Mid-term outcomes and hemodynamic performance of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: Insights from the bicuSpid TAvi duraBILITY (STABILITY) registry.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on transcatheter heart valves (THVs) durability in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis. AIMS: To evaluate evaluating 4-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients with BAV undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). METHODS: The bicuSpid TAvi duraBILITY (STABILITY) registry is an Italian multicentre registry including all consecutive patients with BAV and severe aortic stenosis (AS), treated by means of TAVI between January 2011 and December 2017. Outcomes of interest were all-cause death at 4-year, over time changes in echocardiographic measurements, and THV durability according to the valve aortic research consortium (VARC)-3 update definitions. RESULTS: Study population included 109 patients (50% females; mean age 78 ± 7.5 years) with a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score of 5.1 ± 4.3%. Median follow-up (FU) duration was 4.1 years [interquartile range: 2.8-5.1]. The overall cumulative incidence of all-cause death by Kaplan-Meier estimates at 4 years was 32%. Compared to baseline, a significant decrease in transprosthetic mean gradient was obtained after TAVI (54 ± 16 vs. 10 ± 5 mmHg; p < 0.001), whereas a significant increase was observed at 4-year (13 ± 6.4 mmHg, p = 0.03). Cumulative incidence of hemodynamic valve dysfunction (HVD) was 4%. Six patients met HVD criteria: three moderate and three severe HVD. All three cases of severe HVD were clinically relevant (bioprosthetic valve failure [BVF]) with two patients receiving a reintervention (TAVI in TAVI), and one patient experiencing a valve-related death due to endocarditis. CONCLUSIONS: The STABILITY registry suggests that in patients with severe AS and BAV undergoing TAVI, postprocedural clinical benefits might last, over time, up to 4-year FU. The low rates of severe HVD and BVF may support the hypothesis of good THV durability also in BAV recipient.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter implantation of contemporary balloon-expandable and self-expandable valves in small aortic annuli.

BACKGROUND: Evidence of clinical impact of PPM after TAVI is conflicting and might vary according to the type of valve implanted. AIMS: To assess the clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with balloon-expandable (BEV) and self-expandable valves (SEV) in patients with small annuli. METHODS: TAVI-SMALL 2 enrolled 628 patients in an international retrospective registry, which included patients with severe aortic stenosis and small annuli (annular perimeter <72 mm or area <400 mm2 ) treated with transfemoral TAVI at 16 high-volume centers between 2011 and 2020. Analyses were performed comparing patients with less than moderate (n = 452), moderate (n = 138), and severe PPM (n = 38). Primary endpoint was incidence of all-cause mortality. Predictors of all-cause mortality and PPM were investigated. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 380 days (interquartile range: 210-709 days), patients with severe PPM, but not moderate PPM, had an increased risk of all-cause mortality when compared with less than moderate PPM (log-rank p = 0.046). Severe PPM predicted all-cause mortality in patients with BEV (hazard ratio [HR]: 5.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.27-21.2) and intra-annular valves (IAVs, HR: 4.23, 95% CI: 1.28-14.02), and it did so with borderline significance in the overall population (HR: 2.89, 95% CI: 0.95-8.79). Supra-annular valve (SAV) implantation was the only predictor of severe PPM (odds ratio: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.13-0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with small aortic annuli and severe PPM after TAVI have an increased risk of all-cause mortality at early term follow-up, especially after IAV or BEV implantation. TAVI with SAV protected from severe PPM.

Usefulness of intravascular ultrasound to assess coronary occlusion after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now a proven treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis. Coronary ostia obstruction is a rare but a life-threatening complication of TAVR. In case of suspected coronary ostia obstruction, intravascular ultrasound study (IVUS) assessment could be feasible and useful to evaluate coronary ostia patency after the transcatheter aortic valve deployment, in high-risk scenarios for coronary occlusion. We described the case of a 73-year-old female with delayed coronary obstruction after TAVR with a 23-mm SAPIEN 3 ULTRA who underwent IVUS-guided percutaneous coronary intervention, using the chimney stenting technique, due to critical ostium left main impingement.

Treatment in patients with severe asymptomatic aortic stenosis: is it best not to wait?

