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

Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Women With Small Annuli at Low or Intermediate Surgical Risk

There are limited data from randomized controlled trials assessing the impact of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgery in women with aortic stenosis and small aortic annuli. We evaluated 2-year clinical and hemodynamic outcomes after aortic valve replacement to understand acute valve performance and early and midterm clinical outcomes. This post hoc analysis pooled women enrolled in the randomized, prospective, multicenter Evolut Low Risk and Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (SURTAVI) intermediate risk trials. Women with severe aortic stenosis at low or intermediate surgical risk who had a computed tomography-measured annular perimeter of ≤72.3 mm were included and underwent self-expanding, supra-annular TAVR or surgery. The primary end point was 2-year all-cause mortality or disabling stroke rate. The study included 620 women (323 TAVR, 297 surgery) with a mean age of 78 years. At 2 years, the all-cause mortality or disabling stroke was 6.5% for TAVR and 8.0% for surgery, p = 0.47. Pacemaker rates were 20.0% for TAVR and 8.3% for surgery, p <0.001. The mean effective orifice area at 2 years was 1.9 ± 0.5 cm2 for TAVR and 1.6 ± 0.5 cm2 for surgery and the mean gradient was 8.0 ± 4.1 versus 12.7 ± 6.0 mm Hg, respectively (both p <0.001). Moderate or severe patient-prothesis mismatch at discharge occurred in 10.9% of patients who underwent TAVR and 33.2% of patients who underwent surgery, p <0.001. In conclusion, in women with small annuli, the clinical outcomes to 2 years were similar between self-expanding, supra-annular TAVR and surgery, with better hemodynamics in the TAVR group and fewer pacemakers in the surgical group.

Size of Self-Expandable Transcatheter Heart Valve and Mid-Term Adverse Events After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

The hemodynamic performance of self-expandable valves (SEVs) is a preferable choice for small aortic annuli in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, no data are, so far, available regarding the relation between the size of SEVs and clinical outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of prosthesis size on adverse events after TAVR using SEVs. We retrospectively analyzed 1,400 patients (23-mm SEV: 13.6%) who underwent TAVR using SEVs at 12 centers. The impact of SEV size on all-cause death and heart failure (HF) after TAVR was evaluated by multivariate Cox regression and propensity score (PS) matching analysis. During the follow-up period (median 511 days), 201 all-cause deaths and 87 HF rehospitalizations were observed. The incidence of all-cause death was comparable between small- (23-mm SEV) and larger-sized (26- or 29-mm SEV) (16.8% vs 13.9%, log-rank p = 0.29). The size of SEV was not associated with a higher incidence of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.86 in Cox regression; HR 1.31, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.23 in PS matching) and HF after TAVR (subdistribution HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.72 in Cox regression; subdistribution HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.30 in PS matching). The multivariate model including postprocedural prosthesis-patient mismatch showed consistent results. In conclusion, small SEVs had comparable midterm clinical outcomes to larger-sized SEVs, even if the prosthesis-patient mismatch was observed after TAVR.

Self-expandable transcatheter valve is a potentially useful option for a failing small surgical aortic bioprosthetic valve

OBJECTIVE

Trans-catheter aortic valve implantation inside a failing surgical aortic valve bio-prosthesis has become an alternative for patients at high risk for redo surgical aortic valve replacement. However, the correlation between the size of the failing surgical aortic valve and the occurrence of prosthesis-patient mismatch after trans-catheter implantation is still controversial. The aim of this study is to analyze and report the results in Japanese patients.

METHODS

Thirty patients who underwent trans-catheter aortic valve implantation inside a failing surgical aortic valve at our hospital were retrospectively reviewed with results from echocardiography and computed tomography.

RESULTS

The patients' mean age was 84.5 ± 4.8 years. The mean body surface area was 1.42 ± 0.13 m2. The cohort was divided into two groups according to the size of the failing bio-prosthesis: small (≦19 mm) and large (> 19 mm). There were no significant differences in mean pressure gradient (12.2 ± 4.0 mmHg vs. 11.1 ± 1.2 mmHg; p = 0.54) and effective orifice area index (1.00 ± 0.26 cm2/m2 vs. 0.99 ± 0.25 cm2/m2; p = 0.92) between the groups at 6 months after trans-catheter implantation. The incidence of moderate (38.5% vs. 28.6%; p = 0.59) and severe (0% vs. 7.1%; p = 0.33) prosthesis-patient mismatch was equivalent. There was no significant difference in survival between the two groups (log-rank test p-value = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Trans-catheter implantation inside a failing small aortic valve did not increase the frequency of prosthesis-patient mismatch in this Japanese cohort.

Echocardiographic and clinical features of patients developing prosthesis-patient mismatch after TAVR: insights from the Recovery TAVR registry

BACKGROUND

The impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) on major endpoints after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is controversial and the effects on progression of heart damage are poorly investigated. Therefore, our study aims to evaluate the prevalence and predictors of PPM in a "real world" cohort of patients at intermediate and low surgical risk, its impact on mortality and the clinical-echocardiographic progression of heart damage.

