Performance and outcomes of the SAPIEN 3 Ultra RESILIA transcatheter heart valve in the OCEAN-TAVI registry.

BACKGROUND: Data on the performance of the latest-generation SAPIEN 3 Ultra RESILIA (S3UR) valve in patients who undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are scarce. AIMS: We aimed to assess the clinical outcomes, including valve performance, of the S3UR. METHODS: Registry data of 618 consecutive patients with S3UR and of a historical pooled cohort of 8,750 patients who had a SAPIEN 3 (S3) valve and underwent TAVR were collected. The clinical outcomes and haemodynamics, including patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM), were compared between the 2 groups and in a propensity-matched cohort. RESULTS: The incidence of in-hospital death, vascular complications, and new pacemaker implantation was similar between the S3UR and the S3 groups (allp>0.05). However, both groups showed significant differences in the degrees of paravalvular leakage (PVL) (none-trivial: 87.0% vs 78.5%, mild: 12.5% vs 20.5%, ≥moderate: 0.5% vs 1.1%; p<0.001) and the incidence of PPM (none: 94.3% vs 85.1%, moderate: 5.2% vs 12.8%, severe: 0.5% vs 2.0%; p<0.001). The prevalence of a mean pressure gradient ≥20 mmHg was significantly lower in the S3UR group (1.6% vs 6.2%; p<0.001). Better haemodynamics were observed with the smaller 20 mm and 23 mm S3UR valves. The results were consistent in a matched cohort of patients with S3UR and with S3 (n=618 patients/group). CONCLUSIONS: The S3UR has equivalent procedural complications to the S3 but with lower rates of PVL and significantly better valve performance. The better valve performance of the S3UR, particularly in smaller valve sizes, overcomes the remaining issue of balloon-expandable valves after TAVR.

Aortic Valve Calcification Density Measured by MDCT in the Assessment of Aortic Stenosis Severity.

BACKGROUND: Aortic valve calcification (AVC) indexation to the aortic annulus (AA) area measured by Doppler echocardiography (AVCdEcho) provides powerful prognostic information in patients with aortic stenosis (AS). However, the indexation by AA measured by multidetector computed tomography (AVCdCT) has never been evaluated. The aim of this study was to compare AVC, AVCdCT, and AVCdEcho with regard to hemodynamic correlations and clinical outcomes in patients with AS. METHODS: Data from 889 patients, mainly White, with calcific AS who underwent Doppler echocardiography and multidetector computed tomography within the same episode of care were retrospectively analyzed. AA was measured both by Doppler echocardiography and multidetector computed tomography. AVCdCT severity thresholds were established using receiver operating characteristic curve analyses in men and women separately. The primary end point was the occurrence of all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Correlations between gradient/velocity and AVCd were stronger (both P≤0.005) using AVCdCT (r=0.68, P<0.001 and r=0.66, P<0.001) than AVC (r=0.61, P<0.001 and r=0.60, P<0.001) or AVCdEcho (r=0.61, P<0.001 and r=0.59, P<0.001). AVCdCT thresholds for the identification of severe AS were 334 Agatston units (AU)/cm2 for women and 467 AU/cm2 for men. On a median follow-up of 6.62 (6.19-9.69) years, AVCdCT ratio was superior to AVC ratio and AVCdEcho ratio to predict all-cause mortality in multivariate analyses (hazard ratio [HR], 1.59 [95% CI, 1.26-2.00]; P<0.001 versus HR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.11-1.65]; P=0.003 versus HR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.11-1.46]; P<0.001; all likelihood test P≤0.004). AVCdCT ratio was superior to AVC ratio and AVCdEcho ratio to predict survival under medical treatment in multivariate analyses (HR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.27-1.58]; P<0.001 compared with HR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.13-2.10]; P=0.007; HR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.03-1.57]; P=0.01; all likelihood test P<0.03). AVCdCT ratio predicts mortality in all subgroups of patients with AS. CONCLUSIONS: AVCdCT appears to be equivalent or superior to AVC and AVCdEcho to assess AS severity and predict all-cause mortality. Thus, it should be used to evaluate AS severity in patients with nonconclusive echocardiographic evaluations with or without low-flow status. AVCdCT thresholds of 300 AU/cm2 for women and 500 AU/cm2 for men seem to be appropriate to identify severe AS. Further studies are needed to validate these thresholds, especially in diverse populations.

Differential Effect of Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis on Hyperemic and Resting Epicardial Coronary Pressure Indices.

