Redo-TAVI with the ACURATE neo2 and Prime XL for balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve failure.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data regarding treatment for failed balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in redo-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). AIMS: We aimed to assess THV performance, neoskirt height and expansion when performing redo-TAVI with the ACURATE platform inside a SAPIEN 3 (S3) compared to redo-TAVI with an S3 in an S3. METHODS: Redo-TAVI was performed on the bench using each available size of the S3, the ACURATE neo2 (ACn2) and the next-generation ACURATE Prime XL (AC XL) implanted at 2 different depths within 20 mm/23 mm/26 mm/29 mm S3s serving as the "failed" index THV. Hydrodynamic testing was performed to assess THV function. Multimodality assessment was performed using photography, X-ray, microcomputed tomography (micro-CT), and high-speed videos. RESULTS: The ACURATE in S3 combinations had favourable hydrodynamic performance compared to the S3 in S3 for all size combinations. In the 20 mm S3, redo-TAVI with the ACn2 had lower gradients compared to the S3 (mean gradient 16.3 mmHg for the ACn2 vs 24.7 mmHg for the 20 mm S3 in 20 mm S3). Pinwheeling was less marked for the ACURATE THVs than for the S3s. On micro-CT, the S3s used for redo-TAVI were underexpanded across all sizes. This was also observed for the ACURATE platform, but to a lesser extent. CONCLUSIONS: Redo-TAVI with an ACn2/AC XL within an S3 has favourable hydrodynamic performance and less pinwheeling compared to an S3 in S3. This comes at the price of a taller neoskirt.

First-in-human study of the CAPTIS embolic protection system during transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: Stroke and other clinically significant embolic complications are well documented in the early period following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The CAPTIS device is an embolic protection system, designed to provide neurovascular and systemic protection by deflecting debris away from the brain's circulation, capturing the debris and thus avoiding systemic embolisation. AIMS: We aimed to study the safety and feasibility study of the CAPTIS complete cerebral and full-body embolic protection system during TAVR. METHODS: A first-in-human study investigated the safety, feasibility and debris capturing ability of CAPTIS during TAVR. Patients were followed for 30 days. The primary endpoints were device safety and cerebrovascular events at 72 hours. RESULTS: Twenty patients underwent TAVR using balloon-expandable or self-expanding valve systems. CAPTIS was successfully delivered, positioned, deployed, and retrieved in all cases, and TAVR was successfully completed without device-related complications. No cerebrovascular events were observed. High numbers of debris particles were captured in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the CAPTIS full-body embolic protection system during TAVR was safe, and it captured a substantial number of debris particles. No patient suffered from a cerebrovascular event. A randomised clinical trial is warranted to prove its efficacy.

Challenges and Future Directions in Redo Aortic Valve Reintervention After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Failure.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly being performed in younger and lower surgical risk patients. Reintervention for failed transcatheter heart valves will likely increase in the future as younger patients are expected to outlive the initial bioprosthesis. While redo-TAVR has emerged as an attractive and less invasive alternative to surgical explantation (TAVR-explant) to treat transcatheter heart valve failure, it may not be feasible in all patients due to the risk of coronary obstruction and impaired coronary access. Conversely, TAVR-explant can be offered to most patients who are surgical candidates, but the reported outcomes have shown high mortality and morbidity. This review provides the latest evidence, current challenges, and future directions on redo-TAVR and TAVR-explant for transcatheter heart valve failure, to guide aortic valve reintervention and facilitate patients' lifetime management of aortic stenosis.

Coronary Embolism After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement-Case Series and Review of Literature.

Periprocedural systemic embolism is a well-documented complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Although the most focus was given to cerebral embolism (which remains unpredictable, difficult to prevent, and a source of increased morbidity and mortality after TAVR), coronary embolism remains less investigated and potentially overlooked. This study provides a case series of 3 patients diagnosed with coronary embolism after TAVR in our institution over a 2-year period (3 of 297 cases, 1%) and a systematic literature review (4 studies; 19 case reports). Overall, coronary embolism associated with TAVR is frequently characterized by proximal vessel occlusion causing ST-elevation myocardial infarction and hemodynamic instability with lower mortality in the acute phase as compared with late coronary embolism. However, it often presents with distal vessel occlusion and minor symptoms that may be overlooked in the periprocedural period. In conclusion, we suggest that TAVR-associated coronary embolism has a much higher prevalence than previously documented. Further studies are warranted to properly assess the prevalence and impact of this phenomenon.

