Performance of Purpose-Built vs Off-Label Transcatheter Devices for Aortic Regurgitation: The PURPOSE Study.

BACKGROUND: Severe pure aortic regurgitation (AR) carries a high mortality and morbidity risk, and it is often undertreated because of the inherent surgical risk. Transcatheter heart valves (THVs) have been used off-label in this setting with overall suboptimal results. The dedicated "purpose-built" Jena Valve Trilogy (JVT, JenaValve Technology) showed an encouraging performance, although it has never been compared to other THVs. OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to assess the performance of the latest iteration of THVs used off-label in comparison to the purpose-built JVT in inoperable patients with severe AR. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective registry with 18 participating centers worldwide collecting data on inoperable patients with severe AR of the native valve. A bicuspid aortic valve was the main exclusion criterion. The primary endpoints were technical and device success, 1-year all-cause mortality, and the composite of 1-year mortality and the heart failure rehospitalization rate. RESULTS: Overall, 256 patients were enrolled. THVs used off-label were used in 168 cases (66%), whereas JVT was used in 88 (34%). JVT had higher technical (81% vs 98%; P < 0.001) and device success rates (73% vs 95%; P < 0.001), primarily driven by significantly lower incidences of THV embolization (15% vs 1.1%; P < 0.001), the need for a second valve (11% vs 1.1%; P = 0.004), and moderate residual AR (10% vs 1.1%; P = 0.007). The permanent pacemaker implantation rate was comparable and elevated for both groups (22% vs 24%; P = 0.70). Finally, no significant difference was observed at the 1-year follow-up in terms of mortality (HR: 0.99; P = 0.980) and the composite endpoint (HR: 1.5; P = 0.355). CONCLUSIONS: The JVT platform has a better acute performance than other THVs when used off-label for inoperable patients with severe AR. A longer follow-up is conceivably needed to detect a possible impact on prognosis.

Percutaneous repair of moderate-to-severe or severe functional mitral regurgitation in patients with symptomatic heart failure: Baseline characteristics of patients in the RESHAPE-HF2 trial and comparison to COAPT and MITRA-FR trials.

AIM: The RESHAPE-HF2 trial is designed to assess the efficacy and safety of the MitraClip device system for the treatment of clinically important functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) in patients with heart failure (HF). This report describes the baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in the RESHAPE-HF2 trial compared to those enrolled in the COAPT and MITRA-FR trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: The RESHAPE-HF2 study is an investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, multicentre trial including patients with symptomatic HF, a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) between 20% and 50% with moderate-to-severe or severe FMR, for whom isolated mitral valve surgery was not recommended. Patients were randomized 1:1 to a strategy of delivering or withholding MitraClip. Of 506 patients randomized, the mean age of the patients was 70 ± 10 years, and 99 of them (20%) were women. The median EuroSCORE II was 5.3 (2.8-9.0) and median plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) was 2745 (1407-5385) pg/ml. Most patients were prescribed beta-blockers (96%), diuretics (96%), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (82%) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (82%). The use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors was rare (7%). Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices had been previously implanted in 29% of patients. Mean LVEF, left ventricular end-diastolic volume and effective regurgitant orifice area (EROA) were 31 ± 8%, 211 ± 76 ml and 0.25 ± 0.08 cm2, respectively, whereas 44% of patients had mitral regurgitation severity of grade 4+. Compared to patients enrolled in COAPT and MITRA-FR, those enrolled in RESHAPE-HF2 were less likely to have mitral regurgitation grade 4+ and, on average, HAD lower EROA, and plasma NT-proBNP and higher estimated glomerular filtration rate, but otherwise had similar age, comorbidities, CRT therapy and LVEF. CONCLUSION: Patients enrolled in RESHAPE-HF2 represent a third distinct population where MitraClip was tested in, that is one mainly comprising of patients with moderate-to-severe FMR instead of only severe FMR, as enrolled in the COAPT and MITRA-FR trials. The results of RESHAPE-HF2 will provide crucial insights regarding broader application of the transcatheter edge-to-edge repair procedure in clinical practice.

