Feasibility of Coronary Access Following Redo-TAVR for Evolut Failure: A Computed Tomography Simulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Coronary accessibility following redo-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (redo-TAVR) is increasingly important, particularly in younger low-risk patients. This study aimed to predict coronary accessibility after simulated Sapien-3 balloon-expandable valve implantation within an Evolut supra-annular, self-expanding valve using pre-TAVR computed tomography (CT) imaging. METHODS: A total of 219 pre-TAVR CT scans from the Evolut Low-Risk CT substudy were analyzed. Virtual Evolut and Sapien-3 valves were sized using CT-based diameters. Two initial Evolut implant depths were analyzed, 3 and 5 mm. Coronary accessibility was evaluated for 2 Sapien-3 in Evolut implant positions: Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 4 and Evolut node 5. RESULTS: With a 3-mm initial Evolut implant depth, suitable coronary access was predicted in 84% of patients with the Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 4, and in 31% of cases with the Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 5 (P<0.001). Coronary accessibility improved with a 5-mm Evolut implant depth: 97% at node 4 and 65% at node 5 (P<0.001). When comparing 3- to 5-mm Evolut implant depth, sinus sequestration was the lowest with Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 4 (13% versus 2%; P<0.001), and the highest at Evolut node 5 (61% versus 32%; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Coronary accessibility after Sapien-3 in Evolut redo-TAVR relates to the initial Evolut implant depth, the Sapien-3 outflow position within the Evolut, and the native annular anatomy. This CT-based quantitative analysis may provide useful information to inform and refine individualized preprocedural CT planning of the initial TAVR and guide lifetime management for future coronary access after redo-TAVR. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02701283.

Echocardiographic and Clinical Outcomes in Symptomatic Patients With Less Than Severe Aortic Stenosis After Supra-Annular Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Optimal timing for aortic valve replacement in symptomatic patients with less than severe aortic stenosis (AS) is not well defined. There is limited information on the benefit of valve replacement in these patients. Symptomatic patients with less than severe AS, defined as a mean aortic gradient ≥20 and <40 mm Hg, peak aortic velocity >3 and <4 m/s, and aortic valve area >1.0 and <1.5 cm2, enrolled in the Society for Thoracic Surgery/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry and who underwent attempted supra-annular, self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) were reviewed. Site-reported valve hemodynamics, clinical events, and quality of life metrics were analyzed at 30 days and 1 year after the procedure. A total of 1,067 patients with attempted TAVR (mean age 78.4 ± 8.4 years; Society for Thoracic Surgery score 4.7 ± 3.4%) were found to have symptoms but less than severe AS. From baseline to postprocedure, mean gradient decreased (29.9 ± 4.9 vs 8.4 ± 4.8 mm Hg, p <0.001), and aortic valve area increased (1.2 ± 0.1 vs 2.2 ± 0.7 cm2, p <0.001). Clinical events included 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality (1.5% and 9.6%), stroke (2.2% and 3.3%), and new pacemaker implantation (18.1% and 20.9%). There were statistically significant improvements in the New York Heart Association functional class and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire at 30 days and 1 year. In conclusion, patients with symptomatic but less than severe AS who underwent supra-annular, self-expanding TAVR experienced improved valve hemodynamics and quality of life measures 1 year after the procedure. Randomized studies of TAVR versus a control arm in symptomatic patients with less than severe AS are ongoing.

Minimum Core Data Elements for Transcatheter Mitral Therapies: Scientific Statement by PASSION CV, HVC, and TVTR.

Mitral regurgitation is the most common valvular disease and is estimated to affect over 5 million Americans. Real-world data collection contributes to safety and effectiveness evidence for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, quality evaluation for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and hospitals, and clinical best practice research. We aimed to establish a minimum core data set in mitral interventions to promote efficient, reusable real-world data collection for all of these purposes. Two expert task forces separately evaluated and reconciled a list of candidate elements derived from: 1) 2 ongoing transcatheter mitral trials; and 2) a systemic literature review of high-impact mitral trials and U.S multicenter, multidevice registries. From 703 unique data elements considered, unanimous consensus agreement was achieved on 127 "core" data elements, with the most common reasons for exclusion from the minimum core data set being burden or difficulty in accurate assessment (41.2%), duplicative information (25.0%), and low likelihood of affecting outcomes (19.6%). After a systematic review and extensive discussions, a multilateral group of academicians, industry representatives, and regulators established and implemented into the national Society of Thoracic Surgery/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapies Registry 127 interoperable, reusable core data elements to support more efficient, consistent, and informative transcatheter mitral device evidence for regulatory submissions, safety surveillance, best practice development, and hospital quality assessments.

