Transcarotid vascular access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: is choosing the left side always right?

BACKGROUND: The transcarotid (TC) vascular access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as the first-choice alternative to the transfemoral access, in patients unsuitable for the latter. The use of both the left and right common carotid arteries (CCAs) for TC-TAVI has been described, but the optimal side is subject to debate. We conducted this pilot study to compare the level of vessel tortuosity and plaque burden from either the left CCA to the aortic annulus, or the right CCA to the aortic annulus, considering them as surrogates for technical and procedural complexity. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent TC-TAVI between 2018 and 2021 in our institution were included. Using three-dimensional reconstruction, pre-TAVI neck and chest computed tomography angiography exams were reviewed to assess the tortuosity index (TI), sum of angles metric, as well as plaque burden, between each CCA and the aortic annulus. RESULTS: We included 46 patients who underwent TC-TAVI. No significant difference regarding the mean TIs between the left and right sides (respectively 1.20 and 1.19, p = 0.82), the mean sum of angles (left side: 396°, right side: 384°, p = 0.27), and arterial plaque burden (arterial plaque found in 30% of left CCAs and 45% of right CCAs, p = 0.19) was found. CONCLUSIONS: We found no convincing data favoring the use of one particular access side over the other one. The choice of the CCA side in TC-TAVI should to be made on a case-by-case basis, in a multidisciplinary fashion, and may also depend on the operators' experience.

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.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Coronary Protection Guided by Deep Learning and 3-Dimensional Printing.

OBJECTIVE: In this case report, the auxiliary role of deep learning and 3-dimensional printing technology in the perioperative period was discussed to guide transcatheter aortic valve replacement and coronary stent implantation simultaneously. CASE PRESENTATION: A 68-year-old man had shortness of breath and chest tightness, accompanied by paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, 2 weeks before presenting at our hospital. Echocardiography results obtained in the outpatient department showed severe aortic stenosis combined with regurgitation and pleural effusion. The patient was first treated with closed thoracic drainage. After 800 mL of pleural effusion was collected, the patient's symptoms were relieved and he was admitted to the hospital. Preoperative transthoracic echocardiography showed severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis combined with calcification and aortic regurgitation (mean pressure gradient, 42 mmHg). Preoperative computed tomography results showed a type I bicuspid aortic valve with severe eccentric calcification. The leaflet could be seen from the left coronary artery plane, which indicated an extremely high possibility of coronary obstruction. After preoperative imaging assessment, deep learning and 3-dimensional printing technology were used for evaluation and simulation. Guided transcatheter aortic valve replacement and a coronary stent implant were completed successfully. Postoperative digital subtraction angiography showed that the bioprosthesis and the chimney coronary stent were in ideal positions. Transesophageal echocardiography showed normal morphology without paravalvular regurgitation. CONCLUSION: The perioperative guidance of deep learning and 3-dimensional printing are of great help for surgical strategy formulation in patients with severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis with calcification and high-risk coronary obstruction.

Experience with the ACURATE neo and neo2 transcatheter aortic valves in Spain. The PRECISA (PRospective Evaluation Complementing Investigation with ACURATE devices) registry.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have documented a high rate of implantation success with the ACURATE neo2 valve, as well as a reduction in paravalvular leak (PVL) compared to its predecessor, the ACURATE neo. However, there are no studies that have reviewed and compared the long-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of these patients. AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the results of the ACURATE neo transcatheter aortic valve in a real-world context, and to compare the results of the outcomes of both generations of this device (ACURATE neo and ACURATE neo2), with a specific focus on procedural success, safety, and long-term effectiveness. METHODS: A prospective study including all consecutive patients treated with the ACURATE neo device in seven hospitals was conducted (Clinical Trials Identification Number: NCT03846557). The primary endpoint consisted of a composite of adverse events, including mortality, aortic insufficiency, and other procedural complications. As the second-generation device (ACURATE neo2) replaced the ACURATE neo during the study period, hemodynamic and clinical results before admission, at 30 days, and at 1 year of follow-up were compared between the two generations. RESULTS: A total of 296 patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the ACURATE device, with 178 patients receiving the ACURATE neo and 118 patients receiving the ACURATE neo2. In the overall population, the absence of device success occurred in 14.5%. The primary reason for the absence of device success was the presence of para-valvular regurgitation ≥ 2. There were no instances of coronary occlusions, valve embolization, annulus rupture, or procedural deaths. ACURATE neo2 was associated with a significantly higher device success rate (91.7% vs. 82%, p = 0.04), primarily due to a significantly lower rate of para-valvular regurgitation, which remained significant at 1 year. CONCLUSION: The use of ACURATE neo and neo2 transcatheter aortic valves is associated with satisfactory clinical results and an extremely low rate of complications. The ACURATE neo2 enables a significantly higher device success rate, primarily attributed to a significant reduction in the rate of PVL.

