Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with high-risk symptomatic native aortic regurgitation (ALIGN-AR): a prospective, multicentre, single-arm study.

BACKGROUND: Surgery remains the only recommended intervention for patients with native aortic regurgitation. A transcatheter therapy to treat patients at high risk for mortality and complications with surgical aortic valve replacement represents an unmet need. Commercial transcatheter heart valves in pure aortic regurgitation are hampered by unacceptable rates of embolisation and paravalvular regurgitation. The Trilogy transcatheter heart valve (JenaValve Technology, Irvine, CA, USA) provides a treatment option for these patients. We report outcomes with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with pure aortic regurgitation using this dedicated transcatheter heart valve. METHODS: The ALIGN-AR trial is a prospective, multicentre, single-arm study. We recruited symptomatic patients (aged ≥18 years) with moderate-to-severe or severe aortic regurgitation at high risk for mortality and complications after surgical aortic valve replacement at 20 US sites for treatment with the Trilogy transcatheter heart valve. The 30-day composite primary safety endpoint was compared for non-inferiority with a prespecified performance goal of 40·5%. The primary efficacy endpoint was 1-year all-cause mortality compared for non-inferiority with a performance goal of 25%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04415047, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between June 8, 2018, and Aug 29, 2022, we screened 346 patients. We excluded 166 (48%) patients and enrolled 180 (52%) patients with symptomatic aortic regurgitation deemed high risk by the heart team and independent screening committee assessments. The mean age of the study population was 75·5 years (SD 10·8), and 85 (47%) were female, 95 (53%) were male, and 131 (73%) were White. Technical success was achieved in 171 (95%) patients. At 30 days, four (2%) deaths, two (1%) disabling strokes, and two (1%) non-disabling strokes occurred. Using standard Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions, the primary safety endpoint was achieved, with events occurring in 48 (27% [97·5% CI 19·2-34·0]) patients (pnon-inferiority<0·0001), with new pacemaker implantation in 36 (24%) patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was achieved, with mortality in 14 (7·8% [3·3-12·3]) patients at 1 year (pnon-inferiority<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: This study shows the safety and effectiveness of treating native aortic regurgitation using a dedicated transcatheter heart valve to treat patients with symptomatic moderate-to-severe or severe aortic regurgitation who are at high risk for mortality or complications after surgical aortic valve replacement. The observed short-term clinical and haemodynamic outcomes are promising as are signs of left ventricular remodelling, but long-term follow-up is necessary. FUNDING: JenaValve Technology.

Percutaneous Carotid Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

We present a series of 2 high-risk surgical patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement via alternative access owing to unacceptable transfemoral options. Both patients underwent percutaneous transcarotid access with successful valve delivery and deployment without notable complication. To our knowledge, this approach has not been previously reported. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

Expert systematic review on the choice of conduits for coronary artery bypass grafting: endorsed by the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS).

PREAMBLE: The finalized document was endorsed by the EACTS Council and STS Executive Committee before being simultaneously published in the European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery (EJCTS) and The Annals of Thoracic Surgery (The Annals) and the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (JTCVS).

The MANTRA study: a new umbrella concept prospectively applied to assess implantable medical devices for heart valve procedures.

BACKGROUND: Clinical evidence is commonly obtained through individual trials that are time-, cost- and resource-consuming, and which often leave unanswered clinically relevant questions. Umbrella studies have been developed to address the need for more efficient and flexible trial structures, predominantly for cancer treatments. The umbrella concept foresees data collection within a unifying trial structure, to which one or more substudies may be added at any time to address product- or therapy-specific questions. To our knowledge, the umbrella concept has not yet been used in the medical device area, but it may offer similar advantages as in other settings, particularly in areas where multiple therapies are available within one large treatment area. METHODS: The MANTRA study (NCT05002543) is a prospective, global, post-marketing clinical follow-up study. The aim is to collect safety and device performance data covering the Corcym cardiac surgery portfolio for the treatment of aortic, mitral, and tricuspid valve diseases. The study uses a master protocol that outlines the main common parameters, and the specific questions are addressed in three substudies. The primary endpoints are device success at 30 days. Secondary endpoints include safety- and device performance-related data at 30 days, 1 year, and then annually through to 10 years. All endpoints are defined according to the more recent guidelines for heart valve procedures. Additionally, procedure and hospitalization information are collected, including Enhanced Recovery after Surgery in sites using such protocols, and patient outcome measures such as New York Heart Association classification and quality-of-life questionnaires. RESULTS: The study started in June 2021. Enrollment in all three substudies is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: The MANTRA study will provide contemporary information on the long-term outcomes of medical devices for the treatment of aortic, mitral, and tricuspid heart valve diseases in routine clinical practice. The umbrella approach adopted in the study has the potential of longitudinally assessing long-term efficacy of the devices and the flexibility to investigate new research questions as they arise.

