Self-expanding intra-annular versus commercially available transcatheter heart valves in high and extreme risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (PORTICO IDE): a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial

Randomized comparison of TAVI valves: The Compare-TAVI trial

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

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

SUMMARY

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

Early clinical outcomes of Portico and Edwards Sapien 3 valve prosthesis in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: propensity-matched analysis

Introduction

There is a lack of real-world data directly comparing different valve prostheses for transaortic valve replacement (TAVR). We aimed to compare early clinical outcomes at 30-days between the self-expandable Portico valve (Abbott) with the balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien 3 valve (Edwards Lifesciences) (ES3).

Methods

Out of 1,901 patients undergoing TAVR between January 2018 and December 2021, all patients who received either Portico valve or ES3 valve via transfemoral TAVR were matched using nearest-neighbor (1:1) propensity scoring. Primary endpoints were single safety endpoints and early safety composite endpoints defined by Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) criteria. The secondary endpoint was to analyze risk predictors for new permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation in TAVR.

Results

Out of 661 complete cases, a total of 434 patients were successfully matched based on age, sex, Euro Score II and STS-score. In the matched cohort, 217 received either a Portico or valve and 217 received an ES3 valve. The VARC-2 early safety composite scores indicated a significantly greater overall 30-day safety risk in the Portico group at 9.2% (n = 20) compared to 3.7% (n = 8) in the ES3 group (p = 0.032). The requirement for new permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation was also higher in the Portico group, at 21.2% (n = 46) vs. 13.4% (n = 29) in the ES3 group (p = 0.042). 30-day mortality was higher was 3.7% (n = 8) in Portico group compared to 0.9% in ES3 group (p = 0.11). Furthermore, implantation of the Portico valve was identified as a significant risk predictor for new PPM implantation, alongside higher age, preprocedural atrioventricular block (AVB) and longer total procedure duration.

Conclusion

This study shows significantly higher rates of early clinical complications for Portico valve prostheses compared to ES3. These findings should be especially taken into consideration when selecting valve prosthesis for high-risk patients.

Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Thrombosis: Definitions, Clinical Impact, and Management: A State-of-the-Art Review

Bioprosthetic aortic valve thrombosis is frequently detected after transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement due to advances in cardiac computed tomography angiography technology and standardized surveillance protocols in low-surgical-risk transcatheter aortic valve replacement trials. However, evidence is limited concerning whether subclinical leaflet thrombosis leads to clinical adverse events or premature structural valve deterioration. Furthermore, there may be net harm in the form of bleeding from aggressive antithrombotic treatment in patients with subclinical leaflet thrombosis. This review will discuss the incidence, mechanisms, diagnosis, and optimal management of bioprosthetic aortic valve thrombosis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement.

Initial Results of Intra-Annular Self-Expandable Valves: Insights From the OCEAN-TAVI Registry

Background

Navitor, an intra-annular self-expanding heart valve (IA-SEV), is the third transcatheter heart valve introduced in Japan (in April 2022) as the next generation of the Portico valve ahead of other Asian countries.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to assess the patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) after IA-SEV implantation in Asian patients.

Methods

All clinical data were collected from the database of an ongoing prospective Japanese multicenter registry (OCEAN-TAVI [Optimised Catheter Valvular Intervention transcatheter aortic valve implantation]). The primary endpoint was the rate of no PPM; the secondary endpoint included the rate of in-hospital mortality and hemodynamics after IA-SEV implantation.

Results

A total of 463 patients (median age 86; 69.7% female) were enrolled in the registry. The percentages of implanted valves sized 23 mm, 25 mm, 27 mm, and 29 mm were 26.1% (n = 121), 41.7% (n = 193), 22.9% (n = 106), and 9.3% (n = 43), respectively. The primary endpoint of no PPM was achieved in 91.7% of the entire cohort and in 87.3%, 94.2%, 91.4%, and 93.0% of each valve size. The rate of in-hospital mortality was 1.9%. Postprocedural mean pressure gradient was 8.3 ± 4.3 mm Hg. The overall rate of pacemaker implantation was 9.7%; the incidence of pacemaker rate tended to be reduced when dividing the first and second half of operator experiences (13.0% vs. 8.0%; P = 0.08).

Conclusions

The initial results for the IA-SEV were excellent regarding hemodynamics and reduction of paravalvular leakage regardless of valve size. The IA-SEV is a useful transcatheter heart valve, especially for Asian patients with a high prevalence of small annulus.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

FUNDING

Meril Life Sciences.

Routine postdilation after 23 mm Sapien 3 Ultra implantation in the aortic position

BACKGROUND

Residual transprosthetic gradient (TG) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with balloon-expandable valves (BEV) may be due to suboptimal valve expansion.

AIMS

To compare hemodynamics after TAVR with small BEV according to postdilation strategy.

METHODS

This observational, retrospective cohort study included 184 consecutive patients from a single center treated with 23 mm Sapien 3 Ultra (Edwards Lifesciences) BEV implantation in the aortic position and enrolled between January 2020 and April 2023. Patients treated with routine postdilation (RP, n = 73) were compared to patients treated according to local standard practice (SP, n = 111). Primary endpoint was 30-day mean TG. Secondary endpoints were incidence of 30-day prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), technical success and device success.

