Search

Background: The performance of latest iteration transcatheter aortic valve replacement platforms in patients with small aortic anatomy remains underexplored., Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate effectiveness and performance between the self-expanding (SE) Evolut PRO and PRO+ and the balloon-expandable (BE) SAPIEN ULTRA in patients with small aortic annuli., Methods: Data from the OPERA-TAVI (Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO vs. SAPIEN 3 ULTRA Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry were used, with 1:1 propensity score matching. Primary endpoints included 1-year effectiveness composite (all-cause mortality, disabling stroke, or heart failure hospitalization) and 30-day device-related (hemodynamic structural valve dysfunction and nonstructural valve dysfunction) outcomes., Results: Among 3,516 patients, 251 matched pairs with aortic annular area <430 mm 2 were assessed. The 1-year primary effectiveness outcome did not differ significantly between cohorts (SE 10.8% vs BE 11.2%; P = 0.91). The 30-day device-oriented composite outcome was more favorable in the Evolut PRO group (SE 4.8% vs BE 10.4%; P = 0.027). Notably, SE valve recipients showed higher rates of disabling stroke (SE 4.0% vs BE 0.0%; P < 0.01) and paravalvular leaks (mild or greater: SE 48.5% vs BE 18.6% [P < 0.001]; moderate: SE 4.5% vs BE 1.2% [P = 0.070]). The BE group had higher rates of prosthesis-patient mismatch (moderate or greater: SE 16.0% vs BE 47.1% [P < 0.001]; severe: SE 1.3% vs BE 5.7% [P = 0.197]) and more patients with residual mean gradients >20 mm Hg (SE 1.0% vs BE 13.5%; P < 0.001)., Conclusions: In patients with small aortic annuli, transcatheter aortic valve replacement with latest iteration devices is safe. SE platforms are associated with more favorable device performance in terms of hemodynamic structural and nonstructural dysfunction. Randomized data are needed to validate these findings and guide informed device selection., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Scotti has served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and NeoChord. Dr Pilgrim has received research, travel, or educational grants to the institution without personal remuneration from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and ATSens; and has received speaker fees and consultancy fees to the institution from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, Biosensors, and Highlife. Dr Meier has received an institutional grant from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Barbanti is a consultant for Boston Scientifics, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Latib has served on advisory boards for Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Shifamed, NeoChord, VDyne, and Philips. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Robust data on changes in pulmonary valve replacement (PVR) procedural volume and predictors of bioprosthetic pulmonary valve (BPV) durability in patients with tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) are scarce., Objectives: This study sought to assess temporal trends in PVR procedural volume and BPV durability in a nationwide, retrospective TOF cohort., Methods: Data were obtained from patient records. Robust linear regression was used to assess temporal trends in PVR procedural volume. Piecewise exponential additive mixed models were used to estimate BPV durability, defined as the time from implantation to redo PVR with death as a competing risk, and to assess risk factors for reduced durability., Results: In total, 546 PVR were performed in 384 patients from 1976 to 2021. The annual number of PVR increased from 0.4 to 6.0 per million population (P < 0.001). In the last decade, the transcatheter PVR volume increased by 20% annually (P < 0.001), whereas the surgical PVR volume did not change significantly. The median BPV durability was 17 years (Q1: 10-Q3: 10 years-not applicable). There was no significant difference in the durability of different BPV after adjustment for confounders. Age at PVR (HR: 0.78 per 10 years from <1 year; 95% CI: 0.63-0.96; P = 0.02) and true inner valve diameter (9-17 mm vs 18-22 mm HR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.22-0.73; P = 0.003 and 18-22 mm vs 23-30 mm HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.25-1.39; P = 0.23) were associated with reduced BPV durability in multivariate models., Conclusions: The PVR procedural volume has increased over time, with a greater increment in transcatheter than surgical PVR during the last decade. Younger patient age at PVR and a smaller true inner valve diameter predicted reduced BPV durability., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This study was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation, Copenhagen, Denmark, and the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Hellerup, Denmark. The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Coarctation of the aorta (CoA), a congenital narrowing of the proximal descending thoracic aorta, is a relatively common form of congenital heart disease. Untreated significant CoA has a major impact on morbidity and mortality. In the past 3 decades, transcatheter intervention (TCI) for CoA has evolved as an alternative to surgery., Objectives: The authors report on all TCIs for CoA performed from 2000 to 2016 in 4 countries covering 25 million inhabitants, with a mean follow-up duration of 6.9 years., Methods: During the study period, 683 interventions were performed on 542 patients., Results: The procedural success rate was 88%, with 9% considered partly successful. Complications at the intervention site occurred in 3.5% of interventions and at the access site in 3.5%. There was no in-hospital