Temporal Trends, Characteristics, and Outcomes of Infective Endocarditis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND: Procedural improvements combined with the contemporary clinical profile of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may have influenced the incidence and outcomes of infective endocarditis (IE) following TAVR. We aimed to determine the temporal trends, characteristics, and outcomes of IE post-TAVR. METHODS: Observational study including 552 patients presenting definite IE post-TAVR. Patients were divided in 2 groups according to the timing of TAVR (historical cohort [HC]: before 2014; contemporary cohort [CC]: after 2014). RESULTS: Overall incidence rates of IE were similar in both cohorts (CC vs HC: 5.45 vs 6.52 per 1000 person-years; P = .12), but the rate of early IE was lower in the CC (2.29‰ vs 4.89‰, P < .001). Enterococci were the most frequent microorganism. Most patients presented complicated IE (CC: 67.7%; HC: 69.6%; P = .66), but the rate of surgical treatment remained low (CC: 20.7%; HC: 17.3%; P = .32). The CC exhibited lower rates of in-hospital acute kidney injury (35.1% vs 44.6%; P = .036) and in-hospital (26.6% vs 36.4%; P = .016) and 1-year (37.8% vs 53.5%; P < .001) mortality. Higher logistic EuroScore, Staphylococcus aureus etiology, and complications (stroke, heart failure, and acute renal failure) were associated with in-hospital mortality in multivariable analyses (P < .05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Although overall IE incidence has remained stable, the incidence of early IE has declined in recent years. The microorganism, high rate of complications, and very low rate of surgical treatment remained similar. In-hospital and 1-year mortality rates were high but progressively decreased over time.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Degenerated Transcatheter Aortic Valves: The TRANSIT International Project

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has determined a paradigm shift in the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis. However, the durability of bio prostheses is still a matter of concern, and little is known about the management of degenerated TAV. We sought to evaluate the outcomes of patients with a degenerated TAV treated by means of a second TAVR. METHODS: The TRANSIT is an international registry that included cases of degenerated TAVR from 28 centers. Among around 40 000 patients treated with TAVR in the participating centers, 172 underwent a second TAVR: 57 (33%) for a mainly stenotic degenerated TAV, 97 (56%) for a mainly regurgitant TAV, and 18 (11%) for a combined degeneration. Overall, the rate of New York Heart Association class III/IV at presentation was 73.5%. RESULTS: Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 device success rate was 79%, as a consequence of residual gradient (14%) or regurgitation (7%). At 1 month, the overall mortality rate was 2.9%, while rates of new hospitalization and New York Heart Association class III/IV were 3.6% and 7%, respectively, without significant difference across the groups. At 1 year, the overall mortality rate was 10%, while rates of new hospitalization and New York Heart Association class III/IV were 7.6% and 5.8%, respectively, without significant difference across the groups. No cases of valve thrombosis were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: Selected patients with a degenerated TAV may be safely and successfully treated by means of a second TAVR. This finding is of crucial importance for the adoption of the TAVR technology in a lower risk and younger population.

Balloon-expandable or self-expandable valves in valve-in valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation?

BACKGROUND Bioprosthetic valves are increasingly implanted in patients with aortic valve stenosis. These valves have a limited durability. Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implanta tion (TAVI) is a treatment option for bioprosthetic valve failure. Both balloon-expandable (BE) and self-expandable (SE) valves are widely used in ViV-TAVI procedures. However, studies comparing outcomes between these fundamentally different valve designs in ViV-TAVI are lacking. METHODS The CENTER study is a patient pooled analysis, comprising data of 12,381 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI in 6 countries. We assessed differences in clinical outcomes between SE and BE valves in ViV-TAVI patients, as defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium. RESULTS A total of 256 patients were treated with transfemoral ViV TAVI. Of these, 50% were female, median age was 82 (IQR: 78-85) years, and median STS-PROM was 6.3% (IQR: 4.0%-10.4%). SE valves were used in 162 patients (63%) and BE valves in 94 (37%) patients. SE and BE valve recipients were similar regarding female sex (53% vs 47%; P » 0.38), age (82 years [78-85] vs 81 [78-84]; P » 0.24), and STS PROM (6.5% [4.2%-10.2%] vs 6.2% [4.0%-10.9%]; P » 1.00). Third generation valves were used in 91 (56%) of SE valves and in 40 (43%) of BE valves. There was a trend towards lower 30-day mortality in SE valve patients (3% vs 7%; RR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.11-1.26; P » 0.10). In addition, 30-day major bleeding was less frequent in SE valve patients (3% vs 13%; RR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.09-0.79; P » 0.01). Rates of conversion to surgery (1% vs 0; P » 0.44) and device success were similar (90% vs 92%; P » 0.62). Moreover, 30-day rates of stroke (1.9% vs 4.6%; P » 0.22), myocardial infarction (0.7% vs 1.8%; P » 0.46), and permanent pacemaker implantation (9.3% vs 7.9%; P » 0.70) were similar. There was no difference in 1-year mortality (12.5% vs 17.6%; P » 0.32) and stroke rates (3.7% vs 7.4%; P » 0.25). CONCLUSION There was a trend toward lower 30-day mortality in ViV-TAVI patients treated with SE valves. Moreover, the use of SE valves in ViV-TAVI was associated with lower rates of major bleeding than BE valves. Our findings warrant randomized controlled trials directly comparing SE and BE valves in ViV-TAVI patients.

Atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation is associated with increased mortality

BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in patients with aortic valve stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implanta tion (TAVI). We compared clinical outcomes between TAVI patients with baseline AF versus TAVI patients without AF. METHODS The CENTER study is an international collaboration including 12,381 patients treated with transfemoral TAVI. This pooled analysis consists of patient level data from 10 different studies. End points were stroke and mortality rates at 30 days and 1 year after TAVI as defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium. RESULTS Of the 12,381 patients, 58% were female, the mean age was 81.5 7.0 years, and the median logistic EuroSCORE was 14.4% (9.0%- 23.0%). A total of 3,354 patients (27%) had known baseline AF. In patients with AF, there was a trend toward higher in-hospital mor tality (5.3% vs 3.5%; relative risk [RR]: 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.99-1.41; P » 0.06). Moreover, 30-day mortality (7.1% vs 5.3%; RR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.16-1.59; P < 0.001) as well as 1-year mortality (20.8% vs 15.3%; RR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.23-1.52; P < 0.001) was higher in AF patients. In contrast, stroke rates were comparable in patients with versus without AF during hospital admission (2.2% vs 2.0%, P » 0.60), at 30 days (2.9% vs 2.4%, P » 0.18), and 1 year after TAVI (5.3% vs 5.1%, P » 0.75). Also, 30-day rates of myocardial infarction (0.8% vs 1.0%, P » 0.38) and major bleeding (7.6% vs 7.3%, P » 0.53) were similar between both patient groups. However, permanent pace makers were more frequently implanted in AF patients (14.8% vs 13.4%; RR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.00-1.23; P » 0.05). CONCLUSION In this global study of >12,000 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI, AF was associated with higher 30-day and 1-year mortality. Moreover, patients with AF more frequently required a permanent pacemaker. Although AF is a common condition in pa tients undergoing TAVI, it is undoubtedly not a benign arrhythmia. Therefore, our results underscore the evident need for further research in treatment options for patients with AF undergoing TAVI.

Quantitative Assessment of Acute Regurgitation Following TAVR: A Multicenter Pooled Analysis of 2,258 Valves.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess acute regurgitation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement, comparing different implanted transcatheter heart valves. BACKGROUND: Regurgitation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement influences all-cause mortality. Thus far, no quantitative comparison of regurgitation among multiple commercially available transcatheter heart valves has been performed. METHODS: Aortograms from a multicenter cohort of consecutive 3,976 transcatheter aortic valve replacements were evaluated in this pooled analysis. A total of 2,258 (58.3%) were considered analyzable by an independent academic core laboratory using video densitometry. Results of quantitative regurgitation are shown as percentages. The valves evaluated were the ACURATE (n = 115), Centera (n = 11), CoreValve (n = 532), Direct Flow Medical (n = 21), Evolut PRO (n = 95), Evolut R (n = 295), Inovare (n = 4), Lotus (n = 546), Lotus Edge (n = 3), SAPIEN XT (n = 239), and SAPIEN 3 (n = 397). For the main analysis, only valves with more than 50 procedures (7 types) were used. RESULTS: The Lotus valve had the lowest mean regurgitation (3.5 ± 4.4%), followed by Evolut PRO (7.4 ± 6.5%), SAPIEN 3 (7.6 ± 7.1%), Evolut R (7.9 ± 7.4%), SAPIEN XT (8.8 ± 7.5%), ACURATE (9.6 ± 9.2%) and CoreValve (13.7 ± 10.7%) (analysis of variance p < 0.001). The only valves that statistically differed from all their counterparts were Lotus (as the lowest regurgitation) and CoreValve (the highest). The proportion of patients presenting with moderate or severe regurgitation followed the same ranking order: Lotus (2.2%), Evolut PRO (5.3%), SAPIEN 3 (8.3%), Evolut R (8.8%), SAPIEN XT (10.9%), ACURATE (11.3%), and CoreValve (30.1%) (chi-square p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this pooled analysis stemming from daily clinical practice, the Lotus valve was shown to have the best immediate sealing. This analysis reflects the objective evaluation of regurgitation by an academic core laboratory (nonsponsored) in a real-world cohort of patients using a quantitative technique.

