Randomized comparison of TAVI valves: The Compare-TAVI trial

INTRODUCTION

Based on technical advancements and clinical evidence, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been widely adopted. New generation TAVI valve platforms are continually being developed. Ideally, new valves should be superior or at least non-inferior regarding efficacy and safety, when compared to best-in-practice contemporary TAVI valves.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Compare-TAVI trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04443023) was launched in 2020, to perform a 1:1 randomized comparison of new vs contemporary TAVI valves, preferably in all comers. Consecutive cohorts will be launched with sample sizes depending on the choice of interim analyses, expected event rates, and chosen superiority or non-inferiority margins. Enrollment has just been finalized in cohort B, comparing the Sapien 3/Sapien 3 Ultra Transcatheter Heart Valve (THV) series (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California, USA) and the Myval/Myval Octacor THV series (Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Vapi, Gujarat, India) balloon expandable valves. This non-inferiority study was aimed to include 1062 patients. The 1-year composite safety and efficacy endpoint comprises death, stroke, moderate-severe aortic regurgitation, and moderate-severe valve deterioration. Patients will be followed until withdrawal of consent, death, or completion of 10-year follow-up, whichever comes first. Secondary endpoints will be monitored at 30 days, 1, 3, 5, and 10 years.

SUMMARY

The Compare-TAVI organization will launch consecutive cohorts wherein patients scheduled for TAVI are randomized to one of two valves. The aim is to ensure that the short- and long-term performance and safety of new valves being introduced is benchmarked against what achieved by best-in-practice contemporary valves.

Improved Hemodynamics With Self-Expanding Compared to Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Small Annulus Patients: A Propensity-Matched Analysis

Patients with small aortic annuli (SAA) pose a challenge in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement because of the potential for prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM). This study aimed to compare the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of self-expandable valve (SEV) versus balloon-expandable valve (BEV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA. All patients who underwent TAVI for severe native aortic stenosis with a SAA between January 2018 and December 2022 were retrospectively included in the study from a single center. Propensity score matching was performed to balance the baseline characteristics. Bioprosthesis valve dysfunction was based on modified Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 criteria. A total of 1,170 TAVI procedures were performed between 2018 and 2022. After applying the exclusion criteria, 332 patients reported a SAA at computed tomography scan, and the matching created 109 balanced pairs. Echocardiographic data at discharge showed higher mean transvalvular gradients (p <0.001), higher grades of mitral regurgitation (p = 0.029), and lower ejection fraction (p <0.043) in BEVs than SEVs. At follow-up, significant differences favoring the SEV group regarding bioprosthesis valve dysfunction were observed (p = 0.002), especially in terms of severe PPM (p = 0.046) and at least moderate structural valve deterioration (p = 0.040). In conclusion, TAVI in patients with SAA using a BEV was associated with lower valve areas, higher mean pressure gradients, and PPM (including severe) than a SEV. Short- and midterm all-cause and cardiac-related mortality did not differ between the 2 groups. Future randomized studies with extended follow-ups are warranted to validate these outcomes.

Self-Expanding or Balloon-Expandable TAVR in Patients with a Small Aortic Annulus

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe aortic stenosis and a small aortic annulus are at risk for impaired valvular hemodynamic performance and associated adverse cardiovascular clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR).

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and an aortic-valve annulus area of 430 mm2 or less in a 1:1 ratio to undergo TAVR with either a self-expanding supraannular valve or a balloon-expandable valve. The coprimary end points, each assessed through 12 months, were a composite of death, disabling stroke, or rehospitalization for heart failure (tested for noninferiority) and a composite end point measuring bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction (tested for superiority).

RESULTS

A total of 716 patients were treated at 83 sites in 13 countries (mean age, 80 years; 87% women; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality, 3.3%). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the percentage of patients who died, had a disabling stroke, or were rehospitalized for heart failure through 12 months was 9.4% with the self-expanding valve and 10.6% with the balloon-expandable valve (difference, -1.2 percentage points; 90% confidence interval [CI], -4.9 to 2.5; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the percentage of patients with bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction through 12 months was 9.4% with the self-expanding valve and 41.6% with the balloon-expandable valve (difference, -32.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -38.7 to -25.6; P<0.001 for superiority). The aortic-valve mean gradient at 12 months was 7.7 mm Hg with the self-expanding valve and 15.7 mm Hg with the balloon-expandable valve, and the corresponding values for additional secondary end points through 12 months were as follows: mean effective orifice area, 1.99 cm2 and 1.50 cm2; percentage of patients with hemodynamic structural valve dysfunction, 3.5% and 32.8%; and percentage of women with bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction, 10.2% and 43.3% (all P<0.001). Moderate or severe prosthesis-patient mismatch at 30 days was found in 11.2% of the patients in the self-expanding valve group and 35.3% of those in the balloon-expandable valve group (P<0.001). Major safety end points appeared to be similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with severe aortic stenosis and a small aortic annulus who underwent TAVR, a self-expanding supraannular valve was noninferior to a balloon-expandable valve with respect to clinical outcomes and was superior with respect to bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction through 12 months. (Funded by Medtronic; SMART ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04722250.).

Safety and effectiveness of the novel Myval Octacor transcatheter heart valve in severe, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis - A real-world Indian experience (The OCTACOR India Study)

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the novel, next-generation Myval Octacor - Transcatheter Heart Valve (THV) in patients with severe, symptomatic, native aortic stenosis (AS).

METHODS

This multicenter, real-world observational registry included 123 patients with severe symptomatic AS, across 16 Indian centers who underwent treatment with the novel Myval Octacor THV. Study endpoints included all-cause mortality, all stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), major vascular complications, moderate or severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) and new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) until 30 days follow-up.

RESULTS

Of the 123 patients (average age 70.07 ± 8.33 years), 37.4 % (n = 46) were female and 39.84 % presented with bicuspid valves. The technical success rate of the procedure was 100 % and the device success rate at 30 days was 98.4 %. At 30 days (n = 123) after the procedure, the overall mortality was 1.6 %. AKI occurred in 1.6 % of patients and there was no incidence of stroke, bleeding (types 3 and 4), and major vascular complications. In an analysis of 31 patients whose echocardiographic parameters were available across all timepoints, there were significant improvements in the mean pressure gradient (54.31 ± 18.19 mmHg vs. 10.42 ± 4.24 mmHg; p < 0.0001) and effective orifice area (0.66 ± 0.21 cm2 vs. 1.80 ± 0.44 cm2; p < 0.0001) from baseline to the 30-day follow-up. None of the patients experienced severe PVL, while moderate PVL was observed in two patients (1.6 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Early outcomes of the next-generation, novel Myval Octacor THV proved its safety and effectiveness in the treatment of severe AS.

LANDMARK comparison of early outcomes of newer-generation Myval transcatheter heart valve series with contemporary valves (Sapien and Evolut) in real-world individuals with severe symptomatic native aortic stenosis: a randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is an established, guideline-endorsed treatment for severe aortic stenosis. Precise sizing of the balloon-expandable Myval transcatheter heart valve (THV) series with the aortic annulus is facilitated by increasing its diameter in 1·5 mm increments, compared with the usual 3 mm increments in valve size. The LANDMARK trial aimed to show non-inferiority of the Myval THV series compared with the contemporary THVs Sapien Series (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) or Evolut Series (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA).