Does valve size impact hemodynamic, left ventricular mass regression, and prosthetic valve deterioration with a sutureless aortic valve?

OBJECTIVE: To assess the mid-term clinical outcomes, hemodynamics, left ventricular (LV) mass regression, and structural valve deterioration (SVD) in patients implanted with the Perceval aortic sutureless valve across valve sizes. METHODS: Data were obtained from a multicenter European trial and a US Investigational Device Exemption trial. Echocardiography data were analyzed by an echocardiography core lab. A mixed-effects regression model was used to assess relationships between hemodynamic outcomes, time from the procedure, and valve sizes. The Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3 definition for bioprosthetic valve failure was applied. RESULTS: A Perceval sutureless valve was implanted in 970 patients. The median patient age was 77.8 years, 57.2% were female, the median Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicated risk of mortality was 3.3% (range, 2.1%-6.2%), and 33.4% had a concomitant procedure. The median clinical follow-up was 45.7 months (range, 28.2-76.1 months). Small and medium valves were implanted more commonly in women than in men (16.9% vs 1.9% for small and 55.1% vs 19.5% for medium; P < .001). The mean aortic valve gradients decreased significantly postimplantation and remained stable across all valve sizes throughout the follow-up period. All patients were free from severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (with an effective orifice area/m2 of >0.8). Significant LV mass regression was documented regardless valve sizes, plateaued at -9.1% at 5 years. Freedom from SVD and reintervention were 95.2% and 96.3%, respectively, at 5 years and were independent of implanted valve size (P = .22). The VARC-3 stage 3 bioprosthetic valve failure rate was low, 2.8% at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The Perceval valve demonstrated low and stable mean gradients, significant LV mass regression, and low SVD and reintervention rates across all valve sizes.

Pledgeted versus nonpledgeted sutures in aortic valve replacement: Insights from a prospective multicenter trial.

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare short- and midterm clinical and echocardiographic outcomes according to the use of pledgeted sutures during aortic valve replacement. Methods: Patients with aortic stenosis or regurgitation requiring aortic valve replacement were enrolled in a prospective cohort study to evaluate the safety of a new stented bioprosthesis. Outcomes were analyzed according to the use of pledgets (pledgeted group) or no pledgets (nonpledgeted group). The primary outcome was a composite of thromboembolism, endocarditis, and major paravalvular leak at 5 years of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included multiple clinical endpoints and hemodynamic outcomes. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for prognostic factors, and subanalyses with small valve sizes (<23 mm) and suturing techniques were performed. Results: The pledgeted group comprised 640 patients (59%), and the nonpledgeted group 442 (41%), with baseline discrepancies in demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and stenosis severity. There were no differences between groups in any outcome. After propensity score matching, the primary outcome occurred in 41 (11.7%) patients in the pledgeted and 36 (9.8%) in the nonpledgeted group (P = .51). The effective orifice area was smaller in the pledgeted group (P = .045), whereas no difference was observed for the mean or peak pressure gradient. Separate subanalyses with small valve sizes and suturing techniques did not show relevant differences. Conclusions: In this large propensity score-matched cohort, comprehensive clinical outcomes were comparable between patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with pledgeted and nonpledgeted sutures up to 5 years of follow-up, but pledgets might lead to a slightly smaller effective orifice area in the long run.

Minimally Invasive Versus Full Sternotomy for Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: Surgical aortic valve replacement can be performed through a minimally invasive (MI) or full sternotomy (FS) approach. The present study compared outcomes of MI vs FS for isolated surgery among patients enrolled in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) 3 low-risk trial. METHODS: Patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at low surgical risk with anatomy suitable for transfemoral access were eligible for PARTNER 3 enrollment. The primary outcome was the composite end point of death, stroke, or rehospitalization (valve-, procedure-, or heart failure-related) at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary end point as well as patient-reported health status at 30 days and 1 year. RESULTS: In the PARTNER 3 study, 358 patients underwent isolated valve replacement at 68 centers through an MI (n = 107) or FS (n = 251) approach (8 patients were converted from MI to FS). Mean age and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score were similar between groups. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the primary outcome was similar in the MI vs FS groups (16.9% vs 14.9%; hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.66-2.03; P = .618). There were no significant differences in the 1-year rates of all-cause death (2.8% vs 2.8%), all stroke (1.9% vs 3.6%), or rehospitalization (13.3% vs 10.6%, P > .05 for all). Quality of life, as assessed by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score at 30 days or 1 year, was comparable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: For patients at low risk for isolated surgery, MI and FS approaches were associated with similar in-hospital and 1-year outcomes.