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.

A study of ChatGPT in facilitating Heart Team decisions on severe aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary Heart Teams (HTs) play a central role in the management of valvular heart diseases. However, the comprehensive evaluation of patients' data can be hindered by logistical challenges, which in turn may affect the care they receive. AIMS: This study aimed to explore the ability of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), to improve clinical decision-making and enhance the efficiency of HTs. METHODS: Data from patients with severe aortic stenosis presented at HT meetings were retrospectively analysed. A standardised multiple-choice questionnaire, with 14 key variables, was processed by the OpenAI Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT)-4. AI-generated decisions were then compared to those made by the HT. RESULTS: This study included 150 patients, with ChatGPT agreeing with the HT's decisions 77% of the time. The agreement rate varied depending on treatment modality: 90% for transcatheter valve implantation, 65% for surgical valve replacement, and 65% for medical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The use of LLMs offers promising opportunities to improve the HT decision-making process. This study showed that ChatGPT's decisions were consistent with those of the HT in a large proportion of cases. This technology could serve as a failsafe, highlighting potential areas of discrepancy when its decisions diverge from those of the HT. Further research is necessary to solidify our understanding of how AI can be integrated to enhance the decision-making processes of HTs.

A randomised multicentre study of angiography- versus physiologyguided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing TAVI: design and rationale of the FAITAVI trial.

The treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (AVS) eligible for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is not supported by clinical evidence, and the role of physiology over anatomy as well as the timing of coronary intervention are not defined. FAITAVI (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03360591) is a nationwide prospective, open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled study comparing the angiography-guided versus the physiology-guided coronary revascularisation strategy in patients with combined significant CAD and severe AVS undergoing TAVI. Significant CAD will be defined as coronary stenosis ≥50%, as assessed by visual estimation in vessels ≥2.5 mm. Physiology will be tested by fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). The study will be conducted at 15 sites in Italy. In the angiography arm, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) will be performed either before TAVI, during the TAVI procedure - before or after the valve implantation - or within 1 month±5 days of the valve implantation, left to the operator's decision. In the physiology arm, FFR and iFR will be performed before TAVI, and PCI will be indicated for FFR ≤0.80, otherwise the intervention will be deferred. In case of borderline values (0.81-0.85), FFR and iFR will be repeated after TAVI, with PCI performed when needed. With a sample size of 320 patients, the study is powered to evaluate the primary endpoint (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, major bleeding, or ischaemia-driven target vessel revascularisation). TAVI indication, strategy and medical treatment will be the same in both groups. After discharge, patients will be contacted at 1, 6, 12 and 24 months after the procedure to assess their general clinical status, and at 12 months for the occurrence of events included in the primary and secondary endpoints. FAITAVI is the first randomised clinical trial to investigate "optimal" percutaneous coronary intervention associated with TAVI in patients with severe AVS and CAD.

Continuous or interrupted pledgeted suture technique in stented bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: a comparison of in-hospital outcomes.

BACKGROUND: There is ambiguity in the literature regarding the continuous suture technique (CST) for aortic valve replacement (AVR). At our center, there has been a gradual shift towards CST over the interrupted pledgeted technique (IPT). This study aims at comparing outcomes for both techniques. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a single-center study of patients undergoing AVR between January 2011 and July 2020. Patients were divided into two groups: Continuous suture technique and interrupted pledget-reinforced sutures. The pre-operative and In-hospital clinical characteristics and echocardiographic hemodynamics (i.e. transvalvular gradients and paravalvular leakage) were compared between CST and IPT. RESULTS: We compared 791 patients with CST to 568 patients with IPT (median age: 73 and 74 years, respectively, p = 0.02). In CST there were 35% concomitant procedure vs. 31% in IPT (p = 0.16). Early mortality was 3.2% in CST versus 4.8% in IPT (p = 0.15), and a second cross-clamp due to a paravalvular-leak in 0.5% vs. 1.2%, respectively (p = 0.22). The CST was not associated with new-onset conduction-blocks mandating pacemaker implants(OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.54-2.14; P = 0.85). The postoperative gradients on echocardiography were lower in CST compared to IPT, especially in smaller annuli (peak gradients: 15.7mmHg vs. 20.5mmHg, in valve size < 23 mm, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The continuous suture technique was associated with lower postoperative gradients and shorter cross-clamp time compared to interrupted pledgeted technique. Differences in paravalvular leaks were non-significant, although slightly less in the continuous suture technique. There were no further differences in valve-related complications. Hence, continues suture technique is safe, with better hemodynamics compared to the interrupted pledgeted technique. This may be of clinical importance, especially in smaller size annular size.

