Clinical impact of complex percutaneous coronary intervention in the pre-TAVR workup.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the workup for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the clinical impact of coronary revascularization complexity remains largely unknown. This study sought to examine the impact of PCI complexity on clinical outcomes after TAVR in patients undergoing PCI in the preprocedural workup. METHODS: This was a multicenter study including consecutive patients scheduled for TAVR with concomitant significant coronary artery disease. Complex PCI was defined as having at least 1 of the following features: 3 vessels treated, ≥ 3 stents implanted, ≥ 3 lesions treated, bifurcation with 2 stents implanted, total stent length > 60 mm, or chronic total occlusion. The rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularization were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 1550 patients were included, of which 454 (29.3%) underwent complex PCI in the pre-TAVR workup. After a median follow-up period of 2 [1-3] years after TAVR, the incidence of MACE was 9.6 events per 100 patients-years. Complex PCI significantly increased the risk of cardiovascular death (HR, 1.44; 95%CI, 1.01-2.07), nonperiprocedural myocardial infarction (HR, 1.52; 95%CI, 1.04-2.21), and coronary revascularization (HR, 2.46; 95%CI, 1.44-4.20). In addition, PCI complexity was identified as an independent predictor of MACE after TAVR (HR, 1.44; 95%CI, 1.09-1.83; P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: In TAVR candidates with significant coronary artery disease requiring percutaneous treatment, complex revascularization was associated with a higher risk of MACE. The degree of procedural complexity should be considered a strong determinant of prognosis in the PCI-TAVR population.

Experience with the ACURATE neo and neo2 transcatheter aortic valves in Spain. The PRECISA (PRospective Evaluation Complementing Investigation with ACURATE devices) registry.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have documented a high rate of implantation success with the ACURATE neo2 valve, as well as a reduction in paravalvular leak (PVL) compared to its predecessor, the ACURATE neo. However, there are no studies that have reviewed and compared the long-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of these patients. AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the results of the ACURATE neo transcatheter aortic valve in a real-world context, and to compare the results of the outcomes of both generations of this device (ACURATE neo and ACURATE neo2), with a specific focus on procedural success, safety, and long-term effectiveness. METHODS: A prospective study including all consecutive patients treated with the ACURATE neo device in seven hospitals was conducted (Clinical Trials Identification Number: NCT03846557). The primary endpoint consisted of a composite of adverse events, including mortality, aortic insufficiency, and other procedural complications. As the second-generation device (ACURATE neo2) replaced the ACURATE neo during the study period, hemodynamic and clinical results before admission, at 30 days, and at 1 year of follow-up were compared between the two generations. RESULTS: A total of 296 patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the ACURATE device, with 178 patients receiving the ACURATE neo and 118 patients receiving the ACURATE neo2. In the overall population, the absence of device success occurred in 14.5%. The primary reason for the absence of device success was the presence of para-valvular regurgitation ≥ 2. There were no instances of coronary occlusions, valve embolization, annulus rupture, or procedural deaths. ACURATE neo2 was associated with a significantly higher device success rate (91.7% vs. 82%, p = 0.04), primarily due to a significantly lower rate of para-valvular regurgitation, which remained significant at 1 year. CONCLUSION: The use of ACURATE neo and neo2 transcatheter aortic valves is associated with satisfactory clinical results and an extremely low rate of complications. The ACURATE neo2 enables a significantly higher device success rate, primarily attributed to a significant reduction in the rate of PVL.

Assessing the impact of haemodynamic monitoring with CardioMEMS on heart failure patients: a cost-benefit analysis.

AIMS: The objective of this study was to perform a cost-benefit analysis of the CardioMEMS HF System (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, USA) in a heart failure (HF) clinic in Spain by evaluating the real-time remote monitoring of pulmonary artery pressures, which has been shown to reduce HF-related hospitalizations and improve the quality of life for selected HF patients. Particularly, the study aimed to determine the value of CardioMEMS in Southern Europe, where healthcare costs are significantly lower and its effectiveness remains uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: This single-centre study enrolled all consecutive HF patients (N = 43) who had been implanted with a pulmonary artery pressure sensor (CardioMEMS HF System); 48.8% were females, aged 75.5 ± 7.0 years, with both reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction; 67.4% of them were in New York Heart Association Class III. The number of HF hospitalizations in the year before and the year after the sensor implantation was compared. Quality-adjusted life years gained based on a literature review of previous studies were calculated. The rate of HF hospitalizations was significantly lower at 1 year compared with the year before CardioMEMS implantation (0.25 vs. 1.10 events/patient-year, hazard ratio 0.22, P = 0.001). At the end of the first year, the usual management outperformed the CardioMEMS HF System. By the end of the second year, the CardioMEMS system is estimated to reduce costs compared with usual management (net benefits of €346). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results, we suggest that remote monitoring of pulmonary artery pressure with the CardioMEMS HF System represents a midterm and long-term efficient strategy in a healthcare setting in Southern Europe.

