IntraCardiac echocardiography-guided leaflet modification for coronary protection prior to transcatheter valve-in-valve replacement.

A 79-year-old man with a failed 25-mm CE Magna Ease 3300 surgical prosthesis (Edwards Lifesciences) and of high re-operative surgical risk (STS 8%) presented with dyspnea, NYHA III. Cardiac computed tomography angiography revealed anatomy that was high risk for coronary occlusion with a short right coronary artery height of 6 mm and a valve-to-coronary distance of 2 mm.

Contemporary experience of mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair technology in patients with mitral annular calcification.

BACKGROUND: Mitral annular calcification (MAC) has been an exclusion for many of the earlier pivotal trials that were instrumental in gaining device approval and indications for mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (M-TEER). AIMS: To evaluate the impact of MAC on the procedural durability and success of newer generation MitraClip® systems (G3 and G4 systems). METHODS: Data were collected from Northwell TEER registry. Patients that underwent M-TEER with third or fourth generation MitraClip device were included. Patients were divided into -MAC (none-mild) and +MAC (moderate-severe) groups. Procedural success was defined as ≤ grade 2 + mitral regurgitation (MR) postprocedure, and durability was defined as ≤ grade 2 + MR retention at 1 month and 1 year. Univariate analysis compared outcomes between groups. RESULTS: Of 260 M-TEER patients, 160 were -MAC and 100 were +MAC. Procedural success was comparable; however, there were three patients who required conversion to cardiac surgery during the index hospitalization in the +MAC group versus none in the -MAC group (though this was not statistically significant). At 1-month follow-up, there were no significant differences in MR severity. At 1-year follow-up, +MAC had higher moderate-severe MR (22.1% vs. 7.5%; p = 0.002) and higher mean transmitral gradients (5.3 vs. 4.0 mmHg; p = 0.001) with no differences in mortality, New York Heart Association functional class or ejection fraction. CONCLUSION: In selective patients with high burden of MAC, contemporary M-TEER is safe, and procedural success is similar to patients with none-mild MAC. However, a loss of procedural durability was seen in +MAC group at 1-year follow-up. Further studies with longer follow-ups are required to assess newer mTEER devices and their potential clinical implications in patients with a high burden of MAC.

Comparison of Periprocedural and Intermediate-Term Outcomes of TAVI in Patients with Ejection Fraction ≤ 20% vs. Patients with 20% < EF ≤ 40.

Treatment of congestive heart failure (CHF) with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction and severe aortic stenosis (AS) is challenging, yet transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a suitable treatment option in such patients. We compared the periprocedural outcomes of TAVR in patients with an ejection fraction (EF) of ≤20% (VLEF group) to patients with an EF > 20% to ≤40% (LEF group). We included patients with severe AS and reduced LV ejection fraction (LVEF ≤ 40%) who underwent TAVR at four centers within Northwell Health between January 2016 and December 2020. Over 2000 consecutive patients were analyzed, of which 355 patients met the inclusion criteria. The primary composite endpoint was in-hospital mortality, moderate or greater paravalvular (PVL), stroke, conversion to open surgery, aortic valve re-intervention, and/or need for PPM. Secondary endpoints were length of stay, NYHA classification at 1 month and 1 year, mortality at 1 month and 1 year, mean valve gradient at 1 month, KCCQ score at 1 month, and ≥ moderate PVL at 1 month. There was no difference in the primary composite endpoint between the two groups (23.6% for VLEF vs. 25.3% for LEF, p = 0.29). During TAVR placement, 40% of patients in the VLEF group required ≥1 vasopressors for hypotension lasting ≥30 min vs. only 21% of patients in the LEF group (p < 0.01). Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use during procedure was greater in the VLEF group (9% vs. 1%, p < 0.01)-all placed post TAVR. Emergency ECMO use was higher in the VLEF group as well (5% vs. 0%). Total length of stay was significantly different between the two groups as well (6 days vs. 3 days, p < 0.01). Both groups had a change in LVEF of ~10%. One-year outcomes were similar between the groups. All-cause mortality at 1 year was not significantly different at 1 year (13% for VLEF vs. 11% for LEF), and KCC scores were also similar (77.54 vs. 74.97). Mean aortic valve gradients were also similar (12 mmHg vs. 11 mmHg, p = 0.48). Our study suggests that patients with EF ≤ 20% can safely have TAVR with similar periprocedural outcomes compared to patients with EF > 20% to ≤40% despite higher rates of vasopressor and mechanical support.

Short- and Mid-Term Outcomes of Complex and High-Risk Versus Standard Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients undergoing TAVR varies and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. We evaluated the outcomes of complex and high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (CHIP-PCIs) and TAVR compared with standard PCI and TAVR. Between January 2014 and March 2021, a total of 276 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) who underwent TAVR and PCI at 3 centers within Northwell Health were retrospectively reviewed. CHIP-PCI was defined as PCI with one of the following: left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <30%; left main coronary artery (LMCA)/chronic total occlusion (CTO) intervention; atherectomy; or need for left ventricular (LV) support. One hundred twenty- seven patients (46%) had CHIP-PCI prior to TAVR and 149 patients (54%) had standard PCI. Thirteen percent of CHIP-PCI and 22% of standard PCI cases were done concomitantly with TAVR. CHIP-PCI criteria were met for low EF (19%), LMCA (25%), CTO (3%), LV support (20%), and atherectomy (50%). The types of valves used were similarly divided (49% balloon expandable vs 51% self expanding. Major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rate for CHIP-PCI/TAVR was 4.9% at 30 days vs 1.3% for standard PCI/TAVR (P=.09), driven by in-hospital stroke. At 1 year, the rates of MACCE for CHIP-PCI/TAVR remained higher than for standard PCI/TAVR, but was not statistically significant (8.7% vs 4%; P=.06), driven by revascularization. We found no differences between major and/or minor vascular complications. New York Heart Association classification at 1 month was similar (I/II 93% vs 95%; P=.87). Our study suggests that CHIP-PCI can be safely performed in patients with complex CAD and concomitant severe AS.

