Clinical Valve Thrombosis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve Implantation

Successful Rescue Transaortic Valve Replacement Using Edwards Sapien 3 Following Failed Evolut R Implantation in a Degenerated Surgical Bioprosthesis: A Case Report

This study examines a complex scenario of structural valve degeneration (SVD) in a high surgical-risk patient with a previously implanted 25 mm Carpentier-Edwards (CE) Perimount Magna Ease 3300 (Irvine, CA: Edwards Lifesciences) surgical bioprosthetic valve (SAV), the patient presented with both paravalvular leak (PVL) and central prosthetic valve insufficiency (PVI). The patient was considered for a transaortic valve-in-valve (ViV) intervention with a self-expanding 29 mm Evolut R valve (Minneapolis, MN: Medtronic). The case describes a ViV intervention complicated by the malpositioning of the Evolut R valve secondary to micro-dislodgement into the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) after deployment and subsequent migration into the LVOT during an attempted bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) of the SAV that aimed to decrease transvalvular gradients. The resulting acute severe PVL resulted in significant hemodynamic deterioration, necessitating emergent intervention by implanting a balloon-expandable 26 mm Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve (Irvine, CA: Edwards Lifesciences), effectively averting the need for a surgical valve explant. This study illuminates the intricacies and emergency management strategies in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures, particularly in high-risk patients with SVD, and offers critical insights into the challenges and solutions in ViV implantations.

Antithrombotic Treatment After Transcatheter Valve Interventions: Current Status and Future Directions

PURPOSE

The optimal antithrombotic strategy after transcatheter valve interventions is a subject of ongoing debate. Although there is evidence from randomized trials in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), current evidence on optimal antithrombotic management after transcatheter mitral or tricuspid valve interventions is sparse. This article appraises the current evidence on this topic.

METHODS

This narrative review presents key research findings and guideline recommendations, as well as highlights areas for future research.

FINDINGS

After TAVR, randomized trial evidence suggests that single antiplatelet therapy is reasonable for patients without pre-existing indications for oral anticoagulation (OAC). If there is a concurrent indication for OAC, the addition of antiplatelet therapy increases bleeding risk. Whether direct oral anticoagulants achieve better outcomes than vitamin K antagonists is uncertain in this setting. Although OAC has been shown to reduce subclinical leaflet thrombosis (which may progress to structural valve degeneration), bleeding events are unacceptably high. There is a lack of randomized trial data comparing antithrombotic strategies after transcatheter mitral or tricuspid valve replacement or after mitral or tricuspid transcatheter edge-to-edge repair. Single antiplatelet therapy after mitral or tricuspid transcatheter edge-to-edge repair may be appropriate, whereas at least 3 months of OAC is suggested after transcatheter mitral valve replacement or transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement.

IMPLICATIONS

Randomized studies are warranted to address the knowledge gaps in antithrombotic therapy after transcatheter valve interventions and to optimize outcomes.

Antithrombotic Management for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

BACKGROUND

There have been significant changes in the optimal antithrombotic regimen post transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) after the results of major clinical trials in the past few years. Given the clinical importance of the optimal antithrombotic therapy post TAVI, we performed a narrative description of the major clinical trials behind the scientific evidence supporting these changes, as well the current guideline recommendations and knowledge gaps.

METHODS

We performed a narrative description of the major clinical trials behind the scientific evidence supporting these changes. We used PubMed as a major source to collect the major clinical trials including the following key words: "transcatheter aortic valve replacement", "transcatheter aortic valve implantation", "antithrombotic", "antiplatelet" and "anticoagulation". We selected the major clinical trials on this topic. This is not a systematic review or meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We describe the results of the major clinical trials on antithrombotic therapy post TAVI: POPULAR-TAVI A, POPULAR-TAVI B, ENVISAGE-TAVI AF, GALILEO, ATLANTIS and ADAPT-TAVR trials. Based on the results of these trials, single antiplatelet therapy is recommended post TAVI in patients without concomitant indication for oral anticoagulation or dual antiplatelet therapy, especially in elderly patients. In younger patients, it is advised to evaluate the patient's bleeding and thrombotic risk, and dual antiplatelet therapy may be reasonable in patients with a high thrombotic risk and low bleeding risk. In patients with a concurrent indication for oral anticoagulation or dual antiplatelet therapy, it is recommended to continue oral anticoagulation or dual antiplatelet therapy post TAVI.

CONCLUSION

In most patients without concomitant indication for oral anticoagulation, single antiplatelet therapy is recommended post TAVI.

Bioprosthetic Valves for Lifetime Management of Aortic Stenosis: Pearls and Pitfalls

This review explores the use of bioprosthetic valves for the lifetime management of patients with aortic stenosis, considering recent advancements in surgical (SAV) and transcatheter bioprostheses (TAV). We examine the strengths and challenges of each approach and their long-term implications. We highlight differences among surgical bioprostheses regarding durability and consider novel surgical valves such as the Inspiris Resilia, Intuity rapid deployment, and Perceval sutureless bioprostheses. The impact of hemodynamics on the performance and durability of these prostheses is discussed, as well as the benefits and considerations of aortic root enlargement during Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR). Alternative surgical methods like the Ross procedure and the Ozaki technique are also considered. Addressing bioprosthesis failure, we compare TAV-in-SAV with redo SAVR. Challenges with TAVR, such as TAV explantation and considerations for coronary circulation, are outlined. Finally, we explore the potential challenges and limitations of several clinical strategies, including the TAVR-first approach, in the context of aortic stenosis lifetime management. This concise review provides a snapshot of the current landscape in aortic bioprostheses for physicians and surgeons.

