Reinterventions After CoreValve/Evolut Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Data on valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are limited.

OBJECTIVES

The authors compared the 5-year incidence of valve reintervention after self-expanding CoreValve/Evolut TAVR vs SAVR.

METHODS

Pooled data from CoreValve and Evolut R/PRO (Medtronic) randomized trials and single-arm studies encompassed 5,925 TAVR (4,478 CoreValve and 1,447 Evolut R/PRO) and 1,832 SAVR patients. Reinterventions were categorized by indication, timing, and treatment. The cumulative incidence of reintervention was compared between TAVR vs SAVR, Evolut vs CoreValve, and Evolut vs SAVR.

RESULTS

There were 99 reinterventions (80 TAVR and 19 SAVR). The cumulative incidence of reintervention through 5 years was higher with TAVR vs SAVR (2.2% vs 1.5%; P = 0.017), with differences observed early (≤1 year; adjusted subdistribution HR: 3.50; 95% CI: 1.53-8.02) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.48-2.28). The most common reason for reintervention was paravalvular regurgitation after TAVR and endocarditis after SAVR. Evolut had a significantly lower incidence of reintervention than CoreValve (0.9% vs 1.6%; P = 0.006) at 5 years with differences observed early (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12-0.73) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.21-1.74). The 5-year incidence of reintervention was similar for Evolut vs SAVR (0.9% vs 1.5%; P = 0.41).

CONCLUSIONS

A low incidence of reintervention was observed for CoreValve/Evolut R/PRO and SAVR through 5 years. Reintervention occurred most often at ≤1 year for TAVR and >1 year for SAVR. Most early reinterventions were with the first-generation CoreValve and managed percutaneously. Reinterventions were more common following CoreValve TAVR compared with Evolut TAVR or SAVR.

Quality of Life 5 Years Following Transfemoral TAVR or SAVR in Intermediate Risk Patients

BACKGROUND

Symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) sustain comparable improvements in health status over 5 years after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or SAVR. Whether a similar long-term benefit is observed among intermediate-risk AS patients is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess health status outcomes through 5 years in intermediate risk patients treated with a self-expanding TAVR prosthesis or SAVR using data from the SURTAVI (Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial.

METHODS

Intermediate-risk patients randomized to transfemoral TAVR or SAVR in the SURTAVI trial had disease-specific health status assessed at baseline, 30 days, and annually to 5 years using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). Health status was compared between groups using fixed effects repeated measures modelling.

RESULTS

Of the 1,584 patients (TAVR, n = 805; SAVR, n = 779) included in the analysis, health status improved more rapidly after TAVR compared with SAVR. However, by 1 year, both groups experienced large health status benefits (mean change in KCCQ-Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OS) from baseline: TAVR: 20.5 ± 22.4; SAVR: 20.5 ± 22.2). This benefit was sustained, albeit modestly attenuated, at 5 years (mean change in KCCQ-OS from baseline: TAVR: 15.4 ± 25.1; SAVR: 14.3 ± 24.2). There were no significant differences in health status between the cohorts at 1 year or beyond. Similar findings were observed in the KCCQ subscales, although a substantial attenuation of benefit was noted in the physical limitation subscale over time in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In intermediate-risk AS patients, both transfemoral TAVR and SAVR resulted in comparable and durable health status benefits to 5 years. Further research is necessary to elucidate the mechanisms for the small decline in health status noted at 5 years compared with 1 year in both groups. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System in the Treatment of Severe, Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [SURTAVI]; NCT01586910).

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 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.

Pulmonary Vein Isolation With or Without Left Atrial Appendage Ligation in Atrial Fibrillation: The aMAZE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Left atrial appendage elimination may improve catheter ablation outcomes for atrial fibrillation.

Objective

To assess the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous left atrial appendage ligation adjunctive to catheter pulmonary vein isolation for nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter, prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial evaluated the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous left atrial appendage ligation adjunctive to planned pulmonary vein isolation for nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation present for less than 3 years. Eligible patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to undergo left atrial appendage ligation and pulmonary vein isolation or pulmonary vein isolation alone. Use of a 2:1 randomization ratio was intended to provide more device experience and safety data. Patients were enrolled from October 2015 to December 2019 at 53 US sites, with the final follow-up visit on April 21, 2021.

Interventions

Left atrial appendage ligation plus pulmonary vein isolation compared with pulmonary vein isolation alone.

Main Outcomes and Measures

A bayesian adaptive analysis was used for primary end points. Primary effectiveness was freedom from documented atrial arrythmias of greater than 30 seconds duration 12 months after undergoing pulmonary vein isolation. Rhythm was assessed by Holter monitoring at 6 and 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation, symptomatic event monitoring, or any electrocardiographic tracing obtained through 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation. Primary safety was a composite of predefined serious adverse events compared with a prespecified 10% performance goal 30 days after the procedure. Left atrial appendage closure was evaluated through 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation.

Results

Overall, 404 patients were randomized to undergo left atrial appendage ligation plus pulmonary vein isolation and 206 were randomized to undergo pulmonary vein isolation alone. Primary effectiveness was 64.3% with left atrial appendage ligation and pulmonary vein isolation and 59.9% with pulmonary vein isolation only (difference, 4.3% [bayesian 95% credible interval, -4.2% to 13.2%]; posterior superiority probability, 0.835), which did not meet the statistical criterion to establish superiority (0.977). Primary safety was met, with a 30-day serious adverse event rate of 3.4% (bayesian 95% credible interval, 2.0% to 5.0%; posterior probability, 1.0) which was less than the prespecified threshold of 10%. At 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation, complete left atrial appendage closure (0 mm residual communication) was observed in 84% of patients and less than or equal to 5 mm residual communication was observed in 99% of patients.

Conclusions and Relevance

Percutaneous left atrial appendage ligation adjunctive to pulmonary vein isolation did not meet prespecified efficacy criteria for freedom from atrial arrhythmias at 12 months compared with pulmonary vein isolation alone for patients with nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation, but met prespecified safety criteria and demonstrated high rates of closure at 12 months.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02513797.