RESULTS

Thirty-day mean TG was lower in RP versus SP (12.3 ± 4.6 mmHg vs. 14.1 ± 5.7 mmHg, p = 0.031), and incidence of PPM was less common with RP versus SP (47.3% vs. 71.0%, p = 0.006). Technical success (98.6% vs. 99.1%, p = 0.637) and device success (93.1% vs. 90.1%, p = 0.330) did not differ between groups. Differences in 30-day mean TG were driven by patients at normal flow (12.1 ± 4.0 mmHg vs. 15.0 ± 5.5 mmHg, p = 0.014), while no differences were evident among patients at low flow (12.5 ± 5.5 mmHg vs. 11.7 ± 5.5 mmHg, p = 0.644). RP decreased height and increased width of BEV, and a linear regression established that final BEV width could predict 30-day mean TG (r = -0.6654, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

RP after TAVR with small BEV was associated with more favorable forward-flow hemodynamics than SP.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

ACURATE neo2 Versus SAPIEN 3 Ultra Transcatheter Heart Valve in Severe Aortic Valve Calcification: A Propensity-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Comparative data on transcatheter self-expanding ACURATE neo2 (NEO2) and balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 Ultra prostheses in technically challenging anatomy of severe aortic valve calcified aortic annuli are scarce.

METHODS

A total of 1987 patients with severe native aortic stenosis treated with the self-expanding NEO2 (n=1457) or balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 Ultra (n=530) from January 2017 to April 2023 were evaluated. The primary end point was procedural outcome according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 definitions. Propensity matching defined 219 pairs with severe calcification (calcium density cutoff, 758 AU/cm2) of the native aortic valve.

RESULTS

Technical success (90.4% versus 91.8%; risk difference, 1.4% [95% CI, -4.4 to -7.2]; P=0.737) and device success at 30 days (80.8% versus 75.8%; risk difference, -5.0% [95% CI, -13.2 to 3.1]; P=0.246) were comparable between NEO2 and SAPIEN 3 Ultra. The rate of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (1.1% versus 10.1%; risk difference, 10.0% [95% CI, 4.0-13.9]; P<0.001) and mean transvalvular gradient ≥20 mm Hg (2.8% versus 14.3%; risk difference, 11.5% [95% CI, 5.8-17.1]; P<0.001) was lower with NEO2. The rate of more-than-mild paravalvular leakage or valve-in-valve due to paravalvular leakage was significantly higher (6.2% versus 0.0%; risk difference, 6.2% [95% CI, -10.1 to -2.7]; P=0.002), and there was a tendency for a higher rate of device embolization or migration (1.8% versus 0.0%; risk difference, -1.8% [95% CI, -4.1 to 0.4]; P=0.123) with NEO2. Multivarate regression revealed no independent impact of transcatheter heart valve selection on device success (odds ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.48-1.77]; P=0.817).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severely calcified annuli, supraannular implantation of NEO2 showed hemodynamic advantages. Nevertheless, NEO2 was associated with a higher incidence of relevant paravalvular leakage and a numerically higher rate of device embolization than SAPIEN 3 Ultra in this particular patient group.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

FUNDING

JenaValve Technology.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A Mobile Thrombus Adhering to an Intra-Annular Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve

An 81-year-old woman who had undergone transcatheter aortic valve implantation 3 months earlier underwent routine follow-up transthoracic echocardiography, which revealed a mobile thrombus adhering to the bioprosthetic valve. This thrombus differed in morphology from transcatheter aortic valve implantation valve thrombi commonly seen in daily practice.

Valve Hemodynamics by Valve Size and 1-Year Survival Following Implantation of the Portico Valve in the Multicenter CONFIDENCE Registry

Background

The CONtrolled delivery For ImproveD outcomEs with cliNiCal Evidence registry was initiated to characterize the clinical safety and device performance from experienced transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) centers in Europe and Australia that use the Portico valve to treat patients with severe aortic stenosis. We herein report for the first time the valve performance at 30-day across all implanted valve sizes and the 1-year survival from this registry.

Methods

This was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm observational clinical investigation of patients clinically indicated for implantation of a Portico valve in experienced TAVI centers. Patients were treated with a commercially available valve (size 23, 25, 27, or 29 mm) using either the first-generation delivery system (DS) (n = 501) or the second-generation (FlexNav) DS (n = 500). Adverse events were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. Echocardiographic outcomes were assessed at 30 days by an independent core laboratory, and a survival check was performed at 1 year.

Results

We enrolled 1001 patients (82.0 years, 62.5% female, 63.7% New York Heart Association functional class III/IV at baseline) from 27 clinical sites in 8 countries across Europe and one site in Australia. Implantation of a single valve was successful in 97.5% of subjects. Valve hemodynamics at 30 days were substantially improved relative to baseline, with large aortic valve areas and low mean gradients across all implanted valve sizes (aortic valve areas were 1.7 ± 0.4, 1.7 ± 0.5, 1.8 ± 0.5, and 2.0 ± 0.5 cm2, and mean gradients were 7.0 ± 2.7, 7.5 ± 4.7, 7.3 ± 3.3, and 6.4 ± 3.3 mmHg for 23, 25, 27, and 29 mm valve sizes, respectively). Across all implanted valve sizes, most patients (77.1%) had no patient-prosthesis mismatch. Death from any cause within 1 year occurred in 13.7% of the patients in the first-generation DS group as compared with 11.0% in the second-generation DS group (p = 0.2).

