Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Latest-Iteration Self-Expanding or Balloon-Expandable Valves: The Multicenter OPERA-TAVI Registry

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in small aortic annuli: A propensity-matched comparison between intra-annular self-expanding valves and balloon-expandable valves

BACKGROUND

Specific transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) valve superiority is not established in the small aortic annulus (SAA) population. We sought to compare clinical and echocardiographic characteristics between patients with a SAA who underwent TAVR with either intra-annular self-expanding valves (SEV) or balloon-expandable valves (BEV).

METHODS

This was an observational, retrospective analysis (2013-2023). SAA was defined as an aortic annulus diameter < 23 mm (maximum) and annulus area ≤ 430 mm2. Unmatched and propensity-score matched (PSM) populations were compared.

RESULTS

We identified 663 patients with SAA who underwent TAVR with SEV (n = 106) or BEV (n = 557). The PSM cohort (96 pairs) was predominantly female (90.6 % and 87.5 %) with a median age of 82.5 and 81.0 years. No statistically significant differences were observed in VARC-3 outcomes (periprocedural mortality, technical success, device success, clinical efficacy). Higher rates of residual mean gradients >20 mmHg were seen in the BEV group at 30 days (SEV 2.1 % vs BEV 21.9 %, P < 0.001) as well as lower median values of indexed effective orifice area (SEV 0.9 vs 0.6 cm2/m2). Severe PPM was also more common in the BEV group (SEV 5.2 % vs BEV 21.9 %, P = 0.002). At 2 years, differences in the rates of all-cause death (SE 11.9 % vs BE 17.1 %, Plog-rank = 0.6794) and stroke (SEV 3.4 % vs BEV 10.2 %, P = 0.7055) were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Intra-annular SEV presented better hemodynamics compared to BEV; however, survival and incidence of stroke were comparable between the groups at 2 years. Potential risk of nonstructural valve deterioration with BEV needs further investigation with longer follow-up.

Bicuspid aortic valve disease: advancements and challenges of transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionized the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Initially developed for patients with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) anatomy, the procedural success and expanding indications of TAVI have spurred interest in its application to more complex aortic valve anatomies, such as the bicuspid aortic valve (BAV). The growing interest in this specific sub-set of patients with AS is driven by the recent extension of TAVI indications to younger individuals, who exhibit a notably higher incidence of bicuspid anatomy compared with older populations. Bicuspid aortic valves present distinct anatomical and pathological complexities that pose significant challenges to the conventional TAVI approach. These include asymmetric calcification, aortic root dilation (also known as BAV aortopathy), and variations in cusp fusion patterns, which can affect valve deployment, transcatheter heart valve sealing, and long-term durability. Despite these challenges, advancements in imaging techniques, valve design, and procedural strategies have led to increased adoption of TAVI in BAV patients. However, surgical aortic valve replacement still retains a more prominent role in this group compared with patients with TAVs. This preference is partly due to the exclusion of BAV patients from almost all previous randomized controlled trials, which limits the available evidence supporting the use of TAVI in this unique cohort. This state-of-the-art review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the current landscape of TAVI in BAV patients, including an analysis of anatomical considerations and procedural pitfalls, as well as outcomes' improvements with new device iterations. It will also explore clinical data, tackling the risks, benefits, and the evolving role of TAVI in this unique patient cohort.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Self-Expanding Versus Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a safe alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis at increased surgical risk. However, comparative data on self-expanding valves (SEV) versus balloon-expanding valves (BEV) remain limited.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of PubMed and Embase was conducted through April 2024, identifying eight studies (five randomized controlled trials and three propensity-matched observational studies) comparing SEV and BEV in TAVR. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and device success per Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria, while secondary outcomes assessed bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and adverse events (annulus rupture/dissection, coronary artery occlusion, valve dislocation/embolization, valve thrombosis, moderate and severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation, endocarditis, permanent pacemaker implantation, major or life-threatening bleeding, acute kidney injury, and stroke).

RESULTS

The analysis included 4,032 patients (SEV = 2,006; BEV = 2,017). SEV was associated with higher rates of moderate-to-severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation [OR, 1.76; CI 1.13-2.74; P = 0.01] and permanent pacemaker placement [OR, 1.57; CI, 1.23-2.00; P = 0.0002] compared to BEV. No significant differences were observed in 30-day or 1-year all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, device success, bioprosthetic valve dysfunction, valve dislocation/embolization, valve thrombosis, endocarditis, major or life-threatening bleeding, coronary artery occlusion, stroke, rehospitalization, or acute kidney injury.

CONCLUSION

SEV and BEV demonstrated comparable outcomes in mortality and device success. However, the higher risk of moderate-to-severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation and permanent pacemaker placement with SEV should be considered when selecting the optimal TAVR valve for individual patients.

Platform Selection for Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Practical Approach

Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve Replacement (TAVR) has become the standard therapy for patients with severe aortic stenosis in patients over 75 years old in Europe or 65 years old in the United States, regardless of the surgical risk. Furthermore, iterations of existing transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs), as well as devices with novel concepts, have provided substantial improvements with respect to the limitations of previous-generation devices. Hence, treatment of a broader spectrum of patients has become feasible, and a sophisticated selection of the appropriate TAV tailored to patients' anatomy and comorbidities is now possible. Anatomy, patient characteristics, and operator experience must all inform proper device selection. This review describes the features and performance of the current generation of TAVs with the aim of providing a practical approach for clinicians when selecting the appropriate TAV for a specific patient.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in heavily calcified aortic valve stenosis: a multicenter comparison

BACKGROUND

Heavy calcifications in severe aortic stenosis (AS) pose a major challenge in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Only a few studies have addressed the performance of different transcatheter heart valves (THV) in this subgroup of patients.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate the outcomes of the self-expanding Medtronic CoreValve Evolut valve frame and the balloon-expandable Edwards SAPIEN-3/3 Ultra THV in this challenging patient population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a multicenter registry including a total of 1513 patients with heavily calcified AS undergoing TAVR. The primary endpoint was the incidence and degree of paravalvular leak (PVL) after TAVR. Secondary endpoints were post-implant hemodynamics as well as clinical endpoints according to the VARC-3 definitions.

RESULTS

The CoreValve Evolut R but not the Evolut PRO showed significantly higher rates of PVL compared to the SAPIEN-3/3 Ultra (44.8% vs. 29.5% for mild PVL, p < 0.001), while there was no significant difference in ≥ moderate PVL between both groups (p = 0.399). The CoreValve Evolut R and Evolut PRO showed superior THV hemodynamics compared to the SAPIEN-3/3 Ultra group. These findings were confirmed in a propensity score-matched analysis. There were no significant differences regarding short-term outcomes including permanent pacemaker implantation and all-cause mortality between the three groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with severely calcified AS, both CoreValve Evolut PRO and SAPIEN-3/3 Ultra THV showed lower rates of PVL than the CoreValve Evolut R. The self-expanding CoreValve platform had superior post-implant hemodynamics than the SAPIEN-3/3 Ultra system.

