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).

Evolut PRO and SAPIEN ULTRA Performance in Small Aortic Annuli: The OPERA-TAVI Registry.

BACKGROUND: The performance of latest iteration transcatheter aortic valve replacement platforms in patients with small aortic anatomy remains underexplored. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate effectiveness and performance between the self-expanding (SE) Evolut PRO and PRO+ and the balloon-expandable (BE) SAPIEN ULTRA in patients with small aortic annuli. METHODS: Data from the OPERA-TAVI (Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO vs. SAPIEN 3 ULTRA Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry were used, with 1:1 propensity score matching. Primary endpoints included 1-year effectiveness composite (all-cause mortality, disabling stroke, or heart failure hospitalization) and 30-day device-related (hemodynamic structural valve dysfunction and nonstructural valve dysfunction) outcomes. RESULTS: Among 3,516 patients, 251 matched pairs with aortic annular area <430 mm2 were assessed. The 1-year primary effectiveness outcome did not differ significantly between cohorts (SE 10.8% vs BE 11.2%; P = 0.91). The 30-day device-oriented composite outcome was more favorable in the Evolut PRO group (SE 4.8% vs BE 10.4%; P = 0.027). Notably, SE valve recipients showed higher rates of disabling stroke (SE 4.0% vs BE 0.0%; P < 0.01) and paravalvular leaks (mild or greater: SE 48.5% vs BE 18.6% [P < 0.001]; moderate: SE 4.5% vs BE 1.2% [P = 0.070]). The BE group had higher rates of prosthesis-patient mismatch (moderate or greater: SE 16.0% vs BE 47.1% [P < 0.001]; severe: SE 1.3% vs BE 5.7% [P = 0.197]) and more patients with residual mean gradients >20 mm Hg (SE 1.0% vs BE 13.5%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with small aortic annuli, transcatheter aortic valve replacement with latest iteration devices is safe. SE platforms are associated with more favorable device performance in terms of hemodynamic structural and nonstructural dysfunction. Randomized data are needed to validate these findings and guide informed device selection.

Sex-Related Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Self-Expanding or Balloon-Expandable Valves: Insights from the OPERA-TAVI Registry.

Evidence regarding gender-related differences in response to transcatheter aortic valve implantation according to the valve type is lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of gender on the treatment effect of Evolut PRO/PRO+ (PRO) or SAPIEN 3 Ultra (ULTRA) devices on clinical outcomes. The Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO vs SAPIEN 3 Ultra Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (OPERA-TAVI) is a multicenter, multinational registry including patients who underwent the latest-iteration PRO or ULTRA implantation. Overall, 1,174 of 1,897 patients were matched based on valve type and compared according to gender, whereas 470 men and 630 women were matched and compared according to valve type. The 30-day and 1-year outcomes were evaluated. In the PRO and ULTRA groups, men had a higher co-morbidity burden, whereas women had smaller aortic root. The 30-day (device success [DS], early safety outcome, permanent pacemaker implantation, patient-prosthesis mismatch, paravalvular regurgitation, bleedings, vascular complications, and all-cause death) and 1-year outcomes (all-cause death, stroke, and heart failure hospitalization) did not differ according to gender in both valve groups. However, the male gender decreased the likelihood of 30-day DS with ULTRA versus PRO (p for interaction = 0.047). A higher risk of 30-day permanent pacemaker implantation and 1-year stroke and a lower risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch was observed in PRO versus ULTRA, regardless of gender. In conclusion, gender did not modify the treatment effect of PRO versus ULTRA on clinical outcomes, except for 30-day DS, which was decreased in men (vs women) who received ULTRA (vs PRO).