2-Year Clinical and Echocardiography Follow-Up of Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement With the Transapical Intrepid System

BACKGROUND

Thirty-day outcomes with the investigational Intrepid transapical (TA) transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) system have previously demonstrated good technical success, but longer-term outcomes in larger cohorts need to be evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to evaluate the 2-year safety and performance of the Intrepid TA-TMVR system in patients with symptomatic, ≥moderate-severe mitral regurgitation (MR) and high surgical risk.

METHODS

Patient eligibility was determined by local heart teams and approved by a central screening committee. Clinical events were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee. Echocardiography was evaluated by an independent core laboratory.

RESULTS

The cohort included 252 patients that were enrolled at 58 international sites before February 2021 as part of the global Pilot Study (n = 95) or APOLLO trial (primary cohort noneligible + TA roll-ins, n = 157). Mean age was 74.2 years, mean STS-PROM was 6.3%, 60.3% were male, and 80.6% were in NYHA functional class III/IV. Most presented with secondary MR (70.1%), and nearly all had ≥moderate-severe MR (98.4%). All-cause mortality was 13.1% (30-day), 27.3% (1-year), and 36.2% (2-year). The 30-day ≥major bleeding event rate was 22.3%. Heart failure rehospitalization was 9.6% (30-day) and 36.2% (2-year). At 2 years, >50% of patients were alive with improvement in NYHA functional class (82.1%, class I/II), and all patients with available echocardiograms had ≤mild MR.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis represents the largest reported TA-TMVR experience with the longest follow-up in high-risk ≥moderate-severe MR patients. Early mortality and heart failure rehospitalizations were significant, exacerbated by early TA-related bleeding events; however, meaningful improvements in clinical outcomes and marked reductions in MR severity were observed through 2 years.

Redo-TAVI with the ACURATE neo2 and Prime XL for balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve failure

BACKGROUND

There are limited data regarding treatment for failed balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in redo-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

AIMS

We aimed to assess THV performance, neoskirt height and expansion when performing redo-TAVI with the ACURATE platform inside a SAPIEN 3 (S3) compared to redo-TAVI with an S3 in an S3.

METHODS

Redo-TAVI was performed on the bench using each available size of the S3, the ACURATE neo2 (ACn2) and the next-generation ACURATE Prime XL (AC XL) implanted at 2 different depths within 20 mm/23 mm/26 mm/29 mm S3s serving as the "failed" index THV. Hydrodynamic testing was performed to assess THV function. Multimodality assessment was performed using photography, X-ray, microcomputed tomography (micro-CT), and high-speed videos.

RESULTS

The ACURATE in S3 combinations had favourable hydrodynamic performance compared to the S3 in S3 for all size combinations. In the 20 mm S3, redo-TAVI with the ACn2 had lower gradients compared to the S3 (mean gradient 16.3 mmHg for the ACn2 vs 24.7 mmHg for the 20 mm S3 in 20 mm S3). Pinwheeling was less marked for the ACURATE THVs than for the S3s. On micro-CT, the S3s used for redo-TAVI were underexpanded across all sizes. This was also observed for the ACURATE platform, but to a lesser extent.

CONCLUSIONS

Redo-TAVI with an ACn2/AC XL within an S3 has favourable hydrodynamic performance and less pinwheeling compared to an S3 in S3. This comes at the price of a taller neoskirt.

Clinical outcomes and the impact of valve morphology for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valves: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is present in approximately 0.5%-2% of the general population, causing significant aortic stenosis (AS) in 12%-37% of affected individuals. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is being considered the treatment of choice in patients with symptomatic AS across all risk spectra.

AIM

Aim Our study aims to compare TAVR outcomes in patients with BAV versus tricuspid aortic valves (TAV).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane trials. Studies were included if they included BAV and TAV patients undergoing TAVR with quantitative data available for at least one of our predefined outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed by the random-effects model using Stata software.

RESULTS

Fifty studies of 203,288 patients were included. BAV patients had increased 30-day all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 1.23 [1.00-1.50], p = 0.05), in-hospital stroke (OR = 1.39 [1.01-1.93], p = 0.05), in-hospital and 30-day PPI (OR = 1.13 [1.00-1.27], p = 0.04; OR = 1.16 [1.04-1.13], p = 0.01) and in-hospital, 30-day and 1-year aortic regurgitation (AR) (OR = 1.48 [1.19-1.83], p < 0.01; OR = 1.79 [1.26-2.52], p < 0.01; OR = 1.64 [1.03-2.60], p = 0.04). Subgroup analysis on new-generation valves showed a reduced 1-year all-cause mortality (OR = 0.86 [CI = 0.75-0.98], p = 0.03), despite higher in-hospital and 30-day PPI (OR = 0.1.21 [1.04-1.41], p = 0.01; OR = 1.17 [1.05-1.31], p = 0.01) and in-hospital AR (OR = 1.62 [1.14-2.31], p = 0.01) in the BAV group. The quality of included studies was moderate-to-high, and only three analyses presented high heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

TAVR is associated with comparable outcomes in patients with BAV and TAV. Careful selection of BAV cases by preprocedural assessment of valve anatomy and burden of calcification, pre- and post-procedural dilation, and implementing newer generations of valves may improve the safety and efficacy of TAVR in BAV patients.

3-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Randomized data comparing outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with surgery in low-surgical risk patients at time points beyond 2 years is limited. This presents an unknown for physicians striving to educate patients as part of a shared decision-making process.

OBJECTIVES

The authors evaluated 3-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes from the Evolut Low Risk trial.

METHODS

Low-risk patients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular valve or surgery. The primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke and several secondary endpoints were assessed at 3 years.

RESULTS

There were 1,414 attempted implantations (730 TAVR; 684 surgery). Patients had a mean age of 74 years and 35% were women. At 3 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 7.4% of TAVR patients and 10.4% of surgery patients (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.49-1.00; P = 0.051). The difference between treatment arms for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke remained broadly consistent over time: -1.8% at year 1; -2.0% at year 2; and -2.9% at year 3. The incidence of mild paravalvular regurgitation (20.3% TAVR vs 2.5% surgery) and pacemaker placement (23.2% TAVR vs 9.1% surgery; P < 0.001) were lower in the surgery group. Rates of moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation for both groups were <1% and not significantly different. Patients who underwent TAVR had significantly improved valve hemodynamics (mean gradient 9.1 mm Hg TAVR vs 12.1 mm Hg surgery; P < 0.001) at 3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the Evolut Low Risk study, TAVR at 3 years showed durable benefits compared with surgery with respect to all-cause mortality or disabling stroke. (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients; NCT02701283).