Infective endocarditis following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: comparison of balloon- versus self-expandable valves

BACKGROUND: No data exist about the characteristics of infective endocarditis (IE) post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) according to transcatheter valve type. We aimed to determine the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients with IE post-TAVR treated with balloon-expandable valve (BEV) versus self-expanding valve (SEV) systems. METHODS: Data from the multicenter Infectious Endocarditis After TAVR International Registry was used to compare IE patients with BEV versus SEV. RESULTS: A total of 245 patients with IE post-TAVR were included (SEV, 47%; BEV, 53%). The timing between TAVR and IE was similar between groups (SEV, 5.5 [1.2-15] months versus BEV, 5.3 [1.7-11.4] months; P=0.89). Enterococcal IE was more frequent in the SEV group (36.5% versus 15.4%; P<0.01), and vegetation location differed according to valve type (stent frame, SEV, 18.6%; BEV, 6.9%; P=0.01; valve leaflet, SEV, 23.9%; BEV, 38.5%; P=0.01). BEV recipients had a higher rate of stroke/systemic embolism (20.0% versus 8.7%, adjusted OR: 2.46, 95% CI: 1.04-5.82, P=0.04). Surgical explant of the transcatheter valve (SEV, 8.7%; BEV, 13.8%; P=0.21), and in-hospital death at the time of IE episode (SEV, 35.6%; BEV, 37.7%; P=0.74) were similar between groups. After a mean follow-up of 13±12 months, 59.1% and 54.6% of the SEV and BEV recipients, respectively, had died (P=0.66). CONCLUSIONS: The characteristics of IE post-TAVR, including microorganism type, vegetation location, and embolic complications but not early or late mortality, differed according to valve type. These results may help to guide the diagnosis and management of IE and inform future research studies in the field. (AU)

Current generation balloon-expandable transcatheter valve positioning strategies during aortic valve-in-valve procedures and clinical outcomes

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate SAPIEN 3 (S3) (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) positioning using different strategies. BACKGROUND: Aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) is associated with high risk of elevated gradients. METHODS: S3 aortic ViV procedures in stented bioprostheses were studied. Transcatheter heart valve (THV) positioning was analyzed in a centralized core lab blinded to clinical outcomes. A combined endpoint of severely elevated mean gradient ($30 mm Hg) or pacemaker need was established. Two positioning strategies were compared: central marker method and top of S3 method. Optimal final depth was defined as S3 depth #20%. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients met inclusion criteria and were analyzed (76.5 _ 9.7 years of age, 65.8% male, STS score 8 _ 7.6%). THVs had incomplete shortening in comparison to fully expanded valves (92 _ 3.4%), and expansion was more complete in optimal positioning cases compared with others (93.2 _ 2.7% vs. 91.5 _ 3.5%; p » 0.027). The central marker method demonstrated greater correlation with final implantation depth than the top of S3 method (R2 of 0.48 and 0.14; p < 0.001 and p » 0.001, respectively). The combined endpoint rate was 4.3% in the optimal (higher than 3 mm) implantation group, 12% in the intermediate group, and 50% in the low group (p < 0.001). There were no cases of THV embolization. In cases with central marker higher than 3 mm, 72.4% had optimal final depth. In those with central marker higher than 6 mm, 90% had optimal final depth. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal S3 positioning in aortic ViV is associated with better outcomes. Central marker positioning is more reliable than top of S3 positioning. Central marker bottom position should be 3 mm to 6 mm above the ring. (AU)

