Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients: 2-year results from the LRT trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies from the Low Risk TAVR (LRT) trial demonstrated that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is safe and feasible in low-risk patients, with excellent 30-day and 1-year outcomes. The objective of this study was to report clinical outcomes and the impact of 30-day hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT) on structural valve deterioration (SVD) 2 years after TAVR. METHODS: The LRT trial was the first Food and Drug Administration-approved Investigational Device Exemption trial in the United States to evaluate the safety and feasibility of TAVR in low-risk patients with symptomatic severe tricuspid aortic stenosis (AS). Valve hemodynamics and SVD by echo were recorded 30 days, 1 year, and 2 years post-TAVR. RESULTS: The LRT trial enrolled 200 low-risk patients to receive TAVR. Their mean age was 73.6 years and 61.5% were men. At 2-year follow-up, the mortality rate was 4.2%; the cardiovascular death rate was 1.6%. The disabling stroke rate was 1.1%, permanent pacemaker implantation rate was 8.6%, and 4 patients (2.2%) presented with endocarditis (2 between years 1 and 2). Of the 14% of TAVR subjects who had evidence of HALT at 30 days, there was no impact on valve hemodynamics, endocarditis or stroke at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR for low-risk patients with symptomatic severe tricuspid AS is safe at 2 years. The presence of HALT at 30 days did not impact the early hemodynamic improvements nor the durability of the valve structure.

Effect of Mechanically Expanded vs Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement on Mortality and Major Adverse Clinical Events in High-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis: The REPRISE III Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is established for selected patients with severe aortic stenosis. However, limitations such as suboptimal deployment, conduction disturbances, and paravalvular leak occur. Objective: To evaluate if a mechanically expanded valve (MEV) is noninferior to an approved self-expanding valve (SEV) in high-risk patients with aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR. Design, Setting, and Participants: The REPRISE III trial was conducted in 912 patients with high or extreme risk and severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at 55 centers in North America, Europe, and Australia between September 22, 2014, and December 24, 2015, with final follow-up on March 8, 2017. Interventions: Participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either an MEV (n = 607) or an SEV (n = 305). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary safety end point was the 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, life-threatening or major bleeding, stage 2/3 acute kidney injury, and major vascular complications tested for noninferiority (margin, 10.5%). The primary effectiveness end point was the 1-year composite of all-cause mortality, disabling stroke, and moderate or greater paravalvular leak tested for noninferiority (margin, 9.5%). If noninferiority criteria were met, the secondary end point of 1-year moderate or greater paravalvular leak was tested for superiority in the full analysis data set. Results: Among 912 randomized patients (mean age, 82.8 [SD, 7.3] years; 463 [51%] women; predicted risk of mortality, 6.8%), 874 (96%) were evaluable at 1 year. The primary safety composite end point at 30 days occurred in 20.3% of MEV patients and 17.2% of SEV patients (difference, 3.1%; Farrington-Manning 97.5% CI, -∞ to 8.3%; P = .003 for noninferiority). At 1 year, the primary effectiveness composite end point occurred in 15.4% with the MEV and 25.5% with the SEV (difference, -10.1%; Farrington-Manning 97.5% CI, -∞ to -4.4%; P<.001 for noninferiority). The 1-year rates of moderate or severe paravalvular leak were 0.9% for the MEV and 6.8% for the SEV (difference, -6.1%; 95% CI, -9.6% to -2.6%; P < .001). The superiority analysis for primary effectiveness was statistically significant (difference, -10.2%; 95% CI, -16.3% to -4.0%; P < .001). The MEV had higher rates of new pacemaker implants (35.5% vs 19.6%; P < .001) and valve thrombosis (1.5% vs 0%) but lower rates of repeat procedures (0.2% vs 2.0%), valve-in-valve deployments (0% vs 3.7%), and valve malpositioning (0% vs 2.7%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, use of the MEV compared with the SEV did not result in inferior outcomes for the primary safety end point or the primary effectiveness end point. These findings suggest that the MEV may be a useful addition for TAVR in high-risk patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02202434.

Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis.

