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

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

Inter-observer variability of expert-derived morphologic risk predictors in aortic dissection.

OBJECTIVES: Establishing the reproducibility of expert-derived measurements on CTA exams of aortic dissection is clinically important and paramount for ground-truth determination for machine learning. METHODS: Four independent observers retrospectively evaluated CTA exams of 72 patients with uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection and assessed the reproducibility of a recently proposed combination of four morphologic risk predictors (maximum aortic diameter, false lumen circumferential angle, false lumen outflow, and intercostal arteries). For the first inter-observer variability assessment, 47 CTA scans from one aortic center were evaluated by expert-observer 1 in an unconstrained clinical assessment without a standardized workflow and compared to a composite of three expert-observers (observers 2-4) using a standardized workflow. A second inter-observer variability assessment on 30 out of the 47 CTA scans compared observers 3 and 4 with a constrained, standardized workflow. A third inter-observer variability assessment was done after specialized training and tested between observers 3 and 4 in an external population of 25 CTA scans. Inter-observer agreement was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Pre-training ICCs of the four morphologic features ranged from 0.04 (-0.05 to 0.13) to 0.68 (0.49-0.81) between observer 1 and observers 2-4 and from 0.50 (0.32-0.69) to 0.89 (0.78-0.95) between observers 3 and 4. ICCs improved after training ranging from 0.69 (0.52-0.87) to 0.97 (0.94-0.99), and Bland-Altman analysis showed decreased bias and limits of agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Manual morphologic feature measurements on CTA images can be optimized resulting in improved inter-observer reliability. This is essential for robust ground-truth determination for machine learning models. KEY POINTS: • Clinical fashion manual measurements of aortic CTA imaging features showed poor inter-observer reproducibility. • A standardized workflow with standardized training resulted in substantial improvements with excellent inter-observer reproducibility. • Robust ground truth labels obtained manually with excellent inter-observer reproducibility are key to develop reliable machine learning models.

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

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

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

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

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: a propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the SAPIEN 3 valve demonstrates good 30 day clinical outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at intermediate risk of surgical mortality. Here we report longer-term data in intermediate-risk patients given SAPIEN 3 TAVR and compare outcomes to those of intermediate-risk patients given surgical aortic valve replacement. METHODS: In the SAPIEN 3 observational study, 1077 intermediate-risk patients at 51 sites in the USA and Canada were assigned to receive TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve [952 [88%] via transfemoral access) between Feb 17, 2014, and Sept 3, 2014. In this population we assessed all-cause mortality and incidence of strokes, re-intervention, and aortic valve regurgitation at 1 year after implantation. Then we compared 1 year outcomes in this population with those for intermediate-risk patients treated with surgical valve replacement in the PARTNER 2A trial between Dec 23, 2011, and Nov 6, 2013, using a prespecified propensity score analysis to account for between-trial differences in baseline characteristics. The clinical events committee and echocardiographic core laboratory methods were the same for both studies. The primary endpoint was the composite of death from any cause, all strokes, and incidence of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation. We did non-inferiority (margin 7·5%) and superiority analyses in propensity score quintiles to calculate pooled weighted proportion differences for outcomes. FINDINGS: At 1 year follow-up of the SAPIEN 3 observational study, 79 of 1077 patients who initiated the TAVR procedure had died (all-cause mortality 7·4%; 6·5% in the transfemoral access subgroup), and disabling strokes had occurred in 24 (2%), aortic valve re-intervention in six (1%), and moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation in 13 (2%). In the propensity-score analysis we included 963 patients treated with SAPIEN 3 TAVR and 747 with surgical valve replacement. For the primary composite endpoint of mortality, strokes, and moderate or severe aortic regurgitation, TAVR was both non-inferior (pooled weighted proportion difference of -9·2%; 90% CI -12·4 to -6; p<0·0001) and superior (-9·2%, 95% CI -13·0 to -5·4; p<0·0001) to surgical valve replacement. INTERPRETATION: TAVR with SAPIEN 3 in intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis is associated with low mortality, strokes, and regurgitation at 1 year. The propensity score analysis indicates a significant superiority for our composite outcome with TAVR compared with surgery, suggesting that TAVR might be the preferred treatment alternative in intermediate-risk patients. FUNDING: None.