Conclusions

The Portico valve demonstrated excellent hemodynamic performance across all valve sizes in a large cohort of subjects implanted in experienced TAVI centers. One-year survival rates were favorable when using both the first-generation and second-generation (FlexNav) DSs in this high-risk cohort.

ClinicalTrialsgov Identifier

NCT03752866.

Outcomes of repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement with balloon-expandable valves: a registry study

BACKGROUND

With increasing numbers of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), data on management of failed TAVR, including repeat TAVR procedure, are needed. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of redo-TAVR in a national registry.

METHODS

This study included all consecutive patients in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry from Nov 9, 2011, to Dec 30, 2022 who underwent TAVR with balloon-expandable valves in failed transcatheter heart valves (redo-TAVR) or native aortic valves (native-TAVR). Procedural, echocardiographic, and clinical outcomes were compared between redo-TAVR and native-TAVR cohorts using propensity score matching.

FINDINGS

Among 350 591 patients (1320 redo-TAVR; 349 271 native-TAVR), 1320 propensity-matched pairs of patients undergoing redo-TAVR and native-TAVR were analysed (redo-TAVR cohort: mean age 78 years [SD 9]; 559 [42·3%] of 1320 female, 761 [57·7%] male; mean predicted surgical risk of 30-day mortality 8·1%). The rates of procedural complications of redo-TAVR were low (coronary compression or obstruction: four [0·3%] of 1320; intraprocedural death: eight [0·6%] of 1320; conversion to open heart surgery: six [0·5%] of 1319) and similar to native-TAVR. There was no significant difference between redo-TAVR and native-TAVR populations in death at 30 days (4·7% vs 4·0%, p=0·36) or 1 year (17·5% vs 19·0%, p=0·57), and stroke at 30 days (2·0% vs 1·9%, p=0·84) or 1 year (3·2% vs 3·5%, p=0·80). Redo-TAVR reduced aortic valve gradients at 1 year, although they were higher in the redo-TAVR group compared with the native-TAVR group (15 mm Hg vs 12 mm Hg; p<0·0001). Moderate or severe aortic regurgitation rates were similar between redo-TAVR and native-TAVR groups at 1 year (1·8% vs 3·3%, p=0·18). Death or stroke after redo-TAVR were not significantly affected by the timing of redo-TAVR (before or after 1 year of index TAVR), or by index transcatheter valve type (balloon-expandable or non-balloon-expandable).

INTERPRETATION

Redo-TAVR with balloon-expandable valves effectively treated dysfunction of the index TAVR procedure with low procedural complication rates, and death and stroke rates similar to those in patients with a similar clinical profile and predicted risk undergoing TAVR for native aortic valve stenosis. Redo-TAVR with balloon-expandable valves might be a reasonable treatment for failed TAVR in selected patients.

FUNDING

Edwards Lifesciences.

Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Computed Tomography to Guide Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Randomized, Open-Label, Noninferiority Trial

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography (CT) is recommended for guiding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, a sizable proportion of TAVR candidates have chronic kidney disease, in whom the use of iodinated contrast media is a limitation. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is a promising alternative, but randomized data comparing the effectiveness of CMR-guided versus CT-guided TAVR are lacking.

METHODS

An investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial was conducted at 2 Austrian heart centers. Patients evaluated for TAVR according to the inclusion criteria (severe symptomatic aortic stenosis) and exclusion criteria (contraindication to CMR, CT, or TAVR, a life expectancy <1 year, or chronic kidney disease level 4 or 5) were randomized (1:1) to undergo CMR or CT guiding. The primary outcome was defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definition of implantation success at discharge, including absence of procedural mortality, correct positioning of a single prosthetic valve, and proper prosthetic valve performance. Noninferiority was assessed using a hybrid modified intention-to-treat/per-protocol approach on the basis of an absolute risk difference margin of 9%.

RESULTS

Between September 11, 2017, and December 16, 2022, 380 candidates for TAVR were randomized to CMR-guided (191 patients) or CT-guided (189 patients) TAVR planning. Of these, 138 patients (72.3%) in the CMR-guided group and 129 patients (68.3%) in the CT-guided group eventually underwent TAVR (modified intention-to-treat cohort). Of these 267, 19 patients had protocol deviations, resulting in a per-protocol cohort of 248 patients (121 CMR-guided, 127 CT-guided). In the modified intention-to-treat cohort, implantation success was achieved in 129 patients (93.5%) in the CMR group and in 117 patients (90.7%) in the CT group (between-group difference, 2.8% [90% CI, -2.7% to 8.2%]; P<0.01 for noninferiority). In the per-protocol cohort (n=248), the between-group difference was 2.0% (90% CI, -3.8% to 7.8%; P<0.01 for noninferiority).