3-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Randomized data comparing outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with surgery in low-surgical risk patients at time points beyond 2 years is limited. This presents an unknown for physicians striving to educate patients as part of a shared decision-making process. OBJECTIVES: The authors evaluated 3-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes from the Evolut Low Risk trial. METHODS: Low-risk patients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular valve or surgery. The primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke and several secondary endpoints were assessed at 3 years. RESULTS: There were 1,414 attempted implantations (730 TAVR; 684 surgery). Patients had a mean age of 74 years and 35% were women. At 3 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 7.4% of TAVR patients and 10.4% of surgery patients (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.49-1.00; P = 0.051). The difference between treatment arms for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke remained broadly consistent over time: -1.8% at year 1; -2.0% at year 2; and -2.9% at year 3. The incidence of mild paravalvular regurgitation (20.3% TAVR vs 2.5% surgery) and pacemaker placement (23.2% TAVR vs 9.1% surgery; P < 0.001) were lower in the surgery group. Rates of moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation for both groups were <1% and not significantly different. Patients who underwent TAVR had significantly improved valve hemodynamics (mean gradient 9.1 mm Hg TAVR vs 12.1 mm Hg surgery; P < 0.001) at 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Within the Evolut Low Risk study, TAVR at 3 years showed durable benefits compared with surgery with respect to all-cause mortality or disabling stroke. (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients; NCT02701283).

Structural Valve Deterioration After Self-Expanding Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients at Intermediate or High Risk.

Importance: The frequency and clinical importance of structural valve deterioration (SVD) in patients undergoing self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgery is poorly understood. Objective: To evaluate the 5-year incidence, clinical outcomes, and predictors of hemodynamic SVD in patients undergoing self-expanding TAVI or surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This post hoc analysis pooled data from the CoreValve US High Risk Pivotal (n = 615) and SURTAVI (n = 1484) randomized clinical trials (RCTs); it was supplemented by the CoreValve Extreme Risk Pivotal trial (n = 485) and CoreValve Continued Access Study (n = 2178). Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis deemed to be at intermediate or increased risk of 30-day surgical mortality were included. Data were collected from December 2010 to June 2016, and data were analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized to self-expanding TAVI or surgery in the RCTs or underwent self-expanding TAVI for clinical indications in the nonrandomized studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the incidence of SVD through 5 years (from the RCTs). Factors associated with SVD and its association with clinical outcomes were evaluated for the pooled RCT and non-RCT population. SVD was defined as (1) an increase in mean gradient of 10 mm Hg or greater from discharge or at 30 days to last echocardiography with a final mean gradient of 20 mm Hg or greater or (2) new-onset moderate or severe intraprosthetic aortic regurgitation or an increase of 1 grade or more. Results: Of 4762 included patients, 2605 (54.7%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 82.1 (7.4) years. A total of 2099 RCT patients, including 1128 who received TAVI and 971 who received surgery, and 2663 non-RCT patients who received TAVI were included. The cumulative incidence of SVD treating death as a competing risk was lower in patients undergoing TAVI than surgery (TAVI, 2.20%; surgery, 4.38%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.78; P = .004). This lower risk was most pronounced in patients with smaller annuli (23 mm diameter or smaller; TAVI, 1.32%; surgery, 5.84%; HR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.73; P = .02). SVD was associated with increased 5-year all-cause mortality (HR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.46-2.82; P < .001), cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.20-2.90; P = .006), and valve disease or worsening heart failure hospitalizations (HR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.23-3.84; P = .008). Predictors of SVD were developed from multivariate analysis. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found a lower rate of SVD in patients undergoing self-expanding TAVI vs surgery at 5 years. Doppler echocardiography was a valuable tool to detect SVD, which was associated with worse clinical outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01240902, NCT01586910, and NCT01531374.

Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Hemodynamics: Definitions, Outcomes, and Evidence Gaps: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.