A Prospective, Multicenter, Real-World Registry of Coronary Lithotripsy in Calcified Coronary Arteries: The REPLICA-EPIC18 Study.

BACKGROUND: Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) has demonstrated effectiveness in the treatment of calcified lesions in selected patients with stable coronary disease. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to assess the performance of coronary IVL in calcified coronary lesions in a real-life, all comers, setting. METHODS: The REPLICA-EPIC18 study prospectively enrolled consecutive patients treated with IVL in 26 centers in Spain. An independent core laboratory performed the angiographic analysis and event adjudication. The primary effectiveness endpoint assessed procedural success (successful IVL delivery, final diameter stenosis <20%, and absence of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]). The primary safety endpoint measured freedom from MACE at 30 days. A predefined substudy compared outcomes between acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) patients. RESULTS: A total of 426 patients (456 lesions) were included, 63% of the patients presenting with ACS. IVL delivery was successful in 99% of cases. Before IVL, 49% of lesions were considered undilatable. The primary effectiveness endpoint was achieved in 66% of patients, with similar rates among CCS patients (68%) and ACS patients (65%). Likewise, there were no significant differences in angiographic success after IVL between CCS and ACS patients. The rate of MACE at 30 days (primary safety endpoint) was 3% (1% in CCS and 5% in ACS patients [P = 0.073]). CONCLUSIONS: Coronary IVL proved to be a feasible and safe procedure in a "real-life" setting, effectively facilitating stent implantation in severely calcified lesions. Patients with ACS on admission showed similar angiographic success rates but showed a trend toward higher 30-day MACE compared with patients with CCS. (REPLICA-EPIC18 study [Registry of Coronary Lithotripsy in Spain]; NCT04298307).

Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and Small Aortic Annulus: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment in patients with severe aortic stenosis and small aortic annulus (SAA) remains to be determined. This study aimed to compare the hemodynamic and clinical outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with a SAA. METHODS: This prospective multicenter international randomized trial was performed in 15 university hospitals. Participants were 151 patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA (mean diameter <23 mm) randomized (1:1) to TAVR (n=77) versus SAVR (n=74). The primary outcome was impaired valve hemodynamics (ie, severe prosthesis patient mismatch or moderate-severe aortic regurgitation) at 60 days as evaluated by Doppler echocardiography and analyzed in a central echocardiography core laboratory. Clinical events were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The mean age of the participants was 75.5±5.1 years, with 140 (93%) women, a median Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality of 2.50% (interquartile range, 1.67%-3.28%), and a median annulus diameter of 21.1 mm (interquartile range, 20.4-22.0 mm). There were no differences between groups in the rate of severe prosthesis patient mismatch (TAVR, 4 [5.6%]; SAVR, 7 [10.3%]; P=0.30) and moderate-severe aortic regurgitation (none in both groups). No differences were found between groups in mortality rate (TAVR, 1 [1.3%]; SAVR, 1 [1.4%]; P=1.00) and stroke (TAVR, 0; SAVR, 2 [2.7%]; P=0.24) at 30 days. After a median follow-up of 2 (interquartile range, 1-4) years, there were no differences between groups in mortality rate (TAVR, 7 [9.1%]; SAVR, 6 [8.1%]; P=0.89), stroke (TAVR, 3 [3.9%]; SAVR, 3 [4.1%]; P=0.95), and cardiac hospitalization (TAVR, 15 [19.5%]; SAVR, 15 [20.3%]; P=0.80). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA (women in the majority), there was no evidence of superiority of contemporary TAVR versus SAVR in valve hemodynamic results. After a median follow-up of 2 years, there were no differences in clinical outcomes between groups. These findings suggest that the 2 therapies represent a valid alternative for treating patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA, and treatment selection should likely be individualized according to baseline characteristics, additional anatomical risk factors, and patient preference. However, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution because of the limited sample size leading to an underpowered study, and need to be confirmed in future larger studies. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03383445.

