Conduction disorders following transcatheter aortic valve replacement using acurate Neo2 transcatheter heart valve: A propensity matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: The ACURATE neo2 transcatheter aortic valve was developed to improve paravalvular leak (PVL) rates while maintaining low rates of conduction disturbances and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI) seen with its predecessor. We aimed to compare conduction disturbances rates of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using ACURATE Neo2 with other commonly used valves. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the Israeli TAVR registry between the years 2014-2023 was performed to compare conduction disturbances and PVL rates, and procedural outcomes, among patients treated with ACURATE neo2, Edwards Sapien 3 (S3), and Evolut PRO valves. Propensity score matching was performed to compare groups with similar characteristics. RESULTS: Following exclusion of patients with non-femoral access, unknown valve type, older-generation valves, and less commonly used valves or (n = 4387), our analysis included 3208 patients undergoing TAVR using ACURATE neo2, Edwards S3, and Evolut PRO valves. Propensity matched groups comprised 169 patients each. Rates of any conduction disturbances [left bundle branch block (LBBB), atrioventricular block, or PPMI] were lower in the ACURATE neo2 group compared to both other valves [15.8 %, S3-37.5 % (p < 0.001), Evolut PRO-27.5 % (p = 0.02)] as were LBBB rates [9.0 %, S3-31.3 % (p < 0.001); Evolut PRO-20.1 % (p = 0.01). Atrioventricular block and PPMI rates were lower without statistical significance, as were rates of above-moderate PVL. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, TAVR using ACURATE neo2 was associated with a lower composite rate of conduction disturbances in comparison to the Evolut PRO and Edwards S3 valves, mainly due to lower left bundle branch block rates, with non-significantly lower rates of PPMI and PVL.

Outcomes and predictors of left ventricle recovery in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: Data on the likelihood of left ventricle (LV) recovery in patients with severe LV dysfunction and severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and its prognostic value are limited. AIMS: We aimed to assess the likelihood of LV recovery following TAVI, examine its association with midterm mortality, and identify independent predictors of LV function. METHODS: In our multicentre registry of 17 TAVI centres in Western Europe and Israel, patients were stratified by baseline LV function (ejection fraction [EF] >/≤30%) and LV response: no LV recovery, LV recovery (EF increase ≥10%), and LV normalisation (EF ≥50% post-TAVI). RESULTS: Our analysis included 10,872 patients; baseline EF was ≤30% in 914 (8.4%) patients and >30% in 9,958 (91.6%) patients. The LV recovered in 544 (59.5%) patients, including 244 (26.7%) patients whose LV function normalised completely (EF >50%). Three-year mortality for patients without severe LV dysfunction at baseline was 29.4%. Compared to this, no LV recovery was associated with a significant increase in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.32; p<0.001). Patients with similar LV function post-TAVI had similar rates of 3-year mortality, regardless of their baseline LV function. Three variables were associated with a higher likelihood of LV recovery following TAVI: no previous myocardial infarction (MI), estimated glomerular filtration rate >60 mL/min, and mean aortic valve gradient (mAVG) (expressed either as a continuous variable or as a binary variable using the standard low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis [AS] definition). CONCLUSIONS: LV recovery following TAVI and the extent of this recovery are major determinants of midterm mortality in patients with severe AS and severe LV dysfunction undergoing TAVI. Patients with no previous MI and those with an mAVG >40 mmHg show the best results following TAVI, which are at least equivalent to those for patients without severe LV dysfunction. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04031274).

The Impact of Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices on Characteristics and Outcomes of Stroke Complicating TAVR.