mortality. During follow-up, TCI for CoA reduced the presence of hypertension significantly from 73% to 34%, but despite this, many patients remained hypertensive and in need of continuous antihypertensive treatment. Moreover, 8% to 9% of patients needed aortic and/or aortic valve surgery during follow-up., Conclusions: TCI for CoA can be performed with a low risk for complications. Lifetime follow-up after TCI for CoA seems warranted., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This work was funded by the Swedish state under the ALF agreement (grant 236611) and the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation (grant 20180644) and Forskningsstiftelsen vid kardiologiska sektionen SU/Ostra Hospital. This study received no financial or other industry support. The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to determine the degree of Evolut (Medtronic) leaflet pinning, diameter expansion, leaflet overhang, and performance at different implant depths of the balloon-expandable Sapien 3 (S3, Edwards Lifesciences LLC) transcatheter heart valve (THV) within the Evolut THV., Background: Preservation of coronary access and flow is a major factor when considering the treatment of failed Evolut THVs., Methods: An in vitro study was performed with 20-, 23-, 26-, and 29-mm S3 THVs deployed within 23-, 26-, 29-, and 34-mm Evolut R THVs, respectively. The S3 outflow was positioned at various depths at node 4, 5, and 6 of the Evolut R. Neoskirt height, leaflet overhang, performance, and Evolut R valve housing diameter expansion were assessed under physiological conditions as per ISO 5840-3 standard., Results: The neoskirt height for the Evolut R was shorter when the S3 outflow was positioned at node 4 compared with node 6 (node 4 height for 23 mm = 16.3 mm, 26 mm = 17.1 mm, 29 mm = 18.3 mm, and 34 mm = 19.9 mm vs node 6 height for 23 mm = 23.9 mm, 26 mm = 23.4 mm, 29 mm = 24.7 mm, and 34 mm = 27 mm Evolut R). All configurations exhibited acceptable hydrodynamic performance irrespective of the degree of leaflet overhang, except the 29-mm S3 implanted in 34-mm Evolut R at node 4 (regurgitant fraction >20%). The valve housing radius of the index Evolut R increased when the S3 was implanted, with the increase ranging from 0 to 2.5 mm., Conclusions: Placement of the S3 at a lower implant position within an index Evolut R reduces the neoskirt height with no significant compromise to S3 valve function despite a higher degree of leaflet overhang. Low S3 implantation may facilitate future coronary access after redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Funding for the study was provided by Medtronic. Dr Akodad has received research funding from Medtronic, Biotronik, MUSE Explore, and Federation Française de Cardiologie. Dr Tang is a physician proctor and consultant for Medtronic; is a consultant for Abbott Structural Heart and NeoChord; and is a physician advisory board member for Abbott Structural Heart and JenValve. Dr Gada is a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Bard Medical, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Rogers is a consultant and physician proctor to Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; has equity in Transmural Systems; and is a co-inventor on dedicated electrosurgery devices assigned to NIH. Dr Rutkin serves as a consultant for Medtronic. Dr Puri is a consultant to Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Philips, Bioventrix, Products & Features, Shockwave Medical, Centerline Biomedical, and VDyne. Dr Rovin is a physician proctor with Medtronic and Abbott; and is a Speakers Bureau for Medtronic and Abbott. Dr Leipsic holds institutional research core lab agreements with Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Pi CARDIA. Dr Caskey serves as a proctor for Medtronic. Dr Sondergaard has received consultant fees and/or institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Sahajanand Medical Technology. Dr Grubb is a speaker, proctor, and principal investigator for Edwards Lifesciences; is a speaker, proctor, and principal investigator for Medtronic; and her employer receives institutional grants and educational funding from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Gleason’s employer receives institutional grants and educational funding from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; he has no personal financial disclosures. Ms Garde, Mr Tadros, and Mr Teodoru are all employees and shareholders of Medtronic. Dr Wood is a consultant and receives unrestricted grant support from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott Vascular. Mr Sathananthan is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; and has received speaking fees from Edwards Lifesciences and NVT. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess cusp symmetry and coronary ostial eccentricity and its impact on coronary access following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using a patient-specific commissural alignment implantation technique., Background: TAVR implantation techniques to obtain neocommissural alignment have been introduced. The impact of cusp symmetry and coronary ostial eccentricity on coronary access after TAVR remains unknown., Methods: Cardiac computed tomographic scans from 200 tricuspid aortic valves (TAVs) and 200 type 1 bicuspid aortic valves (BAVs) were studied. Cusp symmetry and coronary ostial eccentricity were assessed. In addition, the right coronary cusp/left coronary cusp and right coronary artery (RCA)/left coronary artery (LCA) ostia overlap views were calculated and compared., Results: Severe cusp asymmetry (>135°) was more frequent in BAVs (52.5%) than in TAVs (2.5%) (P < 0.001), with the noncoronary cusp being the most common dominant cusp. The RCA ostium