Transcatheter heart valve explant with infective endocarditis-associated prosthesis failure and outcomes: the EXPLANT-TAVR international registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Surgical explantation of transcatheter heart valves (THVs) is rapidly increasing, but there are limited data on patients with THV-associated infective endocarditis (IE). This study aims to assess the outcomes of patients undergoing THV explant for IE. METHODS: All patients who underwent THV explant between 2011 and 2022 from 44 sites in the EXPLANT-TAVR registry were identified. Patients with IE as the reason for THV explant were compared to those with other mechanisms of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD). RESULTS: A total of 372 patients from the EXPLANT-TAVR registry were included. Among them, 184 (49.5%) patients underwent THV explant due to IE and 188 (50.5%) patients due to BVD. At the index transcatheter aortic valve replacement, patients undergoing THV explant for IE were older (74.3 ± 8.6 vs. 71 ± 10.6 years) and had a lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score [2.6% (1.8-5.0) vs. 3.3% (2.1-5.6), P = .029] compared to patients with BVD. Compared to BVD, IE patients had longer intensive care unit and hospital stays (P < .05) and higher stroke rates at 30 days (8.6% vs. 2.9%, P = .032) and 1 year (16.2% vs. 5.2%, P = .010). Adjusted in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year mortality was 12.1%, 16.1%, and 33.8%, respectively, for the entire cohort, with no significant differences between groups. Although mortality was numerically higher in IE patients 3 years postsurgery (29.6% for BVD vs. 43.9% for IE), Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant differences between groups (P = .16). CONCLUSIONS: In the EXPLANT-TAVR registry, patients undergoing THV explant for IE had higher 30-day and 1-year stroke rates and longer intensive care unit and hospital stays. Moreover, patients undergoing THV explant for IE had a higher 3-year mortality rate, which did not reach statistical significance given the relatively small sample size of this unique cohort and the reduced number of events.

Intravascular Lithotripsy-Assisted Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients with Severe Iliofemoral Calcifications: Expanding Transfemoral Indications.

(1) Background: Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the standard treatment for most patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Intravascular lithotripsy may facilitate transfemoral TAVI (IVL-TAVI) even in patients with severely calcified iliofemoral disease. We assessed technical aspects and clinical outcomes of this novel approach compared to alternative transaxillary access (TAX-TAVI). (2) Methods: IVL-TAVI was performed for severe iliofemoral calcifications precluding standard transfemoral access in 30 patients from 2019 to 2022 at a single academic heart center. IVL was performed as part of the TAVI procedure in all cases. Results were compared to a control group of 44 TAX-TAVI procedures performed for the same indication from 2016 to 2021. The safety outcome was a composite of all-cause death, stroke, access-related bleeding ≥ type 2 within 24 h and major vascular access site complications at 30 days. The efficacy outcome was defined as a technical success according to VARC-3. (3) Results: Median age was 78.2 [74.3, 82.6] years, 45.9% were female and mean STS-PROM was 3.6% [2.3, 6.0]. Iliofemoral calcifications were more severe in the IVL-TAVI vs. TAX-TAVI groups (lesion length: 63.0 mm [48.6, 80.3] vs. 48.5 mm [33.1, 68.8]; p = 0.043, severe calcification at target lesion: 90.0% vs. 68.2%; p = 0.047, and median arc calcification 360.0° [297.5, 360.0] vs. 360.0° [180.0, 360.0]; p = 0.033). Technical success was achieved in 93.3% vs. 81.8% (p = 0.187) in IVL- and TAX-TAVI and the safety outcome occurred in 10.0% vs. 31.8% in IVL- and TAX-TAVI (p = 0.047), respectively. (4) Conclusions: IVL-assisted transfemoral TAVI was feasible and safe with favorable outcomes compared to TAX-TAVI. IVL may further expand the number of patients eligible for transfemoral TAVI and may help overcome limitations of an alternative access.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with significant septal hypertrophy.

