Leaflet modification before transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients at risk for coronary obstruction: the ShortCut study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This trial sought to assess the safety and efficacy of ShortCut, the first dedicated leaflet modification device, prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients at risk for coronary artery obstruction. METHODS: This pivotal prospective study enrolled patients with failed bioprosthetic aortic valves scheduled to undergo TAVI and were at risk for coronary artery obstruction. The primary safety endpoint was procedure-related mortality or stroke at discharge or 7 days, and the primary efficacy endpoint was per-patient leaflet splitting success. Independent angiographic, echocardiographic, and computed tomography core laboratories assessed all images. Safety events were adjudicated by a clinical events committee and data safety monitoring board. RESULTS: Sixty eligible patients were treated (77.0 ± 9.6 years, 70% female, 96.7% failed surgical bioprosthetic valves, 63.3% single splitting and 36.7% dual splitting) at 22 clinical sites. Successful leaflet splitting was achieved in all (100%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 94-100.0%, p<0.001) patients. Procedure time, including imaging confirmation of leaflet splitting, was 30.6 ± 17.9 min. Freedom from the primary safety endpoint was achieved in 59 (98.3%; 95% CI [91.1-100%]) patients, with no mortality and one (1.7%) disabling stroke. At 30 days, freedom from coronary obstruction was 95% (95% CI 86.1-99.0%). Within 90 days, freedom from mortality was 95% (95% CI 86.1-99.0%]), without any cardiovascular deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Modification of failed bioprosthetic aortic valve leaflets using ShortCut was safe, achieved successful leaflet splitting in all patients, and was associated with favorable clinical outcomes in patients at risk for coronary obstruction undergoing TAVI.

Use and performance of the evolut FX transcatheter aortic valve system.

BACKGROUND: The next generation supra-annular, self-expanding Evolut FX transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) system was designed to improve catheter deliverability, provide stable and symmetric valve deployment, and assess commissural alignment during the procedure. The impact of these modifications has not been clinically evaluated. METHODS: Procedural information was collected by survey in 2 Stages: Stage I comprised 23 centers with extensive experience with Evolut TAV systems, and Stage II comprised an additional 46 centers with a broad range of balloon- and self-expanding system experience. Operators were to compare the experience with the Evolut FX to the predicate Evolut PRO+ system. RESULTS: There were 285 cases during Stage I from June 24 to August 12, 2022, and 254 cases during Stage II from August 15 to September 11, 2022. Overall, the cusp overlap technique was used in 88.6 %, and commissural alignment was achieved in 96.1 % of these cases. Compared to implanter's previous experience with the Evolut PRO+ system, less resistance was noted with the Evolut FX system: in 83.0 % of cases during vascular insertion, in 84.7 % of cases while tracking through the vasculature, in 84.4 % of cases while traversing over the arch, and 76.1 % of cases in advancing across the valve. Better symmetry of valve depth was observed in 423 of 525 cases (80.6 %). CONCLUSION: Evolut FX system design modifications translated into improvements in catheter deliverability, deployment symmetry and stability, and commissural alignment as assessed by experienced self-expanding and balloon expandable operators.

Reinterventions After CoreValve/Evolut Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Data on valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are limited. OBJECTIVES: The authors compared the 5-year incidence of valve reintervention after self-expanding CoreValve/Evolut TAVR vs SAVR. METHODS: Pooled data from CoreValve and Evolut R/PRO (Medtronic) randomized trials and single-arm studies encompassed 5,925 TAVR (4,478 CoreValve and 1,447 Evolut R/PRO) and 1,832 SAVR patients. Reinterventions were categorized by indication, timing, and treatment. The cumulative incidence of reintervention was compared between TAVR vs SAVR, Evolut vs CoreValve, and Evolut vs SAVR. RESULTS: There were 99 reinterventions (80 TAVR and 19 SAVR). The cumulative incidence of reintervention through 5 years was higher with TAVR vs SAVR (2.2% vs 1.5%; P = 0.017), with differences observed early (≤1 year; adjusted subdistribution HR: 3.50; 95% CI: 1.53-8.02) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.48-2.28). The most common reason for reintervention was paravalvular regurgitation after TAVR and endocarditis after SAVR. Evolut had a significantly lower incidence of reintervention than CoreValve (0.9% vs 1.6%; P = 0.006) at 5 years with differences observed early (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12-0.73) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.21-1.74). The 5-year incidence of reintervention was similar for Evolut vs SAVR (0.9% vs 1.5%; P = 0.41). CONCLUSIONS: A low incidence of reintervention was observed for CoreValve/Evolut R/PRO and SAVR through 5 years. Reintervention occurred most often at ≤1 year for TAVR and >1 year for SAVR. Most early reinterventions were with the first-generation CoreValve and managed percutaneously. Reinterventions were more common following CoreValve TAVR compared with Evolut TAVR or SAVR.