Cardiac Death After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Contemporary Devices

BACKGROUND

The burden of cardiac death after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), particularly from advanced heart failure (HF) and sudden cardiac death (SCD), remains largely unknown.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to evaluate the incidence and predictors of SCD and HF-related death in TAVR recipients treated with newer-generation devices.

METHODS

This study included a total of 5,421 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR with newer-generation devices using balloon (75.7%) or self-expandable (24.3%) valves.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 2 (IQR: 1-3) years, 976 (18.0%) patients had died, 50.8% from cardiovascular causes. Advanced HF and SCD accounted for 11.6% and 7.5% of deaths, respectively. Independent predictors of HF-related death were atrial fibrillation (HR: 2.17; 95% CI: 1.47-3.22; P < 0.001), prior pacemaker (HR: 1.79; 95% CI: 1.10-2.92; P = 0.01), reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HR: 1.08 per 5% decrease; 95% CI: 1.01-1.14; P = 0.02), transthoracic approach (HR: 2.50; 95% CI: 1.37-4.55; P = 0.003), and new-onset persistent left bundle branch block (HR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.14-3.02; P = 0.01). Two baseline characteristics (diabetes, HR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.13-2.89; P = 0.01; and chronic kidney disease, HR: 1.72; 95% CI: 1.02-2.90; P = 0.04) and 3 procedural findings (valve in valve, HR: 2.17; 95% CI: 1.01-4.64; P = 0.04; transarterial nontransfemoral approach, HR: 2.23; 95% CI: 1.23-4.48; P = 0.01; and periprocedural ventricular arrhythmia, HR: 7.19; 95% CI: 2.61-19.76; P < 0.001) were associated with an increased risk of SCD after TAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced HF and SCD accounted for a fifth of deaths after TAVR in contemporary practice. Potentially treatable factors leading to increased risk of HF deaths and SCD were identified, such as arrhythmia/dyssynchrony factors for HF and valve-in-valve TAVR or periprocedural ventricular arrhythmias for SCD.

BAlloon expandable vs. SElf expanding transcatheter vaLve for degenerated bioprosthesIs: design and rationale of the BASELINE trial

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve bioprostheses may degenerate over time and require redo intervention. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a less invasive alternative to redo surgery. The BAlloon Expandable vs. SElf Expanding Transcatheter VaLve for Degenerated BioprosthesIs (BASELINE) trial was designed to compare the performance of the balloon-expandable SAPIEN-3 Ultra and the self-expanding EVOLUT PRO+ valve systems in symptomatic patients with a failing surgical bioprosthesis.

METHODS

The BASELINE trial is an investigator-initiated, non-funded, prospective, randomized, open-label, superiority trial enrolling a total of 440 patients in up to 50 sites in 12 countries in Europe and North-America. The primary endpoint is device success at 30-days defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 Criteria as the composite of technical success, freedom from mortality, freedom for surgery or intervention related to the device or to a major vascular or access-related or cardiac structural complication with an intended performance of the valve (mean gradient <20 mmHg and less than moderate aortic regurgitation). The co-primary endpoint at 1 year is defined as the composite of all-cause death, disabling stroke, rehospitalization for heart failure or valve related problems. Independent Core Laboratories will conduct uniform analyses of echocardiography (pre-, post-, 1-year post-procedure), multi-sliced computed tomography (pre-, and if available post-procedure) and cine-fluoroscopy studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The BASELINE trial is a head-to-head comparative trial investigating the 2 most used contemporary transcatheter heart valves for the treatment of a failing surgical aortic bioprosthesis. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT04843072).

Thrombolysis for Cardiogenic Shock Secondary to Aortic Bioprosthetic Valve-in-Valve Thrombosis

Valvular obstruction and thromboembolism are feared complications of bioprosthetic valve thrombosis. We describe the case of an 81-year-old man with a prior aortic valve-in-valve bioprosthesis who presented in cardiogenic shock, requiring mechanical circulatory support. He was found to have acute bioprosthetic valve thrombosis and was treated with systemic thrombolysis. This case highlights the overall uncertainty regarding the optimal treatment of acute bioprosthetic valve thrombosis. Society guidelines and the current evidence behind prophylaxis and treatment are reviewed. Although the data remain sparse, systemic thrombolysis may be an effective strategy in critically ill patients who are poor surgical candidates.

