From CoreValve to Evolut PRO: Reviewing the Journey of Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valves

Material modeling and recent findings in transcatheter aortic valve implantation simulations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has significantly transformed the management of aortic valve (AV) diseases, presenting a minimally invasive option compared to traditional surgical valve replacement. Computational simulations of TAVI become more popular and offer a detailed investigation by employing patient-specific models. On the other hand, employing accurate material modeling procedures and applying basic modeling steps are crucial to determining reliable numerical results. Therefore, this review aims to outline the basic modeling approaches for TAVI, focusing on material modeling and geometry extraction, as well as summarizing the important findings from recent computational studies to guide future research in the field.

METHODS

This paper explains the basic steps and important points in setting up and running TAVI simulations. The material properties of the leaflets, valves, stents, and tissues utilized in TAVI simulations are provided, along with a comprehensive explanation of the geometric extraction methods employed. The differences between the finite element analysis, computational fluid dynamics, and fluid-structure interaction approaches are pointed out and the important aspects of TAVI modeling are described by elucidating the recent computational studies.

RESULTS

The results of the recent findings on TAVI simulations are summarized to demonstrate its powerful potential. It is observed that the material properties of aortic tissues and components of implanted valves should be modeled realistically to determine accurate results. For patient-specific AV geometries, incorporating calcific deposits on the leaflets is essential for ensuring the accuracy of computational findings. The results of numerical TAVI simulations indicate the significance of the selection of optimal valves and precise deployment within the appropriate anatomical position. These factors collectively contribute to the effective functionality of the implanted valve.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent studies in the literature have revealed the critical importance of patient-specific modeling, the selection of accurate material models, and bio-prosthetic valve diameters. Additionally, these studies emphasize the necessity of precise positioning of bio-prosthetic valves to achieve optimal performance in TAVI, characterized by an increased effective orifice area and minimal paravalvular leakage.

Comparison of Evolut-R 34 mm Valve and Smaller Evolut-R Valves in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation and Determination of Mild Paravalvular Leak Predictors

OBJECTIVE

The main purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the in-hospital, 1-month and 1-year post-procedure outcomes of patients treated with Evolut-R 34 mm and Evolut-R 23/26/29 mm devices. Additionally, the study aimed to identify factors that could predict the occurrence of ≥ mild paravalvular leaks (PVL).

METHODS

Between April 2015 and May 2022, 269 consecutive patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with Evolut-R 34 mm (n = 66, 24.5%) and Evolut-R 23/26/29 mm (n = 203, 75.5%) devices in a single center were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Patients in the Evolut-R 34 mm group had a lower female sex ratio (16.7% vs. 66.5%, P <.001, respectively), ejection fraction (50.7 ± 10.1% vs. 54.5 ± 9.3%, P =.016, respectively), and mean aortic gradient (7.4 ± 3.3 vs. 9.2 ± 5.0, P =.026, respectively) compared to the Evolut-R 23/26/29 mm group. The groups did not exhibit any statistically significant distinctions with regard to technical success, the need for a permanent pacemaker, occurrences of stroke, major vascular complications, PVL, major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, or mortality. Peak velocity was confirmed as a significant predictor of ≥mild PVL in both patient groups in the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. In logistic regression analysis; In patients with Evolut-R 34 mm valve, pre-TAVI aortic valve peak velocity (odds ratio (OR) = 23.202; P =.019) and calcium volume 800 Hounsfield Units (mm3) (OR = 1.017; P <.001) were independent predictors of ≥mild PVL.

CONCLUSION

The Evolut-R 34 mm valve has shown comparable in-hospital results with smaller valve sizes. Pre-TAVI aortic valve peak velocity and calcium volume predicted ≥ mild PVL in Evolut-R 34 mm patients.

Short- and Medium-Term Outcomes Comparison of Native- and Valve-in-Valve TAVI Procedures

Background

In high-risk patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses, valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a less invasive alternative to surgical valve replacement. To compare outcomes of ViV and native valve (NV) TAVI procedures.

Methods

34 aortic ViV-TAVI performed between 2012 and 2022 using self-expanding valves, were included in this retrospective analysis. Propensity score matching (1:2 ratio, 19 criteria) was used to select a comparison NV-TAVI group from a database of 1206 TAVI procedures. Clinical and echocardiographic endpoints, short- and long-term all-cause mortality (ACM) and cardiovascular mortality (CVM) data were obtained. Subgroup analyses were completed according to the true internal diameter, dividing patients into a small ( ≤ 19 mm) valve group (SVG) and a large ( > 19 mm) valve group (LVG).

