Annular size and interaction with trans-catheter aortic valves for treatment of severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: Insights from the BEAT registry.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is safe and feasible in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), but whether annular size may influence TAVR results in BAV patients remains unclear. We aimed at evaluating the impact of aortic annular size on procedural and clinical outcomes of BAV patients undergoing TAVR, as well as potential interactions between annular dimension and trans-catheter heart valve (THV) type (balloon-expandable (BEV) vs. self-expanding (SEV). METHODS: BEAT is a multicenter registry of consecutive BAV stenosis undergoing TAVR. For this sub-study patients were classified according to annular dimension in small-annulus (area < 400 mm2 or perimeter <72 mm), medium-annulus (area ≥ 400 and < 575 mm2, perimeter ≥72 mm and< 85 mm), large-annulus (area ≥ 575 mm2 or perimeter ≥85 mm). Primary endpoint was Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) device success. RESULTS: 45(15.5%) patients had small, 132(45.3%) medium, and 114(39.2%) large annuli. Compared with other groups, patients with large annuli were more frequently male, younger, with higher body mass index, larger aortic valve area, higher rate of moderate-severe calcification, lower mean trans-aortic valve gradient and lower left ventricular ejection fraction. In large-annuli SEVs were associated with a lower VARC-2 device success (75.9% vs. 90.6%, p = 0.049) driven by a higher rate of paravalvular valvular leak (PVL) compared to BEVs (20.7% vs. 1.2%, p < 0.001). However, no differences in clinical outcomes were observed according to annular size nor THV type. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR in BAV patients is feasible irrespective of annular size. However in patients with large aortic annulus SEVs were associated with a significantly higher rate of PVLs compared to BEVs.

Predictors of high residual gradient after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis.

OBJECTIVES: To define the incidence of high residual gradient (HRG) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in BAVs and their impact on short term outcome and 1-year mortality. BACKGROUND: Transcatheter heart valves (THVs) offer good performance in tricuspid aortic valves with low rate of HRG. However, data regarding their performance in bicuspid aortic valves (BAV) are still lacking. METHODS: The BEAT (Balloon vs Self-Expandable valve for the treatment of bicuspid Aortic valve sTenosis) registry included 353 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR (Evolut R/PRO or Sapien 3 valves) in BAV between June 2013 and October 2018. The primary endpoint was device unsuccess with post-procedural HRG (mean gradient ≥ 20 mmHg). The secondary endpoint was to identify the predictors of HRG following the procedure. RESULTS: Twenty patients (5.6%) showed HRG after TAVR. Patients with HRG presented higher body mass index (BMI) (30.7 ± 9.3 vs. 25.9 ± 4.8; p < 0.0001) and higher baseline aortic mean gradients (57.6 ± 13.4 mmHg vs. 47.7 ± 16.6, p = 0.013) and more often presented with BAV of Sievers type 0 than patients without HRG. At multivariate analysis, BMI [odds ratio (OR) 1.12; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.20, p = 0.001] and BAV type 0 (OR 11.31, 95% CI 3.45-37.06, p < 0.0001) were confirmed as independent predictors of high gradient. CONCLUSION: HRG following TAVR in BAVs is not negligible and is higher among patients with high BMI and with BAV 0 anatomy.

Procedural and clinical outcomes of type 0 versus type 1 bicuspid aortic valve stenosis undergoing trans-catheter valve replacement with new generation devices: Insight from the BEAT international collaborative registry.

BACKGROUND: Although bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is not considered a "sweet spot" to trans-catheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), a certain number of BAV underwent TAVR. Whether BAV phenotype affects outcomes following TAVR remains debated. We aimed at evaluating the impact of BAV phenotype on procedural and clinical outcomes after TAVR using new generation trans-catheter heart valves (THVs). METHODS: patients included in the BEAT registry were classified according to the BAV phenotype revealed at multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) in type 0 (no raphe) vs. type 1 (1 raphe). Primary end-point was Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) device success. Secondary end-points included procedural complications, rate of permanent pacemaker implantation, clinical outcomes at 30-day and 1-year. RESULTS: Type 0 BAV was present in 25(7.1%) cases, type 1 in 218(61.8%). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups. Moderate-severe aortic valve calcifications at MSCT were less frequently present in type 0 vs. type 1 (52%vs.71.1%,p = 0.05). No differences were reported for THV type, size, pre and post-dilation between groups. VARC-2 success tended to be lower in type 0 vs. type 1 BAV (72%vs86.7%;p = 0.07). Higher rate of mean transprosthetic gradient ≥20 mmHg was observed in type 0 vs. type 1 group (24%vs6%,p = 0.007). No differences were reported in the rate of post-TAVR moderate-severe aortic regurgitation and clinical outcomes between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms TAVR feasibility in both BAV types, however a trend toward a lower VARC-2 device success and a higher rate of mean transprosthetic gradient ≥20 mmHg was observed in type 0 vs. type 1 BAV.