Evolving concepts in the management of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Thromboembolic and bleeding complications negatively impact recovery and survival after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Particularly, there is a considerable risk of ischaemic stroke and vascular access related bleeding, as well as spontaneous gastro-intestinal bleeding. Therefore, benefit and harm of antithrombotic therapy should be carefully balanced. This review summarizes current evidence on peri- and post-procedural antithrombotic treatment. Indeed, in recent years, the management of antithrombotic therapy after TAVI has evolved from intensive, expert opinion-based strategies, towards a deescalated, evidence-based approach. Besides per procedural administration of unfractionated heparin, this encompasses single antiplatelet therapy in patients without a concomitant indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC); and OAC monotherapy in patients with such indication, mainly being atrial fibrillation. Combination therapy should generally be avoided to reduce bleeding risk, except after recent coronary stenting where a period of dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin plus P2Y12-inhibitor) or P2Y12-inhibitor plus OAC (in patients with an independent indication for OAC) is recommended to prevent stent thrombosis. This new paradigm in which reduced antithrombotic intensity leads to improved patient safety, without a loss of efficacy, may be particularly suitable for elderly and fragile patients. Whether this holds in upcoming populations of younger and lower-risk patients and in specific populations as patients with subclinical valve thrombosis, is yet to be proven. Finally, whether less intensive or alternative approaches should be also applied for the periprocedural management of the antithrombotic therapy, has to be determined by ongoing and future studies.

Subclinical Leaflet Thrombosis and Anticoagulation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Review

Importance

Subclinical leaflet thrombosis affects approximately 15% of patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The pathophysiology and clinical significance of leaflet thrombosis remain incompletely understood. Defining the optimal management strategy in patients who are asymptomatic, including the role for oral anticoagulation (OAC), is a key challenge for the field.

Observations

Three recent randomized trials have evaluated the role of OAC in patients after TAVR. These studies have confirmed prior observational data suggesting that OAC is effective at prevention of subclinical leaflet thrombosis. Overall, however, OAC does not lead to a clinical benefit over the period studied, and in some patients may be harmful owing to bleeding risk.

Conclusions and Relevance

Strategies for identification of patients in whom the benefit of OAC outweighs the risks are required for optimization of long-term outcome after TAVR. This requires clearer insights into the mechanisms of asymptomatic leaflet thrombosis, its clinical significance, and patient-specific risks of bleeding and structural valve degeneration.

A case of early thrombosis following a percutaneous tricuspid valve in valve implantation managed by thrombolysis

Bioprosthetic valve thrombosis (BPVT) is a growing recognized entity, especially with the increasing use of the valve in vale procedures and the advent of new detection technologies (e.g., 4D CT and 4D echocardiography). The incidence of BPVT is higher in transcatheter valves than surgically implanted bioprosthetic valves. However, the best thromboprophylaxis regimen and optimal management strategy in the acute context remain unknown. This paper presents a case of early thrombosis following the percutaneous tricuspid valve in vale procedure that was successfully managed with thrombolysis.

Valve-in-valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Failed Surgical Valves and Adjunctive Therapies

While redo surgical aortic valve replacement has traditionally been the gold standard for the treatment of failed surgical valves, valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has arisen as a viable, less invasive option with the potential for improved short-term morbidity and mortality. Retrospective registry data regarding ViV TAVR outcomes have been encouraging, with excellent 1-year mortality, and sustained valve performance and quality of life improvement out to 3 years. Operators must be comfortable with CT analysis for procedural planning, and be able to identify and troubleshoot patients who are at risk for coronary obstruction and patient prosthesis mismatch. The authors provide a review of clinical outcomes associated with ViV TAVR, procedural planning recommendations, and strategies to overcome technical challenges that can occur during ViV TAVR.

Mitral valve-in-valve and valve-in-ring procedures: Midterm outcomes in a French nationwide registry

OBJECTIVES

Report contemporary outcomes in patients included in the Mitragister registry and treated with transcatheter mitral valve implantation for failed surgical annuloplasty rings or deteriorated bioprosthesis.

BACKGROUND

Midterm survival rates have been reported, but little is known about contemporary morbimortality endpoints.

METHODS

The primary safety outcome was the technical success rate. The primary efficacy composite endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular mortality and heart failure hospitalizations.

RESULTS

From 2016 to 2021, 102 patients (median age: 81 [74;84] years, 61% female, Euroscore II 11.0% [7.8;16.0]) undergoing valve-in-valve (ViV; n = 89) or valve-in-ring (ViR; n = 13) procedures were consecutively included. At baseline, ViR group patients had worse left ventricular ejection fraction (50% vs. 60%; p = 0.004) and more frequently severe regurgitation (46% vs. 15%; p = 0.014). The primary safety outcome was 95%: 77% and 98% in the ViR and ViV populations, respectively, (p = 0.014). At intermediate follow-up (6-12 months) clinical improvement was notable, 88% of the patients were in NYHA class ≤ II (vs. 25% at baseline; p < 0.001). At a mean follow-up of 17.1 ± 11.0 months, the primary efficacy composite reached 27%. By multivariate analysis, paravalvular leak (PVL) was the only independent predictor (hazard ratio: 2.39, 95% confidence interval: 1.08-5.29; p = 0.031) while ViR was not found statistically associated (p = 0.456).