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

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

5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with standard treatment for patients with inoperable aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Based on the early results of the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an accepted treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are not suitable for surgery. However, little information is available about the late clinical outcomes in such patients. METHODS: We did this randomised controlled trial at 21 experienced valve centres in Canada, Germany, and the USA. We enrolled patients with severe symptomatic inoperable aortic stenosis and randomly assigned (1:1) them to transfemoral TAVR or to standard treatment, which often included balloon aortic valvuloplasty. Patients and their treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The randomisation was done centrally, and sites learned of the assignment only after a patient had been screened, consented, and entered into the database. The primary outcome of the trial was all-cause mortality at 1 year in the intention-to-treat population, here we present the prespecified findings after 5 years. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00530894. FINDINGS: We screened 3015 patients, of whom 358 were enrolled (mean age 83 years, Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality 11·7%, 54% female). 179 were assigned to TAVR treatment and 179 were assigned to standard treatment. 20 patients crossed over from the standard treatment group and ten withdrew from study, leaving only six patients at 5 years, of whom five had aortic valve replacement treatment outside of the study. The risk of all-cause mortality at 5 years was 71·8% in the TAVR group versus 93·6% in the standard treatment group (hazard ratio 0·50, 95% CI 0·39-0·65; p<0·0001). At 5 years, 42 (86%) of 49 survivors in the TAVR group had New York Heart Association class 1 or 2 symptoms compared with three (60%) of five in the standard treatment group. Echocardiography after TAVR showed durable haemodynamic benefit (aortic valve area 1·52 cm(2) at 5 years, mean gradient 10·6 mm Hg at 5 years), with no evidence of structural valve deterioration. INTERPRETATION: TAVR is more beneficial than standard treatment for treatment of inoperable aortic stenosis. TAVR should be strongly considered for patients who are not surgical candidates for aortic valve replacement to improve their survival and functional status. Appropriate selection of patients will help to maximise the benefit of TAVR and reduce mortality from severe comorbidities. FUNDING: Edwards Lifesciences.

5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial showed that mortality at 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years is much the same with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. We report here the 5-year outcomes. METHODS: We did this randomised controlled trial at 25 hospitals, in Canada (two), Germany (one), and the USA (23). We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence to randomly assign high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis to either SAVR or TAVR with a balloon-expandable bovine pericardial tissue valve by either a transfemoral or transapical approach. Patients and their treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome of the trial was all-cause mortality in the intention-to-treat population at 1 year, we present here predefined outcomes at 5 years. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00530894. FINDINGS: We screened 3105 patients, of whom 699 were enrolled (348 assigned to TAVR, 351 assigned to SAVR). Overall mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 11·7%. At 5 years, risk of death was 67·8% in the TAVR group compared with 62·4% in the SAVR group (hazard ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·86-1·24; p=0·76). We recorded no structural valve deterioration requiring surgical valve replacement in either group. Moderate or severe aortic regurgitation occurred in 40 (14%) of 280 patients in the TAVR group and two (1%) of 228 in the SAVR group (p<0·0001), and was associated with increased 5-year risk of mortality in the TAVR group (72·4% for moderate or severe aortic regurgitation vs 56·6% for those with mild aortic regurgitation or less; p=0·003). INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that TAVR as an alternative to surgery for patients with high surgical risk results in similar clinical outcomes. FUNDING: Edwards Lifesciences.

The outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a cohort of patients with end-stage renal disease.

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a safe and effective treatment option for aortic stenosis in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). BACKGROUND: Patients with ESRD undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement have an operative mortality approaching 20% and a 10-year survival of approximately 12%. We investigated whether TAVR is a more reasonable option. METHODS: This is a multicenter, retrospective study of all patients with ESRD who underwent TAVR in 8 institutions between 12/2011 and 02/2013. Demographic characteristics, mortality, major, and minor complications were evaluated. Outcomes were stratified by operative approach. RESULTS: Forty-three patients with a mean age 76.2 ± 11.0 years and a mean STS predicted risk of mortality of 15.53 ± 8.70% underwent TAVR. Mean duration of dialysis was 45.2 ± 52.3 months (median 29.5 months). Transfemoral (TF) TAVR was performed in 31/43 (72.1%), transapical in 11/43 (25.6%), and transaortic in 1/43 (2.3%). Operative mortality was 14.0% (6/43) with TF mortality 6.5% (2/31) and 33.3% (4/12) in non-TF patients. Six-month mortality was 11/43 (25.6%: 16.1% TF, 50.0% non-TF). Complications included stroke in 2.3% (1/43) and life-threatening or major bleeding in 14.0% (6/43). Discharge to another healthcare facility was 27.0% (10/37). Readmission within 30 days of procedure for any cause was 18.9% (7/37). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ESRD who undergo TAVR are at high risk for mortality and complications. TAVR outcomes are comparable to but not substantially better than those with SAVR. Transfemoral TAVR seems to be at least as safe and effective as the current standard SAVR in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Pre- and Postoperative Imaging of the Aortic Root.