METHODS

963 patients who underwent TAVR procedure between 2017 and 2021, from the RECOVERY-TAVR international multicenter observational registry, were included in this analysis. Multiparametric echocardiographic data of these patients were analyzed at 1-year follow-up (FU). Clinical and echocardiographic features were stratified by presence of PPM and PPM severity, as per the most current international recommendations, using VARC-3 criteria.

RESULTS

18% of patients developed post-TAVR. PPM, and 7.7% of the whole cohort had severe PPM. At baseline, 50.3% of patients with PPM were male (vs 46.2% in the cohort without PPM, p=0.33), aged 82 (IQR 79-85y) years vs 82 (IQR 78-86 p=0.46), and 55.6% had Balloon-Expandable valves implanted (vs 46.8% of patients without PPM, p=0.04); they had smaller left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) diameter (20 mm, IQR 19-21 vs 20 mm, IQR 20-22, p=0.02), reduced SVi (34.2 vs 38 ml/m2, p<0.01) and transaortic flow rate (190.6 vs 211 ml/s, p<0.01). At pre-discharge FU patients with PPM had more paravalvular aortic regurgitation (moderate-severe AR 15.8% vs 9.2%, p<0.01). At 1-year FU, maladaptive alterations of left ventricular parameters were found in patients with PPM, with a significant increase in end-systolic diameter (33 mm vs 28 mm, p=0.03) and a significant increase in left ventricle end systolic indexed volume in those with moderate and severe PPM (52 IQR 42-64 and 52, IQR 41-64 vs.44 IQR 35-59 in those without, p=0.02)). No evidence of a significant impact of PPM on overall (p=0.71) and CV (p=0.70) mortality was observed. Patients with moderate/severe PPM had worse NYHA functional class at 1 year (NYHA III-IV 13% vs 7.8%, p=0.03). Prosthesis size≤23 mm (OR 11.6, 1.68-80.1) was an independent predictor of PPM, while SVi (OR 0.87, 0.83-0.91, p<0.001) and LVOT diameter (OR 0.79, 0.65-0.95, p=0.01) had protective effect.

CONCLUSIONS

PPM was observed in 18% of patients undergoing TAVR. Echocardiographic evaluations demonstrated a PPM-related pattern of early ventricular maladaptive alterations, possibly precursor to a reduction in cardiac function, associated with a significant deterioration in NYHA class at 1 year. These findings emphasize the importance of prevention of PPM of any grade in patients undergoing TAVR procedure, especially in populations at risk.

TAVR-in-TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve for paravalvular leak

Introduction

Paravalvular leak (PVL) is a severe complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) that can lead to poor outcomes. TAVR-in-TAVR is a promising treatment for PVL; however, reports on its safety or efficacy are limited. In this study, we aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of TAVR-in-TAVR using balloon-expandable prostheses for PVLs after TAVR.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed data from patients who underwent TAVR-in-TAVR using balloon-expandable Sapien prostheses for PVL after an initial TAVR at our institution. The procedural success, in-hospital complications, all-cause mortality, and echocardiographic data for up to 2 years post-surgery were evaluated.

Results

In total, 31 patients with a mean age of 81.1 ± 7.9 years and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 8.8 ± 5.4% were identified. The procedural success rate of TAVR-in-TAVR was 96.8% (30/31). No in-hospital deaths, cardiac tamponade, or conversion to sternotomy occurred. Re-intervention was performed in only one patient (3.2%) during hospitalization. The all-cause mortality rates at 30 days and 2 years were 0% and 16.1%, respectively. A significant reduction in the PVL rate was observed at 30 days compared with that at baseline (p < 0.01).

Discussion

Our findings suggest that TAVR-in-TAVR using balloon-expandable prostheses is safe and effective for PVL after TAVR with low complication rates and acceptable long-term outcomes. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm our findings.

Five-Year Follow-Up from the CoreValve Expanded Use Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Surgical Aortic Valve Study