Comparison of balloon-expandable vs. self-expandable valves in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation: from the CENTER-collaboration

AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with balloon-expandable (BE) valves vs. self-expandable (SE) valves. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is a minimally invasive and lifesaving treatment in patients with aortic valve stenosis. Even though BE-valves and SE-valves are both commonly used on a large scale, adequately sized trials comparing clinical outcomes in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis treated with BE-valves compared with SE-valves are lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this CENTER-collaboration, data from 10 registries or clinical trials, selected through a systematic search, were pooled and analyzed. Propensity score methodology was used to reduce treatment selection bias and potential confounding. The primary endpoints were mortality and stroke at 30 days follow-up in patients treated with BE-valves compared with SE-valves. Secondary endpoints included clinical outcomes, e.g. bleeding during hospital admission. All outcomes were split for early-generation BE-valves compared with early-generation SE-valves and new-generation BE-valves with new-generation SE-valves. The overall patient population (N = 12 381) included 6239 patients undergoing TAVI with BE-valves and 6142 patients with SE-valves. The propensity matched population had a mean age of 81 ± 7 years and a median STS-PROM score or 6.5% [interquartile range (IQR) 4.0-13.0%]. At 30-day follow-up, the mortality rate was not statistically different in patients undergoing TAVI with BE-valves compared with SE-valves [BE: 5.3% vs. SE: 6.2%, relative risk (RR) 0.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7-1.0, P = 0.10]. Stroke occurred less frequently in patients treated with BE-valves (BE: 1.9% vs. SE: 2.6%, RR 0.7; 95% CI 0.5-1.0, P = 0.03). Also, patients treated with BE-valves had a three-fold lower risk of requiring pacemaker implantation (BE: 7.8% vs. SE: 20.3%, RR 0.4; 95% CI 0.3-0.4, P < 0.001). In contrast, patients treated with new-generation BE-valves more frequently experienced major and life-threatening bleedings compared with new-generation SE-valves (BE: 4.8% vs. SE: 2.1%, RR 2.3; 95% CI 1.6-3.3, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this study, which is the largest study to compare valve types in TAVI, we demonstrated that the incidence of stroke and pacemaker implantation was lower in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI with BE-valves compared with SE-valves. In contrast, patients treated with new-generation BE-valves more often suffered from major or life-threatening bleedings than patients with new-generation SE-valves. Mortality at 30-days was not statistically different in patients treated with BE-valves compared with SE-valves. This study was a propensity-matched analysis generated from observational data, accordingly current outcomes will have to be confirmed in a large scale randomized controlled trial. (AU)

Association between transcatheter aortic valve replacement and subsequent infective endocarditis and in-hospital death

IMPORTANCE: Limited data exist on clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients who had infective endocarditis after undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). OBJECTIVE: To determine the associated factors, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients who had infective endocarditis after TAVR. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Infectious Endocarditis after TAVR International Registry included patients with definite infective endocarditis after TAVR from 47 centers from Europe, North America, and South America between June 2005 and October 2015. EXPOSURE: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for incidence of infective endocarditis and infective endocarditis for in-hospital mortality. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Infective endocarditis and in-hospital mortality after infective endocarditis. RESULTS: A total of 250 cases of infective endocarditis occurred in 20 006 patients after TAVR (incidence, 1.1% per person-year; 95% CI, 1.1%-1.4%; median age, 80 years; 64% men). Median time from TAVR to infective endocarditis was 5.3 months (interquartile range [IQR], 1.5-13.4 months). The characteristics associated with higher risk of progressing to infective endocarditis after TAVR was younger age (78.9 years vs 81.8 years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.97 per year; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99), male sex (62.0% vs 49.7%; HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13-2.52), diabetes mellitus (41.7% vs 30.0%; HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.29), and moderate to severe aortic regurgitation (22.4% vs 14.7%; HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.28-3.28). Health care-associated infective endocarditis was present in 52.8% (95% CI, 46.6%-59.0%) of patients...