Comparison of different percutaneous revascularisation timing strategies in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing to perform percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) patients remains unknown. AIMS: We sought to compare different PCI timing strategies in TAVI patients. METHODS: The REVASC-TAVI registry is an international registry including patients undergoing TAVI with significant, stable coronary artery disease (CAD) at preprocedural workup. In this analysis, patients scheduled to undergo PCI before, after or concomitantly with TAVI were included. The main endpoints were all-cause death and a composite of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) or rehospitalisation for congestive heart failure (CHF) at 2 years. Outcomes were adjusted using the inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) method. RESULTS: A total of 1,603 patients were included. PCI was performed before, after or concomitantly with TAVI in 65.6% (n=1,052), 9.8% (n=157) or 24.6% (n=394), respectively. At 2 years, all-cause death was significantly lower in patients undergoing PCI after TAVI as compared with PCI before or concomitantly with TAVI (6.8% vs 20.1% vs 20.6%; p<0.001). Likewise, the composite endpoint was significantly lower in patients undergoing PCI after TAVI as compared with PCI before or concomitantly with TAVI (17.4% vs 30.4% vs 30.0%; p=0.003). Results were confirmed at landmark analyses considering events from 0 to 30 days and from 31 to 720 days. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis and stable coronary artery disease scheduled for TAVI, performance of PCI after TAVI seems to be associated with improved 2-year clinical outcomes compared with other revascularisation timing strategies. These results need to be confirmed in randomised clinical trials.

Long-term outcomes of concomitant transcatheter aortic valve implantation and percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: The safety of concomitant percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) setting is still highly debated. This study aimed to assess the safety and the effectiveness of TAVI and PCI performed in the same session compared with TAVI alone. METHODS: Patients with severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease (CAD) (N.=786) who underwent TAVI from June 2007 to April 2021 were divided into two groups: patients who underwent TAVI alone (N.=633) and patients treated with TAVI and concomitant PCI (N.=153). The propensity-score matching adjustment was used to account for baseline confounding variables. RESULTS: A total of 302 TAVI with CAD patients (151 matched pairs), undergoing either isolated TAVI or TAVI+PCI were compared. In-hospital death (6% vs. 4%; P=0.427), stroke (2% vs. 0.7%; P=0.314), myocardial infarction (MI) (0% vs. 0.7%; P=0.317), major and life-threatening bleeding (14.6% vs. 15.9%; P=0.749), and acute kidney injury (9.3% vs. 10.6%; P=0.700) were similar for both groups. At 3 years, the rates of all-cause death (25.2% vs. 19.2%; P=0.615), the composite endpoints of all-cause death and MI (27.2% vs. 21.2%; P=0.699) and all-cause death, MI, and stroke (28.5% vs. 22.5%; P=0.739) were also comparable between the two groups. Achieving complete coronary revascularization in the TAVI setting did not impact on long-term mortality (P=0.257). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis and CAD, concomitant TAVI and PCI was as safe and effective as TAVI alone up to 3-year follow-up.

Management of Myocardial Revascularization in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

BACKGROUND: The best management of stable coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is still unclear due to the marked inconsistency of the available evidence. METHODS: The REVASC-TAVI registry (Management of Myocardial Revascularization in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Coronary Artery Disease) collected data from 30 centers worldwide on patients undergoing TAVI who had significant, stable CAD at preprocedural work-up. For the purposes of this analysis, patients with either complete or incomplete myocardial revascularization were compared in a propensity score matched analysis, to take into account of baseline confounders. The primary and co-primary outcomes were all-cause death and the composite of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and rehospitalization for heart failure, respectively, at 2 years. RESULTS: Among 2407 patients enrolled, 675 pairs of patients achieving complete or incomplete myocardial revascularization were matched. The primary (21.6% versus 18.2%, hazard ratio' 0.88 [95% CI, 0.66-1.18]; P=0.38) and co-primary composite (29.0% versus 27.1%, hazard ratio' 0.97 [95% CI, 0.76-1.24]; P=0.83) outcome did not differ between patients achieving complete or incomplete myocardial revascularization, respectively. These results were consistent across different prespecified subgroups of patients (< or >75 years of age, Society of Thoracic Surgeons score > or <4%, angina at baseline, diabetes, left ventricular ejection fraction > or <40%, New York Heart Association class I/II or III/IV, renal failure, proximal CAD, multivessel CAD, and left main/proximal anterior descending artery CAD; all P values for interaction >0.10). CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis of the REVASC-TAVI registry showed that, among TAVI patients with significant stable CAD found during the TAVI work-up, completeness of myocardial revascularization achieved either staged or concomitantly with TAVI was similar to a strategy of incomplete revascularization in reducing the risk of all cause death, as well as the risk of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and rehospitalization for heart failure at 2 years, regardless of the clinical and anatomical situations.

Real-World Multiple Comparison of Transcatheter Aortic Valves: Insights From the Multicenter OBSERVANT II Study.