Five-year outcomes with self-expanding versus balloon-expandable TAVI in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction

BACKGROUND

The importance of transcatheter heart valve (THV) design on clinical outcome in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction remains unknown.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to compare 5-year outcomes of patients with severe AS and reduced LV ejection fraction (LVEF), undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with balloon-expandable vs. self-expanding THVs.

METHODS

In a retrospective analysis from the Bern TAVI registry, patients with LVEF <50% who underwent TAVI with either balloon-expandable or self-expanding THVs were included. A 1:1 propensity-score matching was performed to account for baseline differences between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 759 patients were included between August 2007 and December 2022, and propensity-score matching resulted in 134 pairs. Technical success was achieved in over 85% of patients, and was similar in both groups. Self-expanding THVs were associated with a lower mean transvalvular gradient (7.1 ± 3.7 mmHg vs. 9.9 ± 4.3 mmHg; P < .001) and a higher incidence of ≥mild-to-moderate paravalvular regurgitation (36.3% vs. 11.3%; P < .001) compared to balloon-expandable THVs. At 5 years, patients treated with a self-expanding THV had higher all-cause mortality than those with a balloon-expandable THV (67.8% vs. 55.8%, HRadjusted: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.02-2.03; P = .037). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes up to 5 years between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In the setting of LV systolic dysfunction, patients treated with a self-expanding THV had higher risk of 5-year mortality compared to patients treated with a balloon-expandable THV.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov. NCT01368250.

Five-Year Multiple Comparison of Transcatheter Aortic Valves: Insights From the OBSERVANT II study

BACKGROUND

Head-to-head comparisons of second and third generations of transcatheter heart valves (THVs) are mostly limited to 2-arm studies and to mid-term follow-up. The aim of this study was to simultaneously compare clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with 4 different THVs at 5 years.

METHODS

Patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR with 4 second-generation THV platforms and enrolled in the multicentre prospective OBSERVANT II study from December 2016 to September 2018 were compared according to the THV received. Outcomes were adjudicated through a linkage with administrative databases and adjusted by means of inverse propensity of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on propensity score. The primary end points were death from any cause and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 5 years. Cumulative rates were reported consecutively for Evolut R/Pro, Sapien 3, Acurate Neo, and Portico groups.

RESULTS

A total of 2493 patients were considered. The median age was 83 years and median EuroSCORE 2 was 4.9%. After IPTW adjustment, the rates of all-cause death (53.6%, 46.7%, 50.5%, and 46.3%; P = 0.06) and MACCE (57.2%, 51.2%, 54.4%, and 50.6%; P = 0.08) did not differ among the groups at 5 years. The rate of rehospitalisation for heart failure (HF) (33.9%, 27.0%, 31.6%, 33.7%; P = 0.02) was significantly lower for Sapien 3 at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from real-world practice showed sustained and similar effectiveness of TAVR considering all the available THVs up to 5 years, but Sapien 3 showed a lower rate of rehospitalisation for HF.

Supra-Annular Versus Intra-Annular Self-Expanding Valves in Small Aortic Annulus: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with self-expanding valves (SEVs) may have different outcomes with supra-annular valves (SAVs) or intra-annular valves (IAVs) in patients with small aortic annuli (SAA), but this topic remains underexplored. We aimed to evaluate outcomes between different SEVs, namely SAVs (CoreValve/Evolut R/PRO/PRO+/FX) vs. IAVs (Portico/Navitor).

Methods

Single-center data with patients with SAA (maximum diameter <23 mm) who underwent TAVR from 2013 to 2023 with SEVs, followed by 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM).

Results

We obtained 86 PSM pairs with median age of 83.0 years (SAVs) and 82.0 years (IAVs), with women representing 77.6% of the PSM cohort. After TAVR, we did not find statistically significant differences for the following outcomes: Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 periprocedural mortality, technical success, device success, clinical efficacy, and rates of paravalvular leak were not statistically significantly different, but we found higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation in the IAV group (1.2 vs. 8.1%; p = 0.029). Despite the larger indexed effective orifice area with SAVs (median 1.0 vs. 0.8 cm2/m2, p = 0.001), we did not find statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of residual mean gradients >20 mmHg (0.0 vs. 2.3%, p = 0.155), and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (2.3 vs. 5.8%, p = 0.390). No statistically significant difference was observed in survival (log-rank p = 0.950) and stroke (p = 0.6547) between patients who received SAVs and IAVs. For patients with SAA, TAVR with SEV devices is safe.

Conclusions

IAVs and SAVs are associated with comparable device performance in terms of hemodynamic structural and nonstructural dysfunction. Randomized data are needed to validate these findings and guide informed device selection.

Conduction dynamics over time after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: An expert review

New conduction disorders remain a frequent complication in current transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) era. Left bundle branch block (LBBB) occurs early in about 20-30 % of TAVR-patients, persists at 1 month in about 35-45 % of cases and will likely remain thereafter. Third-degree atrioventricular block (AV3B) affects approximately 15 % of patients. Pacemaker dependency gradually decreases throughout follow-up and approximately 25-35 % of patients remain pacemaker dependent at one year. We aimed to review what is currently known about the dynamics of acquired conduction disorders, including extraction of predictors, and how to interpret these dynamics in light of an early discharge policy.

Early safety after TAVR according to VARC-3 criteria: incidence, predictors, and clinical impact

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3 definition of the early safety (ES) composite endpoint after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) lacks clinical validation. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence, predictors, and clinical impact of ES after TAVR as defined by VARC-3 criteria.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter study including 10 078 patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transarterial TAVR. According to VARC-3 criteria, ES at 30 days was defined as freedom from all-cause mortality, stroke, VARC type 2-4 bleeding, major vascular, access-related, or cardiac structural complications, acute kidney injury stages 3-4, moderate or severe aortic regurgitation, new permanent pacemaker implantation, and surgery or intervention related to the device. Baseline, procedural, and follow-up data were prospectively collected in a dedicated database.

RESULTS

ES was achieved in 6598 patients (65.5%). The main factors associated with a lack of ES were the occurrence of type 2-4 bleeding (18.9%), and new pacemaker implantation (13.6%). Advanced age, peripheral artery disease, chronic kidney disease, and balloon postdilation were associated with an increased risk of no-ES (P<.01 for all). Failure to achieve ES was associated with higher all-cause mortality up to 1-year after TAVR (HR, 3.17; 95%CI, 2.76-3.65; P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

VARC-3 ES was not achieved in up to one-third of contemporary TAVR patients, which was associated with worse mid-term outcomes. The factors associated with increased risk were advanced age, baseline comorbidities, and some procedural features (postdilation). These findings highlight the importance of continued efforts to minimize the risk of TAVR-related procedural complications.