Incidence, predictors, and prognostic significance of impaired functional status early after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: There are scarce data on the factors associated with impaired functional status after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and its clinical impact. This study aimed to determine the incidence, predictors, and prognostic implications of impaired functional class (NYHA class III-IV) following TAVR. METHODS: This multicenter study included 3462 transarterial TAVR patients receiving newer generation devices. The patients were compared according to their NYHA class at 1 month of follow-up (NYHA I-II vs NYHA III-IV). A multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify the predictors of 30-day NYHA class III-IV. Patient survival was compared with the Kaplan-Meier method and factors associated with decreased survival were identified with Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: The mean age of the study population was 80.3±7.3 years, with 47% of women, and a median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 3.8% [IQR, 2.5-5.8]. A total of 208 patients (6%) were in NYHA class III-IV 1 month after TAVR. Predictors of 30-day NYHA class III-IV were baseline NYHA class III-IV (OR, 1.76; 95%CI, 1.08-2.89; P=.02), chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (OR, 1.80; 95%CI, 1.13-2.83; P=.01), and post-TAVR severe mitral regurgitation (OR, 2.00; 95%CI, 1.21-3.31; P<.01). Patients in NYHA class III-IV 1 month after TAVR were at higher risk of death (HR, 3.68; 95%CI, 2.39-5.70; P<.01) and heart failure-related hospitalization (HR, 6.00; 95%CI, 3.76-9.60; P<.01) at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Up to 6% of contemporary TAVR patients exhibited an impaired functional status following TAVR. Worse baseline NYHA class, chronic pulmonary obstructive disease, and severe mitral regurgitation predicted 30-day NYHA class III/IV, and this determined a higher risk of mortality and heart failure hospitalization at 1-year follow-up. Further studies on the prevention and treatment optimization of patients with impaired functional status after TAVR are needed.

Safety and Efficacy of TAVR With a Pressure Sensor and Pacing Guidewire: SAFE-TAVI Trial.

BACKGROUND: The SavvyWire (OpSens Inc) is a 0.035-inch preshaped guidewire with dedicated pacing properties and a distal pressure sensor allowing for continuous hemodynamic pressure monitoring. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the efficacy and safety of the guidewire during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter clinical study included patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR in 8 European centers. The primary efficacy endpoint was defined as effective left ventricular rapid pacing runs with the guidewire translating into a significant systemic pressure drop (below 60 mm Hg). The safety outcome included the absence of major procedural complications related to the guidewire. RESULTS: A total of 121 patients (mean age: 82.2 ± 5.9 years, 50% women) were included in the study, and 119 (98.3%) patients were finally treated with the study device. A balloon-expandable valve was implanted in 45 (37.8%) patients. Predilatation and postdilatation were performed in 89 (74.8%) and 14 (11.8%) patients, respectively. The primary efficacy endpoint was achieved in 116 (98.3%) patients, and the mean aortic systolic arterial pressure achieved during rapid pacing was 46.6 ± 11.3 mm Hg. Hemodynamic assessment with the use of the OptoMonitor 3 (OpSens Inc) without additional catheter exchange was achieved in 117 (99.2%) patients. The safety endpoint was achieved in 117 (99.2%) patients. No procedural mortality, stroke, or ventricular perforation was reported. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the guidewire during TAVR procedures appeared to be efficacious and safe. This device could help minimize interventions during the procedure and improve the clinical decision making after transcatheter heart valve deployment. (SavvyWire Efficacy and Safety in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Procedures [SAFE-TAVI]; NCT05492383).

Balloon- vs Self-Expanding Transcatheter Valves for Failed Small Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses: 1-Year Results of the LYTEN Trial.

