Treatment of late paravalvular regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: prognostic implications.

AIMS: Paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The effect of transcatheter interventions to treat PVR after the index TAVI was investigated. METHODS AND RESULTS: A registry of consecutive patients who underwent transcatheter intervention for ≥ moderate PVR after the index TAVI at 22 centers. The principal outcomes were residual aortic regurgitation (AR) and mortality at 1 year after PVR treatment. A total of 201 patients were identified: 87 (43%) underwent redo-TAVI, 79 (39%) plug closure, and 35 (18%) balloon valvuloplasty. Median TAVI-to-re-intervention time was 207 (35; 765) days. The failed valve was self-expanding in 129 (63.9%) patients. The most frequent devices utilized were a Sapien 3 valve for redo-TAVI (55, 64%), an AVP II as plug (33, 42%), and a True balloon for valvuloplasty (20, 56%). At 30 days, AR ≥ moderate persisted in 33 (17.4%) patients: 8 (9.9%) after redo-TAVI, 18 (25.9%) after plug, and 7 (21.9%) after valvuloplasty (P = 0.036). Overall mortality was 10 (5.0%) at 30 days and 29 (14.4%) at 1 year: 0, 8 (10.1%), and 2 (5.7%) at 30 days (P = 0.010) and 11 (12.6%), 14 (17.7%), and 4 (11.4%) at 1 year (P = 0.418), after redo-TAVI, plug, and valvuloplasty, respectively. Regardless of treatment strategy, patients in whom AR was reduced to ≤ mild had lower mortality at 1 year compared with those with AR persisting ≥ moderate [11 (8.0%) vs. 6 (21.4%); P = 0.007]. CONCLUSION: This study describes the efficacy of transcatheter treatments for PVR after TAVI. Patients in whom PVR was successfully reduced had better prognosis. The selection of patients and the optimal PVR treatment modality require further investigation.

Outcomes of Redo Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement According to the Initial and Subsequent Valve Type.

BACKGROUND: As transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) replacement is increasingly used in patients with longer life expectancy, a sizable proportion will require redo TAV replacement (TAVR). The unique configuration of balloon-expandable TAV (bTAV) vs a self-expanding TAV (sTAV) potentially affects TAV-in-TAV outcome. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to better inform prosthesis selection, TAV-in-TAV outcomes were assessed according to the type of initial and subsequent TAV. METHODS: Patients from the Redo-TAVR registry were analyzed using propensity weighting according to their initial valve type (bTAV [n = 115] vs sTAV [n = 106]) and subsequent valve type (bTAV [n = 130] vs sTAV [n = 91]). RESULTS: Patients with failed bTAVs presented later (vs sTAV) (4.9 ± 2.1 years vs 3.7 ± 2.3 years; P < 0.001), with smaller effective orifice area (1.0 ± 0.7 cm2 vs 1.3 ± 0.8 cm2; P = 0.018) and less frequent dominant regurgitation (16.2% vs 47.3%; P < 0.001). Mortality at 30 days was 2.3% (TAV-in-bTAV) vs 0% (TAV-in-sTAV) (P = 0.499) and 1.7% (bTAV-in-TAV) vs 1.0% (sTAV-in-TAV) (P = 0.612); procedural safety was 72.6% (TAV-in-bTAV) vs 71.2% (TAV-in-sTAV) (P = 0.817) and 73.2% (bTAV-in-TAV) vs 76.5% (sTAV-in-TAV) (P = 0.590). Device success was similar according to initial valve type but higher with subsequent sTAV vs bTAV (77.2% vs 64.3%; P = 0.045), primarily because of lower residual gradients (10.3 mm Hg [8.9-11.7 mm Hg] vs 15.2 mm Hg [13.2-17.1 mm Hg]; P < 0.001). Residual regurgitation (moderate or greater) was similar after bTAV-in-TAV and sTAV-in-TAV (5.7%) and nominally higher after TAV-in-bTAV (9.1%) vs TAV-in-sTAV (4.4%) (P = 0.176). CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients, no association was observed between TAV type and redo TAVR safety or mortality, yet subsequent sTAV was associated with higher device success because of lower redo gradients. These findings are preliminary, and more data are needed to guide valve choice for redo TAVR.

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation to treat aortic para-valvular regurgitation after TAVI.