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) provides an option for extreme-risk patients who underwent reoperation for a failed surgical aortic bioprosthesis. Long-term data on patients who underwent TAVR within a failed surgical aortic valve (TAV-in-SAV) are limited. The CoreValve Expanded Use Study evaluated patients at extreme surgical risk who underwent TAV-in-SAV. Outcomes at 5 years were analyzed by SAV failure mode (stenosis, regurgitation, or combined). Echocardiographic outcomes are site-reported. TAV-in-SAV was attempted in 226 patients with a mean age of 76.7 ± 10.8 years; 63.3% were male, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality score was 9.0 ± 6.7%, and 87.5% had a New York Heart Association classification III or IV symptoms. Most of the failed surgical bioprostheses were stented (81.9%), with an average implant duration of 10.2 ± 4.3 years. The 5-year all-cause mortality or major stroke rate was 47.2% in all patients; 54.4% in the stenosis, 37.6% in the regurgitation, and 38.0% in the combined groups (p = 0.046). At 5 years, all-cause mortality was higher in patients with versus without 30-day severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (51.7% vs 38.3%, p = 0.026). The overall aortic valve reintervention rate was 5.9%; highest in the regurgitation group (12.6%). The mean aortic valve gradient was 14.1 ± 9.8 mm Hg and effective orifice area was 1.57 ± 0.70 at 5 years. Few patients had >mild paravalvular regurgitation at 5 years (5.5% moderate, 0.0% severe). TAV-in-SAV with supra-annular, self-expanding TAVR continues to represent a safe and lasting intermediate option for extreme-risk patients who have appropriate sizing of the preexisting failed surgical valve. Clinical and hemodynamic outcomes were stable through 5 years.

Echocardiographic parameters associated with less reverse left ventricular remodeling after transcatheter aortic valve implant in subjects with prosthesis patient mismatch

BACKGROUND

Transaortic valve implant (TAVI) is the treatment of choice for severe aortic stenosis (AS). Some patients develop prosthesis patient mismatch (PPM) after TAVI. It is challenging to determine which patients are at risk for clinical deterioration.

METHODS

We retrospectively measured echocardiographic parameters of left ventricular (LV) morphology and function, prosthetic aortic valve effective orifice area (iEOA) and hemodynamics in 313 patients before and 1 year after TAVI. Our objective was to compare the change in echocardiographic parameters associated with left ventricular reverse modeling in subjects with and without PPM. Our secondary objective was to evaluate echo parameters associated with PPM and the relationship to patient functional status and survival post-TAVI.

RESULTS

We found that 82 (26.2%) of subjects had moderate and 37 (11.8%) had severe PPM post-TAVI. There was less relative improvement in LVEF with PPM (1.9 ± 21.3% vs. 8.2 + 30.1%, p = .045). LV GLS also exhibited less relative improvement in those with PPM (13.4 + 34.1% vs. 30.9 + 73.3%, p = .012). NYHA functional class improved in 84.3% of subjects by one grade or more. Echocardiographic markers of PPM were worse in those without improvement in NYHA class (mean AT/ET was .29 vs. .27, p = .05; DVI was .46 vs. .51, p = .021; and iEOA was .8 cm/m2 vs. .9 cm/m2 , p = .025). There was no association with PPM and survival.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no improvement in LVEF and less improvement in LV GLS in those with PPM post-TAVI. Echocardiographic markers of PPM were present in those with lack of improvement in NYHA functional class.

Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Data on the long-term impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remain sparse. We therefore aimed to investigate the incidence, predictive factors, and long-term prognostic impact of PPM on bioprosthesis durability and mortality.

METHODS

This was a single-centre retrospective study including 2117 patients who underwent TAVR for aortic stenosis from 2002 to 2022. Moderate PPM was defined by indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) > 0.65 and ≤ 0.85 cm2/m2 (> 0.55 and ≤ 0.70 cm2/m2 if BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) and severe PPM by an iEOA ≤ 0.65 cm2/m2 (≤ 0.55 cm2/m2 If BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2).

RESULTS

There were 351 patients (16.6%) with PPM, including 39 patients (1.8%) with severe PPM and 312 patients (14.7%) with moderate PPM. The mean follow-up duration was 31.2 ± 26.5 months. Factors independently associated with the occurrence of PPM were body surface area (odds ratio [OR] 3.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32-8.35; P = 0.01), valve-in-valve TAVR (OR 6.12, 95% CI 2.29-16.08; P < 0.001), small annulus (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.41-4.07; P = 0.001), and the use of a balloon-expandable valve (OR 4.17, 95% CI 2.17-8.33; P < 0.001). PPM was associated with increased risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.5, P = 0.004) and valve thrombosis (HR 4.2, 95% CI 1.4-12.6, P = 0.01), and a trend towards increased risk of structural valve deterioration (HR 1.7, 95% CI 0.9-2.9; P = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that PPM has a negative long-term impact on outcomes after TAVR. These findings emphasise the importance of preventing PPM.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Challenges and Future Directions in Redo Aortic Valve Reintervention After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Failure

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly being performed in younger and lower surgical risk patients. Reintervention for failed transcatheter heart valves will likely increase in the future as younger patients are expected to outlive the initial bioprosthesis. While redo-TAVR has emerged as an attractive and less invasive alternative to surgical explantation (TAVR-explant) to treat transcatheter heart valve failure, it may not be feasible in all patients due to the risk of coronary obstruction and impaired coronary access. Conversely, TAVR-explant can be offered to most patients who are surgical candidates, but the reported outcomes have shown high mortality and morbidity. This review provides the latest evidence, current challenges, and future directions on redo-TAVR and TAVR-explant for transcatheter heart valve failure, to guide aortic valve reintervention and facilitate patients' lifetime management of aortic stenosis.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter implantation of contemporary balloon-expandable and self-expandable valves in small aortic annuli

BACKGROUND

Evidence of clinical impact of PPM after TAVI is conflicting and might vary according to the type of valve implanted.