BACKGROUND: We compared transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR), using a self-expanding transcatheter aortic-valve bioprosthesis, with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis and an increased risk of death during surgery. METHODS: We recruited patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at increased surgical risk as determined by the heart team at each study center. Risk assessment included the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predictor Risk of Mortality estimate and consideration of other key risk factors. Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to TAVR with the self-expanding transcatheter valve (TAVR group) or to surgical aortic-valve replacement (surgical group). The primary end point was the rate of death from any cause at 1 year, evaluated with the use of both noninferiority and superiority testing. RESULTS: A total of 795 patients underwent randomization at 45 centers in the United States. In the as-treated analysis, the rate of death from any cause at 1 year was significantly lower in the TAVR group than in the surgical group (14.2% vs. 19.1%), with an absolute reduction in risk of 4.9 percentage points (upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval, -0.4; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P = 0.04 for superiority). The results were similar in the intention-to-treat analysis. In a hierarchical testing procedure, TAVR was noninferior with respect to echocardiographic indexes of valve stenosis, functional status, and quality of life. Exploratory analyses suggested a reduction in the rate of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and no increase in the risk of stroke. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at increased surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding transcatheter aortic-valve bioprosthesis was associated with a significantly higher rate of survival at 1 year than surgical aortic-valve replacement. (Funded by Medtronic; U.S. CoreValve High Risk Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01240902.).

The Assessment of the Watchman Device in Patients Unsuitable for Oral Anticoagulation (ASAP-TOO) trial.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulants (OACs) reduce stroke risks with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF); however, they are underused because of absolute or relative contraindications due to real or perceived risk of bleeding. Although left atrial appendage closure is increasingly performed in OAC-ineligible patients, this has not been studied in a randomized controlled trial. STUDY OBJECTIVES: The ASAP-TOO study is designed to establish the safety and effectiveness of the Watchman left atrial appendage closure device in patients with nonvalvular AF who are deemed ineligible for OAC. The primary effectiveness end point is the time to first occurrence of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism. The primary safety end point includes all-cause death, ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, or device- or procedural-related event requiring open cardiac surgery or major endovascular intervention. STUDY DESIGN: This is a multinational, multicenter prospective randomized trial. Patients meeting the inclusion criteria with CHA2DS2-VASc score≥2 and who are deemed by 2 study physicians to be unsuitable for OAC will be randomized in a 2:1 allocation ratio to Watchman versus control. Control patients will be prescribed single antiplatelet therapy or no therapy at the discretion of the study physician. Up to 888 randomized subjects will be enrolled from up to 100 global investigational sites. Both device group and control patients will have follow-up visits at 3, 6, and 12months and then every 6months through 60months. SUMMARY: This trial will assess the safety and efficacy of Watchman in this challenging population of high-stroke risk AF patients.

The future of transcatheter mitral valve interventions: competitive or complementary role of repair vs. replacement?

Transcatheter mitral interventions has been developed to address an unmet clinical need and may be an alternative therapeutic option to surgery with the intent to provide symptomatic and prognostic benefit. Beyond MitraClip therapy, alternative repair technologies are being developed to expand the transcatheter intervention armamentarium. Recently, the feasibility of transcatheter mitral valve implantation in native non-calcified valves has been reported in very high-risk patients. Acknowledging the lack of scientific evidence to date, it is difficult to predict what the ultimate future role of transcatheter mitral valve interventions will be. The purpose of the present report is to review the current state-of-the-art of mitral valve intervention, and to identify the potential future scenarios, which might benefit most from the transcatheter repair and replacement devices under development.

Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure for stroke prophylaxis in patients with atrial fibrillation: 2.3-Year Follow-up of the PROTECT AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) Trial.

BACKGROUND: The multicenter PROTECT AF study (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) was conducted to determine whether percutaneous left atrial appendage closure with a filter device (Watchman) was noninferior to warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients (n=707) with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and at least 1 risk factor (age >75 years, hypertension, heart failure, diabetes, or prior stroke/transient ischemic attack) were randomized to either the Watchman device (n=463) or continued warfarin (n=244) in a 2:1 ratio. After device implantation, warfarin was continued for ≈45 days, followed by clopidogrel for 4.5 months and lifelong aspirin. Study discontinuation rates were 15.3% (71/463) and 22.5% (55/244) for the Watchman and warfarin groups, respectively. The time in therapeutic range for the warfarin group was 66%. The composite primary efficacy end point included stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death, and the primary analysis was by intention to treat. After 1588 patient-years of follow-up (mean 2.3±1.1 years), the primary efficacy event rates were 3.0% and 4.3% (percent per 100 patient-years) in the Watchman and warfarin groups, respectively (relative risk, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.44%-1.30% per year), which met the criteria for noninferiority (probability of noninferiority >0.999). There were more primary safety events in the Watchman group (5.5% per year; 95% confidence interval, 4.2%-7.1% per year) than in the control group (3.6% per year; 95% confidence interval, 2.2%-5.3% per year; relative risk, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-2.70). CONCLUSIONS: The "local" strategy of left atrial appendage closure is noninferior to "systemic" anticoagulation with warfarin. PROTECT AF has, for the first time, implicated the left atrial appendage in the pathogenesis of stroke in atrial fibrillation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: : URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00129545.

