Impact of prosthesis‐iteration evolution and sizing practice on the incidence of prosthesis–patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Optimizing Valve Selection in Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Case Study on Addressing Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch and Early Structural Valve Deterioration in a Morbidly Obese Patient

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has increasingly become a fundamental approach for treating aortic valve stenosis (AVS), especially in high surgical risk patients. This case study underscores the criticality of meticulous procedural planning and precise valve selection in patients with severe AVS compounded by obesity. We report a case of a patient who, after receiving a 26 mm Edwards Sapiens 3 valve, presented with worsening exertional dyspnea and a declining indexed effective orifice area (EOAi). This deterioration indicated early structural valve deterioration (SVD), presumably due to patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM). A subsequent valve-in-valve (ViV) TAVR using a 29 mm Medtronic Evolut Fx valve was successfully executed, leading to a notable improvement in EOAi. This case study emphasizes the complexities inherent in valve choice and sizing in TAVR, particularly highlighting the impact of PPM on obese patients and its potential to precipitate early SVD. The report further explores the emerging strategies in addressing TAVR valve dysfunctions via ViV interventions, shedding light on the nuanced and dynamic nature of TAVR management in obese patients. It advocates for tailored treatment strategies in managing such intricate cases, demonstrating the evolving landscape of TAVR procedures.

Comparison of outcomes of self-expanding versus balloon-expandable valves for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis of randomized and propensity-matched studies

BACKGROUND

The postoperative outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the new generation of self-expanding valves (SEV) and balloon-expandable valves (BEV) remain uncertain.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score-matched (PSM) studies to evaluate the performance of the new generation TAVR devices, with a focus on Edwards SAPIEN 3/Ultra BEV, Medtronic Evolut R/PRO SEV, and Boston ACURATE neo SEV. Our primary endpoints were mortality and complications at both 30 days and one year post-operation.

RESULTS

A total of 4 RCTs and 14 PSM studies were included. Our findings showed no significant difference between SEV and BEV regarding 30-day and 1-year mortality rates. ACURATE SEV required less permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) at 30-day as compared to SAPIEN BEV, while Evolut SEV required a higher rate of PPI than SAPIEN BEV. The incidence of stroke, major or life-threatening bleeding (MLTB), major vascular complications (MVC), coronary artery obstruction (CAO) and acute kidney injury (AKI) did not differ significantly between the two groups. SEV had a larger effective orifice area (EOA) and lower mean transvalvular gradients (MPG) compared to BEV. However, there was an increased risk of paravalvular leakage (PVL) associated with SEV.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of 30-day mortality, stroke, bleeding, MVC, AKI, CAO, and one-year mortality, there was comparability between the two valve types following TAVR. SEV was associated with better hemodynamic outcomes, except for a higher incidence of PVL. Compared to SAPIEN BEV, ACURATE SEV had a lower risk of PPI at 30 days, while Evolut SEV was associated with a higher risk of PPI. These findings underscore the importance of personalized valve selection.

Intermediate Follow-Up of Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Small Aortic Annuli

The clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) in patients with small aortic annuli who underwent transcatheter aortic valve (AV) implantation with either balloon-expandable (BE) or self-expanding (SE) valves remains controversial. We assessed in-hospital and intermediate clinical outcomes in 573 patients with transfemoral transcatheter AV implantation with a small AV annulus, defined as an AV annulus area ≤430 mm². A total of 337 patients treated with a 23-mm BE valve (SAPIEN 3, Ultra) were compared with 236 patients treated with a 26-mm SE valve (Evolut series). Valve-in-valve cases were excluded, and late echo follow-up (mean 674 ± 438 days) was assessed in a subset of 292 patients (51.0%). Well-matched BE and SE cohorts did not differ with respect to major in-hospital outcomes, other than a borderline increase in vascular complications and composite bleeding in patients with SE. Patients with BE had a higher incidence of severe PPM on discharge echocardiography (16.9% vs 6.8%, p <0.002). The mean AV gradient at 30 days was higher for patients with BE (12.2 ± 4.2 vs 6.2 ± 7.9 mm Hg, p <0.001) and at late follow-up (14.0 ± 8.2 vs 7.2 ± 3.5 mm Hg, p <0.001). The follow-up left ventricular ejection fraction and incidence of >mild aortic insufficiency were similar. All-cause mortality for the 2 cohorts was similar, with an overall mean (95% confidence interval) survival time of 61.2 months (57.8 to 64.5; p = 0.98). There were no significant survival differences between combined patients with BE and SE with no, moderate, or severe PPM, with an overall mean (95% confidence interval) survival time of 32.5 (30.5 to 34.5) months combining valve types (p = 0.23). In conclusion, despite an increased incidence of PPM with higher mean AV gradients that persist on late echocardiography in the BE cohort, patients with BE and SE with small aortic annuli have similar clinical outcomes at intermediate follow-up. Moderate and severe PPM had no impact on survival at a mean follow-up of 32.5 months.