BACKGROUND: Data comparing valve systems in the valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) field have been obtained from retrospective studies. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the 1-year hemodynamic performance and clinical outcomes between balloon-expandable valves (BEV) SAPIEN 3/ULTRA (Edwards Lifesciences) and self-expanding valves (SEV) Evolut R/PRO/PRO+ (Medtronic) in ViV-TAVR. METHODS: Patients with a failed small (≤23 mm) surgical valve undergoing ViV-TAVR were randomized to receive a SEV or a BEV. Patients had a clinical and valve hemodynamic (Doppler echocardiography) evaluation at 1-year follow-up. Study outcomes were defined according to VARC-2/VARC-3 criteria. Intended performance of the valve was defined as mean gradient <20 mm Hg, peak velocity <3 m/s, Doppler velocity index ≥0.25 and less than moderate AR. RESULTS: A total of 98 patients underwent ViV-TAVR (46 BEV, 52 SEV). At 1-year follow-up, patients receiving a SEV had a lower mean transaortic gradient (22 ± 8 mm Hg BEV vs 14 ± 7 mm Hg SEV; P < 0.001), and a higher rate of intended valve performance (BEV: 30%, SEV:76%; P < 0.001). There were no cases of greater than mild aortic regurgitation. There were no differences in functional status (NYHA functional class >II, BEV: 7.3%, SEV: 4.1%; P = 0.505) or quality of life (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, BEV: 77.9 ± 21.2, SEV: 81.8 ± 14.8; P = 0.334). No differences in all-cause mortality (BEV: 6.5%, SEV: 3.8; P = 0.495), heart failure hospitalization (BEV: 6.5%, SEV: 1.9%; P = 0.214), stroke (BEV: 0%, SEV: 1.9%; P = 0.369), myocardial infarction (BEV: 0%, SEV: 1.9%; P = 0.347), or pacemaker implantation (BEV: 2.2%, SEV: 1.9%; P = 0.898) were found. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who underwent ViV-TAVR for failed small aortic bioprostheses, those receiving a SEV exhibited a better valve hemodynamic profile at 1-year follow-up. There were no differences between SEV and BEV regarding functional status, quality of life, or clinical outcomes.

Cardiac Death After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Contemporary Devices.

BACKGROUND: The burden of cardiac death after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), particularly from advanced heart failure (HF) and sudden cardiac death (SCD), remains largely unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the incidence and predictors of SCD and HF-related death in TAVR recipients treated with newer-generation devices. METHODS: This study included a total of 5,421 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR with newer-generation devices using balloon (75.7%) or self-expandable (24.3%) valves. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 2 (IQR: 1-3) years, 976 (18.0%) patients had died, 50.8% from cardiovascular causes. Advanced HF and SCD accounted for 11.6% and 7.5% of deaths, respectively. Independent predictors of HF-related death were atrial fibrillation (HR: 2.17; 95% CI: 1.47-3.22; P < 0.001), prior pacemaker (HR: 1.79; 95% CI: 1.10-2.92; P = 0.01), reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HR: 1.08 per 5% decrease; 95% CI: 1.01-1.14; P = 0.02), transthoracic approach (HR: 2.50; 95% CI: 1.37-4.55; P = 0.003), and new-onset persistent left bundle branch block (HR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.14-3.02; P = 0.01). Two baseline characteristics (diabetes, HR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.13-2.89; P = 0.01; and chronic kidney disease, HR: 1.72; 95% CI: 1.02-2.90; P = 0.04) and 3 procedural findings (valve in valve, HR: 2.17; 95% CI: 1.01-4.64; P = 0.04; transarterial nontransfemoral approach, HR: 2.23; 95% CI: 1.23-4.48; P = 0.01; and periprocedural ventricular arrhythmia, HR: 7.19; 95% CI: 2.61-19.76; P < 0.001) were associated with an increased risk of SCD after TAVR. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced HF and SCD accounted for a fifth of deaths after TAVR in contemporary practice. Potentially treatable factors leading to increased risk of HF deaths and SCD were identified, such as arrhythmia/dyssynchrony factors for HF and valve-in-valve TAVR or periprocedural ventricular arrhythmias for SCD.

Late Bleeding Events in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Workup Pre-TAVR.

BACKGROUND: In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the work-up pre-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the incidence and clinical impact of late bleeding events (LBEs) remain largely unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the incidence, clinical characteristics, associated factors, and outcomes of LBEs in patients undergoing PCI in the work-up pre-TAVR. METHODS: This was a multicenter study including 1,457 consecutive patients (mean age 81 ± 7 years; 41.5% women) who underwent TAVR and survived beyond 30 days. LBEs (>30 days post-TAVR) were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. RESULTS: LBEs occurred in 116 (7.9%) patients after a median follow-up of 23 (IQR: 12-40) months. Late bleeding was minor, major, and life-threatening or disabling in 21 (18.1%), 63 (54.3%), and 32 (27.6%) patients, respectively. Periprocedural (<30 days post-TAVR) major bleeding and the combination of antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy at discharge were independent factors associated with LBEs (P ≤ 0.02 for all). LBEs conveyed an increased mortality risk at 4-year follow-up compared with no bleeding (43.9% vs 36.0; P = 0.034). Also, LBE was identified as an independent predictor of all-cause mortality after TAVR (HR: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.05-1.83; P = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: In TAVR candidates with concomitant significant coronary artery disease requiring percutaneous treatment, LBEs after TAVR were frequent and associated with increased mortality. Combining antiplatelet and anticoagulation regimens and the occurrence of periprocedural bleeding determined an increased risk of LBEs. Preventive strategies should be pursued for preventing late bleeding after TAVR, and further studies are needed to provide more solid evidence on the most safe and effective antithrombotic regimen post-TAVR in this challenging group of patients.

