Search

Background and Aims: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the first choice to treat older patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). This study aimed to compare TAVI with surgery in low-risk patients ≤75 years of age, including both tricuspid and bicuspid AS., Methods: The Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention (NOTION)-2 trial enrolled and 1:1 randomized low-risk patients aged ≤75 years with severe symptomatic AS to TAVI or surgery. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, or rehospitalization (related to the procedure, valve, or heart failure) at 12 months., Results: A total of 370 patients were enrolled with a mean age of 71.1 years and a median Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 1.1%. A total of 100 patients had bicuspid AS. The 1-year incidence of the primary endpoint was 10.2% in the TAVI group and 7.1% in the surgery group [absolute risk difference 3.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI), -2.7% to 8.8%; hazard ratio (HR) 1.4; 95% CI, 0.7-2.9; P = .3]. Patients with TAVI, when compared to surgery, had lower risk of major bleeding and new-onset atrial fibrillation and higher risk of non-disabling stroke, permanent pacemaker implantation, and moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation. The risk of the primary composite endpoint was 8.7% and 8.3% in patients with tricuspid AS (HR 1.0; 95% CI, 0.5-2.3) and 14.3% and 3.9% in patients with bicuspid AS (HR 3.8; 95% CI, 0.8-18.5) treated with TAVI or surgery, respectively (P for interaction = .1)., Conclusions: Among low-risk patients aged ≤75 years with severe symptomatic AS, the rate of the composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year was similar between TAVI and surgery. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation outcomes in young bicuspid AS patients warrant caution and should be further investigated. (NOTION-2, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02825134)., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02825134., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: Paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The effect of transcatheter interventions to treat PVR after the index TAVI was investigated., Methods and Results: A registry of consecutive patients who underwent transcatheter intervention for ≥ moderate PVR after the index TAVI at 22 centers. The principal outcomes were residual aortic regurgitation (AR) and mortality at 1 year after PVR treatment. A total of 201 patients were identified: 87 (43%) underwent redo-TAVI, 79 (39%) plug closure, and 35 (18%) balloon valvuloplasty. Median TAVI-to-re-intervention time was 207 (35; 765) days. The failed valve was self-expanding in 129 (63.9%) patients. The most frequent devices utilized were a Sapien 3 valve for redo-TAVI (55, 64%), an AVP II as plug (33, 42%), and a True balloon for valvuloplasty (20, 56%). At 30 days, AR ≥ moderate persisted in 33 (17.4%) patients: 8 (9.9%) after redo-TAVI, 18 (25.9%) after plug, and 7 (21.9%) after valvuloplasty (P = 0.036). Overall mortality was 10 (5.0%) at 30 days and 29 (14.4%) at 1 year: 0, 8 (10.1%), and 2 (5.7%) at 30 days (P = 0.010) and 11 (12.6%), 14 (17.7%), and 4 (11.4%) at 1 year (P = 0.418), after redo-TAVI, plug, and valvuloplasty, respectively. Regardless of treatment strategy, patients in whom AR was reduced to ≤ mild had lower mortality at 1 year compared with those with AR persisting ≥ moderate [11 (8.0%) vs. 6 (21.4%); P = 0.007]., Conclusion: This study describes the efficacy of transcatheter treatments for PVR after TAVI. Patients in whom PVR was successfully reduced had better prognosis. The selection of patients and the optimal PVR treatment modality require further investigation., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest J.G.W.: consultant to, and has received research funding from, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. W-K.K.: proctor or speaker fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Meril Life Sciences. M.A-W.: received speaker's honoraria and/or consultancy fees on his behalf from Boston Scientific and Medtronic. M.B.: consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. L.S.: consultant fees and institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Symetis. C.H.: Advisory Board Medtronic. J.M. Sinning: speaker honoraria and research grants from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. J.S.: consultant to Edwards Lifesciences. M. Andreas: proctor/consultant/speaker for Edwards, Abbott, and Medtronic, received institutional grants (Edwards, Abbott, Medtronic, and LSI). Dr. M. Guerrero: research grant support from Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. F. Castriota: proctor for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. T.N.: consulting or honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Consulting and equity with Venus MedTech. T.P.: research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Biotronik; speaker fees/consultancy fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Abbott, Biotronik, and HighLife SAS. V.C. Babaliaros: consultant to Edwards Lifesciences and equity in transmural system. M.M.: consultant fee from Abbott, Boston, Kardia, and Medtronic. N.V.M.: institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Daiichi