Successful Implantation of Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve after TAVR Explantation.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become widely used in recent years, However, there is also an increasing need for removal of TAVR valves due to prosthetic valve dysfunction (PVD) and the development of infective endocarditis. Surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) for these patients is risky due to the original patient background and anatomic conditions. Intuity rapid deployment aortic valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) replacement would be useful for such high risk patients to prevent longer cardiac arrest time and obtain good hemodynamic results. However, there are few reports which present Intuity valve replacement after TAVR explantation. Herein, We report two cases in which we have achieved good hemodynamics with shorter cardiac arrest times by using a rapid deployment valve after TAVR explantation. CASE PRESENTATION: We present 2 cases of successful implantation of the Intuity rapid deployment valve after TAVR explantation. The 84- and 88-year-old female patients had previously received TAVR for severe aortic stenosis with SAPIEN XT (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) and developed PVD during follow-up. The TAVR valve was removed carefully, then an Intuity valve was implanted with cardiac arrest times of 69 and 41 min. Both patients had good echocardiographic results with effective orifice area of 2.0 cm2 and 1.2 cm2 and mean trans-aortic plessure gradient of 9 mmHg and 15 mmHg respectively without aortic regurgitation. They were discharged without major complications. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical AVR using a rapid deployment valve is a useful alternative to sutured AVR after TAVR valve explantation. It allows for shorter cardiac arrest times and better postoperative hemodynamics without major complication.

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).

Transcarotid vascular access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: is choosing the left side always right?

BACKGROUND: The transcarotid (TC) vascular access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as the first-choice alternative to the transfemoral access, in patients unsuitable for the latter. The use of both the left and right common carotid arteries (CCAs) for TC-TAVI has been described, but the optimal side is subject to debate. We conducted this pilot study to compare the level of vessel tortuosity and plaque burden from either the left CCA to the aortic annulus, or the right CCA to the aortic annulus, considering them as surrogates for technical and procedural complexity. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent TC-TAVI between 2018 and 2021 in our institution were included. Using three-dimensional reconstruction, pre-TAVI neck and chest computed tomography angiography exams were reviewed to assess the tortuosity index (TI), sum of angles metric, as well as plaque burden, between each CCA and the aortic annulus. RESULTS: We included 46 patients who underwent TC-TAVI. No significant difference regarding the mean TIs between the left and right sides (respectively 1.20 and 1.19, p = 0.82), the mean sum of angles (left side: 396°, right side: 384°, p = 0.27), and arterial plaque burden (arterial plaque found in 30% of left CCAs and 45% of right CCAs, p = 0.19) was found. CONCLUSIONS: We found no convincing data favoring the use of one particular access side over the other one. The choice of the CCA side in TC-TAVI should to be made on a case-by-case basis, in a multidisciplinary fashion, and may also depend on the operators' experience.

Reinterventions After CoreValve/Evolut Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Data on valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are limited. OBJECTIVES: The authors compared the 5-year incidence of valve reintervention after self-expanding CoreValve/Evolut TAVR vs SAVR. METHODS: Pooled data from CoreValve and Evolut R/PRO (Medtronic) randomized trials and single-arm studies encompassed 5,925 TAVR (4,478 CoreValve and 1,447 Evolut R/PRO) and 1,832 SAVR patients. Reinterventions were categorized by indication, timing, and treatment. The cumulative incidence of reintervention was compared between TAVR vs SAVR, Evolut vs CoreValve, and Evolut vs SAVR. RESULTS: There were 99 reinterventions (80 TAVR and 19 SAVR). The cumulative incidence of reintervention through 5 years was higher with TAVR vs SAVR (2.2% vs 1.5%; P = 0.017), with differences observed early (≤1 year; adjusted subdistribution HR: 3.50; 95% CI: 1.53-8.02) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.48-2.28). The most common reason for reintervention was paravalvular regurgitation after TAVR and endocarditis after SAVR. Evolut had a significantly lower incidence of reintervention than CoreValve (0.9% vs 1.6%; P = 0.006) at 5 years with differences observed early (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12-0.73) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.21-1.74). The 5-year incidence of reintervention was similar for Evolut vs SAVR (0.9% vs 1.5%; P = 0.41). CONCLUSIONS: A low incidence of reintervention was observed for CoreValve/Evolut R/PRO and SAVR through 5 years. Reintervention occurred most often at ≤1 year for TAVR and >1 year for SAVR. Most early reinterventions were with the first-generation CoreValve and managed percutaneously. Reinterventions were more common following CoreValve TAVR compared with Evolut TAVR or SAVR.