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or standard care in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: the multicentre, randomised EURO SHOCK trial.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock (CGS) occurs in 10% of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI), with in-hospital mortality rates of 40-50% despite revascularisation. AIMS: The EURO SHOCK trial aimed to determine if early use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) could improve outcomes in patients with persistent CGS following primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). METHODS: This multicentre, pan-European trial randomised patients with persistent CGS 30 minutes after PPCI of the culprit lesion to receive either VA-ECMO or continue with standard therapy. The primary outcome measure was 30-day all-cause mortality in an intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary endpoints included 12-month all-cause mortality and 12-month composite of all-cause mortality or rehospitalisation due to heart failure. RESULTS: Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial was stopped before completion of recruitment, after randomisation of 35 patients (standard therapy n=18, VA-ECMO n=17). Thirty-day all-cause mortality occurred in 43.8% of patients randomised to VA-ECMO and in 61.1% of patients randomised to standard therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21-1.45; p=0.22). One-year all-cause mortality was 51.8% in the VA-ECMO group and 81.5% in the standard therapy arm (HR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.21-1.26; p=0.14). Vascular and bleeding complications occurred more often in the VA-ECMO arm (21.4% vs 0% and 35.7% vs 5.6%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Due to the limited number of patients recruited to the trial, no definite conclusions could be drawn from the available data. Our study demonstrates the feasibility of randomising patients with CGS complicating acute MI but also illustrates the challenges. We hope these data will inspire and inform the design of future large-scale trials.

Optimal Degree of Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Valve Oversizing in Patients With Borderline Aortic Annulus Measurements: Insights From a Multicenter Real-World Experience.

BACKGROUND: The potential benefit of using larger or smaller transcatheter heart valves (THV) in patients with borderline aortic annulus measurement (BAM) remains uncertain. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with the selection of larger or smaller THV in the context of BAM. METHODS: This was a multicenter observational study including patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the SAPIEN 3 or SAPIEN 3 Ultra-valve systems (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) from April 2014 to June 2021. BAM was defined according to the manufacturer sizing chart and included the following annulus areas: 314 to 346, 400 to 430, 500 to 546 mm2. A 1:1 propensity score matching was used to compare outcomes of patients with larger or smaller THV. RESULTS: From a total of 2467 patients, BAM was identified in 852 patients (34.5%). A larger and smaller THV was selected in 338 (39.7%) and 514 patients (60.3%) patients, respectively. The choice of a larger THV was associated (before and after propensity matching) with a higher risk of new-onset left bundle branch block (HR, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.39-3.65; P=0.001) and permanent pacemaker implantation (HR, 1.86 [95% CI, 1.11-3.09]; P=0.016) without any impact on gradients or the risk of moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation at discharge (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.41-1.45]; P=0.427). The risk of periprocedural complications such as aortic rupture and tamponade was low (<1%) and similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patient with BAM, selecting a larger SAPIEN 3/Ultra THV increased the risk of conduction disturbances without any benefit on valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes.

New-onset persistent left bundle branch block following sutureless aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence, predictive factors and prognostic value of new-onset persistent left bundle branch block (NOP-LBBB) in patients undergoing sutureless surgical aortic valve replacement (SU-SAVR). METHODS: A total of 329 consecutive patients without baseline conduction disturbances or previous permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) who underwent SU-SAVR with the Perceval valve (LivaNova Group, Saluggia, Italy) in two centres from 2013 to 2019 were included. Patients were on continuous ECG monitoring during hospitalisation and 12-lead ECG was performed after the procedure and at hospital discharge. NOP-LBBB was defined as a new postprocedural LBBB that persisted at hospital discharge. Baseline, procedural and follow-up clinical and echocardiography data were collected in a dedicated database. RESULTS: New-onset LBBB was observed in 115 (34.9%) patients, and in 76 (23.1%) persisted at hospital discharge. There were no differences in baseline and procedural characteristics between patients with (n=76) and without (n=253) NOP-LBBB. After a median follow-up of 3.3 years (2.3-4.4 years), patients with NOP-LBBB had a higher incidence of PPI (14.5% vs 6.3%, p=0.016), but exhibited similar rates of all-cause mortality (19.4% vs 19.2%, p=0.428), cardiac mortality (8.1% vs 9.4%, p=0.805) and heart failure readmission (21.0% vs 23.2%, p=0.648), compared with the no/transient LBBB group. NOP-LBBB was associated with a decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 1-year follow-up (delta: -5.7 vs +0.2, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: NOP-LBBB occurred in approximately a quarter of patients without prior conduction disturbances who underwent SU-SAVR and was associated with a threefold increased risk of PPI along with a negative impact on LVEF at follow-up.