High Incidence of Transient Permanent Pacemaker Rate After Rapid Deployment Valve Replacement: Insights of a 9-Year Single-Centre Experience

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) remains debated. Expertise in this field has significantly increased over the last decade. This study aimed to investigate the need for PPI following implantation of a rapid deployment (RD) valve.

METHODS

Analysis of n=372 patients who underwent Edwards INTUITY (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) (n=251) and Perceval (Sorin/LivaNova Group, Saluggia, Italy) (n=121) valve replacement at the current institution between May 2012 and August 2018 was performed. Coronary artery bypass graft procedures were additionally performed in patients with coronary artery disease. Baseline, preoperative and postoperative outcomes were examined regarding correctness and completeness of the procedure. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Version 23.0.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA).

RESULTS

A total of 372 patients (aged 75±6.3 yrs) with a high grade of aortic valve stenosis underwent either Edwards INTUITY (67%) or Perceval (33%) valve replacement. Seventy-six (76) patients (20%) presented with preoperative conduction disorders. Sixty (60) patients (16%) underwent PPI, which in most cases was performed during the first month after the initial operation. Follow-up was performed up to 9 years, presenting a persistent pacemaker dependency rate of 50% among all patients who underwent PPI. Twenty (20) (40%) PPI recipients showed no dependency on pacemaker, while 10 (10%) required temporary pacemaker support. Mean length of ICU stay was 4±5.1 days and in-hospital stay was 8.2±7.6 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of PPI after RD valve implantation still remains high compared with conventional aortic valve replacement. However, this study shows that this phenomenon appears to be transient in a significant proportion of the patients undergoing RD valve replacement. These findings might contribute to the scientific discussion and should be taken into consideration for the indication of RD valve replacement.

Incidence, Outcomes and Predictors of Aortic Regurgitation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Al Azhar University Hospitals and National Heart Institute, Egypt

Background: Aortic regurgitation (AR), which has ill-defined predictors and an unknown long-term influence on outcomes, is a significant transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) constraint. Objective: this research aimed to assess the prevalence, identify predictors, and evaluate the outcomes of aortic regurgitation following trans catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). 1. To calculate the prevalence of aortic regurgitation in elderly patients receiving trans catheter aortic valve implantation who have severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. 2. To determine aortic regurgitation risk factors after trans catheter aortic valve implantation. Methods: From November 2017 to November 2020, this prospective observational study was done in the National Heart Institute on severe aortic valve stenosis patients above 65 years who were candidates for aortic valve replacement from the outpatient department. Results: LVEF significantly improved. Compared to before TAVI (55.08 ± 9.71), LVEF elevated to 58.9 ± 8.8 (P<0.001). Twenty-five patients (83.3%) showed class III/IV, four patients (13.3%) showed class II, and one patient (3.3%) showed class I before TAVI. While after TAVI, three patients (10%) only showed NYHA class III/IV, six patients (20 %) in class II, and 21 patients (70%) improved to be in class I. The left ventricular mass index mean was 158 ±32.37 before TAVI and 133.50 ±21.96 after TAVI (p<0.001). Compared to before TAVI (0.75 ± 0.2), mean aortic valve area was improved to 2.0 ± 0.2 following TAVI (P<0.001). A significant reduction in the mean pressure gradient from 47 ± 11.08 mmHg across the native valve prior to TAVI to 10.28 ± 3.21 mmHg across the prosthetic valve following TAVI (P <0.001). Expert commentary: The clinical and results of TAVR devices were clearly outlined in literature study. The study showed a high incidence of pacemaker implantation with Core valve and aortic regurgitation. This information strongly supports the need for a randomized trial with sufficient power to compare the most recent self-expandable valve generation to balloon expandable valves. In the 2019 PARTNER 3 prospective randomized trial, it was discovered that, when compared to surgical management, low-risk patients (defined as STS 4%) had a lower risk of the composite outcome of stroke, death, and rehospitalization at 1 year. Additionally, it was shown that TAVR had a lower risk of stroke and required less time in the hospital (3 days as opposed to 7, P0.001) than surgery [1]. In addition, despite an elevated permanent pacemaker implantation rate, the 2019 Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement revealed no inferiority for composite all-cause stroke and death, as well as a statistically significant decrease in the rates of life-threatening bleeding, acute kidney injury and atrial fibrillation, compared with SAVR at 30 days following the procedure [2]. Conclusion: According to the study in high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, TAVI is alternative, viable, safe, and successful therapy compared to traditional open-heart surgery.