Three-dimensional datasets acquired using computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging are ideally suited for characterization of the aortic root. These modalities offer different advantages and limitations, which must be weighed according to the clinical context. This article provides an overview of current aortic root imaging, highlighting normal anatomy, pathologic conditions, imaging techniques, measurement thresholds, relevant surgical procedures, postoperative complications and potential imaging pitfalls. Patients with a range of clinical conditions are predisposed to aortic root disease, including Marfan syndrome, bicuspid aortic valve, vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, and Loeys-Dietz syndrome. Various surgical techniques may be used to repair the aortic root, including placement of a composite valve graft, such as the Bentall and Cabrol procedures; placement of an aortic root graft with preservation of the native valve, such as the Yacoub and David techniques; and implantation of a biologic graft, such as a homograft, autograft, or xenograft. Potential imaging pitfalls in the postoperative period include mimickers of pathologic processes such as felt pledgets, graft folds, and nonabsorbable hemostatic agents. Postoperative complications that may be encountered include pseudoaneurysms, infection, and dehiscence. Radiologists should be familiar with normal aortic root anatomy, surgical procedures, and postoperative complications, to accurately interpret pre- and postoperative imaging performed for evaluation of the aortic root. Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Extracellular matrix remodeling in wound healing of critical size defects in the mitral valve leaflet.

The details of valvular leaflet healing following valvuloplasty and leaflet perforation from endocarditis are poorly understood. In this study, the synthesis and turnover of valvular extracellular matrix due to healing of a critical sized wound was investigated. Twenty-nine sheep were randomized to either CTRL (n = 11) or HOLE (n = 18), in which a 2.8-4.8 mm diameter hole was punched in the posterior mitral leaflet. After 12 weeks, posterior leaflets were harvested and histologically stained to localize extracellular matrix components. Immunohistochemistry was also performed to assess matrix components and markers of matrix turnover. A semi-quantitative grading scale was used to quantify differences between HOLE and CTRL. After 12 weeks, the hole diameter was reduced by 71.3 ± 1.4 % (p < 0.001). Areas of remodeling surrounding the hole contained more activated cells, greater expression of proteoglycans, and markers of matrix turnover (prolyl 4-hydroxylase, metalloproteases, and lysyl oxidase, each p ≤ 0.025), along with fibrin accumulation. Two distinct remodeling regions were evident surrounding the hole, one directly bordering the hole rich in versican and hyaluronan and a second adjacent region with abundant collagen and elastic fiber turnover. The remodeling also caused reduced delineation between valve layers (p = 0.002), more diffuse staining of matrix components and markers of matrix turnover (p < 0.001), and disruption of the collagenous fibrosa. In conclusion, acute valve injury elicited distinct, heterogeneous alterations in valvular matrix composition and structure, resulting in partial wound closure. Because these changes could also affect leaflet mechanics and valve function, it will be important to determine their impact on healing wounds.

Long-term outcomes of inoperable patients with aortic stenosis randomly assigned to transcatheter aortic valve replacement or standard therapy.

BACKGROUND: The long-term outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis remain unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) study, 358 patients were randomly assigned to TAVR or standard therapy. We report the 3-year outcomes on these patients, and the pooled outcomes for all randomly assigned inoperable patients (n=449) in PARTNER, as well, including the randomized portion of the continued access study (n=91). The 3-year mortality rate in the TAVR and standard therapy groups was 54.1% and 80.9%, respectively (P<0.001; hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.68; P<0.001). In survivors, there was significant improvement in New York Heart Association functional class sustained at 3 years. The cumulative incidence of strokes at 3-year follow-up was 15.7% in TAVR patients versus 5.5% in patients undergoing standard therapy (hazard ratio, 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-6.26; P=0.012); however, the composite of death or strokes was significantly lower after TAVR versus standard therapy (57.4% versus 80.9%, P<0.001; hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.77; P<0.001). Echocardiography showed a sustained increase in aortic valve area and decrease in transvalvular gradient after TAVR. Analysis of the 449 pooled randomly assigned patients (TAVR, n=220; standard therapy, n=229) demonstrated significant improvement in all-cause mortality and functional status during early and 3-year follow-up. The results of the pooled cohort were similar to the results obtained from the pivotal PARTNER trial. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR resulted in better survival and functional status in inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis with durable hemodynamic benefit on long-term follow-up. However, high residual mortality, even in successfully treated TAVR patients, highlights the need for more strategic patient selection. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00530894.

