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.

Immediate outcome after sutureless versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

The aim of this study was to compare the immediate outcome of patients undergoing transcatheter (TAVI) versus surgical aortic valve replacement with the sutureless Perceval bioprosthesis (SU-AVR). This is a retrospective multicenter analysis of 773 patients who underwent either TAVI (394 patients, mean age, 80.8 ± 5.5 years, mean EuroSCORE II 5.6 ± 4.9 %) or SU-AVR (379 patients, 77.4 ± 5.4 years, mean EuroSCORE II 4.0 ± 3.9 %) with or without concomitant myocardial revascularization. Data on SU-AVRs were provided by six European institutions (Belgium, Finland, Germany, Italy and Sweden) and data on TAVIs were provided by a single institution (Catania, Italy). In-hospital mortality was 2.6 % after SU-AVR and 5.3 % after TAVI (p = 0.057). TAVI was associated with a significantly high rate of mild (44.0 vs. 2.1 %) and moderate-severe paravalvular regurgitation (14.1 vs. 0.3 %, p < 0.0001) as well as the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (17.3 vs. 9.8 %, p = 0.003) compared with SU-AVR. The analysis of patients within the 25th and 75th percentiles interval of EuroSCORE II, i.e., 2.1-5.8 %, confirmed the findings of the overall series. One-to-one propensity score-matched analysis resulted in 144 pairs with similar baseline characteristics and operative risk. Among these matched pairs, in-hospital mortality (6.9 vs. 1.4 %, p = 0.035) was significantly higher after TAVI. SU-AVR with the Perceval prosthesis in intermediate-risk patients is associated with excellent immediate survival and is a valid alternative to TAVI in these patients.

Comparison of ECMO vs ECpella in Patients With Non-Post-Pericardiotomy Cardiogenic Shock: An Updated Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of Impella and ECMO (ECPELLA) in cardiogenic shock (CS) remains to be defined. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the benefit of ECPELLA compared to VA-ECMO in patients with non post-pericardiotomy CS. METHODS: All studies reporting short term outcomes of ECpella or VA ECMO in non post-pericardiotomy CS were included. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Vascular and bleeding complications and LVAD implantation/heart transplant within 30-days were assessed as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of 407 studies identified, 13 observational studies (13,682 patients, 13,270 with ECMO and 412 with ECpella) were included in this analysis. 30-day mortality was 55.8% (51.6-59.9) in the VA-ECMO group and 58.3% (53.5-63.0) in the ECpella group. At meta-regression analysis the implantation of IABP did not affect mortality in the ECMO group. The rate of major bleeding in patients on VA-ECMO and ECpella support were 21.3% (16.9-26.5) and 33.1% (25.9-41.2) respectively, while the rates of the composite outcome of LVAD implantation and heart transplantation within 30-days in patients on VA-ECMO and ECpella support were 14.4% (9.0-22.2) and 10.8%. When directly compared in 3 studies, ECpella showed a positive effect on 30-day mortality compared to ECMO (OR: 1.81: 1.039-3.159). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that ECpella may reduce 30-day mortality and increase left ventricle recovery, despite increased of bleeding rates.

Predictors and safety of next-day discharge in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate predictors and safety of next-day discharge (NDD) after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) in unselected patients receiving either balloon-expandable or self-expanding devices. METHODS AND RESULTS: From June 2007 to August 2018, 1,232 consecutive patients undergoing TF-TAVI were discharged alive from our institution. They had a mean age of 80.9±5.4 years and an intermediate estimated surgical mortality risk; they received either balloon-expandable (26.1%) or self-expanding prostheses (73.9%). We compared patients discharged within 24 hours from the procedure (n=160, 13.0%) with those discharged later, and accounted for confounding variables through a propensity matching adjustment. After adjustment, no differences in all-cause mortality (1.2% vs 0.0%, for NDD and no-NDD matched groups, respectively, p=0.16) or permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after TAVI (0.6% vs 0.6%, respectively) were encountered at 30 days. At one year, no difference in the composite endpoint of all-cause death and heart failure (HF) rehospitalisation was encountered (Kaplan-Meier [KM] estimates 91.9% vs 90.6% for NDD and no-NDD matched groups, respectively, p=0.69). After excluding patients with post-procedural major complications from the unmatched population, prior PPI (OR 2.06, 95% CI: 1.21-3.51; p<0.01) and availability of preprocedural computed tomography angiography (CTA) (OR 1.71, 95% CI: 1.15-2.54; p<0.01) were found to be predictors of NDD after TAVI. CONCLUSIONS: NDD in unselected patients after TF-TAVI using either balloon-expandable or self-expanding devices was demonstrated to be a safe strategy up to one year in the absence of procedural complications. Patients with prior PPI and undergoing preprocedural CTA had a higher chance of NDD.

