Impact of Pacemaker Implantation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement on Long-Term Survival in Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Valve.

Limited data are available about the impact of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation on long-term survival in patients with a bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and severe aortic stenosis (AS) treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We aimed to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of patients with BAV with AS who underwent periprocedural PPM implantation after TAVR with a self-expandable prosthesis. Data from patients with BAV and severe AS who underwent TAVR between April 2009 and January 2022 and followed in the framework of the One Hospital ClinicalService-CoreValve Project were collected. Patients were categorized in 2 groups according to PPM implantation after TAVR ("PPM" group) or not ("no PPM" group). The coprimary end points were all-cause death and a composite of cardiac mortality, rehospitalization because of cardiac causes, stroke, and myocardial infarction. Overall, 106 patients were considered (74 in the "no PPM" group and 32 in the "PPM" group). No statistically significant difference was found between the groups in terms of follow-up and baseline characteristics. Patients in the PPM group were more likely to show baseline conduction abnormalities (p = 0.023). Patients in the PPM group were more often treated with older generation prosthesis than those in the no PPM group (28.1% vs 5.4%, respectively, p = 0.013). At 2 years of follow-up, all-cause death in the no PPM and PPM groups occurred in 20.0% and 10.0% of patients, respectively (hazard ratio 0.37, 95% confidence interval 0.08 to 1.67). Similarly, no difference was evident for the composite end point between the 2 groups (no PPM vs PPM: 8 [14.6%] vs 6 [19.3%], hazard ratio 1.67, 95% CI 0.58 to 4.81). In conclusion, patients with severe AS and BAV treated with TAVR complicated by PPM implantation are not exposed to an increased risk of major adverse events at 2 years of follow-up.

Gender differences in outcomes after left atrial appendage closure with Watchman FLX device: insights from the Italian-FLX registry.

Introduction: Recent studies have shown gender differences in cardiovascular outcomes after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC), highlighting different complication rates and adverse events, particularly in short-term assessments. As a result, there remains a significant knowledge gap on how these differences directly impact the efficacy and safety of LAAC procedures. The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of LAAC in women and men using the Watchman FLX device. Methods: This retrospective, multicenter study analyzes gender-specific outcomes in 650 patients who underwent LAAC with the Watchman FLX device between March 2019 and May 2022, drawn from the ITALIAN-FLX registry. Results: The results show comparable rates of all-cause mortality, stroke, transient ischemic attack and major bleeding in men and women 12 months after the procedure. Notably, no significant gender differences were found for periprocedural complications. Conclusion: In conclusion, this study shows that LAAC with the Watchman FLX device has comparable clinical outcomes between genders at both short-term and long-term follow-up.

Comparison of ultrasound- versus fluoroscopy-guidEd femorAl access In tranS-catheter aortic valve replacement In the Era of contempoRary devices: The EASIER registry.

BACKGROUND: Vascular complications (VCs) still represent one of the principal concerns of trans-femoral trans-catheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR). New-generation devices can minimize such complications but the arterial access management is left to the operator's choice. This study aims to describe the rate of VCs in a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing TAVR with new-generation devices and to determine whether an ultrasound-guided (USG) vs. a fluoroscopy-guided (FG) femoral access management has an impact on their prevention. METHODS: This is a prospective, observational, multicenter study. Consecutive patients undergoing TAVR with new-generation devices were analyzed from January 2022 to October 2022 in five tertiary care centers. Femoral accesses were managed according to the operator's preferences. All the patients underwent a pre-discharge peripheral ultrasound control. VCs and bleedings were the main endpoints of interest. RESULTS: A total of 458 consecutive patients were enrolled (274 in the USG group and 184 in the FG group). VCs occurred in 6.5 % of the patients (5.2 % minor and 1.3 % major). There was no difference between the USG and the FG groups in terms of any VCs (7.3 % vs. 5.4 %; p = 0.4), or any VARC-3 bleedings (6.9 % vs 6 %, p = 0.9). At logistic regression analysis, the two guidance strategies did not result as predictors of VCs (odds Ratio 0.8, 95 % Confidence Interval 0.46-1.4; P = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing TAVR with new-generation devices, the occurrence of VCs is low and mostly represented by minor VCs. USG and FG modalities did not affect the rate of VCs.

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.