METHODS

In this prospective, multinational, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial across 31 hospitals in 16 countries (Germany, France, Sweden, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, New Zealand, Portugal, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Estonia, and Brazil), 768 participants with severe symptomatic native aortic stenosis were randomly assigned (1:1) to the Myval THV or a contemporary THV. Eligibility was primarily decided by the heart team in accordance with 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. As per the criteria of the third Valve Academic Research Consortium, the primary endpoint at 30 days was a composite of all-cause mortality, all stroke, bleeding (types 3 and 4), acute kidney injury (stages 2-4), major vascular complications, moderate or severe prosthetic valve regurgitation, and conduction system disturbances resulting in a permanent pacemaker implantation. Non-inferiority of the study device was tested in the intention-to-treat population using a non-inferiority margin of 10·44% and assuming an event rate of 26·10%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04275726, and EudraCT, 2020-000137-40, and is closed to new participants.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 6, 2021, and Dec 5, 2023, 768 participants with severe symptomatic native aortic stenosis were randomly assigned, 384 to the Myval THV and 384 to a contemporary THV. 369 (48%) participants had their sex recorded as female, and 399 (52%) as male. The mean age of participants was 80·0 years (SD 5·7) for those treated with the Myval THV and 80·4 years (5·4) for those treated with a contemporary THV. Median Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores were the same in both groups (Myval 2·6% [IQR 1·7-4·0] vs contemporary 2·6% [1·7-4·0]). The primary endpoint showed non-inferiority of the Myval (25%) compared with contemporary THV (27%), with a risk difference of -2·3% (one-sided upper 95% CI 3·8, pnon-inferiority<0·0001). No significant difference was seen in individual components of the primary composite endpoint.

INTERPRETATION

In individuals with severe symptomatic native aortic stenosis, the Myval THV met its primary endpoint at 30 days.

FUNDING

Meril Life Sciences.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with high-risk symptomatic native aortic regurgitation (ALIGN-AR): a prospective, multicentre, single-arm study

BACKGROUND

Surgery remains the only recommended intervention for patients with native aortic regurgitation. A transcatheter therapy to treat patients at high risk for mortality and complications with surgical aortic valve replacement represents an unmet need. Commercial transcatheter heart valves in pure aortic regurgitation are hampered by unacceptable rates of embolisation and paravalvular regurgitation. The Trilogy transcatheter heart valve (JenaValve Technology, Irvine, CA, USA) provides a treatment option for these patients. We report outcomes with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with pure aortic regurgitation using this dedicated transcatheter heart valve.

METHODS

The ALIGN-AR trial is a prospective, multicentre, single-arm study. We recruited symptomatic patients (aged ≥18 years) with moderate-to-severe or severe aortic regurgitation at high risk for mortality and complications after surgical aortic valve replacement at 20 US sites for treatment with the Trilogy transcatheter heart valve. The 30-day composite primary safety endpoint was compared for non-inferiority with a prespecified performance goal of 40·5%. The primary efficacy endpoint was 1-year all-cause mortality compared for non-inferiority with a performance goal of 25%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04415047, and is ongoing.

FINDINGS

Between June 8, 2018, and Aug 29, 2022, we screened 346 patients. We excluded 166 (48%) patients and enrolled 180 (52%) patients with symptomatic aortic regurgitation deemed high risk by the heart team and independent screening committee assessments. The mean age of the study population was 75·5 years (SD 10·8), and 85 (47%) were female, 95 (53%) were male, and 131 (73%) were White. Technical success was achieved in 171 (95%) patients. At 30 days, four (2%) deaths, two (1%) disabling strokes, and two (1%) non-disabling strokes occurred. Using standard Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions, the primary safety endpoint was achieved, with events occurring in 48 (27% [97·5% CI 19·2-34·0]) patients (pnon-inferiority<0·0001), with new pacemaker implantation in 36 (24%) patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was achieved, with mortality in 14 (7·8% [3·3-12·3]) patients at 1 year (pnon-inferiority<0·0001).

INTERPRETATION

This study shows the safety and effectiveness of treating native aortic regurgitation using a dedicated transcatheter heart valve to treat patients with symptomatic moderate-to-severe or severe aortic regurgitation who are at high risk for mortality or complications after surgical aortic valve replacement. The observed short-term clinical and haemodynamic outcomes are promising as are signs of left ventricular remodelling, but long-term follow-up is necessary.

FUNDING

JenaValve Technology.

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.

Predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement-the search is still on!

Several anatomical, demographic, clinical, electrocardiographic, procedural, and valve-related variables can be used to predict the probability of developing conduction abnormalities after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) that necessitate permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. These variables include calcifications around the device landing zone and in the mitral annulus; pre-existing electrocardiographic abnormalities such as left and right bundle branch blocks (BBB), first- and second-degree atrioventricular blocks, as well as bifascicular and trifascicular blocks; male sex; diabetes mellitus (DM); hypertension; history of atrial fibrillation; renal failure; dementia; and use of self-expanding valves. The current study supports existing literature by demonstrating that type 2 DM and baseline right BBB are significant predictors of PPM implantation post-TAVR. Regardless of the side of the BBB, this study demonstrated, for the first time, a linear association between the incidence of PPM implantation post-TAVR and every 20 ms increase in baseline QRS duration (above 100 ms). After a 1-year follow-up, patients who received PPM post-TAVR had a higher rate of hospitalization for heart failure and nonfatal myocardial infarction.

Acute Kidney Injury Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation-A Contemporary Perspective of Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a known complication following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Most of this data relates to higher-risk patients with early-generation TAVI valves. With TAVI now established as a safe and cost-effective procedure for low-risk patients, there is a distinct need for updated analysis. We aimed to assess the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of AKI in a contemporary cohort of TAVI patients, concurrently examining the role of temporal evolution on AKI.

METHOD

A total of 2,564 patients undergoing TAVI from 2008-2023 included in the Alfred-Cabrini-Epworth (ACE) TAVI Registry were analysed. Patients were divided into AKI and no AKI groups. Outcomes were reported according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 (VARC-3) criteria.

RESULTS

Of 2,564 patients, median age 83 (78-87) years, 57.4% men and a median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 3.6 (2.4-5.5), 163 (6.4%) patients developed AKI with incidence falling from 9.7% between 2008-2014 to 6% between 2015-2023 (p=0.022). On multivariable analysis, independent predictors of AKI were male sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.89, p=0.005), congestive cardiac failure (aOR 1.52, p=0.048), estimated glomerular filtration rate 30-59 (aOR: 2.79, p<0.001), estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 (aOR 8.65, p<0.001), non-femoral access (aOR 5.35, p<0.001), contrast volume (aOR 1.01, p<0.001), self-expanding valve (aOR 1.60, p=0.045), and bleeding (aOR 2.88, p=0.005). Acute kidney injury was an independent predictor of 30-day (aOR: 6.07, p<0.001) and 12-month (aOR: 3.01, p=0.002) mortality, an association that remained consistent when excluding TAVIs performed prior to 2015.