BACKGROUND: Previous reports suggest septal hypertrophy with an interventricular septum depth (IVSD) ≥ 14 mm may adversely affect outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) due to suboptimal valve placement, valve migration, or residual increased LVOT pressure gradients. AIMS: This analysis investigates the impact of interventricular septal hypertrophy on acute outcomes after TAVI. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2021, 1033 consecutive patients (55.8% male, 80.5 ± 6.7 years, EuroSCORE II 6.3 ± 6.5%) with documented IVSD underwent TAVI at our center and were included for analysis. Baseline, periprocedural, and 30-day outcome parameters of patients with normal IVSD (< 14 mm; group 1) and increased IVSD (≥ 14 mm; group 2) were compared. Data were retrospectively analyzed according to updated Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 (VARC-3) definitions. Comparison of outcome parameters was adjusted for baseline differences between groups using logistic and linear regression analyses. RESULTS: Of 1033 patients, 585 and 448 patients were allocated to groups 1 and 2, respectively. There was no significant difference between groups regarding transfemoral access rate (82.6% (n = 478) vs. 86.0% (n = 381), p = 0.157). Postprocedural mean transvalvular pressure gradient was significantly increased in group 2 (group 1, 7.8 ± 4.1 mmHg, vs. group 2, 8.9 ± 4.9 mmHg, p = 0.046). Despite this finding, there was no significant difference between groups regarding the rates of VARC-3 adjudicated composite endpoint device success (90.0% (n = 522) vs. 87.6% (n = 388), p = 0.538) or technical success (92.6% (n = 542) vs. 92.6% (n = 415), p = 0.639). Moreover, the groups showed no significant differences regarding the rates of paravalvular leakage ≥ moderate (3.1% (n = 14) vs. 2.6% (n = 9), p = 0.993), postprocedural permanent pacemaker implantation (13.4% (n = 77) vs. 13.8% (n = 61), p = 0.778), or 30-day mortality (5.1% (n = 30) vs. 4.5% (n = 20), p = 0.758). CONCLUSION: Although transvalvular mean pressure gradients were significantly higher in patients with increased IVSD after TAVI, acute outcomes were comparable between groups suggesting no early impact of adverse hemodynamics due to elevated IVSD. However, how these differences in hemodynamic findings may affect mid- and long-term outcomes, especially in terms of valve durability, needs to be evaluated in further investigations.

Procedural success in transaxillary transcatheter aortic valve implantation according to type of transcatheter heart valve: results from the multicenter TAXI registry.

BACKGROUND: Transaxillary (TAx) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a preferred alternative access in patients ineligible for transfemoral TAVI. AIMS: This study used the Trans-AXillary Intervention (TAXI) registry to compare procedural success according to different types of transcatheter heart valves (THV). METHODS: For the TAXI registry anonymized data of patients treated with TAx-TAVI were collected from 18 centers. Acute procedural, early and 1-month clinical outcomes were adjudicated in accordance with standardized VARC-3 definitions. RESULTS: From 432 patients, 368 patients (85.3%, SE group) received self-expanding (SE) THV and 64 patients (14.8%, BE group) received balloon-expandable (BE) THV. Imaging revealed lower axillary artery diameters in the SE group (max/min diameter in mm: 8.4/6.6 vs 9.4/6.8 mm; p < 0.001/p = 0.04) but a higher proportion of axillary tortuosity in BE group (62/368, 23.6% vs 26/64, 42.6%; p = 0.004) with steeper aorta-left ventricle (LV) inflow (55° vs 51°; p = 0.002) and left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT)-LV inflow angles (40.0° vs 24.5°; 0.002). TAx-TAVI was more often conducted by right sided axillary artery in the BE group (33/368, 9.0% vs 17/64, 26.6%; p < 0.001). Device success was higher in the SE group (317/368, 86.1% vs 44/64, 68.8%, p = 0.0015). In logistic regression analysis, BE THV were a risk factor for vascular complications and axillary stent implantation. CONCLUSIONS: Both, SE and BE THV can be safely used in TAx-TAVI. However, SE THV were more often used and were associated with a higher rate of device success. While SE THV were associated with lower rates of vascular complications, BE THV were more often used in cases with challenging anatomical circumstances.

Balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves for treatment of aortic valve stenosis in patients with large aortic annuli: Evaluation of deployment balloon overfilling strategies.