A virtual workshop was organized by the Heart Valve Collaboratory to identify areas of expert consensus, areas of disagreement, and evidence gaps related to bioprosthetic aortic valve hemodynamics. Impaired functional performance of bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement is associated with adverse patient outcomes; however, this assessment is complicated by the lack of standardization for labelling, definitions, and measurement techniques, both after surgical and transcatheter valve replacement. Echocardiography remains the standard assessment methodology because of its ease of performance, widespread availability, ability to do serial measurements over time, and correlation with outcomes. Management of a high gradient after replacement requires integration of the patient's clinical status, physical examination, and multimodality imaging in addition to shared patient decisions regarding treatment options. Future priorities that are underway include efforts to standardize prosthesis sizing and labelling for both surgical and transcatheter valves as well as trials to characterize the consequences of adverse hemodynamics.

Practice Patterns and Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in the United States and Japan: A Report From Joint Data Harmonization Initiative of STS/ACC TVT and J-TVT.

Background The practice pattern and outcome of medical devices following their regulatory approval may differ by country. The aim of this study is to compare postapproval national clinical registry data on transcatheter aortic valve replacement between the United States and Japan on patient characteristics, periprocedural outcomes, and the variability of outcomes as a part of a partnership program (Harmonization-by-Doing) between the 2 countries. Methods and Results The patient-level data were extracted from the US Society of Thoracic Surgeons /American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy (STS/ACC TVT) and the J-TVT (Japanese Transcatheter Valvular Therapy) registry, respectively, to analyze transcatheter aortic valve replacement outcomes between 2013 and 2019. Data entry for these registries was mandated by the federal regulators, and the majority of variable definitions were harmonized to allow direct data comparison. A total of 244 722 transcatheter aortic valve replacements from 646 institutions in the United States and 26 673 transcatheter aortic valve replacements from 171 institutions in Japan were analyzed. Median volume per site was 65 (interquartile range, 45-97) in the United States and 28 (interquartile range, 19-41) in Japan. Overall, patients in J-TVT were older (United States: mean-age, 80.1±8.7 versus Japan: 84.4±5.2; P<0.001), were more frequently women (45.9% versus 68.1%; P<0.001), and had higher median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (5.27% versus 6.20%; P<0.001) than patients in the United States. Japan had lower unadjusted 30-day mortality (1.3% versus 3.2%; P<0.001) and composite outcomes of death, stroke, and bleeding (17.5 versus 22.5%; P<0.001) but had higher conversion to open surgery (0.94% versus 0.56%; P<0.001). Conclusions This collaborative analysis between the United States and Japan demonstrated the feasibility of international comparison using the national registries coded under mutual variable definitions. Both countries obtained excellent outcomes, although the Japanese had lower 30-day mortality and major morbidity. Harmonization-by-Doing is one of the key steps needed to build global-level learning to improve patient outcomes.

Improved outcomes in patients with severely depressed LVEF undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with contemporary practices.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary practices for hemodynamically supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention have evolved over the last decade. This study sought to compare outcomes of the prospective, multicenter, PROTECT III study to historic patients treated with Impella in the PROTECT II randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Of 1,134 patients enrolled in PROTECT III from March 2017 to March 2020, 504 were "PROTECT II-like" (met eligibility for PROTECT II randomized controlled trial) and are referred to as PROTECT III for comparative analysis. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), comprising all-cause mortality, stroke/transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization, were compared at hospital discharge and 90 days. RESULTS: Compared with PROTECT II (N = 216), PROTECT III patients were less often Caucasian (77.1% vs 83.8%, P = .045), with less prior CABG (13.7% vs 39.4%; P < .001) and prior myocardial infarction (40.7% vs 69.3%; P < .001). More PROTECT III patients underwent rotational atherectomy (37.1% vs 14.8%, P < .001) and duration of support was longer (median 1.6 vs 1.3 hours; p<0.001), with greater improvement achieved in myocardial ischemia jeopardy scores (7.0±2.4 vs 4.4±2.9; P < .001) and SYNTAX scores (21.4±10.8 vs 15.7±9.5; P < .001). In-hospital bleeding requiring transfusion was significantly lower in PROTECT III (1.8% vs 9.3%; P < .001), as was procedural hypotension (2.2% vs 10.1%; P < .001) and cardiopulmonary resuscitation or ventricular arrhythmia (1.6% vs 6.9%; P < .001). At 90 days, MACCE was 15.1% and 21.9% in PROTECT III and PROTECT II, respectively (p=0.037). Following propensity score matching, Kaplan-Meier analysis showed improved 90-day MACCE rates in PROTECT III (10.4% vs 16.9%, P = .048). CONCLUSIONS: The PROTECT III study demonstrates improved completeness of revascularization, less bleeding, and improved 90-day clinical outcomes compared to PROTECT II for Impella-supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention among patients with severely depressed LVEF.