Results

Clinical outcomes of ViV- and NV-TAVI were comparable, including device success [88.2% vs. 91.1%, p = 0.727], major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events [5.8% vs. 5.8%, p = 1.000], hemodialysis need [5.8% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.599], pacemaker need [2.9% vs. 11.7%, p = 0.265], major vascular complications [2.9% vs. 1.4%, p = 1.000], life-threatening or major bleeding [2.9% vs. 1.4%, p = 1.000] and in-hospital mortality [8.8% vs. 5.9%, p = 0.556]. There was a significant difference in the immediate post-intervention mean residual aortic valve gradient (MAVG) [14.6 ± 8.5 mm Hg vs. 6.4 ± 4.5 mm Hg, p < 0.0001], which persisted at 1 year [p = 0.0002]. There were no differences in 12- or 30-month ACM [11.8% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.588; 23.5% vs. 27.9%, p = 0.948], and CVM [11.8% vs. 7.3%, p = 0.441; 23.5% vs. 16.2%, p = 0.239]. Lastly, there was no difference in CVM at 1 year and 30 months [11.1% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.889; 22.2% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.742].

Conclusions

Analyzing a limited group (n = 34) of ViV-TAVI procedures out of 1206 TAVIs done at a single institution, ViV-TAVI appeared to be an acceptable approach in patients not deemed appropriate candidates for redo valve replacement surgery. Clinical outcomes of ViV-TAVI were comparable to TAVI for native valve stenosis.

Impact of Evolution of Self-Expandable Aortic Valve Design: Peri-Operative and Short-Term Outcomes

A few data exist on the differences of implantable aortic valve bio-prostheses. We investigate three generations of self-expandable aortic valves in terms of the outcomes. Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) were allocated into three groups according to the valve type: group A (CoreValve^TM), group B (Evolut^TMR) and group C (Evolut^TMPRO). The implantation depth, device success, electrocardiographic parameters, need for permanent pacemaker (PPM), and paravalvular leak (PVL) were assessed. In the study, 129 patients were included. The final implantation depth did not differ among the groups (p = 0.07). CoreValve^TM presented greater upward jump of the valve at release (2.88 ± 2.33 mm vs. 1.48 ± 1.09 mm and 1.71 ± 1.35 mm, for groups A, B, and C, respectively, p = 0.011). The device success (at least 98% for all groups, p = 1.00) and PVL rates (67% vs. 58%, vs. 60% for groups A, B, and C, respectively, p = 0.64) did not differ. PPM implantation within 24 h (33% vs. 19% vs. 7% for groups A, B, and C, respectively, p = 0.006) and until discharge (group A: 38% vs. group B: 19% and group C: 9%, p = 0.005) was lower in the newer generation valves. Newer generation valves present better device positioning, more predictable deployment, and fewer rates of PPM implantation. No significant difference in PVL was observed.

Prosthesis Tailoring for Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

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

An Update on New Generation Transcatheter Aortic Valves and Delivery Systems

Over the last 15 years, the management of aortic valve disease has been changed by transcatheter aortic valve replacement, which has become the standard of care across the entire spectrum of surgical risk. As a result of continuous evolution of this technique, several next-generation transcatheter heart valves (THVs) have been developed to minimize procedural complications and improve patient outcomes. This review aims to provide an update on the new generation THVs and delivery systems.

Coronary artery cannulation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionised the treatment of severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and it is now a proven and effective alternative to surgery for patients regardless of preoperative risk stratification. Nevertheless, the consequent expansion towards younger patients with longer life expectancy focuses attention on long-term considerations. In particular, although the prevalence of coronary artery disease has been shown to decrease with the lowering of estimated risk stratification, the chance of requirement of future coronary interventions after TAVI increases dramatically as a function of patients' life expectancy. To date, however, only a few studies have investigated the feasibility and reproducibility of coronary artery cannulation after TAVI. Different conditions related mainly to aortic root anatomy and specific transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) designs and deployment have been associated with impaired coronary access after TAVI. In the present review, we will examine the conditions that may make coronary access after TAVI more challenging or even impossible.