APPOSITION V: STENTYS coronary stent system clinical trial in subjects with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction--rationale and design.

BACKGROUND: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has considerably improved clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) when compared with thrombolytic therapy. Prognosis after primary PCI might be further improved by decreasing stent-related complications such as stent thrombosis. The STENTYS self-apposing stent has been shown to be superior compared with balloon-expandable stents with regard to stent apposition. The current prospective randomized trial was designed to evaluate whether the superior stent apposition of the STENTYS stent results in clinical outcomes that are at least noninferior to a conventional balloon-expandable stent. METHODS: The APPOSITION V is a prospective, multicenter, international, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial in STEMI patients. Randomization will be performed in a 2:1 ratio between the self-apposing nitinol bare-metal STENTYS stent and the balloon-expandable bare-metal MULTI-LINK. The primary end point is defined as target vessel failure, which is a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related recurrent myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization, at 1-year follow-up. Baseline intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography (OCT) substudies will be performed in 212 and 60 subjects, respectively, and a repeat angiography at 12 to 13 months will be performed in 105 subjects, including intravascular ultrasound and OCT (in the 60 OCT patients). This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with number NCT01732341. CONCLUSION: APPOSITION V will be the first randomized trial powered on clinical end points that directly compares the STENTYS self-apposing stent with a conventional balloon-expandable stent in patients presenting with STEMI undergoing primary PCI.

Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure vs warfarin for atrial fibrillation: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: While effective in preventing stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), warfarin is limited by a narrow therapeutic profile, a need for lifelong coagulation monitoring, and multiple drug and diet interactions. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a local strategy of mechanical left atrial appendage (LAA) closure was noninferior to warfarin. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: PROTECT AF was a multicenter, randomized (2:1), unblinded, Bayesian-designed study conducted at 59 hospitals of 707 patients with nonvalvular AF and at least 1 additional stroke risk factor (CHADS2 score ≥1). Enrollment occurred between February 2005 and June 2008 and included 4-year follow-up through October 2012. Noninferiority required a posterior probability greater than 97.5% and superiority a probability of 95% or greater; the noninferiority margin was a rate ratio of 2.0 comparing event rates between treatment groups. INTERVENTIONS: Left atrial appendage closure with the device (n = 463) or warfarin (n = 244; target international normalized ratio, 2-3). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: A composite efficacy end point including stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular/unexplained death, analyzed by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: At a mean (SD) follow-up of 3.8 (1.7) years (2621 patient-years), there were 39 events among 463 patients (8.4%) in the device group for a primary event rate of 2.3 events per 100 patient-years, compared with 34 events among 244 patients (13.9%) for a primary event rate of 3.8 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin (rate ratio, 0.60; 95% credible interval, 0.41-1.05), meeting prespecified criteria for both noninferiority (posterior probability, >99.9%) and superiority (posterior probability, 96.0%). Patients in the device group demonstrated lower rates of both cardiovascular mortality (1.0 events per 100 patient-years for the device group [17/463 patients, 3.7%] vs 2.4 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin [22/244 patients, 9.0%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21-0.75; P = .005) and all-cause mortality (3.2 events per 100 patient-years for the device group [57/466 patients, 12.3%] vs 4.8 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin [44/244 patients, 18.0%]; HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.45-0.98; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: After 3.8 years of follow-up among patients with nonvalvular AF at elevated risk for stroke, percutaneous LAA closure met criteria for both noninferiority and superiority, compared with warfarin, for preventing the combined outcome of stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death, as well as superiority for cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00129545.

Self-expanding and balloon-expandable valves in low risk TAVR patients.