Speckle tracking strain and ECG heterogeneity correlate in transcatheter aortic valve replacement-induced left bundle branch blocks and right ventricular paced rhythms.

OBJECTIVE: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) complications include left bundle branch block (LBBB) and right ventricular paced rhythm (RVP). We hypothesised that changes in electrocardiographic heterogeneity would correlate better with speckle tracking strain measures than with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) among patients with TAVR-induced conduction abnormalities. METHODS: We reviewed medical records of 446 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR at our institution. Of the 238 patients with 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) that met our inclusion criteria, 58 had pre-TAVR and post-TAVR TTEs adequate for strain assessment. We compared patients who did not have an LBBB or RVP pre-TAVR and post-TAVR (controls, n=11) with patients who developed LBBBs (n=11) and who required RVPs (n=10) post-TAVR. In our study population (n=32, 41% female, mean age 85.8 years), we evaluated QRS complex duration, R-wave heterogeneity (RWH), T-wave heterogeneity (TWH), LVEF, global longitudinal strain (GLS) and mechanical dispersion (MD). RESULTS: TAVR-induced changes on ECG did not correlate with LVEF. TAVR-induced changes in MD and QRS complex duration correlated among all patients (r=0.4, p=0.04). GLS and RWH correlated among RVP patients (r=0.7, p=0.00003). MD and TWH correlated among LBBB patients (r=0.7, p=0.00004). CONCLUSIONS: In this convenience sample of patients with TAVR-induced conduction abnormalities, RWH and TWH correlated with strain measures but not with LVEF. Strain measures, RWH and TWH may offer additional insights for pre-TAVR evaluation and post-TAVR clinical management.

Aortic valve replacement vs. balloon-expandable and self-expandable transcatheter implantation: A network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Recently, observational data have raised concerns about safety of selfexpandable (SE) compared to balloon-expandable (BE) valves in TAVI, although potentially limited by patient selection bias. METHODS: All Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing BE vs. SE TAVI or/and vs. aortic valve replacement (AVR) were included and compared through Network Meta Analysis (NMA). All-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality were the primary endpoints, stroke, rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), moderate/severe paravalvular leak (PVL) and reintervention were the secondary endpoints. Results We obtained data from 11 RCTs, encompassing 9752 patients. After one and two years, no significant differences for allcause and CV mortality were observed. Compared to surgical bioprostheses, both BE and SE TAVI reduced the risk of acute kidney injury (OR 0.42; CI 95% 0.30-0.60 and OR 0.44; CI 95% 0.32-0.60), new-onset atrial fibrillation (OR 0.24; CI 95% 0.14-0.42 and OR 0.21; CI 95% 0.13-0.34) and major bleedings (OR 0.32; CI 95% 0.16-0.65 and OR 0.47; CI 95% 0.25-0.89). The BE prostheses reduced the risk of moderate/severe PVL at 30-day (OR 0.31; CI 95% 0.17-0.55) and of PPI both at 30-day (OR 0.51; CI 95% 0.33-0.79) and 1 year (OR 0.40; CI 95% 0.30-0.55) as compared to SE TAVI. Conclusions A TAVI strategy, independently from BE or SE prostheses, offers a midterm survival comparable to AVR. The BE prostheses are associated with a reduction of PPI and PVL compared to SE prostheses without any differences in all-cause and CV mortality during two years of follow up. PROSPERO ID CRD42020182407.

Valve Academic Research Consortium 3: Updated Endpoint Definitions for Aortic Valve Clinical Research.