Valve Performance Between Latest-Generation Balloon-Expandable and Self-Expandable Transcatheter Heart Valves in a Small Aortic Annulus

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using a self-expandable valve (SEV) promotes better hemodynamics compared with a balloon-expandable valve (BEV) in a small aortic annulus (SAA).

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to compare hemodynamic properties and clinical outcomes between the latest-generation BEV and SEV after TAVR for SAA.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 1,227 patients undergoing TAVR for aortic stenosis with SAA, defined as an annulus area ≤430 mm2, using the BEV (SAPIEN3 Ultra RESILIA, Edwards Lifesciences) and SEV (Evolut FX, Medtronic). The impact of valve design on severe prosthesis-patient mismatch, aortic valve mean pressure gradient ≥20 mm Hg, paravalvular leakage (PVL) ≥ mild, new permanent pacemaker implantation (PMI), and modified VARC-3 device success at discharge was evaluated using logistic regression and propensity score analysis.

RESULTS

Of 1,227 patients, 798 (65.0%) underwent TAVR with BEV implantation. TAVR using BEV had a relatively higher rate of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (OR: 1.74; 95% CI: 0.54-5.62) and significantly higher incidence of mean pressure gradient ≥20 mm Hg (OR: 2.05; 95% CI: 0.91-4.62) than that using SEV. By contrast, the BEV showed significantly lower incidence of PVL ≥ mild (OR: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.14-0.26), and new PMI (OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.33-0.86). The rate of device success was comparable between the BEV and the SEV. These results were confirmed by propensity score analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In TAVR for SAA, SEV demonstrated better hemodynamics than the latest BEV, whereas the latest BEV had lower incidences of PVL ≥ mild and new PMI than the SEV.

Conduction Disturbances After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: An Update on Epidemiology, Preventive Strategies, and Management

Conduction disturbances (CDs) are common after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Continuous improvements in preprocedural planification, implant techniques, and device design have markedly reduced periprocedural complications. However, CDs rate remains in the double-digit range. Because CDs after TAVR are associated with poorer outcomes, seeking a reduction in their occurrence is paramount. Several nonmodifiable and modifiable factors are associated with an increased risk of CDs. Previous right bundle branch block has been shown to have a strong association with pacemaker implant after TAVR. Among the modifiable factors, a lower implantation depth seems to be associated with a higher risk of CDs, and several implant strategies aiming to obtain a higher implant depth have shown promising results. This literature review provides a detailed description of updated evidence about the epidemiology, impact, and preventive and management strategies of CDs after TAVR. Also, based on these updated data, a fast-track protocol CDs management is proposed.

Cerebrovascular Events in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Review

Cerebrovascular events (CVEs) are a dreaded complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). They are associated with significant mortality, morbidity, and reduced quality of life and impose a significant burden to health care systems. Although the rates of clinical stroke have reduced since the advent of TAVR, it remains an important complication, particularly as TAVR is increasingly utilized. CVE may occur at the time of the TAVR, as a direct consequence of the procedure, or may occur later, related to thrombosis of the prosthetic valve, atrial fibrillation, and other comorbidities. Imaging of the brain has revealed a high prevalence of subclinical cerebral infarcts (68%-98%) associated with the TAVR procedure. Although their clinical significance has not been fully established, clinically evident CVE ranges between 3% and 5% in patients considered at high operative risk to between 1% and 3% in low operative risk patients. Periprocedural CVEs are largely the result of embolization of the thrombus and tissue derived from the valve, vasculature, or myocardium. Cerebral embolic protection devices have been studied in multiple trials, with some evidence supporting a reduction in new cerebral lesion volume, number, and potentially disabling strokes. However, thus far, there is no robust evidence that they reduce the overall stroke rate. The number and severity of comorbidities, in particular, new-onset atrial fibrillation, are associated with CVEs. Valve thrombosis diagnosed using computed tomography as areas of hypoattenuated leaflet thickening has been identified in 10% to 15% of patients. This is a dynamic process associated with an increase in CVEs, but that resolves with anticoagulation or sometimes without it. Routine use of anticoagulation compared with a single antiplatelet agent is associated with an increased risk of bleeding, without any additional alleviation in risk of thromboembolism. Future studies to improve risk stratification could facilitate the tailoring of preventive therapies to patients at high risk of CVE, who stand to gain the most benefit.

Early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with large aortic annulus: a study-level meta-analysis

Purpose

This study aimed to compare early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis and large aortic annulus using either balloon-expandable valves (BEVs) or self-expanding valves (SEVs).

Methods

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted through September 10, 2023, to perform a meta-analysis comparing the clinical outcomes of BEV versus SEV for large aortic annulus (annulus perimeter ≥ 80 mm).

Results

Seven studies (one propensity-matched study and six observational studies) met our eligibility criteria, including a total of 2167 patients (BEV, 1521; SEV, 646). The rates of procedural stroke (pooled odds ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.98), valve embolization (0.11, 0.05-0.24), need for second valve implantation (0.21, 0.17-0.26), permanent pacemaker implantation (0.43, 0.28-0.67), and aortic regurgitation ≥ moderate (0.23, 0.08-0.68) were significantly lower in the BEV group. Conversely, postoperative transvalvular gradient was significantly lower in the SEV group (pooled standard mean difference 0.55, 0.12-0.98). Subgroup analysis with newer-generation valves also showed significant differences in the need for second valve implantation and permanent pacemaker implantation, as well as aortic regurgitation ≥ moderate, favoring BEVs.

Conclusions

BEV provides better early outcomes in TAVR for large aortic annulus in terms of lower rates of stroke, valve embolization, need for second valve, permanent pacemaker implantation, and aortic regurgitation ≥ moderate. Conversely, SEV provides a better transvalvular gradient in the early period after TAVR.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12055-024-01770-1.

An Optimized Assessment Pathway for Remote Patients: The Vancouver Facilitated Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Program

Background

Novel pathways are needed to accommodate the increasing demand for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and ensure equitable access. A single Vancouver Facilitated TAVI program (VFTP) based at St. Paul's and Vancouver General Hospitals was established to streamline the assessment of remote patients with severe aortic stenosis using virtual technologies.

Methods

Remote patients with severe aortic stenosis who expressed difficulties traveling to complete their pre-TAVI workup were included and received prospective follow-up. Clinical and echocardiographic parameters were reported per the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3.