Pacing Using Cardiac Implantable Electric Device During TAVR: 10-Year Experience of a High-Volume Center.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an effective and safe therapy for severe aortic stenosis. Rapid or fast pacing is required for implantation, which can be performed via a pre-existing cardiac implantable electric device (CIED). However, safety data on CIEDs for pacing in TAVR are missing. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to elucidate procedural safety and feasibility of internal pacing with a CIED in TAVR. METHODS: Patients undergoing TAVR with a CIED were included in this analysis. Baseline characteristics, procedural details, and complications according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) criteria after TAVR were compared between both groups. RESULTS: A total of 486 patients were included. Pacing was performed using a CIED in 150 patients and a transient pacemaker in 336 patients. No differences in technical success according to VARC-3 criteria or procedure duration occurred between the groups. The usage of transient pacers for pacing was associated with a significantly higher bleeding rate (bleeding type ≥2 according to VARC-3-criteria; 2.0% vs 13.1%; P < 0.01). Furthermore, impairment of the CIED appeared in 2.3% of patients after TAVR only in the group in which pacing was performed by a transient pacer, leading to surgical revision of the CIED in 1.3% of all patients when transient pacemakers were used. CONCLUSIONS: Internal pacing using a CIED is safe and feasible without differences of procedural time and technical success and might reduce bleeding rates. Furthermore, pacing using a CIED circumvents the risk of lead dislocation. Our data provide an urgent call for the use of a CIED for pacing during a TAVR procedure in general.

Quality of Life 5 Years Following Transfemoral TAVR or SAVR in Intermediate Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) sustain comparable improvements in health status over 5 years after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or SAVR. Whether a similar long-term benefit is observed among intermediate-risk AS patients is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess health status outcomes through 5 years in intermediate risk patients treated with a self-expanding TAVR prosthesis or SAVR using data from the SURTAVI (Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial. METHODS: Intermediate-risk patients randomized to transfemoral TAVR or SAVR in the SURTAVI trial had disease-specific health status assessed at baseline, 30 days, and annually to 5 years using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). Health status was compared between groups using fixed effects repeated measures modelling. RESULTS: Of the 1,584 patients (TAVR, n = 805; SAVR, n = 779) included in the analysis, health status improved more rapidly after TAVR compared with SAVR. However, by 1 year, both groups experienced large health status benefits (mean change in KCCQ-Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OS) from baseline: TAVR: 20.5 ± 22.4; SAVR: 20.5 ± 22.2). This benefit was sustained, albeit modestly attenuated, at 5 years (mean change in KCCQ-OS from baseline: TAVR: 15.4 ± 25.1; SAVR: 14.3 ± 24.2). There were no significant differences in health status between the cohorts at 1 year or beyond. Similar findings were observed in the KCCQ subscales, although a substantial attenuation of benefit was noted in the physical limitation subscale over time in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In intermediate-risk AS patients, both transfemoral TAVR and SAVR resulted in comparable and durable health status benefits to 5 years. Further research is necessary to elucidate the mechanisms for the small decline in health status noted at 5 years compared with 1 year in both groups. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System in the Treatment of Severe, Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [SURTAVI]; NCT01586910).

