Novel valve-in-surgical bioprosthetic transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Undermining iatrogenic coronary obstruction with radiofrequency needle (UNICORN).

An 86-year-old female with history of surgical aortic valve replacement presented with clinical signs of heart failure. Echocardiography revealed a reduction in left ventricular systolic function and severe bioprosthetic aortic valve dysfunction. This is the first reported case of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement with concomitant undermining iatrogenic coronary obstruction with radiofrequency needle procedure in a surgical bioprosthetic valve.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for pure aortic insufficiency in a patient following David-type aortic valve-sparing root replacement after aortic dissection-A successful off-label procedure.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has traditionally been indicated for the treatment of aortic stenosis. However, in this case report, we describe a successful TAVI procedure in a 46-year-old male patient who had previously undergone David aortic valve-sparing aortic root replacement for type 1 aortic dissection. The patient presented with aortic valve insufficiency 4 years after the initial surgery and was subsequently treated with a 34 mm Medtronic CoreValve Evolut R prosthesis via TAVI. This case highlights the feasibility of TAVI as a viable treatment option for postoperative aortic valve insufficiency in patients with prior ascending aortic or aortic arch surgery.

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.

Three-year clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with bicuspid aortic disease: Comparison between self-expanding and balloon-expandable valves.

INTRODUCTION: Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis is a complex anatomical scenario for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Favorable short-term clinical outcomes have been reported with TAVI in this setting, but long-term data are scarce. METHODS: We retrospectively included, in a single-center registry, patients with BAV stenosis who underwent TAVI before 2020. We compared patients treated with self-expanding valves (SEV) versus balloon-expandable valves (BEV). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke and need for aortic valve (AV) reintervention at 3 years. Secondary endpoints included each component of the primary endpoint, cardiovascular mortality, permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rate, mean gradient and ≥moderate paravalvular leak (PVL) rate. RESULTS: A total of 150 consecutive patients (SEV = 83, BEV = 67) were included. No significant differences were reported between SEV and BEV groups for the primary composite endpoint (SEV 35.9% vs. BEV 32%, p = 0.66), neither for clinical secondary endpoints (all-cause mortality SEV 28.1% vs. BEV 28%, p = 0.988; cardiovascular mortality SEV 14.1% vs. BEV 20%, p = 0.399; stroke SEV 12.5% vs. BEV 6%, p = 0.342; need for AV reintervention SEV 0% vs. BEV 0%; PPI SEV 28.1% vs. BEV 24%, p = 0.620). A lower mean gradient persisted up to 3 years in the SEV group (SEV 8.8 ± 3.8 mmHg vs. BEV 10.7 ± 3.2 mmHg, p = 0.063), while no significant difference was found in the rate of ≥ moderate PVL (SEV 3/30 vs. BEV 0/25, p = 0.242). CONCLUSIONS: In this single center registry, we observed favorable 3-year clinical outcomes in nonselected BAV patients treated with different generation devices, without significant differences between patients receiving SEV or BEV.

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).

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.

Balloon rupture during transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

A distinctive complication with balloon-expandable (BE) THV platforms such as the Edwards Sapien (Edwards Lifescience) is the possibility of balloon rupture during THV deployment. Balloon rupture is a rare occurrence that can result in stroke due to fragment embolism, incomplete THV expansion, and/or vascular injury upon retrieval of the balloon. Careful evaluation of preoperative computed tomography is essential to identify high-risk cases. While annular and left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) calcification are widely acknowledged as common risks for balloon injury, it's essential to note that balloon injury can manifest at various anatomical sites. In this review, we discuss the mechanism behind balloon rupture, methods to identify cases at a heightened risk of balloon injury, approaches to mitigate the risk of rupture, and percutaneous retrieval strategies.