Clinical Impact of Standardized TAVR Technique and Care Pathway: Insights From the Optimize PRO Study

BACKGROUND

Procedural success and clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have improved, but residual aortic regurgitation (AR) and new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rates remain variable because of a lack of uniform periprocedural management and implantation.

OBJECTIVES

The Optimize PRO study evaluates valve performance and procedural outcomes using an "optimized" TAVR care pathway and the cusp overlap technique (COT) in patients receiving the Evolut PRO/PRO+ (Medtronic) self-expanding valves.

METHODS

Optimize PRO, a nonrandomized, prospective, postmarket study conducted in the United States, Canada, Europe, Middle East, and Australia, is enrolling patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and no pre-existing pacemaker. Sites follow a standardized TAVR care pathway, including early discharge and a conduction disturbance management algorithm, and transfemoral deployment using the COT.

RESULTS

A total of 400 attempted implants from the United States and Canada comprised the main cohort of this second interim analysis. The mean age was 78.7 ± 6.6 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons predictive risk of mortality was 3.0 ± 2.4. The median length of stay was 1 day. There were no instances of moderate or severe AR at discharge. At 30 days, all-cause mortality or stroke was 3.8%, all-cause mortality was 0.8%, disabling stroke was 0.7%, hospital readmission was 10.1%, and cardiovascular rehospitalization was 6.1%. The new PPI rate was 9.8%, 5.8% with 4-step COT compliance. In the multivariable model, right bundle branch block and the depth of the implant increased the risk of PPI, whereas using the 4-step COT lowered 30-day PPI.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the TAVR care pathway and COT resulted in favorable clinical outcomes with no moderate or severe AR and low PPI rates at 30 days while facilitating early discharge and reproducible outcomes across various sites and operators. (Optimize PRO; NCT04091048).

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.

Site-Level Variation and Predictors of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Following TAVR in the Evolut Low-Risk Trial

We evaluated predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) following self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), examined site-to-site variability of PPI rates, and explored the relationship of implantation methods on the need for PPI. Despite the benefits of TAVR compared to surgical aortic valve replacement, increased PPI remains a limitation. A total of 699 patients without baseline PPI were included in the study. Clinical, echocardiographic, and procedural characteristics were compared in patient with and without new PPI. Clinical outcomes were assessed at 30 days and 1 year. Funnel plots were constructed to display site-to- site variability and identify outliers in PPI. Clinical outcomes were similar in patients with and without PPI. Predictors of a new PPI within 7 days included a baseline right bundle branch block (p < 0.001) and not using general anesthesia (p = 0.003). There was substantial site to site variability in the rate of PPI. Patients at sites with a lower PPI rate had shallower implantation depth at the non-coronary (p < 0.001) and the left coronary sinus (p < 0.001), and fewer patients with an implantation depth > 5 mm below the annulus (p = 0.004). In low-risk patients undergoing TAVR with Evolut valves, baseline conduction disorders and implant depth were important predictors of PPI. Implantation method may have contributed to this variability in PPI rates across clinical sites.

Structural Valve Deterioration After Self-Expanding Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients at Intermediate or High Risk

Importance

The frequency and clinical importance of structural valve deterioration (SVD) in patients undergoing self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgery is poorly understood.

Objective

To evaluate the 5-year incidence, clinical outcomes, and predictors of hemodynamic SVD in patients undergoing self-expanding TAVI or surgery.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This post hoc analysis pooled data from the CoreValve US High Risk Pivotal (n = 615) and SURTAVI (n = 1484) randomized clinical trials (RCTs); it was supplemented by the CoreValve Extreme Risk Pivotal trial (n = 485) and CoreValve Continued Access Study (n = 2178). Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis deemed to be at intermediate or increased risk of 30-day surgical mortality were included. Data were collected from December 2010 to June 2016, and data were analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.

Interventions

Patients were randomized to self-expanding TAVI or surgery in the RCTs or underwent self-expanding TAVI for clinical indications in the nonrandomized studies.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was the incidence of SVD through 5 years (from the RCTs). Factors associated with SVD and its association with clinical outcomes were evaluated for the pooled RCT and non-RCT population. SVD was defined as (1) an increase in mean gradient of 10 mm Hg or greater from discharge or at 30 days to last echocardiography with a final mean gradient of 20 mm Hg or greater or (2) new-onset moderate or severe intraprosthetic aortic regurgitation or an increase of 1 grade or more.

Results

Of 4762 included patients, 2605 (54.7%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 82.1 (7.4) years. A total of 2099 RCT patients, including 1128 who received TAVI and 971 who received surgery, and 2663 non-RCT patients who received TAVI were included. The cumulative incidence of SVD treating death as a competing risk was lower in patients undergoing TAVI than surgery (TAVI, 2.20%; surgery, 4.38%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.78; P = .004). This lower risk was most pronounced in patients with smaller annuli (23 mm diameter or smaller; TAVI, 1.32%; surgery, 5.84%; HR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.73; P = .02). SVD was associated with increased 5-year all-cause mortality (HR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.46-2.82; P < .001), cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.20-2.90; P = .006), and valve disease or worsening heart failure hospitalizations (HR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.23-3.84; P = .008). Predictors of SVD were developed from multivariate analysis.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found a lower rate of SVD in patients undergoing self-expanding TAVI vs surgery at 5 years. Doppler echocardiography was a valuable tool to detect SVD, which was associated with worse clinical outcomes.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01240902, NCT01586910, and NCT01531374.

Self-expanding Transcatheter vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients: 5-Year Outcomes of the SURTAVI Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

In patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding supra-annular valve was noninferior to surgery for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Comparisons of longer-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in these patients are limited.