The selection of transcatheter heart valves in transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter heart valve technology has rapidly progressed since initial approval in the United States. There are currently two widely available transcatheter heart valve delivery systems approved in the US; however limited data exist on optimal device selection for various patient populations. This review explores the characteristics of currently approved transcatheter heart valve systems and scenarios where one valve system may be favored over others. We provide a simplified decision tree for selecting the optimal transcatheter valve system for specific patient-centered characteristics.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Prosthesis

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

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

Background

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

Methods and Results

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

Conclusions

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

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using the new Evolut-Pro system: a prospective comparison with the Evolut-R device

Background

Evolut Pro (EVP) is a novel self-expandable aortic valve. This prosthesis consists of an external porcine pericardial wrap designed to reduce paravalvular leak (PVL), maintaining the benefits of its predecessor, the Evolut R (EVR). The aim was to compare the functional and clinical results in the short and medium term of the new EVP with the EVR system.

Methods

Consecutive patients receiving either the EVR (n=50) or the EVP (n=33) from June 2015 to October 2018 were compared. Baseline characteristics, cardiovascular imaging, procedural outcomes, short and mid-term follow-up outcomes were prospectively collected and assessed.

Results

Residual mild PVL was common and comparable in the two groups (EVR 79% vs. EVP 70%; P=0.4). In the EVR group, the presence of PVL was directly related to prosthesis size, but this correlation was not observed in the EVP group. Conduction abnormalities were more prevalent with the EVP, but these did not translate into a higher need of permanent pacemaker implantation. Vascular and bleeding complications were infrequent in both groups. At mid-term clinical follow-up (median survival time: EVR 11±0.3 months, EVP 12±0.2 months), the 1-year rate of adverse events was similar (EVR: 24%, EVP: 33%; P=0.3).

Conclusions

Both protheses are effective for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis with excellent results at mid-term clinical follow up. The EVP remains associated with a significant rate of residual mild PVL that appears to be similar to that observed with EVR.

TAVI Beyond 3 Years: Durability and Predictors for Survival

The use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has greatly increased over the past 2 decades and now has overtaken surgical aortic valve replacement. We have limited data regarding the long-term durability of TAVI and the predictors of survival. Calcification, inflammation, fibrous tissue deposition, and mechanical stress are important in the structural deterioration of surgical bioprosthetic valves and likely contribute to TAVI durability. However, TAVI has several differences to surgical valve replacement such as valve preparation, valve to native anatomy interaction, and valve sizing which all likely contribute to durability and long-term survival. Most procedures have been performed on older patients and therefore long-term follow-up studies have noted mortality of approximately 50% at 5 years and 75% by 7 years. Current data are limited by the high mortality of patients who have received TAVI often as a result of age, frailty, and other competing comorbidities. TAVI as compared with surgical valve replacement is associated with several differences including higher conduction abnormalities (i.e., need for pacemakers) and paravalvular leak, both of which may affect long-term morbidity and mortality. In this review, we discuss the current status of our knowledge and identify areas that require further investigation.

Predictors and Outcome Impact of Mitral Regurgitation in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Several studies have reported that mitral regurgitation (MR) can improve following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) alone using earlier-generation valves. The purpose of this study was to determine the predictors and short-term outcome impact of MR in patients undergoing TAVR using all generation valves across all risk groups.

METHODS/MATERIALS

In this retrospective, study from 2012 to 2020, we reviewed data on 1822 low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients who underwent TAVR. Included were 1266 patients with baseline MR who underwent transfemoral TAVR. Our primary outcome was persistence or worsening of baseline MR post-TAVR. Additional endpoints included an inpatient composite (intensive care unit length of stay >24 h, post-TAVR length of stay >2 days, and inpatient death), 30-day composite (30-day death or readmission), and 1-year composite (1-year death or readmission).

RESULTS

Of the 1266 patients included, 665 had significant baseline MR (≥moderate), which improved in 79.4% of patients (n=528). Female patients, those with lower body mass indices, and those with higher right ventricular systolic pressures were more likely to have persistence or worsening of baseline MR. Patients whose baseline MR persisted or worsened, had higher rates (80.3% vs. 77.3%, p=0.0019) of our inpatient composite, higher rates (15.3% vs. 10.0%, p=0.0389) of our 30-day composite, and higher rates (36.7% vs. 26.8%, p=0.0107) of our 1-year composite when compared to patients whose baseline MR improved post-TAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study identifies clinical characteristics, which help identify patients who may require closer post-procedural follow-up and warrant possible staged mitral valve intervention post-TAVR across all risk groups.