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the safety and efficacy of the mitral ViV procedure. ViR patients appear at higher risk of procedural complications. The presence of PVL could be associated with markedly worse midterm prognosis. Whatever the intervention, procedural strategies to reduce PVL incidence remain to be assessed to prevent latter adverse outcomes.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation in degenerated surgical aortic and mitral bioprosthesis: Current state and future perspectives

The use of bioprosthetic valves for treating patients with severe valve disease has increased over the last 2 decades, and, as a consequence, a growing number of patients with failing surgical bioprosthesis is expected in the near future. In this setting, valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic/mitral valve replacement (TAVR and TMVR) has emerged as an alternative to redo surgery. Despite the increasing experience in ViV procedures, the development of these techniques faces several specific challenges, mainly related to the unique anatomical and physiological characteristics presented in ViV-TAVR/TMVR. Subsequently, various approaches have been proposed to overcome ViV-related complications and pitfalls. A growing body of evidence is currently available concerning early- and long-term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing ViV-TAVR/TMVR. These data should be comprehensively evaluated by the Heart Team in the decision-making process involving patients with failing surgical bioprostheses. In this review, we aimed to delineate the technical challenges and risks associated with ViV-TAVR and ViV-TMVR, provide an updated overview of the main clinical results, and summarize the future perspectives of this evolving field.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Interventions for Structural Heart Disease

Contemporary evidence supports device-based transcatheter interventions for the management of patients with structural heart disease. These procedures, which include aortic valve implantation, mitral or tricuspid valve repair/implantation, left atrial appendage occlusion, and patent foramen ovale closure, profoundly differ with respect to clinical indications and procedural aspects. Yet, patients undergoing transcatheter cardiac interventions require antithrombotic therapy before, during, or after the procedure to prevent thromboembolic events. However, these therapies are associated with an increased risk of bleeding complications. To date, challenges and controversies exist regarding balancing the risk of thrombotic and bleeding complications in these patients such that the optimal antithrombotic regimens to adopt in each specific procedure is still unclear. In this review, we summarize current evidence on antithrombotic therapies for device-based transcatheter interventions targeting structural heart disease and emphasize the importance of a tailored approach in these patients.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for degenerated bioprosthetic aortic and mitral valves - an update on indications, techniques, and clinical results

Introduction: Aortic and mitral bioprosthesis are the gold standard treatment to replace a pathological native valve. However, bioprostheses are prone to structural valve degeneration, resulting in limited long-term durability. During the past decade, the implantation of transcatheter stent-valves within degenerated aortic and mitral bioprostheses, (the so-called 'valve-in-valve' procedure), represents a valid alternative to redo surgery in patients with high-risk surgical profiles.Areas covered: We reviewed the clinical outcomes and the procedural details of transcatheter aortic and mitral valve-in-valve series according to current published literature and include a practical guide for valve sizing and stent-valve positioning and strategies to prevent complications.Expert opinion: In both aortic and mitral positions meticulous planning is fundamental in these procedures to avoid serious complications including patient prosthesis mismatch, coronary obstruction and left ventricular outflow tract obstruction.

Valve-in-Surgical-Valve With SAPIEN 3 for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Based on Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality

[Figure: see text].

Comparison of in-hospital outcomes and readmissions for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement vs. reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement: a contemporary assessment of real-world outcomes

AIMS

We sought to perform a head-to-head comparison of contemporary 30-day outcomes and readmissions between valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) patients and a matched cohort of high-risk reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement (re-SAVR) patients using a large, multicentre, national database.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We utilized the nationally weighted 2012-16 National Readmission Database claims to identify all US adult patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves who underwent either VIV-TAVR (n = 3443) or isolated re-SAVR (n = 3372). Thirty-day outcomes were compared using multivariate analysis and propensity score matching (1:1). Unadjusted, VIV-TAVR patients had significantly lower 30-day mortality (2.7% vs. 5.0%), 30-day morbidity (66.4% vs. 79%), and rates of major bleeding (35.8% vs. 50%). On multivariable analysis, re-SAVR was a significant risk factor for both 30-day mortality [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of VIV-SAVR (vs. re-SAVR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28-0.81] and 30-day morbidity [aOR for VIV-TAVR (vs. re-SAVR) 0.54, 95% CI 0.43-0.68]. After matching (n = 2181 matched pairs), VIV-TAVR was associated with lower odds of 30-day mortality (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23-0.74), 30-day morbidity (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.43-0.72), and major bleeding (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51-0.85). Valve-in-valve TAVR was also associated with shorter length of stay (median savings of 2 days, 95% CI 1.3-2.7) and higher odds of routine home discharges (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.61-2.78) compared to re-SAVR.

CONCLUSION

In this large, nationwide study of matched high-risk patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves, VIV-TAVR appears to confer an advantage over re-SAVR in terms of 30-day mortality, morbidity, and bleeding complications. Further studies are warranted to benchmark in low- and intermediate-risk patients and to adequately assess longer-term efficacy.

Leaflet immobility and thrombosis in transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has grown exponentially worldwide in the last decade. Due to the higher bleeding risks associated with oral anticoagulation and in patients undergoing TAVR, antiplatelet therapy is currently considered first-line antithrombotic treatment after TAVR. Recent studies suggest that some patients can develop subclinical transcatheter heart valve (THV) thrombosis after the procedure, whereby thrombus forms on the leaflets that can be a precursor to leaflet dysfunction. Compared with echocardiography, multidetector computed tomography is more sensitive at detecting THV thrombosis. Transcatheter heart valve thrombosis can occur while on dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and thienopyridine but significantly less with anticoagulation. This review summarizes the incidence and diagnostic criteria for THV thrombosis and discusses the pathophysiological mechanisms that may lead to thrombus formation, its natural history, potential clinical implications and treatment for these patients.

