Clinical Factors and Outcomes When Real-World Heart Teams Overruled STS Risk Scores in TAVR Cases.

Objectives: This study was conducted to determine why heart teams recommended transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgical AVR (SAVR) for patients at low predicted risk of mortality (PROM) and describe outcomes of these cases. Background: Historically, referral to TAVR was based predominately on the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk model's PROM >3%. In selected cases, heart teams had latitude to overrule these scores. The clinical reasons and outcomes for these cases are unclear. Methods: Retrospective data were gathered for all TAVR and SAVR cases conducted by 9 hospitals between 2013 and 2017. Results: Cases included TAVR patients with STS PROM >3% (n = 2,711) and ≤3% (n = 415) and SAVR with STS PROM ≤3% (n = 1,438). Leading reasons for recommending TAVR in the PROM ≤3% group were frailty (57%), hostile chest (22%), severe lung disease (16%), and morbid obesity (13%), and 44% of cases had multiple reasons. Most postoperative and 30-day outcomes were similar between TAVR groups, but the STS PROM ≤3% group had a one-day shorter length of stay (2.5 ± 3.4 vs. 3.5 ± 4.7 days; p ≤ 0.001) and higher one-year survival (91.6% vs. 86.0%, p=0.002). In patients with STS PROM ≤3%, 30-day mortality was higher for TAVR versus SAVR (2.0% vs. 0.6%; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Heart teams recommended TAVR in patients with STS PROM ≤3% primarily due to frailty, hostile chest, severe lung disease, and/or morbid obesity. Similar postoperative outcomes between these patients and those with STS PROM >3% suggest that decisions to overrule STS PROM ≤3% were merited and may have reduced SAVR 30-day mortality rate.

Comparison of 26-mm Evolut and 23-mm Sapien 3 Valves in TAVR for Small Aortic Annulus.

BACKGROUND: Patients with small aortic annuli (SAA) are prone to higher post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) transvalvular gradients and development of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM). In many patients with SAA, the choice of TAVR valve commonly involves choosing between the 26-mm Medtronic Evolut 2 (ME26) or the 23-mm Edwards Sapien 3 valve (ES23). We compared echocardiographic and clinical outcomes in patients with SAA undergoing TAVR with either valve. METHODS: We queried the Providence St. Joseph Health Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry database for patients undergoing TAVR with either the ES23 or ME26 between July 2015 and December 2018 at 11 hospitals. Post-TAVR echocardiographic and clinical results in-hospital, at 1 month, and at 1 year were examined. High gradient (HG) was defined as mean gradient (MG) ≥20 mm Hg. RESULTS: We identified 1162 patients with SAA undergoing TAVR with either the ME26 (n = 233) or ES23 valve (n = 929). Baseline characteristics between groups were similar. At 1 month, the ME26 was associated with a lower MG than the ES23 (7.7 ± 4.7 mm Hg vs 13.1 ± 4.9 mm Hg; P<.001) and moderate or severe PPM (11% and 3% vs 27% and 13%; P<.001). Occurrence of HG at 1 year was lower with the ME26 valve vs the ES23 valve (0% vs 15%; P<.001). In-hospital and follow-up clinical outcomes to 1 year were similar for both groups. CONCLUSION: TAVR in SAA with the ME26 is associated with lower incidence of HG or PPM compared with the ES23. While clinical outcomes at 1 year were similar, the long-term implications of these findings remain unknown.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Regurgitation in Patients With a Left Ventricular Assist Device.

BACKGROUND: There are limited invasive treatment options for patients with end-stage heart failure and left ventricular assist device (LVAD) who develop severe aortic valve regurgitation (AR). One option for such patients is transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). There are limited data on outcomes of patients with LVAD who receive TAVR for severe AR. We present a series of 4 consecutive patients with LVAD who underwent TAVR for severe AR. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a retrospective chart review of 4 consecutive patients with LVAD who underwent TAVR for severe AR. All 4 patients underwent TAVR with a 34-mm self-expanding valve (Medtronic). One patient received a 29-mm balloon-expandable valve (Edwards Lifesciences) within the self-expanding valve (SEV) to postdilate the SEV and minimize paravalvular leak (PVL). All 4 procedures were technically successful. The patient who received rescue valve-in-valve TAVR continued to have persistent mild to moderate PVL. CONCLUSION: Although technically challenging, TAVR is a feasible option for carefully selected LVAD patients with severe AR. Procedural issues to consider include oversizing the transcatheter heart valve (THV) while being cognizant of the risks of annular rupture and valve dislocation, anticipating and avoiding ventricular migration of the THV and being ready to postdilate the THV if necessary, to limit hemodynamically significant PVL.