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized studies have broadened the indication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to also include low-surgical-risk patients. However, the data on self-expanding (SE) and balloon-expandable (BE) valves in low-risk patients remain sparse. METHODS: The current study is a post hoc analysis of combined data from both LRT 1.0 and 2.0 trials comparing BE and SE transcatheter heart valves. RESULTS: A total of 294 patients received a BE valve, and 102 patients received an SE valve. The 30-day clinical outcomes were similar across both groups except for stroke (4.9% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.014) and permanent pacemaker implantation (17.8% vs. 5.8%, p < 0.001), which were higher in the SE cohort than the BE cohort. No difference was observed in terms of paravalvular leak (≥moderate) between the groups (0% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.577). SE patients had higher aortic valve area (1.92 ± 0.43 mm2 vs. 1.69 ± 0.45 mm2, p < 0.001) and lower mean gradient (8.93 ± 3.53 mmHg vs. 13.41 ± 4.73 mmHg, p < 0.001) than BE patients. In addition, the rate of subclinical leaflet thrombosis was significantly lower in SE patients (5.6% vs. 13.8%, p = 0.038). CONCLUSION: In this non-randomized study assessing SE and BE valves in low-risk TAVR patients, SE valves are associated with better hemodynamics and lesser leaflet thrombosis, with increased rates of stroke and permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days; however, this could be due to certain patient-dependent factors not fully evaluated in this study. The long-term implications of these outcomes on structural valve durability remain to be further investigated. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: LRT 1.0: NCT02628899 LRT 2.0: NCT03557242.

Subclinical leaflet thrombosis and antithrombotic therapy post-TAVI: An LRT substudy.

BACKGROUND: Subclinical leaflet thrombosis (SLT) is characterized on computed tomography (CT) imaging as hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT), reduced leaflet motion (RELM), and hypoattenuation affecting motion (HAM). How antithrombotic regimen type impacts SLT remains poorly understood. We evaluated how antithrombotic regimen type impacts SLT in low-risk subjects following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). METHODS: This substudy is a post hoc analysis of the LRT 1.0 and 2.0 trials to assess SLT in subjects who underwent CT or transoesophageal echocardiogram (TOE) imaging at 30 days, stratified by antithrombotic regimen received (single antiplatelet therapy [SAPT], dual antiplatelet therapy [DAPT], or oral anticoagulation). We also utilized univariable logistic regression modelling to identify echocardiographic predictors of HALT. RESULTS: Rates of HALT, RELM, and HAM were all significantly lower with oral anticoagulation compared to SAPT or DAPT at 30 days (HALT: 2.6% vs 14.3% vs 17.2%, respectively, with p < 0.001; RELM: 1.8% vs 9.6% vs 13.1%, respectively, with p = 0.004; and HAM: 0.9% vs 8.5% vs 9.8%, respectively, with p = 0.011). Additionally, short-term oral anticoagulation was not associated with higher bleeding rates compared to SAPT or DAPT (0.8% vs. 1.8% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.291). The presence of HALT did not significantly impact echocardiographic haemodynamic parameters at 30 days. CONCLUSION: This is the largest study to date that evaluated the impact of different antithrombotic regimens on SLT in low-risk TAVI patients. Oral anticoagulation was associated with significantly lower rates of SLT at 30 days compared to DAPT or SAPT, and there was no apparent benefit of DAPT over SAPT.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Impact of Subclinical Leaflet Thrombosis in Low-Risk Patients: LRT Trial 4-Year Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The LRT trial (Low-Risk Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement [TAVR]) demonstrated the safety and feasibility of TAVR in low-risk patients, with excellent 1- and 2-year outcomes. The objective of the current study is to provide the overall clinical outcomes and the impact of 30-day hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT) on structural valve deterioration at 4 years. METHODS: The prospective, multicenter LRT trial was the first Food and Drug Administration-approved investigational device exemption study to evaluate feasibility and safety of TAVR in low-risk patients with symptomatic severe tricuspid aortic stenosis. Clinical outcomes and valve hemodynamics were documented annually through 4 years. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients were enrolled, and follow-up was available on 177 patients at 4 years. The rates of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death were 11.9% and 3.3%, respectively. The stroke rate rose from 0.5% at 30 days to 7.5% at 4 years, and permanent pacemaker implantation rose from 6.5% at 30 days to 11.7% at 4 years. Endocarditis was detected in 2.5% of the cohort, with no new cases reported between 2 and 4 years. Transcatheter heart valve hemodynamics remained excellent post-procedure and were maintained (mean gradient 12.56±5.54 mm Hg and aortic valve area 1.69±0.52 cm2) at 4 years. At 30 days, HALT was observed in 14% of subjects who received a balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve. There was no difference in valve hemodynamics between patients with and without HALT (mean gradient 14.94±5.01 mm Hg versus 12.3±5.57 mm Hg; P=0.23) at 4 years. The overall rate of structural valve deterioration was 5.8%, and there was no impact of HALT on valve hemodynamics, endocarditis, or stroke at 4 years. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR in low-risk patients with symptomatic severe tricuspid aortic stenosis was found to be safe and durable at 4 years. Structural valve deterioration rates were low irrespective of the type of valve, and the presence of HALT at 30 days did not affect structural valve deterioration, transcatheter valve hemodynamics, and stroke rate at 4 years. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02628899.