Considerations for Optimal Device Selection in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Review

Importance

Aortic valve stenosis (AS) is the most common manifestation of acquired valvular heart disease in developed countries. Several large-scale randomized clinical trials investigating the entire spectrum of patients with severe symptomatic AS from low to prohibitive risk have established transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as a safe and effective alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement.

Observations

There are currently only 3 types of TAVR devices commercially available in the US, but several other valve types are undergoing clinical trials in the US. Because of fundamental differences in engineering features, each TAVR device type has specific strengths and limitations. This review aims to provide an overview of design features and clinical outcomes of various TAVR devices that are either commercially available or undergoing clinical investigation.

Conclusions and Relevance

Given the lack of large-scale head-to-head comparisons of various TAVR devices and the rapid development of new device iterations, there is insufficient evidence to claim superiority of one device type over another. Nonetheless, as each TAVR device has unique design characteristics, certain patient-related and anatomy-related factors may slightly favor one or several particular designs.

Meta-analysis Comparing Outcomes of Self-Expanding Versus Balloon-Expandable Valves for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

There are two commercially available transcatheter heart valve systems: balloon expandable valves (BEV) and self-expanding valves (SEV). However, there is a paucity of randomized trials comparing both systems. Electronic databases (Medline, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and clinicaltrials.gov) and major conference proceedings were searched for randomized trials of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and received transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with a SEV or BEV or surgical aortic valve replacement. The main efficacy outcomes were all-cause mortality and stroke at the longest available follow-up. The main analysis was performed using a random-effects network meta-analysis complemented by several subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Ten trials with 9,439 patients (mostly undergoing transfemoral TAVI) were included. At a median of 27 months, there was no difference between BEV and SEV valves in terms of all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.42). The incidence of any stroke was higher with BEV (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.26), but there was no difference in the incidence of disabling stroke. At 30-days, BEV valves were associated with lower incidence of new permanent pacemaker placement (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.79) and moderate/severe paravalvular regurgitation (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.68). In conclusion, in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral TAVI, SEV and BEV were associated with similar all-cause mortality. BEV were associated with a higher incidence of any stroke driven by nondisabling strokes, but lower incidence of new permanent pacemaker placement and moderate/severe paravalvular regurgitation compared with SEV.

Update on Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a minimally invasive approach to treat symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. The patient populations that have been shown to benefit from this procedure continue to grow with time. Techniques and technology in TAVR persistently advance with a continued trend toward improved outcomes for patients. In this review, we highlight the advances in vascular access, TAVR valve design, progress in reducing procedural complications, and emerging evidence in the field.

Evolution of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement | Review of Literature

Aortic valve stenosis is the most common primary valvular heart disease leading to either surgical or transcatheter valve replacement in the United States with its prevalence on the rise due to the elderly population. Over the recent years, the rise of transcatheter aortic valve replacement has been exponential due to technologic developments and randomized control trials. In this review article, we aim to review current literature on transcatheter aortic valve replacements.

Transcatheter valve replacement: a revolution

Degenerative aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease worldwide; however, its physiopathology remains poorly understood. Although, developments in prevention of this disease have remained relatively stagnant, the last decade has brought about innovative treatment options incorporating different percutaneous and surgical approaches. These advances have allowed physicians to offer relief to high-risk patients, previously deemed nonsurgical. Increasingly, there is a shift toward offering percutaneous valve replacement to moderate and low-risk patients with aortic stenosis. Enthusiasm for a new treatment option must always be tempered by caution; as defining appropriate patient selection is essential to achieve optimal outcomes.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Severe, Symptomatic Aortic Valve Stenosis at Intermediate Surgical Risk: A Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the conventional treatment in patients at low or intermediate surgical risk. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive procedure, originally developed as an alternative for patients at high or prohibitive surgical risk.