Transcarotid versus transthoracic access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A propensity-matched analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Transcarotid access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement is emerging as an alternative to more traditional nonfemoral access options such as transapical or transaortic; however, comparative data are limited. The purpose of the study was to analyze outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement using transcatheter compared with transthoracic (transapical/transaortic) access. METHODS: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry was queried for patients who underwent transcarotid, transapical, or transaortic transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the SAPIEN 3 (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, Calif) transcatheter heart valve between June 2015 and July 2019. Thirty-day unadjusted outcomes were evaluated, and propensity score matching and logistic regression were used to compare transcatheter access with transthoracic access. RESULTS: In the propensity-matched analysis, 667 transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedures were compared with 1334 transthoracic procedures. Transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve replacement was associated with lower mortality (4.2% vs 7.7%, P = .004), less new-onset atrial fibrillation (2.2% vs 12.1%, P < .0001), fewer readmissions at 30 days (9.8% vs 16.1%, P = .0006), shorter median length of stay (3.0 vs 6.0 days, P < .0001), shorter median intensive care unit stay (25 vs 47.2 hours, P < .0001), and greater 30-day Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score improvement from baseline (25.1 vs 20.8, P = .007). Stroke (4.3% vs 3.7%, P = .44) and major vascular complications (1.4% vs 1.9%, P = .40) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using transcarotid access is associated with lower 30-day mortality, less atrial fibrillation, shorter intensive care unit and overall length of stay, fewer readmissions, greater improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores, and no significant difference in stroke or major vascular complications compared with transthoracic access.

Comparable Outcomes for Transcarotid and Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement at a High Volume US Center.

With continued growth of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), safe alternative access remains important for patients without adequate transfemoral (TF) access. Registry-based outcomes with transcarotid (TC) TAVR are favorable compared to transapical or transaxillary/subclavian, but TC vs TF comparisons have not been made. Our objective was to compare outcomes between TF and TC access routes for TAVR at a high-volume United States center. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated all TF and TC TAVR procedures from June 11, 2014 (first TC case) through December 31, 2019. The primary outcomes were 30-day stroke and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were 1-year stroke, 1-year survival, and 30-day and 1-year life-threatening/major bleeding, vascular complications, and myocardial infarction. Propensity score weighted (PSW) models were used to compare risk-adjusted TF and TC outcomes. Of 1,465 TAVR procedures, 1319 (90%) were TF and 146 (10%) were TC. Procedure time and length of stay did not differ between groups. Unadjusted 30-day stroke (TF = 2.0%, TC = 2.7%, P = 0.536) and mortality (TF = 2.1%, TC = 2.7%, P = 0.629) were similar between groups. PSW 30-day stroke (odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval (CI)) = 0.8 (0.2-2.8)) and mortality (OR (95% CI) = 0.8 (0.2-3.0)) were similar between groups. Unadjusted and PSW 30-day major/life threatening bleeding, major vascular complications, and myocardial infarction did not differ between groups. Survival at one year was 90% (88%-92%) for TF patients and 87% (81%-93%) for TC patients (unadjusted P = 0.28, PSW hazard ratio = 1.0 (0.6-1.7)). Transcarotid TAVR is associated with similar outcomes compared to transfemoral TAVR at an experienced, high-volume center.

Transcarotid Versus Subclavian/Axillary Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With SAPIEN 3.