SCAI/AATS/ACC/STS operator and institutional requirements for transcatheter valve repair and replacement, Part III: Pulmonic valve.

With the evolution of transcatheter valve replacement, an important opportunity has arisen for cardiologists and surgeons to collaborate in identifying the criteria for performing these procedures. Therefore, The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI), American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS), American College of Cardiology (ACC), and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) have partnered to provide recommendations for institutions to assess their potential for instituting and/or maintaining a transcatheter valve program. This article concerns transcatheter pulmonic valve replacement (tPVR). tPVR procedures are in their infancy with few reports available on which to base an expert consensus statement. Therefore, many of these recommendations are based on expert consensus and the few reports available. As the procedures evolve, technology advances, experience grows, and more data accumulate, there will certainly be a need to update this consensus statement. The writing committee and participating societies believe that the recommendations in this report serve as appropriate requisites. In some ways, these recommendations apply to institutions more than to individuals. There is a strong consensus that these new valve therapies are best performed using a Heart Team approach; thus, these credentialing criteria should be applied at the institutional level. Partnering societies used the ACC's policy on relationships with industry (RWI) and other entities to author this document (http://www.acc.org/guidelines/about-guidelines-and-clinical-documents). To avoid actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest due to industry relationships or personal interests, all members of the writing committee, as well as peer reviewers of the document, were asked to disclose all current healthcare-related relationships including those existing 12 months before the initiation of the writing effort. A committee of interventional cardiologists and surgeons was formed to include a majority of members with no relevant RWI and to be led by an interventional cardiology cochair and a surgical cochair with no relevant RWI. Authors with relevant RWI were not permitted to draft or vote on text or recommendations pertaining to their RWI. RWI were reviewed on all conference calls and updated as changes occurred. Author and peer reviewer RWI pertinent to this document are disclosed in the Appendices. In addition, to ensure complete transparency, authors' comprehensive disclosure information (including RWI not pertinent to this document) is available in Appendix AII. The work of the writing committee was supported exclusively by the partnering societies without commercial support. SCAI, AATS, ACC, and STS believe that adherence to these recommendations will maximize the chances that these therapies will become a successful part of the armamentarium for treating valvular heart disease in the United States. In addition, these recommendations will hopefully facilitate optimum quality during the delivery of this therapy, which will be important to the development and successful implementation of future, less invasive approaches to structural heart disease.

Predictors of mortality and outcomes of therapy in low-flow severe aortic stenosis: a Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial analysis.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis and treatment of patients with low-flow (LF) severe aortic stenosis are controversial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial randomized patients with severe aortic stenosis to medical management versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR; inoperable cohort) and surgical aortic valve replacement versus TAVR (high-risk cohort). Among 971 patients with evaluable echocardiograms (92%), LF (stroke volume index ≤35 mL/m(2)) was observed in 530 (55%); LF and low ejection fraction (<50%) in 225 (23%); and LF, low ejection fraction, and low mean gradient (<40 mm Hg) in 147 (15%). Two-year mortality was significantly higher in patients with LF compared with those with normal stroke volume index (47% versus 34%; hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-1.89; P=0.006). In the inoperable cohort, patients with LF had higher mortality than those with normal flow, but both groups improved with TAVR (46% versus 76% with LF and 38% versus 53% with normal flow; P<0.001). In the high-risk cohort, there was no difference between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement. In patients with paradoxical LF and low gradient (preserved ejection fraction), TAVR reduced 1-year mortality from 66% to 35% (hazard ratio, 0.38; P=0.02). LF was an independent predictor of mortality in all patient cohorts (hazard ratio, ≈1.5), whereas ejection fraction and gradient were not. CONCLUSIONS: LF is common in severe aortic stenosis and independently predicts mortality. Survival is improved with TAVR compared with medical management and similar with TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement. A measure of flow (stroke volume index) should be included in the evaluation and therapeutic decision making of patients with severe aortic stenosis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrial.gov. Unique identifier: NCT0053089.4.