Hemodynamic Performance of Two Current-Generation Transcatheter Heart Valve Prostheses in Severely Calcified Aortic Valve Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Treatment of severely calcified aortic valve stenosis is associated with a higher rate of paravalvular leakage (PVL) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI). We hypothesized that the self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (THV) prostheses Evolut Pro (EPro) is comparable to the balloon-expandable Sapien 3 (S3) regarding hemodynamics, PPI, and clinical outcome in these patients.

METHODS

From 2014 to 2019, all patients with very severe calcification of the aortic valve who received an EPro or an S3 THV were included. Propensity score matching was utilized to create two groups of 170 patients.

RESULTS

At discharge, there was significant difference in transvalvular gradients (EPro vs. S3) (dPmean 8.1 vs. 11.1 mmHg, p ≤ 0.001) and indexed effective orifice area (EOAi) (1.1 vs. 0.9, p ≤ 0.001), as well as predicted EOAi (1 vs. 0.9, p ≤ 0.001). Moderate patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM) was significantly lower in the EPro group (17.7% vs. 38%, p ≤ 0.001), as well as severe PPM (2.9% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.03). PPI and the PVL rate as well as stroke, bleeding, vascular complication, and 30-day mortality were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severely calcified aortic valves, both THVs performed similarly in terms of 30-day mortality, PPI rate, and PVL occurrence. However, patient prothesis mismatch was observed more often in the S3 group, which might be due to the intra-annular design.

Hemodynamics of self-expanding versus balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves in relation to native aortic annulus anatomy

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare hemodynamic characteristics of different self-expanding (SE) and balloon-expandable (BE) transcatheter heart valves (THV) in relation to native aortic annulus anatomy.

BACKGROUND

A patient centered THV selection becomes increasingly important as indications for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are extended towards lower risk populations.

METHODS

Hemodynamic parameters including mean gradient (MG), effective orifice area (EOA), Doppler velocity index (DVI), degree of paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) and patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) were compared by valve type, label size and in relation to quintiles of native aortic annulus area.

RESULTS

2609 patients were treated at 3 centers in Germany with SAPIEN 3 (n = 1146), ACURATE Neo (n = 649), Evolut R (n = 546) or Evolut Pro (n = 268) THV. SE THVs provided superior hemodynamics in terms of larger EOA, higher DVI and lower MG compared to BE THV, especially in patients with small aortic annuli. Severe PPM was less frequent in SE treated patients. The rate of PVR ≥ moderate was comparable for SE and BE devices in smaller annular dimensions, but remarkably lower for BE TAVR in large aortic annular dimensions (> 547.64 mm²) (2% BE THV vs. > 10% for SE THV; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with small aortic annular dimensions may benefit hemodynamically from SE THV. With increasing annulus size, BE THV may have advantages since PVR ≥ moderate occurs less frequently.

Prevalence and Significance of Patient Prosthesis Mismatch Following Edwards SAPIEN XT and SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

Severe patient prosthesis mismatch (sPPM) after surgical aortic valve replacement is associated with worse outcomes. Limited data exists on the impact of sPPM on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), especially regarding the newer generation valves. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence, determinants, and outcomes of sPPM in patients undergoing TAVR with Edwards SAPIEN XT (ES XT) and Edwards SAPIEN 3 (ES3) valves (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 366 patients who underwent TAVR with ES XT (n = 114) or ES3 (n = 252) valves between July 2012 and June 2018. sPPM was defined as indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) <0.65 cm²/m². Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were used to determine outcomes.