METHODS

We conducted a health technology assessment of TAVI versus SAVR in patients with severe, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and patient preferences and values. We performed a literature search to retrieve systematic reviews and selected one that was relevant to our research question. We complemented the systematic review with a literature search to identify randomized controlled trials published after the review. Applicable, previously published cost-effectiveness analyses were available, so we did not conduct a primary economic evaluation. We analyzed the net budget impact of publicly funding TAVI in people at intermediate surgical risk in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of TAVI for people at intermediate surgical risk, we spoke with people who had aortic valve stenosis and their families.

RESULTS

We identified two randomized controlled trials; they found that in patients with severe, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis, TAVI was noninferior to SAVR with respect to the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke within 2 years of follow-up (GRADE: High). However, compared with SAVR, TAVI had a higher risk of some complications and a lower risk of others. Device-related costs for TAVI (approximately $23,000) are much higher than for SAVR (approximately $6,000). Based on two published cost-effectiveness analyses conducted from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health, TAVI was more expensive and, on average, more effective (i.e., it produced more quality-adjusted life-years) than SAVR. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios showed that TAVI may be cost-effective, but the probability of TAVI being cost-effective versus SAVR was less than 60% at a willingness-to-pay value of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. The net budget impact of publicly funding TAVI in Ontario would be about $2 million to $3 million each year for the next 5 years. This cost may be reduced if people receiving TAVI have a shorter hospital stay (≤ 3 days). We interviewed 13 people who had lived experience with aortic valve stenosis. People who had undergone TAVI reported reduced physical and psychological effects and a shorter recovery time. Patients and caregivers living in remote or northern regions reported lower out-of-pocket costs with TAVI because the length of hospital stay was reduced. People said that TAVI increased their quality of life in the short-term immediately after the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

In people with severe, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, TAVI was similar to SAVR with respect to the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke. However, the two treatments had different patterns of complications. The study authors also noted that longer follow-up is needed to assess the durability of the TAVI valve. Compared with SAVR, TAVI may provide good value for money, but publicly funding TAVI in Ontario would result in additional costs over the next 5 years. People with aortic valve stenosis who had undergone TAVI appreciated its less invasive nature and reported a substantial reduction in physical and psychological effects after the procedure, improving their quality of life.

Comparison of the self-expanding Evolut-PRO transcatheter aortic valve to its predecessor Evolut-R in the real world multicenter ATLAS registry

BACKGROUND

The Evolut PRO self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve has been designed to feature an outer pericardial wrap that aims to reduce paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) rates. Medium-term clinical outcomes, compared to its predecessor Evolut R, in a real-world setting, have not been investigated. The aim of the present study was to compare the two valves with regards to peri-procedural complications, early outcomes and mid-term survival.

METHODS

Consecutive patients, undergoing TAVI with either the Evolut PRO or Evolut R device, from the multicenter ATLAS registry were retrospectively studied. Outcomes studied included periprocedural complications, PVR at discharge, need for new pacemaker implantation and Kaplan-Meier estimated 1-year all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Analysis included 673 patients (498 treated with Evolut R and 175 treated with Evolut PRO). At least moderate PVR was numerically lower amongst patients treated with Evolut PRO (7.4% vs 3.8% for Evolut R and Evolut PRO respectively, p = .108). Rates of new permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation (21.1% vs. 11.9%, p = .023), and bail-out valve-in-valve (2.4% vs. 0%, p = .049) were significantly lower amongst the Evolut PRO group. No differences were demonstrated regarding bleeding, stroke or acute kidney injury. One-year Kaplan-Meier estimated survival was similar between groups (93% for Evolut R vs. 91.2% for Evolut PRO, p_log-rank = 0.806).

CONCLUSIONS

The Evolut PRO self-expanding valve demonstrates similar mid-term survival rates and numerically, yet not significant, lower incidence of PVR compared to its predecessor. Interestingly this new generation valve is associated with a significantly reduced rate for new PPM implantation. Future studies are required to confirm this finding.

Transfemoral aortic valve implantation in the case of pre-existing mitral prosthesis and pure aortic regurgitation: A case report

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is recommended in patients with severe aortic stenosis who have high surgical risk. However, in the pre-existing mechanical mitral valve prosthesis and natural pure aortic regurgitation, TAVR is relatively contraindicated. In this report, we described one case of TAVR with native aortic regurgitation in the presence of mechanical mitral valve prosthesis.

