Improved Hemodynamics With Self-Expanding Compared to Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Small Annulus Patients: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.

Patients with small aortic annuli (SAAs) pose a challenge in patients who underwent aortic valve replacement because of the potential for prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM). This study aimed to compare the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of self-expandable valve (SEV) versus balloon-expandable valve (BEV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAAs. All patients who underwent TAVI for severe native aortic stenosis with an SAA between January 2018 and December 2022 were retrospectively included in the study from a single center. Propensity score matching was performed to balance the baseline characteristics. Bioprosthesis valve dysfunction was based on modified Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 criteria. A total of 1,170 TAVI procedures were performed between 2018 and 2022. After applying the exclusion criteria, 332 patients reported an SAA at computed tomography scan, and the matching created 109 balanced pairs. Echocardiographic data at discharge showed higher mean transvalvular gradients (p <0.001), higher grades of mitral regurgitation (p = 0.029), and lower ejection fraction (p <0.043) in BEVs than SEVs. At follow-up, significant differences favoring the SEV group regarding bioprosthesis valve dysfunction were observed (p = 0.002), especially in terms of severe PPM (p = 0.046) and at least moderate structural valve deterioration (p = 0.040). In conclusion, TAVI in patients with SAAs using a BEV was associated with lower valve areas, higher mean pressure gradients, and PPM (including severe) than a SEV. Short- and midterm all-cause and cardiac-related mortality did not differ between the 2 groups. Future randomized studies with extended follow-ups are warranted to validate these outcomes.

Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Women with Small Annuli at Low or Intermediate Surgical Risk.

There are limited data from randomized controlled trials assessing the impact of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgery in women with aortic stenosis and small aortic annuli. We evaluated 2-year clinical and hemodynamic outcomes following AVR to understand acute valve performance and early and mid-term clinical outcomes. This post hoc analysis pooled women enrolled in the randomized, prospective, multicenter Evolut Low Risk and SURTAVI intermediate risk trials. Women with severe aortic stenosis at low or intermediate surgical risk who had a computed-tomography-measured annular perimeter of ≤ 72.3 mm were included and underwent self-expanding, supra-annular TAVR or surgery. The primary endpoint was 2-year all-cause mortality or disabling stroke rate. The study included 620 women (323 TAVR, 297 surgery) with a mean age of 78 years. At 2 years, all-cause mortality or disabling stroke was 6.5% for TAVR and 8.0% for surgery, p = 0.47. Pacemaker rates were 20.0% for TAVR and 8.3% for surgery, p <0.001. The mean effective orifice area at 2 years was 1.9 ± 0.5 cm2 for TAVR and 1.6 ± 0.5 cm2 for surgery, and the mean gradient was 8.0 ± 4.1 mmHg vs 12.7 ± 6.0 mmHg, respectively (both p <0.001). Moderate or severe patient-prothesis mismatch at discharge occurred in 10.9% of TAVR and 33.2% of surgery patients, p < 0.001. In conclusion, in women with small annuli, clinical outcomes to 2 years were similar between self-expanding, supra-annular TAVR and surgery, with better hemodynamics in the TAVR group, and fewer pacemakers in the surgical group.

Quality of Life 5 Years Following Transfemoral TAVR or SAVR in Intermediate Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) sustain comparable improvements in health status over 5 years after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or SAVR. Whether a similar long-term benefit is observed among intermediate-risk AS patients is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess health status outcomes through 5 years in intermediate risk patients treated with a self-expanding TAVR prosthesis or SAVR using data from the SURTAVI (Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial. METHODS: Intermediate-risk patients randomized to transfemoral TAVR or SAVR in the SURTAVI trial had disease-specific health status assessed at baseline, 30 days, and annually to 5 years using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). Health status was compared between groups using fixed effects repeated measures modelling. RESULTS: Of the 1,584 patients (TAVR, n = 805; SAVR, n = 779) included in the analysis, health status improved more rapidly after TAVR compared with SAVR. However, by 1 year, both groups experienced large health status benefits (mean change in KCCQ-Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OS) from baseline: TAVR: 20.5 ± 22.4; SAVR: 20.5 ± 22.2). This benefit was sustained, albeit modestly attenuated, at 5 years (mean change in KCCQ-OS from baseline: TAVR: 15.4 ± 25.1; SAVR: 14.3 ± 24.2). There were no significant differences in health status between the cohorts at 1 year or beyond. Similar findings were observed in the KCCQ subscales, although a substantial attenuation of benefit was noted in the physical limitation subscale over time in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In intermediate-risk AS patients, both transfemoral TAVR and SAVR resulted in comparable and durable health status benefits to 5 years. Further research is necessary to elucidate the mechanisms for the small decline in health status noted at 5 years compared with 1 year in both groups. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System in the Treatment of Severe, Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [SURTAVI]; NCT01586910).