OBJECTIVES: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using balloon-expandable (BE) transcatheter heart valves (THV) in aortic annuli above 29 mm includes particular procedural steps, mainly involving overfilling of the deployment balloon. Data on overfilling strategies in clinical daily practice is scarce. We herein aimed for a retrospective description of utilized overfilling strategies in those patients. METHODS: Between January 2016 and December 2022, 45 patients (100% male, 76.9 ± 6.1 years) received TAVI in aortic annuli above 29 mm using a BE THV. Overfilling volumina of the deployment balloon were left to operators' discretion. Clinical and multislice computed tomography data were retrospectively collected. Clinical endpoints were adjudicated in accordance with the updated standardized VARC-3 definitions. RESULTS: Profound overfilling (+4/5 mL) was used in patients with a mild calcium burden (˂750 mm³) even in aortic annuli of 29.0-30.0 mm. Nominal/slight overfilling (+1 mL) was used in aortic annuli up to 32.5 mm but an intermediate to severe calcific burden (>750-3200 mm³). Accordingly, a low calcification group (˂750 mm³, n = 17) compared to a significant calcification group (≥750 mm³, n = 28), presented with higher overfilling volumina (2.1 ± 1.4 vs. 0.8 ± 1.0; p ˂ 0.001), although aortic annulus diameter was not different (29.8 ± 0.8 vs. 29.9 ± 0.9 mm; p = 0.7). All-cause 30-day mortality was 0%. Device success was 97.8%. Transvalvular mean pressure gradient at discharge was 9.5 ± 3.6 mmHg. No case of PVL >mild was documented. CONCLUSION: Extent of overfilling of the deployment balloon largely depends on calcification burden in addition to aortic annulus diameter with significant and profound overfilling particularly in patients with a calcification burden of the aortic valve complex ˂750 mm³.

Early outcome of endoscopic mitral valve surgery in elderly patients: a high-volume single center experience.

Introduction: Despite increasing use of transcatheter approaches, endoscopic mitral valve surgery (MVS) remains an established option for treatment of mitral regurgitation (MR). Nevertheless, as perioperative risk increases with age, outcome of endoscopic MVS in elderly patients is uncertain. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 756 consecutive patients with MR ≥2, who underwent minimally-invasive MVS at our institution between 2016 and 2022. Patients were stratified by age ≥75 (elderly-group; n = 91) or <75 years (control-group; n = 665). All patients received endoscopic MVS via right anterolateral minithoracotomy with non-rib spreading soft tissue retraction and 3D-camera visualization. Results: Overall surgical risk was increased in the elderly-group (median age of 77 (76-80) years vs. 58 (51-67) years, p < 0.001) with STS-PROM Scores of 1.9% vs. 0.4% (p < 0.001) and increased prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation (AFib). Elderly patients were also more symptomatic (NYHA class III 45.7% vs. 29.8%; p = 0.002). Axillo-femoral perfusion was more frequently used in the elderly-group (27.5% vs. 4.2%; p < 0.001). Cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were similar. Rate of MV repair was 85.7% vs. 93.8% (p = 0.005). Closure of the left atrial appendage was more frequently performed in the elderly-group (45.1% vs. 23.9%; p < 0.001), whereas rate of concomitant tricuspid valve repair was similar (11.0% vs. 8.9%; p = 0.511). Postoperative complications including perioperative hemodialysis (3.3% vs. 2.9%; p = 0.739), low cardiac output (5.3% vs. 3.8%; p = 0.393), perioperative stroke (1.1% vs. 0.15%; p = 0.224) and myocardial infarction (0% vs. 0.15%) were favorably low in both groups. Acute mortality at 30 days was 2.2% vs. 0.4% (p = 0.112). Conclusion: Despite increased prevalence of outcome-relevant comorbidities and surgical risk, perioperative outcome of patients aged ≥75 years undergoing endoscopic MVS is favorable. Therefore, endoscopic MVS is a valuable therapeutic option for selected elderly patients and should be taken in consideration during routine heart-team discussion.

Valve-in-valve procedures for degenerated surgical and transcatheter aortic valve bioprostheses using a latest-generation self-expanding intra-annular transcatheter heart valve.

Background: Valve-in-valve (ViV) transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for failing aortic surgical bioprostheses or transcatheter heart valves (THV) has demonstrated a reasonable clinical and hemodynamic efficacy. Traditionally, self-expanding (SE) supra-annular THV are considered to result in superior hemodynamics compared with balloon-expandable intra-annular THV after ViV. However, so far no data are found on latest-generation intra-annular SE THV for aortic ViV procedures which might be superior with regard to coronary access or subsequent valve reintervention. Aim: We herein aim to evaluate a latest-generation SE intra-annular THV for aortic ViV procedures. Materials and methods: Between May 2022 and November 2022, five consecutive patients (4/5 female with mean age of 76.2 years and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality score of 2.9%) received ViV TAVI using the Navitor system (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA) for treatment of failing surgical bioprostheses or THV. Data were retrospectively analyzed according to updated Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) definitions. Results: At 30 days, absence of mortality and VARC-3 adjudicated clinical endpoints were documented. Echocardiography at 30 days revealed complete absence of paravalvular leakage and single-digit mean transvalvular gradients (mean of 6.0 mmHg) in all patients. Conclusion: The investigated intra-annular SE THV results in excellent 30-day outcomes for aortic ViV procedures for failing surgical bioprostheses or THV. Despite the intra-annular design, hemodynamic results were excellent, even in small bioprostheses. Ease of use of this valve platform is reflected by only two cycles of resheathing in five ViV procedures with hemodynamic stability during all steps of valve deployment.