BACKGROUND: Coronary pressure indices to assess coronary artery disease are currently underused in patients with aortic stenosis due to many potential physiological effects that might hinder their interpretation. Studies with varying sample sizes have provided us with conflicting results on the effect of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) on these indices. The aim of this meta-analysis was to study immediate and long-term effects of TAVR on fractional flow reserve (FFR) and nonhyperemic pressure ratios (NHPRs). METHODS AND RESULTS: Lesion-specific coronary pressure data were extracted from 6 studies, resulting in 147 lesions for immediate change in FFR analysis and 105 for NHPR analysis. To investigate the long-term changes, 93 lesions for FFR analysis and 68 for NHPR analysis were found. Lesion data were pooled and compared with paired t tests. Immediately after TAVR, FFR decreased significantly (-0.0130±0.0406 SD, P: 0.0002) while NHPR remained stable (0.0003±0.0675, P: 0.9675). Long-term after TAVR, FFR decreased significantly (-0.0230±0.0747, P: 0.0038) while NHPR increased nonsignificantly (0.0166±0.0699, P: 0.0543). When only borderline NHPR lesions were considered, this increase became significant (0.0249±0.0441, P: 0.0015). Sensitivity analysis confirmed our results in borderline lesions. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR resulted in small significant, but opposite, changes in FFR and NHPR. Using the standard cut-offs in patients with severe aortic stenosis, FFR might underestimate the physiological significance of a coronary lesion while NHPRs might overestimate its significance. The described changes only play a clinically relevant role in borderline lesions. Therefore, even in patients with aortic stenosis, an overtly positive or negative physiological assessment can be trusted.

Role of aortic valve replacement in moderate aortic stenosis: a 10-year outcomes study.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with moderate aortic stenosis (AS) exhibit high morbidity and mortality. Limited evidence exists on the role of aortic valve replacement (AVR) in this patient population. To investigate the benefit of AVR in moderate AS on survival and left ventricular function. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, patients with moderate AS between 2008 and 2016 were selected from the Cleveland Clinic echocardiography database and followed until 2018. Patients were classified as receiving AVR or managed medically (clinical surveillance). All-cause and cardiovascular mortality were assessed by survival analyses. Temporal haemodynamic and structural changes were assessed with longitudinal analyses using linear mixed effects models. RESULTS: We included 1421 patients (mean age, 75.3±5.4 years and 39.9% women) followed over a median duration of 6 years. Patients in the AVR group had lower risk of all-cause (adjusted HR (aHR)=0.51, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.77; p=0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (aHR=0.50, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.80; p=0.004) compared with those in the clinical surveillance group irrespective of sex, receipt of other open-heart surgeries and underlying malignancy. These findings were seen only in those with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥50%. Further, patients in the AVR group had a significant trend towards an increase in LVEF and a decrease in right ventricular systolic pressure compared with those in the clinical surveillance group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate AS, AVR was associated with favourable clinical outcomes and left ventricular remodelling.

Epicardial fat volume is associated with primary coronary slow-flow phenomenon in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: Primary coronary slow flow (CSF) is defined as delayed opacification of the distal epicardial vasculature during coronary angiography in the absence of relevant coronary artery stenoses. Microvascular disease is thought to be the underlying cause of this pathology. Epicardial fat tissue (EFT) is an active endocrine organ directly surrounding the coronary arteries that provides pro-inflammatory factors to the adjacent tissue by paracrine and vasocrine mechanisms. The aim of the present study was to investigate a potential association between EFT and primary CSF and whether EFT can predict the presence of primary CSF. METHODS: Between 2016 and 2017, n = 88 patients with high-grade aortic stenosis who were planned for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) were included in this retrospective study. EFT volume was measured by pre-TAVI computed tomography (CT) using dedicated software. The presence of primary CSF was defined based on the TIMI frame count from the pre-TAVI coronary angiograms. RESULTS: Thirty-nine of 88 TAVI patients had CSF (44.3%). EFT volume was markedly higher in patients with CSF (142 ml [IQR 107-180] vs. 113 ml [IQR 89-147]; p = 0.009) and was strongly associated with the presence of CSF (OR 1.012 [95%CI 1.002-1.021]; p = 0.014). After adjustment, EFT volume was still an independent predictor of CSF (OR 1.016 [95%CI 1.004-1.026]; p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Primary CSF was independently associated with increased EFT volume. Further studies are needed to validate this finding and elucidate whether a causal relationship exists.