Redo-TAVI with SAPIEN 3 in SAPIEN XT or SAPIEN 3 - impact of pre- and post-dilatation on final THV expansion.

BACKGROUND: When a balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve (THV) is chosen to treat a failed balloon-expandable THV, there is a risk of underexpansion with a potential impact on performance. AIMS: We aimed to assess the impact of pre- and post-dilatation on the expansion of balloon-expandable THVs after redo-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). METHODS: Redo-TAVI was performed on the bench with a 23 mm SAPIEN 3 (S3) implanted within a 23 mm SAPIEN XT (SXT) or a 23 mm S3, both of which served as the "failed" THVs. Pre- and/or post-dilatation was performed using a 23 mm non-compliant TRUE balloon. Expansion of the index and redo-THVs were assessed before and after pre-/post-dilatation using microcomputed tomography (micro-CT), and THV hydrodynamic testing was conducted. RESULTS: Without pre- or post-dilatation, the S3 was underexpanded, for all combinations, particularly in the mid-portion of the THV (18.6 mm and 19.7 mm representing 81% and 86% of the nominal diameter inside the SXT and S3, respectively). Pre- and post-dilatation had an additive effect on diameter expansion of the redo-THV, which remained constrained in most combinations. The only combination to achieve nominal expansion was the S3 in S3 when both pre- and post-dilatation were performed. The S3 remained underexpanded inside the SXT despite pre- and post-dilatation (93% in the mid-portion). Improved redo-THV expansion was accompanied by 2.7 mm (12%) overexpansion of the index THV. While all samples had acceptable hydrodynamic performance, the underexpanded samples had worse leaflet pinwheeling. CONCLUSIONS: When performing redo-TAVI with a 23 mm S3 inside a 23 mm SXT or S3, only the S3 in S3 with the use of pre- and post-dilatation reached full expansion. This underlines the importance of CT assessment of THV expansion and the role of pre-/post-dilatation.

Treatment of late paravalvular regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: prognostic implications.

AIMS: Paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The effect of transcatheter interventions to treat PVR after the index TAVI was investigated. METHODS AND RESULTS: A registry of consecutive patients who underwent transcatheter intervention for ≥ moderate PVR after the index TAVI at 22 centers. The principal outcomes were residual aortic regurgitation (AR) and mortality at 1 year after PVR treatment. A total of 201 patients were identified: 87 (43%) underwent redo-TAVI, 79 (39%) plug closure, and 35 (18%) balloon valvuloplasty. Median TAVI-to-re-intervention time was 207 (35; 765) days. The failed valve was self-expanding in 129 (63.9%) patients. The most frequent devices utilized were a Sapien 3 valve for redo-TAVI (55, 64%), an AVP II as plug (33, 42%), and a True balloon for valvuloplasty (20, 56%). At 30 days, AR ≥ moderate persisted in 33 (17.4%) patients: 8 (9.9%) after redo-TAVI, 18 (25.9%) after plug, and 7 (21.9%) after valvuloplasty (P = 0.036). Overall mortality was 10 (5.0%) at 30 days and 29 (14.4%) at 1 year: 0, 8 (10.1%), and 2 (5.7%) at 30 days (P = 0.010) and 11 (12.6%), 14 (17.7%), and 4 (11.4%) at 1 year (P = 0.418), after redo-TAVI, plug, and valvuloplasty, respectively. Regardless of treatment strategy, patients in whom AR was reduced to ≤ mild had lower mortality at 1 year compared with those with AR persisting ≥ moderate [11 (8.0%) vs. 6 (21.4%); P = 0.007]. CONCLUSION: This study describes the efficacy of transcatheter treatments for PVR after TAVI. Patients in whom PVR was successfully reduced had better prognosis. The selection of patients and the optimal PVR treatment modality require further investigation.

A bench study of balloon-expandable valves for the treatment of self-expanding valve failure.