Incidence of Long-Term Structural Valve Dysfunction and Bioprosthetic Valve Failure After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Background Long-term data on durability of currently available transcatheter heart valves are sparse. We sought to assess the incidence of long-term (8-year) structural valve dysfunction and bioprosthetic valve failure in a cohort of patients with transcatheter aortic valve replacement ( TAVR ) who reached at least 5-year follow-up. Methods and Results Consecutive patients with at least 5-year follow-up available undergoing TAVR from June 4, 2007 to March 30, 2012 were included. Structural valve dysfunction and bioprosthetic valve failure were defined according to newly standardized European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions/ European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery criteria and reported as cumulative incidence function to account for the competing risk of death. A total of 288 consecutive patients with a mean age of 80.7±5.3 years and with a mean Society of Thoracic Surgery mortality score of 8.1±5.1% were analyzed. Survival rate at 8 years was 29.8%. Mean pressure gradients decreased from 53.3±15.9 mm Hg (pre- TAVR ) to 10.5±4.5 mm Hg (in-hospital post- TAVR ) ( P<0.001). There was a small, not significant, increase in the transaortic gradient throughout follow-up. Bioprosthetic valve failure was observed in a total of 11 patients (8-year cumulative incidence function: 4.51%; 95% confidence interval , 1.95%-8.76%). Severe and moderate structural valve dysfunctions were reported in 7 patients (8-year cumulative incidence function: 2.39%; 95% confidence interval, 0.77%-5.71%) and 13 patients (8-year cumulative incidence function: 5.87%; 95% confidence interval , 3.06%-9.96%), respectively. Aortic valve reintervention (redo TAVR ) was successfully performed in 2 patients (0.7%) presenting with symptomatic severe restenosis and intraprosthetic regurgitation subsequent to endocarditis. Conclusions In an aged population of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis treated with first-generation bioprostheses, TAVR was associated with a survival rate of 30% but low rates of bioprosthetic valve failure and structural valve dysfunction at 8 years.

Optimized Screening of Coronary Artery Disease With Invasive Coronary Angiography and Ad Hoc Percutaneous Coronary Intervention During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: We sought to describe an optimized approach to coronary artery disease (CAD) screening and management in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS AND RESULTS: When invasive coronary angiography showed CAD, the treatment strategy and completeness of revascularization was determined based on coronary anatomy. TAVR was performed in the same setting if percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was uncomplicated; otherwise TAVR was postponed. A total of 604 patients undergoing CAD screening at the time of TAVR procedure were prospectively included in this study. Severe CAD was found in 136 patients (22.5%). Among patients with severe CAD, 53 patients (8.8%) underwent uncomplicated PCI. After PCI, TAVR was postponed in 2 patients (0.3%). In 83 patients (13.8%), coronary angiography showed severe CAD that was left untreated. After TAVR, all-cause and cardiovascular 30-day mortality rates were 2.4% and 1.4%, respectively. Disabling stroke, myocardial infarction, and life-threatening bleeding occurred in 0.5%, 0.8%, and 4.0% of patients, respectively. Acute kidney injury II or III rate was 3.3%. At 2 years, all-cause mortality rate was 14.1%. Disabling stroke and myocardial infarction occurred in 2.5% and 1.8% of patients, respectively. Patients undergoing TAVR and PCI in the same session had similar rate of the composite of death, disabling stroke, and myocardial infarction when compared with patients without CAD, and patients with severe CAD left untreated (TAVR+PCI: 10.4%; severe CAD left untreated: 15.4%; no-CAD: 14.8%; P=0.765). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TAVR, screening of CAD with invasive coronary angiography and ad hoc PCI during TAVR is feasible and was not associated with increased periprocedural risks. PCI followed by TAVR in the same session had similar outcomes than TAVR in which PCI was not performed.

Four-year durability of clinical and haemodynamic outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the self-expanding CoreValve.

AIMS: Long-term data on the durability of currently available transcatheter heart valves are limited. We sought to assess four-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the CoreValve prosthesis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between June 2007 and February 2014, 450 consecutive patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis underwent TAVI in our institution. For the purposes of this study, we included only those patients undergoing successful TAVI with the CoreValve prosthesis who had a minimum follow-up of four years (n=125). Survival rates at one, two, three and four years were 83.2, 76.8, 73.6 and 66.3%, respectively. Aortic regurgitation was a common finding after the procedure, especially due to paravalvular regurgitation (PVR), which was observed in the majority of patients (71.5%), mostly mild (52.0%). Progression from mild acute PVR to moderate PVR at four-year follow-up was reported in three patients. No cases of severe PVR were observed. Prosthetic valve failure was reported in four patients (3.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that favourable outcomes after successful TAVI are associated with sustained clinical and functional cardiovascular benefits up to four-year follow-up. Signs of moderate prosthetic valve failure are present only in a small percentage of patients.