Long-Term Impact of Cardiac Damage Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Extravalvular cardiac damage caused by aortic stenosis affects prognosis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The long-term impact of changes in cardiac damage in response to relief from mechanical obstruction has not been fully investigated. OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to investigate changes in cardiac damage early after TAVR and the prognostic impact of the cardiac damage classification after TAVR. METHODS: In this single-center observational study, patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR were retrospectively evaluated for cardiac damage before and after TAVR and classified into 5 stages of cardiac damage (0-4). RESULTS: Among 1,863 patients undergoing TAVR between January 2007 and June 2022, 56 patients (3.0%) were classified as stage 0, 225 (12.1%) as stage 1, 729 (39.1%) as stage 2, 388 (20.8%) as stage 3, and 465 (25.0%) as stage 4. Cardiac stage changed in 47.7% of patients (improved: 30.1% in stages 1-4 and deteriorated: 24.7% in stages 0-3) early after TAVR. Five-year all-cause mortality was associated with cardiac damage both at baseline (HRadjusted: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.24-1.44; P < 0.001 for linear trend) and after TAVR (HRadjusted: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.30-1.51; P < 0.001 for linear trend). Five-year all-cause mortality was stratified by changes in cardiac damage (improved, unchanged, or worsened) in patients with cardiac stage 2, 3, and 4 (log-rank P < 0.001 for stage 2, 0.005 for stage 3, and <0.001 for stage 4). CONCLUSIONS: The extent of extra-aortic valve cardiac damage before and after TAVR and changes in cardiac stage early after TAVR have important prognostic implications during long-term follow-up. (SwissTAVI Registry; NCT01368250).

Chimney Stenting vs BASILICA for Prevention of Acute Coronary Obstruction During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Coronary obstruction (CO) is a potentially life-threatening complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Chimney stenting or leaflet laceration with transcatheter electrosurgery (Bioprosthetic or Native Aortic Scallop Intentional Laceration to Prevent Iatrogenic Coronary Artery Obstruction [BASILICA]) are 2 techniques developed to prevent CO. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to compare periprocedural and 1-year outcomes of chimney and BASILICA in TAVR patients at high risk of CO. METHODS: This multicenter observational registry enrolled consecutive TAVR patients at high risk of CO, undergoing either preventive chimney stenting or BASILICA. Clinical success was defined as successful performance of the chimney or BASILICA technique without clinically relevant ostial CO. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events, a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned target lesion coronary revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients were included: 71 (42.3%) received chimney stenting, and 97 (57.7%) underwent BASILICA. Patients undergoing BASILICA had higher preprocedural risk of CO, as indicated by lower sinotubular junction height (18.2 ± 4.8 mm vs 14.8 ± 3.4 mm; P < 0.001) and diameter (28.2 ± 4.5 vs 26.8 ± 3.4; P = 0.029). Rates of periprocedural complications were similar between the 2 groups. Clinical success was 97.2% and 96.9% in chimney and BASILICA, respectively (P = 0.92). At 1-year follow-up, the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was 18.7% (95% CI: 11%-30.6%) in the chimney group and 19.9% (95% CI: 12.1%-31.5%) in the BASILICA group (log-rank P = 0.848), whereas chimney was associated with a numerically higher cardiovascular mortality than BASILICA (6.7% vs 1.3%; log-rank P = 0.168). CONCLUSIONS: Chimney stenting and BASILICA effectively prevent TAVR-induced acute CO. Both techniques seem to have comparable acceptable periprocedural and 1-year outcomes.

Coronary Cannulation Following TAVR Using Self-Expanding Devices With Commissural Alignment: The RE-ACCESS 2 Study.

BACKGROUND: Coronary re-engagement after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using self-expanding transcatheter heart valves (THVs) systematically implanted using commissural alignment (CA) techniques has been poorly investigated. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate unsuccessful coronary cannulation, and its predictors, after TAVR using self-expanding devices implanted using CA techniques. METHODS: RE-ACCESS 2 (Reobtain Coronary Ostia Cannulation Beyond Transcatheter Aortic Valve Stent 2) was an investigator-driven, single-center, prospective study that enrolled consecutive TAVR patients receiving Evolut and ACURATE THVs implanted using CA techniques. The primary endpoint was unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR. The secondary endpoint was the identification of postprocedural predictors of unfeasible, selective coronary ostia re-engagement on computed tomographic angiography performed after TAVR. RESULTS: Among 127 patients enrolled from September 2021 to December 2022, 7 (5.5%) had unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR, and 6 of them received Evolut THVs (7.5% vs 2.3%; P = 0.26). Failure of left coronary artery cannulation was similar between Evolut and ACURATE THVs (2.5% vs 2.1%; P = 1.00), whereas that of right coronary artery cannulation was prevalent in the Evolut group (6.3% vs 0.0%; P = 0.16). Coronary overlap was associated with the inability to selectively cannulate the right coronary artery (OR: 5.6; 95% CI: 1.2-25.8; P = 0.03), but not in ACURATE recipients (P = 0.39). Severe misalignment of Evolut THVs was associated with the inability to selectively cannulate both coronary arteries (OR: 24.7; 95% CI: 1.9-312.9; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR using self-expanding THVs implanted using CA techniques was reported in 5.5% of cases, with the majority involving the Evolut THV. Commissural misalignment affected coronary cannulation after TAVR mostly in Evolut recipients.