BACKGROUND: Acute ischemic stroke remains a serious complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPD) were developed to mitigate the risk of acute ischemic stroke complicating TAVR (AISCT). However, the existing body of evidence does not clearly support CEPD efficacy in AISCT prevention. OBJECTIVES: In a cohort of patients with AISCT, we aimed to compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients who have had unprotected TAVR (CEPD-) vs CEPD-protected TAVR (CEPD+). METHODS: Data were derived from an international multicenter registry focusing on AISCT. We included all patients who experienced ischemic stroke within 72 hours of TAVR. Stroke severity was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). Primary outcomes were neurologic disability status according to the modified Rankin Score at 30 days, and 6-month all-cause death. Propensity score matched analysis was used to control for differences between groups. RESULTS: In 18,725 TAVR procedures, 416 AISCT (2.2%) within 72 hours were documented, of which 376 were in the CEPD- TAVR group and 40 in the CEPD+ TAVR group. Although the middle cerebral artery stroke rate was similar in both groups (29.7% CEPD- vs 33.3% CEPD+; P = 0.71), AISCT in the CEPD+ group was characterized by a lower rate of internal carotid artery occlusion (0% vs 4.7%) and higher rate of vertebrobasilar system strokes (15.4% vs 5.7%; P = 0.04). AISCT was severe (NIHSS ≥15) in 21.6% CEPD- and 23.3% CEPD+ AISCT (P = 0.20). Disabling stroke rates (modified Rankin Score >1 at 30 days) were 47.3% vs 42.5% (P = 0.62), and 6-month mortality was 31.3% vs 23.3% (P = 0.61), in the CEPD- and CEPD+ groups, respectively. In the propensity score matched cohort, disabling stroke rates were 56.5% vs 41.6% (P = 0.16), and 6-month mortality was 33% vs 19.5% (P = 0.35), in the CEPD- and CEPD+ groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of patients with AISCT, the use of CEPD had little effect on stroke distribution, severity, and outcomes.

Evaluation of coronary disease among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) is common among elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Current guidelines recommend performance of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of any > 70% proximal coronary lesions prior to TAVI. AIMS: To evaluate the outcomes of two diagnostic approaches for CCS clearance pre-TAVI and to determine the reduction in the need of invasive angiography (IA). METHODS: We investigated 2219 patients undergoing TAVI for severe aortic stenosis at two large centers with different pre-procedural strategies for CCS assessment: pre-TAVI computed tomography angiography (CTA) with selective invasive angiography according to CTA results or mandatory IA. We preformed propensity score matching analysis using a 1:1 ratio. The final study cohort included 870 matched patients. Peri-procedural complications were documented according to the VARC-2 criteria. Mortality rates were prospectively documented. RESULTS: Mean age of the study population was 82 ± 7, of whom 55% were female. Patients in the IA group had significantly higher rates of pre-TAVI PCI compared to the CTA group (39% vs. 22%, p < 0.001). Following TAVI, peri-procedural myocardial infarction (MI) rates were similar between the two groups (0.3% vs. 0.7%, p value = 0.41), but spontaneous MI were significantly lower among the IA group (0% vs. 1.3%, p value = 0.03). Kaplan-Meier's survival analysis found that the cumulative probability of 1-year morality was similar between the two groups (p value log rank = 0.65). Cox regression analysis did not find association between CCS clearance strategy and outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In elderly patients, CTA-driven approach for CCS evaluation pre-TAVI is a valid strategy with similar outcome as compared to invasive approach. CTA strategy significantly reduces invasive procedures rates without compromising patient's outcome.

Clinical and Hemodynamic Outcomes of Balloon-Expandable Mitral Valve-in-Valve Positioning and Asymmetric Deployment: The VIVID Registry.

BACKGROUND: Mitral valve-in-valve (ViV) is associated with suboptimal hemodynamics and rare left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine whether device position and asymmetry are associated with these outcomes. METHODS: Patients undergoing SAPIEN 3 (Edwards Lifesciences) mitral ViV included in the VIVID (Valve-in-Valve International Data) Registry were studied. Clinical endpoints are reported according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions. Residual mitral valve stenosis was defined as mean gradient ≥5 mm Hg. Depth of implantation (percentage of transcatheter heart valve [THV] atrial to the bioprosthesis ring) and asymmetry (ratio of 2 measures of THV height) were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 222 patients meeting the criteria for optimal core lab evaluation were studied (age 74 ± 11.6 years; 61.9% female; STS score = 8.3 ± 7.1). Mean asymmetry was 6.2% ± 4.4%. Mean depth of implantation was 19.0% ± 10.3% atrial. Residual stenosis was common (50%; mean gradient 5.0 ± 2.6 mm Hg). LVOT obstruction occurred in 7 cases (3.2%). Implantation depth was not a predictor of residual stenosis (OR: 1.19 [95% CI: 0.92-1.55]; P = 0.184), but more atrial implantation was protective against LVOT obstruction (0.7% vs 7.1%; P = 0.009; per 10% atrial, OR: 0.48 [95% CI: 0.24-0.98]; P = 0.044). Asymmetry was found to be an independent predictor of residual stenosis (per 10% increase, OR: 2.30 [95% CI: 1.10-4.82]; P = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Valve stenosis is common after mitral ViV. Asymmetry was associated with residual stenosis. Depth of implantation on its own was not associated with residual stenosis but was associated with LVOT obstruction. Technical considerations to reduce postdeployment THV asymmetry should be considered.