New insights into the natural history and pathophysiology of patients with aortic stenosis (AS), coupled with the dramatic evolution of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), are fuelling intense interest in the management of asymptomatic patients with severe AS. This patient presenting for elective intervention poses a unique challenge. These patients are not traditionally offered surgical aortic valve replacement or TAVI given their lack of symptoms; however, they are at increased risk given the severity of their AS. Furthermore, clinical experience has shown that symptoms can be challenging to ascertain in many sedentary, deconditioned, and/or elderly patients. In addition, evolving data based on imaging and biomarker evidence of adverse ventricular remodelling, hypertrophy, inflammation, or fibrosis may radically transform existing clinical decision paradigms. However, management of asymptomatic severe AS is otherwise controversial and the decision to intervene requires careful assessment of the benefits and risks in an individual patient. Further randomized trials [EARLY TAVI (NCT03042104), AVATAR (NCT02436655), EVOLVED (NCT03094143)] will help determine future recommendations.

Long-term outcomes of self-expanding versus balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valves: Insights from the OBSERVANT study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical outcomes of balloon-expandable (BE) and self-expanding (SE) transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) up to 5 years. BACKGROUND: To date, no robust, comparative data of BE and SE TAVs at long-term are available. METHODS: We considered a total of 1,440 patients enrolled in the multicenter OBSERVANT study and undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) with either supra-annular SE (n = 830, 57.6%) and intra-annular BE (n = 610, 42.4%) valves. Clinical outcomes of the two groups were compared after adjustment using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and confirmed by sensitivity analysis with propensity score matching. RESULTS: Patients receiving SE valve showed a higher all-cause mortality at 5 years (Kaplan-Meier estimates 52.3% vs. 47.7%; Hazard ratio [HR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.38, p = .04). Landmark analyses showed that there was a not statistically significant reversal of risk excess against the BE group starting from 3 years after TAVI (3-5 years HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.76-1.25, p = .86). Post-procedural, moderate/severe paravalvular regurgitation (PVR)(HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.14-1.87; p < .01) and acute kidney injury (AKI)(HR 3.89, 95% CI 2.47-6.38; p < .01) showed to be independent predictors of 5-year all-cause mortality in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the intrinsic limitations of the OBSERVANT study, we found that patients undergoing TF-TAVI with a supra-annular SE valve had a higher all-cause mortality compared to those receiving an intra-annular BE valve at 5 years. A late catch up phenomenon of patients receiving the BE valve was observed beyond 3 years. Post-procedural moderate/severe PVR seems to play a crucial role in determining this finding. Comparative studies of new generation devices with longer follow-up are needed to evaluate the benefit of each specific TAV type.

Outcomes of three different new generation transcatheter aortic valve prostheses.

AIMS: To evaluate outcomes of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) using three different new-generation devices. BACKGROUND: Although new generation transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) have demonstrated to improve procedural outcomes, to date few head-to-head comparisons are available among these devices. METHODS: This is a single center, retrospective study. From September 2014 to February 2018, 389 patients underwent elective TF-TAVI for native, severe aortic stenosis using a new-generation transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) with a preprocedural multi-detector computed tomography assessment. Among these, 346 patients received an Edwards SAPIEN 3 (n = 134), Medtronic Evolut R (n = 111), or Boston ACURATE neo (n = 101) prosthesis. Differences in baseline clinical characteristics between groups were accounted using the propensity score weighting method. RESULTS: The mean age for the entire study cohort was 81.4 ± 5.2 years while the Society of Thoracic Surgery predicted risk of mortality was 4.0 ± 2.5%. After propensity score weighting adjustment, TAVs did not differently impact on 30-day all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Evolut R device showed an increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after the procedure (8.3% for SAPIEN 3 vs. 16.7% for Evolut R vs. 2.1% for ACURATE neo, p < .05). At 30 days, patients treated with SAPIEN 3 valve showed a higher mean transvalvular gradient (9.7 ± 7.5 mmHg vs. 6.1 ± 2.4 mmHg vs. 8.4 ± 3.5 mmHg for SAPIEN 3, Evolut R, and ACURATE neo, respectively, p < .01) and a lower rate of more-than-trace paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) (18.8 vs. 47.9 vs. 45.8%, for SAPIEN 3, Evolut R, and ACURATE neo, respectively, p < .01). At 1 year, SAPIEN 3, Evolut R, and ACURATE neo TAVs showed excellent and comparable outcomes with no difference in terms of freedom from major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) (plog-rank = 0.534). CONCLUSIONS: TAVI using new-generation prostheses was associated with high device success (97.0% vs. 92.8% vs. 95.0% for SAPIEN 3, Evolut R and ACURATE neo, respectively) and low complications rates up to 1 year. Evolut R valve was associated with a higher rate of PPI whereas SAPIEN 3 valve was associated with a higher mean transvalvular gradient and lower rate of more-than-trace PVR. At 1-year, MACCE rates were similar among the three groups.