Results

Multivariate linear regression analysis was utilized to determine potential independent effects of PPM on outcomes. sPPM was present in 40 (11%) of the patients [8 (7%) ES XT and 32 (13%) ES3] and was associated with female sex, smaller left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) diameter and aortic valve annular area, absence of prior coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, shorter height, higher body mass index, and smaller pre-TAVR valve area (all p < 0.05). Among those with ES3 valves, the incidence of sPPM was inversely proportional to the valve size (50%, 25%, 5% and 3% for 20-, 23-, 26- and 29-mm valve sizes, respectively; p < 0.001). At a mean follow-up period of 3.5 ± 1.5 years, there was no difference in all-cause mortality (22.5% vs. 25.6%, p = 0.89) or a composite endpoint of heart failure, arrhythmias, stroke, and myocardial infarction (30% vs. 34%, p = 0.24) in those with or without sPPM.

Conclusion

ES3 was associated with a higher incidence of sPPM, particularly with smaller valve sizes. However, the presence of sPPM as defined by iEOA was not an independent predictor of adverse outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR within an intermediate follow-up period.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Prosthesis

The self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (Medtronic Cardiovascular Corevalve and Evolut) is a supra-annular, trileafet porcine pericardial valves on a diamond lattice nickel-titanium alloy frame. The TAVR device has undergone significant improvements in design and procedural techniques to further increase safety, efficacy, and durability since they it was first released. Unique design characteristics, as well as patient and procedural factors, favor self-expanding over balloon-expandable prostheses in certain situations. The self-expanding transcatheter heart valve has proven to be an excellent option for severe aortic stenosis patients with any level of surgical risk and preliminary data suggest a comparable durability to surgical tissue valves.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Self-Expandable Supra-Annular Valves for Degenerated Surgical Bioprostheses: Insights From Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with supra‐annular transcatheter heart valves has been adopted in patients with degenerated surgical aortic valves. The next generation self‐expanding Evolut PRO valve has not been evaluated in patients with surgical valve failure.

Methods and Results

Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in degenerated surgical aortic valve procedures using the Evolut R or Evolut PRO transcatheter heart valves in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry between April 2015 and June 2019 were evaluated. Transcatheter valve performance was evaluated by clinical site echocardiography. In‐hospital, 30‐day, and 1‐year clinical outcomes were based on the Society of Thoracic Surgeons‐American College of Cardiology‐Transcatheter Valve Therapy registry definitions. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in degenerated surgical aortic valve was performed in 5897 patients (5061 [85.8%] patients received the Evolut R valve and 836 [14.2%] received the Evolut PRO valve). Thirty‐day transcatheter heart valves hemodynamic performance was excellent in both groups (mean gradient: Evolut PRO: 13.8±7.5 mm Hg; Evolut R: 14.5±8.1 mm Hg), while paravalvular regurgitation was significantly different between valve types (P=0.02). Clinical events were low at 30 days (Evolut PRO: for the all‐cause mortality, 2.8%, any stroke was 1.8%, new pacemaker implantation, 3.0%: Evolut R:all‐cause mortality, 2.5%, any stroke was 2.2%, new pacemaker implantation, 5.3%) and 1 year (Evolut PRO: all‐cause mortality, 9.2%; any stroke, 3.1%; Evolut R: all‐cause mortality, 9.8%; any stroke, 2.9%).

Conclusions

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in degenerated surgical aortic valve with self‐expandable supra‐annular transcatheter heart valves is associated with excellent clinical outcomes and valve hemodynamics. Additional reductions in residual paravalvular regurgitation were obtained with the next generation Evolut PRO.

Low Incidence of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Following Extremely Small Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with 20-mm Sapien 3

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has been developed as an emerging technique to treat patients with aortic valve disease. However, safety and outcome data on extremely small transcatheter heart valves (THV) is limited. We aimed to assess hemodynamic profiles and clinical outcome of very small balloon expandable THVs with 20-mm Sapien 3 (SP3).

We examined data for all patients who received third-generation SP3 THV at a single hospital. Complications and clinical outcomes were defined based on the VARC-2 criteria. Postoperative prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) was defined as indexed effective orifice area (EOA) < 0.85 cm2/m2. We compared clinical characteristics and outcome between patients with 20-mm (n = 21), 23-mm (n = 67), and 26- or 29-mm (n = 113) sized valves.