Recanalization of femoropopliteal chronic total occlusions using the ENABLER-P Balloon Catheter System.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a new system to facilitate intraluminal advancement of conventional guidewires through chronic total occlusions (CTO) of the superficial femoral artery (SFA) and popliteal artery. METHODS: The ENABLER-P Balloon Catheter System uses a unique balloon-anchoring mechanism and an automated balloon inflation device for steady, controlled advancement of a standard non-hydrophilic guidewire. The system was evaluated in 37 patients (22 men; mean age 67 years (range 41-87) with femoropopliteal CTOs averaging 86 mm in length (range 10-340). The device was used in a variety of occlusions, including heavily calcified, long, and fibrotic lesions. After successful guidewire recanalization facilitated by the system, occluded arterial segments were treated conventionally with balloon angioplasty, atherectomy, and stents as appropriate. RESULTS: The primary endpoint of successful crossing was achieved in 86% (32/37) of the overall study population. The average activation time for successful crossing was 5.3 minutes (range 0.4-22). Of the 32 cases successfully crossed with the ENABLER-P System, all but 1 was successfully recanalized. One (3%) device-related complication occurred when the wire was advanced into a side branch when treating a 300-mm-long flush ostial SFA occlusion; the resulting perforation was managed with a covered stent without further sequelae. CONCLUSION: This novel system, which provides enhanced force to a standard guidewire tip for controlled intraluminal advancement, is a promising device for the treatment of peripheral CTOs.

Nitinol stent implantation vs. balloon angioplasty for lesions in the superficial femoral and proximal popliteal arteries of patients with claudication: three-year follow-up from the RESILIENT randomized trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate longer outcomes of primary nitinol stenting for the treatment of femoropopliteal lesions up to 15 cm long after these stents were found to have superior short-term patency vs. balloon angioplasty. METHODS: Two hundred and six patients (143 men; mean age 67 years) with intermittent claudication due to superficial femoral and proximal popliteal artery lesions were randomized (2:1) to treatment with nitinol stents or balloon angioplasty at 24 US and European centers and followed for 3 years. In that time, 15 patients died, 20 withdrew consent, and 10 were lost to follow-up, leaving 161 (78.2%) patients for 36-month assessment. RESULTS: The 12-month freedom from target lesion revascularization (TLR) was 87.3% for the stent group vs. 45.2% for the angioplasty group (p<0.0001). At 3 years, there was no difference in survival (90.0% vs. 91.7%, p=0.71) or major adverse events (75.2% vs. 75.2%, p=0.98) between the stent and angioplasty groups. Duplex ultrasound was not mandated after the first year, so stent patency could not be ascertained beyond 1 year, but freedom from TLR at 3 years was significantly better in the stent group (75.5% vs. 41.8%, p<0.0001), as was clinical success (63.2% vs. 17.9%, p<0.0001). At 18 months, a 4.1% (12/291) stent fracture rate was documented. CONCLUSION: In this multicenter trial, primary implantation of a nitinol stent for moderate-length lesions in the femoropopliteal segment of patients with claudication was associated with better long-term results vs. balloon angioplasty alone.