CONCLUSIONS

Acute kidney injury remains a relatively common complication of TAVI, associated with significant morbidity and mortality even in less comorbid, contemporary practice patients.

Third-Generation Transcatheter Aortic Heart Valve with Reverse Parachute Sealing Cuff in Patients with Aortic Valve Disease

BACKGROUND

The Navitor (Abbott Inc, IL, USA) transcatheter heart valve is a novel third-generation self-expanding bioprosthesis with specific features to mitigate paravalvular regurgitation (PVR). Owing to its novelty, there is a paucity of data on its application in clinical practice.

METHODS

Consecutive cohort analysis of the use of the Navitor system in an as-treated clinical setting at a quaternary heart hospital.

RESULTS

Sixty consecutive non-clinical trial patients treated with Navitor were identified. All patients underwent a successful procedure. The mean age was 79.3 years (±SD 7.82), 56.67% (n=34) were female, and the mean STS score was 4.87 (±SD 5.70). At 30 days post-procedure, all patients were alive with no readmissions for heart failure. One patient had a major vascular complication (1.7%). Four patients (7.14% of patients without a pre-existing pacemaker) received a new permanent pacemaker. Two patients (3.4%) had a non-disabling stroke. PVR at 30 days was trivial or none in 75% of patients, and no patient had worse than mild PVR.

CONCLUSIONS

The Navitor system in this as-treated cohort was associated with favourable clinical, haemodynamic, and safety 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.

Self-expanding and balloon-expandable valves in low risk TAVR patients

BACKGROUND

Recent randomized studies have broadened the indication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to also include low-surgical-risk patients. However, the data on self-expanding (SE) and balloon-expandable (BE) valves in low-risk patients remain sparse.

METHODS

The current study is a post hoc analysis of combined data from both LRT 1.0 and 2.0 trials comparing BE and SE transcatheter heart valves.

RESULTS

A total of 294 patients received a BE valve, and 102 patients received an SE valve. The 30-day clinical outcomes were similar across both groups except for stroke (4.9% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.014) and permanent pacemaker implantation (17.8% vs. 5.8%, p < 0.001), which were higher in the SE cohort than the BE cohort. No difference was observed in terms of paravalvular leak (≥moderate) between the groups (0% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.577). SE patients had higher aortic valve area (1.92 ± 0.43 mm2 vs. 1.69 ± 0.45 mm2, p < 0.001) and lower mean gradient (8.93 ± 3.53 mmHg vs. 13.41 ± 4.73 mmHg, p < 0.001) than BE patients. In addition, the rate of subclinical leaflet thrombosis was significantly lower in SE patients (5.6% vs. 13.8%, p = 0.038).

CONCLUSION

In this non-randomized study assessing SE and BE valves in low-risk TAVR patients, SE valves are associated with better hemodynamics and lesser leaflet thrombosis, with increased rates of stroke and permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days; however, this could be due to certain patient-dependent factors not fully evaluated in this study. The long-term implications of these outcomes on structural valve durability remain to be further investigated.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY

LRT 1.0: NCT02628899 LRT 2.0: NCT03557242.

Comparing balloon-expandable and self-expanding transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement based on subgroups in Germany 2019/2020

BACKGROUND

Previously, overall comparable outcomes were seen for balloon-expandable (BE) or self-expanding (SE) transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, subgroup analyses based on large case numbers are still needed.

METHODS

German national data of all BE and SE transfemoral TAVR treating aortic valve stenosis in 2019 and 2020 were analysed. We then compared different outcomes and performed a subgroup analysis for the endpoint in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Overall, 46,243 TAVR were analysed, 19,910 BE, and 26,333 SE. Patients in the SE group had a significantly higher logistic EuroSCORE (13.61 vs 12.66%, p < 0.001), age (81.55 vs 79.99a, p < 0.001), and proportion of women (54.82 vs 40.06%, p < 0.001). Both groups showed a similar in-hospital mortality with 2.37% in BE and 2.35% in SE (p = 0.916). In-hospital mortality also did not differ significantly after risk adjustment (OR = 0.98 [0.86, 1.13], p = 0.799). Patients in the SE group had a significantly lower risk of major bleeding (OR = 0.83 [0.73, 0.95], p = 0.006), but a significantly higher risk of stroke (OR = 1.38 [1.19, 1.59], p < 0.001), delirium (OR = 1.15 [1.06, 1.24], p = 0.001), and permanent pacemaker implantation (OR = 1.29 [1.21, 1.37], p < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis of in-hospital mortality, there were no significant differences in any of the observed subgroups (age < 75/75-79/80-84/ ≥ 85a, logistic EuroSCORE < 4/4- < 9/ ≥ 9, gender, NYHA III/IV, previous CABG, peripheral vascular disease, COPD, pulmonary hypertension, renal disease GFR < 30 ml/min, and diabetes mellitus).

CONCLUSION

In the direct comparison of balloon-expandable and self-expanding TAVR, there are no differences for in-hospital mortality in subgroups.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Past, present, and future

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a ground-breaking, minimally invasive alternative to traditional open-heart surgery, primarily designed for elderly patients initially considered unsuitable for surgical intervention due to severe aortic stenosis. As a result of successful large-scale trials, TAVR is now being routinely applied to a broader spectrum of patients. In deciding between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement, clinicians evaluate various factors, including patient suitability and anatomy through preprocedural imaging, which guides prosthetic valve sizing and access site selection. Patient surgical risk is a pivotal consideration, with a multidisciplinary team making the ultimate decision in the patient's best interest. Periprocedural imaging aids real-time visualization but is influenced by anaesthesia choices. A comprehensive postprocedural assessment is critical due to potential TAVR-related complications. Numerous trials have demonstrated that TAVR matches or surpasses surgery for patients with diverse surgical risk profiles, ranging from extreme to low risk. However, long-term follow-up data, particularly in low-risk cases, remains limited, and the applicability of published results to younger patients is uncertain. This review delves into key TAVR studies, pinpointing areas for potential improvement while delving into the future of this innovative procedure. Furthermore, it explores the expanding role of TAVR technology in addressing other heart valve replacement procedures.

PRIME score for prediction of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVES

We sought to produce a simple scoring system that can be applied at clinical visits before transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to stratify the risk of permanent pacemaker (PPM) after the procedure.

BACKGROUND

Atrioventricular block is a known complication of TAVR. Current models for predicting the risk of PPM after TAVR are not designed to be applied clinically to assist with preprocedural planning.

METHODS

Patients undergoing TAVR at the University of Colorado were split into a training cohort for the development of a predictive model, and a testing cohort for model validation. Stepwise and binary logistic regressions were performed on the training cohort to produce a predictive model. Beta coefficients from the binary logistic regression were used to create a simple scoring system for predicting the need for PPM implantation. Scores were then applied to the validation cohort to assess predictive accuracy.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing TAVR from 2013 to 2019 were analyzed: with 483 included in the training cohort and 123 included in the validation cohort. The need for a pacemaker was associated with five preprocedure variables in the training cohort: PR interval > 200 ms, Right bundle branch block, valve-In-valve procedure, prior Myocardial infarction, and self-Expandable valve. The PRIME score was developed using these clinical features, and was highly accurate for predicting PPM in both the training and model validation cohorts (area under the curve 0.804 and 0.830 in the model training and validation cohorts, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The PRIME score is a simple and accurate preprocedural tool for predicting the need for PPM implantation after TAVR.