The 20-mm group included significantly higher number of Asian and female populations with lower body surface area. The baseline CT annular area in the 20-mm group was 316.5 ± 24.9 mm2. There was no significant difference between groups in procedural mortality or early safety at 30 days. The higher procedural complication was observed in 20-mm group due to significant differences in minor vascular and bleeding complications. Despite higher post-THV gradients and smaller indexed EOA in 20-mm group, no PPM was observed in 20-mm group. The mortality at 30 days and 1 year in 20-mm group was 4.8% and 16.7%, respectively.

The patients who received very small THVs with 20-mm SP3 did not result in PPM and experienced favorable early safety and midterm outcome in our cohort.

Clinical and Technical Challenges of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is present when the effective area of a prosthetic valve inserted into a patient is inferior to that of a normal human valve; the hemodynamic consequence of a valve too small compared with the size of the patient's body is the generation of higher than expected transprosthetic gradients. Despite evidence of increased risk of short- and long-term mortality and of structural valve degeneration in patients with PPM after surgical aortic valve replacement, its clinical impact in patients subject to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is yet unclear. We aim to review and update on the definition and incidence of PPM after TAVI, and its prognostic implications in the overall population and in higher-risk subgroups, such as small aortic annuli or valve-in-valve procedures. Last, we will focus on the armamentarium available in order to reduce risk of PPM when planning a TAVI procedure.

Outcomes of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Following Supra-Annular Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: From the STS/ACC TVT Registry

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the outcomes of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) in the TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry in patients undergoing supra-annular transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for de novo stenosis or failed surgical bioprostheses (transcatheter aortic valve [TAV]-in-surgical aortic valve [SAV]).

BACKGROUND

Severe PPM has been associated with adverse outcomes following TAVR, yet the clinical outcome of severe PPM after supra-annular TAVR is largely unknown.

METHODS

Supra-annular TAVR was performed in patients enrolled in the TVT Registry with de novo stenosis (n = 42,174) or TAV-in-SAV (n = 5,446). Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria were used to define severe PPM. The clinical impact of severe PPM on 1-year mortality and valve-related readmission was assessed using multivariate regression. A generalized linear mixed model was used to evaluate predictors of severe PPM.

RESULTS

Severe PPM was found in 5.3% of patients undergoing de novo TAVR and 27.0% of patients undergoing TAV-in-SAV. The presence of severe PPM was not significantly associated with 1-year mortality or valve-related readmissions in both groups. Mean aortic gradients were higher in patients with severe PPM than in those without severe PPM at 1 month (9.7 ± 5.7 mm Hg vs. 7.3 ± 4.0 mm Hg; p < 0.001) and 1 year (10.2 ± 6.4 mm Hg vs. 8.0 ± 4.3 mm Hg; p < 0.001). Pre-procedural factors, including a <20-mm aortic annulus, were positive predictors of severe PPM in patients undergoing de novo TAVR (area under the curve = 0.795) and TAV-in-SAV (area under the curve = 0.764).

CONCLUSIONS

Severe PPM after supra-annular TAVR was not associated with increased 1-year mortality or valve-related readmissions. Longer-term follow-up is needed to determine if higher residual gradients in patients with severe PPM predict long-term outcomes. (STS/ACC Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry [TVT Registry]; NCT01737528).

Incidence and predictors of prosthesis-patient mismatch after TAVI using SAPIEN 3 in Asian: differences between the newer and older balloon-expandable valve

Background

The balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 (S3) is superior to the older-generation balloon-expandable SAPIEN XT (XT) in a lower incidence of paravalvular aortic regurgitation, lower complication rates and better survival in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM) more frequently occurs in S3 than XT. Further, little information is available on PPM after TAVI using S3 in Asians. This study aims to determine the incidence and predictors of PPM in S3 by focusing on the difference between S3 and XT using data from a Japanese multicentre registry.

Methods

From the Optimised transCathEter vAlvular iNtervention-TAVI (OCEAN-TAVI) registry, 2134 patients undergoing TAVI using S3 or XT were included. PPM was defined as moderate if ≧0.65 but ≦0.85 cm²/m² or severe if <0.65 cm²/m² at the indexed effective orifice area by postprocedural echocardiography.