Left ventricular assist device explantation using a new double-patch technique†.

OBJECTIVES: There are several surgical approaches for explanting a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) after recovery of cardiac function. Thus, remaining ventricular assist device components may bear significant risks of infection or thrombosis. We hereby report our technique and two-center experience with explantation of LVADs using a new double-patch technique. METHODS: From March 2019 to April 2021, five patients underwent LVAD explantation after myocardial recovery (HVAD, n = 2; HeartMate 3, n = 3). The mean patient age was 50.3 years (100% male); the mean time on the LVAD was 23.1 ± 20.8 months. The aetiology of the primary heart failure was dilated cardiomyopathy (n = 4) and myocarditis (n = 1).LVAD explantation was performed using a median sternotomy and cardiopulmonary bypass. The LVAD was stopped, and the outflow graft was clamped. The outflow graft was ligated and sutured close to the aortic anastomosis. The driveline was clipped and removed. Under induced fibrillation, the attachment of the LVAD was released from the apical cuff and the LVAD was removed. A round pericardial patch was fixed from the inner of the ventricle. This step sealed the apex of the heart. An additional Gore-Tex patch was continuously sutured epicardially over the suture ring. RESULTS: The 5 cases showed technically uncomplicated explantation of the LVADs. During the follow-up of a mean of 16.4 ± 16.9 months, we observed 100% survival. There were no bleeding complications or thromboembolic events during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: LVAD explantation with the double-patch technique is feasible and safe. This technique allows discontinuation of anticoagulation. The 30-day survival was 100%. Further studies are needed to provide better evidence for LVAD explantation and long-term follow-up.

Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severely Reduced Left Ventricular Systolic Function in the Low Systolic Function and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (LOSTAVI) International Registry.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established therapy for severe, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis even in patients with impaired left ventricular systolic function. However, there is uncertainty on the clinical effectiveness of the currently available TAVR devices in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The LOSTAVI (Low Systolic function and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry is a retrospective observational study using baseline, procedural, discharge, and long-term follow-up details. A total of 3 groups of interest were distinguished: extremely reduced LVEF (<25%), severely reduced LVEF (25% to 30%), and reduced LVEF (31% to 35%). Unadjusted and adjusted analyses were carried out for in-hospital and follow-up outcomes. A total of 923 patients were included from 12 centers, with 146 patients (16%) with LVEF <25%, 425 (46%) with LVEF 25% to 30%, and 352 (38%) with LVEF 31% to 35%. Several baseline and procedural features were different across groups, including age, risk, functional class, and prevalence of bicuspid disease (all p <0.05). In-hospital mortality was similar in the 3 groups (7 [4.8%], 18 [4.2%], and 7 [2.0%], respectively, p = 0.661), but major adverse events were more common in those with extremely reduced and severely reduced LVEF (19 [13%], 53 [13%], and 25 [7.1%], respectively, p = 0.024). The 12-month follow-up confirmed the significant detrimental impact of reduced LVEF on both death (21 [14%], 49 [12%], and 25 [7.1%], respectively, p = 0.024) and major adverse events (37 [25%], 89 [21%], and 53 [15%], respectively, p = 0.016). The adjusted analysis confirmed the significant prognostic role of LVEF on both outcomes, whereas TAVR device type was not associated with death or major adverse events (all p >0.05). In conclusion, TAVR yields favorable early and 1-year results in patients with reduced LVEF, including those with extremely depressed systolic dysfunction. However, reduced LVEF still represents a major adverse prognostic factor for both short- and mid-term outcomes.

Prognostic impact of implantable cardioverter defibrillators and associated adverse events in patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices.