Incidence, predictors and prognostic value of permanent pacemaker implantation following sutureless valve implantation in low-risk aortic stenosis patients.

OBJECTIVES: Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-SAVR) has been associated with higher rates of permanent pacemaker (PPM) compared with conventionally implanted aortic bioprostheses. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence, predictors and mid-term prognostic impact of PPM after Perceval (Livanova, London, UK) SU-SAVR in low-risk patients. METHODS: A total of 400 consecutive low-risk (EuroSCORE II < 4%) patients without prior pacemaker who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement with the Perceval prosthesis from 2013 to 2019 in 2 centres were included. Baseline, clinical and electrocardiographic parameters, procedural characteristics and follow-up data were collected. RESULTS: PPM was required in 36 (9%) patients after SU-SAVR, with a median time between the procedure and PPM implantation of 7.5 (4.5-10.5) days. Older age and prior right bundle branch block (RBBB) were associated with an increased risk of PPM (P < 0.05 for all), but only baseline RBBB was found to be an independent predictor of new PPM requirement (odds ratio: 2.60, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-5.81; P = 0.022). At a median follow-up of 3.4 (2.3-4.5) years, there were no differences between groups in mortality (PPM: 36%, no PPM: 22%, P = 0.105) or heart failure rehospitalization (PPM: 25%, no PPM: 21%, P = 0.839). CONCLUSIONS: About 1 out of 10 low-risk patients with aortic stenosis undergoing SU-SAVR with the Perceval prosthesis required PPM implantation. Prior RBBB determined an increased risk (close to 3-fold) of PPM following the procedure. PPM was not associated with a higher risk of clinical events at 3-year follow-up.

Balloon- vs Self-Expanding Valve Systems for Failed Small Surgical Aortic Valve Bioprostheses.

BACKGROUND: Data comparing valve systems in the valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) field have been obtained from retrospective studies. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the hemodynamic results between the balloon-expandable valve (BEV) SAPIEN (3/ULTRA, Edwards Lifesciences) and self-expanding valve (SEV) Evolut (R/PRO/PRO+, Medtronic) in ViV-TAVR. METHODS: Patients with a failed small (≤23 mm) surgical valve were randomized to receive a BEV or an SEV. The primary endpoint was valve hemodynamics (maximal/mean residual gradients, severe prosthesis patient mismatch [PPM], or moderate-severe aortic regurgitation) at 30 days as evaluated by Doppler echocardiography. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients were randomized, and of these, 98 patients finally underwent a ViV-TAVR procedure (BEV: n = 46, SEV: n = 52). The procedure was successful in all cases, with no differences in clinical outcomes at 30 days between groups (no death or stroke events). Patients in the SEV group exhibited lower mean and maximal transvalvular gradient values (15 ± 8 mm Hg vs 23 ± 8 mm Hg; P ˂ 0.001; 28 ± 16 mm Hg vs 40 ± 13 mm Hg, P ˂ 0.001), and a tendency toward a lower rate of severe PPM (44% vs 64%; P = 0.07). There were no cases of moderate-severe aortic regurgitation. In total, 55 consecutive patients (SEV: n = 27; BEV: n = 28) underwent invasive valve hemodynamic evaluation during the procedure, with no differences in mean and peak transvalvular gradients between both groups (P = 0.41 and P = 0.70, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with small failed aortic bioprostheses, ViV-TAVR with an SEV was associated with improved valve hemodynamics as evaluated by echocardiography. There were no differences between groups in intraprocedural invasive valve hemodynamics and 30-day clinical outcomes (Comparison of the Balloon-Expandable Edwards Valve and Self-Expandable CoreValve Evolut R or Evolut PRO System for the Treatment of Small, Severely Dysfunctional Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses. The 'LYTEN' Trial; NCT03520101).