Valve Academic Research Consortium 3: updated endpoint definitions for aortic valve clinical research

Aims 

The Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC), founded in 2010, was intended to (i) identify appropriate clinical endpoints and (ii) standardize definitions of these endpoints for transcatheter and surgical aortic valve clinical trials. Rapid evolution of the field, including the emergence of new complications, expanding clinical indications, and novel therapy strategies have mandated further refinement and expansion of these definitions to ensure clinical relevance. This document provides an update of the most appropriate clinical endpoint definitions to be used in the conduct of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve clinical research.

Methods and results 

Several years after the publication of the VARC-2 manuscript, an in-person meeting was held involving over 50 independent clinical experts representing several professional societies, academic research organizations, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives to (i) evaluate utilization of VARC endpoint definitions in clinical research, (ii) discuss the scope of this focused update, and (iii) review and revise specific clinical endpoint definitions. A writing committee of independent experts was convened and subsequently met to further address outstanding issues. There were ongoing discussions with FDA and many experts to develop a new classification schema for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure. Overall, this multi-disciplinary process has resulted in important recommendations for data reporting, clinical research methods, and updated endpoint definitions. New definitions or modifications of existing definitions are being proposed for repeat hospitalizations, access site-related complications, bleeding events, conduction disturbances, cardiac structural complications, and bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure (including valve leaflet thickening and thrombosis). A more granular 5-class grading scheme for paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) is being proposed to help refine the assessment of PVR. Finally, more specific recommendations on quality-of-life assessments have been included, which have been targeted to specific clinical study designs.

Conclusions 

Acknowledging the dynamic and evolving nature of less-invasive aortic valve therapies, further refinements of clinical research processes are required. The adoption of these updated and newly proposed VARC-3 endpoints and definitions will ensure homogenous event reporting, accurate adjudication, and appropriate comparisons of clinical research studies involving devices and new therapeutic strategies.

Predictors of Use and Outcomes of Mechanical Valve Replacement in the United States (2008-2017)

Background

Contemporary nationwide data on the use, predictors, and outcomes of mechanical valve replacement in patients less than 70 years of age are limited.

Methods and Results

We identified hospitalizations for aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2017. The study's end points included predictors of mechanical valve replacement and risk‐adjusted in‐hospital mortality. Among 253 100 hospitalizations for AVR, the use rate of mechanical prosthesis decreased from 45.3% in 2008 to 17.0% in 2017. Among 284 962 hospitalizations for MVR, mechanical prosthesis use decreased from 59.5% in 2008 to 29.2% in 2017 (P for trend<0.001). In multilogistic regression analyses, female sex, prior sternotomy, prior defibrillator, and South/West geographic location were predictive of mechanical valve use. The presence of bicuspid valve was a negative predictor of mechanical AVR (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.66–0.69; P<0.001), whereas mitral stenosis was associated with higher mechanical MVR (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.22–1.33; P<0.001). Unadjusted in‐hospital mortality decreased over time with AVR but not with MVR, regardless of prosthesis choice. Using years 2008 and 2009 as a reference, risk‐adjusted mortality also decreased over time with AVR but did not decrease after MVR.

Conclusions

There is a substantial decline in the use of mechanical valve replacement among patients aged ≤70 years in the United States. Long‐term durability data on bioprosthetic valve replacement are needed to better define the future role of mechanical valves in this age group.

Valve Academic Research Consortium 3: Updated Endpoint Definitions for Aortic Valve Clinical Research

AIMS

The Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC), founded in 2010, was intended to (i) identify appropriate clinical endpoints and (ii) standardize definitions of these endpoints for transcatheter and surgical aortic valve clinical trials. Rapid evolution of the field, including the emergence of new complications, expanding clinical indications, and novel therapy strategies have mandated further refinement and expansion of these definitions to ensure clinical relevance. This document provides an update of the most appropriate clinical endpoint definitions to be used in the conduct of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve clinical research.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Several years after the publication of the VARC-2 manuscript, an in-person meeting was held involving over 50 independent clinical experts representing several professional societies, academic research organizations, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives to (i) evaluate utilization of VARC endpoint definitions in clinical research, (ii) discuss the scope of this focused update, and (iii) review and revise specific clinical endpoint definitions. A writing committee of independent experts was convened and subsequently met to further address outstanding issues. There were ongoing discussions with FDA and many experts to develop a new classification schema for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure. Overall, this multi-disciplinary process has resulted in important recommendations for data reporting, clinical research methods, and updated endpoint definitions. New definitions or modifications of existing definitions are being proposed for repeat hospitalizations, access site-related complications, bleeding events, conduction disturbances, cardiac structural complications, and bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure (including valve leaflet thickening and thrombosis). A more granular 5-class grading scheme for paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) is being proposed to help refine the assessment of PVR. Finally, more specific recommendations on quality-of-life assessments have been included, which have been targeted to specific clinical study designs.

CONCLUSIONS

Acknowledging the dynamic and evolving nature of less-invasive aortic valve therapies, further refinements of clinical research processes are required. The adoption of these updated and newly proposed VARC-3 endpoints and definitions will ensure homogenous event reporting, accurate adjudication, and appropriate comparisons of clinical research studies involving devices and new therapeutic strategies.