Differences in blood flow dynamics between balloon- and self-expandable valves in patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

The differences in pre- and early post-procedural blood flow dynamics between the two major types of bioprosthetic valves, the balloon-expandable valve (BEV) and self-expandable valve (SEV), in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), have not been investigated. We aimed to investigate the differences in blood flow dynamics between the BEV and SEV using four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (4D flow CMR).

METHODS

We prospectively examined 98 consecutive patients with severe AS who underwent TAVR between May 2018 and November 2021 (58 BEV and 40 SEV) after excluding those without CMR because of a contraindication, inadequate imaging from the analyses, or patients' refusal. CMR was performed in all participants before (median interval, 22 [interquartile range (IQR) 4-39] days) and after (median interval, 6 [IQR 3-6] days) TAVR. We compared the changes in blood flow patterns, wall shear stress (WSS), and energy loss (EL) in the ascending aorta (AAo) between the BEV and SEV using 4D flow CMR.

RESULTS

The absolute reductions in helical flow and flow eccentricity were significantly higher in the SEV group compared in the BEV group after TAVR (BEV: - 0.22 ± 0.86 vs. SEV: - 0.85 ± 0.80, P < 0.001 and BEV: - 0.11 ± 0.79 vs. SEV: - 0.50 ± 0.88, P = 0.037, respectively); there were no significant differences in vortical flow between the groups. The absolute reduction of average WSS was significantly higher in the SEV group compared to the BEV group after TAVR (BEV: - 0.6 [- 2.1 to 0.5] Pa vs. SEV: - 1.8 [- 3.5 to - 0.8] Pa, P = 0.006). The systolic EL in the AAo significantly decreased after TAVR in both the groups, while the absolute reduction was comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Helical flow, flow eccentricity, and average WSS in the AAo were significantly decreased after SEV implantation compared to BEV implantation, providing functional insights for valve selection in patients with AS undergoing TAVR. Our findings offer valuable insights into blood flow dynamics, aiding in the selection of valves for patients with AS undergoing TAVR. Further larger-scale studies are warranted to confirm the prognostic significance of hemodynamic changes in these patients.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Mixed Aortic Valve Disease: A Multicenter Study

Mixed aortic valve disease (MAVD), defined by the concurrent presence of aortic stenosis (AS) and insufficiency is frequently seen in patients who have undergone transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, studies comparing the outcomes of TAVI in MAVD versus isolated AS have demonstrated conflicting results. Therefore, we aim to assess the outcomes of TAVI in patients with MAVD in comparison with those with isolated severe AS. Patients who underwent native valve TAVI for severe AS at 3 tertiary care academic centers between January 2012 and December 2020 were included and categorized into 3 groups based on concomitant aortic insufficiency (AI) as follows: group 1, no AI; group 2, mild AI; and group 3, moderate to severe AI. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality and all-cause readmission rates at 30 days and 1 year. Other outcomes include bleeding, stroke, vascular complications, and the incidence of paravalvular leak at 30 days after the procedure. Of the 1,588 patients who underwent TAVI during the study period, 775 patients (49%) had isolated AS, 606 (38%) had mild AI, and 207 (13%) had moderate to severe AI. Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk scores were significantly different among the 3 groups (5% in group 1, 5.5% in group 2, and 6% in group 3, p = 0.003). Balloon-expandable valves were used in about 2/3 of the population. No statistically significant differences in 30-day or 1-year all-cause mortality and all-cause readmission rates were noted among the 3 groups. Post-TAVI paravalvular leak at follow-up was significantly lower in group 1 (2.3%) and group 2 (2%) compared with group 3 (5.6%) (p = 0.01). In summary, TAVI in MAVD is associated with comparable outcomes at 1 year compared with patients with isolated severe AS.

TAVI after More Than 20 Years

It has been more than 20 years since the first in man transcatheter aortic valve intervention (TAVI), and during this period we have witnessed an impressive evolution of this technique, with an extension of its use from non-operable patients to high-, intermediate- and even low-risk patients with aortic stenosis, and with a decrease in the incidence of complications. In this review, we discuss the evaluation of patients before TAVI, the procedure and the changes it has seen over time, and we present the current main complications and challenges of TAVI.

Conductive disturbances in the transcatheter aortic valve implantation setting: An appraisal of current knowledge and unmet needs

New-onset conduction disturbances, including left bundle branch block and permanent pacemaker implantation, remain a major issue after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Preprocedural risk assessment in current practice is most often limited to evaluation of the baseline electrocardiogram, whereas it may benefit from a multimodal approach, including ambulatory electrocardiogram monitoring and multidetector computed tomography. Physicians may encounter equivocal situations during the hospital phase, and the management of follow-up is not fully defined, despite the publication of several expert consensuses and the inclusion of recommendations regarding the role of electrophysiology studies and postprocedural monitoring in recent guidelines. This review provides an overview of current knowledge and future perspectives regarding the management of new-onset conduction disturbances in the setting of transcatheter aortic valve implantation, from the preprocedural phase to long-term follow-up.

Comparisons of different new-generation transcatheter aortic valve implantation devices for patients with severe aortic stenosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether there are differences among the new-generation transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) devices for patients with aortic stenosis remains unclear. The aim of the study was to compare the efficiency and safety of different new-generation TAVI devices for patients with aortic stenosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from their inception to 1 February 2022. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies that compared two or more different TAVI devices were enroled. Pairwise meta-analysis and frequentist network meta-analysis were conducted to pool the outcome estimates of interest.

RESULTS

A total of 79 studies were finally included. According to the surface under the cumulative ranking, the top two ranked valves for lower rates of events were as follows: direct flow medical (DFM) (4.6%) and Lotus (48.8%) for lower rate of device success; Sapien 3 (16.8%) and DFM (19.7%) for lower mortality; DFM (8.6%) and Sapien 3 (25.5%) for lower rates of stroke; Evolut (27.6%) and DFM (35.8%) for lower rates of major and life-threatening bleeding; Portico (22.6%) and Sapien 3 (41.9%) for lower rates of acute kidney injury; Acurate (8.6%) and DFM (13.2%) for lower rates of permanent pacemaker implantation; Lotus (0.3%) and Sapien 3 (22.7%) for lower rates of paravalvular leak; Evolut (1.4%) and Portico (29.1%) for lower rates of mean aortic valve gradients.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the present study suggested that the device success rates were comparable among these new-generation valves except for DFM. After excluding DFM, Sapien 3 might be the best effective for decreased mortality and stroke; Lotus might be the best effective for decreased paravalvular leak; Evolut might be the best effective for decreased major and life-threatening bleeding and mean aortic valve gradients; Acurate and Portico might be the best effective for decreased permanent pacemaker implantation and acute kidney injury, respectively.