The path of transcatheter aortic valve implantation: from compassionate to low-risk cases.

Aortic stenosis (AS) is one of the most common valvular diseases in developed countries. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as alternative to medical treatment or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in all symptomatic patients with severe AS. In 2002, Cribier performed the first human TAVI through a trans-septal approach in a 57-year-old man with severe AS. Since then, several trials have compared TAVI vs. SAVR over the years. Today, it is superior in terms of mortality to medical therapy in extreme-risk patients, non-inferior or superior to surgery in high-risk patients, and non-inferior to surgery and even superior when transfemoral access is possible in intermediate-risk patients. Interesting results emerged from the latest multicentre trials involving patients with severe AS who were at low risk for death from surgery, demonstrating that this therapy will be offered to younger people in the next future.

Late Third Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Treatment of Persistent Paravalvular Regurgitation.

Paravalvular regurgitation remains a frequent finding after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and is associated with unfavorable outcomes if more-than-mild grade. In this case, a patient underwent a third transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedure for worsening symptoms due to severe paravalvular regurgitation. The case underlines the role of preprocedural planning in achieving treatment success.

Watchman vs. Amulet for Left Atrial Appendage Closure: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.

Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a crucial intervention for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation who are unsuitable for long-term anticoagulation. Amulet and Watchman are the most implanted devices worldwide for performing LAAC, and the aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive comparison focusing on their efficacy, safety, and short- and long-term outcomes. The Watchman device, the first to gain FDA approval, has been extensively studied and demonstrates significant reductions in stroke and systemic embolism rates. The Amulet device, a newer alternative, promises enhanced design features for more efficient appendage sealing. Current data highlight that both devices offer similar efficacy and safety for LAAC. While the two devices differ in terms of intraprocedural complication rates, they offer similar short- to long-term outcomes in terms of peri-device leaks, device-related thrombosis, and mortality. Both devices are indicated for patients who are unable to tolerate OAC, given their similar risk and safety profiles. Newer clinical studies are directed at establishing the efficacy of both devices as the primary method for stroke prevention in AF as an alternative to OAC.

Incidence and predictors of continued ascending aortic dilatation after TAVI in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS) frequently present with ascending aortic (AAo) dilatation which is left untreated. The objective of this study was to study the natural progression and underlying mechanisms of AAo dilatation after TAVI for bicuspid AS. METHODS: Patients with a native bicuspid AS and a baseline AAo maximum diameter > 40 mm treated by TAVI and in whom post-TAVI computed tomography (CT) scans beyond 1 year were available were included. AAo dilatation was deemed to be either continuous (≥ 2 mm increase) or stable (< 2 mm increase or decrease). Uni- and multivariate logistic regression analysis was utilized in order to identify factors associated with continuous AAo dilatation post-TAVI. RESULTS: A total of 61 patients with a mean AAo maximum diameter of 45.6 ± 3.9 mm at baseline were evaluated. At a median follow-up of 2.9 years, AAo dimensions remained stable in 85% of patients. Continuous AAo dilatation was observed in 15% of patients at a rate of 1.4 mm/year. Factors associated with continuous AAo dilatation were raphe length/annulus mean diameter ratio (OR 4.09, 95% CI [1.40-16.7], p = 0.022), TAV eccentricity at the leaflet outflow level (OR 2.11, 95%CI [1.12-4.53], p = 0.031) and maximum transprosthetic gradient (OR 1.30, 95%CI [0.99-1.73], p = 0.058). CONCLUSIONS: Ascending aortic dilatation in patients undergoing TAVI for bicuspid AS remains stable in the majority of patients. Factors influencing TAV stent frame geometry and function were identified to be associated with continuous AAo dilatation after TAVI; this should be confirmed in future larger cohort studies.

Coronary Cannulation Following TAVR Using Self-Expanding Devices With Commissural Alignment: The RE-ACCESS 2 Study.