CONCLUSIONS

CMR-guided TAVR was noninferior to CT-guided TAVR in terms of device implantation success. CMR can therefore be considered as an alternative for TAVR planning.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT03831087.

Early Safety and Performance of the Premounted Dry-Pericardium Vienna Self-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve System: 30-Day Outcomes of the First-in-Human VIVA Feasibility Study

The purpose of this first-in-human (FIH) study was to determine the safety and feasibility of the transfemoral premounted dry-pericardium Vienna Self-Expandable Supra-Annular Aortic Valve System. This novel system is repositionable and retrievable and comes already premounted on the delivery system, eliminating the need for assembly and crimping of the device before valve implantation. This is a prospective, nonrandomized, single-arm, single-center, first-stage FIH feasibility study, which will be followed by a second-stage pivotal, multicenter, multinational study in symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis. The first-stage FIH study evaluated the safety and feasibility of the device in 10 patients with severe aortic stenosis based on recommendations by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 for transcatheter aortic valve implantations. The mean patient age was 79 ± 5 years, 60% were male, and all patients were in New York Heart Association functional class II to III. The primary safety end point was successful when all patients were alive at 30-day follow-up. Device and technical success were observed in all patients. Two patients had a stroke, 1 of which occurred 5 days after the procedure. New permanent pacemakers were implanted in 2 patients (22.2%), of which only 1 was because of complete heart block. Only 1 patient (10%) had moderate paravalvular leak at 30 days. After the procedure, the mean aortic valve gradient decreased from 48.7 ± 10.8 mm Hg to 8.8 ± 4.3 mm Hg. In conclusion, this FIH feasibility study demonstrates successful procedural feasibility, with no 30-day mortality and favorable valve hemodynamic performance, leading to an improvement in quality of life. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04861805.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation with the Portico Valve: 2-Year Outcomes of a Multicenter, Real-World Registry

INTRODUCTION

The self-expanding, resheathable, repositionable transcatheter aortic heart valve Portico is being used successfully for transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedures (TAVI) in patients with severe aortic stenosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes at 2 years after TAVI with the Portico valve.

METHODS

Multicenter registry of clinical, echocardiographic and survival data from consecutive patients treated with the Portico TAVI system (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA) in three cath labs in Northern Greece and Epirus during 2017-2020. The primary end point was all-cause mortality at 24 months. Secondary end points included procedural outcomes (efficacy and safety) and echocardiographic measurements.

RESULTS

A total of 90 patients (81 ± 6 years, 50% females, mean age 81 ± 6 years) were included in the registry. The indication for implantation was severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis (NYHA III, IV) in eighty-two (91.1%) and degeneration of a prosthetic aortic valve in eight (8.9%) patients. All patients were categorized as high surgical risk (mean Logistic Euroscore 25.9 ± 10, Euroscore II 7.7 ± 4.4 and STS score 10.8 ± 8.9). The procedure was performed transfemorally in all patients, under general anesthesia in 95.6%, under TOE guidance in 21.1%, with native valve predilatation in 46.7%, and the "resheath" option was used in 31.1% of the cases. The implantation was successful in 97.8% and there was a need for a second valve in 2.2% of the cases. Complications included permanent pacemaker implantation (16.7%), access cite complications (15.6%), arrythmias (23.3%), paravalvular leak (moderate 7.8%, severe 1.1%), acute kidney injury (7.8%), no strokes and one death during the procedure. Aortic valve peak velocity, peak and mean pressure gradients, were significantly reduced after the procedure. All-cause mortality at 1, 12 and 24 months was 4.4%, 6.7% and 7.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVI with the Portico system comprises an effective and safe solution for the management of severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis in high-risk surgical patients.

Real-Life Performance and Clinical Outcomes of Portico Transcatheter Aortic Valve with FlexNav Delivery System: One-Year Data from a Single-Center Experience

Significant progress has been made in both valves and delivery systems (DSs) for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures. We aimed to present one-year real-life data regarding TAVR procedures using Portico transcatheter heart valves (THVs) with new-generation, low-profile FlexNav DSs. This retrospective, single-center study enrolled 169 consecutive patients (mean age: 75.8 years, 68% females) with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR with Portico THVs and FlexNav DSs between 2020 and 2021. We evaluated safety and efficacy outcomes, following the VARC-3 consensus, periprocedurally and at 30 days and 1 year. Procedural success was observed in 95.9% of cases, and no procedural mortality occurred. At 30 days, the rates of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and neurological events were 4.7%, 3.6%, and 3.0%, respectively. Additionally, major vascular complications, acute kidney injury, and bleeding were recorded at rates of 11.2%, 14.8%, and 7.7%, respectively. The 1-year data showed all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and neurological event rates of 10.7%, 8.3%, and 7.7%, respectively. The moderate paravalvular leak and permanent pacemaker rates at 1 year were 2.6% and 12.2%, respectively. This real-life data provided evidence of positive outcomes and high technical success with Portico THVs and FlexNav DSs. Furthermore, we found low rates of mortality and neurological events, with satisfactory hemodynamic and functional results.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with extra-small aortic annuli

BACKGROUND

A small aortic annulus (SAA) is a risk factor for prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) in patients undergoing surgical or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Data regarding TAVI in patients with extra-SAA are scarce.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to analyse the safety and efficacy of TAVI in patients with extra-SAA.