AIMS: The Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC), founded in 2010, was intended to (i) identify appropriate clinical endpoints and (ii) standardize definitions of these endpoints for transcatheter and surgical aortic valve clinical trials. Rapid evolution of the field, including the emergence of new complications, expanding clinical indications, and novel therapy strategies have mandated further refinement and expansion of these definitions to ensure clinical relevance. This document provides an update of the most appropriate clinical endpoint definitions to be used in the conduct of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve clinical research. METHODS AND RESULTS: Several years after the publication of the VARC-2 manuscript, an in-person meeting was held involving over 50 independent clinical experts representing several professional societies, academic research organizations, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives to (i) evaluate utilization of VARC endpoint definitions in clinical research, (ii) discuss the scope of this focused update, and (iii) review and revise specific clinical endpoint definitions. A writing committee of independent experts was convened and subsequently met to further address outstanding issues. There were ongoing discussions with FDA and many experts to develop a new classification schema for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure. Overall, this multi-disciplinary process has resulted in important recommendations for data reporting, clinical research methods, and updated endpoint definitions. New definitions or modifications of existing definitions are being proposed for repeat hospitalizations, access site-related complications, bleeding events, conduction disturbances, cardiac structural complications, and bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure (including valve leaflet thickening and thrombosis). A more granular 5-class grading scheme for paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) is being proposed to help refine the assessment of PVR. Finally, more specific recommendations on quality-of-life assessments have been included, which have been targeted to specific clinical study designs. CONCLUSIONS: Acknowledging the dynamic and evolving nature of less-invasive aortic valve therapies, further refinements of clinical research processes are required. The adoption of these updated and newly proposed VARC-3 endpoints and definitions will ensure homogenous event reporting, accurate adjudication, and appropriate comparisons of clinical research studies involving devices and new therapeutic strategies.

Intravascular ultrasound predictors of long-term outcomes following ABSORB bioresorbable scaffold implantation: A pooled analysis of the ABSORB III and ABSORB Japan trials.

BACKGROUND: The long-term prognostic impact of IVUS findings following Absorb BVS implantation remains uncertain. This study aimed to identify the IVUS predictors of long-term clinical outcomes following ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation from the pooled IVUS substudy cohorts of the ABSORB III and Japan trials. METHODS: A total of 298 lesions in 286 patients were enrolled with 2:1 randomization to ABSORB BVS vs. cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents. This sub-analysis included 168 lesions of 160 patients in the Absorb arm whose post-procedural quantitative IVUS were available. The primary endpoint of this analysis was device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) of target lesion failure, including cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The median follow-up duration was 4.9 [3.1-5.0] years. RESULTS: During follow-up, DOCE occurred in 10.1% of lesions treated with Absorb BVS. Among several post-procedural IVUS indices associated with DOCE, non-uniform device expansion (defined as uniformity index = minimum / maximum device area) (hazard ratio 0.47 per 0.1 increase [95%CI 0.28 to 0.77]; p = 0.003) and residual reference plaque burden (hazard ratio 4.01 per 10% increase [95%CI 1.50 to 10.77]; p = 0.006) were identified as independent predictors of DOCE by Cox multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Nonuniform device expansion and substantial untreated residual plaque in reference segments were associated with long-term adverse events following BVS implantation. Baseline imaging to identify the appropriate device landing zone and procedural imaging to achieve uniform device expansion if possible (e.g. through post-dilatation) may improve clinical outcomes of BVS implantation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01751906 (ABSORB III); NCT01844284 (ABSORB Japan).

Valve Academic Research Consortium 3: updated endpoint definitions for aortic valve clinical research.