Results

Between December 2020 and March 2023, a total of 56 remote patients were included in the VFTP. The mean patient age was 79.7 ± 9.1 years. A total of 55 patients (98%) passed the screening for candidacy; 45 patients (80%) were found suitable for transfemoral TAVI, 5 patients (9%) were directed toward surgical aortic valve replacement; 3 (5%) underwent alternative-access TAVI; and 2 patients (4%) were assigned to a watchful waiting strategy. No inpatient mortality, stroke, or major bleeding occurred in the transfemoral TAVI group, and the median hospital stay was 1 day (interquartile range, 1-2 days; range, 1-24 days). Two patients had an access-closure failure requiring surgical intervention; 1 patient had tamponade; and 4 patients had complete heart block requiring permanent pacemaker implantation. No hospital readmission had occurred at 30 days.

Conclusions

A simplified assessment pathway to assess TAVI candidacy using virtual technologies is safe and feasible. The VFTP potentially can increase access to TAVI and reduce inequity in TAVI care.

Outcomes and treatment strategy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with balloon-expandable valve in borderline-size annulus

BACKGROUND

Candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) occasionally have a "borderline-size" aortic annulus between 2 transcatheter heart valve sizes, based on the manufacturer's sizing chart. Data on TAVR outcomes in such patients are limited.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 1816 patients who underwent transfemoral-TAVR with balloon-expandable valve (BEV) at our institution between 2016 and 2020. We divided patients into borderline and non-borderline groups based on computed tomography-derived annular measurements and compared outcomes. Furthermore, we analyzed procedural characteristics and compared outcomes between the smaller- and larger-valve strategies in patients with borderline-size annulus.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 23.3 months, there was no significant difference between the borderline (n = 310, 17.0 %) and non-borderline (n = 1506) groups in mortality (17.3 % vs. 19.5 %; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86 [95% CI = 0.62-1.20], p = 0.39), major adverse cardiac/cerebrovascular events (MACCE: death/myocardial infarction/stroke, 21.2 % vs. 21.5 %; HR = 0.97 [0.71-1.32], p = 0.85), paravalvular leak (PVL: mild 21.8 % vs. 20.6 %, p = 0.81; moderate 0 % vs. 1.2 %; p = 0.37), or mean gradient (12.9 ± 5.8 vs. 12.6 ± 5.2 mmHg, p = 0.69) at 1 year. There was no significant difference between the larger-(n = 113) and smaller-valve(n = 197) subgroups in mortality (23.7 % vs. 15.2 %; HR = 1.57 [0.89-2.77], p = 0.12), MACCE (28.1 % vs. 18.4 %; HR = 1.52 [0.91-2.54], p = 0.11), mild PVL (13.3 % vs. 25.9 %; p = 0.12), or mean gradient (12.3 ± 4.5 vs. 13.6 ± 5.3 mmHg, p = 0.16); however, the rate of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) was higher in the larger-valve subgroup (15.9 % vs. 2.6 %, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Borderline-size annulus is not associated with higher risk of adverse outcomes after BEV-TAVR. However, the larger-valve strategy for borderline-size annulus is associated with higher PPI risk, suggesting a greater risk of injury to the conduction system.

Conduction Abnormalities after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Incidence, Impact and Management Using CT Data Interpretation

The demonstrated safety and effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) among low surgical risk patients opened the road to its application in younger low-risk patients. However, the occurrence of conduction abnormalities and need for permanent pacemaker implantation remains a frequent problem associated with adverse outcomes. The clinical implications may become greater when TAVI shifts towards younger populations, highlighting the need for comprehensive strategies to address this issue. Beyond currently available clinical and electrocardiographic predictors, patient-specific anatomical assessment of the aortic root using multi-sliced CT (MSCT) imaging can refine risk stratification. Moreover, leveraging MSCT data for computational 3D simulations to predict device-anatomy interactions may help guide procedural strategy to mitigate conduction abnormalities. The aims of this review are to summarise the incidence and clinical impact of new left bundle branch block and permanent pacemaker implantation post-TAVI using contemporary transcatheter heart valves; and highlight the value of MSCT data interpretation to improve the management of this complication.

Comparison of downsizing strategy (HANGZHOU Solution) and standard annulus sizing strategy in type 0 bicuspid aortic stenosis patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Rationale and design of a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

There has not been a consensus on the prothesis sizing strategy in type 0 bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS) patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Modifications to standard annular sizing strategies might be required due to the distinct anatomical characteristics. We have devised a downsizing strategy for TAVR using a self-expanding valve specifically for patients with type 0 bicuspid AS. The primary aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of downsizing strategy with the Standard Annulus Sizing Strategy in TAVR for patients with type 0 bicuspid AS.

TRIAL DESIGN

It is a prospective, multi-center, superiority, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing the Down Sizing and Standard Annulus Sizing Strategy in patients with type 0 bicuspid aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Eligible participants will include patients with severe type 0 bicuspid AS, as defined by criteria such as mean gradient across aortic valve ≥40 mmHg, peak aortic jet velocity ≥4.0 m/s, aortic valve area (AVA) ≤1.0 cm², or AVA index ≤0.6 cm2/m2. These patients will be randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to either the Down Sizing Strategy group or the Standard Sizing Strategy group. In the Down Sizing Strategy group, a valve one size smaller will be implanted if the "waist sign" manifests along with less than mild regurgitation during balloon pre-dilatation. The primary end point of the study is a composite of VARC-3 defined device success, absence of both permanent pacemaker implantation due to high-degree atrioventricular block and new-onset complete left bundle branch block.

CONCLUSION

This study will compare the safety and efficacy of Down Sizing Strategy with the Standard Annulus Sizing Strategy and provide valuable insights into the optimal approach for sizing in TAVR patients with type 0 bicuspid AS. We hypothesize that the Down Sizing Strategy will demonstrate superiority when compared to the Standard Annulus Sizing Strategy. (Down Sizing Strategy (HANGZHOU Solution) vs Standard Sizing Strategy TAVR in Bicuspid Aortic Stenosis (Type 0) (TAILOR-TAVR), NCT05511792).