AIMS

To assess the clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with balloon-expandable (BEV) and self-expandable valves (SEV) in patients with small annuli.

METHODS

TAVI-SMALL 2 enrolled 628 patients in an international retrospective registry, which included patients with severe aortic stenosis and small annuli (annular perimeter <72 mm or area <400 mm2 ) treated with transfemoral TAVI at 16 high-volume centers between 2011 and 2020. Analyses were performed comparing patients with less than moderate (n = 452), moderate (n = 138), and severe PPM (n = 38). Primary endpoint was incidence of all-cause mortality. Predictors of all-cause mortality and PPM were investigated.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up of 380 days (interquartile range: 210-709 days), patients with severe PPM, but not moderate PPM, had an increased risk of all-cause mortality when compared with less than moderate PPM (log-rank p = 0.046). Severe PPM predicted all-cause mortality in patients with BEV (hazard ratio [HR]: 5.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.27-21.2) and intra-annular valves (IAVs, HR: 4.23, 95% CI: 1.28-14.02), and it did so with borderline significance in the overall population (HR: 2.89, 95% CI: 0.95-8.79). Supra-annular valve (SAV) implantation was the only predictor of severe PPM (odds ratio: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.13-0.83).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with small aortic annuli and severe PPM after TAVI have an increased risk of all-cause mortality at early term follow-up, especially after IAV or BEV implantation. TAVI with SAV protected from severe PPM.

Outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with cardiogenic shock

AIMS

The safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with contemporary balloon expandable transcatheter valves in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) remain largely unknown. In this study, the TAVRs performed for CS between June 2015 and September 2022 using SAPIEN 3 and SAPIEN 3 Ultra bioprosthesis from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry were analysed.

METHODS AND RESULTS

CS was defined as: (i) coding of CS within 24 h on Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry form; and/or (ii) pre-procedural use of inotropes or mechanical circulatory support devices and/or (iii) cardiac arrest within 24 h prior to TAVR. The control group was comprised of all the other patients undergoing TAVR. Baseline characteristics, all-cause mortality, and major complications at 30-day and 1-year outcomes were reported. Landmark analysis was performed at 30 days post-TAVR. Cox-proportional multivariable analysis was performed to determine the predictors of all-cause mortality at 1 year. A total of 309 505 patients underwent TAVR with balloon-expandable valves during the study period. Of these, 5006 patients presented with CS prior to TAVR (1.6%). The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 10.76 ± 10.4. The valve was successfully implanted in 97.9% of patients. Technical success according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria was 94.5%. In a propensity-matched analysis, CS was associated with higher in-hospital (9.9% vs. 2.7%), 30-day (12.9% vs. 4.9%), and 1-year (29.7% vs. 22.6%) mortality compared to the patients undergoing TAVR without CS. In the landmark analysis after 30 days, the risk of 1-year mortality was similar between the two groups [hazard ratio (HR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95-1.21]. Patients who were alive at 1 year noted significant improvements in functional class (Class I/II 89%) and quality of life (ΔKCCQ score +50). In the multivariable analysis, older age (HR 1.02, 95% CI 1.02-1.03), peripheral artery disease (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06-1.47), prior implantation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.07-1.77), patients on dialysis (HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.69-2.53), immunocompromised status (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.05-1.69), New York Heart Association class III/IV symptoms (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.06-2.12), lower aortic valve mean gradient, lower albumin levels, lower haemoglobin levels, and lower Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores were independently associated with 1-year mortality.

CONCLUSION

This large observational real-world study demonstrates that the TAVR is a safe and effective treatment for aortic stenosis patients presenting with CS. Patients who survived the first 30 days after TAVR had similar mortality rates to those who were not in CS.

Redo aortic valve replacement versus valve-in-valve trans-catheter aortic valve implantation: a UK propensity-matched analysis

This study sought to compare the morbidity and mortality of redo aortic valve replacement (redo-AVR) versus valve-in-valve trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (valve-in-valve TAVI) for patients with a failing bioprosthetic valve. A multicenter UK retrospective study of redo-AVR or valve-in-valve TAVI for patients referred for redo aortic valve intervention due to a degenerated aortic bioprosthesis. Propensity score matching was performed for confounding factors. From July 2005 to April 2021, 911 patients underwent redo-AVR and 411 patients underwent valve-in-valve TAVI. There were 125 pairs for analysis after propensity score matching. The mean age was 75.2±8.5 years. In-hospital mortality was 7.2% (n=9) for redo-AVR versus 0 for valve-in-valve TAVI, p=0.002. Surgical patients suffered more post-operative complications, including intra-aortic balloon pump support (p=0.02), early re-operation (p<0.001), arrhythmias (p<0.001), respiratory and neurological complications (p=0.02 and p=0.03) and multi-organ failure (p=0.01). The valve-in-valve TAVI group had a shorter intensive care unit and hospital stay (p<0.001 for both). However, moderate aortic regurgitation at discharge and higher post-procedural gradients were more common after valve-in-valve TAVI (p<0.001 for both). Survival probabilities in patients who were successfully discharged from the hospital were similar after valve-in-valve TAVI and redo-AVR over the 6-year follow-up (log-rank p=0.26). In elderly patients with a degenerated aortic bioprosthesis, valve-in-valve TAVI provides better early outcomes as opposed to redo-AVR, although there was no difference in mid-term survival in patients successfully discharged from the hospital.