AIMS: The Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC), founded in 2010, was intended to (i) identify appropriate clinical endpoints and (ii) standardize definitions of these endpoints for transcatheter and surgical aortic valve clinical trials. Rapid evolution of the field, including the emergence of new complications, expanding clinical indications, and novel therapy strategies have mandated further refinement and expansion of these definitions to ensure clinical relevance. This document provides an update of the most appropriate clinical endpoint definitions to be used in the conduct of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve clinical research. METHODS AND RESULTS: Several years after the publication of the VARC-2 manuscript, an in-person meeting was held involving over 50 independent clinical experts representing several professional societies, academic research organizations, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives to (i) evaluate utilization of VARC endpoint definitions in clinical research, (ii) discuss the scope of this focused update, and (iii) review and revise specific clinical endpoint definitions. A writing committee of independent experts was convened and subsequently met to further address outstanding issues. There were ongoing discussions with FDA and many experts to develop a new classification schema for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure. Overall, this multi-disciplinary process has resulted in important recommendations for data reporting, clinical research methods, and updated endpoint definitions. New definitions or modifications of existing definitions are being proposed for repeat hospitalizations, access site-related complications, bleeding events, conduction disturbances, cardiac structural complications, and bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure (including valve leaflet thickening and thrombosis). A more granular 5-class grading scheme for paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) is being proposed to help refine the assessment of PVR. Finally, more specific recommendations on quality-of-life assessments have been included, which have been targeted to specific clinical study designs. CONCLUSIONS: Acknowledging the dynamic and evolving nature of less-invasive aortic valve therapies, further refinements of clinical research processes are required. The adoption of these updated and newly proposed VARC-3 endpoints and definitions will ensure homogenous event reporting, accurate adjudication, and appropriate comparisons of clinical research studies involving devices and new therapeutic strategies.

Imaging strategies for safety surveillance after renal artery denervation.

Renal denervation has emerged as a safe and effective therapy to lower blood pressure in hypertensive patients. In addition to the main renal arteries, branch vessels are also denervated in more contemporary studies. Accurate and reliable imaging in renal denervation patients is critical for long-term safety surveillance due to the small risk of renal artery stenosis that may occur after the procedure. This review summarizes three common non-invasive imaging modalities: Doppler ultrasound (DUS), computed tomography angiography (CTA), and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA). DUS is the most widely used owing to cost considerations, ease of use, and the fact that it is less invasive, avoids ionizing radiation exposure, and requires no contrast media use. Renal angiography is used to determine if renal artery stenosis is present when non-invasive imaging suggests renal artery stenosis. We compiled data from prior renal denervation studies as well as the more recent SPYRAL-HTN OFF MED Study and show that DUS demonstrates both high sensitivity and specificity for detecting renal stenosis de novo and in longitudinal assessment of renal artery patency after interventions. In the context of clinical trials DUS has been shown, together with the use of the baseline angiogram, to be effective in identifying stenosis in branch and accessory arteries and merits consideration as the main screening imaging modality to detect clinically significant renal artery stenosis after renal denervation and this is consistent with guidelines from the recent European Consensus Statement on Renal Denervation.

Computed Tomography-Derived 3D Modeling to Guide Sizing and Planning of Transcatheter Mitral Valve Interventions.

A plethora of catheter-based strategies have been developed to treat mitral valve disease. Evolving 3-dimensional (3D) multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) technology can accurately reconstruct the mitral valve by means of 3-dimensional computational modeling (3DCM) to allow virtual implantation of catheter-based devices. 3D printing complements computational modeling and offers implanting physician teams the opportunity to evaluate devices in life-size replicas of patient-specific cardiac anatomy. MDCT-derived 3D computational and 3D-printed modeling provides unprecedented insights to facilitate hands-on procedural planning, device training, and retrospective procedural evaluation. This overview summarizes current concepts and provides insight into the application of MDCT-derived 3DCM and 3D printing for the planning of transcatheter mitral valve replacement and closure of paravalvular leaks. Additionally, future directions in the development of 3DCM will be discussed.

The International Society for Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery Expert Consensus Statement on Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low- and Intermediate-Risk Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Propensity-Matched Studies.

OBJECTIVE: There is an increasing amount of evidence supporting use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for treatment of aortic stenosis in patients at low or intermediate risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). TAVR is now approved for use in all patient cohorts. Despite this, there remains debate about the relative efficacy of TAVR compared with SAVR in lower-risk cohorts and various subgroups of patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-matched trials to guide a consensus among expert cardiologists and surgeons. METHODS: Studies comparing TAVR and SAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients were identified by a thorough search of the major databases. Mortality, stroke, and other perioperative outcomes were assessed at 30 days and 1 year. RESULTS: Early mortality was lower in TAVR compared to SAVR in RCTs, but not propensity-matched studies in low-risk cohorts (0.66% vs 1.5%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20 to 0.98, I2 = 0%). No difference in mortality between TAVR and SAVR was identified in intermediate-risk patients at early or later time points. Incidence of perioperative stroke in 3 low-risk RCTs was significantly lower in TAVR (0.4%) than SAVR (1.4%; OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.81, I2 = 0%). There was no difference in stroke for intermediate-risk patients between TAVR and SAVR. The expert panel of cardiologists and cardiac surgeons provided recommendations for TAVR and SAVR in various clinical scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: In RCTs comparing TAVR and SAVR in low-risk patients, early mortality and stroke were lower in TAVR, but did not differ at 1 year. There was no difference in mortality and stroke in intermediate-risk patients. The Multidisciplinary Heart Team must consider individual patient characteristics and preferences when recommending TAVR or SAVR. The decision must consider the long-term management of each patient's aortic valve disease.