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Navitor System: Real-World United Kingdom Experience

The Navitor transcatheter heart valve (THV) is the latest iteration of the Portico self-expanding valve system. Early prospective studies have shown promising outcomes, however, there is a lack of complementary 'real-world' data. This study aimed to assess early safety and efficacy outcomes of the Navitor THV using registry data from 6 high-volume United Kingdom transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) centers. Demographic, procedural, and in-hospital outcome data were retrieved from 6 United Kingdom centers. The primary safety end point was 30-day mortality. Primary efficacy end points were procedural success, mean aortic gradient, and ≥moderate paravalvular leak. Secondary end points included rates of new permanent pacemaker implantation, stroke, and vascular injury. A total of 574 patients (mean age 83.4 years; 54.5% female) underwent Navitor TAVR between January 2020 and May 2023. The 30-day mortality in this patient cohort was 1.6%. Procedural success was 98.1%, mean echo-derived gradient post-TAVR was 7.7 ± 4.8 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.2 to 8.3, p <0.001) and 5.1% of patients had ≥moderate paravalvular leak (sample proportion estimate [p̂] = 0.051, 95% CI [0.035, 0.073], p <0.001). New permanent pacemaker implantation to discharge was required in 11% (p̂ = 0.119, 95% CI 0.088 to 0.158, p <0.001), stroke occurred in 1.2% of patients (p̂ = 0.017, 95% CI 0.006 to 0.036, p <0.001) and significant vascular injury in 1.6% (p̂ = 0.014, 95% CI 0.005 to 0.032, p <0.001). In conclusion, early procedural outcomes with Navitor TAVR compare favorably to new-generation THVs. Procedural success was high with a low incidence of complications.

Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Using Third-Generation Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expanding Valves: A Meta-analysis

Background

The choice of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) prosthesis is crucial in optimizing short- and long-term outcomes. The objective of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis comparing outcomes of third-generation balloon-expandable valves (BEV) vs self-expanding valves (SEV).

Methods

Electronic databases were searched from inception to June 2023 for studies comparing third-generation BEV vs SEV. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included clinical and hemodynamic end points. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs).

Results

The meta-analysis included 16 studies and 10,174 patients (BEV, 5753 and SEV, 4421). There were no significant differences in 1-year all-cause mortality (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.89-1.48) between third-generation BEV vs SEV. TAVR with third generation BEV was associated with a significantly lower risk of TIA/stroke (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44-0.87), permanent pacemaker implantation (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.44-0.70), and ≥moderate paravalvular leak (PVL, OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.25-0.75), and higher risk of ≥moderate patient-prosthesis mismatch (OR, 3.76; 95% CI, 2.33-6.05), higher mean gradient (WMD, 4.35; 95% CI, 3.63-5.08), and smaller effective orifice area (WMD, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.23), compared with SEV.

Conclusion

In this meta-analysis, TAVR with third-generation BEV vs SEV was associated with similar all-cause mortality, lower risk of TIA/stroke, permanent pacemaker implantation, and ≥moderate PVL, but higher risk of ≥moderate patient-prosthesis mismatch, higher mean gradient, and smaller effective orifice area. Large, adequately powered randomized trials are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes of TAVR with latest generations of BEV vs SEV.

Sex-Related Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Self-Expanding or Balloon-Expandable Valves: Insights from the OPERA-TAVI Registry

Evidence regarding gender-related differences in response to transcatheter aortic valve implantation according to the valve type is lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of gender on the treatment effect of Evolut PRO/PRO+ (PRO) or SAPIEN 3 Ultra (ULTRA) devices on clinical outcomes. The Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO vs SAPIEN 3 Ultra Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (OPERA-TAVI) is a multicenter, multinational registry including patients who underwent the latest-iteration PRO or ULTRA implantation. Overall, 1,174 of 1,897 patients were matched based on valve type and compared according to gender, whereas 470 men and 630 women were matched and compared according to valve type. The 30-day and 1-year outcomes were evaluated. In the PRO and ULTRA groups, men had a higher co-morbidity burden, whereas women had smaller aortic root. The 30-day (device success [DS], early safety outcome, permanent pacemaker implantation, patient-prosthesis mismatch, paravalvular regurgitation, bleedings, vascular complications, and all-cause death) and 1-year outcomes (all-cause death, stroke, and heart failure hospitalization) did not differ according to gender in both valve groups. However, the male gender decreased the likelihood of 30-day DS with ULTRA versus PRO (p for interaction = 0.047). A higher risk of 30-day permanent pacemaker implantation and 1-year stroke and a lower risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch was observed in PRO versus ULTRA, regardless of gender. In conclusion, gender did not modify the treatment effect of PRO versus ULTRA on clinical outcomes, except for 30-day DS, which was decreased in men (vs women) who received ULTRA (vs PRO).

Progression of the ascending aorta diameter after surgical or transcatheter bicuspid aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVES

Ascending aorta (AA) dilatation in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (AV) is related both to genetic and haemodynamic factors. The aim of this study is to compare late progression of AA dilatation in bicuspid AV patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

METHODS

Data of 189 consecutive patients who underwent AV replacement for severe bicuspid AV stenosis were prospectively collected. Patients who underwent SAVR were compared to patients who underwent TAVI. Indication to the procedure was validated by the institutional Heart Team. Aortic diameters were evaluated by transthoracic echocardiogram. Differences between preoperative and long-term follow-up AA diameters were compared in the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Between January 2015 and December 2021, 143 (76%) patients underwent SAVR and 46 (24%) patients underwent TAVI. At 4.6 (standard deviation 1.7) years follow-up, patients in the TAVI group showed significantly lower survival (P = 0.00013) and event-free survival (P < 0.0001). AA diameter progression was lower in surgical compared to transcatheter patients, 0.95 (0.60, 1.30) vs 1.65 (0.67, 2.63) mm, P = 0.02. AA diameter progression indexed for body surface area and height was lower in the surgical group: 0.72 (0.38, 1.05) vs 1.05 (0.39, 1.71) mm/m2, P = 0.02, and 0.59 (0.36, 0.81) vs 1.11 (0.44, 1.78) mm/m, P = 0.001, respectively. At multivariable linear regression analysis transcatheter procedure, baseline aortic diameter and paravalvular leak were significantly associated with increased postoperative AA dilatation.

CONCLUSIONS

Bicuspid AV patients who underwent SAVR, showed significantly less long-term AA diameter progression than patients who underwent transcatheter procedure.

Predictors, clinical impact, and management strategies for conduction abnormalities after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: an updated review

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has increasingly become a safe, feasible, and widely accepted alternative surgical treatment for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. However, the incidence of conduction abnormalities associated with TAVR, including left bundle branch block (LBBB) and high-degree atrioventricular block (HAVB), remains high and is often correlated with risk factors such as the severity of valvular calcification, preexisting conditions in patients, and procedural factors. The existing research results on the impact of post-TAVR conduction abnormalities and permanent pacemaker (PPM) requirements on prognosis, including all-cause mortality and rehospitalization, remain contradictory, with varied management strategies for post-TAVR conduction system diseases across different institutions. This review integrates the latest research in the field, offering a comprehensive discussion of the mechanisms, risk factors, consequences, and management of post-TAVR conduction abnormalities. This study provides insights into optimizing patient prognosis and explores the potential of novel strategies, such as conduction system pacing, to minimize the risk of adverse clinical outcomes.

Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expandable Valve in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Nation-Wide Study

A few studies have reported comparative analysis of clinical outcomes between balloon-expandable valve (BEV) and self-expandable valve (SEV) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis using newer-generation devices. However, those reports were mostly limited to short-term outcomes and Western populations. In the present study, data of patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR between March 2016 and December 2018 were obtained from the National Health Insurance Service in Korea. The primary end point, defined as all-cause mortality, was compared in BEV (SAPIEN 3, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) and SEV (Evolut R, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) groups using a propensity-score matching analysis. Cumulative event rates of ischemic stroke, repeat procedures, and permanent pacemaker insertion (PPI) were evaluated as secondary outcomes. All events were followed up to a maximum of 3 years. A total of 1,172 patients underwent transfemoral TAVR, of whom 707 (60.3%) were treated with BEV and 452 (38.6%) with SEV. After 1:1 propensity-score matching, the BEV group showed lower all-cause mortality after a median follow-up of 12.0 months (mean: 13.1 ± 9.3 months) based on Cox proportional hazard model analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 0.99, p = 0.04). Cumulative incidence of ischemic stroke was not statistically different between the 2 groups (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.59, p = 0.37). PPI occurred less frequently in the BEV group (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.64, p < 0.01). Repeat procedures were rare (1 patient in BEV and 2 patients in SEV group). In conclusion, Korean nation-wide data analysis showed that BEV was associated with less all-cause death and incidence of PPI after TAVR than was SEV using a newer-generation device.

One-year clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the latest iteration of self-expanding or balloonexpandable devices: insights from the OPERA-TAVI registry

BACKGROUND

Midterm comparative analyses of the latest iterations of the most used Evolut and SAPIEN platforms for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are lacking.

AIMS

We aimed to compare 1-year clinical outcomes of TAVI patients receiving Evolut PRO/PRO+ (PRO) or SAPIEN 3 Ultra (ULTRA) devices in current real-world practice.

METHODS

Among patients enrolled in the OPERA-TAVI registry, patients with complete 1-year follow-up were considered for the purpose of this analysis. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to compare TAVI patients receiving PRO or ULTRA devices. The primary endpoint was a composite of 1-year all-cause death, disabling stroke and rehospitalisation for heart failure. Five prespecified subgroups of patients were considered according to leaflet and left ventricular outflow tract calcifications, annulus dimensions and angulation, and leaflet morphology.

RESULTS

Among a total of 1,897 patients, 587 matched pairs of patients with similar clinical and anatomical characteristics were compared. The primary composite endpoint did not differ between patients receiving PRO or ULTRA devices (Kaplan-Meier [KM] estimates 14.0% vs 11.9%; log-rank p=0.27). Patients receiving PRO devices had higher rates of 1-year disabling stroke (KM estimates 2.6% vs 0.4%; log-rank p=0.001), predominantly occurring within 30 days after TAVI (1.4% vs 0.0%; p=0.004). Outcomes were consistent across all the prespecified subsets of anatomical scenarios (all pinteraction>0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

One-year clinical outcomes of patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI and receiving PRO or ULTRA devices in the current clinical practice were similar, but PRO patients had higher rates of disabling stroke. Outcomes did not differ across the different anatomical subsets of the aortic root.

Balloon- vs Self-Expanding Transcatheter Valves for Failed Small Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses: 1-Year Results of the LYTEN Trial

BACKGROUND

Data comparing valve systems in the valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) field have been obtained from retrospective studies.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to compare the 1-year hemodynamic performance and clinical outcomes between balloon-expandable valves (BEV) SAPIEN 3/ULTRA (Edwards Lifesciences) and self-expanding valves (SEV) Evolut R/PRO/PRO+ (Medtronic) in ViV-TAVR.

METHODS

Patients with a failed small (≤23 mm) surgical valve undergoing ViV-TAVR were randomized to receive a SEV or a BEV. Patients had a clinical and valve hemodynamic (Doppler echocardiography) evaluation at 1-year follow-up. Study outcomes were defined according to VARC-2/VARC-3 criteria. Intended performance of the valve was defined as mean gradient <20 mm Hg, peak velocity <3 m/s, Doppler velocity index ≥0.25 and less than moderate AR.

RESULTS

A total of 98 patients underwent ViV-TAVR (46 BEV, 52 SEV). At 1-year follow-up, patients receiving a SEV had a lower mean transaortic gradient (22 ± 8 mm Hg BEV vs 14 ± 7 mm Hg SEV; P < 0.001), and a higher rate of intended valve performance (BEV: 30%, SEV:76%; P < 0.001). There were no cases of greater than mild aortic regurgitation. There were no differences in functional status (NYHA functional class >II, BEV: 7.3%, SEV: 4.1%; P = 0.505) or quality of life (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, BEV: 77.9 ± 21.2, SEV: 81.8 ± 14.8; P = 0.334). No differences in all-cause mortality (BEV: 6.5%, SEV: 3.8; P = 0.495), heart failure hospitalization (BEV: 6.5%, SEV: 1.9%; P = 0.214), stroke (BEV: 0%, SEV: 1.9%; P = 0.369), myocardial infarction (BEV: 0%, SEV: 1.9%; P = 0.347), or pacemaker implantation (BEV: 2.2%, SEV: 1.9%; P = 0.898) were found.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients who underwent ViV-TAVR for failed small aortic bioprostheses, those receiving a SEV exhibited a better valve hemodynamic profile at 1-year follow-up. There were no differences between SEV and BEV regarding functional status, quality of life, or clinical outcomes.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Pure Native Aortic Valve Regurgitation: The PANTHEON International Project

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with pure severe native aortic valve regurgitation (NAVR) has been associated with suboptimal results. The available evidence concerns mostly outdated transcatheter heart valves (THVs).

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the performance of new-generation THVs in patients treated for pure severe NAVR.

METHODS

The PANTHEON (Performance of Currently Available Transcatheter Aortic Valve Platforms in Inoperable Patients With Pure Aortic Regurgitation of a Native Valve) study retrospectively included patients who underwent TAVR with currently available devices (both self-expanding [SE] and balloon expandable [BE]) for severe NAVR. Technical and device success rates as well as a composite of all-cause mortality and heart failure rehospitalization at 1 year were evaluated. The rate and clinical consequences of acute transcatheter valve embolization or migration (TVEM) were also considered.