Mortality Associated With Proportionality of Secondary Mitral Regurgitation After Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair: North American Mitraclip for Functional Mitral Regurgitation Registry.

The association, if any, between the effective regurgitant orifice area (EROA) to left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) ratio and 1-year mortality is controversial in patients who undergo mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (m-TEER) with the MitraClip system (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA). This study's objective was to determine the association between EROA/LVEDV and 1-year mortality in patients who undergo m-TEER with MitraClip. In patients with severe secondary (functional) mitral regurgitation (MR), we analyzed registry data from 11 centers using generalized linear models with the generalized estimating equations approach. We studied 525 patients with secondary MR who underwent m-TEER. Most patients were male (63%) and were New York Heart Association class III (61%) or IV (21%). Mitral regurgitation was caused by ischemic cardiomyopathy in 51% of patients. EROA/LVEDV values varied widely, with median = 0.19 mm2/ml, interquartile range [0.12,0.28] mm2/ml, and 187 patients (36%) had values <0.15 mm2/ml. Postprocedural mitral regurgitation severity was substantially alleviated, being 1+ or less in 74%, 2+ in 20%, 3+ in 4%, and 4+ in 2%; 1-year mortality was 22%. After adjustment for confounders, the logarithmic transformation (Ln) of EROA/LVEDV was associated with 1-year mortality (odds ratio 0.600, 95% confidence interval 0.386 to 0.933, p = 0.023). A higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was also associated with increased mortality. In conclusion, lower values of Ln(EROA/LVEDV) were associated with increased 1-year mortality in this multicenter registry. The slope of the association is steep at low values but gradually flattens as Ln(EROA/LVEDV) increases.

Five-Year Follow-Up from the CoreValve Expanded Use Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Surgical Aortic Valve Study.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) provides an option for extreme-risk patients who underwent reoperation for a failed surgical aortic bioprosthesis. Long-term data on patients who underwent TAVR within a failed surgical aortic valve (TAV-in-SAV) are limited. The CoreValve Expanded Use Study evaluated patients at extreme surgical risk who underwent TAV-in-SAV. Outcomes at 5 years were analyzed by SAV failure mode (stenosis, regurgitation, or combined). Echocardiographic outcomes are site-reported. TAV-in-SAV was attempted in 226 patients with a mean age of 76.7 ± 10.8 years; 63.3% were male, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality score was 9.0 ± 6.7%, and 87.5% had a New York Heart Association classification III or IV symptoms. Most of the failed surgical bioprostheses were stented (81.9%), with an average implant duration of 10.2 ± 4.3 years. The 5-year all-cause mortality or major stroke rate was 47.2% in all patients; 54.4% in the stenosis, 37.6% in the regurgitation, and 38.0% in the combined groups (p = 0.046). At 5 years, all-cause mortality was higher in patients with versus without 30-day severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (51.7% vs 38.3%, p = 0.026). The overall aortic valve reintervention rate was 5.9%; highest in the regurgitation group (12.6%). The mean aortic valve gradient was 14.1 ± 9.8 mm Hg and effective orifice area was 1.57 ± 0.70 at 5 years. Few patients had >mild paravalvular regurgitation at 5 years (5.5% moderate, 0.0% severe). TAV-in-SAV with supra-annular, self-expanding TAVR continues to represent a safe and lasting intermediate option for extreme-risk patients who have appropriate sizing of the preexisting failed surgical valve. Clinical and hemodynamic outcomes were stable through 5 years.

Cardiac Computed Tomography Angiography Anatomical Characterization of Patients Screened for a Dedicated Transfemoral Transcatheter Valve System for Primary Aortic Regurgitation.