Equipment entrapment during redo-TAVR with successful BASILICA procedure

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for transcatheter heart valve failure has been suggested for high-risk patients. TAVR-in-TAVR, however, may lead to complex leaflet interactions causing coronary ostial obstruction, which is a devastating complication. Coronary protection with provisional stent placement may be challenging. We describe the first percutaneous transaxillary case of TAVR-in-TAVR with Bioprosthetic Aortic Scallop Intentional Laceration to prevent Iatrogenic Coronary Artery obstruction (BASILICA) where guide catheters used for coronary protection were entrapped between the valve frames. We describe anatomical predictors and management considerations. Operators should be aware of this important complication during TAVR-in-TAVR valve placement.

Early Postoperative Thrombosis of Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve Prosthesis

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) has been popularized as an attractive alternative to redo surgical aortic valve replacement for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction. Acute valve thrombosis has been occasionally described after ViV-TAVR. Lack of anticoagulant therapy has been always considered a crucial risk factor. This report describes a rare case of early postoperative fatal ViV-TAVR thrombosis despite adequate anticoagulation in addition to dual antiplatelet therapy.

Repeat Pregnancy after Prior Aortic Valve-in-Valve Replacement: A Cautionary Tale

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) within a severely stenotic native aortic valve or previously placed surgical biologic aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is a rare occurrence in pregnant patients. The short- and long-term procedural outcomes for future pregnancies in these women or any woman of child bearing age who have received prior TAVR or TAVR in SAVR, are unknown. We describe the first result of a repeat pregnancy outcome in a woman with a history of prior TAVR in SAVR. Both maternal and fetal outcomes were favorable, but maternal cardiac complications observed in the third trimester emphasize our concerns regarding risk for cardiac complications in subsequent pregnancies in patients with a prior TAVR in SAVR. Despite the maternal complications that occurred during repeat pregnancy in this patient, a successful pregnancy outcome reaffirms our recommendation to utilize a multidisciplinary team for pregnancy management in patients with prior TAVR or TAVR in SAVR and to help in the management of any cardiac complications that may occur during or shortly after pregnancy.

Predictors and Biomarkers of Subclinical Leaflet Thrombosis after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a recent revolutionary treatment for high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis who are not suitable for surgery, expanding to intermediate and low-risk patients. Valve leaflet thrombosis (LT) is a potentially fatal complication after TAVI. The incidence of subclinical LT is as high as 25% among patients in the first year after TAVI. Subclinical LT may evolve into symptomatic thrombosis or lead to premature bioprosthesis degeneration, increasing the risk of neurological complications. Because imaging-based methods have limited sensitivity to detect subclinical LT, there is an urgent need for predictors and biomarkers that would make it possible to predict LT after TAVI. Here, we summarize recent data regarding (i) patient-related, (ii) procedure-related, (iii) blood-based and (iv) imaging predictors and biomarkers which might be useful for the early diagnosis of subclinical LT after TAVI. Prevention of LT might offer an opportunity to improve risk stratification and tailor therapy after TAVI.

Meta-analysis of Incidence, Predictors and Consequences of Clinical and Subclinical Bioprosthetic Leaflet Thrombosis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Leaflet thrombosis (LT) has been claimed as a potential cause of hemodynamic dysfunction or bioprosthetic valve degeneration of transcatheter heart valves. Sparse and contrasting evidence exists, however, regarding LT occurrence, prevention and treatment. MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science and SCOPUS databases were searched for studies published up to January 2020. Only studies reporting data on incidence and outcomes associated to the presence/absence of clinical or subclinical LT, detected or confirmed with a multidetector computed tomography exam were included. The study was designed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) requirements. Two reviewers independently screened articles for fulfillment of inclusion criteria. Data were pooled using a random-effect model. The primary end point was the incidence of LT. Secondary outcomes included: stroke and transient ischemic attacks and mean transvalvular gradients at different time-points in patients with and without LT. Of the initial 200 studies, 22 were finally included with a total of 11,567 patients. LT overall incidence was 8% (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 5% to 13%, I² = 96.4%). LT incidence in patients receiving only antiplatelets was 13% (95% CI: 7% to 23%, p <0.0001); patients discharged on oral anticoagulants had a reported incidence of 4% (95% CI: 2% to 8%, p <0.0001). Patients with LT, either clinical or subclinical, were not at increased risk of stroke (OR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.75 to 1.50, p = 0.730, I² = 0.0%) or transient ischemic attacks (Odds Ratio 1.01, 95% CI: 0.40 to 2.57, p = 0.989, I² = 0.0%). LT was associated with higher mean transvalvular gradients compared with patients without LT at 30 days post-transcatheter implantation, but not at discharge or at 1 year. LT is a relatively common event that, even when clinically manifest, is not associated with an increased risk of cerebrovascular events. Although patients on anticoagulants appear to be at lower risk of LT, the available evidence does not allow formulation of recommendations for prophylactical anticoagulation nor routine computed tomography after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Leaflet thrombosis after valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a case series

Background

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) in degenerated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is an alternative to redo-SAVR. However, reports on leaflet thrombosis following ViV-TAVI are emerging and subclinical thrombosis has gained recent attention. Although the incidence of transcatheter heart valve (THV) thrombosis after TAVI for native aortic valve disease is low, current imaging studies suggest the incidence of subclinical THV thrombosis may be significantly higher. While anticoagulation strategies for THV patients for native aortic stenosis presenting with symptomatic obstructive thrombosis has been described, the optimal management and anticoagulation therapy of patients with THV thrombosis following ViV-TAVI are less evident.

