 94 (6.7%) had stage 0, 368 (26.4%) stage 1, 736 (52.7%) stage 2, 115 (8.2%) stage 3, and 84 (6.0%) stage 4 cardiac damage. Patients with more advanced cardiac damage at baseline had more HF hospitalizations within 6 months before TAVR (p < 0.01) and with a longer length of stay (LoS) (p < 0.01). Regarding the index TAVR admission, there was no difference in procedure time (p = 0.26) or LoS (p = 0.18) between groups. Still, TAVR patients with more advanced baseline cardiac damage had a higher risk of CV and HF rehospitalization after TAVR (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline cardiac damage in patients undergoing TAVR has an impact on the pre- and post-procedural cardiovascular hospitalization burden. However, the cardiac damage status does not affect the TAVR procedure time or index TAVR admission length of stay.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in paediatric patients for primary vs. secondary prevention.

AIMS: The decisions about placing an ICD in a child are more difficult than in an adult due to longer expected lifespan and the complication risk. Young patients gain the most years from ICDs, despite higher risk of device-related complications. The secondary prevention ICD indication is clear, and device is implanted regardless of potential complications. For primary prevention, risk of sudden cardiac death and complications need to be evaluated. We aimed to compare outcomes for primary and secondary prevention ICDs. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective nationwide cohort study including paediatric patients identified from the Danish ICD registry with ICD implanted at an age ≤ 15 from 1982-21. Demographics, complications (composite of device-related infections or lead-failure requiring re-operation, mortality because of arrhythmia, or unknown cause), and mortality were retrieved from medical charts. Endpoint was appropriate therapy (shock or anti-tachycardia pacing for ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation). Of 72 receiving an ICD, the majority had channelopathies (n = 34) or structural heart diseases (n = 28). ICDs were implanted in 23 patients for primary prevention and 49 for secondary prevention, at median ages of 13.8 and 11.6 years (P-value 0.01), respectively. Median follow-up was 9.0 (interquartile ranges: 4.7-13.5) years. The 10-year cumulative incidence of first appropriate therapy was 70%, with complication and inappropriate therapy rates at 41% and 15%, respectively. No difference was observed between prevention groups for all outcomes. Six patients died during follow-up. CONCLUSION: In children, two-thirds are secondary prevention ICDs. Children have higher appropriate therapy and complication rates than adults, while the inappropriate therapy rate was low.

Impact of gender in patients with device-related thrombosis after left atrial appendage closure - A sub-analysis from the multicenter EUROC-DRT-registry.

BACKGROUND: Device-related thrombosis (DRT) is a common finding after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) and is associated with worse outcomes. As women are underrepresented in clinical studies, further understanding of sex differences in DRT patients is warranted. METHODS AND RESULTS: This sub-analysis from the EUROC-DRT-registry compromises 176 patients with diagnosis of DRT after LAAC. Women, who accounted for 34.7% (61/176) of patients, were older (78.0 ± 6.7 vs. 74.9 ± 9.1 years, p = .06) with lower rates of comorbidities. While DRT was detected significantly later in women (173 ± 267 vs. 127 ± 192 days, p = .01), anticoagulation therapy was escalated similarly, mainly with initiation of novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC), vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or heparin. DRT resolution was achieved in 67.5% (27/40) of women and in 75.0% (54/72) of men (p = .40). In the remaining cases, an intensification/switch of anticoagulation was conducted in 50.% (9/18) of men and in 41.7% (5/12) of women. Final resolution was achieved in 72.5% (29/40) cases in women, and in 81.9% (59/72) cases in men (p = .24). Women were followed-up for a similar time as men (779 ± 520 vs. 908 ± 687 days, p = .51). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no difference in mortality rates in women (Hazard Ratio [HR]: 1.73, 95%-Confidence interval [95%-CI]: .68-4.37, p = .25) and no differences in stroke (HR: .83, 95%-CI: .30-2.32, p = .72) within 2 years after LAAC. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of risk factors and outcome revealed no differences between men and women, with DRT in women being diagnosed significantly later. Women should be monitored closely to assess for DRT formation/resolution. Treatment strategies appear to be equally effective.