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.

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).

Long-Term Impact of Cardiac Damage Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Extravalvular cardiac damage caused by aortic stenosis affects prognosis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The long-term impact of changes in cardiac damage in response to relief from mechanical obstruction has not been fully investigated. OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to investigate changes in cardiac damage early after TAVR and the prognostic impact of the cardiac damage classification after TAVR. METHODS: In this single-center observational study, patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR were retrospectively evaluated for cardiac damage before and after TAVR and classified into 5 stages of cardiac damage (0-4). RESULTS: Among 1,863 patients undergoing TAVR between January 2007 and June 2022, 56 patients (3.0%) were classified as stage 0, 225 (12.1%) as stage 1, 729 (39.1%) as stage 2, 388 (20.8%) as stage 3, and 465 (25.0%) as stage 4. Cardiac stage changed in 47.7% of patients (improved: 30.1% in stages 1-4 and deteriorated: 24.7% in stages 0-3) early after TAVR. Five-year all-cause mortality was associated with cardiac damage both at baseline (HRadjusted: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.24-1.44; P < 0.001 for linear trend) and after TAVR (HRadjusted: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.30-1.51; P < 0.001 for linear trend). Five-year all-cause mortality was stratified by changes in cardiac damage (improved, unchanged, or worsened) in patients with cardiac stage 2, 3, and 4 (log-rank P < 0.001 for stage 2, 0.005 for stage 3, and <0.001 for stage 4). CONCLUSIONS: The extent of extra-aortic valve cardiac damage before and after TAVR and changes in cardiac stage early after TAVR have important prognostic implications during long-term follow-up. (SwissTAVI Registry; NCT01368250).

Thrombocytopenia after sutureless and standard stented aortic valve replacement: a retrospective analysis of risk factors, clinical course, and early outcome.

OBJECTIVES: Thrombocytopenia following Perceval aortic valve replacement has been described previously with variable outcome. Studies have lacked a robust analysis of platelet fluctuation and factors affecting it. We aimed to statistically describe the trend in thrombocyte variability as compared with conventional aortic valve replacement, and to assess predictors as well as impact on associated outcomes. METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients with first-time Perceval were retrospectively compared to 219 patients after Perimount Magna Ease valve replacement. The primary outcome was the serial thrombocyte count on day 0-6. Generalized estimating equations were used to analyse the data using fixed-effect models: for the effect of the post-operative day on platelet count, and random-effect models estimating both time-variant (platelets) and time in-variant variables (valve type, age, LV function, pre-op platelet level). RESULTS: Perceval patients were older (72 ± 1 vs 68 ± 1 years, p < 0.01) with higher NYHA status (3(2-3) vs 2(1-2), p < 0.001). Mean platelet count in the sutureless group was lowest on day 2 (91.9 ± 31.6 vs 121.7 ± 53.8 × 103 µl-1), and lower on day 4 (97.9 ± 44) and 6 (110.6 ± 61) compared to the conventional group (157.2 ± 60 and 181.7 ± 79) but did not result in a higher number of transfusions, bleeding or longer hospital stay (p > 0.05). Reduced platelet count was a strong predictor of red cell transfusion in the conventional (p = 0.016), but not in the sutureless group (p = 0.457). Age (Coef -1.025, 95%CI-1.649--0.401, p < 0.001) and CPB-time (Coef 0.186, 95%CI-0.371--0.001, p = 0.048) were predictors for lower platelet levels. CONCLUSION: Considering the older patient profile treated with Perceval, postoperative thrombocytopenia does not impact on outcome in terms of transfusions, complications or hospital stay.

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.