METHODS

A multicentre registry study including patients with extra-SAA (defined as an aortic annulus area <280 mm2 and/or perimeter <60 mm) undergoing TAVI was established. Primary efficacy and safety endpoints were defined as device success and early safety at 30 days, respectively, using the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria, and were analysed according to valve type: self-expanding (SEV) versus balloon-expandable (BEV).

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients were included, of which 139 (92.7%) were women, and 110 (73.3%) received an SEV. Intraprocedural technical success was 91.3%, with a higher rate in patients receiving an SEV (96.4% vs 77.5% with BEV; p=0.001). Overall, 30-day device success was 81.3%, (85.5% with SEV vs 70.0% with BEV; p=0.032). The primary safety endpoint occurred in 72.0% of patients (with no difference between groups; p=0.118). Severe PPM occurred in 12% (9.0% with SEV and 24.0% with BEV; p=0.039), with no impact on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or heart failure readmission at 2-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVI is a safe and feasible treatment in patients with extra-SAA with a high rate of technical success. The use of SEV was associated with a lower rate of intraprocedural complications, higher device success at 30 days and better haemodynamic outcomes compared to BEV.

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Comparison of the New-Generation Self-Expanding NAVITOR Transcatheter Heart Valve with Its Predecessor, the PORTICO, in Severe Native Aortic Valve Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Third-generation transcatheter heart valves (THVs) are designed to improve outcomes. Data on the new intra-annular self-expanding NAVITOR are scarce.

AIMS

The aim of this analysis was to compare outcomes between the PORTICO and the NAVITOR systems.

METHODS

Data from 782 patients with severe native aortic stenosis treated with PORTICO (n = 645) or NAVITOR (n = 137) from 05/2012 to 09/2022 were evaluated. The clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of 276 patients (PORTICO, n = 139; NAVITOR, n = 137) were evaluated according to VARC-3 recommendations.

RESULTS

Rates of postprocedural more-than-mild paravalvular leakage (PVL) were significantly lower for NAVITOR than for PORTICO (7.2% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.041). In addition, severe bleeding rates (27.3% vs. 13.1%, p = 0.005) and major vascular complications (5.8% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.036) were lower in the NAVITOR group. The mean gradients (7 vs. 8 mmHg, p = 0.121) and calculated aortic valve areas (1.90 cm² vs. 1.99 cm², p = 0.235) were comparable. Rates of PPI were similarly high in both groups (15.3 vs. 21.6, p = 0.299).

CONCLUSIONS

The NAVITOR demonstrated favorable in-hospital procedural outcome data, with lower rates of relevant PVL, major vascular complications, and severe bleeding than its predecessor the PORTICO and preserved favorable hemodynamic outcomes.

The Influence of the Learning Curve on Clinical Outcomes in Balloon-Expandable versus Self-Expandable Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

INTRODUCTION

Balloon-expandable (BE) and self-expandable (SE) prostheses are the main types of devices currently used in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Despite the different designs, clinical practice guidelines do not make any specific recommendation on the selection of one device over the other. Most operators are trained in using both BE and SE prostheses, but operator experience with each of the two designs might influence patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare the immediate and mid-term clinical outcomes during the learning curve in BE versus SE TAVI.

METHODS

The transfemoral TAVI procedures performed in a single center between July 2017 and March 2021 were grouped according to the type of implanted prosthesis. The procedures in each group were ordered according to the case sequence number. For each patient, a minimum follow-up time of 12 months was required for inclusion in the analysis. The outcomes of the BE TAVI procedures were compared with the outcomes of the SE TAVI procedures. Clinical endpoints were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3).

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 28 months. Each device group included 128 patients. In the BE group, case sequence number predicted mid-term all-cause mortality at an optimal cutoff value ≤58 procedures (AUC 0.730; 95% CI: 0.644-0.805; p < 0.001), while in the SE group, the cutoff value was ≤85 procedures (AUC 0.625; 95% CI: 0.535-0.710; p = 0.04). A direct comparison of the AUC showed that case sequence number was equally adequate in predicting mid-term mortality, irrespective of prosthesis type (p = 0.11). A low case sequence number was associated with an increased rate of VARC-3 major cardiac and vascular complications (OR 0.98 95% CI: 0.96-0.99; p = 0.03) in the BE device group, and with an increased rate of post-TAVI aortic regurgitation ≥ grade II (OR 0.98; 95% CI: 0.97-0.99; p = 0.03) in the SE device group.

CONCLUSIONS

In transfemoral TAVI, case sequence number influenced mid-term mortality irrespective of prosthesis type, but the learning curve was longer in the case of SE devices.

One-Year Results of the Portico Transcatheter Aortic Heart Valve Using the Next-Generation FlexNav Delivery System

Background

The FlexNav delivery system (DS) features a hydrophilic coating, stability layer, and integrated sheath to facilitate valve deployment in vessel diameters ≥5.0 mm.