Guideline-endorsed follow-up after percutaneous valve therapies-non-attendance of TAVI and MitraClip patients.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous valve therapies (PVT) are performed on a large number of patients. With increasing procedural volume, the need for follow-up has also increased. Follow-up in the heart valve clinic is endorsed by recent guidelines but utilization is unknown, making resource allocation in the clinic difficult. Central follow-up in valve centers may not be feasible for all patients in the future. METHODS: In our center, follow-up for PVT patients is scheduled at 1 month and 12 months after the index procedure. Patients are reminded of their appointment by invitation letters or phone calls. We analyzed 150 consecutive patients who underwent transcutaneous aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and MitraClip implantation (n = 300) at our center. RESULTS: At 1 month, 72.7% of patients attended their follow-up, while at 12 months the rate dropped to 58%. Patients who underwent TAVI were older than the MitraClip patients (82.7 vs. 76.1 years) but had lower mean logEuroSCORE (22.6% vs. 25.9%). There was no significant difference in 1­year mortality between TAVI and MitraClip patients (20% vs. 17.3%). By contrast, the rate of missed follow-up visits was higher for TAVI compared to MitraClip patients (52% vs. 33.3%; p = 0.002). Female patients less frequently attended follow-up (p = 0.005), whereas age, EuroSCORE, NYHA class, ejection fraction, and health status (EQ-5DVAS) were not predictors of attendance in multivariable analysis. Although the result of the EQ-5D assessment was not associated with mortality or attendance, completing the questionnaire was associated with overall survival (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In our heart valve clinic, we observed a high percentage of missed follow-up appointments (42% at 12 months) despite a structured follow-up plan. Factors significantly associated with non-attendance in multivariable analysis were female gender and having a TAVI rather than MitraClip. Future follow-up concepts should take such findings into account, and decentralized approaches need to be explored.

Outcomes of COMBO therapy for severe mitral regurgitation compared with transcatheter edge-to-edge repair.

Background: There are different types of transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) currently in clinical use, including leaflet approximation, annular cinching, and restoration of the chordal apparatus of the mitral valve (MV). While the concomitant combination (COMBO) therapy of mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (M-TEER) with another TMVr concept has been proven feasible, potentially offering patient-tailored treatment for severe mitral regurgitation (MR), a comparison with M-TEER alone has not been made. Aims: To evaluate the procedural and clinical outcome of COMBO therapies compared with M-TEER alone. Methods: We included consecutive patients undergoing COMBO and M-TEER between March 2015 and April 2018 at our Heart Valve Center, while excluding patients presenting a case of redo or with previous MV surgery. Procedural outcomes and all-cause mortality were compared between COMBO therapy vs. M-TEER alone. Results: A total of 357 patients (mean age 78.9 ± 7.0 years, 53.2% male, M-TEER n = 322, COMBO n = 35; COMBO: MitraClip and the Carillon mitral contour system n = 26, MitraClip and Cardioband n = 5, and MitraClip and NeoChord n = 4) were analyzed. Patients with COMBO therapy had larger left chamber sizes, a lower left ventricular systolic ejection fraction (LVEF; COMBO: 37.4 ± 13.8%, M-TEER: 47.9 ± 14.3%, p < 0.001), and a more severe MR grade (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the prevalence of residual MR ≧2+. However, the need for re-intervention, always employing M-TEER, was more common in the COMBO group. During a mean 3.6-year long-term follow-up, there was no significant difference of all-cause mortality between both groups (Log rank p = 0.921). Conclusions: COMBO therapy may still be a beneficial therapy option for patients with severe MR who already have a more dilated left ventricle (LV), a more severe MR, and a more pronounced LV systolic dysfunction. The higher need for re-intervention in the COMBO group may signal more complex anatomies and possibly underlines the necessity of treating significant MR earlier. Future research is required to establish the COMBO approach as a toolbox-like treatment option, thus offering a patient-tailored approach depending on the individual anatomy and pathology.

3-Dimensional CT Planning for TAVR With a Novel Self-Expandable Valve in a Calcified Anatomy.

Recently, a novel transfemoral self-expandable valve (JenaValve Trilogy) was granted a CE mark as a dedicated device for transfemoral treatment of both aortic valve stenosis and regurgitation. Here, we highlight the importance of 3-dimensional preprocedural planning for the optimal choice of a prosthesis in challenging anatomies by reporting an unusual case of a heavily calcified aortic sinus.