BACKGROUND: Coronary obstruction and access are concerns in patients undergoing redo transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). AIMS: We sought to assess the neoskirt height, leaflet overhang, leaflet deflection,and transcatheter heart valve (THV) expansion and performance, at 2 different implant depths, of the SAPIEN 3 Ultra (S3U) within the ACURATE neo2 (ACn2) THV. METHODS: An in vitro study was performed with a 23 mm S3U deployed within a small (S) ACn2 and a 26 mm S3U deployed within a medium (M) and a large (L) ACn2. The S3U outflow was positioned at the top of the ACn2 crown (low implant) and at the base of the commissural post of the ACn2 (high implant). Testing was performed under physiological conditions as per ISO-5840-3 standard. RESULTS: The neoskirt height was shorter when the S3U outflow was positioned at a low implantation depth (S: 9.6 mm, M: 12.2 mm, L: 13.8 mm vs S: 15.2 mm, M: 15.1 mm, L: 17.8 mm ACn2 for high implants). Hydrodynamic performance was acceptable for all configurations. Leaflet overhang was <50% for all configurations except the low implant of the 26 mm S3U in the L ACn2 (77.6%). There was a gap from the side of the neoskirt to the outer border of the THV frame which was >2 mm for all configurations. The S3U was underexpanded for all configurations, and the achieved area was 77.9%-92.9% of the expected nominal area. CONCLUSIONS: Redo TAVI with an S3U within an ACn2 has favourable hydrodynamics and moderate leaflet overhang. Importantly, the design of the ACn2 results in a neoskirt that is not deflected all the way to the outer dimensions of the THV, hence creating a space that facilitates coronary flow and access.

Thoracic Aorta Perforation Treated Conservatively After TAVR in a Patient With Extremely Tortuous Aorta.

Aortic perforation is a rare complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement associated with grim outcomes. Tortuous and calcified aortas increase the risk of aortic trauma and perforation. We report a case in which, despite massive thoracic bleeding, avoidance of thoracic aortic surgery resulted in clinical recovery. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Failed Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Valves.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly being performed in younger and lower surgical risk patients. Given the longer life expectancy of these patients, the bioprosthetic valve will eventually fail, and aortic valve reintervention may be necessary. Although currently rare, redo-TAVR will likely increase in the future as younger patients are expected to outlive their transcatheter bioprosthesis. This review provides a contemporary overview of the indications, procedural planning, implantation technique, and outcomes of TAVR in failed transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valves.

Coronary Access Following Redo TAVR: Impact of THV Design, Implant Technique, and Cell Misalignment.

BACKGROUND: The implications and potential challenges of coronary access after redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are unknown. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the impact of different transcatheter heart valve (THV) designs, neoskirt height, implant technique, and cell misalignment on coronary access after redo TAVR. METHODS: Different THV designs (Sapien 3 [Edwards Lifesciences LLC], Evolut Pro [Medtronic], ACURATE neo [Boston Scientific Corporation], and Portico [Abbott Structural Heart]) and sizes were implanted inside Sapien XT (Edwards Lifesciences LLC) and Evolut R (Medtronic) THVs, which were modeled as the "failed" THVs, at different implant depths. Valve combinations underwent micro-computed tomography to determine the neoskirt height and dimensions of the lowest accessible cell for potential coronary access. This was compared with dimensions of 6-F/7-F/8-F coronary guiding catheters. RESULTS: Redo TAVR combinations resulted in a wide range of neoskirt heights (15.4-31.6 mm) and a variable diameter of the lowest accessible cell (1.9-21.8 mm). An ACURATE neo implanted in a Sapien XT resulted in the largest accessible cells, whereas a Portico implanted in a Sapien XT resulted in the lowest neoskirt heights. The smallest accessible cell was observed in the Evolut Pro-in-Evolut R configuration with higher neoskirt heights. Redo TAVR in a tall frame valve with supra-annular leaflets caused a taller neoskirt height. In Evolut-in-Evolut combinations, misalignment of the cells of the 2 THVs reduced the cell area by 30% to 50% compared with an aligned configuration. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that different redo TAVR combinations are not equivalent in terms of future coronary access. Redo TAVR using a tall frame valve in a failed tall frame valve and misaligned cells may lead to potentially challenging coronary access.