Results

The incidence of moderate and severe PPM in S3 was 13.3% and 1.3%, respectively. The 20 mm transcatheter heart valve (THV) was more frequently used in S3 than XT (7.4% vs 2.4%, p<0.0001). PPM was more frequently observed in S3 than XT (14.7% vs 8.8%, p<0.0001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed S3 predicted PPM (OR 1.92 (95% CI 1.35 to 2.74), p=0.0003). The mutual predictors for PPM between S3 and XT were younger age, larger body surface area, smaller aortic valve area, no balloon postdilatation and the use of 20 mm and 23 mm THV. When comparing 23 mm, 26 mm and 29 mm S3, the ORs of 20 mm S3 were 5.67 (95% CI 2.88 to 11.12), 19.24 (95% CI 8.13 to 46.86) and 51.03 (95% CI 12.28 to 280.77), respectively.

Conclusions

The incidence of PPM after TAVI using S3 was 14.6% overall in this Asian population. PPM was more frequently observed in S3 than XT. A considerable number of patients were treated by the 20 mm S3 in an Asian cohort. The 20 mm THV was identified as a strong predictor for PPM.

Aortic Annular Enlargement in the Elderly: Short and Long-Term Outcomes in the United States

BACKGROUND

Patient prosthesis mismatch is associated with significant long-term morbidity and mortality after aortic valve replacement, but the role and outcomes of annular enlargement (AE) remain poorly defined. We hypothesized that increasing rates of AE may lead to improved outcomes for patients at risk for severe patient prosthesis mismatch.

METHODS

Patients over age 65 years undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement with or without coronary artery bypass grafting from 2008-2016 in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database with matching Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data were included (n=189,268). Univariate, multivariate, and time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the association between AE and early and late outcomes. Patients were stratified by projected degree of patient prosthesis mismatch based on calculated effective orifice area index.

RESULTS

A total of 5412 (2.9%) patients underwent AE. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database-predicted mortality was similar between AE and non-AE groups (2.97% vs 2.99%, P = .052). Patients undergoing AE had higher risk-adjusted rates of 30-day complications and death (5.4% vs 3.4%, P < .0001), but no differences in long-term rates of stroke, heart failure re-hospitalization,s or aortic valve reoperation. Survival analysis demonstrated a higher risk of mortality with AE during the first 3 years, after which the survival curves cross, favoring AE.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that annular enlargement during surgical aortic valve replacement is associated with increased short-term risk in a Medicare population. Survival curves crossed after 3 years, which may portend a benefit in select patients. However, annular enlargement is still only performed in the minority of patients who are at risk for patient prosthesis mismatch.

Accuracy of predicted effective orifice area in determining incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) is associated with poor outcomes after aortic valve replacement. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of indexed effective orifice area (EOAi) charts in predicting PPM after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

METHODS

A retrospective review of 346 TAVR patients from January 2017 to November 2018 was performed. EOAi was predicted for patients based on published predictive tables using valve type, annulus diameter, and body surface area. Actual EOAi was calculated based on intraoperative transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) measurements. PPM was defined by EOAi ≤ 0.85 cm² /m² . The accuracy of predicted PPM was assessed. Differences in clinical outcomes, including mean gradient, length of stay, mortality, complications, and change in Kansas City cardiomyopathy questionnaire score as an indicator of quality of life, were evaluated based on actual PPM.

RESULTS

Of the 346 patients analyzed, 44 (12.7%) of patients had PPM on intraoperative TEE. Of the 182 patients who received Sapien 3 valves, 42 (23.1%) were predicted to have PPM while 25 (13.7%) had actual PPM. Of the 164 patients who received Evolut valves, 3 (1.8%) were predicted to have PPM while 19 (11.6%) had actual PPM. EOAi charts had poor sensitivity (40.0% for Sapien 3; 5.25% for Evolut) and positive predictive value (23.8% for Sapien 3; 33.3% for Evolut) for both valve types.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative prediction of PPM in TAVR patients using tables of expected EOA demonstrates significant variation from actual PPM. The utility of EOAi charts to predict PPM in patients undergoing TAVR may be limited.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with Evolut R versus Sapien 3 in Japanese patients with a small aortic annulus: The OCEAN-TAVI registry

OBJECTIVES

To compare safety, efficacy, and hemodynamics of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using self-expanding and balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in patients with a small aortic annulus.