Commissural vs Coronary Alignment to Avoid Coronary Overlap With THV-Commissure in TAVR: A CT-Simulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Coronary alignment is proposed as an alternative to commissural alignment for reducing coronary overlap during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, largescale studies are lacking. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the incidence of coronary overlap with commissural vs coronary alignment using computed tomography (CT) simulation in patients undergoing TAVR evaluation. METHODS: In 1,851 CT scans of native aortic stenosis patients undergoing TAVR evaluation (April 2018 to December 2022),virtual valves simulating commissural and coronary alignment were superimposed on axial aortic root images. Coronary overlap was assessed based on the angular gap between coronary artery origin and the nearest transcatheter heart valve commissure, categorized as severe (≤15°), moderate (15°-30°), mild (30°-45°), and no-overlap (45°-60°). RESULTS: The overall incidence of moderate/severe and severe overlap with either coronary artery remained rare with either coronary or commissural alignment (coronary 0.52% left, 0.52% right; commissural 0.30% left, 3.27% right). Comparing techniques, coronary alignment reduced moderate/severe overlap only for the right coronary artery (0.38% vs 2.97%; P <0.0001). For the left coronary artery, both techniques showed similar moderate/severe overlap, but commissural alignment had significantly higher no-overlap rates (91.1% vs 84.9%; P < 0.0001). Fluoroscopic angle during valve deployment was strongly correlated between commissural and coronary alignment (r = 0.80; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Using CT simulation, the incidence of coronary overlap with transcatheter heart valve-commissure is rare with commissural alignment. Coronary alignment reduced right coronary overlap, whereas commissural alignment had higher rates of no left coronary overlap. Coronary alignment should be reserved only when commissural alignment results in severe coronary overlap.

Coronary Artery Disease Assessment via On-Site CT Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Purpose To examine the clinical feasibility of workstation-based CT fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) for coronary artery disease (CAD) evaluation during preprocedural planning in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Materials and Methods In this retrospective single-center study, 434 patients scheduled for TAVR between 2018 and 2020 were screened for study inclusion; a relevant proportion of patients (35.0% [152 of 434]) was not suitable for evaluation due to insufficient imaging properties. A total of 112 patients (mean age, 82.1 years ± 6.7 [SD]; 58 [52%] men) were included in the study. Invasive angiography findings, coronary CT angiography results, and Agatston score were acquired and compared with on-site CT-FFR computation for evaluation of CAD and prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) within a 24-month follow-up. Results Hemodynamic relevant CAD, as suggested by CT-FFR of 0.80 or less, was found in 41 of 70 (59%) patients with stenosis of 50% or more. MACE occurred in 23 of 112 (20.5%) patients, from which 14 of 23 had stenoses with CT-FFR of 0.80 or less (hazard ratio [HR], 3.33; 95% CI: 1.56, 7.10; P = .002). CT-FFR remained a significant predictor of MACE after inclusion in a multivariable model with relevant covariables (HR, 2.89; 95% CI: 1.22, 6.86; P = .02). An Agatston score of 1000 Agatston units or more (HR, 2.25; 95% CI: 0.98, 5.21; P = .06) and stenoses of 50% or more determined via invasive angiography (HR, 0.94; 95% CI: 0.41, 2.17; P = .88) were not significant predictors of MACE. Conclusion Compared with conventional CAD markers, CT-FFR better predicted adverse outcomes after TAVR. A relevant portion of the screened cohort, however, was not suitable for CT-based CAD evaluation. Keywords: CT, Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation/Replacement (TAVI/TAVR), Cardiac, Coronary Arteries, Outcomes Analysis © RSNA, 2024 See also the commentary by Weir-McCall and Pugliese in this issue.