BACKGROUND: Head-to-head comparisons of devices for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are mostly limited to 2-arm studies so far. The aim of this study was to compare simultaneously outcomes of the most used, second- and third-generation transcatheter aortic valves in a real-world population. METHODS: A total of 2728 patients undergoing TAVI with different second- and third-generation devices, and enrolled in the multicenter, prospective OBSERVANT II study (Observational Study of Effectiveness of TAVI With New Generation Devices for Severe Aortic Stenosis Treatment) from December 2016 to September 2018 were compared according to the transcatheter aortic valve received. Outcomes were adjudicated through a linkage with administrative databases, and adjusted using inverse propensity of treatment weighting. The primary end point was the composite of all-cause death, stroke and rehospitalization for heart failure at 1-year. Rates were reported consecutively for Evolut R, Evolut PRO, SAPIEN 3, ACURATE neo, and Portico groups. RESULTS: The primary end point did not differ among groups (23.9% versus 24.7% versus 21.5% versus 23.7% versus 27.4%, respectively, P=0.56). Permanent pacemaker implantation was significantly lower for patients receiving SAPIEN 3 (19.9% versus 19.3% versus 12.5% versus 14.7% versus 22.1%, respectively, P<0.01) at 1 year. The SAPIEN 3 had lower rates of paravalvular regurgitation (moderate-to-severe grade 10.1% versus 5.0% versus 2.1% versus 13.1% versus 10.8%, respectively, P<0.01) but higher transprosthetic gradients (median mean gradients 7.0 versus 6.0 versus 10.0 versus 7.0 versus 8.0 mm Hg, respectively, P<0.01) after TAVI. CONCLUSIONS: Data from real-world practice showed low and comparable rates of complications after TAVI considering all the available devices. Patients receiving SAPIEN 3 valve had lower rates of paravalvular regurgitation and permanent pacemaker implantation, but higher transprosthetic gradients.

Treatment in patients with severe asymptomatic aortic stenosis: is it best not to wait?

New insights into the natural history and pathophysiology of patients with aortic stenosis (AS), coupled with the dramatic evolution of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), are fuelling intense interest in the management of asymptomatic patients with severe AS. This patient presenting for elective intervention poses a unique challenge. These patients are not traditionally offered surgical aortic valve replacement or TAVI given their lack of symptoms; however, they are at increased risk given the severity of their AS. Furthermore, clinical experience has shown that symptoms can be challenging to ascertain in many sedentary, deconditioned, and/or elderly patients. In addition, evolving data based on imaging and biomarker evidence of adverse ventricular remodelling, hypertrophy, inflammation, or fibrosis may radically transform existing clinical decision paradigms. However, management of asymptomatic severe AS is otherwise controversial and the decision to intervene requires careful assessment of the benefits and risks in an individual patient. Further randomized trials [EARLY TAVI (NCT03042104), AVATAR (NCT02436655), EVOLVED (NCT03094143)] will help determine future recommendations.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Latest-Iteration Self-Expanding or Balloon-Expandable Valves: The Multicenter OPERA-TAVI Registry.

BACKGROUND: The latest iterations of devices for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have brought refinements to further improve patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare early outcomes of patients undergoing TAVR with the self-expanding (SE) Evolut PRO/PRO+ (Medtronic, Inc) or balloon-expandable (BE) Sapien 3 ULTRA (Edwards Lifesciences) devices. METHODS: The OPERA-TAVI (Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO vs Sapien 3 Ultra Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry collected data from 14 high-volume centers worldwide on patients undergoing TAVR with SE or BE devices. After excluding patients who were not eligible for both devices, patients were compared using 1:1 propensity score matching. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 device success and early safety, respectively. RESULTS: Among 2,241 patients eligible for the present analysis, 683 pairs of patients were matched. The primary efficacy outcome did not differ between patients receiving SE or BE transcatheter aortic valves (SE: 87.4% vs BE: 85.9%; P = 0.47), but the BE device recipients showed a higher rate of the primary safety outcome (SE: 69.1% vs BE: 82.6%; P < 0.01). This finding was driven by the higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (SE: 17.9% vs BE: 10.1%; P < 0.01) and disabling stroke (SE: 2.3% vs BE: 0.7%; P = 0.03) in SE device recipients. On post-TAVR echocardiography, the rate of moderate to severe paravalvular regurgitation was similar between groups (SE: 3.2% vs BE: 2.3%; P = 0.41), whereas lower mean transvalvular gradients were observed in the SE cohort (median SE: 7.0 vs BE: 12.0 mm Hg; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The OPERA-TAVI registry showed that SE and BE devices had comparable Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 device success rates, but the BE device had a higher rate of early safety. The higher permanent pacemaker implantation and disabling stroke rates in SE device recipients drove this composite endpoint.