Objectives: Implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) reduces the risk of all-cause mortality in symptomatic heart failure (HF) patients with severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Nevertheless, the prognostic impact of ICD therapy in continuous flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients remains controversial. Methods: 162 consecutive HF patients, who underwent LVAD implantation at our institution between 2010 and 2019, were categorized according to the presence (n = 94, ICD-group) or absence (n = 68, Control-group) of ICDs. Apart from clinical baseline and follow-up parameters, adverse events (AEs) related to ICD therapy and overall survival rates were retrospectively analyzed. Results: Out of 162 consecutive LVAD recipients 79 patients (48.8%) were preoperatively categorized as Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profile ≤2. The prevalence of severe HF symptoms and preoperative use of short-term circulatory support devices (54.4% vs. 13.8%, p < 0.001) was higher within the Control-group, although baseline severity of LV and RV dysfunction was similar. Apart from an increased prevalence of perioperative right heart failure (RHF) within the Control-group (45.6% vs. 17.0%; p < 0.001), procedural characteristics and perioperative outcome were similar. Overall-survival during a median follow-up of 14 (3.0-36.5) months was similar within both groups (p = 0.46). During the first 2 years after LVAD implantation 53 ICD-related AEs occurred within the ICD-group. Thereof, lead-dysfunction occurred in 19 patients and unplanned ICD-reintervention in 11 patients. Furthermore, in 18 patients appropriate shocks without loss of consciousness occurred, whereas inappropriate shocks occurred in 5 patients. Conclusion: ICD therapy in LVAD recipients was not associated with a survival benefit or reduced morbidity after LVAD implantation. Conservative ICD-programming seems to be justified to avoid ICD-related complications and "awake shocks" after LVAD implantation.

Impact of Mitral Regurgitation Etiology on Mitral Surgery After Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair: From the CUTTING-EDGE Registry.

BACKGROUND: Although >150,000 mitral TEER procedures have been performed worldwide, the impact of MR etiology on MV surgery after TEER remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare outcomes of mitral valve (MV) surgery after failed transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) stratified by mitral regurgitation (MR) etiology. METHODS: Data from the CUTTING-EDGE registry were retrospectively analyzed. Surgeries were stratified by MR etiology: primary (PMR) and secondary (SMR). MVARC (Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium) outcomes at 30 days and 1 year were evaluated. Median follow-up was 9.1 months (IQR: 1.1-25.8 months) after surgery. RESULTS: From July 2009 to July 2020, 330 patients underwent MV surgery after TEER, of which 47% had PMR and 53.0% had SMR. Mean age was 73.8 ± 10.1 years, median STS risk at initial TEER was 4.0% (IQR: 2.2%-7.3%). Compared with PMR, SMR had a higher EuroSCORE, more comorbidities, lower LVEF pre-TEER and presurgery (all P < 0.05). SMR patients had more aborted TEER (25.7% vs 16.3%; P = 0.043), more surgery for mitral stenosis after TEER (19.4% vs 9.0%; P = 0.008), and fewer MV repairs (4.0% vs 11.0%; P = 0.019). Thirty-day mortality was numerically higher in SMR (20.4% vs 12.7%; P = 0.072), with an observed-to-expected ratio of 3.6 (95% CI: 1.9-5.3) overall, 2.6 (95% CI: 1.2-4.0) in PMR, and 4.6 (95% CI: 2.6-6.6) in SMR. SMR had significantly higher 1-year mortality (38.3% vs 23.2%; P = 0.019). On Kaplan-Meier analysis, the actuarial estimates of cumulative survival were significantly lower in SMR at 1 and 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of MV surgery after TEER is nontrivial, with higher mortality after surgery, especially in SMR patients. These findings provide valuable data for further research to improve these outcomes.

Explant vs Redo-TAVR After Transcatheter Valve Failure: Mid-Term Outcomes From the EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR International Registry.