Case summary

We report a case series of three patients presenting with early and late THV thrombosis after ViV-TAVI. Two patients presented clinically on single antiplatelet therapy and one patient presented with subclinical valve thrombosis whilst taking a non-vitamin K oral anticoagulation agent.

Discussion

Leaflet thrombosis after ViV-TAVI is an important cause of THV degeneration and may present subclinically. Imaging modalities such as serial transthoracic echocardiograms and multidetector computerized tomography aid diagnosis and guide management. Patient-individualized risk- vs. -benefit prophylactic post-procedural oral anticoagulation may be indicated.

Bioprosthetic valve thrombosis and degeneration following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)

Bioprosthetic valve thrombosis (BPVT) is a recognised complication of prosthetic aortic valves and can be found in up to 13% of patients after transcatheter implantation. The mechanism of BPVT is not well known, abnormal flow conditions in the new and native sinuses and lack of functional endothelialisation are suspected causes. BPVT may result in valve dysfunction, possibly related to degeneration, and recurrence of patient symptoms, or remain subclinical. BPVT is best diagnosed at multiphase gated computed tomography (CT) angiography as the presence of reduced leaflet motion (RELM) and hypoattenuating aortic leaflet thickening (HALT). Although CT is used to exclude BPVT in symptomatic patients and those with increased valve gradients, the value of screening and prophylactic anticoagulation is debatable.

Impact of Leaflet Laceration on Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve Washout: BASILICA to Solve Neosinus and Sinus Stasis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate any potential leaflet washout benefits after bioprosthetic or native aortic scallop intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction during TAVR (BASILICA) in transcatheter valve-in-valve (ViV) in the context of leaflet thrombosis.

BACKGROUND

Leaflet thrombosis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement is secondary to flow stasis in both the sinus and neosinus. Strategies to improve washout and ameliorate neosinus and sinus flow velocities may have the potential to mitigate the occurrence of clinical and subclinical leaflet thrombosis.

METHODS

A 23-mm Edwards SAPIEN 3 and a 26-mm Medtronic Evolut were deployed in a 23-mm transparent surgical aortic valve model before and after leaflet laceration. The valves were placed in the aortic position of a pulse duplicator flow loop. Particle image velocimetry was performed to quantify sinus flow hemodynamic status. A tracing fluorescent dye was injected to evaluate the number of cycles to washout in both regions of interest.

RESULTS

The leaflet laceration procedure led to an increase in the velocities in the sinus and the neosinus by 50% for Evolut ViV and 61.9% for SAPIEN 3 ViV. In addition, leaflet laceration led to a reduction in overall cycles to washout in the neosinus by at least 56% with the Evolut and 54.5% with the SAPIEN 3 and in the sinus by at least 16.7% with the Evolut and 60.8% with the SAPIEN.

CONCLUSIONS

Leaflet laceration using a BASILICA-type approach may hold the potential to mitigate neosinus and sinus flow stasis. Controlled in vivo trials are necessary to establish the potential benefit of BASILICA to reduce the occurrence of leaflet thrombosis.

Midterm Degeneration of Transcatheter Heart Valve Device following Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Requiring Repeat Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

•

ViV-TAVR is an alternative to redo-SAVR in patients with a degenerate surgical bioprosthesis.

•

Optimal TAVR device positioning is crucial in determining procedural durability.

•

TAVR-in-TAVR can be performed to treat a degenerated ViV-TAVR device.

•

Coronary obstruction, limited coronary access, and device thrombosis may occur.

Long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic valves

Aims

Due to bioprosthetic valve degeneration, aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) procedures are increasingly performed. There are no data on long-term outcomes after aortic ViV. Our aim was to perform a large-scale assessment of long-term survival and reintervention after aortic ViV.

Methods and results

A total of 1006 aortic ViV procedures performed more than 5 years ago [mean age 77.7 ± 9.7 years; 58.8% male; median STS-PROM score 7.3% (4.2–12.0)] were included in the analysis. Patients were treated with Medtronic self-expandable valves (CoreValve/Evolut, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) (n = 523, 52.0%), Edwards balloon-expandable valves (EBEV, SAPIEN/SAPIEN XT/SAPIEN 3, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) (n = 435, 43.2%), and other devices (n = 48, 4.8%). Survival was lower at 8 years in patients with small-failed bioprostheses [internal diameter (ID) ≤ 20 mm] compared with those with large-failed bioprostheses (ID &gt; 20 mm) (33.2% vs. 40.5%, P = 0.01). Independent correlates for mortality included smaller-failed bioprosthetic valves [hazard ratio (HR) 1.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02–1.13)], age [HR 1.21 (95% CI 1.01–1.45)], and non-transfemoral access [HR 1.43 (95% CI 1.11–1.84)]. There were 40 reinterventions after ViV. Independent correlates for all-cause reintervention included pre-existing severe prosthesis–patient mismatch [subhazard ratio (SHR) 4.34 (95% CI 1.31–14.39)], device malposition [SHR 3.75 (95% CI 1.36–10.35)], EBEV [SHR 3.34 (95% CI 1.26–8.85)], and age [SHR 0.59 (95% CI 0.44–0.78)].

Conclusions

The size of the original failed valve may influence long-term mortality, and the type of the transcatheter valve may influence the need for reintervention after aortic ViV.