First-Phase Ejection Fraction and Long-Term Survival in Patients Who Underwent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Early recognition of deteriorating left ventricular function plays a key prognostic role in patients with aortic stenosis (AS). First-phase ejection fraction (EF1), the ejection fraction (EF) up to time of maximal contraction, has been suggested for detection of early left ventricular dysfunction in patients with AS with preserved EF. This work aims to evaluate the predictive value of EF1 for assessment of long-term survival in patients with symptomatic severe AS and preserved EF who undergo transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We included 102 consecutive patients (median age 84 years [interquartile range 80 to 86 years]) who underwent TAVI between 2009 and 2011. Patients were retrospectively stratified into tertiles by EF1. Device success and procedural complications were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria. Mortality data were retrieved from a computerized interface of the Israeli Ministry of Health. Baseline characteristics, co-morbidities, clinical presentation, and echocardiographic findings were similar among groups. The groups did not differ significantly regarding device success and in-hospital complications. During a potential follow-up period of >10 years, 88 patients died. Kaplan-Meier analysis (log-rank p = 0.017) followed by multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that EF1 predicted long-term mortality independently, either as continuous variable (hazard ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.07, p = 0.012) or for each decrease in tertile group (hazard ratio 1.40, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.86, p = 0.023). In conclusion, low EF1 is associated with a significant decrease in adjusted hazard for long-term survival in patients with preserved EF who undergo TAVI. Low EF1 might delineate a population at great risk who would benefit from prompt intervention.

Vascular Complications in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Plug-Based vs Suture-Based Closure Devices.

BACKGROUND: There are conflicting data regarding the efficacy and safety of suture vs plug-based vascular closure devices (VCDs) for large-bore catheter management in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We compared the rates of vascular complications (VCs) associated with 2 commonly used VCDs in a large cohort of patients undergoing TAVR. METHODS: We conducted a single-centre, all-comer, prospective registry study, enrolling patients undergoing TAVR for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) between the years 2009 and 2022. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients undergoing closure of the femoral access point using the MANTA VCD (M-VCD) (Teleflex, Wayne, PA) vs the ProGlide VCD (P-VCD) (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, IL). The main outcome measures were researcher adjudicated events of VARC-2 defined major and minor VCs. RESULTS: Overall, 2368 patients were enrolled in the registry; 1315 (51.0% male, 81.0 ± 7.0 years) patients were included in the current analysis. P-VCD was used in 813 patients, whereas M-VCD was used in 502 patients. In-hospital VCs were more frequent in the M-VCD vs the P-VCD group (17.3% vs 9.8%; P < 0.001). This outcome was mainly driven by elevated rates of minor VCs in the M-VCD group, whereas no significant difference was observed for major VCs (15.1% vs 8.4%; P < 0.001 and 2.2% vs 1.5%; P = 0.33, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TAVR for severe AS, M-VCD was associated with higher rates of VCs. This outcome was mainly driven by minor VCs. The rate of major VCs was low in both groups.

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.