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in lower-risk and higher-risk patients: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

AIMS: Additional randomized clinical trial (RCT) data comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is available, including longer term follow-up. A meta-analysis comparing TAVI to SAVR was performed. A pragmatic risk classification was applied, partitioning lower-risk and higher-risk patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The main endpoints were death, strokes, and the composite of death or disabling stroke, occurring at 1 year (early) or after 1 year (later). A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Eight RCTs with 8698 patients were included. In lower-risk patients, at 1 year, the risk of death was lower after TAVI compared with SAVR [relative risk (RR) 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.96, P = 0.031], as was death or disabling stroke (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92, P = 0.014). There were no differences in strokes. After 1 year, in lower-risk patients, there were no significant differences in all main outcomes. In higher-risk patients, there were no significant differences in main outcomes. New-onset atrial fibrillation, major bleeding, and acute kidney injury occurred less after TAVI; new pacemakers, vascular complications, and paravalvular leak occurred more after TAVI. CONCLUSION: In lower-risk patients, there was an early mortality reduction with TAVI, but no differences after later follow-up. There was also an early reduction in the composite of death or disabling stroke, with no difference at later follow-up. There were no significant differences for higher-risk patients. Informed therapy decisions may be more dependent on the temporality of events or secondary endpoints than the long-term occurrence of main clinical outcomes.

Treatment of late paravalvular regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: prognostic implications.

AIMS: Paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The effect of transcatheter interventions to treat PVR after the index TAVI was investigated. METHODS AND RESULTS: A registry of consecutive patients who underwent transcatheter intervention for ≥ moderate PVR after the index TAVI at 22 centers. The principal outcomes were residual aortic regurgitation (AR) and mortality at 1 year after PVR treatment. A total of 201 patients were identified: 87 (43%) underwent redo-TAVI, 79 (39%) plug closure, and 35 (18%) balloon valvuloplasty. Median TAVI-to-re-intervention time was 207 (35; 765) days. The failed valve was self-expanding in 129 (63.9%) patients. The most frequent devices utilized were a Sapien 3 valve for redo-TAVI (55, 64%), an AVP II as plug (33, 42%), and a True balloon for valvuloplasty (20, 56%). At 30 days, AR ≥ moderate persisted in 33 (17.4%) patients: 8 (9.9%) after redo-TAVI, 18 (25.9%) after plug, and 7 (21.9%) after valvuloplasty (P = 0.036). Overall mortality was 10 (5.0%) at 30 days and 29 (14.4%) at 1 year: 0, 8 (10.1%), and 2 (5.7%) at 30 days (P = 0.010) and 11 (12.6%), 14 (17.7%), and 4 (11.4%) at 1 year (P = 0.418), after redo-TAVI, plug, and valvuloplasty, respectively. Regardless of treatment strategy, patients in whom AR was reduced to ≤ mild had lower mortality at 1 year compared with those with AR persisting ≥ moderate [11 (8.0%) vs. 6 (21.4%); P = 0.007]. CONCLUSION: This study describes the efficacy of transcatheter treatments for PVR after TAVI. Patients in whom PVR was successfully reduced had better prognosis. The selection of patients and the optimal PVR treatment modality require further investigation.

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.