BACKGROUND: Coronary re-engagement after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using self-expanding transcatheter heart valves (THVs) systematically implanted using commissural alignment (CA) techniques has been poorly investigated. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate unsuccessful coronary cannulation, and its predictors, after TAVR using self-expanding devices implanted using CA techniques. METHODS: RE-ACCESS 2 (Reobtain Coronary Ostia Cannulation Beyond Transcatheter Aortic Valve Stent 2) was an investigator-driven, single-center, prospective study that enrolled consecutive TAVR patients receiving Evolut and ACURATE THVs implanted using CA techniques. The primary endpoint was unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR. The secondary endpoint was the identification of postprocedural predictors of unfeasible, selective coronary ostia re-engagement on computed tomographic angiography performed after TAVR. RESULTS: Among 127 patients enrolled from September 2021 to December 2022, 7 (5.5%) had unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR, and 6 of them received Evolut THVs (7.5% vs 2.3%; P = 0.26). Failure of left coronary artery cannulation was similar between Evolut and ACURATE THVs (2.5% vs 2.1%; P = 1.00), whereas that of right coronary artery cannulation was prevalent in the Evolut group (6.3% vs 0.0%; P = 0.16). Coronary overlap was associated with the inability to selectively cannulate the right coronary artery (OR: 5.6; 95% CI: 1.2-25.8; P = 0.03), but not in ACURATE recipients (P = 0.39). Severe misalignment of Evolut THVs was associated with the inability to selectively cannulate both coronary arteries (OR: 24.7; 95% CI: 1.9-312.9; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR using self-expanding THVs implanted using CA techniques was reported in 5.5% of cases, with the majority involving the Evolut THV. Commissural misalignment affected coronary cannulation after TAVR mostly in Evolut recipients.

Features and outcomes of bailout repeat transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): the Bailout Acute TAVI-in-TAVI to Lessen Events (BATTLE) international registry.

AIM: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a mainstay in the management of severe aortic stenosis in patients with intermediate to prohibitive surgical risk. When a single TAVI device fails and cannot be retrieved, TAVI-in-TAVI must be performed acutely, but outcomes of bailout TAVI-in-TAVI have been incompletely appraised. We aimed at analyzing patient, procedural and outcome features of patients undergoing bailout TAVI-in-TAVI in a multicenter registry. METHODS: Details of patients undergoing bailout TAVI-in-TAVI, performed acutely or within 24 h of index TAVI, in 6 international high-volume institutions, were collected. For every case provided, 2 same-week consecutive controls (prior TAVI, and subsequent TAVI) were provided. Outcomes of interest were procedural and long-term events, including death, myocardial infarction, stroke, access site complication, major bleeding, and reintervention, and their composite (i.e. major adverse events [MAE]). RESULTS: A total of 106 patients undergoing bailout TAVI-in-TAVI were included, as well as 212 controls, for a total of 318 individuals. Bailout TAVI-in-TAVI was less common in younger patients, those with higher body mass index, or treated with Portico/Navitor or Sapien devices (all p < 0.05). Bailout TAVI-in-TAVI was associated with higher in-hospital rates of death, emergency surgery, MAE, and permanent pacemaker implantation (all p < 0.05). Long-term follow-up showed that bailout TAVI-in-TAVI was associated with higher rates of death and MAE (both < 0.05). Similar findings were obtained at adjusted analyses (all p < 0.05). However, censoring early events, outlook was not significantly different when comparing the two groups (p = 0.897 for death, and p = 0.645 for MAE). CONCLUSIONS: Bail-out TAVI-in-TAVI is associated with significant early and long-term mortality and morbidity. Thus, meticulous preprocedural planning and sophisticated intraprocedural techniques are of paramount importance to avoid these emergency procedures.

Long-term outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the Portico self-expanding valve.

AIM: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a mainstay in the management of severe aortic valve stenosis in elderly patients, but there is uncertainty on their long-term effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term outcome of patients undergoing TAVI with the Portico valve. METHODS: We retrospectively collected the data on patients in whom TAVI with Portico was attempted from 7 high-volume centres. Only patients theoretically eligible for 3 or more years of follow-up were included. Clinical outcomes, including death, stroke, myocardial infarction, reintervention for valve degeneration and hemodynamic valve performance were systematically assessed. RESULTS: A total of 803 patients were included, with 504 (62.8%) women, mean age of 82 years, median EuroSCORE II of 3.1%, and 386 (48.1%) subjects at low/moderate risk. The median follow-up was 3.0 years (3.0; 4.0). The composite of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and reintervention for valve degeneration occurred in 37.5% (95% confidence interval: 34.1-40.9%), with all-cause death in 35.1% (31.8-38.4%), stroke in 3.4% (1.3-3.4%), myocardial infarction in 1.0% (0.3-1.5%), and reintervention for valve degeneration in 1.1% (0.6-2.1%). The mean aortic valve gradient at follow-up was 8.1 ± 4.6 mmHg, and at least moderate aortic regurgitation was present in 9.1% (6.7-12.3%). Independent predictors of major adverse events or death were: peripheral artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, estimated glomerular filtration rate, atrial fibrillation, prior pacemaker implantation, EuroSCORE II, and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Portico use is associated with favorable long-term clinical outcomes. Clinical outcomes were largely impacted by baseline risk factors and surgical risk.