Objective

To report prespecified secondary 5-year outcomes from the Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement (SURTAVI) randomized clinical trial.

Design, Setting, and Participants

SURTAVI is a prospective randomized, unblinded clinical trial. Randomization was stratified by investigational site and need for revascularization determined by the local heart teams. Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis deemed to be at intermediate risk of 30-day surgical mortality were enrolled at 87 centers from June 19, 2012, to June 30, 2016, in Europe and North America. Analysis took place between August and October 2021.

Intervention

Patients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular transcatheter or a surgical bioprosthesis.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The prespecified secondary end points of death or disabling stroke and other adverse events and hemodynamic findings at 5 years. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated all serious adverse events and an independent echocardiographic core laboratory evaluated all echocardiograms at 5 years.

Results

A total of 1660 individuals underwent an attempted TAVR (n = 864) or surgical (n = 796) procedure. The mean (SD) age was 79.8 (6.2) years, 724 (43.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgery Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 4.5% (1.6%). At 5 years, the rates of death or disabling stroke were similar (TAVR, 31.3% vs surgery, 30.8%; hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.85-1.22]; P = .85). Transprosthetic gradients remained lower (mean [SD], 8.6 [5.5] mm Hg vs 11.2 [6.0] mm Hg; P < .001) and aortic valve areas were higher (mean [SD], 2.2 [0.7] cm2 vs 1.8 [0.6] cm2; P < .001) with TAVR vs surgery. More patients had moderate/severe paravalvular leak with TAVR than surgery (11 [3.0%] vs 2 [0.7%]; risk difference, 2.37% [95% CI, 0.17%- 4.85%]; P = .05). New pacemaker implantation rates were higher for TAVR than surgery at 5 years (289 [39.1%] vs 94 [15.1%]; hazard ratio, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.61-4.17]; log-rank P < .001), as were valve reintervention rates (27 [3.5%] vs 11 [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.10-4.45]; log-rank P = .02), although between 2 and 5 years only 6 patients who underwent TAVR and 7 who underwent surgery required a reintervention.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, major clinical outcomes at 5 years were similar for TAVR and surgery. TAVR was associated with superior hemodynamic valve performance but also with more paravalvular leak and valve reinterventions.

Functional Status After Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: 2-Year Analysis From the SURTAVI Trial

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to evaluate patient-centered metrics in intermediate-surgical-risk aortic stenosis patients enrolled in the SURTAVI (Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial treated with self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgery.

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown TAVR to be an alternative to surgery in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis but have focused on "hard endpoints," including all-cause mortality and stroke, rather than on comparative patient-centered metrics, such as functional status and symptom burden.

METHODS

The study analyzed functional status (6-minute walk test [6MWT]) and symptom burden (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire) in 1,492 patients from the SURTAVI trial at baseline, 30 days, 1 year, and 2 years. Patients were categorized by baseline functional status into tertiles of slow, medium, and fast walkers.

RESULTS

Patients with lowest capacity baseline functional status were commonly women, had higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores, and had more New York Heart Association functional class III or IV symptoms; reduced baseline functional status was associated with higher aortic valve- and heart failure-related hospitalization at 2 years. There was greater improvement in 6MWT distance in TAVR compared with surgery patients at 30 days (P < 0.001) and 1 year (P = 0.012), but at 2 years, both groups had similar improvement (P = 0.091). The percentage of patients with large improvement in 6MWT was greatest in patients categorized as slow walkers and lowest in fast walkers. Symptom burden improved after TAVR at 30 days and after both procedures at 1 and 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

In this substudy of patients from the SURTAVI trial, patients receiving TAVR demonstrated a more rapid improvement in functional status and symptom burden compared with patients undergoing surgery; however, both groups had similar improvements in long-term follow-up. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System in the Treatment of Severe, Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [SURTAVI]; NCT01586910).

2-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients

BACKGROUND

The Evolut Low Risk Trial (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients) showed that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a supra-annular, self-expanding valve was noninferior to surgery for the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. This finding was based on a Bayesian analysis performed after 850 patients had reached 1 year of follow-up.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to report the full 2-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes for patients enrolled in the Evolut Low Risk Trial.

METHODS

A total of 1,414 low-surgical risk patients with severe aortic stenosis were randomized to receive TAVR or surgical AVR. An independent clinical events committee adjudicated adverse events, and a central echocardiographic core laboratory assessed hemodynamic endpoints.

RESULTS

An attempted implant was performed in 730 TAVR and 684 surgical patients from March 2016 to May 2019. The Kaplan-Meier rates for the complete 2-year primary endpoint of death or disabling stroke were 4.3% in the TAVR group and 6.3% in the surgery group (P = 0.084). These rates were comparable to the interim Bayesian rates of 5.3% with TAVR and 6.7% with surgery (difference: -1.4%; 95% Bayesian credible interval: -4.9% to 2.1%). All-cause mortality rates were 3.5% vs 4.4% (P = 0.366), and disabling stroke rates were 1.5% vs 2.7% (P = 0.119), respectively. Between years 1 and 2, there was no convergence of the primary outcome curves.

CONCLUSIONS

The complete 2-year follow-up from the Evolut Low Risk Trial found that TAVR is noninferior to surgery for the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke, with event rates that were slightly better than those predicted by using the Bayesian analysis. (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients [Evolut Low Risk Trial]; NCT02701283).

Conventional versus modified delivery system technique in commissural alignment from the Evolut low-risk CT substudy

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the impact of conventional delivery system (DS) insertion technique on "Hat-marker" orientation/commissural alignment in patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in the Evolut Low Risk Trial CT substudy versus a modified technique.

BACKGROUND

Unlike surgical aortic valve replacement, where alignment of the surgical valve commissures with native commissures can be achieved virtually 100% of the time, commissural alignment during TAVR is not achieved consistently. This may subsequently impact the feasibility of both coronary access and reintervention after TAVR.

METHODS

"Hat-marker" orientations during deployment were characterized as outer curve (OC), center front (CF), inner curve, and center back. Severe commissure-to-CA overlap was 0-20°. "Hat-marker" orientations and CA overlap were compared to 240 patients from a single center using the modified 3-o'clock flush port DS technique.