BACKGROUND

Few studies have directly compared TAVR outcomes using third-generation THVs, focusing on patients with small aortic annuli.

METHODS

In a multicenter TAVR registry, we analyzed data from 576 patients with a small annulus and who underwent transfemoral TAVR using third-generation THVs. Propensity score matching was used to adjust baseline clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

The device success rate in the overall cohort was 92.0% (Evolut R: 92.1% vs. Sapien 3:92.0%, p = 0.96). One year after TAVR, patients treated with Evolut R maintained a lower mean pressure gradient (mPG) and a higher indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) in the matched cohort {mPG: 9.0 [interquartile range (IQR): 6.0-11.9] vs. 12.0 [IQR: 9.9-16.3] mmHg, p < .001; iEOA: 1.20 [IQR: 1.01-1.46] vs. 1.08 [IQR: 0.90-1.28] cm² /m² , p < .001}. However, no significant differences were reported in the incidence of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch and aortic regurgitation at 1 year. Furthermore, both groups showed comparable outcomes with no differences in terms of all-cause mortality (log-lank test, p = .81).

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR for patients with a small annulus using third-generation THVs was associated with high device success. Evolut R seems to be superior to Sapien 3 in hemodynamic performance for patients with a small annulus and body surface area up to 1 year after TAVR. Nevertheless, all-cause mortality at 1 year was similar between both groups.

5-Year Outcomes After TAVR With Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expanding Valves: Results From the CHOICE Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical and echocardiographic outcome data of the CHOICE (Randomized Comparison of Transcatheter Heart Valves in High Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis: Medtronic CoreValve Versus Edwards SAPIEN XT) trial at 5 years.

BACKGROUND

The CHOICE trial was designed to compare device performance of a balloon-expandable (BE) transcatheter heart valve (THV) versus a self-expanding (SE) THV.

METHODS

The CHOICE trial is an investigator-initiated trial that randomized 241 high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and an anatomy suitable for treatment with both BE and SE THVs to transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with either device. The primary endpoint was device success. Patients were followed up to 5 years, with assessment of clinical outcomes, and echocardiographic evaluation of valve function and THV durability.

RESULTS

After 5 years, there were no statistically significant differences between BE and SE valves in the cumulative incidence of death from any cause (53.4% vs. 47.6%; p = 0.38), death from cardiovascular causes (31.6% vs. 21.5%; p = 0.12), all strokes (17.5% vs. 16.5%; p = 0.73), and repeat hospitalization for heart failure (28.9% vs. 22.5%; p = 0.75). SE patients had larger prosthetic valve area (1.6 ± 0.5 cm² vs. 1.9 ± 0.5 cm²; p = 0.02) with a lower mean transprosthetic gradient (12.2 ± 8.7 mm Hg vs. 6.9 ± 2.7 mm Hg; p = 0.001) at 5 years. No differences were observed in the rates of paravalvular regurgitation. Clinical valve thrombosis occurred in 7 BE patients (7.3%) and 1 SE patient (0.8%; p = 0.06), and moderate or severe structural valve deterioration in 6 BE patients (6.6%) and no SE patient (0%; p = 0.018). The rate of bioprosthetic valve failure was low and not significantly different between both groups (4.1% vs. 3.4%; p = 0.63).

CONCLUSIONS

Five-year follow-up of patients in the CHOICE trial revealed clinical outcomes after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with early-generation BE and SE valves that were not statistically significantly different, with limited statistical power. Forward flow hemodynamics were significantly better with the SE valve. Moderate or severe structural valve deterioration was uncommon but occurred more frequently with the BE valve. (A Comparison of Transcatheter Heart Valves in High Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: The CHOICE Trial [CHOICE]; NCT01645202).