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

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

Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of Kaplan-Meier-Derived Individual Patient Data

BACKGROUND

It remains controversial whether prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) (in general considered moderate if indexed effective orifice area is 0.65-0.85 cm2/m2 and severe when <0.65 cm2/m2) affects the outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the time-varying effects and association of PPM with the risk of overall mortality.

METHODS

Study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of studies published by December 30, 2021.

RESULTS

In total, 23 studies met our eligibility criteria and included a total of 81,969 patients included in the Kaplan-Meier curves (19,612 with PPM and 62,357 without PPM). Patients with moderate/severe PPM had a significantly higher risk of mortality compared with those without PPM (HR: 1.09 [95% CI: 1.04-1.14]; P < 0.001). In the first 30 months after the procedure, mortality rates were significantly higher in the moderate/severe PPM group (HR: 1.1 [95% CI: 1.05-1.16]; P < 0.001). In contrast, the landmark analysis beyond 30 months yielded a reversal of the HR (0.83 [95% CI: 0.68-1.01]; P = 0.064), but without statistical significance. In the sensitivity analysis, although the authors observed that severe PPM showed higher risk of mortality in comparison with no PPM (HR: 1.25 [95% CI: 1.16-1.36]; P < 0.001), they did not observe a statistically significant difference for mortality between moderate PPM and no PPM (HR: 1.03 [95% CI: 0.96-1.10]; P = 0.398).

CONCLUSIONS

Severe PPM, but not moderate PPM, was associated with higher risk of mortality following TAVR. These results provide support to implementation of preventive strategies to avoid severe PPM following TAVR.

TAVR in 2023: Who Should Not Get It?

Since the first transcatheter delivery of an aortic valve prosthesis was performed by Cribier et al in 2002, the picture of aortic stenosis (AS) therapeutics has changed dramatically. Initiated from an indication of inoperable to high surgical risk, extending to intermediate and low risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now an approved treatment for patients with severe, symptomatic AS across all the risk categories. The current evidence supports TAVR as a frontline therapy for treating severe AS. The crucial question remains concerning the subset of patients who still are not ideal candidates for TAVR because of certain inherent anatomic, nonmodifiable, and procedure-specific factors. Therefore, in this study, we focus on these scenarios and reasons for referring selected patients for surgical aortic valve replacement in 2023.

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).

Surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch on outcomes

BACKGROUND

The hemodynamics of most prosthetic valves are often inferior to that of the normal native valve, and a significant proportion of patients undergoing surgical (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have high residual transaortic pressure gradients due to prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM). As the experience with TAVR has increased and long-term outcomes are reported, a close look at the PPM literature is required in light of new evidence.

METHODS

For this review, we searched the Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases from 2000 to 2022. Articles reporting PPM as an outcome following aortic valve replacements were identified and reviewed.

RESULTS

The impact of PPM on clinical outcomes in aortic valve replacement has not been clear as multiple studies failed to report PPM incidence. However, the PPM outcomes after SAVR vary more widely than after TAVR, ranging from 8% to 80% in SAVR and from 24% to 35% in TAVR. Incidence of severe PPM following redo SAVR ranges from 2% to 9% and following valve-in-valve TAVR is from 14% to 33%, however, while PPM is higher in valve-in-valve TAVR, patients had better survival rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The gap between valve performance and clinical outcomes in SAVR and TAVR could be reduced by carefully selecting patients for either treatment option. Understanding predictors of PPM can add to the safety, effectiveness, and increased survival benefit of both SAVR and TAVR.

Personalised Treatment in Aortic Stenosis: A Patient-Tailored Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Approach

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVI) has become a game changer in the management of severe aortic stenosis shifting the concept from inoperable or high-risk patients to intermediate or low surgical-risk individuals. Among devices available nowadays, there is no clear evidence that one device is better than the other or that one device is suitable for all patients. The selection of the optimal TAVI valve for every patient represents a challenging process for clinicians, given a large number of currently available devices. Consequently, understanding the advantages and disadvantages of each valve and personalising the valve selection based on patient-specific clinical and anatomical characteristics is paramount. This review article aims to both analyse the available devices in the presence of specific clinical and anatomic features and offer guidance to select the most suitable valve for a given patient.