BACKGROUND: Subclavian/axillary (TAx) access has become the most frequently used alternative access route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Transcarotid (TC) TAVR has grown in popularity recently. Comparative data between these 2 contemporary access methods is lacking. METHODS: Data were extracted from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy (TVT) Registry™ (June 2015 to October 2019) for patients undergoing TAVR by TC or TAx access with the SAPIEN 3 and SAPIEN 3 Ultra (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) transcatheter heart valves. Procedural, index hospitalization, and 30-day outcomes were analyzed for TC vs TAx groups after 1:2 propensity matching of patient baseline characteristics. RESULTS: The study included 3903 cases, of which 801 TC and 3102 TAx procedures were compared. After 1:2 propensity matching, TC TAVR was associated with similar 30-day mortality (4.3% vs 5.2%, P = .34) but a significantly lower risk of stroke (4.2% vs 7.4%; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-0.83; P = .003) compared with TAx access. Other outcomes that favored TC over TAx included shorter procedure time (117.0 vs 132.4 minutes; P < .001) and fluoroscopy time (16.6 vs 21.6 min; P < .001), lower contrast volume (78.5 vs 96.7 mL; P < .001), shorter length of stay in the intensive care unit (24.3 vs 25.0 hours; P = .02) and hospital (2.0 vs 3.0 days; P = .002), and more patients discharged to home (82.9% vs 74.6%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: TC TAVR is associated with similar mortality and a significant reduction in stroke compared with the TAx approach. If femoral access is precluded, TC may be a safe, or at times, preferred avenue of transcatheter valve delivery.

Trends in vascular complications and associated treatment strategies following transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVE: Vascular complications (VC) and bleeding complications impact morbidity and mortality after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR). Few contemporary studies have detailed these complications, associated treatment strategies, or clinical outcomes. We examined the incidence, predictors, treatment strategies, and outcomes of VCs in a multicenter cohort of patients undergoing TF-TAVR. METHODS: We performed a retrospective registry and chart review of all nonclinical trial TF-TAVR patients from seven centers within a five-state hospital system from 2012 to 2016. Bleeding and VC were recorded as defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium recommendations. Procedural and 30-day outcomes and 1-year mortality were compared between patients with no, minor, or major VC. Multivariable logistic and Cox regressions were used to identify predictors of major VC and mortality, respectively. RESULTS: Over the study period, 1573 patients underwent TF-TAVR, with 96 (6.1%) experiencing a major VC and 77 (4.9%) experiencing a minor VC. The majority of VCs were access site related (74.2%), occurred intraoperatively (52.6%), and required interventional treatment (73.2%). The site, timing, and treatment method of VCs did not significantly change over the study period. Patients with VCs had a greater need for blood transfusion, longer postoperative length of stay, higher rates of cardiac events, increased vascular-related 30-day readmission, and higher 30-day mortality. Female sex (odds ratio [OR], 3.00; 95% CI, 1.91-4.72) and prior percutaneous coronary intervention (OR, 2.14 ; 95% CI, 1.38-3.31) were the strongest predictors of major VC. VCs modestly decreased over the study period: every 90-day increase in surgery date decreased the odds of major VC by 6% (95% CI, 1%-10%). Patients with major VCs had worse 1-year survival (OR, 79%; 95% CI, 69%-86%) compared with patients with minor VCs (OR, 92%; 95% CI, 82%-96%) or no VCs (OR, 88%; 95% CI, 87%-90%; P = .002). However, for patients who survived more than 30 days, the 1-year survival did not differ between groups For patients who survived more than 30 days, male sex (hazard ratio, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.30-2.60) and the logit of STS mortality risk score (hazard ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.48-2.65) were the strongest predictors of mortality. After adjusting for other factors, minor and major VC were not predictors of 1-year mortality for patients who survived more than 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: In our contemporary cohort, VCs after TF-TAVR have modestly decreased in recent years, but continue to impact perioperative outcomes. Patient selection, consideration of alternative access routes, and prompt recognition and treatment of VCs are critical elements in optimizing early clinical outcomes after TF-TAVR.

Five-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: There are scant data on long-term clinical outcomes and bioprosthetic-valve function after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis and intermediate surgical risk. METHODS: We enrolled 2032 intermediate-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at 57 centers. Patients were stratified according to intended transfemoral or transthoracic access (76.3% and 23.7%, respectively) and were randomly assigned to undergo either TAVR or surgical replacement. Clinical, echocardiographic, and health-status outcomes were followed for 5 years. The primary end point was death from any cause or disabling stroke. RESULTS: At 5 years, there was no significant difference in the incidence of death from any cause or disabling stroke between the TAVR group and the surgery group (47.9% and 43.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.25; P = 0.21). Results were similar for the transfemoral-access cohort (44.5% and 42.0%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.20), but the incidence of death or disabling stroke was higher after TAVR than after surgery in the transthoracic-access cohort (59.3% vs. 48.3%; hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.71). At 5 years, more patients in the TAVR group than in the surgery group had at least mild paravalvular aortic regurgitation (33.3% vs. 6.3%). Repeat hospitalizations were more frequent after TAVR than after surgery (33.3% vs. 25.2%), as were aortic-valve reinterventions (3.2% vs. 0.8%). Improvement in health status at 5 years was similar for TAVR and surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with aortic stenosis who were at intermediate surgical risk, there was no significant difference in the incidence of death or disabling stroke at 5 years after TAVR as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01314313.).