Real-World Outcomes for the Fifth-Generation Balloon Expandable Transcatheter Heart Valve in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The fifth-generation SAPIEN 3 Ultra Resilia valve (S3UR) incorporates several design changes as compared with its predecessors, the SAPIEN 3 (S3) and SAPIEN 3 Ultra (S3U) valves, including bovine leaflets treated with a novel process intended to reduce structural valve deterioration via calcification, as well as a taller external skirt on the 29-mm valve size to reduce paravalvular leak (PVL). The clinical performance of S3UR compared with S3 and S3U in a large patient population has not been previously reported. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare S3UR to S3/S3U for procedural, in-hospital, and 30-day clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS: Patients enrolled in the STS/ACC TVT (Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry between January 1, 2021, and June 30, 2023, who underwent TAVR with S3UR or S3U/S3 valve platforms were propensity-matched and evaluated for procedural, in-hospital, and 30-day clinical and echocardiographic outcomes. RESULTS: 10,314 S3UR patients were propensity matched with 10,314 patients among 150,539 S3U/S3 patients. At 30 days, there were no statistically significant differences in death, stroke, or bleeding, but a numerically higher hospital readmission rate in the S3UR cohort (8.5% vs 7.7%; P = 0.04). At discharge, S3UR patients exhibited significantly lower mean gradients (9.2 ± 4.6 mm Hg vs 12.0 ± 5.7 mm Hg; P < 0.0001) and larger aortic valve area (2.1 ± 0.7 cm2 vs 1.9 ± 0.6 cm2; P < 0.0001) than patients treated with S3/S3U. The 29-mm valve size exhibited significant reduction in mild PVL (5.3% vs 9.4%; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: S3UR TAVR is associated with lower mean gradients and lower rates of PVL than earlier generations of balloon expandable transcatheter heart valve platforms.

Photon-counting CT-angiography in pre-TAVR aortic annulus assessment: effects of retrospective vs. prospective ECG-synchronization on prosthesis valve selection.

To compare the diagnostic value of ultrahigh-resolution CT-angiography (UHR-CTA) compared with high-pitch spiral CTA (HPS-CTA) using a first-generation, dual-source photon-counting CT (PCD-CT) scanner for preprocedural planning of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Clinically referred patients with severe aortic valve stenosis underwent both, retrospective ECG-gated cardiac UHR-CTA (collimation: 120 × 0.2 mm) and prospective ECG-triggered aortoiliac HPS-CTA (collimation: 144 × 0.4 mm, full spectral capabilities) for TAVR planning from August 2022 to March 2023. Radiation dose was extracted from the CT reports, and the effective dose was calculated. Two radiologists analyzed UHR-CTA and HPS-CTA datasets, assessing the image quality of the aortic annulus, with regard to the lumen visibility and margin delineation using a 4-point visual-grading scale (ranges: 4 = "excellent" to 1 = "poor"). Aortic annulus area (AAA) measurements were taken for valve prosthesis sizing, with retrospective UHR-CTA serving as reference standard. A total of 64 patients were included (mean age, 81 years ± 7 SD; 28 women) in this retrospective study. HPS-CTA showed a lower radiation dose, 4.1 mSv vs. 12.6 mSv (p < 0.001). UHR-CTA demonstrated higher image quality to HPS-CTA (median score, 4 [IQR, 3-4] vs. 3 [IQR, 2-3]; p < 0.001). Quantitative assessments of AAA from both CTA datasets were strongly positively correlated (mean 477.4 ± 91.1 mm2 on UHR-CTA and mean 476.5 ± 90.4 mm2 on HPS-CTA, Pearson r2 = 0.857, p < 0.001) with a mean error of 22.3 ± 24.6 mm2 and resulted in identical valve prosthesis sizing in the majority of patients (91%). Patients with lower image quality on HPS-CTA (score value 1 or 2, n = 28) were more likely to receive different sizing recommendations (82%). Both UHR-CTA and HPS-CTA acquisitions using photon-counting CT technology provided reliable aortic annular assessments for TAVR planning. While UHR-CTA offers superior image quality, HPS-CTA is associated with lower radiation exposure. However, severely impaired image quality on HPS-CTA may impact on prosthesis sizing, suggesting that immediate post-scan image evaluations may require complementary UHR-CTA scanning.

Virtual non-contrast series of photon-counting detector computed tomography angiography for aortic valve calcium scoring.