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.

Prognostic Value of Right Ventricular Afterload in Patients Undergoing Mitral Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) and secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) are associated with adverse outcomes after mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair. We aim to study the prognostic value of invasively measured right ventricular afterload in patients undergoing mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified patients who underwent right heart catheterization ≤1 month before transcatheter edge-to-edge repair. The end points were all-cause mortality and a composite of mortality and heart failure hospitalization at 2 years. Using the receiver operating characteristic curve-derived threshold of 0.6 for pulmonary effective arterial elastance ([Ea], pulmonary artery systolic pressure/stroke volume), patients were stratified into 3 profiles based on PH severity (low elastance [HE]: Ea <0.6/mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP)) <35; High Elastance with No/Mild PH (HE-): Ea ≥0.6/mPAP <35; and HE with Moderate/Severe PH (HE+): Ea ≥0.6/mPAP ≥35) and MR pathogenesis (Primary MR [PMR])/low elastance, PMR/HE, and secondary MR). The association between this classification and clinical outcomes was examined using Cox regression. Among 114 patients included, 50.9% had PMR. Mean±SD age was 74.7±10.6 years. Patients with Ea ≥0.6 were more likely to have diabetes, atrial fibrillation, New York Heart Association III/IV status, and secondary MR (all P<0.05). Overall, 2-year cumulative survival was 71.1% and was lower in patients with secondary MR and mPAP ≥35. Compared with patients with low elastance, cumulative 2-year event-free survival was significantly lower in HE- and HE+ patients (85.5% versus 50.4% versus 41.0%, respectively, P=0.001). Also, cumulative 2-year event-free survival was significantly higher in patients with PMR/low elastance when compared with PMR/HE and patients with secondary mitral regurgitation (85.5% versus 55.5% versus 46.1%, respectively, P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of the preprocedural cardiopulmonary profile based on mPAP, MR pathogenesis, and Ea guides patient selection by identifying hemodynamic features that indicate likely benefit from mitral-transcatheter edge-to-edge repair in PH or lack thereof.

Echocardiographic Profiling Predicts Clinical Outcomes After Mitral Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies investigating the impact of residual mitral regurgitation (MR), tricuspid regurgitation (TR), and elevated predischarge transmitral mean pressure gradient (TMPG) on outcomes after mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) have assessed each parameter in isolation. We sought to examine the prognostic value of combining predischarge MR, TR, and TMPG to study long-term outcomes after TEER. METHODS AND RESULTS: We reviewed the records of 291 patients who underwent successful mitral TEER at our institution between March 2014 and June 2022. Using well-established outcomes-related cutoffs for predischarge MR (≥moderate), TR (≥moderate), and TMPG (≥5 mm Hg), 3 echo profiles were developed based on the number of risk factors present (optimal: 0 risk factors, mixed: 1 risk factor, poor: ≥2 risk factors). Discrimination of the profiles for predicting the primary composite end point of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization at 2 years was examined using Cox regression. Overall, mean age was 76.7±10.6 years, 43.3% were women, and 53% had primary MR. Two-year event-free survival was 61%. Predischarge TR≥moderate, MR≥moderate, and TMPG≥5 mm Hg were risk factors associated with the primary end point. Compared with the optimal profile, there was an incremental risk in 2-year event-rate with each worsening profile (optimal as reference; mixed profile: hazard ratio (HR), 2.87 [95% CI, 1.71-5.17], P<0.001; poor profile: HR, 3.76 [95% CI, 1.84-6.53], P<0.001). Echocardiographic profile was statistically associated with the 2-year mortality end point (optimal as reference; mixed profile: HR, 3.55 [95% CI, 1.81-5.96], P<0.001; poor profile: HR, 3.39 [95% CI, 2.56-7.33], P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The echocardiographic profile integrating predischarge TR, MR, and TMPG presents a novel prognostic stratification tool for patients undergoing mitral TEER.

Do postoperative hemodynamic parameters add prognostic value for mortality after surgical aortic valve replacement?