Intrathoracic complications associated with trans-femoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Implications for emergency surgical preparedness.

BACKGROUND: Intrathoracic complications (ITC) requiring emergency surgical intervention occur during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). OBJECTIVES: Characterize the incidence, outcomes and predictors of ITC in a large cohort of transfemoral (TF) TAVR cases over a 5 year period. METHODS: Retrospective registry and chart review of all nonclinical trial TF-TAVR patients from seven centers within one hospital system from 2012-2016. ITC were defined as cardiac perforation, new or worsening pericardial effusion/tamponade, annular rupture, thoracic aortic injury, aortic valve dislodgement, and coronary artery occlusion. Procedural and 30-day outcomes and 1-year mortality were compared between ITC and no ITC patients. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of ITC. RESULTS: Over the study period, 1,581 patients had TF-TAVR and 68 ITC occurred in 46 patients (2.9%). The most common ITCs were pericardial effusion/tamponade (59%), cardiac perforation (33%), and valve dislodgement (33%). ITC rate did not decline over time (rate (95% confidence interval) for 2012 = 0% (0-8.8%), 2013 = 1.3% (0-7.2%), 2014 = 4.4% (2.2-8.0%), 2015 = 3.5% (2.0-5.6%), and 2016 = 2.4% (1.5-3.8%)). ITC patients had worse 1-year survival (ITC: 60.7% (45.1-73.1%), no ITC: 88.7% (87.0-90.3%); p < .001). The majority of ITC patient deaths occurred within the first 30 days. Multivariable models to predict ITC were not successful. CONCLUSIONS: ITC did not decline over time in our cohort. Predictors of ITC could not be identified. While these events are rare, they are associated with worse procedural outcomes and mortality. Heart teams should continue to be prepared for emergency intervention.

Two-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Mechanical vs Self-expanding Valves: The REPRISE III Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: To our knowledge, REPRISE III is the first large randomized comparison of 2 different transcatheter aortic valve replacement platforms: the mechanically expanded Lotus valve (Boston Scientific) and self-expanding CoreValve (Medtronic). Objective: To evaluate outcomes of Lotus vs CoreValve after 2 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 912 patients with high/extreme risk and severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis enrolled between September 22, 2014, and December 24, 2015, were randomized 2:1 to receive Lotus (607 [66.6%]) or CoreValve (305 [33.4%] at 55 centers in North America, Europe, and Australia. The first 2-year visit occurred on October 17, 2016, and the last was conducted on April 12, 2018. Clinical and echocardiographic assessments are complete through 2 years and will continue annually through 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality and all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Other clinical factors included overall stroke, disabling stroke, repeated procedures, rehospitalization, valve thrombosis, and pacemaker implantation. Echocardiographic analyses included effective orifice area, mean gradient, and paravalvular leaks (PVLs). Results: Of 912 participants, the mean (SD) age was 82.8 (7.3) years, 465 (51%) were women, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality was 6.8% (4.0%). At 2 years, all-cause death was 21.3% with Lotus vs 22.5% with CoreValve (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69-1.26; P = .67) and all-cause mortality or disabling stroke was 22.8% with Lotus and 27.0% with CoreValve (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.07; P = .14). Overall stroke was 8.4% vs 11.4% (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.48-1.17; P = .21); disabling stroke was more frequent with CoreValve vs Lotus (4.7% Lotus vs 8.6% CoreValve; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.93; P = .02). More Lotus patients received a new permanent pacemaker (41.7% vs 26.1%; HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.41-2.49; P < .01) or had a valve thrombosis (3.0% vs 0.0%; P < .01) compared with CoreValve. More patients who received CoreValve experienced a repeated procedure (0.6% Lotus vs 2.9% CoreValve; HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05-0.70; P < .01), valve migration (0.0% vs 0.7%; P = .05), or embolization (0.0% vs 2.0%; P < .01) than Lotus. Valve areas remained significantly larger and the mean gradient was lower with CoreValve than Lotus (valve area, mean [SD]: Lotus, 1.53 [0.49] cm2 vs CoreValve, 1.76 [0.51] cm2; P < .01; valve gradient, mean [SD]: Lotus, 13.0 [6.7] mm Hg vs 8.1 [3.7] mm Hg; P < .01). Moderate or greater PVL was more frequent with CoreValve (0.3% Lotus vs 3.8% CoreValve; P < .01) at 2 years. Larger improvements in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class were observed with Lotus compared with CoreValve (improved by ≥1 NYHA class: Lotus, 338 of 402 [84.1%] vs CoreValve, 143 of 189 [75.7%]; P = .01; improved by ≥2 NYHA classes: 122 of 402 [37.3%] vs 65 of 305 [21.3%]). Conclusions and Relevance: After 2 years, all-cause mortality rates, mortality or disabling stroke were similar between Lotus and CoreValve. Disabling stroke, functional class, valve migration, and PVL favored the Lotus arm whereas valve hemodynamics, thrombosis, and new pacemaker implantation favored the CoreValve arm. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02202434.