Pacing Using Cardiac Implantable Electric Device During TAVR: 10-Year Experience of a High-Volume Center.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an effective and safe therapy for severe aortic stenosis. Rapid or fast pacing is required for implantation, which can be performed via a pre-existing cardiac implantable electric device (CIED). However, safety data on CIEDs for pacing in TAVR are missing. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to elucidate procedural safety and feasibility of internal pacing with a CIED in TAVR. METHODS: Patients undergoing TAVR with a CIED were included in this analysis. Baseline characteristics, procedural details, and complications according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) criteria after TAVR were compared between both groups. RESULTS: A total of 486 patients were included. Pacing was performed using a CIED in 150 patients and a transient pacemaker in 336 patients. No differences in technical success according to VARC-3 criteria or procedure duration occurred between the groups. The usage of transient pacers for pacing was associated with a significantly higher bleeding rate (bleeding type ≥2 according to VARC-3-criteria; 2.0% vs 13.1%; P < 0.01). Furthermore, impairment of the CIED appeared in 2.3% of patients after TAVR only in the group in which pacing was performed by a transient pacer, leading to surgical revision of the CIED in 1.3% of all patients when transient pacemakers were used. CONCLUSIONS: Internal pacing using a CIED is safe and feasible without differences of procedural time and technical success and might reduce bleeding rates. Furthermore, pacing using a CIED circumvents the risk of lead dislocation. Our data provide an urgent call for the use of a CIED for pacing during a TAVR procedure in general.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for pure aortic insufficiency in a patient following David-type aortic valve-sparing root replacement after aortic dissection-A successful off-label procedure.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has traditionally been indicated for the treatment of aortic stenosis. However, in this case report, we describe a successful TAVI procedure in a 46-year-old male patient who had previously undergone David aortic valve-sparing aortic root replacement for type 1 aortic dissection. The patient presented with aortic valve insufficiency 4 years after the initial surgery and was subsequently treated with a 34 mm Medtronic CoreValve Evolut R prosthesis via TAVI. This case highlights the feasibility of TAVI as a viable treatment option for postoperative aortic valve insufficiency in patients with prior ascending aortic or aortic arch surgery.

Three-year clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with bicuspid aortic disease: Comparison between self-expanding and balloon-expandable valves.

INTRODUCTION: Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis is a complex anatomical scenario for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Favorable short-term clinical outcomes have been reported with TAVI in this setting, but long-term data are scarce. METHODS: We retrospectively included, in a single-center registry, patients with BAV stenosis who underwent TAVI before 2020. We compared patients treated with self-expanding valves (SEV) versus balloon-expandable valves (BEV). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke and need for aortic valve (AV) reintervention at 3 years. Secondary endpoints included each component of the primary endpoint, cardiovascular mortality, permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rate, mean gradient and ≥moderate paravalvular leak (PVL) rate. RESULTS: A total of 150 consecutive patients (SEV = 83, BEV = 67) were included. No significant differences were reported between SEV and BEV groups for the primary composite endpoint (SEV 35.9% vs. BEV 32%, p = 0.66), neither for clinical secondary endpoints (all-cause mortality SEV 28.1% vs. BEV 28%, p = 0.988; cardiovascular mortality SEV 14.1% vs. BEV 20%, p = 0.399; stroke SEV 12.5% vs. BEV 6%, p = 0.342; need for AV reintervention SEV 0% vs. BEV 0%; PPI SEV 28.1% vs. BEV 24%, p = 0.620). A lower mean gradient persisted up to 3 years in the SEV group (SEV 8.8 ± 3.8 mmHg vs. BEV 10.7 ± 3.2 mmHg, p = 0.063), while no significant difference was found in the rate of ≥ moderate PVL (SEV 3/30 vs. BEV 0/25, p = 0.242). CONCLUSIONS: In this single center registry, we observed favorable 3-year clinical outcomes in nonselected BAV patients treated with different generation devices, without significant differences between patients receiving SEV or BEV.

Novel valve-in-surgical bioprosthetic transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Undermining iatrogenic coronary obstruction with radiofrequency needle (UNICORN).

An 86-year-old female with history of surgical aortic valve replacement presented with clinical signs of heart failure. Echocardiography revealed a reduction in left ventricular systolic function and severe bioprosthetic aortic valve dysfunction. This is the first reported case of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement with concomitant undermining iatrogenic coronary obstruction with radiofrequency needle procedure in a surgical bioprosthetic valve.

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.