BACKGROUND: Para-valvular regurgitation (PVR) after transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) implantation is associated with increased mortality. Redo-TAVI may be applied to treat PVR, yet with unknown efficacy. We thought to assess redo-TAVI efficacy in reducing PVR using the Redo-TAVI registry (45 centers; 600 TAV-in-TAV cases). METHODS: Patients were excluded if redo-TAVI was done urgently (N = 253), for isolated TAV stenosis (N = 107) or if regurgitation location at presentation remained undetermined (N = 123). The study group of patients with PVR (N = 70) were compared against patients with intra-valvular regurgitation (IVR) (N = 41). Echocardiographic examinations of 67 (60%) patients were reassessed in a core-lab for data accuracy validation. RESULTS: Core-lab examination validated the jet location in 66 (98.5%) patients. At 30 days, the rate of residual AR ≥ moderate was 7 (10%) in the PVR cohort vs. 1 (2.4%) in the IVR cohort, p = 0.137. The rate of procedural success was 53 (75.7%) vs. 33 (80.5%), p = 0.561; procedural safety 51 (72.8%) vs. 31 (75.6%), p = 0.727; and mortality 2 (2.9%) vs. 1 (2.4%), p = 0.896 at 30 days and 7 (18.6%) vs. 2 (11.5%), p = 0.671 at 1 year, respectively. Of patients with residual PVR ≥ moderate at 30 days, 5/7 occurred after implanting balloon-expandable in self-expanding TAV and 2/7 after balloon-expandable in balloon-expandable TAV. CONCLUSIONS: This study puts in perspective redo-TAVI efficacy and limitations to treat PVR after TAVI. Patient selection for this and other therapies for PVR needs further investigation.

Transcatheter Replacement of Transcatheter Versus Surgically Implanted Aortic Valve Bioprostheses.

BACKGROUND: Surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are now both used to treat aortic stenosis in patients in whom life expectancy may exceed valve durability. The choice of initial bioprosthesis should therefore consider the relative safety and efficacy of potential subsequent interventions. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare TAVR in failed transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) versus surgical aortic valves (SAVs). METHODS: Data were collected on 434 TAV-in-TAV and 624 TAV-in-SAV consecutive procedures performed at centers participating in the Redo-TAVR international registry. Propensity score matching was applied, and 330 matched (165:165) patients were analyzed. Principal endpoints were procedural success, procedural safety, and mortality at 30 days and 1 year. RESULTS: For TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV, procedural success was observed in 120 (72.7%) versus 103 (62.4%) patients (p = 0.045), driven by a numerically lower frequency of residual high valve gradient (p = 0.095), ectopic valve deployment (p = 0.081), coronary obstruction (p = 0.091), and conversion to open heart surgery (p = 0.082). Procedural safety was achieved in 116 (70.3%) versus 119 (72.1%) patients (p = 0.715). Mortality at 30 days was 5 (3%) after TAV-in-TAV and 7 (4.4%) after TAV-in-SAV (p = 0.570). At 1 year, mortality was 12 (11.9%) and 10 (10.2%), respectively (p = 0.633). Aortic valve area was larger (1.55 ± 0.5 cm2 vs. 1.37 ± 0.5 cm2; p = 0.040), and the mean residual gradient was lower (12.6 ± 5.2 mm Hg vs. 14.9 ± 5.2 mm Hg; p = 0.011) after TAV-in-TAV. The rate of moderate or greater residual aortic regurgitation was similar, but mild aortic regurgitation was more frequent after TAV-in-TAV (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: In propensity score-matched cohorts of TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV patients, TAV-in-TAV was associated with higher procedural success and similar procedural safety or mortality.

Repeat Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Transcatheter Prosthesis Dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) use is increasing in patients with longer life expectancy, yet robust data on the durability of transcatheter heart valves (THVs) are limited. Redo-TAVR may play a key strategy in treating patients in whom THVs fail. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to examine outcomes following redo-TAVR. METHODS: The Redo-TAVR registry collected data on consecutive patients who underwent redo-TAVR at 37 centers. Patients were classified as probable TAVR failure or probable THV failure if they presented within or beyond 1 year of their index TAVR, respectively. RESULTS: Among 63,876 TAVR procedures, 212 consecutive redo-TAVR procedures were identified (0.33%): 74 within and 138 beyond 1 year of the initial procedure. For these 2 groups, TAVR-to-redo-TAVR time was 68 (38 to 154) days and 5 (3 to 6) years. The indication for redo-TAVR was THV stenosis in 12 (16.2%) and 51 (37.0%) (p = 0.002) and regurgitation or combined stenosis-regurgitation in 62 (83.8%) and 86 (62.3%) (p = 0.028), respectively. Device success using VARC-2 criteria was achieved in 180 patients (85.1%); most failures were attributable to high residual gradients (14.1%) or regurgitation (8.9%). At 30-day and 1-year follow-up, residual gradients were 12.6 ± 7.5 mm Hg and 12.9 ± 9.0 mm Hg; valve area 1.63 ± 0.61 cm2 and 1.51 ± 0.57 cm2; and regurgitation ≤mild in 91% and 91%, respectively. Peri-procedural complication rates were low (3 stroke [1.4%], 7 valve malposition [3.3%], 2 coronary obstruction [0.9%], 20 new permanent pacemaker [9.6%], no mortality), and symptomatic improvement was substantial. Survival at 30 days was 94.6% and 98.5% (p = 0.101) and 83.6% and 88.3% (p = 0.335) at 1 year for patients presenting with early and late valve dysfunction, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Redo-TAVR is a relatively safe and effective option for selected patients with valve dysfunction after TAVR. These results are important for applicability of TAVR in patients with long life expectancy in whom THV durability may be a concern.