Background: Cardiac computed tomography angiography was used to identify anatomical characteristics of the aortic root in patients with severe aortic regurgitation (AR) as compared to those with aortic stenosis (AS) to judge feasibility of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the JenaValve Trilogy system. Methods: Cardiac computed tomography angiography was performed prior to planned TAVR for 107 patients with severe AR and 92 patients with severe AS. Measurements related to aortic root and coronary artery anatomy were obtained and compared between groups. Perimeter >90 mm and aortic annulus angle â€‹>70 degrees were defined as the theoretical exclusion criteria for TAVR. A combination of sinus of Valsalva diameter <30 mm and coronary height <12 mm was defined as high risk for coronary occlusion. Results: The mean age of patients in the AR group was 74.9 ± 11.2 years, 46% were women, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score for mortality was 3.6 ± 2.1. Comparatively, the mean age of patients in the AS group was 82.3 ± 5.53 years, 65% were women, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeonsrisk score was 5.5 ± 3.3. Annulus area, perimeter, diameter, and angle were larger in patients with severe AR. Sinus of Valsalva diameters and heights were larger in patients with severe AR. More AR patients were excluded based on perimeter (14 vs. 2%) and annulus angle (6 vs. 1%). More AS patients exhibited high-risk anatomy for left main coronary occlusion (21 vs. 7%) and right coronary occlusion (14 vs. 3%). The maximum dimension of the ascending aorta was larger in patients with severe AR (39 vs. 35 mm). The percentage of referred AR patients with significant aortopathy requiring surgical intervention was very low (only 1 AR patient with ascending aorta diameter >5.5 cm). Conclusions: A significantly larger proportion of patients with severe AR are excluded from TAVR as compared to AS due to large aortic annulus size and steep annulus angulation. By far the most prevalent excluding factor is aortic annulus size, with fewer patients excluded due to angulation. AR patients have lower-risk anatomy for coronary occlusion. Larger transcatheter valve sizes and further delivery system modifications are required to treat a larger proportion of AR patients.

Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement After Prior Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Aortic stenosis treatment should consider risks and benefits for lifetime management. Although the feasibility of redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains unclear, concerns are emerging regarding reoperation after TAVR. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to define comparative risk of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) after prior TAVR or SAVR. METHODS: Data on patients undergoing bioprosthetic SAVR after TAVR and/or SAVR were extracted from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database (2011-2021). Overall and isolated SAVR cohorts were analyzed. The primary outcome was operative mortality. Risk adjustment using hierarchical logistic regression as well as propensity score matching for isolated SAVR cases were performed. RESULTS: Of 31,106 SAVR patients, 1,126 had prior TAVR (TAVR-SAVR), 674 had prior SAVR and TAVR (SAVR-TAVR-SAVR), and 29,306 had prior SAVR (SAVR-SAVR). Yearly rates of TAVR-SAVR and SAVR-TAVR-SAVR increased over time, whereas SAVR-SAVR was stable. The TAVR-SAVR patients were older, with higher acuity, and with greater comorbidities than other cohorts. The unadjusted operative mortality was highest in the TAVR-SAVR group (17% vs 12% vs 9%, respectively; P < 0.001). Compared with SAVR-SAVR, risk-adjusted operative mortality was significantly higher for TAVR-SAVR (OR: 1.53; P = 0.004), but not SAVR-TAVR-SAVR (OR: 1.02; P = 0.927). After propensity score matching, operative mortality of isolated SAVR was 1.74 times higher for TAVR-SAVR than SAVR-SAVR patients (P = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: The number of post-TAVR reoperations is increasing and represent a high-risk population. Yet even in isolated SAVR cases, SAVR after TAVR is independently associated with increased risk of mortality. Patients with life expectancy beyond a TAVR valve and unsuitable anatomy for redo-TAVR should consider a SAVR-first approach.