Comparison of suture-based vascular closure devices in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes with the use of two haemostasis strategies after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) - one Prostar® vs. two ProGlide® devices (Abbott Vascular Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA). METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a retrospective study enrolling consecutive patients undergoing fully percutaneous transfemoral TAVI in our centre (Ferrarotto Hospital, Catania, Italy) from January 2012 to October 2014. All patients were dichotomised according to the vascular closure device (VCD) used for common femoral artery haemostasis (Prostar vs. ProGlide). All outcomes were defined according to VARC-2 criteria. The study population encompassed a total of 278 patients. Of these, 153 (55.1%) underwent TAVI using the Prostar, and 125 (44.9%) using two ProGlide devices. Vascular complications occurred in 48 patients (17.3%), being more frequent in the ProGlide group (11.8% vs. 24.0%, p=0.007). Patients who had TAVI using the ProGlide were also more likely to have a higher rate of percutaneous closure device failure (4.6% vs. 12.8%, p=0.013). Percutaneous peripheral intervention was performed in 13.7% and 28.0% of Prostar and ProGlide cases, respectively (p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI had significantly lower rates of vascular complications and percutaneous closure device failures when the Prostar was used compared with two ProGlide devices.

Early discharge after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and the safety of early discharge (within 72 h) after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and to identify baseline features and/or peri-procedural variables, which may affect post-TAVI length-of-stay (LoS) duration. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients discharged within 72 h of TAVI (early discharge group) were compared with consecutive patients discharged after 3 days (late discharge group). Propensity-matched cohorts of patients with a 2:1 ratio were created to better control confounding bias. Among 465 patients, 107 (23.0%) were discharged within 3 days of the procedure. Multivariable regression analysis of unmatched patients demonstrated that baseline New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV (OR: 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.96; p=0.045) and any bleeding (OR: 0.31, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.92; p=0.031) were less likely to be associated with early discharge after TAVI. Conversely, the year of procedure (OR: 1.66, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.20; p<0.001) and the presence of a permanent pacemaker (PPM) before TAVI (OR: 2.80, 95% CI 1.36 to 5.75; p=0.005) were associated with a higher probability of early discharge. In matched populations, patients in the early discharge group reported lower incidence of in-hospital bleeding (7.9% vs 19.4%, p=0.014), major vascular complications (2.3% vs 9.1%, p=0.038) and PPM implantation (7.9% vs18.5%, p=0.021), whereas after discharge, at 30-day, no significant differences were reported between groups in terms of death (2.2% vs 1.7%, p=0.540), bleeding (0.0% vs 1.1%, p=0.444), PPM implantation (1.1% vs 0.0%, p=0.333) and re-hospitalisation (1.1% vs 1.1%, p=1.000). CONCLUSIONS: Early discharge (within 72 h) after transfemoral TAVI is feasible and does not seem to jeopardise the early safety of the procedure, when performed in a subset of patients selected by clinical judgement. Patients undergoing TAVI in unstable haemodynamic compensation and patients experiencing bleeding after the procedure demonstrated to be poorly suitable to this approach, whereas increasing experience in post-TAVI management was associated with a reduction of LoS.

Acute Kidney Injury With the RenalGuard System in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The PROTECT-TAVI Trial (PROphylactic effecT of furosEmide-induCed diuresis with matched isotonic intravenous hydraTion in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation).

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of the RenalGuard System (PLC Medical Systems, Milford, Massachusetts) on prevention of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: TAVR is associated with varying degrees of post-procedural AKI. The RenalGuard System is a dedicated device designed for contrast-induced AKI prevention. Whether this device is also effective in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR is unexplored. METHODS: The present is an investigator-driven, single-center, prospective, open-label, registry-based randomized study that used the TAVR institutional registry of the Ferrarotto Hospital in Catania, Italy, as the platform for randomization, data collection, and follow-up assessment. A total of 112 consecutive patients undergoing TAVR were randomly assigned to hydration with normal saline solution controlled by the RenalGuard system and furosemide (RenalGuard group) or normal saline solution (control group). The primary endpoint was the incidence of Valve Academic Research Consortium-defined AKI in the first 72 h after the procedure. RESULTS: The AKI rate was lower in the RenalGuard group than in the control group (n = 3 [5.4%] vs. n =14 [25.0%], respectively, p = 0.014). The majority of patients (5.4% vs. 23.2%) developed a mild AKI (stage 1); severe damage (stage 3) occurred only in 1 patient in the control group (0.0% vs. 1.8%). No case of in-hospital renal failure requiring dialysis was reported. No significant differences in terms of mortality, cerebrovascular events, bleeding, and hospitalization for heart failure were noted in both groups at 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Furosemide-induced diuresis with matched isotonic intravenous hydration using the RenalGuard system is an effective therapeutic tool to reduce the occurrence of AKI in patients undergoing TAVR.