Performance of balloon-expandable transcatheter bioprostheses in inoperable patients with pure aortic regurgitation of a native valve: The BE-PANTHEON international project.

BACKGROUND: The off-label utilization of transcatheter heart valve (THV) devices for the treatment of inoperable or high-surgical risk patients with pure native aortic valve regurgitation (NAVR) has demonstrated suboptimal outcomes, both with self- and balloon-expandable (BE) devices. The aim of this study is to compare the use of different BE scaffolds in treating pure NAVR. METHODS: Consecutive patients with pure severe NAVR who were deemed to be at high-risk and were treated with last-generation BE-THVs among seventeen Centers in Europe and US. Technical and device success rates were the primary objectives. RESULTS: Between February 2018 and July 2023, among 144 patients, 41 (28 %) received a MyVal device and 103 (72 %) were treated with a Sapien THV. Patients treated with a MyVal THV had an extra-large annulus more frequently compared to the Sapien group (49%vs.20 %, p < 0.001). Technical and device success rates were 90 % and 81 %, respectively, p > 0.1. The rate of THV migration/embolization (MyVal 4.9%vs. Sapien 11 %, p = 0.4) and second valve needed (4.9%vs.7.8 %, p = 0.7) were numerically lower in the MyVal group, whereas the rate of at least moderate paravalvular leak (15%vs.7.8 %, p = 0.2) and permanent pacemaker implantation (25%vs.18 %, p = 0.16) were numerically higher in the Myval group. CONCLUSIONS: Off-label use of BE devices for pure NAVR represents a potential alternative in high-risk patients in the absence of dedicated devices. However, BE in NAVR is associated with suboptimal outcomes. The availability of larger THV sizes may introduce transcatheter aortic valve replacement as an effective treatment for patients traditionally deemed unsuitable. NON-STANDARD ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS: AR = aortic regurgitation, BE = balloon-expandable, NAVR = native aortic valve regurgitation, PM = pacemaker, TAVR = transcatheter aortic valve replacement, THV = transcatheter heart valve, TVEM = transcatheter valve embolization and migration, VARC-3 = Valve Academic Research Consortium 3.

Red blood cell transfusion and mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation via transapical approach: A propensity-matched comparison from the TRITAVI registry.

Objective: Bleeding is frequent during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), especially when performed through a transapical approach (TA), and is associated with a worse prognosis. The present study aims to test the implication of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion and the optimal transfusion strategy in this context. Methods: Among 11,265 participants in the multicenter TRITAVI (Transfusion Requirements in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry, 548 patients (4.9%) who received TA-TAVI at 19 European centers were included. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to reduce treatment selection bias and potential confounding among transfused versus non-transfused patients. The primary endpoint of the study was the 30-day occurrence of all-cause mortality. Results: 209 patients (38 %) received RBC transfusions. The primary endpoint occurred in 47 (8.6 %) patients. Propensity score matching identified 188 pairs of patients with and without RBC transfusion. In the propensity score-matched analysis, RBC transfusion was associated with increased 30-day mortality (HR 3.35, 95 % CI 1.51 - 7.39; p = 0.002). At multivariable cox regression analysis, RBC transfusion was an independent predictor of 30-day mortality (HR 3.07, 95 % CI 1.01-9.41, p = 0.048), as well as baseline ejection fraction (HR 0.96, 95 % CI 0.92-0.99, p = 0.043), and acute kidney injury (HR 3.95, 95 % CI 1.11-14.05, p = 0.034). Conclusions: RBC transfusion is an independent predictor of short-term mortality in patients undergoing TA-TAVI, regardless of major bleeding.Clinical trial registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov Unique identifier: NCT03740425.