Impact of preoperative moderate/severe mitral regurgitation on 2-year outcome after transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement: insight from the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve (PARTNER) Trial Cohort A.

BACKGROUND: The effect of preoperative mitral regurgitation (MR) on clinical outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is controversial. This study sought to examine the impact of moderate and severe MR on outcomes after TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were drawn from the randomized Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve (PARTNER) Trial cohort A patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis undergoing either TAVR (n=331) or SAVR (n=299). Both TAVR and SAVR patients were dichotomized according to the degree of preoperative MR (moderate/severe versus none/mild). At baseline, moderate or severe MR was reported in 65 TAVR patients (19.6%) and 63 SAVR patients (21.2%). At 30 days, among survivors who had isolated SAVR/TAVR, moderate/severe MR had improved in 25 SAVR patients (69.4%) and 30 TAVR patients (57.7%), was unchanged in 10 SAVR patients (27.8%) and 19 TAVR patients (36.5%), and worsened in 1 SAVR patient (2.8%) and 4 TAVR patients (5.8%; all P=NS). Mortality at 2 years was higher in SAVR patients with moderate or severe MR than in those with mild or less MR (49.8% versus 28.1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.96; P=0.04). In contrast, MR severity at baseline did not affect mortality in TAVR patients (37.0% versus 32.7%, moderate/severe versus none/mild; hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.78; P=0.58; P for interaction=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both TAVR and SAVR were associated with a significant early improvement in MR in survivors. However, moderate or severe MR at baseline was associated with increased 2-year mortality after SAVR but not after TAVR. TAVR may be a reasonable option in selected patients with combined aortic and mitral valve disease. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00530894.

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: The use of transcatheter aortic-valve replacement has been shown to reduce mortality among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis who are not candidates for surgical replacement. However, the two procedures have not been compared in a randomized trial involving high-risk patients who are still candidates for surgical replacement. METHODS: At 25 centers, we randomly assigned 699 high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis to undergo either transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable bovine pericardial valve (either a transfemoral or a transapical approach) or surgical replacement. The primary end point was death from any cause at 1 year. The primary hypothesis was that transcatheter replacement is not inferior to surgical replacement. RESULTS: The rates of death from any cause were 3.4% in the transcatheter group and 6.5% in the surgical group at 30 days (P=0.07) and 24.2% and 26.8%, respectively, at 1 year (P=0.44), a reduction of 2.6 percentage points in the transcatheter group (upper limit of the 95% confidence interval, 3.0 percentage points; predefined margin, 7.5 percentage points; P=0.001 for noninferiority). The rates of major stroke were 3.8% in the transcatheter group and 2.1% in the surgical group at 30 days (P=0.20) and 5.1% and 2.4%, respectively, at 1 year (P=0.07). At 30 days, major vascular complications were significantly more frequent with transcatheter replacement (11.0% vs. 3.2%, P<0.001); adverse events that were more frequent after surgical replacement included major bleeding (9.3% vs. 19.5%, P<0.001) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (8.6% vs. 16.0%, P=0.006). More patients undergoing transcatheter replacement had an improvement in symptoms at 30 days, but by 1 year, there was not a significant between-group difference. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, transcatheter and surgical procedures for aortic-valve replacement were associated with similar rates of survival at 1 year, although there were important differences in periprocedural risks. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; Clinical Trials.gov number, NCT00530894.).

Aortic wall thickness: an independent risk factor for aortic dissection?

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Aortic aneurysm size is known to portend a higher likelihood of aortic complications in patients with connective tissue disorders (CTD), but other objective tools are needed to determine which patients are at greatest risk of dissection, especially those which reflect the structural integrity and strength of the aortic wall. METHODS: The aortic wall pathology was evaluated in CTD patients with and without acute aortic dissection to identify parameters that affect the risk of dissection. A retrospective review was performed of aneurysm pathology from patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS; n = 53) without dissection undergoing prophylactic aortic root surgery, and acute type A aortic dissection patients (AAAoD; n = 16). Patients without a cardiovascular cause of death (n = 19) served as controls. The minimal aortic medial wall thickness was measured, and medial myxoid degeneration (MMD) and the degree of elastin loss and fragmentation were graded. RESULTS: The mean minimal aortic wall thickness was 1,625 +/- 364 microm in controls, and 703 +/- 256 microm and 438 +/- 322 microm for MFS and AAAoD patients, respectively. Aortic root diameters did not correlate with aortic wall thickness. A comparison of aortic medial thickness showed that the media was significantly thinner among acute dissection patients than either elective surgical patients (p = 0.02) or controls (p < 0.001). Aortic size, degree of MMD, and elastin loss did not vary significantly between CTD patients. CONCLUSION: A diminished aortic wall medial thickness may be linked to aortic dissection. High-resolution imaging techniques in the future may lead to the morphological assessment of aortic medial wall thickness in vivo becoming a reality which, in theory, could provide a more refined risk prognostication for acute aortic dissection.