RESULTS

In the CT substudy in which conventional DS insertion was performed (flush port at 12 o'clock); 154/249 had both analyzable CT and procedural fluoroscopy to validate "Hat-marker" to C-tab/commissural orientation. On post-TAVR CT, Evolut valve commissural orientation and coronary artery (CA) ostia were identified. Compared to conventional DS technique in the CT substudy, the modified technique had higher rates of "Hat-marker" at OC/CF orientation, improved commissural alignment and reduced severe CA overlap; (left main, 14.2 vs. 27.9%; right coronary artery, 11.7 vs. 27.3% both, 5.0 vs. 13.6%; 1 or both CA, 20.8 vs. 41.6%, all p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The modified technique improved initial "Hat-marker" orientation during Evolut deployment and resulted in better commissural alignment and reduced CA overlap.

Incidence and Outcomes of Infective Endocarditis After Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

Data comparing the frequency and outcomes of infective endocarditis (IE) after transcatheter (TAVR) to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are scarce. The objective of this study is to compare the incidence and outcomes of IE after TAVR using a supra‐annular, self‐expanding platform (CoreValve and Evolut) to SAVR.

Methods and Results

Data of 3 randomized clinical trials comparing TAVR to SAVR and a prospective continued TAVR access study were pooled. IE was defined on the basis of the modified Duke criteria. The cumulative incidence of IE was determined by modeling the cause‐specific hazard. Estimates of all‐cause mortality were calculated by means of the Kaplan–Meier method. Outcomes are reported for the valve‐implant cohort. During a mean follow‐up time of 2.17±1.51 years, 12 (0.5%) of 2249 patients undergoing TAVR and 21 (1.1%) of 1828 patients undergoing SAVR developed IE. Patients with IE more frequently had diabetes mellitus than those without (57.6% versus 34.2%; P=0.005). The cumulative incidence of IE was 1.01% (95% CI, 0.47%–1.96%) after TAVR and 1.58% (95% CI, 0.97%–2.46%) after SAVR (P=0.047) at 5 years. Among patients with IE, the rate of all‐cause mortality was 27.3% (95% CI, 1.0%–53.6%) in the TAVR and 51.8% (95% CI, 28.2%–75.3%) in the SAVR group at 1 year (log‐rank P=0.15).

Conclusions

Pooled prospectively collected data comparing TAVR with a supra‐annular, self‐expanding device to SAVR showed a low cumulative risk of IE irrespective of treatment modality, although the risk was lower in the TAVR implant group. Once IE occurred, mortality was high.

Registration

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT01240902, NCT01586910, NCT02701283.

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

Background

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

Methods and Results

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

Conclusions

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

Hot topics in interventional cardiology: Proceedings from the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions (SCAI) 2021 think tank

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) Think Tank is a collaborative venture that brings together interventional cardiologists, administrative partners, and select members of the cardiovascular industry community annually for high-level field-wide discussions. The 2021 Think Tank was organized into four parallel sessions reflective of the field of interventional cardiology: (a) coronary intervention, (b) endovascular medicine, (c) structural heart disease, and (d) congenital heart disease. Each session was moderated by a senior content expert and co-moderated by a member of SCAI's Emerging Leader Mentorship program. This document presents the proceedings to the wider cardiovascular community in order to enhance participation in this discussion, create additional dialog from a broader base, and thereby aid SCAI, the industry community and external stakeholders in developing specific action items to move these areas forward.

Five-Year Clinical and Quality of Life Outcomes From the CoreValve US Pivotal Extreme Risk Trial

[Figure: see text].

Surgical sutureless and sutured aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials have shown that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is noninferior to surgery in low surgical risk patients. We compared outcomes in patients treated with a sutured (stented or stentless) or sutureless surgical valve from the Evolut Low Risk Trial.

METHODS

The Evolut Low Risk Trial enrolled patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk. Patients were randomized to self-expanding TAVR or surgery. Use of sutureless or sutured valves was at the surgeons' discretion.

RESULTS

There were 680 patients who underwent surgical aortic valve implantation (205 sutureless, 475 sutured). The VARC-2 30-day safety composite endpoint was similar in the sutureless and sutured group (10.8% vs 11.0%, P=.93). All-cause mortality between groups was similar between groups at 30 days (0.5% vs 1.5%, P=.28) and 1 year (3.3% vs 2.6%, P=.74). Disabling stroke was also similar at 30 days (2.0% vs 1.5%, P=.65) and 1 year (2.6% vs 2.2%, P=.76). Permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days was significantly higher in the sutureless compared with the sutured group (14.4% vs 2.9%, P<.001). AV-related hospitalizations occurred more often at 1 year with sutureless valves (9.1% vs 5.1%, P=.04). Mean gradients 1 year after sutureless and sutured AVR were 9.9±4.2 vs 11.7±4.7mm Hg (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Among low-risk patients, sutureless versus sutured valve use did not demonstrate a benefit in terms of 30-day complications and produced marginally better hemodynamics, but with an increased rate of pacemaker implantation and valve-related hospitalizations.

Three-Year Outcomes With a Contemporary Self-Expanding Transcatheter Valve From the Evolut PRO US Clinical Study

BACKGROUND

Paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. PVR continues to plague TAVR jeopardizing long-term results. New device iterations, such as the self-expandable Evolut PRO valve, aim to decrease PVR while maintaining optimal hemodynamics. This study sought to evaluate clinical and hemodynamic performance of the Evolut PRO system at 3 years.

METHODS

The Evolut PRO US Clinical Study included 60 patients at high or extreme surgical risk undergoing TAVR with the Evolut PRO valve at 8 centers in the United States. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 criteria and included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, disabling stroke and valve complications. An independent core laboratory centrally assessed all echocardiographic measures.

RESULTS

At 3 years, all-cause mortality was 25.8% (cardiovascular mortality 16.5%) and the disabling stroke rate was 10.7%. There were no cases of repeat valve intervention, endocarditis or coronary obstruction. Valve thrombosis was identified in 1 patient 2 years post-procedure and was treated medically. Hemodynamics at 3 years included a mean gradient of 7.2 ± 4.5 mm Hg, an effective orifice area of 2.0 ± 0.5 cm², and 88.2% of patients had no or trace PVR. The remaining patients had mild PVR. Most of the surviving patients (80.6%) had New York Heart Association class I symptoms at 3 years.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes at 3-years following TAVR with a contemporary self-expanding prosthesis are favorable, with no signal of valve deterioration, excellent hemodynamics including very low prevalence of PVR.