BACKGROUND: Valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) failure has not been studied in detail. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to determine outcomes of TAVR surgical explantation (TAVR-explant) vs redo-TAVR because they are largely unknown. METHODS: From May 2009 to February 2022, 396 patients in the international EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR registry underwent TAVR-explant (181, 46.4%) or redo-TAVR (215, 54.3%) for transcatheter heart valve (THV) failure during a separate admission from the initial TAVR. Outcomes were reported at 30 days and 1 year. RESULTS: The incidence of reintervention after THV failure was 0.59% with increasing volume during the study period. Median time from index-TAVR to reintervention was shorter in TAVR-explant vs redo-TAVR (17.6 months [IQR: 5.0-40.7 months] vs 45.7 months [IQR: 10.6-75.6 months]; P < 0.001], respectively. TAVR-explant had more prosthesis-patient mismatch (17.1% vs 0.5%; P < 0.001) as the indication for reintervention, whereas redo-TAVR had more structural valve degeneration (63.7% vs 51.9%; P = 0.023), with a similar incidence of ≥moderate paravalvular leak between groups (28.7% vs 32.8% in redo-TAVR; P = 0.44). There was a similar proportion of balloon-expandable THV failures (39.8% TAVR-explant vs 40.5% redo-TAVR; P = 0.92). Median follow-up was 11.3 (IQR: 1.6-27.1 months) after reintervention. Compared with redo-TAVR, TAVR-explant had higher mortality at 30 days (13.6% vs 3.4%; P < 0.001) and 1 year (32.4% vs 15.4%; P = 0.001), with similar stroke rates between groups. On landmark analysis, mortality was similar between groups after 30 days (P = 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: In this first report of the EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR global registry, TAVR-explant had a shorter median time to reintervention, with less structural valve degeneration, more prosthesis-patient mismatch, and similar paravalvular leak rates compared with redo-TAVR. TAVR-explant had higher mortality at 30 days and 1 year, but similar rates on landmark analysis after 30 days.

Temporal changes of patient characteristics over 12 years in a single-center transcatheter aortic valve implantation cohort.

BACKGROUND: Beneficial results of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients at all risk strata have led to substantial changes in guideline recommendations for valvular heart disease. AIM: To examine influence of these guideline changes on a real-world TAVI cohort, we evaluated how risk profiles and outcomes of TAVI patients developed in our single-center patient cohort over a period of 12 years. METHODS: Baseline, procedural and 30-day outcome parameters of TAVI patients were retrospectively compared between three time periods (period 1: 2008-2012, period 2: 2013-2017, period 3: 2018-2020). RESULTS: Between 03/2008 and 12/2020, a total of 3678 patients underwent TAVI at our center. The median age was 81.1 years (25th, 75th percentile: 76.7, 84.9) with no significant change over time. The EuroSCORE II showed a continuous and significant decline from 5.3% (3.3, 8.6) in period 1 to 2.8% (1.7, 5.0) in period 3 (p < 0.001). Furthermore, rates of permanent pacemaker implantation, acute kidney injury, and paravalvular leakage ≥ moderate continuously declined over time. Accordingly, the 30-day mortality fell from 9.3% in period 1 to 4.3% in period 3 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Despite substantial guideline alterations, median patient age remained largely unchanged in our TAVI cohort over the past 12 years. Therefore, increased age still appears to be the main reason to choose TAVI over SAVR. However, risk profiles declined substantially. Significant improvements in early outcomes suggest favorable influence of less invasive access routes, improved device platforms and growing user experience.

Prognostic impact and diagnostic value of invasively derived hemodynamic measures in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI.

BACKGROUND: Ejection time (ET), acceleration time (AT) and time between left ventricular and aortic systolic pressure peaks (T-LVAo) might be of diagnostic and prognostic use in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). AIM: We aimed to assess the diagnostic value and prognostic impact of invasively measured ET, AT, and T-LVAo in patients undergoing TAVI. METHODS: A total of 1274 patients received invasive measurement of ET, AT and T-LVAo prior to TAVI. Anatomic AS severity was assessed by CT-derived aortic valve calcification density (AVCd). Impact on all-cause mortality was retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: In multivariable linear regression, T-LVAo showed the strongest correlation with AVCd. No prognostic impact of T-LVAo was found according to uni- and multivariable analyses. In contrast, using an individual C-statistic derived cutoff (CD), patients with ET or AT ≥ CD showed lower mortality rates compared to patients with ET or AT < CD (1-year mortality: ET ≥ vs. < CD: 15.01vs. 33.1%, AT ≥ vs < CD 16.3 vs. 26.5%, p < 0.001). Moreover, multivariable analysis identified ET ≥ CD (HR 0.61 [95% CI 0.43-0.87; p < 0.007]) to be associated with beneficial outcome after TAVI, independent from clinical risk factors and echocardiography-derived parameters. CONCLUSION: Among the studied hemodynamic parameters T-LVAo provides the highest diagnostic value, whereas ET is an outcome predictor beyond clinical risk factors and echocardiographic parameters in AS patients following TAVI. These parameters could be of considerable use in diagnostic evaluation and risk assessment of patients scheduled for TAVI. T-LVAo (yellow): defined as time between left ventricular and aortic systolic pressure peaks. ET (green): Ejection Time defined as time from the start to flow end. AT (orange): Acceleration time defined as time from the start to the peak flow. AOP: aortic pressure, AVC: aortic valve calcification, CI: confidence interval, HGAS: high-gradient aortic stenosis, LGAS: low-gradient aortic stenosis, LVP: left ventricular pressure, SD: standard deviation.