Comparison of clinical outcomes between use of overexpanding an undersized versus nominal-sized SAPIEN 3 ultra transcatheter heart valve in patients with borderline annulus area.

BACKGROUND: For patients with borderline annulus areas that fall between two valve sizes, overinflating a smaller balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve (THV) may be preferable to nominal sizing of a larger THV. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the outcomes of nominal preparation versus over-expanding an under-sized SAPIEN 3 Ultra (S3U) transcatheter heart valve (OE-THV) in cases with borderline annuli. METHODS: 958 patients that underwent TAVR with the S3U at four high-volume TAVR centers between January 2017 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. 336 patients were identified as borderline annuli size, of which 146 (44%) received OE-THVs and 190 (56%) received nominal-sized THVs. The primary composite endpoint included: in-hospital mortality, aortic injury, moderate/severe paravalvular leak (PVL), permanent pacemaker implant (PPM), stroke, or conversion to surgery. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar except for a larger percentage of females in the OE-THV (53.42% vs. 42.11%, p = 0.04). TAVR with OE-THV resulted a reduction in the primary composite endpoint (13.69% vs. 22.63%, p = 0.04). On subgroup analysis, there was no difference between 20 mm OE-THV versus 23 mm nominal or 23 mm OE-THV versus 26 mm nominal, but there was a reduction in the primary composite endpoint in patients with larger annuli that received a 26 mm OE-THV compared to the 29 mm nominally sized THV (9.7% vs. 27.4%, p = 0.02). At 1 month and 1 year follow-up, there was no significant difference in mortality, PVL rates, NYHA class, and/or KCCQ score. CONCLUSION: Overinflating a smaller-sized S3U THV may be a safer option in comparison to nominal sizing in patients with borderline annular area.

Transcatheter heart valve selection in patients with low ejection fraction and aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of transcatheter heart valve (THV) choice in patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction. BACKGROUND: The management congestive heart failure with combined LV systolic dysfunction and severe aortic stenosis (AS) is challenging, yet transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a suitable treatment option in such patients. Head-to-head comparisons among the balloon-expandable (BEV) and self-expandable (SEV) THV remain limited in this subgroup of patients. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we included patients with severe AS with LV systolic dysfunction (LVEF ≤40%) who underwent TAVR at four high volume centers. Two thousand and twenty-eight consecutive patients were analyzed, of which 335 patients met inclusion criteria. One hundred fourty-six patients (43%) received a SEV, and 189 patients (57%) received a BEV. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar except for a higher proportion of females in the SEV group. The primary composite endpoint of in-hospital mortality, moderate or greater paravalvular (PVL), stroke, conversion to open surgery, aortic valve reintervention, and/or need for permanent pacemaker (PPM) was no different among THV choice. There was more PVL in the SEV group, but higher transaortic gradients in the BEV group. Clinical outcomes and quality of life measures were similar up to 1 year follow-up. CONCLUSION: The choice of THV in patients with severe AS and systolic dysfunction must be weighed on a case-by-case basis.

A Novel Computed Tomographic Angiography Tortuosity Index to Predict Successful Sentinel Cerebral Embolic Protection Delivery for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Background: Percutaneous transradial placement of the Sentinel cerebral embolic protection device (CEPD) (Boston Scientific) is indicated during transcatheter aortic valve replacement to capture embolic material in patients without excessive tortuosity of the right subclavian/innominate arteries. We aimed to generate a quantitative tortuosity index (TI) from the preoperative computed tomographic angiography (CTA) as an objective measure of tortuosity to determine suitability for CEPD placement. Methods: Eighty-one patients considered for CEPD were included in this study. A centerline of the right subclavian/innominate arteries was generated from preoperative CTA scans. Three-dimensional Cartesian coordinates of landmarks along the centerline were used to calculate curvature. Tortuosity was derived as a change in angulation along each vessel segment. Peak and average TI values were calculated. Results: Sixty-seven patients had CEPD placement attempted. Unsuccessful CEPD placement occurred in 3 of 67 (4.4%) patients. The peak tortuosity for the successful, unsuccessful, and visually tortuous (not attempted) cohorts were 49.66 ± 11.96°/cm, 113.92 ± 5.70°/cm, and 70.44 ± 17.01°/cm, respectively. The peak and average TI of the successful cohort follows a normal distribution. A proposed TI cutoff for safe CEPD was peak tortuosity of 74°/cm and average tortuosity of 30°/cm, 2 standard deviations above the peak and average TI of the successful cohort. All unsuccessful CEPD patients fell outside the boundaries. Half of the visually tortuous patients were within the boundaries but did not have CEPD attempted. Conclusions: A novel TI based on preoperative CTA can assist in selecting patients for transradial CEPD. Our proposed quantitative tool may help to appropriately include and exclude patients for CEPD placement.