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.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Elderly Patients: Opportunities and Challenges

Over the past two decades, the rapid evolution of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the management of severe aortic stenosis (AS) in the elderly. The prevalence of comorbidities in elderly AS patients presents a considerable challenge to the effectiveness and prognosis of patients after TAVR. In this article, we aim to summarize some of the clinical aspects of the current use of TAVR in elderly patients and attempt to highlight the challenges and issues that need further consideration.

A Systematic Review and Statistical Analysis of Factors Influencing the Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis

Objective

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a disruptive technology recommended for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (sSAS). Despite being available for over 15 years in Europe, with an extensive volume of clinical and economic evaluations across all surgical risk groups, there is little evidence on the identification of the key drivers of TAVI's cost-effectiveness. This study sought to identify these factors and quantify their role.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify published economic evaluations of TAVI. This was supplemented by health technology assessment reports. The primary outcome was the likelihood of TAVI being found cost-effective. Secondary outcomes of TAVI being dominant, and the incremental health benefits of TAVI were also explored.

Results

Forty-two studies, reporting 65 unique analyses, were identified. TAVI was found to be cost-effective and dominant in 74% and 20% of analyses, respectively. The latest generation balloon-expandable TAVI device (SAPIEN 3) was more likely to be found cost-effective, as was TAVI use in low-risk populations and when performed via transfemoral access route. There was heterogeneity in the approach taken to economic modelling, which may also influence estimates of cost-effectiveness. Analyses that found TAVI to be dominant always compared it to surgery and usually considered the latest generation balloon-expandable TAVI device. Largest health benefits were observed for the inoperable risk group.

Conclusion

For patients with sSAS, TAVI is typically a cost-effective treatment option. There are important differences by device generation, risk group and access route. It is crucial to consider these differences when appraising the health economic evidence-base for TAVI.

Comparison of 1-year Follow-up Echocardiographic Outcomes of Sapien 3 Versus Evolut R Bioprosthetic Transcatheter Aortic Valves: A Single-center Retrospective Iranian Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

The current study aimed to compare 1-year echocardiographic outcomes of the new generations of self-expanding (Evolut R) versus balloon-expandable (Sapien 3) bioprosthetic transcatheter aortic valves.

METHODS

In this study, gradients and flow velocities obtained from transthoracic Doppler-echocardiography were retrospectively collected from patients who underwent 2 new generations of transcatheter aortic valve implantation interventions with Sapien 3 and Evolut R valves. Patients underwent echocardiography before the procedure and at discharge, 6 months, and 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Of the 66 patients, 28 received Sapien 3 and 38 received Evolut R valves. Evolut R valve presented a lower mean gradient at all follow-up time points compared with Sapien 3 valves (14.4 mm Hg, 14.9 mm Hg, 15.5 mm Hg compared with 10.1 mm Hg, 11.6 mm Hg, 11.8 mm Hg, respectively; all P -values <0.001). Small valve sizes of Evolut R, including 23 and 26, had higher echocardiographic mean gradient or peak gradient at the time of discharge compared with larger valves, including sizes 29 and 34 (11.1 mm Hg and 11.2 mm Hg vs. 10.2 mm Hg, 9.1 mm Hg) and 1-year follow-up (11.0 mm Hg, 11.0 mm Hg vs. 9.9 mm Hg, 8.4 mm Hg; all P -values = 0.001). Although Sapien 3 valves demonstrated a higher peak gradient in smaller sizes at discharge (18.44 mm Hg in size 23 vs. 17.9 mm Hg, 16.5 mm Hg in size 26 and 29, respectively; P = 0.001), the peak gradients did not show a statistically significant difference in the 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study detected significantly lower mean and peak gradients in Evolut R compared with Sapien 3 at all follow-up time points. Furthermore, smaller valve sizes were associated with significantly higher gradients at all follow-ups, regardless of the valve type.

The safety and efficacy of balloon-expandable versus self-expanding trans-catheter aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis

Aim

Transfemoral Trans-catheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TF-TAVR) is a safe and effective therapy compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients across all risk profiles using balloon-expandable valves (BEV) and self-expanding valves (SEV). Our aim was to compare safety and efficacy of BEV vs. SEV in high-risk patients undergoing TF-TAVR.

Methods and results

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov, Scopus, and Web of sciences for studies on patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR. Primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes defined by Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 (VARC-2) criteria were also examined. Six studies with 2,935 patients (1,439 to BEV and 1,496 to SEV) were included. BEV was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (2.2% vs. 4.5%; RR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.31-0.82; p < 0.006) and cardiovascular mortality [(2.5% vs. 4.3%; RR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.32-0.90; p = 0.01) at 30 days compared with SEV. Implantation of more than one valve per procedure (0.78% vs. 5.11%; RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.07-0.31; p < 0.00001), and moderate/severe AR/PVL (2.5% vs. 9.01%; RR: 0.3; 95% CI: 0.17-0.48); p < 0.00001) were also lower in the BEV arm.

Conclusion

BEV TAVR is associated with reduced all-cause mortality (High level of GRADE evidence), cardiovascular mortality (very low level) at 30 days compared with SEV TAVR in high surgical risk patients. Data are necessary to determine if the difference in outcomes persists in longer-term and if the same effects are seen in lower-risk patients.

Systematic Review Registration

identifier, CRD42020181190.

Hemodynamic Performance of Transcatheter Aortic Valves: A Comprehensive Review

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a widely adopted treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis. Its popularity has grown significantly in recent years due to advancements in technology and imaging. As TAVI use is increasingly expanded to younger patients, the need for long-term assessment and durability becomes paramount. This review aims to provide an overview of the diagnostic tools to evaluate the hemodynamic performance of aortic prosthesis, with a special focus on the comparison between transcatheter and surgical aortic valves and between self-expandable and balloon-expandable valves. Moreover, the discussion will encompass how cardiovascular imaging can effectively detect long-term structural valve deterioration.

Transcatheter aortic valve durability: a contemporary clinical review

Encouraged by randomized controlled trials demonstrating non-inferiority of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) across all surgical risk categories, there has been a dramatic increase in the use of TAVI in a younger patient cohort with severe aortic stenosis, endorsed by both European and American Cardiac Societies. However, the standard use of TAVI in younger, less co-morbid patients with a longer life expectancy can only be supported if there is sound data demonstrating long-term durability of transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs). In this article, we have reviewed available randomized and observational registry clinical data pertaining to TAV long-term durability, placing emphasis on trials and registries using the new standardized definitions of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF). Despite inherent difficulties in interpreting the available data, the determination reached is that the risk of structural valve deterioration (SVD) is potentially lower after TAVI than SAVR at 5 to 10 years, and that the two treatment modalities have a similar risk of BVF. This supports the adoption of TAVI in younger patients evident in current practice. However, the routine use of TAVI in younger patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis should be cautioned due to insufficient long-term TAV durability data in this particular patient population. Finally, we highlight the importance of future research into the unique potential mechanisms that can potentially contribute to TAV degeneration.

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.