RESULTS

A total of 201 patients were included. Overall technical and device success rates were 83.6% and 76.1%, respectively, and did not differ between SE and BE devices. These figures were due mostly to TVEM occurrence (14.6% vs 16.1%; P = 0.47) and residual moderate or greater aortic regurgitation (9.2% vs 10.1%; P = 0.87). Patients who experienced TVEM compared with those without TVEM had a significantly higher incidence of the composite endpoint at 1 year (25.7% vs 15.8%; P = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite improved THV platforms and techniques, TAVR for pure severe NAVR remains a challenging procedure, with significant risk for TVEM. SE and BE platforms demonstrated comparable performance in this setting. (Performance of Currently Available Transcatheter Aortic Valve Platforms in Inoperable Patients With Pure Aortic Regurgitation of a Native Valve [PANTHEON]; NCT05319171).

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the VenusA-Pro and VenusA-Plus systems: preliminary experience in China

Background

The outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) employing the second-generation retrievable VenusA-Pro and VenusA-Plus delivery systems with the self-expanding VenusA-Valve have not been described yet. This study aims to report the outcomes of these two second-generation delivery systems.

Methods

From January 2022 to April 2023, we prospectively enrolled patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR with VenusA-Pro from three centers across China in this first-in-man study and retrospectively identified those undergoing TAVR with VenusA-Plus. All outcomes were reported according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 definition. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality.

Results

A total of 156 patients were included, of which 46 underwent TAVR with VenusA-Pro and 110 underwent TAVR with VenusA-Plus. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons median score was 2.1%, bicuspid anatomy prevalence rate was 55.1%, and the mean aortic root calcification volume was 693 mm3. The technical success rate was 91.7%, comparable between the VenusA-Pro and VenusA-Plus groups (87.0% vs. 93.6%, P = 0.169). The 30-day all-cause mortality was 2.6%, similar between the VenusA-Pro and VenusA-Plus groups (2.2% vs. 2.7%, P = 0.842). No myocardial infarction occurred. The incidences of stroke (0.6%), major bleeding (3.8%), major vascular complications (5.1%), acute kidney injury (9.0%), permanent pacemaker implantation (5.1%), new-onset atrial fibrillation (5.8%), and moderate-to-severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation (6.0%) were favorable and comparable between the two groups. The clinical outcomes were similar between the patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve, except that the incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation was lower in patients with bicuspid anatomy (1.2% vs. 10.6%, P = 0.010).

Conclusions

The 30-day outcomes of TAVR with VenusA-Pro and VenusA-Plus were favorable and comparable.

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.

Incidence and predictors of hemodynamic compromise due to high-grade AV block after TAVI

Background

High-grade AV block (HAVB) is the most frequent adverse event after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). In rare cases, HAVB is associated with hemodynamic compromise (HC) followed by syncope or application of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but data on this severe complication are scarce. The aim of the present study was to investigate the incidence and predictors of HC due to HAVB in patients undergoing TAVI.

Methods

In this retrospective analysis of 4,602 TAVI cases between 2010 and 2022, 466 developed HAVB. Baseline characteristics and procedural and postprocedural findings were compared for patients with HC versus those without. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses were used to investigate independent predictors of HC.

Results

Forty-nine of 466 patients (10.5%) had HC due to HAVB after TAVI. Patients with HC had a longer hospital stay [10 (8-13) vs. 13 (9-18) days; p < 0.001], more frequent peripheral artery disease (PAD) (28.6% vs. 15.1%; p = 0.016), and lower hemoglobin levels [11.8 (±) vs. 12.5 (±) g/dl; p = 0.006]. In the HC group, HAVB onset post-TAVI was delayed compared with the non-HC group [2 (1-4) vs. 1 (0-3) days; p < 0.001]. Before HAVB onset, patients in the HC group more frequently developed post-TAVI delirium [18 (4.6%) vs. 11 (25.0%); p < 0.001]. In univariate regression analysis, PAD, hemoglobin, procedural time, contrast agent volume, and post-TAVI delirium were significant predictors of HC. After adjustment, only post-TAVI delirium and contrast agent volume remained independent predictors [OR 3.22 (95% CI: 1.05-9.89); p = 0.042 and OR: 1.01 (95% CI: 1.0-1.01); p = 0.04, respectively].

Conclusion

HC due to HAVB after TAVI occurred in over 10% of cases. Development of post-TAVI delirium and contrast agent volume are independent predictors of this severe complication.

Cusp overlap versus standard three-cusp technique for self-expanding Evolut transcatheter aortic valves

BACKGROUND

Reducing rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is important for achieving the best procedural outcomes. The cusp overlap technique (COT) implements procedural steps including an overlap angulation of the right and left coronary cusp to mitigate this complication.

AIMS

We investigated the incidence of PPI and complication rates following the COT compared to the standard three-cusp implantation technique (3CT) in an all-comers cohort.

METHODS

A total of 2,209 patients underwent TAVI with the self-expanding Evolut platform from January 2016 to April 2022 at five sites. Baseline, procedural and in-hospital outcome characteristics were compared for both techniques before and after one-to-one propensity score matching.

RESULTS

A total of 1,151 patients were implanted using the 3CT and 1,058 using the COT. At discharge, the rates of PPI (17.0 vs 12.3%; p=0.002) and moderate/severe paravalvular regurgitation (4.6% vs 2.4%; p=0.006) were significantly reduced with the COT compared with 3CT within the unmatched cohort. Overall procedural success and complication rates were similar; major bleeding was less common in the COT group (7.0% vs 4.6%; p=0.020). These results remained consistent after propensity score matching. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, right bundle branch block (odds ratio [OR] 7.19, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.18-10.0; p<0.001) and diabetes mellitus (OR 1.38, 95% CI: 1.05-1.80; p=0.021) emerged as predictors of PPI, whereas the COT (OR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.49-0.82; p<0.001) was protective.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of the COT was associated with a significant and relevant reduction of PPI and paravalvular regurgitation rates without an increase in complication rates.

Surgical Mortality Risk Scores in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Is Their Early Predictive Value Still Strong?

BACKGROUND

Surgical mortality risk scores, even if not properly designed and rarely tested in the transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) setting, still guide the heart team in managing significant aortic stenosis.

METHODS

After splitting 1763 consecutive patients retrospectively based on their mortality risk thresholds, the composite endpoint early safety (ES) was adjudicated according to Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 and -3 consensus documents.

RESULTS

ES incidence was higher if VARC-2 rather than VARC-3 defined. Despite only patients showing VARC-2 ES had significantly lower absolute values of all three main risk scores, these last still failed to foresee both VARC-2 and -3 ES in intermediate-risk patients. The receiver operating characteristic analysis also showed a significant correlation, but with poor diagnostic accuracy, among the three scores and only VARC-2 ES; moreover, the absence of VARC-2 ES and low-osmolar contrast media administration were identified as independent predictors of 1-year mortality and absence of VARC-3 ES, respectively. Finally, even a single complication included in the ES definition could significantly affect 1-year mortality.