Long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention for in-stent restenosis among Medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: In-stent restenosis (ISR) is highly prevalent and leads to repeat revascularisation. Long-term implications of ISR are poorly understood. AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ISR. METHODS: National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI records for individuals aged ≥65 years undergoing PCI from July 2009 to December 2014 were linked to Medicare claims. Baseline characteristics and long-term rates of death, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularisation including target vessel revascularisation (TVR), and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were compared between ISR PCI versus de novo lesion PCI. RESULTS: Of 653,304 individuals, 10.2% underwent ISR PCI and 89.8% underwent de novo lesion PCI. The median duration of follow-up was 825 days (quartile 1: 352 days-quartile 3: 1,379 days). The frequency of MACCE (55.6% vs 45.0%; p<0.001), all-cause mortality (27.8% vs 25.5%; p<0.001), MI (19.0% vs 12.3%; p<0.001), repeat revascularisation (31.9% vs 18.6%; p<0.001), TVR (22.4% vs 8.0%; p<0.001), and stroke (8.8% vs 8.3%; p=0.005) was higher after ISR PCI. After multivariable adjustment, ISR PCI remained associated with worse long-term outcomes than after de novo lesion PCI (hazard ratio [HR] for MACCE 1.24 [95% CI: 1.22, 1.26], mortality 1.07 [95% CI: 1.05, 1.09], MI 1.44 [95% CI: 1.40, 1.48], repeat revascularisation 1.55 [95% CI: 1.51, 1.59], and TVR 2.50 [95% CI: 2.42, 2.58]). CONCLUSIONS: ISR PCI was common and was associated with a significantly higher risk of recurrent long-term major ischaemic events compared to patients undergoing de novo lesion PCI. There remains a need for new strategies to minimise ISR.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-risk Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis.

Importance: The outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low-risk patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis have not been studied in a large scale, multicentered, prospective fashion. Objective: To evaluate the procedural safety, efficacy, and 30-day outcomes of TAVR in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis at low surgical risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Low Risk Bicuspid Study is a prospective, single-arm trial study with inclusion/exclusion criteria developed from the Evolut Low Risk Randomized Trial. Follow-up is planned for 10 years. Patients underwent TAVR at 25 centers in the United States who were also participating in the Evolut Low Risk Randomized Trial from December 2018 to October 2019. Eligible patients had severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis and met American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guideline indications for aortic valve replacement. Interventions: Patients underwent attempted implant of an Evolut or Evolut PRO transcatheter aortic valve, with valve size based on annular measurements. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified primary end point was the incidence of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 30 days. The prespecified primary efficacy end point was device success defined as the absence of procedural mortality, the correct position of 1 bioprosthetic heart valve in the proper anatomical location, and the absence of more than mild aortic regurgitation postprocedure. Results: A total of 150 patients underwent an attempted implant. Baseline characteristics include mean age of 70.3 (5.5) years, 48.0% female (n = 72), and a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 1.4 (0.6%). Most patients (136; 90.7%) had Sievers type I valve morphology. The incidence of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke was 1.3% (95% CI, 0.3%-5.3%) at 30 days. The device success rate was 95.3% (95% CI, 90.5%-98.1%). At 30 days, the mean (SD) AV gradient was 7.6 (3.7) mm Hg and effective orifice area was 2.3 (0.7) cm2. A new permanent pacemaker was implanted in 22 patients (15.1%). No patients had greater than mild paravalvular leak. Conclusions and Relevance: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low-surgical risk patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis achieved favorable 30-day results, with low rates of death and stroke and high device success rate. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03635424.