Methods

Data were pooled from 2 concurrent prospective, multicenter, premarket studies (PORTICO IDE [n = 147] and FlexNav EU CE Mark [n = 46]) to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the FlexNav DS to deliver the Portico valve in the Global FlexNav study. The primary end point was Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 major vascular complication rate at 30 days. These outcomes were compared with those of the commercially available valve arm from the PORTICO IDE study.

Results

The Global FlexNav study enrolled 193 high- or extreme-risk subjects for sugery. The mean age was 84.8 years, and 59.6% were women, with a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 5.2%. At 1 year, the rate of all-cause mortality was 5.2%, disabling stroke 2.1%, and mild or less paravalvular leak 99.4%. The mean aortic gradient was maintained at 7.4 ± 4.3 mm Hg through 1 year. At 1 year, 96.8% of subjects were classified as New York Heart Association class I or II. A pacemaker was implanted in 15.4% of subjects at 30 days and 18.4% at 1 year. The results of the Portico valve in the Global FlexNav study are comparable with the results from the commercially available valve arm in the PORTICO IDE study.

Conclusion

The FlexNav DS was shown to be safe for the delivery of the Portico valve, which demonstrated sustained treatment benefits at 1 year with low rates of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke, improved heart failure symptoms, and excellent valve performance.

30-Day Outcomes With the Portico Transcatheter Heart Valve: Insights From a Multi-Centre Australian Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an established therapy for the treatment of aortic valve disease in appropriately selected patients. Previous studies using the self-expanding Portico transcatheter heart valve (THV), (Abbott Structural Heart, St Paul, MN, USA) have demonstrated the technical feasibility of this system albeit in the hands of relatively inexperienced Portico users. The objective of this study was to assess the real-world safety and efficacy of the Portico THV (with and without the FlexNav delivery system, Abbott Structural Heart) at the 30-day timepoint in an Australian cohort.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study was a retrospective real-world cohort analysis of 269 consecutive patients with severe aortic valve disease who underwent TAVI at multiple centres within Australia between February 2015 and April 2021. Of the 269 patients, 51.7% were female, mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score was 5.2 (±6.8) and 98.5% had successful implantations. Thirty (30)-day post-implantation all-cause mortality was observed in one (0.4%) patient, major vascular complications in two (0.7%) patients, more-than-mild paravalvular leak in six (2.2%) patients and requirement for new permanent pacemaker implantation in 27 (10.2%) patients. Haemodynamic parameters at 30 days included mean effective orifice area (EOA) of 2.3 (±0.9) cm² and mean aortic valve gradient (AVG) of 9.6 (±6.2) mmHg.

CONCLUSION

This analysis of the Portico THV in a real-world setting suggested that the system is associated with satisfactory safety and efficacy parameters. Previously published datasets may not have found similar findings owing to lower operator experience with the Portico THV system.

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.

Vascular management during transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), as an alternative to open heart surgery, has been established as the standard therapy for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. Vascular access management, the first step in a TAVR procedure, should be managed properly. Moreover, the transfemoral and alternatives such as the transaxillary/subclavian, transcarotid, transapical, and transcaval approaches are considered access routes during TAVR. More than 90% of cases can be treated via the transfemoral approach in the current TAVR era, whereas other approaches should be considered in patients in whom the transfemoral approach is not suitable. Vascular complications regardless of access route differences are a specific issue of TAVR caused by the use of large sheaths. With the increased number of TAVR cases, we must manage vascular complications and decrease the morbidity and mortality rates associated with TAVR procedures. Thus, this study aimed to review the vascular complications during TAVR and summarize their prognosis, prevention, and adequate management.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Managing complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

INTRODUCTION

Although transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a streamlined and standardized procedure, different complications still remain and need the operators to be properly trained about their management.

AREAS COVERED

This review article aims at offering a practical overview of the most impactful TAVI complications, analyzing, and discussing the potential risk factors, and focusing on the available strategies for their management.

EXPERT OPINION

Complications following TAVI have been decreasing thanks to technical advancements and operators experience. The thorough knowledge of potential complications and their prevention played a key role in the decreasing of complications rates. Pre-procedural, computed tomography angiography assessment of patient's anatomical characteristics, allows to properly choose and tailor the best strategy for managing complications in most of cases. Nevertheless, further research is required to shed lights about the optimal strategies to adopt for managing TAVI complications.

Comparison of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Devices in Aortic Stenosis: A Network Meta-Analysis of 42,105 Patients

Background: In recent years, trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an excellent alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Currently, there are several approved devices on the market, yet comparisons among them are scarce. We aimed to compare the various devices via a network meta-analysis. Methods: We performed a network meta-analysis including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-matched studies that provide comparisons of either a single TAVI with SAVR or two different TAVI devices and report clinical outcomes. Results: We included 12 RCT and 13 propensity-matched studies comprising 42,105 patients, among whom 27,134 underwent TAVI using various valve systems (Sapien & Sapien XT, Sapien 3, Corvalve, Evolut & Evolut Pro, Acurate Neo, Portico). The mean follow-up time was 23.4 months. Sapien 3 was superior over SAVR in the reduction of all-cause mortality (OR = 0.53; 95%CrI 0.31–0.91), while no significant difference existed between other devices and SAVR. Aortic regurgitation was more frequent among TAVI devices compared to SAVR. There was no significant difference between the various THVs and SAVR in cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, NYHA class III-IV, and endocarditis. Conclusions: Newer generation TAVI devices, especially Sapien 3 and Evolut R/Pro are associated with improved outcomes compared to SAVR and other devices of the older generation.