CASE SUMMARY

A 64-year-old man with a medical history of mitral valve replacement had severe dyspnea and was symptomatic even at rest for 3 mo. His echocardiography showed severe native pure aortic regurgitation. His euroscore was 15. A TAVR procedure with an evolut R was planned. A 34 mm evolut R was placed by transesophageal echocardiography. The mitral prosthesis was functioning normally, and mild-moderate paravalvular leakage was evident by transesophageal echocardiography. The patient recovered without any complication. At 1 mo follow up, the patient was well, and no paravalvular leakage was noted.

CONCLUSION

TAVR for pure aortic regurgitation in the presence of prosthetic mitral valve can be a safe procedure.

On the Modeling of Patient-Specific Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Fluid-Structure Interaction Approach

PURPOSE

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a minimally invasive treatment for high-risk patients with aortic diseases. Despite its increasing use, many influential factors are still to be understood and require continuous investigation. The best numerical approach capable of reproducing both the valves mechanics and the hemodynamics is the fluid-structure interaction (FSI) modeling. The aim of this work is the development of a patient-specific FSI methodology able to model the implantation phase as well as the valve working conditions during cardiac cycles.

METHODS

The patient-specific domain, which included the aortic root, native valve and calcifications, was reconstructed from CT images, while the CAD model of the device, metallic frame and pericardium, was drawn from literature data. Ventricular and aortic pressure waveforms, derived from the patient's data, were used as boundary conditions. The proposed method was applied to two real clinical cases, which presented different outcomes in terms of paravalvular leakage (PVL), the main complication after TAVR.

RESULTS

The results confirmed the clinical prognosis of mild and moderate PVL with coherent values of regurgitant volume and effective regurgitant orifice area. Moreover, the final release configuration of the device and the velocity field were compared with postoperative CT scans and Doppler traces showing a good qualitative and quantitative matching.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the development of realistic and accurate FSI patient-specific models can be used as a support for clinical decisions before the implantation.

Impact of percutaneous closure device type on vascular and bleeding complications after TAVR: A post hoc analysis from the BRAVO-3 randomized trial

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Prostar XL (PS) and ProGlide (PG) are common vascular closure devices (VCD) used in TAVR via transfemoral vascular approach. The impact of these VCD on vascular and bleeding complications remains unclear.

METHODS

The BRAVO-3 trial randomized 802 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR. We stratified patients according to type of VCD used and examined the 30-day incidence of major or minor vascular complications, major bleeding (BARC ≥3b), AKI and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; death, myocardial infarction or stroke).

RESULTS

A total of 746 (93%) patients were treated with either PS (n = 352, 47%) or PG (n = 394, 53%) VCD, without significant differences in successful deployment rate (PS 322 [91.2%] vs. PG 373 [94.2%] respectively, p = .20). PG was associated with a significantly lower incidence of major or minor vascular complications, compared to PS (adjusted OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.37-0.80; p < .01). Rates of acute kidney injury were also lower with the PG device. There was no significant difference between bleeding, MACCE, and death.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to PS, the PG VCD was associated with a lower rate of major or minor vascular complications and lower rates of AKI after transfemoral TAVR.

Correlation Between Aortic Angulation and Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With New-Generation Valves

The aim of this study was to assess the correlation of aortic angulation (AA) on immediate postprocedural and long-term outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with new-generation valves. There is limited and conflicting data on the impact of AA on short- and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR. Available studies to date were done with first-generation valves. We assessed 179 patients who underwent TAVR with either a balloon-expandable or self-expandable valve at our institute from May 2014 to June 2017 and had multislice computed tomography scans available for AA evaluation. All included patients received a second- or third-generation valve. TAVR endpoints, device success, and adverse events were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. The mean AA of the study population was 49.05 ± 10.07. Patients were divided into 2 groups: AA <49 and AA ≥49, and then further subdivided by valve type. There were no difference in mean age, The Society for Thoracic Surgery (STS) score, or race distribution between the AA <49 and AA ≥49 groups. The preimplantation balloon valvuloplasty rate was higher in patients with AA ≥ 49 compared to patients with AA <49, (70% vs 55.1%, P = 0.04). There was no difference in re-hospitalization, pacemaker implantation, postprocedural aortic regurgitation or mortality between patients with AA <49 and AA ≥49 irrespective of valve type (P < 0.05). AA does not significantly affect short- or long-term outcomes in patients who undergo TAVR with new-generation balloon-expandable or self-expandable valves.