Lifetime Management of Aortic Stenosis: Transcatheter Versus Surgical Treatment for Young and Low-Risk Patients

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is now indicated across all risk categories of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and has been proposed as first line option for the majority of patients >74 years old. However, median age of patients enrolled in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement low-risk trials is 74 years and transcatheter aortic valve replacement has never been systematically investigated in young low risk patients. Although the long-term data in surgical aortic valve replacement in young patients (age <75) are well known, such data remain lacking in transcatheter aortic valve replacement. In the absence of clear guideline recommendations in patients with challenging anatomies (eg, hostile calcium, bicuspid), it is important to know the potential advantages and disadvantages of each treatment and to consider how they might integrate with each other in the lifetime management of such patients. In this review, we discuss current outstanding issues on the management of severe aortic stenosis from a lifetime management perspective, particularly in terms of initial intervention and future reinterventions.

Impact of aortic annular size and valve type on haemodynamics and clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Introduction: Data on patients with small aortic annuli (SAA) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are limited. We aim to describe the impact of aortic annular size, particularly SAA and TAVI valve type on valve haemodynamics, durability and clinical outcomes. Method: All patients in National Heart Centre Singapore who underwent transfemoral TAVI for severe symptomatic native aortic stenosis from July 2012 to December 2019 were included. Outcome measures include valve haemodynamics, prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), structural valve degeneration (SVD) and mortality. Results: A total of 244 patients were included. The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 6.22±6.08, with 52.5% patients with small aortic annulus (<23mm), 33.2% patients with medium aortic annulus (23–26mm) and 14.3% patients with large aortic annulus (>26mm). There were more patients with self-expanding valve (SEV) (65.2%) versus balloon-expandable valve (BEV) (34.8%). There were no significant differences in indexed aortic valve area (iAVA), mean pressure gradient (MPG), PPM, SVD or mortality across all aortic annular sizes. However, specific to the SAA group, patients with SEV had larger iAVA (SEV 1.19±0.35cm2/m2 vs BEV 0.88±0.15cm2/m2, P<0.01) and lower MPG (SEV 9.25±4.88 mmHg vs BEV 14.17±4.75 mmHg, P<0.01) at 1 year, without differences in PPM or mortality. Aortic annular size, TAVI valve type and PPM did not predict overall mortality up to 7 years. There was no significant difference in SVD between aortic annular sizes up to 5 years. Conclusion: Valve haemodynamics and durability were similar across the different aortic annular sizes. In the SAA group, SEV had better haemodynamics than BEV at 1 year, but no differences in PPM or mortality. There were no significant differences in mortality between aortic annular sizes, TAVI valve types or PPM. Keywords: Aortic stenosis, small aortic annulus, transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), first described in 1978, occurs when a prosthetic valve functions normally, but has an effective orifice area that is too small relative to the patient's body surface area. It results in residual left ventricular afterload and higher transvalvular pressure gradient, which has been considered to impair prognosis. PPM following surgical aortic replacement is reportedly associated with worse clinical outcomes, such as high mortality. However, the impact of PPM on clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains unclear. There is conflicting evidence on the impact of PPM following TAVI due to differences across studies in terms of follow-up period, methods, patient populations, and type of bioprosthetic valve. The present review summarizes the most recent evidence on PPM after TAVI.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch following transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerated transcatheter aortic valves: the TRANSIT-PPM international project

Background

A severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is associated with adverse outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for de novo aortic stenosis or a failed surgical bioprosthesis. The impact of severe PPM in patients undergoing TAV-in-TAVR is unknown.

Aim

We sought to investigate the incidence and 1-year outcomes of different grades of PPM in patients undergoing TAV-in-TAVR.

Materials and methods

The TRANSIT-PPM is an international registry, including cases of degenerated TAVR treated with a second TAVR. PPM severity, as well as in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year outcomes were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 (VARC-3) criteria.

Results

Among 28 centers, 155 patients were included. Severe PPM was found in 6.5% of patients, whereas moderate PPM was found in 14.2% of patients. The rate of severe PPM was higher in patients who underwent TAV-in-TAVR with a second supra-annular self-expanding (S-SE) TAVR (10%, p = 0.04). Specifically, the rate of severe PPM was significantly higher among cases of a SE TAVR implanted into a balloon-expandable (BE) device (19%, p = 0.003). At 1-year follow-up, the rate of all-cause mortality, and the rate of patients in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV were significantly higher in the cohort of patients with severe PPM (p = 0.016 and p = 0.0001, respectively). Almost all the patients with a severe PPM after the first TAVR had a failed &lt; 23 mm BE transcatheter heart valve (THV): the treatment with an S-SE resolved the severe PPM in the majority of the cases.

Conclusion

After TAV-in-TAVR, in a fifth of the cases, a moderate or severe PPM occurred. A severe PPM is associated with an increased 1-year all-cause mortality.