Two-year clinical outcomes after successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation with balloon-expandable versus self-expanding valves: A subanalysis of the GALILEO trial

BACKGROUND

Midterm data comparing clinical outcomes after successful implantation of self-expanding and balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves (THV) are limited. We aimed to compare 2-year outcomes after successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the Edwards balloon-expandable or the Medtronic self-expanding THV.

METHODS

Two-year outcomes were analyzed according to the implanted THV in the GALILEO trial. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) was a composite of all-cause death or thromboembolic events including stroke, myocardial infarction, symptomatic valve thrombosis, systemic embolism, deep-vein thrombosis, or pulmonary embolism.

RESULTS

Among 1644 patients recruited in 136 centers across 16 countries between 2015 and 2018, 499 received a self-expanding and 757 patients received a balloon-expandable THV. Patients treated with a self-expanding THV were more likely to be female, and had higher surgical risk, lower hemoglobin levels, and more frequent valve-in-valve procedures than those with a balloon-expandable THV. After multivariable adjustment, there were no significant differences in major clinical outcomes between self-expanding versus balloon-expandable THV: MACCE (17.0% vs. 13.4%, adjusted-hazard ratios [HR] 1.18, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.82-1.69); all-cause death (11.4% vs. 9.3%, adjusted-HR 1.26; 95% CI: 0.78-2.05); cardiovascular death (8.5% vs. 4.0%, adjusted-HR 1.53; 95% CI: 0.82-2.86), any stroke (5.1% vs. 3.7%, adjusted-HR 0.86; 95% CI: 0.43-1.73); major or life-threatening bleeding (5.9% vs. 6.8%, adjusted-HR 0.93; 95% CI: 0.53-1.63).

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov. NCT02556203.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-year follow-up data from the GALILEO trial indicate that successful TAVI either with self-expanding or balloon-expandable THVs according to physician discretion did not show difference in rates of MACCE.

Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Hemodynamics: Definitions, Outcomes, and Evidence Gaps: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

A virtual workshop was organized by the Heart Valve Collaboratory to identify areas of expert consensus, areas of disagreement, and evidence gaps related to bioprosthetic aortic valve hemodynamics. Impaired functional performance of bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement is associated with adverse patient outcomes; however, this assessment is complicated by the lack of standardization for labelling, definitions, and measurement techniques, both after surgical and transcatheter valve replacement. Echocardiography remains the standard assessment methodology because of its ease of performance, widespread availability, ability to do serial measurements over time, and correlation with outcomes. Management of a high gradient after replacement requires integration of the patient's clinical status, physical examination, and multimodality imaging in addition to shared patient decisions regarding treatment options. Future priorities that are underway include efforts to standardize prosthesis sizing and labelling for both surgical and transcatheter valves as well as trials to characterize the consequences of adverse hemodynamics.

Multi-Center Comparison of Two Self-Expanding Transcatheter Heart Valves: A Propensity Matched Analysis

Background: During the last years, several transcatheter aortic heart valves entered the clinical market and are commercially available. The prostheses differ regarding several technical and functional aspects. However, little is known regarding head-to-head comparative data of the ACURATE neo and the PORTICO valve prostheses. Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare two self-expanding transcatheter aortic heart valves (THV), the ACURATE neo and the PORTICO, with regard to in-hospital and 30-day outcomes, as well as early device failures. Methods: A total of 1591 consecutive patients with severe native aortic valve stenosis from two centers were included in the analyses and matched by 1:1 nearest neighbor matching to identify one patient treated with PORTICO (n = 344) for each patient treated with ACURATE neo (n = 344). Results: In-hospital complications were comparable between both valves, including any kind of stroke (ACURATE neo = 3.5% vs. PORTICO = 3.8%; p = 1.0), major vascular complications (ACURATE neo = 4.5% vs. PORTICO = 5.4%; p = 0.99) or life-threatening bleeding (ACURATE neo = 1% vs. PORTICO = 2%; p = 0.68). The rate of device failure defined by the VARC-2 criteria were comparable, including elevated gradients and moderate-to-severe paravalvular leakage (ACURATE neo = 7.3% vs. PORTICO = 7.6%; p = 1.0). However, the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) was significantly more frequent after the use of PORTICO THV (9.5% vs. 18.7%; p = 0.002). Conclusions: In this two-center case-matched comparison, short-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes showed comparable results between PORTICO and ACURATE neo prostheses. However, PORTICO was associated with a significant higher incidence of PPI.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the novel-generation Navitor device: Procedural and early outcomes