Reduced Leaflet Motion after Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Subclinical leaflet thickening and reduced leaflet motion of bioprosthetic aortic valves have been documented by four-dimensional computed tomography (CT). Whether anticoagulation can reduce these phenomena after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is not known. METHODS: In a substudy of a large randomized trial, we randomly assigned patients who had undergone successful TAVR and who did not have an indication for long-term anticoagulation to a rivaroxaban-based antithrombotic strategy (rivaroxaban [10 mg] plus aspirin [75 to 100 mg] once daily) or an antiplatelet-based strategy (clopidogrel [75 mg] plus aspirin [75 to 100 mg] once daily). Patients underwent evaluation by four-dimensional CT at a mean (±SD) of 90±15 days after randomization. The primary end point was the percentage of patients with at least one prosthetic valve leaflet with grade 3 or higher motion reduction (i.e., involving >50% of the leaflet). Leaflet thickening was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 231 patients were enrolled. At least one prosthetic valve leaflet with grade 3 or higher motion reduction was found in 2 of 97 patients (2.1%) who had scans that could be evaluated in the rivaroxaban group, as compared with 11 of 101 (10.9%) in the antiplatelet group (difference, -8.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -16.5 to -1.9; P = 0.01). Thickening of at least one leaflet was observed in 12 of 97 patients (12.4%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 33 of 102 (32.4%) in the antiplatelet group (difference, -20.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -30.9 to -8.5). In the main trial, the risk of death or thromboembolic events and the risk of life-threatening, disabling, or major bleeding were higher with rivaroxaban (hazard ratios of 1.35 and 1.50, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In a substudy of a trial involving patients without an indication for long-term anticoagulation who had undergone successful TAVR, a rivaroxaban-based antithrombotic strategy was more effective than an antiplatelet-based strategy in preventing subclinical leaflet-motion abnormalities. However, in the main trial, the rivaroxaban-based strategy was associated with a higher risk of death or thromboembolic complications and a higher risk of bleeding than the antiplatelet-based strategy. (Funded by Bayer; GALILEO-4D ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02833948.).

A Controlled Trial of Rivaroxaban after Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Whether the direct factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban can prevent thromboembolic events after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1644 patients without an established indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR to receive rivaroxaban at a dose of 10 mg daily (with aspirin at a dose of 75 to 100 mg daily for the first 3 months) (rivaroxaban group) or aspirin at a dose of 75 to 100 mg daily (with clopidogrel at a dose of 75 mg daily for the first 3 months) (antiplatelet group). The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of death or thromboembolic events. The primary safety outcome was major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding. The trial was terminated prematurely by the data and safety monitoring board because of safety concerns. RESULTS: After a median of 17 months, death or a first thromboembolic event (intention-to-treat analysis) had occurred in 105 patients in the rivaroxaban group and in 78 patients in the antiplatelet group (incidence rates, 9.8 and 7.2 per 100 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio with rivaroxaban, 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.81; P = 0.04). Major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding (intention-to-treat analysis) had occurred in 46 and 31 patients, respectively (4.3 and 2.8 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.37; P = 0.08). A total of 64 deaths occurred in the rivaroxaban group and 38 in the antiplatelet group (5.8 and 3.4 per 100 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.53). CONCLUSIONS: In patients without an established indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR, a treatment strategy including rivaroxaban at a dose of 10 mg daily was associated with a higher risk of death or thromboembolic complications and a higher risk of bleeding than an antiplatelet-based strategy. (Funded by Bayer and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; GALILEO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02556203.).

Routine revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation - the third nordic aortic valve intervention trial - NOTION-3.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) frequently coexists with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) in patients planned for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). How to manage CAD in this patient population is still an unresolved question. In particular, it is still not known whether fractional flow reserve (FFR) guided revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is superior to medical treatment for CAD in terms of clinical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: The third Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention (NOTION-3) Trial is an open-label investigator-initiated, multicenter multinational trial planned to randomize 452 patients with severe AS and significant CAD to either FFR-guided PCI or medical treatment, in addition to TAVI. Patients are eligible for the study in the presence of at least 1 significant PCI-eligible coronary stenosis. A significant stenosis is defined as either FFR ≤0.80 and/or diameter stenosis >90%. The primary end point is a composite of first occurring all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization (PCI or coronary artery bypass graft performed during unplanned hospital admission) until the last included patient have been followed for 1 year after the TAVI. SUMMARY: NOTION-3 is a multicenter, multinational randomized trial aiming at comparing FFR-guided revascularization vs medical treatment of CAD in patients with severe AS planned for TAVI.