was found to be more often eccentric (>20°) than the LCA ostium (28% vs 6%, respectively; P < 0.001). Considering the right/left cusp overlap view, there was <20° deviation between the right coronary cusp-left coronary cusp centered line and the RCA-LCA centered line in 95% of all patients (TAV, 97%; BAV, 93%). The right/left cusp and coronary ostia overlap view differed by <10° and <20° fluoroscopic angulation in 75% and 98% of all cases, respectively., Conclusions: Using the right/left cusp overlap view to obtain commissural alignment in TAVR is also an effective approach to implant one of the transcatheter heart valve commissures in the near center between both coronary ostia in most TAVs and type 1 BAVs. Preprocedural CT assessment remains crucial to assess cusp symmetry and coronary ostial eccentricity., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr De Backer has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr Bieliauskas has received consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Kofoed has received institutional grants from AP Møller og hustru Chastine McKinney Møllers Fond, the Meyer Foundation, the Danish Heart Foundation, the Danish Agency for Science, Technology, and Innovation by the Danish Council for Strategic Research, and Canon Medical. Dr Chen is the consultant for CardioFlow, Venus MedTech, and Peijia Medical. Dr Sondergaard has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe baseline characteristics, and periprocedural and mid-term outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter mitral valve interventions post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and examine their clinical benefit., Background: The optimal management of residual mitral regurgitation (MR) post-TAVR is challenging., Methods: This was an international registry of 23 TAVR centers., Results: In total, 106 of 24,178 patients (0.43%) underwent mitral interventions post-TAVR (100 staged, 6 concomitant), most commonly percutaneous edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (PMVR). The median interval post-TAVR was 164 days. Mean age was 79.5 ± 7.2 years, MR was >moderate in 97.2%, technical success was 99.1%, and 30-day device success rate was 88.7%. There were 18 periprocedural complications (16.9%) including 4 deaths. During a median follow-up of 464 days, the cumulative risk for 3-year mortality was 29.0%. MR grade and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class improved dramatically; at 1 year, MR was moderate or less in 90.9% of patients (mild or less in 69.1%), and 85.9% of patients were in NYHA functional class I/II. Staged PMVR was associated with lower mortality versus medical treatment (57.5% vs. 30.8%) in a propensity-matched cohort (n = 156), but this was not statistically significant (hazard ratio: 1.75; p = 0.05)., Conclusions: For patients who continue to have significant MR, remain symptomatic post-TAVR, and are anatomically suitable for transcatheter interventions, these interventions are feasible, safe, and associated with significant improvement in MR grade and NYHA functional class. These results apply mainly to PMVR. A staged PMVR strategy was associated with markedly lower mortality, but this was not statistically significant. (Transcatheter Treatment for Combined Aortic and Mitral Valve Disease. The Aortic+Mitral TRAnsCatheter Valve Registry [AMTRAC]; NCT04031274)., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Dr. Barbanti has received consultant fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. De Backer has received research grants and consultant fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr. Sievert has received institutional honoraria, travel expenses, and consulting fees from 4tech Cardio, Abbott, Ablative Solutions, Ancora Heart, Append Medical, Bavaria Medizin Technologie GmbH, Bioventrix, Boston Scientific, Carag, CardiacDimensions, Cardimed, Celonova, Comed B.V., Contego, CVRx, Dinova, Edwards Lifesciences, Endologix, Hemoteq, Hangzhou Nuomao Medtech, Holistick Medical, Lifetech, Maquet Getinge Group, Medtronic, Mokita, Occlutech, Recor, RenalGuard, Terumo, Vascular Dynamics, Vectorious Medtech, Venus, Venock, and Vivasure Medical. Dr. Grasso has been a proctor for Abbott Vascular. Dr. Andreas has been a proctor for Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received advisory board fees from Medtronic. Dr. Guerrero has received research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Van Mieghem has received research grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi-Sankyo; and advisory fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Ancora, Medtronic, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi-Sankyo. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

During the last decade transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been established as a treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis, who are at particularly high surgical risk. As compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), TAVR has been associated with lower early risk of mortality, atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury, and bleeding. Furthermore, device and periprocedural improvements have addressed most of the initial limitations for TAVR, including the Achilles' heel, paravalvular leakage. Supported by this as well as preliminary data among lower-risk patients, TAVR is currently being evaluated in prospective randomized trials against SAVR in younger low-risk patients. Although durability of the TAVR device may be of concern in younger patients given their longer life expectancy, intermediate-term controlled data does not reveal any difference between TAVR and SAVR devices., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)