Temporal Trends of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation over 12 Years: A High-Volume Single-Center Experience.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the mainstay of treatment for patients with severe AS. Since the TAVR population and patients' outcomes have dramatically changed over the last decade, updated data regarding contemporary practice and trends are pertinent to clinical use. We performed a retrospective observational analysis of consecutive patient who underwent TAVR for symptomatic severe AS between the years 2009 and 2021 in a single high-volume center. Patients were divided into four equal time groups based on the procedure date (2009−2012, 2013−2015, 2016−2018 and 2019−2021). A total of 1988 patients were included in this study and divided into four groups, with 321, 482, 565 and 620 patients in groups 1−4, respectively. Significant trends were seen in baseline characteristics of a few parameters, including lower age, lower procedural risk and reduced rates of comorbidity (p for trend < 0.0001 for all factors mentioned above). A shift was seen in the procedural technique with lower balloon pre-dilatation and higher device success rates (p for trend < 0.0001). The post-procedural period changed over the years with fewer pacemaker placements (p < 0.0001) and reduced rates of AKI and post-procedural bleed (p value 0.02 and <0.0001, respectively). Furthermore, overall hospital stay was shortened from 7 ± 7.1 days to 2.3 ± 1.7 (p < 0.0001). Finally, patient follow up revealed reduced mortality rates at 30 days (p < 0.0001) and 1 year (p = 0.013). Multivariate regression revealed that a late implantation date was an independent protector from mortality (HR 0.84, p = 0.002). In conclusion, our study demonstrated that TAVR has become a safer practice over the years with reduced rates of morbidity and mortality.

Management and Outcome of Acute Ischemic Stroke Complicating Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), periprocedural acute ischemic stroke remains a concern. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to investigate acute ischemic stroke complicating TAVR (AISCT) and to describe the indications and outcomes of interventions to treat AISCT. METHODS: An international multicenter registry was established focusing on AISCT within 30 days of TAVR. Stroke severity was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale. Primary outcomes were 1-year all-cause death and neurologic disability status at 90 days according to modified Rankin scale score. RESULTS: Of 16,615 TAVR procedures, 387 patients with AISCT were included (2.3%). Rates of 1-year death were 28.9%, 35.9%, and 77.5% in patients with mild, moderate, and severe stroke, respectively (P < 0.001). Although 348 patients were managed conservatively, 39 patients (10.1%) underwent neurointervention (NI) with either mechanical thrombectomy (n = 26) or thrombolytic therapy (n = 13). In a subanalysis excluding patients with mild stroke, there was no clear 1-year survival benefit for NI compared with conservative management (47.6% vs 41.1%, respectively; P = 0.78). In a logistic regression model controlling for stroke severity, NI was associated with 2.9-fold odds (95% CI: 1.2-7.0; P = 0.016) of independent survival at 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: AISCT carries significant morbidity and mortality, which is correlated with stroke severity. The present findings suggest that neurologic disability for patients with moderate or worse stroke could potentially be improved by timely intervention and highlight the importance of collaboration between cardiologists and neurologists to optimize AISCT outcomes.

Procedural and long-term outcome among patients undergoing expedited trans-catheter aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with rapidly deteriorating clinical status due to severe aortic stenosis are often referred for expedited transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Data regarding the outcome of such interventions is limited. We aimed to evaluate the outcome of patients undergoing expedited TAVR. DESIGN AND SETTING: Data were derived from the Israeli Multicenter Registry. SUBJECTS: Subjects were divided into two groups based on procedure urgency: patients who were electively hospitalized for the procedure (N = 3140) and those who had an expedited TAVR (N = 142). Procedural and periprocedural complication rates were significantly higher among patients with an expedited indication for TAVR compared to those having an elective procedure: valve malposition 4.6% versus 0.6% (p < 0.001), procedural cardiopulmonary resuscitation 4.3% versus 1.0% (p = 0.007), postprocedure myocardial infarction 2.0% versus 0.4% (p = 0.002), and stage 3 acute kidney injury 3.0% versus 1.1%, (p < 0.001). Patients with expedited indication for TAVR had significantly higher in hospital mortality (5.6% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.003). Kaplan-Meier's survival analysis showed that patients undergoing expedited TAVR had higher 3-year mortality rates compared to patients undergoing an elective TAVR procedure (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis found that patients with expedited indication had fourfolds increased risk of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio: 4.07, p = 0.001), and nearly twofolds increased risk of mortality at 3-year (hazard ratio: 1.69, p = 0.001) compared to those having an elective procedure. CONCLUSION: Patients with expedited indications for TAVR suffer from poor short- and long-term outcomes. It is important to characterize and identify these patients before the deterioration to perform TAVR in a fast-track pathway to minimize their procedural risk.