Balloon Versus Self-Expandable Valve for the Treatment of Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis: Insights From the BEAT International Collaborative Registrys.

BACKGROUND: Large data comparing the performance of new-generation self-expandable versus balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves in bicuspid aortic stenosis are lacking. We aim to compare the safety and performance of balloon-expandable and self-expandable transcatheter heart valves in the treatment of bicuspid aortic stenosis. METHODS: The BEAT (balloon versus self-expandable valve for the treatment of bicuspid aortic valve stenosis) registry included 353 consecutive patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation using new-generation Evolut R/PRO or Sapien 3 valves in bicuspid aortic valve. RESULTS: A total of 353 patients (n=242 [68.6%] treated with Sapien 3 and n=111 [68.6%] treated with Evolut R (n=70)/PRO [n=41]) were included. Mean age was 77.8±8.3 years and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 4.4±3.3%. Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 device success was similar between Sapien 3 and Evolut R/PRO (85.6% versus 87.2%; P=0.68). In the Sapien 3 group, 4 patients experienced annular rupture whereas this complication did not occur in the Evolut R/PRO group. After propensity score matching, Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 device success was similar between both groups (Sapien 3=85.7% versus Evolut R/Pro=84.4%; P=0.821). Both in the overall and in the matched population, no differences in the rate of permanent pacemaker implant were observed. At 1-year follow-up, the rate of overall death and cardiovascular death were similar between the 2 groups. In the unmatched population, the 1-year echocardiographic follow-up demonstrated similar rate of moderate-to-severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation (Evolut R/PRO 10.5% versus Sapien 3 4.2%, P=0.077); however, after propensity matching, the rate of moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak became significantly higher among patients treated with self-expandable valves (9.3% versus 0%; P=0.043). CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms the feasibility of both Sapien 3 and Evolut R/PRO implantation in bicuspid aortic valve anatomy; a higher rate of moderate-severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation was observed in the Evolut R/PRO group at 1-year follow-up in the matched cohort, although patients treated with balloon-expandable valve had a higher rate of annular rupture.

A multicentre, randomised controlled clinical study of drug-coated balloons for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis.

AIMS: Treatment of in-stent restenosis of coronary stents is challenging. The use of drug-coated balloons (DCB) is a promising technique to treat in-stent restenosis without adding another metal layer. The aim of the AGENT ISR randomised trial is to evaluate angiographic and clinical outcomes in patients with ISR of a previously treated lesion who were treated with either a DCB with a new coating formulation (Agent) or a standard DCB (SeQuent Please). METHODS AND RESULTS: AGENT ISR is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority study comparing the Agent and SeQuent Please DCB. A total of 125 patients (mean age ~68 years, 18% female) with in-stent restenosis of a previously treated lesion <28 mm in length were randomised at 11 sites in Europe to Agent (n=65) or SeQuent Please (n=60). The primary endpoint, six-month in-stent late lumen loss, in the Agent group (0.397±0.43 mm [n=51]) was non-inferior to that of the SeQuent Please group (0.393±0.536 mm [n=49]), as the two-sided upper 95% confidence boundary for the difference between groups was less than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.20 (difference 0.004, 95% CI [-0.189, 0.196]; pnon-inferiority=0.046). At one year, mortality was 3.1% in Agent and 1.7% in SeQuent Please patients (p>0.99), target lesion revascularisation 7.7% versus 10.0% (p=0.89), and stent thrombosis 0% versus 3.3% (p=0.44). Similar improvements in quality of life were seen in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this head-to-head comparison of two DCB, Agent proved to be non-inferior to SeQuent Please for in-stent late lumen loss at six months. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02151812 (http://clinicaltrials.gov/).