Sankyo, and PulseCath BV and institutional research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences. A.L.: institutional research/grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences; and personal consulting honoraria from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. D.H-S.: proctor and advisory to Boston, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott. R.M. received grant support from Edwards Lifesciences Corporation; he is a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Cordis, and Medtronic and holds equity in Entourage Medical. All other authors have no conflict of interest to report in relation with this manuscript., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: Additional randomized clinical trial (RCT) data comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is available, including longer term follow-up. A meta-analysis comparing TAVI to SAVR was performed. A pragmatic risk classification was applied, partitioning lower-risk and higher-risk patients., Methods and Results: The main endpoints were death, strokes, and the composite of death or disabling stroke, occurring at 1 year (early) or after 1 year (later). A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Eight RCTs with 8698 patients were included. In lower-risk patients, at 1 year, the risk of death was lower after TAVI compared with SAVR [relative risk (RR) 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.96, P = 0.031], as was death or disabling stroke (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92, P = 0.014). There were no differences in strokes. After 1 year, in lower-risk patients, there were no significant differences in all main outcomes. In higher-risk patients, there were no significant differences in main outcomes. New-onset atrial fibrillation, major bleeding, and acute kidney injury occurred less after TAVI; new pacemakers, vascular complications, and paravalvular leak occurred more after TAVI., Conclusion: In lower-risk patients, there was an early mortality reduction with TAVI, but no differences after later follow-up. There was also an early reduction in the composite of death or disabling stroke, with no difference at later follow-up. There were no significant differences for higher-risk patients. Informed therapy decisions may be more dependent on the temporality of events or secondary endpoints than the long-term occurrence of main clinical outcomes., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: A.D.A. reports honoraria and sponsorship from Medtronic and Bayer. M.M. was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to Columbia University Irving Medical Center (T32 HL007854). C.M.C. reports speaker fees from Philips Volcano. M.J.M. has served as a co-principal investigator for Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott; and as a study chair for Medtronic. M.J.R. served as national surgical PI on SURTAVI, Evolut Low-Risk, Reprise III, Acurate, Portico NG and Vantage and received research support from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Medical, Gore. R.R.M. has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific; has served as national Principal Investigator for Portico (Abbott) and Acurate (Boston Scientific) U.S. investigation device exemption trials; has received personal proctoring fees from Edwards Lifesciences; and has received travel support from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Boston Scientific. V.H.T. is an advisor or research support from Abbott Vascular, Cyrolife, Atricure, Edwards Lifesciences, Shockwave, and JenaValve; and has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Gore Vascular, and JenaValve. L.S. has received consultant fees and/or institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Symetis, and SMT. N.V.M. has received institutional research grants from Abbott, ACIST Medical Systems, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Abiomed, Daiichi Sankyo, Pie Medical and PulseCath. J.K.F. is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic and receives grant support from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. M.B.L. has received research support to his institution from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott; has served on Advisory Boards for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Gore, Meril Lifescience, and Abbott; and has served as the Co-Principal Investigator of the PARTNER 3 trial (Edwards Lifesciences, no direct compensation)., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: The clinical impact of new-onset persistent left bundle branch block (NOP-LBBB) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) on transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) recipients remains controversial. We aimed to evaluate the impact of (i) periprocedural NOP-LBBB and PPI post-TAVR on 1-year all-cause death, cardiac death, and heart failure hospitalization and (ii) NOP-LBBB on the need for PPI at 1-year follow-up., Methods and Results: We performed a systematic search from PubMed and EMBASE databases for studies reporting raw data on 1-year clinical impact of NOP-LBBB or periprocedural PPI post-TAVR. Data from 30 studies, including 7792 patients (12 studies) and 42 927 patients (21 studies) for the evaluation of the impact of