3-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Randomized data comparing outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with surgery in low-surgical risk patients at time points beyond 2 years is limited. This presents an unknown for physicians striving to educate patients as part of a shared decision-making process. OBJECTIVES: The authors evaluated 3-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes from the Evolut Low Risk trial. METHODS: Low-risk patients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular valve or surgery. The primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke and several secondary endpoints were assessed at 3 years. RESULTS: There were 1,414 attempted implantations (730 TAVR; 684 surgery). Patients had a mean age of 74 years and 35% were women. At 3 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 7.4% of TAVR patients and 10.4% of surgery patients (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.49-1.00; P = 0.051). The difference between treatment arms for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke remained broadly consistent over time: -1.8% at year 1; -2.0% at year 2; and -2.9% at year 3. The incidence of mild paravalvular regurgitation (20.3% TAVR vs 2.5% surgery) and pacemaker placement (23.2% TAVR vs 9.1% surgery; P < 0.001) were lower in the surgery group. Rates of moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation for both groups were <1% and not significantly different. Patients who underwent TAVR had significantly improved valve hemodynamics (mean gradient 9.1 mm Hg TAVR vs 12.1 mm Hg surgery; P < 0.001) at 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Within the Evolut Low Risk study, TAVR at 3 years showed durable benefits compared with surgery with respect to all-cause mortality or disabling stroke. (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients; NCT02701283).

Clinical Impact of Standardized TAVR Technique and Care Pathway: Insights From the Optimize PRO Study.

BACKGROUND: Procedural success and clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have improved, but residual aortic regurgitation (AR) and new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rates remain variable because of a lack of uniform periprocedural management and implantation. OBJECTIVES: The Optimize PRO study evaluates valve performance and procedural outcomes using an "optimized" TAVR care pathway and the cusp overlap technique (COT) in patients receiving the Evolut PRO/PRO+ (Medtronic) self-expanding valves. METHODS: Optimize PRO, a nonrandomized, prospective, postmarket study conducted in the United States, Canada, Europe, Middle East, and Australia, is enrolling patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and no pre-existing pacemaker. Sites follow a standardized TAVR care pathway, including early discharge and a conduction disturbance management algorithm, and transfemoral deployment using the COT. RESULTS: A total of 400 attempted implants from the United States and Canada comprised the main cohort of this second interim analysis. The mean age was 78.7 ± 6.6 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons predictive risk of mortality was 3.0 ± 2.4. The median length of stay was 1 day. There were no instances of moderate or severe AR at discharge. At 30 days, all-cause mortality or stroke was 3.8%, all-cause mortality was 0.8%, disabling stroke was 0.7%, hospital readmission was 10.1%, and cardiovascular rehospitalization was 6.1%. The new PPI rate was 9.8%, 5.8% with 4-step COT compliance. In the multivariable model, right bundle branch block and the depth of the implant increased the risk of PPI, whereas using the 4-step COT lowered 30-day PPI. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the TAVR care pathway and COT resulted in favorable clinical outcomes with no moderate or severe AR and low PPI rates at 30 days while facilitating early discharge and reproducible outcomes across various sites and operators. (Optimize PRO; NCT04091048).

The Relationship Between Hospital Stroke Center Designation and TVT Reported Stroke: The Michigan TAVR Experience.

BACKGROUND: The 30-day rate of stroke after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been suggested as a hospital quality metric. Thirty-day stroke rates for nonsurgical, high, and moderate-risk TAVR trials were 3.4% to 6.1%, whereas those in the national Transcatheter Valve Therapy (TVT) Registry for the same patient population were much lower. Hospital comprehensive stroke center (CSC) is the highest designation for integrated acute stroke recognition, management, and care. OBJECTIVES: Using Michigan TVT data, we assessed whether in-hospital post-TAVR stroke rates varied between CSC and non-CSC institutions. METHODS: TVT data submitted from the 22 Michigan Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Collaborative participating institutions between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2019, were included (N = 6,231). Bayesian hierarchical regression models accounting for patient clinical characteristics and hospital clustering were fitted to assess the association between hospital CSC accreditation and in-hospital post-TAVR stroke. Adjusted ORs and 95% credible intervals were estimated. The University of Michigan Institutional Review Board has waived the need for the approval of studies based on the data collected by the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium registry. RESULTS: There were 3,882 (62.3%) patients at 9 CSC sites and 2,349 (37.7%) patients at 13 non-CSC sites. CSC sites had significantly higher rates of in-hospital post-TAVR stroke (CSC: 2.65% vs non-CSC: 1.15%; P < 0.001). After adjustment, patients who underwent TAVR at a CSC hospital had a significantly higher risk of in-hospital stroke (adjusted OR: 2.21; 95% CI: 1.03-4.62). However, CSC designation was not significantly associated with other important post-TAVR clinical outcomes including 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Reported Michigan Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Collaborative TVT stroke rates were significantly higher at sites with Joint Hospital Commission stroke designation status; however, other reported important clinical outcomes did not differ significantly based on this designation. CSC designation is a possible factor in stroke rate detection differences between TAVR institutions and might be a factor in the observed differences in stroke rates between TAVR trials and those reported in TVT. In addition, these data suggest that comparison between hospitals based on post-TAVR stroke rates is potentially problematic.