Heart failure and excess mortality after aortic valve replacement in aortic stenosis

INTRODUCTION

In aortic stenosis (AS), the heart transitions from adaptive compensation to an AS cardiomyopathy and eventually leads to decompensation with heart failure. Better understanding of the underpinning pathophysiological mechanisms is required in order to inform strategies to prevent decompensation.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we therefore aim to appraise the current pathophysiological understanding of adaptive and maladaptive processes in AS, appraise potential avenues of adjunctive therapy before or after AVR and highlight areas of further research in the management of heart failure post AVR.

EXPERT OPINION

Tailored strategies for the timing of intervention accounting for individual patient's response to the afterload insult are underway, and promise to guide better management in the future. Further clinical trials of adjunctive pharmacological and device therapy to either cardioprotect prior to intervention or promote reverse remodeling and recovery after intervention are needed to mitigate the risk of heart failure and excess mortality.

5-Year Outcomes With Self-Expanding vs Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Small Annuli

BACKGROUND

Self-expanding transcatheter heart valves (THVs) are associated with better echocardiographic hemodynamic performance than balloon-expandable THVs and are considered preferable in patients with small annuli.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare 5-year outcomes between self-expanding vs balloon-expandable THVs in severe aortic stenosis (AS) patients with small annuli.

METHODS

Consecutive severe AS patients with an aortic valve annulus area <430 mm² who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with either the CoreValve Evolut (Medtronic) or SAPIEN (Edwards Lifesciences) THV between 2012 and 2021 were enrolled from the Bern TAVI registry. A 1:1 propensity-matched analysis was performed to account for baseline differences between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 723 patients were included, and propensity score matching resulted in 171 pairs. Technical success was achieved in over 85% of both groups with no significant difference. Self-expanding THVs were associated with a lower transvalvular gradient (8.0 ± 4.8 mm Hg vs 12.5 ± 4.5 mm Hg; P < 0.001), a larger effective orifice area (1.81 ± 0.46 cm² vs 1.49 ± 0.42 cm²; P < 0.001), and a lower incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (19.7% vs 51.8%; P < 0.001) than balloon-expandable THVs. At 5 years, there were no significant differences in mortality (50.4% vs 39.6%; P = 0.269) between groups. Disabling stroke occurred more frequently in patients with a self-expanding THV than those with a balloon-expandable THV (6.6% vs 0.6%; P = 0.030). Similar results were obtained using inverse probability of treatment weighting in the Bern TAVI registry and the nationwide Swiss TAVI registry.

CONCLUSIONS

The echocardiographic hemodynamic advantage of self-expanding THVs was not associated with better clinical outcomes compared with balloon-expandable THVs up to 5 years in patients with small annuli. (Swiss TAVI Registry; NCT01368250).

Permanent pacemaker implantation and left bundle branch block with self-expanding valves - a SCOPE 2 subanalysis

BACKGROUND

No detailed data on left bundle branch block (LBBB) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) exist from randomised clinical trials comparing the ACURATE neo and CoreValve Evolut devices.

AIMS

Our aim was to assess the incidence and impact of new LBBB and PPI with self-expanding prostheses from a powered randomised comparison.

METHODS

From the SCOPE 2 trial, 648 patients with no previous pacemaker were analysed for PPI at 30 days, and 426 patients without previous LBBB were adopted for analysis of LBBB at 30 days.  Results: At 30 days, 16.5% of patients required PPI; rates were higher in CoreValve Evolut compared to ACURATE neo recipients (21.0% vs 12.3%; p=0.004). Previous right bundle branch block (odds ratio [OR] 6.11, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.19-11.73; p<0.001) was associated with an increased risk of PPI at 30 days, whereas the use of the ACURATE neo (OR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.31-0.81; p=0.005) was associated with a decreased risk. One-year mortality was similar in patients with and without new PPI. A total of 9.4% of patients developed persistent LBBB at 30 days, with higher incidences in CoreValve Evolut recipients (13.4% vs 5.5%; p=0.007). New LBBB at 30 days was associated with lower ejection fraction at 1 year (65.7%±11.0 vs 69.1%±7.6; p=0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

New LBBB and PPI rates were lower in ACURATE neo compared to CoreValve Evolut recipients. The ACURATE neo valve was associated with a lower risk of PPI at 30 days. No effect on 1-year mortality was determined for PPI at 30 days, while LBBB at 30 days was associated with reduced ejection fraction at 1 year.

Postoperative delirium after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To perform an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of postoperative delirium (POD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from the time of the first human TAVR procedure in 2002 until December 24, 2021, which was supplemented by manual searches of bibliographies. Data were collected on incidence rates, risk factors, and/or associated mortality of POD after TAVR. Pooled analyses were conducted using random effects models to yield mean differences, odds ratios, hazard ratios, and risk ratios, with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 70 articles (69 studies) comprising 413,389 patients were included. The study heterogeneity was substantial. The pooled mean incidence of POD after TAVR in all included studies was 9.8% (95% CI: 8.7%-11.0%), whereas that in studies using validated tools to assess for delirium at least once a day for at least 2 consecutive days after TAVR was 20.7% (95% CI: 17.8%-23.7%). According to the level of evidence and results of meta-analysis, independent preoperative risk factors with a high level of evidence included increased age, male sex, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack, atrial fibrillation/flutter, weight loss, electrolyte abnormality, and impaired Instrumental Activities of Daily Living; intraoperative risk factors included non-transfemoral access and general anesthesia; and acute kidney injury was a postoperative risk factor. POD after TAVR was associated with significantly increased mortality (pooled unadjusted RR: 2.20, 95% CI: 1.79-2.71; pooled adjusted RR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.25-2.10), particularly long-term mortality (pooled unadjusted HR: 2.84, 95% CI: 1.91-4.23; pooled adjusted HR: 1.88, 95% CI: 1.30-2.73).

CONCLUSIONS

POD after TAVR is common and is associated with an increased risk of mortality. Accurate identification of risk factors for POD after TAVR and implementation of preventive measures are critical to improve prognosis.

Procedural Outcomes of a Self-Expanding Transcatheter Heart Valve in Patients with Porcelain Aorta

BACKGROUND

Severe calcification of the ascending aorta increases the peri-operative risk for neurological complications in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) seems to be an optimal treatment option in these patients. However, the impact of the extent of aortic calcification on procedural and neurological outcomes during TAVI is unclear.

METHODS

Data from 3010 patients with severe native aortic valve stenosis treated with ACURATE neo/neo2 from May 2012 to July 2022 were evaluated and matched by 2-to-1 nearest-neighbor matching to identify one patient with porcelain aorta (PA) (n = 492) compared with two patients without PA (n = 984). PA was additionally subdivided into circumferential (classic PA) (n = 89; 3.0%) and non-circumferential (partial PA) (n = 403; 13.4%) calcification. We compared outcomes according to VARC-3 criteria among patients with and without PA and identified predictors for occurrence of stroke in the overall population.