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.

Clinical Predictors for Procedural Stroke and Implications for Embolic Protection Devices during TAVR: Results from the Multicenter Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement In-Hospital Stroke (TASK) Study.

Background: Data to support the routine use of embolic protection devices for stroke prevention during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are controversial. Identifying patients at high risk for peri-procedural cerebrovascular events may facilitate effective patient selection for embolic protection devices during TAVR. Aim: To generate a risk score model for stratifying TAVR patients according to peri-procedural cerebrovascular events risk. Methods and results: A total of 8779 TAVR patients from 12 centers worldwide were included. Peri-procedural cerebrovascular events were defined as an ischemic stroke or a transient ischemic attack occurring ≤24 h from TAVR. The peri-procedural cerebrovascular events rate was 1.4% (n = 127), which was independently associated with 1-year mortality (hazards ratio (HR) 1.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06−2.98, p < 0.028). The TASK risk score parameters were history of stroke, use of a non-balloon expandable valve, chronic kidney disease, and peripheral vascular disease, and each parameter was assigned one point. Each one-point increment was associated with a significant increase in peri-procedural cerebrovascular events risk (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.56−2.45, p < 0.001). The TASK score was dichotomized into very-low, low, intermediate, and high (0, 1, 2, 3−4 points, respectively). The high-risk TASK score group (OR 5.4, 95% CI 2.06−14.16, p = 0.001) was associated with a significantly higher risk of peri-procedural cerebrovascular events compared with the low TASK score group. Conclusions: The proposed novel TASK risk score may assist in the pre-procedural risk stratification of TAVR patients for peri-procedural cerebrovascular events.

Does the use of polymer-free drug eluting stents improve clinical outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions?

BACKGROUND: Implantation of drug eluting stents (DES) is the mainstay treatment for patients requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The polymer coating of DES has been associated with inflammatory response, increased arterial injury and long-term in-stent restenosis and thrombosis. Polymer-free stents (PFS) were designed to overcome limitations of polymer-coated stents (PCS). Our aim was to compare clinical outcomes of patients undergoing PCI with PFS versus contemporary PCS. METHODS: This is a prospective, open-label registry study enrolling consecutive all-comers patients admitted to a single center and undergoing PCI using contemporary DES. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients treated with PFS and PCS. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 12 months. Subgroup analyses were conducted for diabetic and nondiabetic patients. RESULTS: Overall, 1664 patients were included: 928 (55.8%) of which were treated with PFS and 736 (44.2%) with PCS for 2046 and 1462 lesions, respectively. At 12 months, TLR rates were not significantly different between the groups (1.7% vs. 2.3% for PFS and PCS, respectively, P = 0.48). The use of PFS did not improve clinical outcomes among diabetic patients in comparison with PCS. Target vessel revascularization and major adverse cardiac events rates were also similar between groups, regardless of diabetes status. CONCLUSION: Newer generation DES offer excellent results in diabetic and nondiabetic patients without significant differences in outcomes between PCS and PFS.

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.

Local Anesthesia versus Conscious Sedation among Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation-A Propensity Score Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Conscious sedation (CS) has been used successfully to treat patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and as such is considered the standard anesthesia method. The local anesthesia (LA) only approach may be feasible and safe thanks to improvements in operators' experience. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences between LA only versus CS approaches on short- and long-term outcomes among patients undergoing TAVI. METHODS: We performed a propensity score analysis on 1096 patients undergoing TAVI for severe AS. Two hundred and seventy-four patients in the LA group were matched in a ratio of 1:3 with 822 patients in the CS group. The primary outcome was a 1-year mortality rate. Secondary outcomes included procedural and peri-procedural complication rates and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Patients in the CS group had significantly higher rates of grade 2-3 acute kidney injury and were more likely to have had new left bundle branch block and high-degree atrioventricular block. Patients who underwent TAVI under CS had significantly higher in-hospital and 1-year mortality rates compared to LA (1.6% vs. 0.0% p-value = 0.036 and 8.5% vs. 3.3% p-value = 0.004, respectively). Kaplan-Meier's survival analysis showed that the cumulative probability of 1-year mortality was significantly higher among subjects undergoing CS compared to patients LA (p-value log-rank = 0.024). Regression analysis indicated that patients undergoing CS were twice more likely to die of at 1-year when compared to patients under LA (HR 2.18, 95%CI 1.09-4.36, p-value = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: As compared to CS, the LA-only approach is associated with lower rates of peri-procedural complications and 1-year mortality rates.