Outcomes and predictors of left ventricle recovery in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: Data on the likelihood of left ventricle (LV) recovery in patients with severe LV dysfunction and severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and its prognostic value are limited. AIMS: We aimed to assess the likelihood of LV recovery following TAVI, examine its association with midterm mortality, and identify independent predictors of LV function. METHODS: In our multicentre registry of 17 TAVI centres in Western Europe and Israel, patients were stratified by baseline LV function (ejection fraction [EF] >/≤30%) and LV response: no LV recovery, LV recovery (EF increase ≥10%), and LV normalisation (EF ≥50% post-TAVI). RESULTS: Our analysis included 10,872 patients; baseline EF was ≤30% in 914 (8.4%) patients and >30% in 9,958 (91.6%) patients. The LV recovered in 544 (59.5%) patients, including 244 (26.7%) patients whose LV function normalised completely (EF >50%). Three-year mortality for patients without severe LV dysfunction at baseline was 29.4%. Compared to this, no LV recovery was associated with a significant increase in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.32; p<0.001). Patients with similar LV function post-TAVI had similar rates of 3-year mortality, regardless of their baseline LV function. Three variables were associated with a higher likelihood of LV recovery following TAVI: no previous myocardial infarction (MI), estimated glomerular filtration rate >60 mL/min, and mean aortic valve gradient (mAVG) (expressed either as a continuous variable or as a binary variable using the standard low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis [AS] definition). CONCLUSIONS: LV recovery following TAVI and the extent of this recovery are major determinants of midterm mortality in patients with severe AS and severe LV dysfunction undergoing TAVI. Patients with no previous MI and those with an mAVG >40 mmHg show the best results following TAVI, which are at least equivalent to those for patients without severe LV dysfunction. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04031274).

Risk Score for Prediction of Dialysis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Dialysis is a rare but serious complication after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. We analyzed the large multicenter TRITAVI (transfusion requirements in transcatheter aortic valve implantation) registry in order to develop and validate a clinical score assessing this risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 10 071 consecutive patients were enrolled in 19 European centers. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to a derivation and validation cohort. Two scores were developed, 1 including only preprocedural variables (TRITAVIpre) and 1 also including procedural variables (TRITAVIpost). In the 6714 patients of the derivation cohort (age 82±6 years, 48% men), preprocedural factors independently associated with dialysis and included in the TRITAVIpre score were male sex, diabetes, prior coronary artery bypass graft, anemia, nonfemoral access, and creatinine clearance <30 mL/min per m2. Additional independent predictors among procedural features were volume of contrast, need for transfusion, and major vascular complications. Both scores showed a good discrimination power for identifying risk for dialysis with C-statistic 0.78 for TRITAVIpre and C-statistic 0.88 for TRITAVIpost score. Need for dialysis increased from the lowest to the highest of 3 risk score groups (from 0.3% to 3.9% for TRITAVIpre score and from 0.1% to 6.2% for TRITAVIpost score). Analysis of the 3357 patients of the validation cohort (age 82±7 years, 48% men) confirmed the good discrimination power of both scores (C-statistic 0.80 for TRITAVIpre and 0.81 for TRITAVIpost score). Need for dialysis was associated with a significant increase in 1-year mortality (from 6.9% to 54.4%; P=0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: A simple preprocedural clinical score can help predict the risk of dialysis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

One-year clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the latest iteration of self-expanding or balloonexpandable devices: insights from the OPERA-TAVI registry.

BACKGROUND: Midterm comparative analyses of the latest iterations of the most used Evolut and SAPIEN platforms for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are lacking. AIMS: We aimed to compare 1-year clinical outcomes of TAVI patients receiving Evolut PRO/PRO+ (PRO) or SAPIEN 3 Ultra (ULTRA) devices in current real-world practice. METHODS: Among patients enrolled in the OPERA-TAVI registry, patients with complete 1-year follow-up were considered for the purpose of this analysis. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to compare TAVI patients receiving PRO or ULTRA devices. The primary endpoint was a composite of 1-year all-cause death, disabling stroke and rehospitalisation for heart failure. Five prespecified subgroups of patients were considered according to leaflet and left ventricular outflow tract calcifications, annulus dimensions and angulation, and leaflet morphology. RESULTS: Among a total of 1,897 patients, 587 matched pairs of patients with similar clinical and anatomical characteristics were compared. The primary composite endpoint did not differ between patients receiving PRO or ULTRA devices (Kaplan-Meier [KM] estimates 14.0% vs 11.9%; log-rank p=0.27). Patients receiving PRO devices had higher rates of 1-year disabling stroke (KM estimates 2.6% vs 0.4%; log-rank p=0.001), predominantly occurring within 30 days after TAVI (1.4% vs 0.0%; p=0.004). Outcomes were consistent across all the prespecified subsets of anatomical scenarios (all pinteraction>0.10). CONCLUSIONS: One-year clinical outcomes of patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI and receiving PRO or ULTRA devices in the current clinical practice were similar, but PRO patients had higher rates of disabling stroke. Outcomes did not differ across the different anatomical subsets of the aortic root.