RESULTS

Technical success (88.5% vs. 87.4%, p = 0.589) and device success at 30 days (82.3% vs. 81.5%, p = 0.755) after transcatheter ACURATE neo/neo2 implantation according to VARC-3 definition was high and did not differ between non-calcified aortas or PA. The rate of in-hospital complications according to VARC-3-definitions was low in both groups. Rates of all stroke (3.2% (n = 31) vs. 2.6% (n = 13), p = 0.705) or transitory ischemic attacks (1.1% vs. 1.2%, p = 1.000) did not differ significantly. Thirty-day all-cause mortality did not differ (3.0% vs. 3.2%, RR 1.1; p = 0.775). Overall device migration/embolization (OR 5.0 [2.10;11.87]), severe bleeding (OR 1.79 [1.11;2.89]), and major structural cardiac complications (OR 3.37 [1.32;8.57]) were identified as independent predictors for in-hospital stroke in a multivariate analysis after implantation of ACURATE neo/neo2.

CONCLUSION

A porcelain aorta does not increase the risk of neurological complications after transfemoral ACURATE neo/neo2 implantation. Based on these findings, transfemoral ACURATE neo/neo2 implantation is safe in these particularly vulnerable patients.

Meta-analysis of short- and long-term clinical outcomes of the self-expanding Evolut R/pro valve versus the balloon-expandable Sapien 3 valve for transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

The Evolut R/Pro and the Sapien 3 are the most commonly valve systems used today for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, there is a still uncertainty regarding the efficacy and safety comparison of these two valves.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the Evolut R/Pro versus the Sapien 3. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality (short and long-term). The secondary outcomes were stroke, bleeding, permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), acute kidney injury (AKI), major vascular complication, device success, moderate- severe aortic regurgitation (AR), and pressure gradients.

RESULTS

Twenty-one publications totaling 35,248 patients were included in the analysis. Evolut R/Pro was associated with higher risk of short-term all-cause mortality (OR = 1.31;95% CI 1.15-1.49, p < 0.001) and a trend of higher long-term mortality (OR = 1.07;95% CI 1.00-1.16, p = 0.06). The Evolut R/Pro was associated with higher risk of PPI and AR and lower risk for bleeding, major vascular complication, and pressure gradients. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding the risk of stroke, AKI and device success.

CONCLUSIONS

The Evolut R/Pro valve system compared to the Sapien 3 is associated with higher risk of short-term mortality, significant AR and PPI while providing the advantage of lower risk of bleeding, major vascular complication, and lower residual transvalvular gradients.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Two Decades of Evolution - TAVI From Current Perspective

Background

In the treatment of valvular heart diseases, transcatheter therapies have changed the rules of the game, especially in the case of aortic stenosis and mitral regurgitation. Since the first in man transcatheter aortic valve intervention (TAVI) performed by Dr. Alain Cribier in 2002 in a non-operable aortic stenosis (AS) patient, TAVI has changed the lives of so many patients for whom medical treatment was, up to then, the only option.

Objective

This article outlines patient selection and pre-procedure evaluation, current perspectives, recent advances, current and future devices, current guidelines informing the use of TAVI, expanding indications for TAVI, ongoing challenges and the future of TAVI.

Methods

The use of these percutaneous techniques has also increased significantly in the past few years with its first application in 2002, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionized the management of aortic stenosis and has become the standard of care for patients with AS at prohibitively high surgical risks, as well as a preferred treatment for elderly patients with intermediate and high-risk AS.

Results

Since the first pioneering procedure was performed 22 years ago, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has evolved into a routine procedure increasingly performed under conscious sedation via transfemoral access. On a global market worth $2 billion per year, over 300 000 patients have received a transcatheter aortic valve, demonstrating its clinical and market impact. TAVI may be used in lower risk, younger, asymptomatic populations with ongoing studies using an expanding portfolio of devices. Also, for patients deemed unsuitable for cardiac surgery, mitral transcatheter therapies represent the treatment of choice. Percutaneous repair techniques have had the most clinical experience to date.

Conclusion

During this 20-year period, the increased knowledge on pre-procedural planning, the important technological improvements in transcatheter valves, the increased experience and the numerous studies that have been carried out have permitted an expansion of the indications for TAVI, from inoperable patients to high- and intermediate-risk patients. This article outlines patient selection and pre-procedure evaluation, current perspectives, recent advances, current and future devices, current guidelines informing the use of TAVI, expanding indications for TAVI, ongoing challenges and the future of TAVI.

Treatment of pure aortic regurgitation using surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement between 2018 and 2020 in Germany

Background

In pure aortic regurgitation, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is not yet used on a regular base. Due to constant development of TAVR, it is necessary to analyze current data.

Methods

By use of health records, we analyzed all isolated TAVR or surgical aortic valve replacements (SAVR) for pure aortic regurgitation between 2018 and 2020 in Germany.

Results

4,861 procedures-4,025 SAVR and 836 TAVR-for aortic regurgitation were identified. Patients treated with TAVR were older, showed a higher logistic EuroSCORE, and had more pre-existing diseases. While results indicate a slightly higher unadjusted in-hospital mortality for transapical TAVR (6.00%) vs. SAVR (5.71%), transfemoral TAVR showed better outcomes, with self-expanding compared to balloon-expandable transfemoral TAVR having significantly lower in-hospital mortality (2.41% vs. 5.17%; p = 0.039). After risk adjustment, balloon-expandable as well as self-expanding transfemoral TAVR were associated with a significantly lower mortality vs. SAVR (balloon-expandable: risk adjusted OR = 0.50 [95% CI 0.27; 0.94], p = 0.031; self-expanding: OR = 0.20 [0.10; 0.41], p < 0.001). Furthermore, the observed in-hospital outcomes of stroke, major bleeding, delirium, and mechanical ventilation >48 h were significantly in favor of TAVR. In addition, TAVR showed a significantly shorter length of hospital stay compared to SAVR (transapical: risk adjusted Coefficient = -4.75d [-7.05d; -2.46d], p < 0.001; balloon-expandable: Coefficient = -6.88d [-9.06d; -4.69d], p < 0.001; self-expanding: Coefficient = -7.22 [-8.95; -5.49], p < 0.001).

Conclusions

TAVR is a viable alternative to SAVR in the treatment of pure aortic regurgitation for selected patients, showing overall low in-hospital mortality and complication rates, especially with regard to self-expanding transfemoral TAVR.

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

BACKGROUND

The latest iterations of devices for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have brought refinements to further improve patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare early outcomes of patients undergoing TAVR with the self-expanding (SE) Evolut PRO/PRO+ (Medtronic, Inc) or balloon-expandable (BE) Sapien 3 ULTRA (Edwards Lifesciences) devices.

METHODS

The OPERA-TAVI (Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO vs Sapien 3 Ultra Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry collected data from 14 high-volume centers worldwide on patients undergoing TAVR with SE or BE devices. After excluding patients who were not eligible for both devices, patients were compared using 1:1 propensity score matching. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 device success and early safety, respectively.

RESULTS

Among 2,241 patients eligible for the present analysis, 683 pairs of patients were matched. The primary efficacy outcome did not differ between patients receiving SE or BE transcatheter aortic valves (SE: 87.4% vs BE: 85.9%; P = 0.47), but the BE device recipients showed a higher rate of the primary safety outcome (SE: 69.1% vs BE: 82.6%; P < 0.01). This finding was driven by the higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (SE: 17.9% vs BE: 10.1%; P < 0.01) and disabling stroke (SE: 2.3% vs BE: 0.7%; P = 0.03) in SE device recipients. On post-TAVR echocardiography, the rate of moderate to severe paravalvular regurgitation was similar between groups (SE: 3.2% vs BE: 2.3%; P = 0.41), whereas lower mean transvalvular gradients were observed in the SE cohort (median SE: 7.0 vs BE: 12.0 mm Hg; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The OPERA-TAVI registry showed that SE and BE devices had comparable Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 device success rates, but the BE device had a higher rate of early safety. The higher permanent pacemaker implantation and disabling stroke rates in SE device recipients drove this composite endpoint.