Clinical trial registration

[https://clinicaltrials.gov], identifier [NCT04500964].

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

OBJECTIVES

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Meta-Analysis Comparing Risk Factors, Incidence, and Outcomes of Patients With Versus Without Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Current guidelines on the management of patients with aortic valvular disease have widened the use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with an emphasis on avoidance of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM). This study sought to examine the incidence, risk factors, and all-cause mortality of PPM after TAVI. Medline and Embase databases were searched from inception to August 10, 2021. Patients were compared along 2 arms: (1) any degree of PPM and those without PPM, (2) severe PPM, and nonsevere PPM. A total of 22 articles involving 115,442 patients after TAVI were included. Pooled incidence for any degree of PPM was 30.1% and 10.7% in severe PPM. Incidence was significantly higher (p <0.001) for any degree of PPM in Europe (33.1%) and North America (34.4%) compared with Asia (10.4%). Incidence of severe PPM was higher (p = 0.015) in older generation (13.6%) compared with current-generation valves (6.3%). Severe PPM increased the risk of all-cause mortality relative to nonsevere PPM (hazard ratio: 1.86, 95% confidence interval: 1.05 to 3.29, p = 0.034). Patients of younger age, increased body surface area, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and classified New York Heart Association Class III/IV were at greater risk of both any degree and severe PPM. Smaller prosthesis size increased the risk of any degree of PPM, whereas postdilation and larger prostheses were protective factors. In conclusion, all-cause mortality was significantly affected in severe PPM compared with nonsevere cases, whereas this excess mortality was not observed between those with any degree of PPM and those without. Closer attention to patient and bioprosthetic valve factors is required to minimize the occurrence of severe PPM.

Early- and mid-term outcomes of reinterventions for aortic bioprosthesis failure

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate early- and mid-term results of our actual practice embedding redo aortic valve replacement and transcatheter procedures for aortic bioprosthetic failure.

METHODS

Data for aortic valve reinterventions (redo surgical aortic valve replacement, isolated redo aortic valve replacement, and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation, transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure) were collected (2010-2019). Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors favouring the choice of transcatheter against redo surgery. Cox analysis was used to study the association of preoperative variables with survival. Survival probabilities were calculated with Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared using a log-rank test.

RESULTS

A total of 125 patients were included (redo surgical aortic valve replacement: 84 patients, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 41 patients). Median age was 74 [63-80] years, 58% of the patients were male and the median logistic EuroSCORE was 15 [8-26] %. There was no early mortality. Eighteen patients (redo surgical aortic valve replacement: 15, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 3) sustained at least one postoperative complication. At pre-discharge transthoracic echocardiogram, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation had significantly higher trans-prosthetic gradients (mean gradient: valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation 18 mmHg vs. redo surgical aortic valve replacement 14 mmHg, p < 0.001). Overall survival probabilities were 94% and 73% at 1 year and 5 years, respectively. Previous coronary artery bypass surgery operation and age were independently associated with lower survival probabilities during the follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Redo surgical aortic valve replacement and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation are both safe and effective for aortic bioprosthetic failure. Further valve-in-valve data are needed to determine the haemodynamic performance of transcatheter prostheses and its impact on long-term outcomes.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Optimization Strategies: Cusp Overlap, Commissural Alignment, Sizing, and Positioning

As transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) rapidly expands to younger patients and those at low surgical risk, there is a compelling need to identify patients at increased risk of post-procedural complications, such as paravalvular leak, prosthesis–patient mismatch, and conduction abnormalities. This review highlights the incidence and risk factors of these procedural complications, and focuses on novel methods to reduce them by using newer generation transcatheter heart valves and the innovative cusp-overlap technique, which provides optimal fluoroscopic imaging projection to allow for precise implantation depth which minimizes interaction with the conduction system. Preserving coronary access after TAVR is another important consideration in younger patients. This paper reviews the significance of commissural alignment to allow coronary cannulation after TAVR and discusses recently published data on modified delivery techniques to improve commissural alignment.

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch in Small Aortic Annuli: Self-Expandable vs. Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Prosthesis−patient mismatch (PPM) is associated with worse outcomes following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). PPM has been identified in a significant proportion of TAVR, particularly in patients with small aortic annuli. Our objective was to evaluate the hemodynamic performances of balloon-expandable (BE) (Sapiens 3TM) versus two different self-expandable (SE) (Evolut ProTM, Accurate NeoTM) TAVR devices in patients with small aortic annulus defined by a computed tomography aortic annulus area (AAA) between 330 and 440 mm2. We enrolled 131 consecutive patients corresponding to 76 Sapiens 3 23 mm (58.0%), 26 Evolut Pro (19.9%) and 29 Accurate Neo (22.1%). Mean age was 82.5 ± 7.06 years, 22.9% of patients were male and mean Euroscore was 4.0%. Mean AAA was 374 ± 27 mm2 for Sapiens 3, 383 ± 29 mm2 for Corevalve Evolut Pro and 389 ± 25 mm2 for Accurate Neo. BE devices were associated with significantly higher rates of PPM (39.5%) as compared to SE devices (15.4% for Corevalve Evolut Pro and 6.9% for Accurate Neo) (p < 0.0001). Paravalvular leaks ≥ 2/4 were more often observed in SE devices (15.4% for Corevalve Evolut Pro and 17.2% for Accurate Neo) than in BE devices (2.6%) (p = 0.007). In conclusion, SE TAVR devices did achieve better hemodynamic results despite higher rates of paravalvular leaks. Therefore, SE TAVI devices could be considered as first choice in small aortic anatomy.