Overcoming the transcatheter aortic valve replacement Achilles heel: coronary re-access

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for the treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS). Coronary artery disease (CAD) is common in patients with severe AS. As the indications for TAVR extend to lower risk patients with longer life expectancy and as CAD is a progressive condition, coronary angiography will become increasingly common in patients who have had a previous TAVR. Coronary artery re-access after TAVR may be challenging but is possible in most cases. Commissural alignment of the prosthesis with the native coronary ostia plays an important role in successful coronary re-access. Coronary artery obstruction is a potentially devastating complication of TAVR, particularly in valve-in-valve procedures. In the present keynote lecture, we review techniques used to mitigate the risk of coronary obstruction, as well as catheter selection and strategies for selective coronary artery engagement for specific transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) bioprostheses.

Five-Year Health Status After Self-expanding Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in High-risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis

Importance

In the CoreValve High-Risk Trial, patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis had similar clinical outcomes with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) over 5 years of follow-up, with mortality rates of more than 50% in both groups.

Objective

To describe the long-term health status of surviving patients randomized to self-expanding TAVR vs SAVR.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This randomized clinical trial included patients at high surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis who completed a baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and were randomized to either self-expanding TAVR or SAVR from 45 US clinical sites. Patients were enrolled from February 2011 to September 2012. Analysis began May 2018 and ended June 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Change in KCCQ and the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey over 5 years, as assessed by repeated-measures analysis of covariance. Because there were significant interactions between access site and treatment for 1-month health status outcomes, all analyses were stratified by access site (iliofemoral or noniliofemoral).

Results

Of 713 patients, 377 (53%) were men, and the mean (SD) age was 83 (7) years. Prior to treatment, the mean (SD) KCCQ overall summary score (range, 0-100; higher score indicated better health status) was 47 (23), indicating substantial health status impairment. Among surviving patients, the KCCQ overall summary score increased significantly in both groups with greater early benefit with iliofemoral TAVR than SAVR (1-month difference, 16.8 points; 95% CI, 12.4-21.2). However, this early treatment difference between TAVR and SAVR was no longer apparent by 6 months, and there was no significant difference in health status between groups thereafter. At 5 years, 44% (134 of 305) of patients who underwent iliofemoral TAVR and 39% (105 of 266) who underwent SAVR were alive in this high-risk elderly cohort. Among surviving patients for whom health status data were available, 61% (48 of 79) in the TAVR group and 65% (46 of 71) in the SAVR group had KCCQ overall summary score more than 60 (P = .61). In the noniliofemoral cohort, there were no significant health status differences at any time between TAVR and SAVR. Results were similar for individual KCCQ domains and the Short-Form Health Survey.

Conclusions and Relevance

In high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, there was an early health status benefit with self-expanding iliofemoral TAVR vs SAVR but no difference between groups in long-term health status. Although mortality at 5 years was high in this population, the majority of surviving patients continued to report reasonable health status.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01240902.

Impact of Repositioning on Outcomes Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With a Self-Expandable Valve

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement when valve repositioning was performed (repositioned group) versus procedures without repositioning (nonrepositioned group).

BACKGROUND

The Evolut R and Evolut PRO valves were designed to allow repositioning during deployment, yet the effect of repositioning on clinical outcomes remains unclear.

METHODS

Patients implanted with the Evolut R or PRO valve from the SURTAVI (Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial continued access study and the Evolut Low Risk Trial between June 2016 and November 2018 were combined. Baseline multidetector computed tomography data were analyzed for the Evolut Low Risk Trial patients. The primary outcomes were the rate of all-cause mortality and the rate of disabling stroke 30 days. Secondary outcomes were per Valve Academic Research Consortium-2.

RESULTS

The Evolut R or PRO valve was implanted in 946 patients, and repositioning was performed in 318 (33.6%). Compared with patients in the nonrepositioned group, patients in the repositioned group had lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (2.3 ± 1.3% vs. 2.6 ± 1.4%; p < 0.001) and fewer prior percutaneous coronary interventions (11.9% vs. 19.7%; p = 0.003). There were no differences in baseline multidetector computed tomography parameters between groups. There were no differences in the primary outcome of death (0.3% vs. 0.3%; p = 0.99) or disabling stroke (0.3% vs. 0.5%; p = 0.71) at 30 days or 1 year (1.9% vs. 2.9%; p = 0.44; and 0.8% vs. 0.9%%; p = 0.79, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The utilization of the repositioning feature of the Evolut valves was safe, and no differences in death or disabling stroke were observed at 30 days or 1 year between groups. (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients; NCT02701283; Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System In the Treatment of Severe, Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [SURTAVI]; NCT01586910).

Comparison of Outcomes After Transcatheter vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Among Patients at Intermediate Operative Risk With a History of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Post Hoc Analysis of the SURTAVI Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has increased risk for patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and a history of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be an alternative.

Objective

To compare TAVR with SAVR outcomes in patients at intermediate operative risk with prior CABG surgery.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this post hoc analysis of the Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (SURTAVI) noninferiority randomized clinical trial, patients with severe, symptomatic AS at intermediate operative risk were enrolled from 87 centers across the United States, Europe, and Canada from June 2012 to June 2016 and followed-up with up to July 2017. Those with a history of CABG surgery were considered for analysis. Data were analyzed from September to December 2017.

Interventions

A total of 1746 patients were enrolled and randomized 1:1 to self-expanding TAVR or SAVR. An implant was attempted in 1660 patients, of whom 273 had prior CABG surgery, including 136 who underwent attempted TAVR and 137 who underwent attempted SAVR.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 1-year follow-up. Efficacy outcomes included quality of life, measured using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire at 30 days, 6 months, and 1 year, and distance walked in 6 minutes, measured using the 6-minute walk test at 30 days and 1 year.