Aortic valve reintervention in patients with failing transcatheter aortic bioprostheses: A statewide experience.

BACKGROUND: Despite the rapid adoption of transcatheter aortic valve replacement since its approval, the frequency and outcomes of aortic valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement are poorly understood. METHODS: Valve reinterventions, either surgical transcatheter aortic valve explantation or repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement, between 2012 and 2019 were queried using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database and the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry through the Michigan Statewide quality collaborative. The reintervention frequency and clinical outcomes including observed-to-expected mortality ratio using Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality were reviewed. RESULTS: Among 9694 transcatheter aortic valve replacement recipients, a total of 87 patients (0.90%) received a reintervention, consisting of 34 transcatheter aortic valve explants and 53 repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedures. The transcatheter aortic valve explant group demonstrated a higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality. Reintervention cases increased from 0 in 2012 and 2013 to 26 in 2019. The proportion of transcatheter aortic valve explants among all reinterventions increased and was 65% in 2019. Self-expandable devices had a higher reintervention rate than balloon-expandable devices secondary to a higher transcatheter aortic valve explant frequency (0.58% [23/3957] vs 0.19% [11/5737]; P = .001), whereas repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement rates were similar (0.61% [24/3957] vs 0.51% [29/5737]; P = .51). Among patients with transcatheter aortic valve explants, contraindications to repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement included unfavorable anatomy (75%), need for other cardiac surgery (29%), other structural issues by transcatheter aortic valve device (18%), and endocarditis (12%). For transcatheter aortic valve explant and repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the 30-day mortality was 15% and 2% (P = .032) and the observed-to-expected mortality ratio was 1.8 and 0.3 (P = .018), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic valve reintervention remains rare but is increasing. The clinical impact of surgical device explantation was substantial, and the proportion of transcatheter aortic valve explants was significantly higher in patients with a self-expandable device.

Self-expanding Transcatheter vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients: 5-Year Outcomes of the SURTAVI Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding supra-annular valve was noninferior to surgery for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Comparisons of longer-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in these patients are limited. Objective: To report prespecified secondary 5-year outcomes from the Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement (SURTAVI) randomized clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: SURTAVI is a prospective randomized, unblinded clinical trial. Randomization was stratified by investigational site and need for revascularization determined by the local heart teams. Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis deemed to be at intermediate risk of 30-day surgical mortality were enrolled at 87 centers from June 19, 2012, to June 30, 2016, in Europe and North America. Analysis took place between August and October 2021. Intervention: Patients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular transcatheter or a surgical bioprosthesis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified secondary end points of death or disabling stroke and other adverse events and hemodynamic findings at 5 years. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated all serious adverse events and an independent echocardiographic core laboratory evaluated all echocardiograms at 5 years. Results: A total of 1660 individuals underwent an attempted TAVR (n = 864) or surgical (n = 796) procedure. The mean (SD) age was 79.8 (6.2) years, 724 (43.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgery Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 4.5% (1.6%). At 5 years, the rates of death or disabling stroke were similar (TAVR, 31.3% vs surgery, 30.8%; hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.85-1.22]; P = .85). Transprosthetic gradients remained lower (mean [SD], 8.6 [5.5] mm Hg vs 11.2 [6.0] mm Hg; P < .001) and aortic valve areas were higher (mean [SD], 2.2 [0.7] cm2 vs 1.8 [0.6] cm2; P < .001) with TAVR vs surgery. More patients had moderate/severe paravalvular leak with TAVR than surgery (11 [3.0%] vs 2 [0.7%]; risk difference, 2.37% [95% CI, 0.17%- 4.85%]; P = .05). New pacemaker implantation rates were higher for TAVR than surgery at 5 years (289 [39.1%] vs 94 [15.1%]; hazard ratio, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.61-4.17]; log-rank P < .001), as were valve reintervention rates (27 [3.5%] vs 11 [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.10-4.45]; log-rank P = .02), although between 2 and 5 years only 6 patients who underwent TAVR and 7 who underwent surgery required a reintervention. Conclusions and Relevance: Among intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, major clinical outcomes at 5 years were similar for TAVR and surgery. TAVR was associated with superior hemodynamic valve performance but also with more paravalvular leak and valve reinterventions.