Preliminary Experience of Extracorporeal Cytokine Hemoadsorption during Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation in Cardiogenic Shock Patients.

BACKGROUND: Systemic inflammation due to cardiogenic shock is associated with vasoplegia leading to organ hypoperfusion, right heart failure, and poor clinical outcome. Extracorporeal cytokine hemoadsorption emerged to attenuate excessive levels of inflammatory cytokines, potentially improving patient outcomes. Nevertheless, its prognostic impact during high-risk left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation remains unknown. METHODS: In total, 40 consecutive patients with advanced heart failure underwent continuous-flow LVAD implantation at our institution between 2018 and 2020. Out of 25 high-risk patients in cardiogenic shock (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support profile 1 and 2), 9 patients (CytoSorb group) underwent LVAD implantation with and 16 patients (control group) without simultaneous cytokine hemoadsorption during cardiopulmonary bypass. Besides preoperative patient characteristics, postoperative lactate clearance, vasopressor administration and mean arterial pressure, perioperative complication, and 30-day mortality rates were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Apart from an increased rate of reoperations within the CytoSorb group, baseline characteristics including the severity of ventricular dysfunction and consecutive signs of end-organ failure were similar in both groups. Preoperative short-term mechanical circulatory support bridging was comparable (66.7 vs. 75%; p = 0.66) prior to LVAD implantation. Procedural characteristics including intraoperative volume management and postoperative vasopressor administration were similar in both groups. There was no difference regarding postoperative lactate clearance, although postoperative mean arterial pressure was significantly higher in the control group (71.3 vs. 57.4 mm Hg; p < 0.01). Furthermore, the 30-day mortality rate was significantly higher in the CytoSorb group (33.3 vs. 0.0%; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Extracorporeal cytokine hemoadsorption during high-risk LVAD implantation was not associated with a decrease of postoperative vasopressor support, improved hemodynamics, or an accelerated lactate clearance.

Early Outcomes of Endoscopic Papillary Muscle Relocation for Secondary Mitral Regurgitation Type IIIb in Patients With Severe Left Ventricular Dysfunction.

Objective: Subannular mitral valve (MV) repair techniques have been developed to address increased rates of recurrent mitral regurgitation (MR) in patients with secondary MR (SMR) type IIIb. Endoscopic papillary muscle relocation (PMR) is feasible via minithoracotomy. Nevertheless, the periprocedural outcome of patients with severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction remains unknown. Methods: A total of 98 consecutive patients with SMR type IIIb underwent PMR at our institution. Due to concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting, 62 patients underwent sternotomy and were excluded from the current analysis, whereas 36 patients were treated by a minimally invasive technique using 3-dimensional endoscopy. Of these, 18 patients had severely depressed LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% (study group) and were compared to the remaining 18 patients with LVEF >35% (control group). Periprocedural outcome was retrospectively analyzed. Results: Although LVEF was significantly worse in the study group (30% ± 4% vs 43% ± 6%, P < 0.001), the severity of SMR and the degree of MV leaflet tethering were similar. The prevalence of concomitant procedures and the duration of surgery, cardiopulmonary bypass, and aortic cross-clamp were comparable. Periprocedural low cardiac output syndrome was favorably low in both groups (16.7% vs 5.6%, P = 0.29). Postoperative ventilation time (5.7 h [4.2 to 8.7 h] vs 6.0 h [4.6 to 9.8 h], P = 0.43) and duration of intensive care unit stay (2 days [1 to 3 days] vs 2 days [1 to 3 days], P = 0.22) were similar. There was no 30-day mortality in either group. Conclusions: Standardized endoscopic PMR resulted in favorable periprocedural outcomes in patients with severe LV dysfunction, suggesting that minimally invasive surgery can safely be extended to this patient population.