Results

Of the 136 patients in the TAVR cohort, 111 (81.6%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 76.9 (6.5) years; of the 137 in the SAVR cohort, 117 (85.4%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 76.6 (6.5) years. The mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 5.0% (1.6%) in the TAVR cohort and 5.2% (1.7%) in the SAVR cohort. All-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 1-year follow-up was 8.9% (95% CI, 5.2-15.2) in the TAVR cohort and 6.7% (95% CI, 3.5-12.8) in the SAVR cohort (log-rank P = .53). Compared with patients receiving SAVR, the mean (SD) Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire summary score was significantly better among patients receiving TAVR at 30 days (81.4 [19.2] vs 69.7 [22.6]; P < .001); treatments were similar at 1 year (85.7 [14.6] vs 82.8 [18.4]; P = .19). Compared with patients in the SAVR cohort, those in the TAVR cohort showed greater mean (SD) improvement in distance walked at 1 year (48.3 [120.6] m vs 16.8 [88.7] m; P = .04).

Conclusions and Relevance

Both TAVR and SAVR were safe for intermediate-risk patients with AS and prior CABG surgery. The transcatheter approach facilitated faster improvement in quality of life and better exercise capacity at 1-year follow-up.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01586910.

Computed Tomography Annular Dimensions: A Novel Method to Compare Prosthetic Valve Hemodynamics

BACKGROUND

The Cardiac Surgical Societies Valve Labeling Task Force consensus document acknowledged inconsistent sizing and labeling of prosthetic heart valves. This study compared the labeled size, internal diameter, and hemodynamics of different surgical and transcatheter valve types implanted into the same size annulus, measured by preprocedural computed tomography (CT).

METHODS

Patients were retrospectively sorted into 3 CT annular diameter size groups: small (less than 23 mm), medium (23 to less than 26 mm), and large (26 mm or greater). Surgical valves were sorted into 4 categories based on tissue and design: (stentless porcine, standard stented bovine, wraparound stented bovine, and stented porcine). Comparisons were made within the surgical types and with a transcatheter valve. Echocardiograms were independently assessed and CTs were centrally measured.

RESULTS

We analyzed 726 surgical and 923 transcatheter valve paired data sets. Among the various valve types implanted into the same size CT annulus, there were significant differences regarding size, internal diameter, and hemodynamics within all 3 size groups. Root enlargement procedures occurred in 1.2% with no differences across valve types or size groups. Transcatheter valve hemodynamics were similar to stentless valves and were significantly better than all stented valves. There was no difference in hemodynamics between the 2 bovine stented valve types, and stented porcine valves were inferior to all valve types.

CONCLUSIONS

This study documents that prosthetic heart valve sizing and labeling inconsistencies exist. Use of preoperative CT annular dimensions is the most accurate method to compare size, internal diameter, and hemodynamics of bioprosthetic aortic valves because it compares values among various valve types implanted into the same size annulus.

The initial U.S. experience with the Tempo active fixation temporary pacing lead in structural heart interventions

OBJECTIVES

This multicenter retrospective study of the initial U.S. experience evaluated the safety and efficacy of temporary cardiac pacing with the Tempo® Temporary Pacing Lead.

BACKGROUND

Despite increasing use of temporary cardiac pacing with the rapid growth of structural heart procedures, temporary pacing leads have not significantly improved. The Tempo lead is a new temporary pacing lead with a soft tip intended to minimize the risk of perforation and a novel active fixation mechanism designed to enhance lead stability.

METHODS

Data from 269 consecutive structural heart procedures were collected. Outcomes included device safety (absence of clinically significant cardiac perforation, new pericardial effusion, or sustained ventricular arrhythmia) and efficacy (clinically acceptable pacing thresholds with successful pace capture throughout the index procedure). Postprocedure practices and sustained lead performance were also analyzed.

RESULTS

The Tempo lead was successfully positioned in the right ventricle and achieved pacing in 264 of 269 patients (98.1%). Two patients (0.8%) experienced loss of pace capture. Procedural mean pace capture threshold (PCT) was 0.7 ± 0.8 mA. There were no clinically significant perforations, pericardial effusions, or sustained device-related arrhythmias. The Tempo lead was left in place postprocedure in 189 patients (71.6%) for mean duration of 43.3 ± 0.7 hr (range 2.5-221.3 hr) with final PCT of 0.84 ± 1.04 mA (n = 80). Of these patients, 84.1% mobilized out of bed with no lead dislodgment.

CONCLUSION

The Tempo lead is safe and effective for temporary cardiac pacing for structural heart procedures, provides stable peri and postprocedural pacing and allows mobilization of patients who require temporary pacing leads.

Left Atrial Appendage Closure: Technical Considerations of Endocardial Closure

Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a safe and effective therapy for the prevention of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and high bleeding risk with oral anticoagulants. Multimodality imaging with transesophageal echocardiography and computed tomography angiography to define the anatomy and its implications on endocardial exclusion is becoming increasingly important. The only LAAC device currently approved for clinical use in the United States is the WATCHMAN device. Systematic assessment of the transseptal crossing site, left atrial appendage anatomy, adequate device size selection, and device postdeployment evaluation is essential for the safety and efficacy of the procedure.

Comparison of a Complete Percutaneous Versus Surgical Approach to Aortic Valve Replacement and Revascularization in Patients at Intermediate Surgical Risk: Results From the Randomized SURTAVI Trial

BACKGROUND

For patients with severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease, the completely percutaneous approach to aortic valve replacement and revascularization has not been compared with the standard surgical approach.

METHODS

The prospective SURTAVI trial (Safety and Efficiency Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Severe, Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement) enrolled intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis from 87 centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe between June 2012 and June 2016. Complex coronary artery disease with SYNTAX score (Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery Trial) >22 was an exclusion criterion. Patients were stratified according to the need for revascularization and then randomly assigned to treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Patients assigned to revascularization in the TAVR group underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, whereas those in the SAVR group had coronary artery bypass grafting. The primary end point was the rate of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years.