2-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: The Evolut Low Risk Trial (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients) showed that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a supra-annular, self-expanding valve was noninferior to surgery for the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. This finding was based on a Bayesian analysis performed after 850 patients had reached 1 year of follow-up. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to report the full 2-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes for patients enrolled in the Evolut Low Risk Trial. METHODS: A total of 1,414 low-surgical risk patients with severe aortic stenosis were randomized to receive TAVR or surgical AVR. An independent clinical events committee adjudicated adverse events, and a central echocardiographic core laboratory assessed hemodynamic endpoints. RESULTS: An attempted implant was performed in 730 TAVR and 684 surgical patients from March 2016 to May 2019. The Kaplan-Meier rates for the complete 2-year primary endpoint of death or disabling stroke were 4.3% in the TAVR group and 6.3% in the surgery group (P = 0.084). These rates were comparable to the interim Bayesian rates of 5.3% with TAVR and 6.7% with surgery (difference: -1.4%; 95% Bayesian credible interval: -4.9% to 2.1%). All-cause mortality rates were 3.5% vs 4.4% (P = 0.366), and disabling stroke rates were 1.5% vs 2.7% (P = 0.119), respectively. Between years 1 and 2, there was no convergence of the primary outcome curves. CONCLUSIONS: The complete 2-year follow-up from the Evolut Low Risk Trial found that TAVR is noninferior to surgery for the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke, with event rates that were slightly better than those predicted by using the Bayesian analysis. (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients [Evolut Low Risk Trial]; NCT02701283).

Surgical Explantation of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Bioprostheses: A Statewide Experience.

BACKGROUND: Despite the rapid adoption of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) since its initial approval in 2011, the frequency and outcomes of surgical explantation of TAVR devices (TAVR-explant) is poorly understood. METHODS: Patients undergoing TAVR-explant between January 2012 and June 2020 at 33 hospitals in Michigan were identified in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database and linked to index TAVR data from the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry through a statewide quality collaborative. The primary outcome was operative mortality. Indications for TAVR-explant, contraindications to redo TAVR, operative data, and outcomes were collected from Society of Thoracic Surgeons and Transcatheter Valve Therapy databases. Baseline Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was compared between index TAVR and TAVR-explant. RESULTS: Twenty-four surgeons at 12 hospitals performed TAVR-explants in 46 patients (median age, 73). The frequency of TAVR-explant was 0.4%, and the number of explants increased annually. Median time to TAVR-explant was 139 days and among known device types explanted, most were self-expanding valves (29/41, 71%). Common indications for TAVR-explant were procedure-related failure (35%), paravalvular leak (28%), and need for other cardiac surgery (26%). Contraindications to redo TAVR included need for other cardiac surgery (28%), unsuitable noncoronary anatomy (13%), coronary obstruction (11%), and endocarditis (11%). Overall, 65% (30/46) of patients underwent concomitant procedures, including aortic repair/replacement in 33% (n=15), mitral surgery in 22% (n=10), and coronary artery bypass grafting in 16% (n=7). The median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 4.2% at index TAVR and 9.3% at TAVR-explant (P=0.001). Operative mortality was 20% (9/46) and 76% (35/46) of patients had in-hospital complications. Of patients alive at discharge, 37% (17/37) were discharged home and overall 3-month survival was 73±14%. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR-explant is rare but increasing, and its clinical impact is substantial. As the utilization of TAVR expands into younger and lower-risk patients, providers should consider the potential for future TAVR-explant during selection of an initial valve strategy.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-risk Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis.