Patient Prosthesis Mismatch After SAVR and TAVR

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) remains one out of many factors to be considered during decision-making for the treatment of aortic valve pathologies. The idea of adequate sizing of a prosthetic heart valve was established by Rahimtoola already in 1978. In this article, the author described the phenomenon that the orifice area of a prosthetic heart valve may be too small for the individual patient. PPM is assessed by measurement or projection of the prosthetic effective orifice area indexed to body surface area (iEOA), while it is recommended to use different cut point values for non-obese and obese patients for the categorization of moderate and severe PPM. Several factors influence the accuracy of both the projected and the measured iEOA for PPM assessment, which leads to a certain number of false assignments to the PPM or no PPM group. Despite divergent findings on the impact of PPM on clinical outcomes, there is consensus that PPM should be avoided to prevent sequelae of increased prosthetic gradients after aortic valve replacement. To prevent PPM, it is required to anticipate the iEOA of the prosthesis prior to the procedure. The use of adequate reference tables, derived from echocardiographically measured mean effective orifice area (EOA) values from preferably large numbers of patients, is most appropriate to predict the iEOA. Such tables should be used also for transcatheter heart valves in the future. During the decision-making process, all available options should be taken into account for the individual patient. If the predicted size and type of a surgical prosthesis cannot be implanted, additional surgical procedures, such as annular enlargement with the Manougian technique, or alternative procedures, such as transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) can prevent PPM. PPM prevention for TAVI patients is a new field of interest and includes anticipation of the iEOA, prosthesis selection, and procedural strategies.

Rationale and design of the SMall Annuli Randomized To Evolut or SAPIEN Trial (SMART Trial)

BACKGROUND

The SMall Annuli Randomized To Evolut or SAPIEN (SMART) Trial was designed to compare the performance of the two most widely available commercial transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) devices in patients with symptomatic severe native aortic stenosis with a small aortic valve annulus undergoing transfemoral TAVR. Patients with small aortic valve annuli are typically female and are often underrepresented in clinical trials.

METHODS

The SMART Trial is an international, prospective, multi-center, randomized controlled, post-market trial. The trial will be conducted in approximately 700 subjects at approximately 90 sites globally. Inclusion criteria include severe aortic stenosis, aortic valve annulus area of ≤430 mm² based on multi-detector computed tomography, and appropriate anatomy for both the Medtronic Evolut PRO/PRO+ self-expanding and Edwards SAPIEN 3/3 Ultra balloon-expandable devices. The primary clinical outcome composite endpoint is defined as mortality, disabling stroke or heart failure rehospitalization at 12 months. The co-primary valve function composite endpoint is defined as bioprosthetic valve dysfunction at 12 months which includes hemodynamic structural valve dysfunction, defined as a mean gradient ≥20 mmHg, non-structural valve dysfunction, defined as severe prothesis-patient mismatch or ≥moderate aortic regurgitation, thrombosis, endocarditis, and aortic valve re-intervention. Powered secondary endpoints will be assessed hierarchically.

CONCLUSIONS

The SMART trial will be the largest head-to-head comparative trial of transfemoral TAVR using the two most widely available contemporary TAVR devices in the setting of small aortic annuli and the largest trial to enroll primarily women.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov, Unique identifier: NCT04722250.

Lifetime management of aortic valve disease: Aligning surgical and transcatheter armamentarium to set the tone for the present and the future

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has already received the green light for high-, intermediate- and low-risk profiles and is an alternative for all patients regardless of age. It is clear that there has been a push towards the use of TAVR in younger and younger patients (<65 years), which has never been formally tested in randomized controlled trials but seems inevitable as TAVR technology makes steady progress. Lifetime management as a concept will set the tone in the field of the structural heart. Some subjects in this scenario arise, including the importance of optimized prosthetic hemodynamics for lifetime care; surgical procedures in the aortic root; management of structural valve degeneration with valve-in-valve procedures (TAVR-in-surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR] and TAVR-in-TAVR) and redo SAVR; commissural alignment and cusp overlap for TAVR; the rise in the number of surgical procedures for TAVR explantation; and the renewed interest in the Ross procedure. This article reviews all these issues which will become commonplace during heart team meetings and preoperative conversations with patients in the coming years.