How do annuloplasty rings affect mitral annular strains in the normal beating ovine heart?

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that annuloplasty ring implantation alters mitral annular strains in a normal beating ovine heart preparation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sheep had 16 radiopaque markers sewn equally spaced around the mitral annulus. Edwards Cosgrove partial flexible band (COS; n=12), St Jude complete rigid saddle-shaped annuloplasty ring (RSA; n=10), Carpentier-Edwards Physio (PHY; n=11), Edwards IMR ETlogix (ETL; n=11), and GeoForm (GEO; n=12) annuloplasty rings were implanted in a releasable fashion. Four-dimensional marker coordinates were obtained using biplane videofluoroscopy with the ring inserted (ring) and after ring release (control). From marker coordinates, a functional spatio-temporal representation of each annulus was generated through a best fit using 16 piecewise cubic Hermitian splines. Absolute total mitral annular ring strains were calculated from the relative change in length of the tangent vector to the annular curve as strains occurring from control to ring state at end-systole. In addition, average Green-Lagrange strains occurring from control to ring state at end-systole along the annulus were calculated. Absolute total mitral annular ring strains were smallest for COS and greatest for ETL. Strains for RSA, PHY, and GEO were similar. Except for COS in the septal mitral annular segment, all rings induced compressive strains along the entire annulus, with greatest values occurring at the lateral mitral annular segment. CONCLUSIONS: In healthy, beating ovine hearts, annuloplasty rings (COS, RSA, PHY, ETL, and GEO) induce compressive strains that are predominate in the lateral annular region, smallest for flexible partial bands (COS) and greatest for an asymmetrical rigid ring type with intrinsic septal-lateral downsizing (ETL). However, the ring type with the most drastic intrinsic septal-lateral downsizing (GEO) introduced strains similar to physiologically shaped rings (RSA and PHY), indicating that ring effects on annular strain profiles cannot be estimated from the degree of septal-lateral downsizing.

Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with severe aortic stenosis and coexisting conditions are not candidates for surgical replacement of the aortic valve. Recently, transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) has been suggested as a less invasive treatment for high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with severe aortic stenosis, whom surgeons considered not to be suitable candidates for surgery, to standard therapy (including balloon aortic valvuloplasty) or transfemoral transcatheter implantation of a balloon-expandable bovine pericardial valve. The primary end point was the rate of death from any cause. RESULTS: A total of 358 patients with aortic stenosis who were not considered to be suitable candidates for surgery underwent randomization at 21 centers (17 in the United States). At 1 year, the rate of death from any cause (Kaplan­Meier analysis) was 30.7% with TAVI, as compared with 50.7% with standard therapy (hazard ratio with TAVI, 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 0.74; P<0.001). The rate of the composite end point of death from any cause or repeat hospitalization was 42.5% with TAVI as compared with 71.6% with standard therapy (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.59; P<0.001). Among survivors at 1 year, the rate of cardiac symptoms (New York Heart Association class III or IV) was lower among patients who had undergone TAVI than among those who had received standard therapy (25.2% vs. 58.0%, P<0.001). At 30 days, TAVI, as compared with standard therapy, was associated with a higher incidence of major strokes (5.0% vs. 1.1%, P=0.06) and major vascular complications (16.2% vs. 1.1%, P<0.001). In the year after TAVI, there was no deterioration in the functioning of the bioprosthetic valve, as assessed by evidence of stenosis or regurgitation on an echocardiogram. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis who were not suitable candidates for surgery, TAVI, as compared with standard therapy, significantly reduced the rates of death from any cause, the composite end point of death from any cause or repeat hospitalization, and cardiac symptoms, despite the higher incidence of major strokes and major vascular events. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00530894.).