Importance: The outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low-risk patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis have not been studied in a large scale, multicentered, prospective fashion. Objective: To evaluate the procedural safety, efficacy, and 30-day outcomes of TAVR in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis at low surgical risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Low Risk Bicuspid Study is a prospective, single-arm trial study with inclusion/exclusion criteria developed from the Evolut Low Risk Randomized Trial. Follow-up is planned for 10 years. Patients underwent TAVR at 25 centers in the United States who were also participating in the Evolut Low Risk Randomized Trial from December 2018 to October 2019. Eligible patients had severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis and met American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guideline indications for aortic valve replacement. Interventions: Patients underwent attempted implant of an Evolut or Evolut PRO transcatheter aortic valve, with valve size based on annular measurements. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified primary end point was the incidence of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 30 days. The prespecified primary efficacy end point was device success defined as the absence of procedural mortality, the correct position of 1 bioprosthetic heart valve in the proper anatomical location, and the absence of more than mild aortic regurgitation postprocedure. Results: A total of 150 patients underwent an attempted implant. Baseline characteristics include mean age of 70.3 (5.5) years, 48.0% female (n = 72), and a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 1.4 (0.6%). Most patients (136; 90.7%) had Sievers type I valve morphology. The incidence of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke was 1.3% (95% CI, 0.3%-5.3%) at 30 days. The device success rate was 95.3% (95% CI, 90.5%-98.1%). At 30 days, the mean (SD) AV gradient was 7.6 (3.7) mm Hg and effective orifice area was 2.3 (0.7) cm2. A new permanent pacemaker was implanted in 22 patients (15.1%). No patients had greater than mild paravalvular leak. Conclusions and Relevance: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low-surgical risk patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis achieved favorable 30-day results, with low rates of death and stroke and high device success rate. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03635424.

Propensity-Matched Comparison of Evolut-R Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Surgery in Intermediate-Risk Patients (from the SURTAVI Trial).

The SURTAVI trial demonstrated the noninferiority of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at intermediate surgical risk. Most TAVI patients received an early generation device which is no longer commercially available. This analysis compares TAVI outcomes in patients that received the Evolut R valve to those of similar patients randomized to SAVR in the SURTAVI trial. The continued access study of SURTAVI (CAS) enrolled 290 patients. Of them, 252 were implanted with the 23, 26, or 29 mm Evolut R device. Propensity-score matching between this group and SURTAVI SAVR patients with annular diameter of 26 mm or less was based on 22 clinical characteristics, resulting in 197 matched pairs for analysis. The primary end point for comparison was the rate of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 1-year. The mean age for TAVI and SAVR patients in the propensity-score matched population was 79.1 years and STS-PROM was 4.0 ± 1.5% for TAVI and 3.9% ± 1.3% for SAVR. The rate of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 30-days significantly favored TAVI (0.5% vs 5.1%; p = 0.006). At 1-year TAVI was numerically favored (4.1% vs 8.2%; p = 0.082). In conclusion, compared with SAVR, TAVI using Evolut R had a favorable 30-day safety profile, significantly better hemodynamic performance, and a comparable 1-year rate of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke, suggesting this may be a preferred treatment for patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at intermediate surgical risk.

Computed Tomography Annular Dimensions: A Novel Method to Compare Prosthetic Valve Hemodynamics.

BACKGROUND: The Cardiac Surgical Societies Valve Labeling Task Force consensus document acknowledged inconsistent sizing and labeling of prosthetic heart valves. This study compared the labeled size, internal diameter, and hemodynamics of different surgical and transcatheter valve types implanted into the same size annulus, measured by preprocedural computed tomography (CT). METHODS: Patients were retrospectively sorted into 3 CT annular diameter size groups: small (less than 23 mm), medium (23 to less than 26 mm), and large (26 mm or greater). Surgical valves were sorted into 4 categories based on tissue and design: (stentless porcine, standard stented bovine, wraparound stented bovine, and stented porcine). Comparisons were made within the surgical types and with a transcatheter valve. Echocardiograms were independently assessed and CTs were centrally measured. RESULTS: We analyzed 726 surgical and 923 transcatheter valve paired data sets. Among the various valve types implanted into the same size CT annulus, there were significant differences regarding size, internal diameter, and hemodynamics within all 3 size groups. Root enlargement procedures occurred in 1.2% with no differences across valve types or size groups. Transcatheter valve hemodynamics were similar to stentless valves and were significantly better than all stented valves. There was no difference in hemodynamics between the 2 bovine stented valve types, and stented porcine valves were inferior to all valve types. CONCLUSIONS: This study documents that prosthetic heart valve sizing and labeling inconsistencies exist. Use of preoperative CT annular dimensions is the most accurate method to compare size, internal diameter, and hemodynamics of bioprosthetic aortic valves because it compares values among various valve types implanted into the same size annulus.