Background: Although various hemodynamic parameters to assess prosthetic performance are available, prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is defined exclusively by effective orifice area (EOA) index thresholds. Adjusting for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality (STS PROM), we aimed to explore the added value of postoperative hemodynamic parameters for the prediction of all-cause mortality at 5 years after aortic valve replacement. Methods: Data were obtained from the Pericardial Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (PERIGON) Pivotal Trial, a multicenter prospective cohort study examining the performance of the Avalus bioprosthesis. Candidate predictors were assessed at the first follow-up visit; patients who had no echocardiography data, withdrew consent, or died before this visit were excluded. Candidate predictors included peak jet velocity, mean pressure gradient, EOA, predicted and measured EOA index, Doppler velocity index, indexed internal prosthesis orifice area, and categories for PPM. The performance of Cox models was investigated using the c-statistic and net reclassification improvement (NRI), among other tools. Results: A total of 1118 patients received the study valve, of whom 1022 were eligible for the present analysis. In univariable analysis, STS PROM was the sole significant predictor of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-1.55). When extending the STS PROM with single hemodynamic parameters, neither the c-statistics nor the NRIs demonstrated added prognostic value compared to a model with STS PROM alone. Similar findings were observed when multiple hemodynamic parameters were added. Conclusions: The STS PROM was found to be the main predictor of patient prognosis. The additional prognostic value of postoperative hemodynamic parameters for the prediction of all-cause mortality was limited.

Impact of transcatheter heart valve type on outcomes of surgical explantation after failed transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the EXPLANT-TAVR international registry.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the impact of transcatheter heart valve (THV) type on the outcomes of surgical explantation after THV failure. AIMS: We sought to determine the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) explantation for failed balloon-expandable valves (BEV) versus self-expanding valves (SEV). METHODS: From November 2009 to February 2022, 401 patients across 42 centres in the EXPLANT-TAVR registry underwent TAVR explantation during a separate admission from the initial TAVR. Mechanically expandable valves (N=10, 2.5%) were excluded. The outcomes of TAVR explantation were compared for 202 (51.7%) failed BEV and 189 (48.3%) failed SEV. RESULTS: Among 391 patients analysed (mean age: 73.0±9.8 years; 33.8% female), the median time from index TAVR to TAVR explantation was 13.3 months (interquartile range 5.1-34.8), with no differences between groups. Indications for TAVR explantation included endocarditis (36.0% failed SEV vs 55.4% failed BEV; p<0.001), paravalvular leak (21.2% vs 11.9%; p=0.014), structural valve deterioration (30.2% vs 21.8%; p=0.065) and prosthesis-patient mismatch (8.5% vs 10.4%; p=0.61). The SEV group trended fewer urgent/emergency surgeries (52.0% vs 62.3%; p=0.057) and more root replacement (15.3% vs 7.4%; p=0.016). Concomitant cardiac procedures were performed in 57.8% of patients, including coronary artery bypass graft (24.8%), and mitral (38.9%) and tricuspid (14.6%) valve surgery, with no differences between groups. In-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year mortality and stroke rates were similar between groups (allp>0.05), with no differences in cumulative mortality at 3 years (log-rank p=0.95). On multivariable analysis, concomitant mitral surgery was an independent predictor of 1-year mortality after BEV explant (hazard ratio [HR] 2.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07-3.72) and SEV explant (HR 2.00, 95% CI: 1.08-3.69). CONCLUSIONS: In the EXPLANT-TAVR global registry, BEV and SEV groups had different indications for surgical explantation, with more root replacements in SEV failure, but no differences in midterm mortality and morbidities. Further refinement of TAVR explantation techniques are important to improving outcomes.

Understanding Treatment Preferences for Patients with Tricuspid Regurgitation.

Background. Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is a high-prevalence disease associated with poor quality of life and mortality. This quantitative patient preference study aims to identify TR patients' perspectives on risk-benefit tradeoffs. Methods. A discrete-choice experiment was developed to explore TR treatment risk-benefit tradeoffs. Attributes (levels) tested were treatment (procedure, medical management), reintervention risk (0%, 1%, 5%, 10%), medications over 2 y (none, reduce, same, increase), shortness of breath (none/mild, moderate, severe), and swelling (never, 3× per week, daily). A mixed logit regression model estimated preferences and calculated predicted probabilities. Relative attribute importance was calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed. Results. An online survey was completed by 150 TR patients. Shortness of breath was the most important attribute and accounted for 65.8% of treatment decision making. The average patients' predicted probability of preferring a "procedure-like" profile over a "medical management-like" profile was 99.7%. This decreased to 78.9% for a level change from severe to moderate in shortness of breath in the "medical management-like" profile. Subgroup analysis confirmed that patients older than 64 y had a stronger preference to avoid severe shortness of breath compared with younger patients (P < 0.02), as did severe or worse TR patients relative to moderate. New York Heart Association class I/II patients more strongly preferred to avoid procedural reintervention risk relative to class III/IV patients (P < 0.03). Conclusion. TR patients are willing to accept higher procedural reintervention risk if shortness of breath is alleviated. This risk tolerance is higher for older and more symptomatic patients. These results emphasize the appropriateness of developing TR therapies and the importance of addressing symptom burden. Highlights: This study provides quantitative patient preference data from clinically confirmed tricuspid regurgitation (TR) patients to understand their treatment preferences.Using a targeted literature search and patient, physician, and Food and Drug Administration feedback, a cross-sectional survey with a discrete-choice experiment that focused on 5 of the most important attributes to TR patients was developed and administered online.TR patients are willing to accept higher procedural reintervention risk if shortness of breath is alleviated, and this risk tolerance is higher for older and more symptomatic patients.

Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease: Classifications, Treatments, and Emerging Transcatheter Paradigms.

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is a common congenital valvular malformation, which may lead to early aortic valve disease and bicuspid-associated aortopathy. A novel BAV classification system was recently proposed to coincide with transcatheter aortic valve replacement being increasingly considered in younger patients with symptomatic BAV, with good clinical results, yet without randomized trial evidence. Procedural technique, along with clinical outcomes, have considerably improved in BAV patients compared with tricuspid aortic stenosis patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. The present review summarizes the novel BAV classification systems and examines contemporary surgical and transcatheter approaches.

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.

Emergency and Compassionate Use of a Novel Ascending Endograft for Ascending and Arch Aortic Pathology.

PURPOSE: Patients with complicated ascending aortic pathology, including patients with acute type A aortic dissection may be at extreme risk for open repair. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), infrequently used for the ascending aorta, may be considered an alternative in this setting. We describe early results for emergency and compassionate (E&C) use of a novel endograft, specifically designed for use to treat pathology of the ascending aorta. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This case series evaluated 19 patients (mean age, 68.84±13.12 years; 57.9% female) treated with ascending TEVAR for acute and chronic acute (4), subacute (1), or chronic (1) aortic dissection or pseudoaneurysm (13). Six of the 19 patients (31.5%) were treated under compassionate use and 13 patients (68.4%) were treated under the emergency use exemption. Ten patients (52.6%) received additional devices to extend treatment into the arch and descending aorta. RESULTS: Device delivery was achieved in all patients (100%). Thirty-day mortality and stroke occurred in 3 patients (15.8%) and in 1 patient (5.3%), respectively. In 1 patient (5.3%), with an Unanticipated Adverse Device Event, the aorta ruptured when the endograft eroded into the adventitial portion of dissection site at the posterior aspect of the ascending wall. Devices were explanted in 2 patients (10.5%), 353 and 610 days after the index procedure, respectively. Six patients had endoleaks (31.6%), including type I (n=2, 10.5%), type II endoleaks (n=3, 15.8%), and indeterminate endoleak (n=1, 5.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Delivery and deployment of a novel ascending thoracic stent graft with or without an additional branched arch extension is feasible in patients with complex anatomy and pathology, including acute aortic dissection and pseudoaneurysm. Additional experience with this novel device will further refine the patient population most suitable for endovascular ascending aortic repair for these pathologies. CLINICAL IMPACT: This study describes a novel stent graft specifically designed for treatment of ascending aortic pathology, including acute type A dissection. The patients described in this series constituted a group outside the formal US FDA sponsored clinical trial, and were those accepted as part of an emergency and compassionate use basis.

Feasibility of Coronary Access Following Redo-TAVR for Evolut Failure: A Computed Tomography Simulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Coronary accessibility following redo-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (redo-TAVR) is increasingly important, particularly in younger low-risk patients. This study aimed to predict coronary accessibility after simulated Sapien-3 balloon-expandable valve implantation within an Evolut supra-annular, self-expanding valve using pre-TAVR computed tomography (CT) imaging. METHODS: A total of 219 pre-TAVR CT scans from the Evolut Low-Risk CT substudy were analyzed. Virtual Evolut and Sapien-3 valves were sized using CT-based diameters. Two initial Evolut implant depths were analyzed, 3 and 5 mm. Coronary accessibility was evaluated for 2 Sapien-3 in Evolut implant positions: Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 4 and Evolut node 5. RESULTS: With a 3-mm initial Evolut implant depth, suitable coronary access was predicted in 84% of patients with the Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 4, and in 31% of cases with the Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 5 (P<0.001). Coronary accessibility improved with a 5-mm Evolut implant depth: 97% at node 4 and 65% at node 5 (P<0.001). When comparing 3- to 5-mm Evolut implant depth, sinus sequestration was the lowest with Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 4 (13% versus 2%; P<0.001), and the highest at Evolut node 5 (61% versus 32%; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Coronary accessibility after Sapien-3 in Evolut redo-TAVR relates to the initial Evolut implant depth, the Sapien-3 outflow position within the Evolut, and the native annular anatomy. This CT-based quantitative analysis may provide useful information to inform and refine individualized preprocedural CT planning of the initial TAVR and guide lifetime management for future coronary access after redo-TAVR. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02701283.