Transcatheter heart valve selection in patients with low ejection fraction and aortic stenosis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of transcatheter heart valve (THV) choice in patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction.

BACKGROUND

The management congestive heart failure with combined LV systolic dysfunction and severe aortic stenosis (AS) is challenging, yet transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a suitable treatment option in such patients. Head-to-head comparisons among the balloon-expandable (BEV) and self-expandable (SEV) THV remain limited in this subgroup of patients.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we included patients with severe AS with LV systolic dysfunction (LVEF ≤40%) who underwent TAVR at four high volume centers. Two thousand and twenty-eight consecutive patients were analyzed, of which 335 patients met inclusion criteria. One hundred fourty-six patients (43%) received a SEV, and 189 patients (57%) received a BEV.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar except for a higher proportion of females in the SEV group. The primary composite endpoint of in-hospital mortality, moderate or greater paravalvular (PVL), stroke, conversion to open surgery, aortic valve reintervention, and/or need for permanent pacemaker (PPM) was no different among THV choice. There was more PVL in the SEV group, but higher transaortic gradients in the BEV group. Clinical outcomes and quality of life measures were similar up to 1 year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The choice of THV in patients with severe AS and systolic dysfunction must be weighed on a case-by-case basis.

Real-World Multiple Comparison of Transcatheter Aortic Valves: Insights From the Multicenter OBSERVANT II Study

BACKGROUND

Head-to-head comparisons of devices for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are mostly limited to 2-arm studies so far. The aim of this study was to compare simultaneously outcomes of the most used, second- and third-generation transcatheter aortic valves in a real-world population.

METHODS

A total of 2728 patients undergoing TAVI with different second- and third-generation devices, and enrolled in the multicenter, prospective OBSERVANT II study (Observational Study of Effectiveness of TAVI With New Generation Devices for Severe Aortic Stenosis Treatment) from December 2016 to September 2018 were compared according to the transcatheter aortic valve received. Outcomes were adjudicated through a linkage with administrative databases, and adjusted using inverse propensity of treatment weighting. The primary end point was the composite of all-cause death, stroke and rehospitalization for heart failure at 1-year. Rates were reported consecutively for Evolut R, Evolut PRO, SAPIEN 3, ACURATE neo, and Portico groups.

RESULTS

The primary end point did not differ among groups (23.9% versus 24.7% versus 21.5% versus 23.7% versus 27.4%, respectively, P=0.56). Permanent pacemaker implantation was significantly lower for patients receiving SAPIEN 3 (19.9% versus 19.3% versus 12.5% versus 14.7% versus 22.1%, respectively, P<0.01) at 1 year. The SAPIEN 3 had lower rates of paravalvular regurgitation (moderate-to-severe grade 10.1% versus 5.0% versus 2.1% versus 13.1% versus 10.8%, respectively, P<0.01) but higher transprosthetic gradients (median mean gradients 7.0 versus 6.0 versus 10.0 versus 7.0 versus 8.0 mm Hg, respectively, P<0.01) after TAVI.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from real-world practice showed low and comparable rates of complications after TAVI considering all the available devices. Patients receiving SAPIEN 3 valve had lower rates of paravalvular regurgitation and permanent pacemaker implantation, but higher transprosthetic gradients.

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.

A 20-year journey in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Evolution to current eminence

Since the first groundbreaking procedure in 2002, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionized the management of aortic stenosis (AS). Through striking developments in pertinent equipment and techniques, TAVI has now become the leading therapeutic strategy for aortic valve replacement in patients with severe symptomatic AS. The procedure streamlining from routine use of conscious sedation to a single arterial access approach, the newly adapted implantation techniques, and the introduction of novel technologies such as intravascular lithotripsy and the refinement of valve-bioprosthesis devices along with the accumulating experience have resulted in a dramatic reduction of complications and have improved associated outcomes that are now considered comparable or even superior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). These advances have opened the road to the use of TAVI in younger and lower-risk patients and up-to-date data from landmark studies have now established the outstanding efficacy and safety of TAVI in patients with low-surgical risk impelling the most recent ESC guidelines to propose TAVI, as the main therapeutic strategy for patients with AS aged 75 years or older. In this article, we aim to summarize the most recent advances and the current clinical aspects involving the use of TAVI, and we also attempt to highlight impending concerns that need to be further addressed.

Impact of moderate or severe left ventricular outflow tract calcification on clinical outcomes of patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with self- and balloon-expandable valves: a post hoc analysis from the SOLVE-TAVI trial

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) calcification has been associated with worse outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and may influence the selection of prosthetic valve type.

AIMS

We aimed to evaluate the impact of LVOT calcification on outcomes after TAVI with a self-expanding valve (SEV) versus a balloon-expandable valve (BEV).

METHODS

Patients of the SOLVE-TAVI trial, randomised to Edwards SAPIEN 3 or Medtronic Evolut R, were divided according to LVOT calcification into no/mild (≤1 calcium nodule extending <5 mm and covering <10% of the LVOT perimeter) and moderate/severe LVOT calcification groups. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, stroke, moderate/severe paravalvular regurgitation, permanent pacemaker implantation and annulus rupture at 30 days. Additional endpoints included all-cause and cardiovascular mortality at 1 year.

RESULTS

Out of 416 eligible patients, moderate/severe LVOT calcification was present in 143 (34.4%). Moderate/severe LVOT calcification was associated with significantly longer fluoroscopy time and higher rates of pre- and post-dilation. Regardless of the LVOT calcification group, there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint associated with the valve type (no/mild LVOT calcification group: SEV 25.0% vs BEV 27.0%; hazard ratio [HR] 1.10, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.68-1.73; p=0.73 and moderate/severe LVOT calcification group: SEV 25.0% vs BEV 19.4%; HR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.38-1.61; p=0.49), no significant interaction between LVOT calcification and valve type (pint=0.29) and no differences between SEV vs BEV within LVOT calcification groups regarding 1-year all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate/severe LVOT calcification was associated with longer fluoroscopy time and an increased need for pre- and post-dilation, but not with a higher incidence of early and mid-term adverse clinical outcomes, regardless of valve type. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02737150).

Volatile Anaesthesia versus Total Intravenous Anaesthesia for Cardiac Surgery—A Narrative Review

Recent research has contested the previously accepted paradigm that volatile anaesthetics improve outcomes in cardiac surgery patients when compared to intravenous anaesthesia. In this review we summarise the mechanisms of myocardial ischaemia/reperfusion injury and cardioprotection in cardiac surgery. In addition, we make a comprehensive analysis of evidence comparing outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery under volatile or intravenous anaesthesia, in terms of mortality and morbidity (cardiac, neurological, renal, pulmonary).