Long-term Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Lotus Valve vs CoreValve/EvolutR: A Secondary Analysis of the REPRISE III Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Long-term follow-up after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is of interest given that longitudinal data on mortality and durability of transcatheter heart valves are limited. The REPRISE III (Repositionable Percutaneous Replacement of Stenotic Aortic Valve Through Implantation of Lotus Valve System-Randomized Clinical Evaluation) randomized clinical trial compared the mechanically expanded Lotus valve with the self-expanding CoreValve/EvolutR TAVR platforms. Objective: To describe the final 5-year outcomes of the REPRISE III trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified secondary analysis assessed the final 5-year clinical, functional, and echocardiographic outcomes of 912 patients from the REPRISE III trial, which was conducted at 55 centers in North America, Europe, and Australia between September 22, 2014, and December 24, 2015. Patients had high risk for aortic stenosis or severe or symptomatic aortic stenosis. Data were analyzed from September 22, 2014, to May 21, 2021. Intervention: Lotus valve or CoreValve/EvolutR TAVR platforms. Main Outcomes and Measures: Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 end points, hemodynamic measures, functional status, and health status were examined through the 5-year follow-up. Results: A total of 912 patients (mean [SD] age, 82.8 [7.3] years; 463 women [50.8%]) were randomized to either the Lotus valve group (n = 607) or CoreValve/EvolutR group (n = 305), with a baseline Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 6.8%. Clinical follow-up data from the REPRISE III trial were available for 581 patients (95.7%) in the Lotus valve group and 285 patients (93.4%) in the CoreValve/EvolutR group. At 5 years, the cumulative event rate for all-cause mortality was 50.9% in the Lotus valve group vs 52.8% in the CoreValve/EvolutR group (P = .59). Disabling stroke was less frequent with the Lotus valve vs CoreValve/EvolutR (cumulative event rates, 8.3% vs 12.2%; P = .04), whereas the cumulative event rates for overall stroke were similar in both groups (14.1% vs 15.3%; P = .38). Insertion of a new permanent pacemaker (38.9% vs 27.3%; P < .001) and detection of prosthetic aortic valve thrombosis (5.8% vs 1.8%; P = .007) were more common in the Lotus valve group than in the CoreValve/EvolutR group. A smaller proportion of patients who received the Lotus valve experienced valve malpositioning (0% vs 2.6%; P < .001) and required the use of a second valve (1.0% vs 3.8%; P < .001) during the procedure compared with those who received the CoreValve/EvolutR. Compared with the Lotus valve group, the CoreValve/EvolutR group had a significantly lower mean (SD) aortic gradient (7.8 [4.2] mm Hg vs 12.6 [6.7] mm Hg; P < .001) and larger valve areas (1.57 [0.56] cm2 vs 1.42 [0.42] cm2; P = .10). After 5 years, the proportion of patients with moderate or greater paravalvular leak was not significantly higher with the CoreValve/EvolutR than with the Lotus valve (1.9% vs 0%; P = .31); however, the proportion of patients with mild paravalvular leak was higher in the CoreValve/EvolutR group compared with the Lotus valve group (23.1% vs 7.8%; P = .006). Long-term, similar improvements in New York Heart Association class and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score were observed in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: The REPRISE III trial found that, at 5 years, the clinical outcomes of the Lotus valve were comparable to those of the CoreValve/EvolutR and that the Lotus valve was safe and effective. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02202434.

Lifetime management of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a computed tomography simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Given enough time, transcatheter heart valves (THVs) will degenerate and may require reintervention. Redo transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an attractive strategy but carries a risk of coronary obstruction. AIMS: We sought to predict how many TAVIs patients could undergo in their lifetime using computed tomography (CT) simulation. METHODS: We analysed paired CT scans (baseline and 30 days post-TAVI) from patients in the LRT trial and EPROMPT registry. We implanted virtual THVs on baseline CTs, comparing predicted valve-to-coronary (VTC) distances to 30-day CT VTC distances to evaluate the accuracy of CT simulation. We then simulated implantation of a second virtual THV within the first to estimate the risk of coronary obstruction due to sinus sequestration and the need for leaflet modification. RESULTS: We included 213 patients with evaluable paired CTs. There was good agreement between virtual (baseline) and actual (30 days) CT measurements. CT simulation of TAVI followed by redo TAVI predicted low coronary obstruction risk in 25.4% of patients and high risk, likely necessitating leaflet modification, in 27.7%, regardless of THV type. The remaining 46.9% could undergo redo TAVI so long as the first THV was balloon-expandable but would likely require leaflet modification if the first THV was self-expanding. CONCLUSIONS: Using cardiac CT simulation, it is possible to predict whether a patient can undergo multiple TAVI procedures in their lifetime. Those who cannot may prefer to undergo surgery first. CT simulation could provide a personalised lifetime management strategy for younger patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and inform decision-making. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT02628899; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03557242; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03423459.