Evolut PRO and SAPIEN ULTRA Performance in Small Aortic Annuli: The OPERA-TAVI Registry.

BACKGROUND: The performance of latest iteration transcatheter aortic valve replacement platforms in patients with small aortic anatomy remains underexplored. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate effectiveness and performance between the self-expanding (SE) Evolut PRO and PRO+ and the balloon-expandable (BE) SAPIEN ULTRA in patients with small aortic annuli. METHODS: Data from the OPERA-TAVI (Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO vs. SAPIEN 3 ULTRA Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry were used, with 1:1 propensity score matching. Primary endpoints included 1-year effectiveness composite (all-cause mortality, disabling stroke, or heart failure hospitalization) and 30-day device-related (hemodynamic structural valve dysfunction and nonstructural valve dysfunction) outcomes. RESULTS: Among 3,516 patients, 251 matched pairs with aortic annular area <430 mm2 were assessed. The 1-year primary effectiveness outcome did not differ significantly between cohorts (SE 10.8% vs BE 11.2%; P = 0.91). The 30-day device-oriented composite outcome was more favorable in the Evolut PRO group (SE 4.8% vs BE 10.4%; P = 0.027). Notably, SE valve recipients showed higher rates of disabling stroke (SE 4.0% vs BE 0.0%; P < 0.01) and paravalvular leaks (mild or greater: SE 48.5% vs BE 18.6% [P < 0.001]; moderate: SE 4.5% vs BE 1.2% [P = 0.070]). The BE group had higher rates of prosthesis-patient mismatch (moderate or greater: SE 16.0% vs BE 47.1% [P < 0.001]; severe: SE 1.3% vs BE 5.7% [P = 0.197]) and more patients with residual mean gradients >20 mm Hg (SE 1.0% vs BE 13.5%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with small aortic annuli, transcatheter aortic valve replacement with latest iteration devices is safe. SE platforms are associated with more favorable device performance in terms of hemodynamic structural and nonstructural dysfunction. Randomized data are needed to validate these findings and guide informed device selection.

Comparison of two self-expanding transcatheter heart valves for degenerated surgical bioprostheses: the AVENGER multicentre registry.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of comparative data on transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in degenerated surgical prostheses (valve-in-valve [ViV]). AIMS: We sought to compare outcomes of using two self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (THV) systems for ViV. METHODS: In this retrospective multicentre registry, we included consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral ViV using either the ACURATE neo/neo2 (ACURATE group) or the Evolut R/PRO/PRO+ (EVOLUT group). The primary outcome measure was technical success according to Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3. Secondary outcomes were 30-day all-cause mortality, device success (VARC-3), coronary obstruction (CO) requiring intervention, rates of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), and aortic regurgitation (AR) ≥moderate. Comparisons were made after 1:1 propensity score matching. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 835 patients from 20 centres (ACURATE n=251; EVOLUT n=584). In the matched cohort (n=468), technical success (ACURATE 92.7% vs EVOLUT 88.9%; p=0.20) and device success (69.7% vs 73.9%; p=0.36) as well as 30-day mortality (2.8% vs 1.6%; p=0.392) were similar between the two groups. The mean gradients and rates of severe PPM, AR ≥moderate, or CO did not differ between the groups. Technical and device success were higher for the ACURATE platform among patients with a true inner diameter (ID) >19 mm, whereas a true ID ≤19 mm was associated with higher device success - but not technical success - among Evolut recipients. CONCLUSIONS: ViV TAVI using either ACURATE or Evolut THVs showed similar procedural outcomes. However, a true ID >19 mm was associated with higher device success among ACURATE recipients, whereas in patients with a true ID ≤19 mm, device success was higher when using Evolut.