[Evolution of transcatheter aortic valve implantation from a high-volume Italian center: report of 2058 procedures over 15-year experience]. / Evoluzione dell'impianto transcatetere di valvola aortica in un centro italiano ad alto volume: report di 2058 procedure in 15 anni di esperienza.

BACKGROUND: To assess the longitudinal changes in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) practice and patients' outcomes in a high-volume Italian center. METHODS: We analyzed all patients undergoing TAVI at our Institution from June 2007 to August 2021. We stratified the overall population considering four time periods according to procedural advancements and changes in clinical practice: period 1 (2007-2009, n=107) vs period 2 (2010-2014, n=449) vs period 3 (2015-2019, n=864) vs period 4 (2019-2021, n=638). Baseline and procedural characteristics, and in-hospital outcomes among the four groups were compared. RESULTS: A total of 2058 patients underwent TAVI receiving all the available devices. Patients had a median age of 82 years (78-85) with no differences among time periods. A stepwise reduction of median Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality risk score (3.7 [2.8-5.3] vs 3.6 [2.6-5.4] vs 3.6 [2.5-5.5] vs 3.3 [2.2-4.9]; p=0.01) was observed. In-hospital all-cause-death (7.5% vs 5.1% vs 2.9% vs 3.0%; p<0.05), major stroke (4.7% vs 0.7% vs 1.0% vs 0.8%; p<0.05), major vascular complications (17.8% vs 8.7% vs 10.5% vs 5.8%; p<0.05) and permanent pacemaker implantation (23.4% vs 12.0% vs 8.7% vs 8.8%; p<0.05) rates significantly lowered over time. Device success markedly improved (80.4% vs 87.1% vs 95.0% vs 96.3%; p<0.05) with significant improvement of paravalvular regurgitation after TAVI (moderate-to-severe 16.8% vs 8.1% vs 0.7% vs 0.2%; mild 61.4% vs 38.2% vs 38.5% vs 25.6%; p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: All-cause death and in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing TAVI significantly improved accordingly to technical advancements and changes in clinical practice over 15-year experience.

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).

One-Year Outcomes and Trends over Two Eras of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Real-World Practice.

BACKGROUND: Data reflecting the benefit of procedural improvements in real-world transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) practice are sparse. AIMS: To compare outcomes and trends of two TAVI eras from real Italian practice. METHODS: A total of 1811 and 2939 TAVI patients enrolled in the national, prospective OBSERVANT and OBSERVANT II studies in 2010-2012 and 2016-2018, respectively, were compared in a cohort study. Outcomes were adjusted using inverse propensity of treatment weighting and propensity score matching. RESULTS: The median age (83.0 (79.0-86.0) vs. 83.0 (79.0-86.0)) and EuroSCORE II (5.2 (3.2-7.7) vs. 5.1 (3.1-8.1)) of OBSERVANT and OBSERVANT II patients were similar. At 1 year, patients of the OBSERVANT II study had a significantly lower risk of all-cause death (10.6% vs. 16.3%, Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.63 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.52-0.76)) and rehospitalization for heart failure (HF) (14.3% vs. 19.5%, Sub-distribution HR 0.71 (95%CI 0.60-0.84)), whereas rates of stroke (3.1% vs. 3.6%) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) (16.6% vs. 18.0%) were comparable between study groups. CONCLUSIONS: Age and risk profile among patients undergoing TAVI in Italy remained substantially unchanged between the 2010-2012 and 2016-2018 time periods. After adjustment, patients undergoing TAVI in the most recent era had lower risk of all-cause death and rehospitalization for HF at 1 year, whereas rates of stroke and PPI did not differ significantly.

Intentional Misalignment of a Transcatheter Aortic Valve to Preserve Reaccess to Coronaries of Anomalous Origin.