Randomized Trial of Aspirin Versus Warfarin After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: The optimal antithrombotic regimen after transcatheter aortic valve replacement remains unclear. METHODS: In this randomized open-label study, low-risk patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement at 7 centers in the United States were randomized 1:1 to low-dose aspirin or warfarin plus low-dose aspirin for 30 days. Patients who could not be randomized were enrolled in a separate registry. Computed tomography or transesophageal echocardiography was performed at 30 days. The primary effectiveness end point was a composite of the following at 30 days: hypoattenuated leaflet thickening, at least moderately reduced leaflet motion, hemodynamic dysfunction (mean aortic valve gradient ≥20 mm Hg, effective orifice area ≤1.0 cm2, dimensionless valve index <0.35, or moderate or severe aortic regurgitation), stroke, or transient ischemic attack. RESULTS: Between July 2018 and October 2019, 94 patients were randomly assigned, 50 to aspirin and 44 to warfarin plus aspirin, and 30 were enrolled into the registry. In the intention-to-treat analysis of the randomized cohort, the composite primary effectiveness end point was met in 26.5% for aspirin versus 7.0% for warfarin plus aspirin (P=0.014; odds ratio, 4.8 [95% CI, 1.3-18.3]). The rate of hypoattenuated leaflet thickening was 16.3% for aspirin versus 4.7% for warfarin plus aspirin (P=0.07; odds ratio, 4.0 [95% CI, 0.8-20.0]). There was no excess bleeding at 30 days with anticoagulation. In the as-treated analysis of pooled randomized and registry cohorts, the rate of hypoattenuated leaflet thickening was 16.7% for aspirin versus 3.1% for warfarin plus aspirin (P=0.011; odds ratio, 6.3 [95% CI, 1.3-30.6]). CONCLUSIONS: In low-risk transcatheter aortic valve replacement patients, anticoagulation with warfarin may prevent transcatheter heart valve dysfunction in the short term without excess bleeding. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03557242.

Balloon-Expandable Valve Geometry After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Prospective bicuspid low-risk transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) registries' data demonstrated encouraging short-term results. Detailed data on transcatheter heart valve (THV) geometry after deployment using contemporary devices are lacking. This study sought to examine valve geometry after TAVR in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS: The study population was patients from the LRT (Low Risk TAVR) trial who underwent TAVR using the SAPIEN 3 THV for bicuspid and tricuspid AS. THV geometry measured on 30-day computed tomography (CT) included valve height, angle, depth, and eccentricity. Additionally, THV hemodynamics and outcomes post-TAVR were compared among patients with bicuspid and tricuspid AS. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients from the LRT trial using the SAPIEN 3 THV were included in our analysis. On 30-day CT, the valve height ratio (1.07 vs. 1.07; p = 0.348), depths (right [5.6 mm vs. 6.2 mm; p = 0.223], left [5.3 mm vs. 4.4 mm; p = 0.082] and non [4.8 mm vs. 4.5 mm; p = 0.589] coronary cusps), eccentricities (1.08 vs. 1.07; p = 0.9550), and angles (except the right [3.9 degrees vs. 6.3 degrees; p = 0.003] and left [3.6 degrees vs. 6.0 degrees; p = 0.007]) were similar between bicuspid and tricuspid patients. Hemodynamics, stroke, and mortality were similar at 1 year. CONCLUSION: Despite challenging bicuspid anatomy of the aortic valve, our comprehensive CT analysis supports similar THV geometry between patients with bicuspid and tricuspid AS undergoing TAVR using the SAPIEN 3 THV in low-risk patients. This translated to excellent short-term clinical outcomes and THV hemodynamics in both aortic valve morphologies. TRIAL REGISTRY: NCT02628899, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02628899.