Center Valve Preference and Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From the AMTRAC Registry.

BACKGROUND: Data on outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using balloon-expandable valves (BEVs) or self-expandable valves (SEVs) as well as the impact of center valve preference on these outcomes are limited. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of TAVR procedures using third-generation BEVs and SEVs stratified by center valve preference. METHODS: In a multicenter registry (n = 17), 13 centers exhibited valve preference (66.6%-90% of volume) and were included. Outcomes were compared between BEVs and SEVs stratified by center valve preference. RESULTS: In total, 7,528 TAVR procedures (3,854 with SEVs and 3,674 with BEVs) were included. The mean age was 81 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 5.2. Baseline characteristics were similar between BEVs and SEVs. Need for pacemaker implantation was higher with SEVs at BEV- and SEV-dominant centers (17.8% vs 9.3% [P < 0.001] and 12.7% vs 10.0% [P = 0.036], respectively; HR: 1.51; P for interaction = 0.021), risk for cerebrovascular accident was higher with SEVs at BEV-dominant but not SEV-dominant centers (3.6% vs 1.1% [P < 0.001] and 2.2% vs 1.4% [P = 0.162]; HR: 2.08; P for interaction < 0.01). Aortic regurgitation greater than mild was more frequent with SEVs at BEV-dominant centers and similar with BEVs regardless of center dominance (5.2% vs 2.8% [P < 0.001] and 3.4% vs 3.7% [P = 0.504], respectively). Two-year mortality was higher with SEVs at BEV-dominant centers but not at SEV-dominant centers (21.9% vs 16.9% [P = 0.021] and 16.8% vs 16.5% [P = 0.642], respectively; HR: 1.20; P for interaction = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: Periprocedural outcomes, aortic regurgitation greater than mild, and 2-year mortality are worse when TAVR is performed using SEVs at BEV-dominant centers. Outcomes are similar regardless of valve type at SEV-dominant centers. The present results stress the need to account for this factor when comparing BEV and SEV outcomes. (The Aortic+Mitral Transcatheter [AMTRAC] Valve Registry; NCT04031274).

Generational Differences in Outcomes of Self-Expanding Valves for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: The Medtronic Evolut Pro valve (EPV) is a new-generation self-expanding valve (SEV), particularly designed to reduce paravalvular leak (PVL) rates in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of EPV with older-generation SEVs, in particular, postprocedural PVL and permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation rates. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, multicenter, propensity-matched analysis of the Israeli TAVR registry between September 2008 and June 2019. Two independent propensity score-matched comparisons were performed comparing EPV with the first-generation CoreValve (CV), and comparing EPV with the second-generation Evolut R valve (ERV). RESULTS: The registry included 2591 patients who were propensity-matched into 3 cohorts: EPV (n = 222), CV (n = 212), and ERV (n = 213). Moderate and above PVL rates were lower for EPV (angiographic PVL [aPVL], 0.6%; echocardiographic PVL [ePVL], 3.0%) as compared with CV (aPVL, 7.8% [P<.001] and ePVL, 11.6% [P<.01]), but not as compared with ERV (aPVL, 6.4% [P<.01] and ePVL, 4.4% [P=.57]). Lower rates of PPM were noted for EPV (16.3%) as compared with both CV (33.5%; P<.001) and ERV (24.4%; hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.995; P=.046). Other safety and efficacy outcome rates were excellent, with significant improvements as compared with older-generation SEVs. CONCLUSIONS: The EPV demonstrates excellent procedural safety and efficacy outcomes. Moderate and above PVL rates were significantly reduced in comparison with CV; however, not significantly reduced as compared with ERV. The need for PPM implantation was lower as compared with both older-generation valves.