Achieving patient-specific commissural alignment of transcatheter aortic valves is particularly important to ensure coronary reaccess after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Nevertheless, in case of uncommon origin of coronary arteries, commissural alignment could be counterproductive. This case shows how alignment techniques could serve to intentionally misalign the neocommissures in this subset of patients. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

Usefulness of intravascular ultrasound to assess coronary occlusion after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now a proven treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis. Coronary ostia obstruction is a rare but a life-threatening complication of TAVR. In case of suspected coronary ostia obstruction, intravascular ultrasound study (IVUS) assessment could be feasible and useful to evaluate coronary ostia patency after the transcatheter aortic valve deployment, in high-risk scenarios for coronary occlusion. We described the case of a 73-year-old female with delayed coronary obstruction after TAVR with a 23-mm SAPIEN 3 ULTRA who underwent IVUS-guided percutaneous coronary intervention, using the chimney stenting technique, due to critical ostium left main impingement.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation during COVID-19 pandemic: An optimized model to relieve healthcare system overload.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic upset healthcare systems and their logistics worldwide. We sought to assess safety and effectiveness of an optimized logistics for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) pathway developed during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis. An optimized TAVI logistics based on performing TAVI work-up and procedure during the same hospitalization was used during the COVID-19 pandemic. In-hospital and 30-day outcomes of patients treated during the pandemic were compared with an historical cohort of patients undergoing TAVI with staged work-up before the pandemic within an homogeneous timeframe. RESULTS: Of 536 patients, 227 (42.4%) underwent TAVI during the COVID-19 pandemic with a reduction of 26.5% compared to the pre-pandemic period (n = 309). The median age was 81 (77-85) years and STS score was 3.4 (2.2-5.6)%. Lower rates of in-hospital major vascular complications (2.2% vs. 8.7%; p < 0.01) and life-threatening bleeding (0.4% vs. 4.2%; p = 0.01) were reported in the COVID-19 period, whereas no difference in acute kidney injury (7.0% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.85) rate was reported between COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 periods. No difference in 30-day rates of all-cause death (4.0 vs. 4.5, p = 0.75) and of major adverse cardiovascular events (4.0 vs. 6.1, p = 0.26) were reported between COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 periods. CONCLUSIONS: The use of optimized single-hospitalization logistics for TAVI workup and procedure developed during the COVID-19 pandemic, showed to be as safe and effective as the two-stage TAVI pathway previously adopted, allowing the minimization of potential exposure to COVID-19 infection and shortening times to treatment for severely symptomatic patients.

Clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients younger than 70 years rejected for surgery: the AMTRAC registry.

BACKGROUND: The mean age of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) patients is steadily decreasing. AIMS: The aim of the study was to describe the characteristics, the indications for and the outcomes of TAVI in patients <70 years old. METHODS: All patients undergoing TAVI (n=8,626) from the 18 participating centres between January 2007 and June 2020 were stratified by age (70). For patients <70, the indications for TAVI were extracted from Heart Team discussions and the baseline characteristics and mortality were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Overall, 640 (7.4%) patients were <70 (9.1% during 2018-2020, p<0.001); the mean age was 65.0±2.3 years. The younger patients were more often male, with bicuspid valves or needing valve-in-valve procedures. They had a higher prevalence of lung disease and diabetes. In 80.7% of cases, the Heart Team estimated an increased surgical risk and TAVI was selected, reflected by an STS score >4% in 20.4%. Five-year mortality was similar (29.4 vs 29.8%, HR 0.95, p=0.432) in the <70 and >70 groups. In the <70 group, mortality was higher for those referred for TAVI due to an increased surgical risk compared to those referred for other reasons (31.6 vs 24.5%, HR 1.23, p=0.021). Mortality was similar regardless of the STS stratum in patients judged by the Heart Team to be at increased surgical risk (32.6 vs 30.4%, HR 0.98, p=0.715). CONCLUSIONS: Use of TAVI in patients <70 is becoming more frequent. The main reason for choosing TAVI is due to an increased surgical risk not adequately represented by the STS score. The outcomes for these patients are similar to those for older TAVI patients. Dedicated trials of TAVI/SAVR in younger patients are needed to guide decisions concerning expansion of TAVI indications. ((ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04031274).