Anatomical Characteristics Associated With Hypoattenuated Leaflet Thickening in Low-Risk Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: This sub-analysis of the prospective Low Risk TAVR (LRT) trial determined anatomical characteristics associated with hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT), which may contribute to early transcatheter heart valve (THV) degeneration. METHODS/MATERIALS: The LRT trial enrolled 200 low-risk patients between February 2016 and February 2018. All subjects underwent baseline and 30-day CT studies, analyzed by an independent core laboratory. Additional measurements, namely THV expansion, eccentricity, depth, and commissural alignment, were made by consensus of three independent readers. HALT was observed only in the Sapien 3 THV, so Evolut valves were excluded from this analysis. RESULTS: In the LRT trial, 177 subjects received Sapien 3 THVs, of whom 167 (94.3%) had interpretable 30-day CTs and were eligible for this analysis. Twenty-six subjects had HALT (15.6%). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. There was no difference in THV size implanted and baseline aortic-root geometry between groups. In patients who developed HALT, THV implantation depth was shallower than in patients who did not develop HALT (2.6 ± 1.1 mm HALT versus 3.3 ± 1.8 mm no-HALT, p = 0.03). There were more patients in the HALT group with commissural malalignment (40% vs. 28%; p = 0.25), but this did not reach statistical significance. In a univariable regression model, no predetermined variables were shown to independently predict the development of HALT. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not find anatomical or THV implantation characteristics that predicted the development of HALT at 30 days. This study cannot exclude subtle effects or interaction between factors because of the small number of events.

Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage versus warfarin therapy for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, embolic stroke is thought to be associated with left atrial appendage (LAA) thrombi. We assessed the efficacy and safety of percutaneous closure of the LAA for prevention of stroke compared with warfarin treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation. METHODS: Adult patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation were eligible for inclusion in this multicentre, randomised non-inferiority trial if they had at least one of the following: previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack, congestive heart failure, diabetes, hypertension, or were 75 years or older. 707 eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio by computer-generated randomisation sequence to percutaneous closure of the LAA and subsequent discontinuation of warfarin (intervention; n=463) or to warfarin treatment with a target international normalised ratio between 2.0 and 3.0 (control; n=244). Efficacy was assessed by a primary composite endpoint of stroke, cardiovascular death, and systemic embolism. We selected a one-sided probability criterion of non-inferiority for the intervention of at least 97.5%, by use of a two-fold non-inferiority margin. Serious adverse events that constituted the primary endpoint for safety included major bleeding, pericardial effusion, and device embolisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00129545. FINDINGS: At 1065 patient-years of follow-up, the primary efficacy event rate was 3.0 per 100 patient-years (95% credible interval [CrI] 1.9-4.5) in the intervention group and 4.9 per 100 patient-years (2.8-7.1) in the control group (rate ratio [RR] 0.62, 95% CrI 0.35-1.25). The probability of non-inferiority of the intervention was more than 99.9%. Primary safety events were more frequent in the intervention group than in the control group (7.4 per 100 patient-years, 95% CrI 5.5-9.7, vs 4.4 per 100 patient-years, 95% CrI 2.5-6.7; RR 1.69, 1.01-3.19). INTERPRETATION: The efficacy of percutaneous closure of the LAA with this device was non-inferior to that of warfarin therapy. Although there was a higher rate of adverse safety events in the intervention group than in the control group, events in the intervention group were mainly a result of periprocedural complications. Closure of the LAA might provide an alternative strategy to chronic warfarin therapy for stroke prophylaxis in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. FUNDING: Atritech.

Feasibility of Coronary Access and Aortic Valve Reintervention in Low-Risk TAVR Patients.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of coronary access and aortic valve reintervention in low-risk patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve (THV). BACKGROUND: Younger, low-risk TAVR patients are more likely than older, higher risk patients to require coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention, or aortic valve reintervention, but their THVs may impede coronary access and cause coronary obstruction during TAVR-in-TAVR. METHODS: The LRT (Low Risk TAVR) trial (NCT02628899) enrolled 200 subjects with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis to undergo TAVR using commercially available THVs. Subjects who received balloon-expandable THVs and who had 30-day cardiac computed tomographic scans were included in this study. In a subgroup, the feasibility of intentional THV crimping on the delivery catheter to pre-determine commissural alignment was tested. RESULTS: In the LRT trial, 168 subjects received balloon-expandable THVs and had 30-day cardiac computed tomographic scans, of which 137 were of adequate image quality for analysis. The most challenging anatomy for coronary access (THV frame above and commissural suture post in front of a coronary ostium) was observed in 9% to 13% of subjects. Intentional THV crimping did not appear to meaningfully affect commissural alignment. The THV frame extended above the sinotubular junction in 21% of subjects, and in 13%, the distance between the THV and the sinotubular junction was <2 mm, signifying that TAVR-in-TAVR may not be feasible without causing coronary obstruction. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR may present challenges to future coronary access and aortic valve reintervention in a substantial number of low-risk patients.