RESULTS

Of 1660 subjects with attempted aortic valve implants, 332 (20%) were assigned to revascularization. They had a higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score for mortality (4.8±1.7% versus 4.4±1.5%; P<0.01) and were more likely to be male (65.1% versus 54.2%; P<0.01) than the 1328 patients not assigned to revascularization. After randomization to treatment, there were 169 patients undergoing TAVR and percutaneous coronary intervention, 163 patients undergoing SAVR and coronary artery bypass grafting, 695 patients undergoing TAVR, and 633 patients undergoing SAVR. No significant difference in the rate of the primary end point was found between TAVR and percutaneous coronary intervention and SAVR and coronary artery bypass grafting (16.0%; 95% CI, 11.1-22.9 versus 14.0%; 95% CI, 9.2-21.1; P=0.62), or between TAVR and SAVR (11.9%; 95% CI, 9.5-14.7 versus 12.3%; 95% CI, 9.8-15.4; P=0.76).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients at intermediate surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis and noncomplex coronary artery disease (SYNTAX score ≤22), a complete percutaneous approach of TAVR and percutaneous coronary intervention is a reasonable alternative to SAVR and coronary artery bypass grafting.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov. Unique identifier: NCT01586910.

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

Background:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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

Clinical Trial Registration:

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

Predictors and Risk Calculator of Early Unplanned Hospital Readmission Following Contemporary Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement from the STS/ACC TVT Registry

BACKGROUND

Predictors of hospital readmissions and tools to predict readmissions after TAVR are scarce. Our objective was to identify predictors of early hospital readmission following TAVR in contemporary clinical practice and develop a risk calculator.

METHODS

Patients with a contemporary self-expanding TAVR between 2015 and 2017 in the STS/ACC/TVT Registry™ database were included. Patients were divided into a derivation and validation cohort (2:1). A risk score was calculated using the derivation cohort based on multivariable predictors of 30-day unplanned readmissions and applied to the validation cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 10,345 TAVR patients at 350 centers were included. Unplanned 30-day hospital readmission was 9.2%. Patients with an early readmission had higher 30-day rates for mortality (2.3% vs. 0.8%, p ≪ 0.001), stroke (4.1% vs. 2.7% p = 0.009), major vascular complications (2.0% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.003) and new pacemaker implantation (25.7% vs. 18.6%, p ≪ 0.001). Multivariable predictors of 30-day readmission included diabetes, atrial fibrillation, advanced heart failure symptoms, home oxygen, decreased 5-m gait speed or the inability to walk, serum creatinine ≫1.6 mg/dL, index hospitalization length of stay ≫5 days, major vascular complication and ≥ moderate post-procedure aortic or mitral valve regurgitation. Based on these predictors, we stratified 30-day readmission risk into low-, moderate- and high-risk subsets. There was a 2.5× difference in readmission rates between the low- (5.8%) and high-risk subsets (14.6%).

CONCLUSION

We stratified the risk of early hospital readmission after TAVR based on a simple scoring system. This score may improve discharge planning centered on the individual's readmission risk.

SUMMARY

Unplanned readmissions in the United States are prevalent and costly accounting for $41.3 billion in annual hospital payments and are associated with adverse clinical outcomes. We found that diabetes, atrial fibrillation, advanced heart failure symptoms, home oxygen, frailty, acute kidney injury, prolonged hospitalization, major vascular complications, and moderate or worse post-procedure aortic or mitral valve regurgitation predicted of 30-day readmission following self-expanding TAVR. This information may improve discharge planning centered on each patient's readmission risk.

Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Valve in Low-Risk Patients

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at increased risk for death from surgery; less is known about TAVR in low-risk patients.

METHODS

We performed a randomized noninferiority trial in which TAVR with a self-expanding supraannular bioprosthesis was compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients who had severe aortic stenosis and were at low surgical risk. When 850 patients had reached 12-month follow-up, we analyzed data regarding the primary end point, a composite of death or disabling stroke at 24 months, using Bayesian methods.

RESULTS

Of the 1468 patients who underwent randomization, an attempted TAVR or surgical procedure was performed in 1403. The patients' mean age was 74 years. The 24-month estimated incidence of the primary end point was 5.3% in the TAVR group and 6.7% in the surgery group (difference, -1.4 percentage points; 95% Bayesian credible interval for difference, -4.9 to 2.1; posterior probability of noninferiority >0.999). At 30 days, patients who had undergone TAVR, as compared with surgery, had a lower incidence of disabling stroke (0.5% vs. 1.7%), bleeding complications (2.4% vs. 7.5%), acute kidney injury (0.9% vs. 2.8%), and atrial fibrillation (7.7% vs. 35.4%) and a higher incidence of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation (3.5% vs. 0.5%) and pacemaker implantation (17.4% vs. 6.1%). At 12 months, patients in the TAVR group had lower aortic-valve gradients than those in the surgery group (8.6 mm Hg vs. 11.2 mm Hg) and larger effective orifice areas (2.3 cm² vs. 2.0 cm²).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding supraannular bioprosthesis was noninferior to surgery with respect to the composite end point of death or disabling stroke at 24 months. (Funded by Medtronic; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02701283.).

Causes of death in intermediate-risk patients: The Randomized Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Trial

OBJECTIVES

Examine the causes and timing of death in the Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation intermediate-risk randomized trial for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

METHODS

Causes of death were adjudicated by an independent clinical event committee and by post-hoc hierarchical classification. Causes of death were evaluated and characteristics and procedural parameters compared between patients who died and survivors for 3 time periods: early (0-30 days), recovery (31-120 days), and late (121-365 days).

RESULTS

All-cause mortality at 1 year was 6.5% after TAVR and 6.7% after SAVR. There were no differences in mortality rates between TAVR and SAVR for any of the 3 time periods. Early mortality was primarily due to technical, procedure-related problems in TAVR and due to complications in SAVR. For TAVR and SAVR, most deaths during recovery were caused by complications. Other causes, including comorbid conditions, accounted for most late deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality rates were similar for patients treated with TAVR or SAVR at any time period including at 1 year. Early cause of death was more commonly technical failure after TAVR and due to complications after SAVR. Recovery phase cause of death was dominated by complications from TAVR and SAVR. Late cause of death appeared to be independent of the procedure in both groups.