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has proved beneficial in patients with severe aortic stenosis, especially when second‐generation devices are used. We aimed at reporting our experience with Navitor, a third‐generation device characterized by intrannular, large cell, and cuffed design, as well as high deliverability and minimization of paravalvular leak. Between June and December 2021, a total of 39 patients underwent TAVI with Navitor, representing 20% of all TAVI cases. Mean age was 80.0 ± 6.7 years, and 14 (36.8%) women were included. Severe aortic stenosis was the most common indication to TAVI (37 [97.4%] cases), whereas 2 (5.3%) individuals were at low surgical risk. Device and procedural success was obtained in all patients, with a total hospital stay of 6.6 ± 4.5 days. One (2.9%) patient required permanent pacemaker implantation, but no other hospital events occurred. At 1‐month follow‐up, a cardiac death was adjudicated in an 87‐year‐old man who had been at high surgical risk. Echocardiographic follow‐up showed no case of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation, with mild regurgitation in 18 (47%), and none or trace regurgitation in 20 (53%). The Navitor device, thanks to its unique features, is a very promising technology suitable to further expand indications and risk‐benefit profile of TAVI.

Quantitative Angiographic Assessment of Aortic Regurgitation Following 11 TAVR Devices: An Update of a Multicenter Pooled Analysis

Background

Aortic regurgitation (AR) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a major predictor of short- and long-term survival. Thus far, no independent quantitative comparison of AR among commercially available transcatheter heart valves (THVs) has been performed.

Objectives

We sought to assess and compare the degree of acute AR following TAVR between 11 commercially available THVs and update our previous multicenter, pooled analysis.

Methods

Analyses were performed by an independent academic core lab using quantitative videodensitometry, a technique relying solely on the aortogram acquired after TAVR. The pooled analysis (n = 2665) included data from the initial cohort of 7 valves (Lotus [n = 546], Evolut PRO [n = 95], SAPIEN 3 [n = 397], Evolut R [n = 295], SAPIEN XT [n = 239], ACURATE neo [n = 120], and CoreValve [n = 532]) to which data from 4 new valves were added (ACURATE neo2 [n = 120], Myval [n = 108], VitaFlow [n = 105], and Venus-A [n = 113]).

Results

The Lotus valve had the lowest mean AR (3.5% ± 4.4%) followed by ACURATE neo2 (4.4% ± 4.8%), VitaFlow (6.1% ± 6.4%), Myval (6.3% ​± ​6.3%), Evolut PRO (7.4% ± 6.5%), SAPIEN 3 (7.6% ± 7.1%), Evolut R (7.9% ± 7.4%), SAPIEN XT (8.8% ± 7.5%), Venus-A (8.9% ​± ​10%), ACURATE neo (9.6% ± 9.2%), and CoreValve (13.7% ± 10.7%, analysis of variance P-value < .001). The only valves that statistically differed from all their counterparts were Lotus, with the lowest regurgitation in comparison to other valves except ACURATE neo2, which had less regurgitation compared with SAPIEN 3, Evolut R, SAPIEN XT, Venus-A, ACURATE neo, and CoreValve. CoreValve had the highest mean of AR, with the rates of moderate/severe AR: ACURATE neo2 (1.7%), Lotus (2.2%), Myval (2.8%), VitaFlow (4.7%), Evolut PRO (5.3%), SAPIEN 3 (8.3%), Evolut R (8.8%), SAPIEN XT (10.9%), ACURATE neo (11.3%), Venus-A (14.2%), and CoreValve (30.1%)-χ2 P-value < .001.

Conclusions

In this updated pooled analysis, the Lotus valve had the lowest mean AR, while ACURATE neo2 had the lowest rate of moderate/severe AR. Myval, VitaFlow, and Venus-A THVs showed promising results.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the cerebrovascular event incidence after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

OBJECTIVE

Periinterventional stroke is one of the most feared potential complication, among patients treated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The purpose of this review was to investigate the incidence of cerebrovascular events and the influence of postinterventional neurologic check-up in patients undergoing TAVI.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to the PRISMA guideline. Three separate electronic searches of the public domains Medline and Clinicaltrials.gov were performed to identify the 30-day incidence of stroke within randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and registries for patients undergoing a TAVI procedure. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the 30-day incidence of stroke within RCTs. Furthermore, we pooled the RCTs in which a scheduled neurological check-up was conducted or not to investigate the effect of this intervention.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies including 399,532,491 TAVI patients were included, 6370 from RCTs, 857,833 from cerebral-embolic protection device RCTs and 392,288 were adopted from registries. The mean 30-day incidence of stroke among all reviewed studies was 2.33%. In RCTs evaluating TAVI the pooled stroke incidence was 3.86%, among RCTs focused CEP the incidence was 6.4436% and in registries the incidence was 2.29%. Ten RCTs conducted scheduled neurological check-ups, the incidence in these was 4.03% and among the remaining RCTs it was 2.47%. In the meta-analysis, the pooled 30-day stroke incidence was 3.61% (95% CI 2.57-4.79%).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review demonstrates that the stroke incidences following TAVI differ strongly according to the study design and neurological follow-up. Intense neurological testing increases the incidence of a stroke after TAVI.