Hemodynamic and Imaging Assessment of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with the Inovare® Proseal using Multislice Computed Tomography

Objective

To evaluate the hemodynamic performance (i.e., gradients and paravalvular leakage [PVL]) of the new and experimental Braile Inovare^® Proseal. Additionally, we aimed to assess pre and postoperatively the aortic annulus and the transcatheter prosthesis using multislice computed tomography (MSCT).

Methods

Patients were selected by a multidisciplinary heart team and referred for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). MSCT was performed before and after surgery. Measurements of the aortic valve and prosthesis were conducted and correlated with the valve gradient and residual PVL.

Results

Twenty-one patients were selected for the protocol. Patients had a mean age of 79 years and 38% of them were of female sex. The mean EuroSCORE II value was 12.5%±10.8. Mean gradient was reduced from 45.8±11.04 mmHg to 5.59±2.61 mmHg and there were no instances of PVL worse than mild. There were no cases of coronary obstruction or procedural death. Circularity was present in all prostheses evaluated. Circularity indexes for the prostheses were: inflow 0.05±0.03, middle third 0.04±0.02, and outflow 0.04±0.02 (P=0.08). The mean distance between the prosthesis and the left and right coronary ostia were 14.8 mm±3.3 and 17.3 mm±3, respectively. Oversizing was appropriate with a mean of 22.14%±6%.

Conclusion

Braile Inovare^® Proseal transcatheter device has demonstrated low gradients with low rates of PVL. Oversizing by annular measurements was adequate. MSCT was adequate to evaluate device sizing and has demonstrated preserved expansibility and circularity in the evaluated cases.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Current Indications and Future Directions

Degenerative heart valve disease is associated with significant morbidity and mortality and healthcare expenditures. Transcatheter heart valve repair and replacement has introduced a fundamental change in the therapeutic management and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has gained substantial popularity. Favorable results from randomized trials and large real world registries lead to TAVR being considered a standard procedure with high rates of procedural success and low rates of peri-procedural complications. This article aims to review the past evolution, summarize the available evidence, discuss current indications and limitations and venture a glimpse into the future of percutaneous interventions for aortic valve disease.

Durability and Clinical Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Failed Surgical Bioprostheses

Background:

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an option when a surgical valve demonstrates deterioration and dysfunction. This study reports 3-year results following valve-in-valve with self-expanding TAVR.

Methods:

The CoreValve US Expanded Use Study is a prospective, nonrandomized, single-arm study that evaluates safety and effectiveness of TAVR in extreme risk patients with symptomatic failed surgical biologic aortic valves. Study end points include all-cause mortality, need for valve reintervention, hemodynamic changes over time, and quality of life through 3 years. Patients were stratified by presence of preexisting surgical valve prosthesis-patient mismatch.

Results:

From March 2013 to May 2015, 226 patients deemed extreme risk (STS-PROM [Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality] 9.0±7%) had attempted valve-in-valve TAVR. Preexisting surgical valve prosthesis-patient mismatch was present in 47.2% of the cohort. At 3 years, all-cause mortality or major stroke was 28.6%, and 93% of patients were in New York Heart Association I or II heart failure. Valve performance was maintained over 3 years with low valve reintervention rates (4.4%), an improvement in effective orifice area over time and a 2.7% rate of severe structural valve deterioration. Preexisting severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was not associated with 3-year mortality but was associated with significantly less improvement in quality of life at 3-year follow-up ( P =0.01).

Conclusions:

Self-expanding TAVR in patients with failed surgical bioprostheses at extreme risk for surgery was associated with durable hemodynamics and excellent clinical outcomes. Preexisting surgical valve prosthesis-patient mismatch was not associated with mortality but did limit patient improvement in quality of life over 3-year follow-up.

Clinical Trial Registration:

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01675440.

Antithrombotic pharmacotherapy after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: an update

Introduction: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the treatment of choice for a large proportion of patients with severe aortic stenosis. Despite numerous technological and clinical advances, TAVI remains associated with thrombotic complications requiring antithrombotic pharmacotherapy, which exposes to the risk of bleeding, especially in elderly individuals. The optimal antithrombotic regimen following TAVI is uncertain and several investigations are ongoing. Areas covered: Clinical guidelines are mostly driven by observational trials and experts' opinions, thus resulting into low-grade level of evidence. The aim of the current review is to critically explore the epidemiology, pathophysiology and prognostic value of thrombotic and bleeding events after TAVI, and to review the current literature on antithrombotic strategies following the procedure. Expert opinion: Thrombotic and bleeding events remain major complications occurring in the frail population that is currently offered TAVI. Waiting for upcoming evidence from ongoing randomized clinical trials, tailoring antithrombotic therapies based on patients' characteristics, values and circumstances is a preferable approach.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in failed surgical valves

Aortic valve-in-valve is a less invasive alternative to surgical redo in the treatment of failed bioprosthetic valves. While only inoperable patients underwent the procedure before, operators currently offer it to those at lower risk and worldwide experience is in the thousands. Early mortality has diminished in recent analyses and improvements in symptoms and quality of life have been documented. Main considerations with aortic valve-in-valve include elevated postprocedural gradients, coronary obstruction and leaflet thrombosis. Risk factors for each of these adverse events have been described at length. Aortic valve-in-valve offers a safe and effective option in the management of failed bioprosthetic valves.