CONCLUSION

Currently, the most used mortality risk scores do not have adequate diagnostic accuracy in predicting ES after TAVI. The absence of VARC-2, instead of VARC-3, ES is an independent predictor of 1-year mortality.

Coronary Obstruction during Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Pre-Procedural Risk Evaluation, Intra-Procedural Monitoring, and Follow-Up

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is emerging as an effective treatment for patients with symptomatically failing bioprosthetic valves and a high prohibitive surgical risk; a longer life expectancy has led to a higher demand for these valve reinterventions due to the increased possibilities of outliving the bioprosthetic valve's durability. Coronary obstruction is the most feared complication of valve-in-valve (ViV) TAVR; it is a rare but life-threatening complication and occurs most frequently at the left coronary artery ostium. Accurate pre-procedural planning, mainly based on cardiac computed tomography, is crucial to determining the feasibility of a ViV TAVR and to assessing the anticipated risk of a coronary obstruction and the eventual need for coronary protection measures. Intraprocedurally, the aortic root and a selective coronary angiography are useful for evaluating the anatomic relationship between the aortic valve and coronary ostia; transesophageal echocardiographic real-time monitoring of the coronary flow with a color Doppler and pulsed-wave Doppler is a valuable tool that allows for a determination of real-time coronary patency and the detection of asymptomatic coronary obstructions. Because of the risk of developing a delayed coronary obstruction, the close postprocedural monitoring of patients at a high risk of developing coronary obstructions is advisable. CT simulations of ViV TAVR, 3D printing models, and fusion imaging represent the future directions that may help provide a personalized lifetime strategy and tailored approach for each patient, potentially minimizing complications and improving outcomes.

Prosthesis Tailoring for Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has risen over the past 20 years as a safe and effective alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for treatment of severe aortic stenosis, and is now a well-established and recommended treatment option in suitable patients irrespective of predicted risk of mortality after surgery. Studies of numerous devices, either newly developed or reiterations of previous prostheses, have been accruing. We hereby review TAVI devices, with a focus on commercially available options, and aim to present a guide for prosthesis tailoring according to patient-related anatomical and clinical factors that may favor particular designs.

Temporal Trends and Contemporary Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Evolut PRO/PRO+ Self-Expanding Valves: Insights From the NEOPRO/NEOPRO-2 Registries

BACKGROUND

In recent years, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) techniques and technology have continuously improved. Data regarding the impact of these advancements on outcomes in large real-world settings are still limited. The aim of this study was to investigate temporal trends and assess contemporary outcomes after TAVR with Evolut PRO/PRO+ supra-annular self-expanding valves.

METHODS

This study included patients enrolled in the multicenter NEOPRO (A Multicenter Comparison of Acurate NEO Versus Evolut PRO Transcatheter Heart Valves) and NEOPRO-2 (A Multicenter Comparison of ACURATE NEO2 Versus Evolut PRO/PRO+ Transcatheter Heart Valves 2) registries who underwent transfemoral TAVR with Evolut PRO/PRO+. Procedural dates (August 2017 through November 2021) were stratified in quartiles (Q) and used to investigate temporal trends in TAVR outcomes. Predischarge, 30-day Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 defined, and 1-year outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

In total, 1616 patients from 28 centers were included. Over time, patients had lower Society of Thoracic Surgeon-Predicted Risk of Mortality score (Q1-4, 4.1% [2.8-6.3%], 3.7% [2.6-5.3%], 3.3% [2.4-4.9%], 2.9% [2.2-4.3%]; P<0.001) and more moderate or heavy valve calcification (Q1-4, 80%, 80%, 82%, 88%; P=0.038). Overall Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 technical success was 94.1%, with 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality of 2.4% and 10%, respectively. Throughout the study period, procedures were associated with higher rates of 30-day device success (Q1-4, 81.2%, 82.2%, 82.0%, 88.0%; Cochran-Armitage P=0.023) and early safety (Q1-4, 66.8%, 67.5%, 74.0%, 77.6%; Cochran-Armitage P<0.001), with fewer permanent pacemaker implantations (Q1-4: 15.3%, 20.0%, 12.1%, 11.6%; Cochran-Armitage P=0.023) and residual mild or greater paravalvular leaks (Q1-4, 50.4%, 42.1%, 36.5%, 35.8%; Cochran-Armitage P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR with Evolut PRO/PRO+ self-expanding valve is safe and effective. Despite the treatment of heavier calcified anatomies, procedural outcomes are improving over time with less need for pacemaker implantation and less significant paravalvular leaks.

Ten-Year Experience with Transapical and Direct Transaortic Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement to Address Patients with Aortic Stenosis and Peripheral Vascular Disease

Objective: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) through alternative access routes is indicated in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis and diseased peripheral arteries. We analysed and compared the outcome of patients undergoing transapical (TA) and direct transaortic (TAO) TAVR procedures. Methods: Preoperative characteristics, procedural details, and thirty-day outcome of patients undergoing transapical (TA-TAVR group) and direct transaortic (TAO-TAVR group) TAVR procedures were prospectively collected and retrospectively analysed. Results: From March 2012 to March 2022, 81 TA and 82 TAO-TAVR (total: 163 cases) were performed with balloon-expanding (n = 120; 73.6%) and self-expandable (n = 43; 26.4%) valves. The mean age was 79.7 ± 6.2 and 81.9 ± 6.7 years for the TA- and TAO-TAVR groups, respectively (p = 0.032). Females were more represented in the TAO-TAVR group (56% vs. 32%; p = 0.003) while TA-TAVR patients showed a higher prevalence of previous vascular surgery (20% vs. 6%; p = 0.01), previous cardiac surgery (51% vs. 3.6%; p < 0.001), and porcelain aorta (22% vs. 5%; p = 0.001). The mean ejection fraction was 49.0 ± 14.6% (TA) and 53.5 ± 12.2% (TAO) (p = 0.035) while mean gradients were 35.6 ± 13.2 mmHg (TA) and 40.4 ± 16.1 mmHg (TAO) (p = 0.045). The median EuroSCORE-II was 5.0% (IQR: 3.0−11.0) and 3.9% (IQR: 2.5−5.4) for the TA- and TAO-TAVR groups, respectively (p = 0.005). The procedural time was shorter for TA procedures (97 min (IQR: 882−118) vs. 102 min (IQR: 88−129); p = 0.133). Mortality at day 30 was 6% in both groups (p = 1.000); the permanent pacemaker implantation rate was similar (8.6% vs. 9.7%; p = 1.000), and hospital stay was shorter for the TAO group (8 days (IQR: 6−11) vs. 10 days (IQR: 7−13); p = 0.025). Conclusions: Our results show that transapical and direct transaortic TAVR in high-risk patients with diseased peripheral arteries provide satisfactory clinical results with similar thirty-day outcomes.