The Carotid Artery as a Preferred Alternative Access Route for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: In high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, transfemoral (TF) access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is the preferred access route but is not always feasible. Compared with other alternative access routes, transcarotid (TC) access is often overlooked by many valvular heart teams. METHODS: We report our single-center experience of all patients undergoing TC (n = 25), transapical (TA) (n = 12), or TF (n = 100; limited to most recent cases) TAVR over a 1.5 year period. In-hospital and 30-day outcomes were retrospectively compared between groups using the Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. RESULTS: TAVR was successfully performed through the left or right carotid artery in all 25 patients. Procedurally, TC and TF procedures were faster than TA procedures (p < 0.001), and patients who underwent TC and TF procedures had shorter intensive care unit (ICU) hours (p = 0.05), ventilator hours (p < 0.001), and length of stay (LOS) (p = 0.01) compared to patients who underwent a TA procedure. No patients who underwent a TC procedure had in-hospital stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or myocardial infarction (MI). One patient who underwent a TC procedure had a TIA by 30-day follow-up, which was not significantly different from the TF (2 patients) or TA groups (0 patients; p = 0.75). In-hospital mortality rates were the same between TC (1 patient) and TF (1 patient) procedures but were significantly greater for TA procedures (2 patients; p = 0.009). Thirty-day mortality rates were low and did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In our US community hospital setting, TC-TAVR is a safe alternative to TF-TAVR in appropriate patients and has evolved to be our alternative access route of choice if TF access is not feasible.

Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials have shown that among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, survival rates are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic-valve replacement. We evaluated the two procedures in a randomized trial involving intermediate-risk patients. METHODS: We randomly assigned 2032 intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, at 57 centers, to undergo either TAVR or surgical replacement. The primary end point was death from any cause or disabling stroke at 2 years. The primary hypothesis was that TAVR would not be inferior to surgical replacement. Before randomization, patients were entered into one of two cohorts on the basis of clinical and imaging findings; 76.3% of the patients were included in the transfemoral-access cohort and 23.7% in the transthoracic-access cohort. RESULTS: The rate of death from any cause or disabling stroke was similar in the TAVR group and the surgery group (P=0.001 for noninferiority). At 2 years, the Kaplan-Meier event rates were 19.3% in the TAVR group and 21.1% in the surgery group (hazard ratio in the TAVR group, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.09; P=0.25). In the transfemoral-access cohort, TAVR resulted in a lower rate of death or disabling stroke than surgery (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.00; P=0.05), whereas in the transthoracic-access cohort, outcomes were similar in the two groups. TAVR resulted in larger aortic-valve areas than did surgery and also resulted in lower rates of acute kidney injury, severe bleeding, and new-onset atrial fibrillation; surgery resulted in fewer major vascular complications and less paravalvular aortic regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: In intermediate-risk patients, TAVR was similar to surgical aortic-valve replacement with respect to the primary end point of death or disabling stroke. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01314313.).