Percutaneous vs. surgical axillary access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the TAXI registry.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an established management strategy for severe aortic valve stenosis. Percutaneous axillary approach for TAVI holds the promise of improving safety without jeopardizing effectiveness in comparison to surgical access. We aimed at appraising the comparative effectiveness of percutaneous vs. surgical axillary approaches for TAVI. METHODS: We performed an international retrospective observational study using de-identified details on baseline, procedural, and 1-month follow-up features. Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3 criteria were applied throughout. Outcomes of interest were clinical events up to 1 month of follow-up, compared with unadjusted and propensity score-adjusted analyses. RESULTS: A total of 432 patients were included, 189 (43.8%) receiving surgical access, and 243 (56.2%) undergoing percutaneous access. Primary hemostasis failure was more common in the percutaneous group (13.2% vs. 4.2%, P<0.001), leading to more common use of covered stent implantation (13.2% vs. 3.7%, P<0.001). Irrespectively, percutaneous access was associated with shorter hospital stay (-2.6 days [95% confidence interval: -5.0; -0.1], P=0.038), a lower risk of major adverse events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, type 3 bleeding, and major access-site related complication; odds ratio=0.44 [0.21; 0.95], P=0.036), major access-site non-vascular complications (odds ratio=0.21 [0.06; 0.77], P=0.018), and brachial plexus impairment (odds ratio=0.16 [0.03; 0.76], P=0.021), and shorter hospital stay (-2.6 days [-5.0; -0.1], P=0.038). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous axillary access provides similar or better results than surgical access in patients undergoing TAVI with absolute or relative contraindications to femoral access.

Standardized papillary muscle relocation for type IIIb secondary mitral regurgitation improves 2-year outcome.

OBJECTIVES: The major drawback of isolated annuloplasty for treatment of secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR) with restricted leaflet motion during systole (type IIIb) is the recurrence of SMR, leading to adverse clinical outcome. Additional papillary muscle relocation (PMR) specifically addresses leaflet tethering to restore mitral valve geometry. We aimed to compare the 2-year outcome of annuloplasty with additional PMR vs isolated annuloplasty. METHODS: A total of 105 consecutive type IIIb SMR patients with preoperative left ventricular (LV) ejection faction <45%, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter >55 mm and a tenting height >10 mm reached 2-year postoperative follow-up after mitral valve repair and were included in the current analysis. A total of 51 patients underwent annuloplasty and additional PMR (study group). A total of 54 patients underwent isolated annuloplasty (control group). Primary composite study end point comprised death or recurrence of mitral regurgitation ≥2 at 2 years postoperatively. RESULTS: Echocardiographic baseline variables indicating the severity of LV dysfunction and mitral leaflet tethering were similar. Procedural and periprocedural outcome was comparable in both groups. The primary composite end point was significantly improved in the study group (19.6% [10/51]) in comparison to the control group (44.4% [24/54]; P = 0.009). Two-year all-cause mortality was 7.8% [4/51] in the study group vs 18.5% [10/54] in the control group (P = 0.098). After 2 years, a significant improvement in New York Heart Association functional class as compared to the baseline values was observed in the study group. CONCLUSIONS: Additional PMR to treat SMR type IIIb resulted in an improved 2-year outcome in comparison to isolated annuloplasty. PMR specifically addressing mitral leaflet tethering represents a valid therapeutic option for heart failure patients with SMR type IIIb.

Procedural outcomes of the 34 mm EvolutR Transcatheter valve in a real-world population insights from the HORSE multicenter collaborative registry.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of real-world patients with aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the 34 mm Evolut R (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota). BACKGROUND: Larger aortic annulus has been associated with increased incidence of paravalvular leaks (PVLs) after TAVR. However, little is known, so far, about the performance of the 34 mm Evolut R in this setting. METHODS: From the multicenter, international, retrospective Horizontal Aorta in Transcatheter Self-expanding Valves (HORSE) registry, including patients who underwent TAVR for native severe AS, we selected patients treated with the 34 mm Evolut R evaluating procedural characteristics and VARC-2 defined device success. We also compared 34 mm Evolut R with other Evolut R sizes. RESULTS: Among the 4434 patients included in the registry, 572 (13%) received the 34 mm Evolut R valve. Mean age was 80.8 ± 6.5 years and the median STS PROM score was 4 [interquartile range 2-6]. Device success was achieved in 87.4% with 7.7% of PVLs; moreover, the rate of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI) was 22.4%. Patients who underwent 34 mm Evolut R implantation experienced more in-hospital permanent pacemaker implantation (22.4% vs. 15%; p < 0.001). At multivariate analysis, 34 mm Evolut R did not affect device success (OR: 0.81 [0.60-1.09]; p = 0.151). Device success was consistent with other THVs sizes (87.4% vs. 89.6%; p = 0.157). CONCLUSIONS: THV replacement in patients requiring 34 mm Evolut R has an acceptable performance. Compared to other Medtronic sizes it demonstrated to be comparable in terms of device success, despite an increased rate of pacemaker implantation.