The aim of our study was to evaluate two different virtual non-contrast (VNC) algorithms applied to photon counting detector (PCD)-CT data in terms of noise, effectiveness of contrast media subtraction and aortic valve calcium (AVC) scoring compared to reference true non-contrast (TNC)-based results. Consecutive patients underwent TAVR planning examination comprising a TNC scan, followed by a CTA of the heart. VNC series were reconstructed using a conventional (VNCconv) and a calcium-preserving (VNCpc) algorithm. Noise was analyzed by means of the standard deviation of CT-values within the left ventricle. To assess the effectiveness of contrast media removal, heart volumes were segmented and the proportion of their histograms > 130HU was taken. AVC was measured by Agatston and volume score. 41 patients were included. Comparable noise levels to TNC were achieved with all VNC reconstructions. Contrast media was effectively virtually removed (proportions > 130HU from 81% to < 1%). Median calcium scores derived from VNCconv underestimated TNC-based scores (up to 74%). Results with smallest absolute difference to TNC were obtained with VNCpc reconstructions (0.4 mm, Br36, QIR 4), but with persistent significant underestimation (median 29%). Both VNC algorithms showed near-perfect (r²>0.9) correlation with TNC. Thin-slice VNC reconstructions provide equivalent noise levels to standard thick-slice TNC series and effective virtual removal of iodinated contrast. AVC scoring was feasible on both VNC series, showing near-perfect correlation, but with significant underestimation. VNCpc with 0.4 mm slices and Br36 kernel at QIR 4 gave the most comparable results and, with further advances, could be a promising replacement for additional TNC.

Selection of Vascular Closure Devices in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Various vascular closure devices (VCDs) are commonly used for percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, superiority and safety profile among them remain unclear. We compared periprocedural complications among various VCDs in patients undergoing TAVR. PubMed and EMBASE were searched through January 2022 to identify clinical studies comparing any 2 VCDs of Prostar, Proglide and MANTA in patients who underwent TAVR. Studies using surgical cut-down or alternative access other than transfemoral approach were excluded. We analyzed the odds ratios (ORs) of vascular complications (VC), bleeding, acute kidney injury and all-cause mortality using a network meta-analysis. All outcomes were defined by Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 criteria. Two randomized controlled trials and 15 observational studies were identified, yielding a total of 11,344 patients including Prostar (n = 4499), Proglide (n = 5705), or MANTA group (n = 1140). The rates of major VC and life-threatening and major bleeding were significantly lower in Proglide compared to Prostar (OR [95 % CI] = 0.54 [0.32-0.89], 0.68 [0.52-0.90], and 0.49 [0.26-0.95], respectively). There was no significant difference in major VC and bleeding between Proglide and MANTA groups. Proglide was associated with a lower rate of acute kidney injury (0.56 [0.34-0.92]) and red blood cell transfusion (0.39 [0.16-0.98]) compared to Prostar. There was no significant difference in additional interventions and 30-day overall mortality among three groups. In this network meta-analysis of VCD in patients undergoing TAVR, MANTA and Proglide had comparable outcomes while Proglide appears superior to Prostar in terms of major VC and bleeding.

Angio-Seal Used as a Bailout for Incomplete Hemostasis After Dual Perclose ProGlide Deployment in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

BACKGROUND: The failure rate of vascular closure devices remains a significant cause of major vascular complications in contemporary transcatheter aortic valve implantation practice. METHODS: This research aimed to evaluate use of the Angio-Seal device in a bailout context in the setting of incomplete hemostasis following use of dual Perclose ProGlide devices in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. A total of 185 patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation with either dual Per-close ProGlide (n = 139) or a combination of dual Perclose ProGlide and Angio-Seal (n = 46) were retrospectively analyzed. The baseline, procedural characteristics, and all outcomes (defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria) were compared. RESULTS: No significant differences were seen between the dual Perclose ProGlide vs dual Perclose ProGlide+Angio-Seal groups with regard to the in-hospital Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 primary end points of major vascular complications (n = 13 [9.4%] vs n = 2 [4.3%]; P = .36), minor vascular complications (n = 13 [9.4%] vs n = 8 [14.7%]; P = .14), major bleeding (n = 16 [11.5%] vs n = 2 [4.3%]; P = .25), and minor bleeding (n = 9 [6.5%] vs n = 5 [10.9%]; P = .34), with higher rates of hematoma in the dual Perclose ProGlide+Angio-Seal group (n = 4 [2.9%] vs n = 5 [10.9%]; P = .044). CONCLUSION: Finding from the current study suggest that adjunctive Angio-Seal deployment may be feasible and safe, especially in patients with incomplete hemostasis following dual Perclose ProGlide use, and can be an optimal "bailout" procedure.