NOP-LBBB and PPI after TAVR were sourced, respectively. NOP-LBBB was associated with an increased risk of all-cause death [risk ratio (RR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17-1.49; P < 0.001], cardiac death (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.20-1.78; P < 0.001), heart failure hospitalization (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.05-1.72; P = 0.02), and PPI (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.58-2.27; P < 0.001) at 1-year follow-up. Periprocedural PPI after TAVR was associated with a higher risk of all-cause death (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.11-1.25; P < 0.001) and heart failure hospitalization (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.03-1.36; P = 0.02). Permanent pacemaker implantation was not associated with an increased risk of cardiac death (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67-1.05; P = 0.13)., Conclusion: NOP-LBBB and PPI after TAVR are associated with an increased risk of all-cause death and heart failure hospitalization at 1-year follow-up. Periprocedural NOP-LBBB also increased the risk of cardiac death and PPI within the year following the procedure. Further studies are urgently warranted to enhance preventive measures and optimize the management of conduction disturbances post-TAVR., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: Peri-procedural transcatheter valve embolization and migration (TVEM) is a rare but potentially devastating complication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We sought to assess the incidence, causes, and outcome of TVEM in a large multicentre cohort., Methods and Results: We recorded cases of peri-procedural TVEM in patients undergoing TAVI between January 2010 and December 2017 from 26 international sites. Peri-procedural TVEM occurred in 273/29 636 (0.92%) TAVI cases (age 80.8 ± 7.3 years; 53.8% female), of which 217 were to the ascending aorta and 56 to the left ventricle. The use of self-expanding or first-generation prostheses and presence of a bicuspid aortic valve were independent predictors of TVEM. Bail-out measures included repositioning attempts using snares or miscellaneous tools (41.0%), multiple valve implantations (83.2%), and conversion to surgery (19.0%). Using 1:4-propensity matching, we identified a cohort of 235 patients with TVEM (TVEMPS) and 932 patients without TVEM (non-TVEMPS). In the matched cohort, all-cause mortality was higher in TVEMPS than in non-TVEMPS at 30 days (18.6% vs. 4.9%; P < 0.001) and after 1 year (30.5% vs. 16.6%; P < 0.001). Major stroke was more frequent in TVEMPS at 30 days (10.6% vs. 2.8%; P < 0.001), but not at 1 year (4.6% vs. 1.9%; P = 0.17). The need for emergent cardiopulmonary support, major stroke at 30 days, and acute kidney injury Stages 2 and 3 increased the risk of 1-year mortality, whereas a better renal function at baseline was protective., Conclusion: Transcatheter valve embolization and migration occurred in approximately 1% and was associated with increased morbidity and mortality., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: Four-dimensional volume-rendered computed tomography (4DCT) has demonstrated instances of hypo-attenuating leaflet thickening (HALT) with or without hypo-attenuation affecting motion (HAM) after transcatheter and surgical aortic valve implantation (TAVI, SAVR). The temporal pattern of evolution of these phenomena is uncertain., Methods and Results: The SAVORY registry enrolled patients treated by TAVI (n = 75) or SAVR (n = 30) with two 4DCT scans fully interpretable for HALT and HAM as well as unchanged anti-thrombotic medication between the scans. Logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the evolution of HALT and HAM while accounting for demographic and baseline variables, timing of both CT scans, valve type and antithrombotic therapy. The analysis population consisted of 84 patients, in whom first and second CT scans were performed at 140 ± 152 days and 298 ± 141 days after valve implantation, respectively. Hypo-attenuating leaflet thickening was noted in 32 patients (38.1%), with HAM in 17 (20.2%). Both findings were dynamic, showing progression in 13 (15.5%) and regression and 9 (10.7%) patients. Compared with antiplatelet therapy, progression was less likely among patients on oral anticoagulation with vitamin-K antagonists or non-VKA oral anticoagulants (odds ratio: 0.014, P = 0.036). Maintenance on chronic oral anticoagulation was not a significant predictor of regression. These findings were similar for both transcatheter and surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves. No patients developed symptoms of valve dysfunction and leaflet thickening was not clearly associated with any clinical events., Conclusions: Subclinical leaflet thrombosis is a common finding after TAVI and SAVR, and may progress from normal leaflet over HALT to the more severe HAM. The phenomenon can develop and regress at variable intervals after valve implantation. Anticoagulants may have a protective effect against the development of HALT, but HALT can also regress without anticoagulation therapy., Registered at Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02426307., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2017. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)