Leaflet modification or chimney stenting in patients at risk for coronary artery obstruction in valve-in-valve procedure for a failed surgical bioprosthetic aortic valve.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) for a degenerated surgical aortic bioprosthesis is a well-established treatment modality but carries an increased risk of coronary artery obstruction (CAO) with potentially catastrophic consequences. Both chimney stenting and leaflet modification by BASILICA (Bioprosthetic or Native Aortic Scallop Intentional Laceration to Prevent Iatrogenic Coronary Obstruction) are increasingly employed and can be highly effective means of preventing CAO. Using a case report, in which both strategies were utilized, as a platform for detailed discussion, we address the indications, contraindications, and relative merits of each technique in the prevention of CAO.

Intracardiac echocardiogram to diagnose infective endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation.

A 70-year-old man with history of transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation was admitted because of suspected infective endocarditis (IE). Transesophageal echocardiogram did not reveal any vegetations, as the metallic stent frames caused significant artifacts. Position emission tomography was also negative. Intracardiac echocardiogram (ICE) was performed retrogradely through the ascending aorta, which showed clear vegetations over the stent frame of the transcatheter heart valve. Endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation was not uncommon. With increasing use of valve-in-valve procedures, echocardiographic diagnosis of IE would be more challenging. This case demonstrated the advantage of ICE over conventional echocardiography in visualizing the neo-aortic valve complex for diagnosing IE.

Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder Versus Watchman Device for Stroke Prophylaxis (Amulet IDE): A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) is an alternative to chronic oral anticoagulation to reduce stroke risk in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The Amulet IDE trial (Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder IDE Trial) was designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the dual-seal mechanism of the Amulet LAA occluder compared with the Watchman device. METHODS: Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at increased risk of stroke were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo percutaneous implantation of a LAA occluder with the Amulet occluder or Watchman device. The primary end points included safety (composite of procedure-related complications, all-cause death, or major bleeding at 12 months), effectiveness (composite of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism at 18 months), and the rate of LAA occlusion at 45 days. Prespecified secondary end points included a composite of all stroke, systemic embolism, or cardiovascular/unexplained death at 18 months, major bleeding at 18 months, and superiority test of the 3 primary end points. RESULTS: A total of 1878 patients were enrolled. The Amulet occluder was noninferior to the Watchman device for the primary safety end point (14.5% versus 14.7%; difference=-0.14 [95% CI, -3.42 to 3.13]; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Major bleeding and all-cause death were similar between groups (10.6% versus 10.0% and 3.9% versus 5.1%, respectively). Procedure-related complications were higher for the Amulet occluder (4.5% versus 2.5%), largely related to more frequent pericardial effusion and device embolization. The Amulet occluder was noninferior to the Watchman device for the primary effectiveness end point (2.8% versus 2.8%; difference=0.00 [95% CI, -1.55 to 1.55]; P<0.001 for noninferiority), and the composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or cardiovascular/unexplained death (5.6% versus 7.7%, difference=-2.12 [95% CI, -4.45 to 0.21]; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The rate of major bleeding was similar between groups (11.6% versus 12.3%; difference=-0.71 [95% CI, -3.72 to 2.31]; P=0.32 for superiority). LAA occlusion was higher for the Amulet occluder than for the Watchman device (98.9% versus 96.8%; difference=2.03 [95% CI, 0.41-3.66]; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.003 for superiority). CONCLUSIONS: The Amulet occluder was noninferior for safety and effectiveness of stroke prevention for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation compared with the Watchman device and superior for LAA occlusion. Procedure-related complications were higher with the Amulet occluder and decreased with operator experience. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02879448.

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.