The initial U.S. experience with the Tempo active fixation temporary pacing lead in structural heart interventions.

OBJECTIVES: This multicenter retrospective study of the initial U.S. experience evaluated the safety and efficacy of temporary cardiac pacing with the Tempo® Temporary Pacing Lead. BACKGROUND: Despite increasing use of temporary cardiac pacing with the rapid growth of structural heart procedures, temporary pacing leads have not significantly improved. The Tempo lead is a new temporary pacing lead with a soft tip intended to minimize the risk of perforation and a novel active fixation mechanism designed to enhance lead stability. METHODS: Data from 269 consecutive structural heart procedures were collected. Outcomes included device safety (absence of clinically significant cardiac perforation, new pericardial effusion, or sustained ventricular arrhythmia) and efficacy (clinically acceptable pacing thresholds with successful pace capture throughout the index procedure). Postprocedure practices and sustained lead performance were also analyzed. RESULTS: The Tempo lead was successfully positioned in the right ventricle and achieved pacing in 264 of 269 patients (98.1%). Two patients (0.8%) experienced loss of pace capture. Procedural mean pace capture threshold (PCT) was 0.7 ± 0.8 mA. There were no clinically significant perforations, pericardial effusions, or sustained device-related arrhythmias. The Tempo lead was left in place postprocedure in 189 patients (71.6%) for mean duration of 43.3 ± 0.7 hr (range 2.5-221.3 hr) with final PCT of 0.84 ± 1.04 mA (n = 80). Of these patients, 84.1% mobilized out of bed with no lead dislodgment. CONCLUSION: The Tempo lead is safe and effective for temporary cardiac pacing for structural heart procedures, provides stable peri and postprocedural pacing and allows mobilization of patients who require temporary pacing leads.

Predictors and Risk Calculator of Early Unplanned Hospital Readmission Following Contemporary Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement from the STS/ACC TVT Registry.

BACKGROUND: Predictors of hospital readmissions and tools to predict readmissions after TAVR are scarce. Our objective was to identify predictors of early hospital readmission following TAVR in contemporary clinical practice and develop a risk calculator. METHODS: Patients with a contemporary self-expanding TAVR between 2015 and 2017 in the STS/ACC/TVT Registry™ database were included. Patients were divided into a derivation and validation cohort (2:1). A risk score was calculated using the derivation cohort based on multivariable predictors of 30-day unplanned readmissions and applied to the validation cohort. RESULTS: A total of 10,345 TAVR patients at 350 centers were included. Unplanned 30-day hospital readmission was 9.2%. Patients with an early readmission had higher 30-day rates for mortality (2.3% vs. 0.8%, p ≪ 0.001), stroke (4.1% vs. 2.7% p = 0.009), major vascular complications (2.0% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.003) and new pacemaker implantation (25.7% vs. 18.6%, p ≪ 0.001). Multivariable predictors of 30-day readmission included diabetes, atrial fibrillation, advanced heart failure symptoms, home oxygen, decreased 5-m gait speed or the inability to walk, serum creatinine ≫1.6 mg/dL, index hospitalization length of stay ≫5 days, major vascular complication and ≥ moderate post-procedure aortic or mitral valve regurgitation. Based on these predictors, we stratified 30-day readmission risk into low-, moderate- and high-risk subsets. There was a 2.5× difference in readmission rates between the low- (5.8%) and high-risk subsets (14.6%). CONCLUSION: We stratified the risk of early hospital readmission after TAVR based on a simple scoring system. This score may improve discharge planning centered on the individual's readmission risk. SUMMARY: Unplanned readmissions in the United States are prevalent and costly accounting for $41.3 billion in annual hospital payments and are associated with adverse clinical outcomes. We found that diabetes, atrial fibrillation, advanced heart failure symptoms, home oxygen, frailty, acute kidney injury, prolonged hospitalization, major vascular complications, and moderate or worse post-procedure aortic or mitral valve regurgitation predicted of 30-day readmission following self-expanding TAVR. This information may improve discharge planning centered on each patient's readmission risk.