Outcomes of Redo Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement According to the Initial and Subsequent Valve Type.

BACKGROUND: As transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) replacement is increasingly used in patients with longer life expectancy, a sizable proportion will require redo TAV replacement (TAVR). The unique configuration of balloon-expandable TAV (bTAV) vs a self-expanding TAV (sTAV) potentially affects TAV-in-TAV outcome. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to better inform prosthesis selection, TAV-in-TAV outcomes were assessed according to the type of initial and subsequent TAV. METHODS: Patients from the Redo-TAVR registry were analyzed using propensity weighting according to their initial valve type (bTAV [n = 115] vs sTAV [n = 106]) and subsequent valve type (bTAV [n = 130] vs sTAV [n = 91]). RESULTS: Patients with failed bTAVs presented later (vs sTAV) (4.9 ± 2.1 years vs 3.7 ± 2.3 years; P < 0.001), with smaller effective orifice area (1.0 ± 0.7 cm2 vs 1.3 ± 0.8 cm2; P = 0.018) and less frequent dominant regurgitation (16.2% vs 47.3%; P < 0.001). Mortality at 30 days was 2.3% (TAV-in-bTAV) vs 0% (TAV-in-sTAV) (P = 0.499) and 1.7% (bTAV-in-TAV) vs 1.0% (sTAV-in-TAV) (P = 0.612); procedural safety was 72.6% (TAV-in-bTAV) vs 71.2% (TAV-in-sTAV) (P = 0.817) and 73.2% (bTAV-in-TAV) vs 76.5% (sTAV-in-TAV) (P = 0.590). Device success was similar according to initial valve type but higher with subsequent sTAV vs bTAV (77.2% vs 64.3%; P = 0.045), primarily because of lower residual gradients (10.3 mm Hg [8.9-11.7 mm Hg] vs 15.2 mm Hg [13.2-17.1 mm Hg]; P < 0.001). Residual regurgitation (moderate or greater) was similar after bTAV-in-TAV and sTAV-in-TAV (5.7%) and nominally higher after TAV-in-bTAV (9.1%) vs TAV-in-sTAV (4.4%) (P = 0.176). CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients, no association was observed between TAV type and redo TAVR safety or mortality, yet subsequent sTAV was associated with higher device success because of lower redo gradients. These findings are preliminary, and more data are needed to guide valve choice for redo TAVR.

Standardized Definitions for Bioprosthetic Valve Dysfunction Following Aortic or Mitral Valve Replacement: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.

Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) may be caused by structural or nonstructural valve dysfunction. Both surgical and transcatheter bioprosthetic valves have limited durability because of structural valve deterioration. The main objective of this summary of experts participating in a virtual workshop was to propose standardized definitions for nonstructural and structural BVD and BVF following aortic or mitral biological valve replacement with the goal of facilitating research reporting and implementation of these terms in clinical practice. Definitions of structural BVF, based on valve reintervention or death, underestimate the true incidence of BVF. However, definitions solely based on the presence of high transprosthetic gradient at a given echocardiogram during follow-up overestimate the incidence of structural BVD and BVF. Definitions of aortic or mitral structural BVD must therefore include the confirmation by imaging of permanent structural changes to the leaflets alongside evidence of deterioration in valve hemodynamic function at echocardiography follow-up.

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation to treat aortic para-valvular regurgitation after TAVI.

BACKGROUND: Para-valvular regurgitation (PVR) after transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) implantation is associated with increased mortality. Redo-TAVI may be applied to treat PVR, yet with unknown efficacy. We thought to assess redo-TAVI efficacy in reducing PVR using the Redo-TAVI registry (45 centers; 600 TAV-in-TAV cases). METHODS: Patients were excluded if redo-TAVI was done urgently (N = 253), for isolated TAV stenosis (N = 107) or if regurgitation location at presentation remained undetermined (N = 123). The study group of patients with PVR (N = 70) were compared against patients with intra-valvular regurgitation (IVR) (N = 41). Echocardiographic examinations of 67 (60%) patients were reassessed in a core-lab for data accuracy validation. RESULTS: Core-lab examination validated the jet location in 66 (98.5%) patients. At 30 days, the rate of residual AR ≥ moderate was 7 (10%) in the PVR cohort vs. 1 (2.4%) in the IVR cohort, p = 0.137. The rate of procedural success was 53 (75.7%) vs. 33 (80.5%), p = 0.561; procedural safety 51 (72.8%) vs. 31 (75.6%), p = 0.727; and mortality 2 (2.9%) vs. 1 (2.4%), p = 0.896 at 30 days and 7 (18.6%) vs. 2 (11.5%), p = 0.671 at 1 year, respectively. Of patients with residual PVR ≥ moderate at 30 days, 5/7 occurred after implanting balloon-expandable in self-expanding TAV and 2/7 after balloon-expandable in balloon-expandable TAV. CONCLUSIONS: This study puts in perspective redo-TAVI efficacy and limitations to treat PVR after TAVI. Patient selection for this and other therapies for PVR needs further investigation.

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).

Balloon-Expandable Valve for Treatment of Evolut Valve Failure: Implications on Neoskirt Height and Leaflet Overhang.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the degree of Evolut (Medtronic) leaflet pinning, diameter expansion, leaflet overhang, and performance at different implant depths of the balloon-expandable Sapien 3 (S3, Edwards Lifesciences LLC) transcatheter heart valve (THV) within the Evolut THV. BACKGROUND: Preservation of coronary access and flow is a major factor when considering the treatment of failed Evolut THVs. METHODS: An in vitro study was performed with 20-, 23-, 26-, and 29-mm S3 THVs deployed within 23-, 26-, 29-, and 34-mm Evolut R THVs, respectively. The S3 outflow was positioned at various depths at node 4, 5, and 6 of the Evolut R. Neoskirt height, leaflet overhang, performance, and Evolut R valve housing diameter expansion were assessed under physiological conditions as per ISO 5840-3 standard. RESULTS: The neoskirt height for the Evolut R was shorter when the S3 outflow was positioned at node 4 compared with node 6 (node 4 height for 23 mm = 16.3 mm, 26 mm = 17.1 mm, 29 mm = 18.3 mm, and 34 mm = 19.9 mm vs node 6 height for 23 mm = 23.9 mm, 26 mm = 23.4 mm, 29 mm = 24.7 mm, and 34 mm = 27 mm Evolut R). All configurations exhibited acceptable hydrodynamic performance irrespective of the degree of leaflet overhang, except the 29-mm S3 implanted in 34-mm Evolut R at node 4 (regurgitant fraction >20%). The valve housing radius of the index Evolut R increased when the S3 was implanted, with the increase ranging from 0 to 2.5 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Placement of the S3 at a lower implant position within an index Evolut R reduces the neoskirt height with no significant compromise to S3 valve function despite a higher degree of leaflet overhang. Low S3 implantation may facilitate future coronary access after redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Mechanical vs Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Younger Than 70 Years of Age: A Hazard Ratio Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The choice between mechanical valves (MVs) and bioprosthetic valves (BVs) in patients undergoing aortic valve surgery is complex, requiring a balance between the inferior durability of BV and the indicated long-term anticoagulation therapy with MV. This is especially challenging in the middle age group (< 70 years), which has seen an increased use of BV over recent years. METHODS: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies using propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability weighting (IPW) was conducted to examine the clinical outcomes of patients < 70 years of age undergoing aortic valve replacement. The primary outcome was overall long-term mortality. Secondary outcomes included bleeding events, reoperation, systemic thromboembolism, and cerebrovascular accident. RESULTS: Fifteen studies (1 RCT, 12 PSM studies, and 2 IPW studies; aggregated sample size 16,876 patients) were included. Median follow-up was 7.8 years. Mortality was higher with BVs vs MVs (hazard ratio [HR] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.49), as was reoperation (HR 3.05, 95% CI 2.22-4.19). Bleeding risk was lower with BVs (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.48-0.69), and the risk of stroke was similar in both valve types (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.83-1.11) CONCLUSIONS: This broadest meta-analysis comparing BV and MV suggests a survival benefit for MVs in patients < 70 years of age. This should lead to reassessment of current patterns used in the choice of valves for patients < 70 among the cardiothoracic surgery community.