Matched comparison of next- and early-generation balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve implantations in failed surgical aortic bioprostheses.

AIMS: Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation (VinV) is established for the treatment of degenerated surgical bioprostheses in patients at high operative risk. Our aim was to report on the first large assessment of VinV with next-generation balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves. METHODS AND RESULTS: After SAPIEN XT or SAPIEN 3 VinV, 514 patients were analysed using an inverse probability of treatment weighting. Standardised clinical and haemodynamic outcomes were compared, and core laboratory evaluation of implantation depth was performed. Thirty-day all-cause mortality was 0.6% and 3.5% for SAPIEN 3 and SAPIEN XT (p=0.077). Residual transprosthetic gradient ≥20 mmHg was observed in 38.3% (SAPIEN 3) and 35.7% (SAPIEN XT) of patients (p=0.627) with increased rates in small bioprostheses (≤21 mm true ID). In SAPIEN 3 VinV, low implantation depth >20% THV stent frame length was associated with a higher rate of elevated transaortic gradients (p=0.048). Similarly, an implantation depth >5 mm was linked to more pacemaker implantations (p=0.01). Overall, a trend towards higher pacemaker implantation rates was observed after SAPIEN 3 VinV (6% vs. 2.5% in SAPIEN XT, p=0.071). CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter aortic VinV with the balloon-expandable SAPIEN XT or SAPIEN 3 was similarly safe and effective. However, residual stenosis remains a concern, particularly in smaller bioprostheses and with increasing implantation depth.

Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds in patients with coronary artery disease: results from the German-Austrian ABSORB RegIstRy (GABI-R).

AIMS: The aim of this study was to analyse the procedural results and midterm safety of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) used for percutaneous coronary intervention in a large all-comers cohort from the German-Austrian ABSORB RegIstRy (GABI-R). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 3,231 patients were included in this prospective, observational, multicentre study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02066623) of consecutive patients undergoing BVS implantation between November 2013 and January 2016. Endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE; a composite endpoint of death, target vessel revascularisation, and myocardial infarction), and target lesion failure (TLF; a composite endpoint of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularisation). Scaffold thrombosis was a further endpoint. Of all patients, 51.5% presented with acute coronary syndrome. Predilatation and post-dilatation were performed in 91.5% and 71.9% of patients, respectively. Procedural success was 98.9%. After six months, the incidence of MACE was 4.1% and of TLF 2.4%. The rate of target vessel MI was 1.5%, and target lesion revascularisation was performed in 1.8%. Definite/ probable scaffold thrombosis was documented in 1.4% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: GABI-R, the largest registry to provide data regarding safety after BVS implantation in a real-world setting, reveals high procedural success and low six-month event rates.

Clinical restenosis and its predictors after implantation of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: results from GABI-R.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess clinical restenosis and its predictors after implantation of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) in everyday practice in the large-scale German-Austrian ABSORB Registry (GABI-R). METHODS AND RESULTS: Between November 2013 and January 2016, 3,264 patients underwent BVS implantation in the 93 centres of GABI-R. At six-month follow-up, 24 patients experienced clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation (cTLR) unrelated to BVS thrombosis (cumulative incidence 0.76%; angiographically, 58.3% of in-BVS restenosis of focal pattern). Compared to patients without cTLR, patients with cTLR had more lesions per patient (1.83±1.0 vs. 1.36±0.7), complex (52.3% vs. 36.2%) and mild-to-moderately calcified lesions (65.9% vs. 60.5%) treated, and more frequently had overlapping BVS (22.2% vs. 10.8%), all p<0.05. Implanted BVS length was 40.0 mm (28.0, 46.9) vs. 23.0 mm (18.0, 30.0), p<0.001, remaining in the multivariable analysis the only independent predictor of cTLR (hazard ratio 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.04, p<0.001). The myocardial infarction rate was also significantly higher among patients with cTLR, 29.2% vs. 1.7%, p<0.0001. CONCLUSIONS: cTLR related to BVS restenosis at six months after BVS implantation is a rare event depending on implanted BVS length. Whether cTLR increases the myocardial infarction risk needs to be evaluated at longer-term follow-up and within the setting of adequately powered randomised trials.