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With the Third Generation Balloon-Expandable Bioprosthesis in Patients With Severe Landing Zone Calcium

Device success of earlier generation balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves (BE-THV) is lower in patients with severe landing zone calcium (LZC). We sought to explore the impact of LZC on the outcome of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the next generation Edwards Sapien 3 BE-THV. In the present study, severe LZC was defined as severe aortic valve cusp calcium (AVC) and/or left ventricular outflow tract calcium (LVOTC) on computed tomography. Patients who underwent TAVI for pure/predominant aortic regurgitation, bicuspid aortic valve disease, or failed bioprosthetic valve were excluded. Out of 350 patients who underwent TAVI with the Edwards Sapien 3 (age 80.7 ± 6.1, female: 45.1%, Society of Thoracic Surgeons score: 4.9 ± 3.8, transfemoral: 97.4%), 106 (30.3%) had severe LZC; 78 severe AVC (22.3%) and 49 severe LVOTC (14.0%). Severe LZC was associated with lower device success (96.2% vs 100%, p = 0.008) driven by more prosthetic valve regurgitation (PVR, p = 0.008). On multivariable analysis, PVR was associated with severe LVOTC (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.130 [1.092 to 4.158]) but not with severe AVC (1.529 [0.835 to 2.800]). Balloon predilatation (BPreD) was performed in 42.5% of patients with severe LZC (vs 19.3% in nonsevere LZC; p <0.001) and was associated with prolonged procedural time (p = 0.001) and higher irradiation exposure (p = 0.027). Device success (p = 0.311), major procedural complications (p = 0.132), 30-day safety end point (p = 0.815), and PVR (p = 0.684) were not significantly different between patients with severe LZC who underwent BPreD versus direct TAVI. In conclusion, device success of the third generation BE-THV is lower in severe LZC driven by more PVR, especially in patients with severe LVOTC. In those patients, BPreD prolonged the procedure without improving THV performance.

Early detection of transcatheter heart valve dysfunction

Introduction: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation therapy is spreading rapidly, representing the standard of care in inoperable and high-risk patients, and a valid alternative in intermediate- and low-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. In this subset, the development and validation of noninvasive, quantitative, in vivo imaging modality, to monitor possible valve dysfunction is mandatory, in order to plan timely therapeutic interventions before the onset of symptoms.Areas covered: The implantation of transcatheter heart valves (THV) is increasing rapidly. As a consequence, THV dysfunction will become a major cause of cardiovascular morbidity after TAVI. Emergency repeat aortic valve replacement surgery is associated with a high rate of mortality compared with elective repeat surgery. In this context, early detection of THV dysfunction is therefore highly desirable. The review aims to examine the different diagnostic method to early detect THV dysfunction.Expert opinion: Most promising innovations in the diagnosis of early detection of THV dysfunction are evaluated, and the future outlook is explored. Waiting for upcoming evidence about the utility of CT, CMR, and PET on early detection of THV dysfunction, tailoring echocardiogram follow-up based on patients' characteristics is the desirable approach.

Comparative Outcomes of Balloon-Expandable S3 Versus Self-Expanding Evolut Bioprostheses for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

To date, comparisons between the balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien S3 (S3) versus the self-expanding Evolut R or PRO (Evolut) valves have been limited with respect to procedural outcomes. We aim to compare the safety, efficacy, and procedural efficiency of the S3 versus the Medtronic Evolut bioprostheses in patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation for severe aortic stenosis. Retrospective analysis was performed of all consecutive transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedures performed through the transfemoral approach with either S3 or Evolut at our hospital between September 2015 and January 2019. A total of 581 patients were included. There were no significant differences between S3 (n = 452) and Evolut (n = 129) concerning in-hospital or 30-day safety outcomes. S3 was associated with significantly shorter fluoroscopy times, lower fluoroscopy Air Kerma, and higher contrast use. S3 had lower postprocedure aortic valve area (1.71 ± 0.45 vs 1.84 ± 0.50 cm², p = 0.004), larger peak gradient at 30 days (10.7 ± 3.8 vs 7.0 ± 3.2 mm Hg, p <0.001), and lower aortic regurgitation (AR) rates postprocedure (47% vs 33%, p = 0.024) and at 30 days (50% vs 33%, p = 0.008), driven by mild AR. Device type was an independent predictor of AR postprocedure and at 30 days. Patients with ≥mild AR were more likely to have had Evolut valves (odds ratio = 2.94, p <0.001), especially in larger valves (>26 mm). Severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was higher in S3 (14.8% vs 7.9%, p <0.001). In conclusion, S3 is associated with less radiation exposure, higher contrast use, and lower incidence of AR at 30 days. Alternately, S3 has a higher transaortic gradient at 30 days, and higher levels of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch.