Search

Background: Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve replacement offers a less-invasive alternative for high-risk patients with bioprosthetic valve failure. Limited experience exists in intermediate-risk patients. We aim to evaluate 1-year outcomes of the PARTNER 3 mitral valve-in-valve study., Methods: This prospective, single-arm, multicenter study enrolled symptomatic patients with a failing mitral bioprosthesis demonstrating greater than or equal to moderate stenosis and regurgitation and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score ≥3% and <8%. A balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve (SAPIEN 3, Edwards Lifesciences) was used via a transeptal approach. The primary end point was the composite of all-cause mortality and stroke at 1 year., Results: A total of 50 patients from 12 sites underwent mitral valve-in-valve from 2018 to 2021. The mean age was 70.1±9.7 years, mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 4.1%±1.6%, and 54% were female. There were no primary end point events (mortality or stroke) through 1 year, and no left-ventricular outflow tract obstruction, endocarditis, or mitral valve reintervention was reported. Six patients (12%) required rehospitalization, including heart failure (n=2), minor procedural side effects (n=2), and valve thrombosis (n=2; both resolved with anticoagulation). An additional valve thrombosis was associated with no significant clinical sequelae. From baseline to 1 year, all subjects with available data had none/trace or mild (grade 1+) mitral regurgitation and the New York Heart Association class improved in 87.2% (41/47) of patients., Conclusions: Mitral valve-in-valve with a balloon-expandable valve via transseptal approach in intermediate-risk patients was associated with improved symptoms and quality of life, adequate transcatheter valve performance, and no mortality or stroke at 1-year follow-up., Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03193801., Competing Interests: Dr Malaisrie reports institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Terumo Medical Corporation and consulting/speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Terumo Medical Corporation, and Artivion; Dr Guerrero reports institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences; Dr Davidson reports institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott Vascular and consulting/speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences; Dr Williams reports institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific and consulting/speaker fees from Medtronic; Dr de Brito is a proctor for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific; Dr Shah reports institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular and consulting/speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences; Dr Kaneko reports consulting/speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular; Dr Poon reports institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and consulting/speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Anteris; Dr Yu is an employee of Edwards Lifesciences; Dr Pibarot reports institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Pi-Cardia, and Cardiac Success; Dr Hahn reports speaker fees from Abbott Structural, Baylis Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Philips Healthcare; she has institutional consulting contracts for which she receives no direct compensation with Abbott Structural, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and Novartis; she is Chief Scientific Officer for the Echocardiography Core Laboratory at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation for multiple industry-sponsored tricuspid valve trials, for which she receives no direct industry compensation; Dr Blanke reports consulting/speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences and LARALAB; Dr Leon reports institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott Vascular; Dr Mack has served as trial coprimary investigator for Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott Vascular and has served as a study chair for Medtronic; Dr Zajarias reports consulting/speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. The other authors report no conflicts.

Background: Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) is a therapeutic option for patients with severe mitral regurgitation (MR) who are ineligible for conventional surgery. There are limited data on the outcomes of large patient cohorts treated with TMVR., Aims: This study aimed to investigate the outcomes and predictors of mortality for patients treated with transapical TMVR., Methods: This analysis represents the clinical experience of all patients enrolled in the Tendyne Expanded Clinical Study. Patients with symptomatic MR underwent transapical TMVR with the Tendyne system between November 2014 and June 2020. Outcomes and adverse events up to 2 years, as well as predictors of short-term mortality, were assessed., Results: A total of 191 patients were treated (74.1±8.0 years, 62.8% male, Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality 7.7±6.6%). Technical success was achieved in 96.9% (185/191), and there were no intraprocedural deaths. At 30-day, 1- and 2-year follow-up, the rates of all-cause mortality were 7.9%, 30.8% and 40.5%, respectively. Complete MR elimination (MR <1+) was observed in 99.3%, 99.1% and 96.3% of patients, respectively. TMVR treatment resulted in consistent improvement of New York Heart Association Functional Class and quality of life up to 2 years (both p<0.001). Independent predictors of early mortality were age (odds ratio [OR] 1.11; p=0.003), pulmonary hypertension (OR 3.83; p=0.007), and institutional experience (OR 0.40; p=0.047)., Conclusions: This study investigated clinical outcomes in the full cohort of patients included in the Tendyne Expanded Clinical Study. The Tendyne TMVR system successfully eliminated MR with no intraprocedural deaths, resulting in an improvement in symptoms and quality of life. Continued refinement of clinical and echocardiographic risks will be important to optimise longitudinal outcomes.

Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Wood is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott; and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott. Dr Leipsic is supported by a Canadian Research Chair in Advanced Cardiopulmonary Imaging; is a consultant for MVRX, Heartflow Inc, and Circle Cardiovascular Imaging; and provides CT core lab services for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Neovasc, Boston Scientific, and Tendyne Holdings for which no direct compensation is received. Dr Sathananthan has received speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences; is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, NVT Medical, and Medtronic; and has received research support from Medtronic, Vivitro Labs, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Sellers is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Anteris, Excision Medical, and Medtronic; and has received research support from Medtronic, Vivitro Labs, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Webb is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences; and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Wood is a consultant to and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott. Dr Webb is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences; and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Dr Leipsic is supported by a Canadian Research Chair in Advanced Cardiopulmonary Imaging; is a consultant for MVRx, HeartFlow, and Circle Cardiovascular Imaging; and provides computed tomographic core lab services for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Neovasc, Boston Scientific, and Tendyne Holdings, for which no direct compensation is received. Dr Sathananthan has received speaking fees from Edwards Lifesciences; has received research support from Medtronic, Vivitro Labs, and Edwards Lifesciences; and is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, NVT, and Medtronic. Dr Sellers is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences, Anteris Technologies, Excision Medical, and Medtronic; and has received research support from Medtronic, Vivitro Labs, and Edwards Lifesciences. Drs Moss and Boone are consultants for Edwards Lifesciences; and have received speaking fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott Vascular. Dr Akodad is a consultant for Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Background: Favourable early outcomes have been reported following valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR). However, reports of long-term outcomes are lacking. We aimed to evaluate early and late outcomes in a large first-in-human valve-in-valve TMVR 13-year experience., Methods: All patients undergoing valve-in-valve TMVR in our centre from 2008 to 2021 were included. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes, defined according to the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium, were reported., Results: A total of 119 patients were analysed: mean age 76.8 ± 10.2 years, mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 10.7 ± 6.8%, 55.4% female, 63.9% transapical access. Thirty-day mortality was 2.5% for the total population and 0.0% after transseptal TMVR. Maximum follow-up was 13.1 years. During a median follow-up of 3.4 years (interquartile range 1.8-5.3 years), 55 patients (46.2%) died, mainly from noncardiovascular causes. Valve hemodynamics were acceptable at 5 years, with 2.5% structural dysfunction. Patients treated from 2016 on (n = 68; 57.1%), following the advent of routine use of the Sapien 3 valve, CT screening, and transseptal access, were compared with those treated before 2016 (n = 51; 42.9%). Patients from 2016 on had a higher technical success rate (100.0% vs 94.1%; P = 0.04), shorter hospitalisation (P < 0.001), trending lower 30-day mortality (1.5% vs 3.9%; P = 0.4) and better 5-year survival (74.7% vs 41.1%; P = 0.03)., Conclusions: Valve-in-valve TMVR can be performed with little morbidity and low mortality. Mid- to long-term survival remains limited owing to advanced age and comorbidities. Structural bioprosthetic valve dysfunction was rare and redo TMVR feasible in selected patients. Outcomes continue to improve, but the role for valve-in-valve TMVR in lower surgical risk patients remains unclear., (Copyright © 2023 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: Mitral and tricuspid regurgitation represents a clinical challenge. They are associated with a poor prognosis, and many patients are not eligible for conventional surgery. Transcatheter therapies have been the focus of numerous studies and devices over the past decade. Here, we provide a summary of current options for transcatheter treatment of these 2 entities., Recent Findings: Recent studies have demonstrated the benefits of edge-to-edge repair for increasing numbers of patients. Encouraging early results with transcatheter valve replacement are also becoming available. To date, transcatheter edge-to-edge repair is currently the first-line transcatheter treatment for both mitral and tricuspid regurgitation for many patients who are not candidates for surgery. A number of transcatheter replacement devices are under development and clinical investigation but, for the most part, their current use is limited to compassionate cases or clinical trials., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Wood is a consultant to, and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott. Dr Sellers is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences, Anteris, Excision Medical, and Medtronic; and has received research support from Medtronic, Vivitro Labs, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Leipsic is supported by a Canadian Research Chair in Advanced Cardiopulmonary Imaging, consults for MVRX, HeartFlow Inc., and Circle Cardiovascular Imaging; and provides CT core lab services for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Neovasc, Boston Scientific, and Tendyne Holdings, for which no direct compensation is received. Dr Sathananthan has received speaking fees from Edwards Lifesciences; has received research support from Medtronic, Vivitro Labs, and Edwards Lifesciences; and is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, NVT Medical and Medtronic. Dr Webb is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and receives research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Mitral annular calcium (MAC) with severe mitral valvular dysfunction presents a complex problem, as valve replacement, either surgical or transcatheter, is challenging because of anatomy, technical considerations, concomitant comorbidities, and advanced age. The authors review the clinical and anatomical features of MAC that are favorable (green light), challenging (yellow light), or prohibitive (red light) for surgical or transcatheter mitral valve interventions. Under the auspices of the Heart Valve Collaboratory, an expert working group of cardiac surgeons, interventional cardiologists, and interventional imaging cardiologists was formed to develop recommendations regarding treatment options for patients with MAC as well as a proposed grading and staging system using both anatomical and clinical features., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Wang is a consultant for Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and NeoChord; and has received research grant support from Boston Scientific assigned to Henry Ford Health. Dr Cavalcante has received consulting fees from Abbott Structural, Anteris, AriaCV, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, VDyne, W.L. Gore, and XyloCor; and has received research grant support from Abbott Northwestern Hospital Foundation. Dr Tang is a physician proctor and consultant for Medtronic; is a consultant and advisory board member for Abbott Structural Heart; is a consultant for NeoChord; is a physician advisory board member for Boston Scientific and JenaValve; and has received speaker honoraria from Siemens Healthineers. Dr Ailawadi is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott, W.L. Gore, Anteris, Johnson & Johnson, Philips, Artivion, and AtriCure; and holds equity in Anteris, Triflo, and xDot. Dr Lim has received institutional research grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Corvia, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Trisol, and V-Wave; has received consulting fees from Philips, Valgen, and Venus. Dr George has received consulting honoraria from Zimmer Biomet, AtriCure, Neptune Medical, Abbvie, Johnson & Johnson, and Boston Scientific; has served on advisory boards for Edwards Surgical, Medtronic Surgical, Trisol Medical, Abbvie, Johnson & Johnson, Foldax Medical, Zimmer Biomet, Abbvie, and Boston Scientific; holds equity in Valcare Medical, Durvena, CardioMech, VDyne, MitreMedical, and MITRx; and has received institutional funding to Columbia University from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and JenaValve. All other 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.)

Background: Transcatheter mitral valve implantation (TMVI) is a novel therapeutic option for treating symptomatic mitral valve disease. Evaluating patient anatomical suitability is a critical step in the TMVI screening process, but currently requires specialized software and computerized device models., Aims: This analysis sought to assess the effectiveness of simple and standardized multislice computed tomography (MSCT) anatomic measurements for their ability to discriminate between patients who passed anatomical screening for Tendyne™ TMVI., Methods: Subjects screened for the Tendyne Expanded Clinical Study from January 2016 through September 2019 were included. Core laboratory screening measurements included mitral annular (MA) dimensions at end-systole and end-diastole, simulated device implantation, and neo-left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) area. Additionally, nine standard measurements of patient anatomy were assessed for their predictive value of patients passing the anatomic screening process., Results: Out of 496 subjects screened for eligibility, 257 subjects met clinical eligibility criteria with MA dimensions within the manufacturer's suggested range: 153 (59.5%) underwent TMVI while 104 (40.5%) were excluded from the study for other anatomic reasons (76% due to risk of LVOT obstruction). CT-derived left ventricular end-systole diameter (LVESD) had the highest discriminatory power for predicting TMVI anatomical suitability (area under the curve of 0.908, p < 0.0001). The mitral inter-commissural (IC) dimension was best predictive of annular dimensions being within range, with dimensions <30 or >50 mm resulting in a negative predictive value of 94.4%., Conclusions: MSCT-derived mitral IC dimension and LVESD easily performed measures that are effective predictors of anatomical suitability or screen failure for this tether-based TMVI device., (© 2023 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Current expected normal echocardiographic measures of transcatheter heart valve (THV) function were derived from pooled cohorts of the randomized trials; however, THV function by flow state before or following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has not been previously reported., Objectives: This study sought to assess the expected normal echocardiographic hemodynamics for the balloon-expandable THV grouped by stroke volume index (SVI)., Methods: Patients with severe aortic stenosis enrolled in PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 1 (high/extreme surgical risk), PARTNER 2 (intermediate surgical risk), or PARTNER 3 (low surgical risk) trials with complete core laboratory echocardiography were included. Patients were grouped by low-flow (SVI LOW  <35 mL/m 2 ) and normal-flow (SVI NORMAL  ≥35 mL/m 2 ). Mean gradient, effective orifice area (EOA), and Doppler velocity index (DVI) were collected at baseline and at 30 days post-TAVR. Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) was both calculated and predicted from normative data, using defined criteria., Results: In the entire population (N = 4,991), mean age was 81.8 years, 58% of patients were male, and 42% had low flow. Compared with patients with baseline SVI NORMAL , those with SVI LOW were more likely to be male; have more comorbidities; and lower left ventricular ejection fraction, mean gradient, and EOA. Post-TAVR, SVI LOW increased to SVI NORMAL in 17.3% and SVI NORMAL decreased to SVI LOW in 12.3% of patients. Using baseline SVI, follow-up EOA, mean gradient, and DVI for patients with SVI LOW tended to be lower than for patients with SVI NORMAL . Using the post-TAVR SVI, follow-up EOA, mean gradient, and DVI were significantly lower for patients with SVI LOW than for those with SVI NORMAL (P < 0.001 for all). The incidence of calculated, but not predicted, severe PPM was higher in patients with low flow than it was in patients with normal flow, suggesting pseudo-PPM in the presence of low flow., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that flow affects THV hemodynamics and both baseline and follow-up SVI should be considered when predicting THV hemodynamics prior to TAVR, as well as assessing valve function following valve implantation., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Pibarot has received funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Pi-Cardia, and Cardiac Phoenix for echocardiography core laboratory analyses and research studies in the field of transcatheter valve therapies, for which he received no personal compensation; and has received lecture fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Leipsic has served as a consultant to Circle CVI and HeartFlow; and has institutional core laboratory contracts with Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, PI-Cardia, and Conformal. Dr Hahn has received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular, Baylis Medical, and Edwards Lifesciences; has performed institutional consulting for Abbott Structural, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; has equity in Navigate; and has served as Chief Scientific Officer for the Echocardiography Core Laboratory at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation for multiple industry-sponsored trials, for which she receives no direct industry compensation. All other 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.)

Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Funding was received from St Paul's Foundation and the Providence Health Care Research Institute (PHCRI) Early Career Research Initiative. Dr Akodad has received research funding from Medtronic, Biotronik, MUSE Explore, and Federation Française de Cardiologie. Dr Sathananthan has received speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences and NVT Medical; and has reported consulting for Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Tzimas has reported support from the Fondation Vaudoise de Cardiologie. Dr Gulsin has reported support from a British Heart Foundation Travel Fellowship (FS/TF/21/33008). Dr Blanke has reported consulting for Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Neovasc; and has provided computed tomography core laboratory services for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Neovasc, Boston Scientific, and Abbott, for which no direct compensation was received. Dr Sondergaard has received consultant fees and/or institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and SMT. Dr Wood has reported consulting for and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott. Dr Webb has reported consulting for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Leipsic has reported support from a Canadian Research Chair in Advanced Cardiopulmonary Imaging; has reported consulting for MVRX, HeartFlow, and Circle Cardiovascular Imaging; and has provided computed tomography core laboratory services for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Neovasc, Boston Scientific, and Abbott, for which no direct compensation is received. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Background: Treatment of mitral regurgitation (MR) associated with severe mitral annular calcification (MAC) is challenging due to the high risk of fatal atrioventricular groove disruption and significant paravalvular leak., Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) with the Tendyne valve (Abbott Structural) in patients with MR and MAC., Methods: Twenty patients (mean age 78 years; 11 women) who were treated with the Tendyne valve, either compassionate use (CU; closed) or as part of The Feasibility Study of Tendyne in MAC (NCT03539458), had reported outcomes in a median follow-up duration of 368 days., Results: In all patients, a valve was implanted with no procedural mortality and successful hospital discharge. Two embolic events occurred, including one with mesenteric ischaemia and one non-disabling stroke. At 30 days and one year, all-cause mortality occurred in one (5%) and eight patients (40%), respectively. At one year, six patients had been hospitalised for heart failure (30%). There was no prosthetic dysfunction, and MR remained absent in all patients at one year. Clinical improvement, measured by New York Heart Association Functional Class, occurred in 11 of 12 patients who were alive at one year. Among seven survivors with Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) data, mean increase in KCCQ score was 29.9±26.3 at one year with improvement of ≥10 points in five (71.4%) patients., Conclusions: In patients with MR and severe MAC, TMVR with the Tendyne valve was associated with encouraging acute outcomes, midterm durability, and clinical improvement. Dedicated TMVR therapy may have a future role in these anatomically challenging, high-risk patients.

Aims: To characterize the dynamic nature of the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) geometry and flow rate in patients following transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) with anterior leaflet laceration (LAMPOON) and derive insights to help guide future patient selection., Methods and Results: Time-resolved LVOT geometry and haemodynamics were analysed with post-procedure computed tomography and echocardiography in subjects (N = 19) from the LAMPOON investigational device exemption trial. A novel post hoc definition for LVOT obstruction was employed to account for systolic flow rate and quality of life improvement [obstruction was defined as LVOT gradient >30 mmHg or LVOT effective orifice area (EOA) ≤1.15 cm2]. The neo-LVOT and skirt neo-LVOT were observed to vary substantially in area throughout systole (64 ± 27% and 25 ± 14% change in area, respectively). The peak systolic flow rate occurred most commonly just prior to mid-systole, while minimum neo-LVOT (and skirt neo-LVOT) area occurred most commonly in early-diastole. Subjects with LVOT obstruction (n = 5) had smaller skirt neo-LVOT values across systole. Optimal thresholds for skirt neo-LVOT area were phase-specific (260, 210, 200, and 180 mm2 for early-systole, peak flow, mid-systole, and end-systole, respectively)., Conclusion: The LVOT geometry and flow rate exhibit dynamic characteristics following TMVR with LAMPOON. Subjects with LVOT obstruction had smaller skirt neo-LVOT areas across systole. The authors recommend the use of phase-specific threshold values for skirt neo-LVOT area to guide future patient selection for this procedure. LVOT EOA is a 'flow-independent' metric which has the potential to aid in characterizing LVOT obstruction severity., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2021. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Since the first-in-human procedure in 2002, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a well-established therapeutic option for severe aortic stenosis, and is offered increasingly to patients at lower surgical risk, who are typically younger. Increasing lifespan carries concerns that "minor" complications that may have little impact in elderly patients could have a greater long-term impact in younger patients. Issues such as mild paravalvular regurgitation, hypoattenuated leaflet thickening, atrioventricular block with need for permanent pacemaker implantation or future coronary access may have a substantial cumulative undesirable impact. Additionally, as with surgical bioprosthetic valves, transcatheter bioprosthetic valves will eventually degenerate, and may require repeat intervention. Although durability data for transcatheter heart valves (THVs) is encouraging, very late data are lacking. Redo TAVI has been shown to be feasible with acceptable outcomes in patients with failed THVs, but in some patients, anatomical or device considerations may preclude a repeatable procedure because of the risk of coronary obstruction. Various strategies for lifetime management in this lower-risk and younger population have been proposed: surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) first, followed by TAVI; TAVI then SAVR; TAVI then TAVI, etc. A tailored approach may be considered according to patient co-morbidities, anatomy and the relative advantages and disadvantages of the two therapies. This review offers an overview of current challenges when considering TAVI in populations at lower risk, and summarizes the different approaches that have been developed to address these concerns., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) is feasible for selected patients with severe mitral regurgitation (MR) who are poor candidates for valve surgery. Intermediate-term to long-term TMVR outcomes have not been reported., Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness through 2-year follow-up of TMVR in high-surgical-risk patients with severe MR., Methods: The first 100 patients enrolled in the Expanded Clinical Study of the Tendyne Mitral Valve System, an open-label, nonrandomized, prospective study of transapical TMVR, were followed for 2 years., Results: The patients (aged 74.7 ± 8.0 years, 69.0% male) had symptomatic (66.0% New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class III or IV) grade 3+ or 4+ MR that was secondary or mixed in 89 (89.0%). Prostheses were successfully implanted in 97 (97.0%) patients. At 2 years, all-cause mortality was 39.0%; 17 (43.6%) of 39 deaths occurred during the first 90 days. Heart failure hospitalization (HFH) fell from 1.30 events per year preprocedure to 0.51 per year in the 2 years post-TMVR (P < 0.0001). At 2 years, 93.2% of surviving patients had no MR. No patient had >1+ MR. The improvement in symptoms at 1 year (88.5% NYHA functional class I or II) was sustained to 2 years (81.6% NYHA functional class I or II). Among survivors, the left ventricular ejection fraction was 45.6 ± 9.4% at baseline and 39.8 ± 9.5% at 2 years (P = 0.0012). Estimated right ventricular systolic pressure decreased from 47.6 ± 8.6 mm Hg to 32.5 ± 10.4 mm Hg (P < 0.005)., Conclusions: In this study, the impact of TMVR on severity of MR, reduction in HFH rate, and improvement in symptoms was sustained through 2 years. All-cause mortality and the need for HFH was highest in the first 3 months postprocedure. (Expanded Clinical Study of the Tendyne Mitral Valve System; NCT02321514)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The present paper is an analysis of the first 100 patients treated in the Expanded Clinical Study of the Tendyne Mitral Valve System (Global Feasibility Study; NCT02321514) supported by Abbott. Dr Muller has served as a consultant for Medtronic, Abbott, and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received research grant support from Abbott and Medtronic. Dr Sorajja has served as a consultant for Abbott Structural, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Duncan has served as a proctor and consultant for Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Neochord. Dr Bethea has served as a consultant for Abbott. Dr Grayburn has served as a consultant for Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Valtech Cardio, and Neochord; and has received research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Valtech Cardio, and Neochord. Drs Babaliaros and Denti have served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott. Dr Guerrero has served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott; and has received research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Thourani has served as a consultant for and received research grant support from Abbott. Dr Dumonteil has served as a proctor and consultant for Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Modine has served as a proctor and consultant for Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Blanke has received institutional grant support from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, MVRX, and Neovasc. Dr Leipsic has received institutional grant support from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, MVRX, and Neovasc. Dr Badhwar has served as an uncompensated consultant for Abbott. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Funding support and Author Disclosures Dr Chuang is funded by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians Vincent Fairfax Research Entry Scholarship. Dr Chatfield is funded by the New Zealand Heart Foundation and John Ormiston Scholarship. Dr Akodad has received funding from Fédération Française de cardiologie, MUSE-Explore, and Biotronik. Drs Wood, Webb, and Ye have been consultants to Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Sathananthan has been a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the association between Doppler velocity index (DVI) and 2-year outcomes for balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR)., Background: DVI >0.35 is normal for a prosthetic valve, but recent studies suggest that DVI <0.50 is associated with poor outcomes following TAVR., Methods: Patients with severe aortic stenosis enrolled in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) 2 (intermediate surgical risk) or PARTNER 3 (low surgical risk) trial undergoing TAVR (n = 1,450) or SAVR (n = 1,303) were included. Patients were divided into 3 DVI groups on the basis of core laboratory-assessed discharge or 30-day echocardiograms: DVI LOW (≤0.35), DVI INTERMEDIATE (>0.35 to ≤0.50), and DVI HIGH (>0.50). Two-year outcomes were assessed., Results: Following TAVR, there were no differences among the 3 DVI groups in composite outcomes of death, stroke, or rehospitalization or in any individual components of 2-year outcomes (P > 0.70 for all). Following SAVR, there was no difference among DVI groups in the composite outcome (P = 0.27), but there was a significant association with rehospitalization (P = 0.02). Restricted cubic-spline analysis for combined outcomes showed an increased risk with post-SAVR DVI ≤0.35 but no relationship post-TAVR. DVI ≤0.35 was associated with increased 2-year composite outcome for SAVR (HR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.29-2.54; P < 0.001), with no adverse outcomes for TAVR (P = 0.86)., Conclusions: In intermediate- and low-risk cohorts of the PARTNER trials, DVI ≤0.35 predicted worse 2-year outcomes following SAVR, driven primarily by rehospitalization, with no adverse outcomes associated with DVI following TAVR with the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 valve., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Hahn has received speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Philips Healthcare; has received consulting fees from Abbott Structural, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Navigate; has received nonfinancial support from 3mensio; holds equity with Navigate; and is chief scientific officer for the echocardiography core laboratory at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation for multiple industry-sponsored trials, for which she receives no direct industry compensation. Dr Thourani has received grant support from Edwards Lifesciences; and has served as an adviser for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Jaber has echocardiography core laboratory contracts with Edwards Lifesciences, for which he receives no direct compensation. Dr Leipsic has received grant support from Abbott and Medtronic; has received consulting fees and stock options from Circle Cardiovascular Imaging; and provides cardiac computed tomography core laboratory services for Edwards Lifesciences, Tendyne, Medtronic, and Abbott, for which he does not receive any direct compensation. Dr Thourani does research and is a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Allergen, Boston Scientific, CryoLife, Edwards Lifesciences, Gore Vascular, and JenaValve. Dr Makkar has received grant support from Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Kodali has received equity from BioTrace Medical, Dura Biotech, and Thubrikar Aortic Valve; has received grant support from Medtronic and Boston Scientific; has received grant support and consulting fees from Abbott Vascular; and has received consulting fees from Claret Medical, Admedus, and Meril Life Sciences. Dr Clavel has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Khalique has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences, JenaValve, and Abbott. Dr Weissman has core laboratory contracts with Abbott, Neovasc, Ancora, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Biotronik, and LivaNova, for which he receives no direct compensation. Dr Blanke has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Tendyne (Abbott), Circle Cardiovascular Imaging, Neovasc, and Gore; and provides cardiac computed tomography core laboratory services for Edwards Lifesciences, Tendyne, Medtronic, and Abbott, for which he does not receive any direct compensation. Dr Chen is an employee of Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Mack is the co–principal investigator of the PARTNER 3 Trial (Edwards Lifesciences); is the co–principal investigator of the COAPT trial (Abbott); and is study chair of the APOLLO trial (Medtronic), all uncompensated. Dr Leon has received grant support, paid to his institution, from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott, and Boston Scientific; and has received advisory board fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Boston Scientific, Gore, and Meril Life Sciences. Dr Pibarot holds the Canada Research Chair in Valvular Heart Diseases; has a Foundation Scheme Grant (FDN-143225) from Canadian Institutes of Health Research; has a grant from the Foundation of the Quebec Heart and Lung Institute; and has echocardiography core laboratory contracts with Edwards Lifesciences, for which he receives no direct compensation. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: This study aimed to compare incidence and impact of measured prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM M ) versus predicted PPM (PPM P ) after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Background: TAVR studies have used measured effective orifice area indexed (EOAi) to body surface area (BSA) to define PPM, but most SAVR series have used predicted EOAi. This difference may contribute to discrepancies in incidence and outcomes of PPM between series., Methods: The study analyzed SAVR patients from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2A trial and TAVR patients from the PARTNER 2 SAPIEN 3 Intermediate Risk registry. PPM was classified as moderate if EOAi ≤0.85 cm 2 /m 2 (≤0.70 if obese: body mass index ≥30 kg/m 2 ) and severe if EOAi ≤0.65 cm 2 /m 2 (≤0.55 if obese). PPM M was determined by the core lab-measured EOAi on 30-day echocardiogram. PPM P was determined by 2 methods: 1) using normal EOA reference values previously reported for each valve model and size (PPM P1 ; n = 929 SAVR, 1,069 TAVR) indexed to BSA; and 2) using normal reference EOA predicted from aortic annulus size measured by computed tomography (PPM P2 ; n = 864 TAVR only) indexed to BSA. Primary endpoint was the composite of 5-year all-cause death and rehospitalization., Results: The incidence of moderate and severe PPM P was much lower than PPM M in both SAVR (PPM P1 : 28.4% and 1.2% vs. PPM M : 31.0% and 23.6%) and TAVR (PPM P1 : 21.0% and 0.1% and PPM P2 : 17.0% and 0% vs. PPM M : 27.9% and 5.7%). The incidence of severe PPM M and severe PPM P1 was lower in TAVR versus SAVR (P < 0.001). The presence of PPM by any method was associated with higher transprosthetic gradient. Severe PPM P1 was independently associated with events in SAVR after adjustment for sex and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (hazard ratio: 3.18;95% CI: 1.69-5.96; P < 0.001), whereas no association was observed between PPM by any method and outcomes in TAVR., Conclusions: EOAi measured by echocardiography results in a higher incidence of PPM following SAVR or TAVR than PPM based on predicted EOAi. Severe PPM P is rare (<1.5%), but is associated with increased all-cause death and rehospitalization after SAVR, whereas it is absent following TAVR., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The PARTNER II trial was funded by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Pibarot has echo core lab contracts with Edwards Lifesciences, for which he receives no direct compensation. Dr Leipsic holds institutional computed tomography core lab contracts with Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic; and has served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Clavel has a computed tomography core lab contract with Edwards Lifesciences, for which he receives no direct compensation; and has received research grant support from Medtronic. Dr Khalique has received speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Abbas has served on the on the Speakers Bureau and has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Hahn has echo core lab contracts with Edwards Lifesciences, for which she receives no direct compensation. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: The Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC), founded in 2010, was intended to (i) identify appropriate clinical endpoints and (ii) standardize definitions of these endpoints for transcatheter and surgical aortic valve clinical trials. Rapid evolution of the field, including the emergence of new complications, expanding clinical indications, and novel therapy strategies have mandated further refinement and expansion of these definitions to ensure clinical relevance. This document provides an update of the most appropriate clinical endpoint definitions to be used in the conduct of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve clinical research., Methods and Results: Several years after the publication of the VARC-2 manuscript, an in-person meeting was held involving over 50 independent clinical experts representing several professional societies, academic research organizations, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives to (i) evaluate utilization of VARC endpoint definitions in clinical research, (ii) discuss the scope of this focused update, and (iii) review and revise specific clinical endpoint definitions. A writing committee of independent experts was convened and subsequently met to further address outstanding issues. There were ongoing discussions with FDA and many experts to develop a new classification schema for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure. Overall, this multi-disciplinary process has resulted in important recommendations for data reporting, clinical research methods, and updated endpoint definitions. New definitions or modifications of existing definitions are being proposed for repeat hospitalizations, access site-related complications, bleeding events, conduction disturbances, cardiac structural complications, and bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure (including valve leaflet thickening and thrombosis). A more granular 5-class grading scheme for paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) is being proposed to help refine the assessment of PVR. Finally, more specific recommendations on quality-of-life assessments have been included, which have been targeted to specific clinical study designs., Conclusions: Acknowledging the dynamic and evolving nature of less-invasive aortic valve therapies, further refinements of clinical research processes are required. The adoption of these updated and newly proposed VARC-3 endpoints and definitions will ensure homogenous event reporting, accurate adjudication, and appropriate comparisons of clinical research studies involving devices and new therapeutic strategies., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2021. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

With the advent of transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR), the concept of the neo-left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) was introduced and remains an essential component of treatment planning. This paper describes the LVOT anatomy and provides a step-by-step computed tomography methodology to segment and measure the neo-LVOT while discussing the current evidence and outstanding challenges. It also discusses the technical and hemodynamic factors that play a major role in assessing the neo-LVOT. A summary of expert-based recommendations about the overall risk of LVOT obstruction in different scenarios is presented along with the currently available methods to reduce the risk of LVOT obstruction and other post-procedural complications., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr. Wang has served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and Boston Scientific; has received research grant support from Boston Scientific; and had patents on left ventricular outflow tract prediction modeling software assigned to assigned to her employer (Henry Ford Health System). Dr. Piazza is a consultant for Medtronic, HighLife, MicroPort, and Circle CVI. Dr. Cavalcante has received institutional grants to provide core lab services and consultant services to Boston Scientific, Edwards LifeSciences, and Abbott Structural; and received research support from 3Mensio, Circle CVI, Medis, and Siemens Healthineers. Drs. Blanke and Leipsic have received institutional grants to provide core lab services from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott; and served as consultants to Circle CVI and MVRX. Dr. Blanke has served as a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Growing clinical data support the use of transcatheter therapies for significant mitral valve disease. Currently, edge-to-edge repair is the transcatheter treatment of choice, but many anatomies are not suitable. Transcatheter mitral valve replacement offers several potential advantages over transcatheter repair, most notably a greater and more sustained reduction in mitral regurgitation post-implantation, but also potential disadvantages. To enable the successful treatment of mitral valve disease in a wide range of patients and anatomies, we require an armory of transcatheter devices, including transcatheter mitral valve replacement systems., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr. Sathananthan is a consultant to Edward Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr. Ye is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Cheung is a consultant to Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, and Neovasc. Dr. Webb is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. Dr. Blanke is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences, Tendyne, Neovasc, Circle Cardiovascular Imaging, and Gore. Dr. Leipsic is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences, Neovasc, Abbott, Medtronic, and GE Healthcare; and has been a consultant to and holds stock in Circle Cardiovascular Imaging and HeartFlow. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Crown Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are now both used to treat aortic stenosis in patients in whom life expectancy may exceed valve durability. The choice of initial bioprosthesis should therefore consider the relative safety and efficacy of potential subsequent interventions., Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare TAVR in failed transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) versus surgical aortic valves (SAVs)., Methods: Data were collected on 434 TAV-in-TAV and 624 TAV-in-SAV consecutive procedures performed at centers participating in the Redo-TAVR international registry. Propensity score matching was applied, and 330 matched (165:165) patients were analyzed. Principal endpoints were procedural success, procedural safety, and mortality at 30 days and 1 year., Results: For TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV, procedural success was observed in 120 (72.7%) versus 103 (62.4%) patients (p = 0.045), driven by a numerically lower frequency of residual high valve gradient (p = 0.095), ectopic valve deployment (p = 0.081), coronary obstruction (p = 0.091), and conversion to open heart surgery (p = 0.082). Procedural safety was achieved in 116 (70.3%) versus 119 (72.1%) patients (p = 0.715). Mortality at 30 days was 5 (3%) after TAV-in-TAV and 7 (4.4%) after TAV-in-SAV (p = 0.570). At 1 year, mortality was 12 (11.9%) and 10 (10.2%), respectively (p = 0.633). Aortic valve area was larger (1.55 ± 0.5 cm 2 vs. 1.37 ± 0.5 cm 2 ; p = 0.040), and the mean residual gradient was lower (12.6 ± 5.2 mm Hg vs. 14.9 ± 5.2 mm Hg; p = 0.011) after TAV-in-TAV. The rate of moderate or greater residual aortic regurgitation was similar, but mild aortic regurgitation was more frequent after TAV-in-TAV (p = 0.003)., Conclusions: In propensity score-matched cohorts of TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV patients, TAV-in-TAV was associated with higher procedural success and similar procedural safety or mortality., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Dr. Webb is a consultant to and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and ViVitro Labs. Dr. Kim has received proctor or speaker fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Barbanti is a consultant for Edwards; and is an Advisory Board member for Biotronik. Dr. Sondergaard has received consultant fees and institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Symetis. Dr. Redwood is a proctor for and has received lecture fees from Edwards. Dr. Hamm is an Advisory Board member for Medtronic. Dr. Sinning has received speaker honoraria and research grants from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Wood is a consultant to and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. Dr. Sathananthan is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Schofer has received speaker fees and travel compensation from Boston Scientific; and has received travel compensation from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott/St. Jude Medical. Dr. Leipsic is a consultant to Circle CVI and Edwards Lifesciences; and provides institutional core laboratory services to Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Neovasc. Dr. Andreas is a proctor for Edwards and Abbott; and is an Advisory Board member for Medtronic. Dr. Guerrero has received research grant support from Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Castriota is a proctor for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr. Kodali has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific; has received grants and personal fees from Abbott Vascular and JenaValve; has received personal fees from Meril Lifesciences; has received personal fees from and holds equity in Admedus; and holds equity in Supira, Microinterventional Devices, Dura Biotech, and Thubrikar Aortic Valve. Dr. Conradi is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Neovasc, and JenaValve. Dr. Nazif has received consulting fees or honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Biotrace, and Baylis Medical; and has received consulting fees from and holds equity in Venus Medtech. Dr. Pilgrim has received research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Biotronik; and has received speaker fees from Boston Scientific and Biotronik. Dr. Babaliaros is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences; and holds equity in Transmural Systems. Dr. Van Mieghem has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Daiichi-Sankyo, and PulseCath; and has received institutional research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Latib has received institutional research or grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received personal consulting honoraria from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Hildick-Smith is a proctor and adviser to Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Catheter-based interventions to improve mitral valve function are dependent on anatomic and functional information provided by noninvasive imaging to plan, perform, and evaluate each intervention. In this review we highlight the importance of imaging guidance for catheter-based interventions on prosthetic mitral valves, surgical rings, and native valve annular calcification. Both repair and replacement procedures are discussed. We review the general features common to this collection of procedures and discuss specific imaging issues and concerns for each procedure. Figures and intraprocedural videos emphasize central messages using case examples., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Dr. Little has received institutional research support from Medtronic, Abbott, Boston Scientific, 4C, and 4Tech. Dr. Bapat has been a consultant for Edwards, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, 4C, and 4Tech. Dr. Blanke has been a consultant for Tendyne/Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, Neovasc, Circle Cardiovascular Imaging; and performed CT Core Lab services (University of British Columbia) for Tendyne/Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Neovasc without direct compensation. Dr. Guerrero has received grant support from Edwards. Dr. Rajagopal has been a proctor for Boston Scientific; medical advisor to Medtronic and Abbott Vascular; and founder and CEO of Opus Medical Therapies, LLC. Dr. Siegel has reported that he has no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to demonstrate the safety and functionality of the Alterra Adaptive Prestent and SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve (THV) in patients with dysfunctional, dilated right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) greater or equal to moderate pulmonary regurgitation (PR)., Background: Significant variations in the size and morphology of the RVOT affect the placement of transcatheter pulmonary valves. The Alterra Prestent internally reduces and reconfigures the RVOT, providing a stable landing zone for the 29-mm SAPIEN 3 THV., Methods: Eligible patients had moderate or greater PR, weighed >20 kg, and had RVOT diameter 27 to 38 mm and length >35 mm. The primary endpoint was device success, a 5-item composite: 1 Alterra Prestent deployed in the desired location, 1 SAPIEN 3 THV implanted in the desired location within the Prestent, right ventricular-to-pulmonary artery peak-to-peak gradient <35 mm Hg after THV implantation, less than moderate PR at discharge, and no explantation 24 h post-implantation. The secondary composite endpoint was freedom from THV dysfunction (RVOT/pulmonary valve (PV) reintervention, greater or equal to moderate total PR, mean RVOT/PV gradient ≥ 35 mm Hg at 30 days and 6 months. Descriptive statistics are reported., Results: Enrolled patients (N = 15) had a median age and weight of 20 years and 61.7 kg, respectively; 93.3% were in New York Heart Association functional class I or II. Device success was 100%. No staged procedures were necessary. No THV dysfunction was reported to 6 months. No serious safety signals were reported., Conclusions: This early feasibility study demonstrated the safety and functionality of the Alterra Adaptive Prestent in patients with congenital RVOT dysfunction and moderate or greater PR. Durability and long-term outcome data are needed., Competing Interests: Author Relationship With Industry Edwards Lifesciences sponsored this study. Dr. Shahanavaz is a consultant for Medtronic; and is a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Balzer is a consultant and proctor for Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Babaliaros is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences; and has equity in TransMural Systems. Dr. Dimas is a consultant for Medtronic and Abbott Laboratories/St. Jude Medical. Dr. Reddy is a consultant for B. Braun Interventional Systems. Dr. Leipsic is a core laboratory consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott Laboratories; and is a consultant for Circle CVI. Dr. Blanke is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Gorelick is an employee of Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Zahn is a proctor and consultant for Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. 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.)

Aims: The commonly used valve-in-valve (VIV) app recommends sizing based on dimensions of both the transcatheter heart valve (THV) and bioprosthetic surgical valve. The implications of hydrodynamic testing to guide VIV sizing are poorly understood. This bench study assessed the hydrodynamic performance of different sizes of self-expanding supra-annular THVs in three different surgical aortic bioprostheses at different implantation depths., Methods: A small versus medium ACURATE neo (ACn), and a 26 mm versus 29 mm Evolut R were assessed after VIV implantation in 25 mm Mitroflow, Mosaic, and Magna Ease aortic surgical bioprostheses, at three implantation depths (+2 mm, -2 mm, and -6 mm)., Results: The medium-sized ACn had lower gradients compared to the small ACn when the THV was implanted high (+2 mm, or -2 mm). The 29 mm Evolut R had lower gradients compared to a 26 mm Evolut R for all implantation depths, except for a depth of -2 mm in the 25 mm Mitroflow. The medium ACn and 29 mm Evolut R had larger effective orifice areas compared to the small ACn and 26 mm Evolut R, respectively. Both Evolut R sizes had acceptable regurgitant fractions (<15%), while both ACn sizes were above the acceptable performance criteria (>15%), at all implantation depths., Conclusions: Use of a larger self-expanding THV was associated with superior hydrodynamic performance if the THV was implanted high. Hydrodynamic testing can provide additional information to the VIV app to help guide VIV sizing., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectives: This study aims to establish a computed tomography (CT)-based scoring system for grading mitral annular calcification (MAC) severity and potentially aid in predicting valve embolization during transcatheter mitral valve (MV) replacement using balloon-expandable aortic transcatheter heart valves., Background: Transcatheter MV replacement is emerging as an alternative treatment for patients with severe MAC who are not surgical candidates. Although cardiac CT is the imaging modality of choice in the evaluation of candidates for valve-in-MAC (ViMAC), a standardized grading system to quantify MAC severity has not been established., Methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective review of cardiac CT and clinical outcomes of patients undergoing ViMAC. A CT-based MAC score was created using the following features: average calcium thickness (mm), degrees of annulus circumference involved, calcification at one or both fibrous trigones, and calcification of one or both leaflets. Features were assigned points according to severity (total maximum score = 10) and severity grade was assigned based on total points (mild ≤3, moderate 4 to 6, and severe ≥7 points). The association between MAC score and device migration/embolization was evaluated., Results: Of 117 patients in the TMVR in MAC registry, 87 had baseline cardiac CT of adequate quality. Of these, 15 were treated with transatrial access and were not included. The total cohort included 72 (trans-septal = 37, transapical = 35). Mean patient age was 74 ± 12 years, 66.7% were female, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgery risk score was 15.4 ± 10.5%. The mean MAC score was 7.7 ± 1.4. Embolization/migration rates were lower in higher scores: Patients with a MAC score of 7 had valve embolization/migration rate of 12.5%, MAC score ≥8 had a rate of 8.7%, and a MAC score of ≥9 had zero (p = 0.023). Patients with a MAC score of ≤6 had 60% embolization/migration rate versus 9.7% in patients with a MAC score ≥7 (p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, a MAC score ≤6 was in independent predictor of valve embolization/migration (odds ratio [OR]: 5.86 [95% CI: 1.00 to 34.26]; p = 0.049)., Conclusions: This cardiac CT-based score provides a systematic method to grade MAC severity which may assist in predicting valve embolization/migration during trans-septal or transapical ViMAC procedures., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although aortic valve replacement is associated with a major benefit in high-gradient (HG) severe aortic stenosis (AS), the results in low-gradient (LG, mean gradient <40 mm Hg) AS are conflicting. LG severe AS may be subdivided in classical low-flow (left ventricular ejection fraction <50%) and LG (CLF-LG); paradoxical low-flow (left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% but stroke volume index <35 mL/m 2 ) and LG; and normal-flow (left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% and stroke volume index ≥35 mL/m 2 ) and LG. The primary objective is to determine in the PARTNER 2 trial (The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) and registry the outcomes after aortic valve replacement of the 4 flow-gradient groups., Methods: A total of 3511 patients from the PARTNER 2 Cohort A randomized trial (n=1910) and SAPIEN 3 registry (n=1601) were included. The flow-gradient pattern was determined at baseline transthoracic echocardiography and classified as follows: (1) HG; (2) CLF-LG; (3) paradoxical low-flow-LG; and (4) normal-flow-LG. The primary end point for this analysis was the composite of (1) death; (2) rehospitalization for heart failure symptoms and valve prosthesis complication; or (3) stroke., Results: The distribution was HG, 2229 patients (63.5%); CLF-LG, 689 patients (19.6%); paradoxical low-flow-LG, 247 patients (7.0%); and normal-flow-LG, 346 patients (9.9%). The 2-year rate of primary end point was higher in CLF-LG (38.8%) versus HG: 31.8% ( P =0.002) and normal-flow-LG: 32.1% ( P =0.05) but was not statistically different from paradoxical low-flow-LG: 33.6% ( P =0.18). There was no significant difference in the 2-year rates of clinical events between transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve replacement in the whole cohort and within each flow-gradient group., Conclusions: The LG AS pattern was highly prevalent (36.5%) in the PARTNER 2 trial and registry. CLF-LG was the most common pattern of LG AS and was associated with higher rates of death, rehospitalization, or stroke at 2 years compared with the HG group. Clinical outcomes were as good in the LG AS groups with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction compared with the HG group.

Background: This study aimed to compare echocardiographic findings in low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Methods: The PARTNER 3 trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) randomized 1000 patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either transfemoral TAVR with the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 valve or SAVR. Transthoracic echocardiograms obtained at baseline and at 30 days and 1 year after the procedure were analyzed by a consortium of 2 echocardiography core laboratories., Results: The percentage of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation (AR) was low and not statistically different between the TAVR and SAVR groups at 30 days (0.8% versus 0.2%; P =0.38). Mild AR was more frequent after TAVR than SAVR at 30 days (28.8% versus 4.2%; P <0.001). At 1 year, mean transvalvular gradient (13.7±5.6 versus 11.6±5.0 mm Hg; P =0.12) and aortic valve area (1.72±0.37 versus 1.76±0.42 cm 2 ; P =0.12) were similar in TAVR and SAVR. The percentage of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch at 30 days was low and similar between TAVR and SAVR (4.6 versus 6.3%; P =0.30). Valvulo-arterial impedance (Z va ), which reflects total left ventricular hemodynamic burden, was lower with TAVR than SAVR at 1 year (3.7±0.8 versus 3.9±0.9 mm Hg/mL/m 2 ; P <0.001). Tricuspid annulus plane systolic excursion decreased and the percentage of moderate or severe tricuspid regurgitation increased from baseline to 1 year in SAVR but remained unchanged in TAVR. Irrespective of treatment arm, high Z va and low tricuspid annulus plane systolic excursion, but not moderate to severe AR or severe prosthesis-patient mismatch, were associated with increased risk of the composite end point of mortality, stroke, and rehospitalization at 1 year., Conclusions: In patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk, TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve was associated with similar percentage of moderate or severe AR compared with SAVR but higher percentage of mild AR. Transprosthetic gradients, valve areas, percentage of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch, and left ventricular mass regression were similar in TAVR and SAVR. SAVR was associated with significant deterioration of right ventricular systolic function and greater tricuspid regurgitation, which persisted at 1 year. High Z va and low tricuspid annulus plane systolic excursion were associated with worse outcome at 1 year whereas AR and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch were not. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02675114.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the effect of different transcatheter heart valves (THVs) on valve leaflet displacement when deployed within bioprosthetic surgical valves and, thereby, risk for coronary obstruction., Background: Coronary obstruction is a potentially devastating complication during valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Strategies such as provisional stenting and intentional bioprosthetic valve leaflet laceration have been developed to mitigate this risk. Alternatively, the use of a THV that retracts the bioprosthetic leaflet away from the coronary ostium may prevent coronary obstruction., Methods: A 25-mm J-Valve, a 26-mm Evolut Pro, and a 23-mm JenaValve were implanted into both a 25-mm Trifecta surgical valve and a 25-mm Mitroflow surgical valve. A 23-mm and a 26-mm SAPIEN 3 were deployed into the Trifecta and Mitroflow, respectively. Displacement of the surgical valve leaflets (retraction vs. expansion) was measured with implantation of each THV by measuring displacement angle and maximal displacement distance., Results: Within both the Trifecta and Mitroflow valves, implantation of the J-Valve and JenaValve resulted in retraction of the surgical valve leaflets, and placement of the Evolut Pro and SAPIEN 3 resulted in tubular expansion of the surgical valve leaflets. There were significant differences in displacement angles and distances between both the J-Valve and JenaValve and the SAPIEN 3 and Evolut Pro (p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: ViV implantation with new-generation THVs that directly interact with bioprosthetic valve leaflets results in surgical valve leaflet retraction. This might mitigate the risk for coronary obstruction in selected cases of ViV transcatheter aortic valve replacement and also facilitate coronary reaccess after ViV TAVR., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

Aims: We aimed to assess the impact of implant depth on hydrodynamic function following valve-in-valve (VIV) intervention using the ALLEGRA transcatheter heart valve (THV) in three different surgical valve designs., Methods and Results: Multiple implantation depths (+2 mm, -2 mm and -6 mm) were tested using a 23 mm ALLEGRA THV for VIV intervention in 19 mm, 21 mm, 23 mm, and 25 mm Epic, Mitroflow and Magna Ease bioprosthetic valves. Multimodality imaging and hydrodynamic evaluation was performed at each implantation depth. The 23 mm ALLEGRA valve had gradients <20 mmHg in the Mitroflow and Epic valves sized ≥21 mm, and in all sizes of the Magna Ease valve. Gradients did not increase significantly at lower implantation depths. The 19 mm Epic (+2 mm: 20.1±0.6 mmHg, -2 mm: 18.8±0.5 mmHg, -6 mm: 22.8±0.3 mmHg) and 19 mm Mitroflow (+2 mm: 24.1±0.2 mmHg, -2 mm: 31.5±0.3 mmHg, -6 mm: 25.6±0.2 mmHg) valves had elevated mean gradients. In larger sized surgical valves (≥23 mm) the regurgitant fraction was higher at low implantation depths. Pinwheeling was significantly worse in the smaller sized (≤21 mm) surgical valves and also at low (<-2 mm) implantation depth., Conclusions: The 23 mm ALLEGRA valve had favourable (<20 mmHg) gradients in all surgical valves sized ≥21 mm, even when the THV was implanted low. In 19 mm sized Mitroflow and Epic valves, gradients were elevated (>20 mmHg). While there was no major difference in mean transvalvular gradients, leaflet pinwheeling was worse at lower implantation depths.

Objectives: To demonstrate safety, feasibility and short-term clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) implantation under local anesthesia without contrast aortography or echocardiographic guidance., Background: Transcatheter ViV implantation is an emerging treatment modality for patients with degenerative surgical bioprostheses. Given the radiopaque properties of the surgical aortic valve (SAV) frame, ViV procedures can often be performed with fluoroscopic guidance alone., Methods: ViV implantation was performed in 37 patients with SAV failure under local anesthesia without contrast aortography. Clinical and echocardiographic data were obtained at baseline, discharge, and 30 days., Results: Mean age was 74 ± 10 years and STS predicted risk of mortality was 5.6 ± 2.4%. Mean transaortic gradient decreased from 39.4 ± 15.5 mmHg to 13 ± 6.3 mmHg at discharge (p < .001), and 20 ± 7.5 mmHg at 30 days (p < .001 compared to baseline), aortic valve area increased from 0.9 ± 0.3 cm 2 to 1.2 ± 0.4 cm 2 at 30 days (p = .007). No patient had more than mild aortic regurgitation. Hospital discharge occurred at a median of 2.6 ± 4.4 days. At 30-day follow-up there were no deaths, myocardial infarctions, strokes, repeat hospital admissions for heart failure, or renal failure. One patient (2.7%) required a new pacemaker. 93% of the patients were in New York Heart Association functional class I or II., Conclusions: Transcatheter aortic ViV implantation for selected patients with degenerative surgical bioprostheses under local anesthesia without aortography or echocardiographic guidance is feasible and safe., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Aims: Longitudinal outcomes of transcatheter therapies for secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) have been variable. This study examined predictors of one-year outcome following transcatheter mitral valve implantation (TMVI) with the Tendyne device., Methods and Results: The first 100 consecutive patients with moderate-severe or severe MR enrolled in the Tendyne CE Mark trial were examined. Multivariable analyses assessed the impact of preoperative clinical and echocardiographic characteristics on one-year freedom from death or heart failure hospitalisation (HFH). All 100 patients underwent Tendyne TMVI without operative mortality. Univariate analysis was performed on implanted subjects, followed by multivariate analysis in those with complete predictive variable data. Patient characteristics: 76.5% male, 60.8% NYHA Class III/IV, age 75.6±7.5 years and Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality of 8.5±6.1%. Increased left ventricular end-diastolic dimension was associated with one-year Tendyne benefit following univariate analysis (OR 0.35, p=0.010). Following multivariable adjustment, only severe MR, defined as a composite of effective regurgitant orifice area ≥0.3 cm2 or regurgitant volume ≥45 ml, was associated with freedom from death or HFH at one year (OR 0.16, p=0.032)., Conclusions: Preoperative severe MR was predictive of improved one-year outcome following Tendyne TMVI. These results may inform therapy selection for the management of secondary MR and left ventricular dilatation.

Background: Treatment of mitral regurgitation (MR) in the setting of severe mitral annular calcification (MAC) is challenging due to the high risk for fatal atrioventricular groove disruption and significant paravalvular leak., Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential for transcatheter mitral valve replacement in patients with severe MAC using an anatomically designed mitral prosthesis., Methods: Nine patients (77 ± 6 years of age; 5 men) were treated with the valve, using transapical delivery performed under general anesthesia and with guidance from transesophageal echocardiography and fluoroscopy., Results: Device implantation was successful with relief of MR in all 9 patients. There were no procedural deaths. In 1 patient, left ventricular outflow tract obstruction occurred due to malrotation of the prosthesis, and successful alcohol septal ablation was performed. During a median follow-up of 12 months (range 1 to 28 months), there was 1 cardiac death, 1 noncardiac death, no other mortality, and no prosthetic dysfunction, and MR remained absent in all treated patients. Rehospitalization for heart failure occurred in 2 patients who did not die subsequently. Clinical improvement with mild or no symptoms occurred in all patients alive at the end of follow-up., Conclusions: Transcatheter mitral valve replacement in severe mitral annular calcification with a dedicated prosthesis is feasible and can result in MR relief with symptom improvement. Further evaluation of this approach for these high-risk patients is warranted., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To evaluate the long-term (≥2 years) outcomes following transcatheter tricuspid valve repair (TTVr) with the FORMA Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Repair System (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California)., Background: Scarce data exist on long-term outcomes following TTVr., Methods: This multicenter experience included patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) who underwent TTVr with the FORMA system at 4 centers under a compassionate clinical use program. Data were collected at baseline, 30 days, and 1 year, and yearly thereafter., Results: Nineteen patients (76 ± 9 years of age, 74% women, mean EuroSCORE II [European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation] 9.2 ± 5.6%) with functional TR were included. Procedural success was achieved in 17 (89%) patients and there were no cases of 30-day mortality. At a median follow-up of 32 (interquartile range: 24 to 36) months, 4 (24%) patients had died (3 from terminal heart failure, 1 from sepsis) and 3 (18%) patients required rehospitalization for heart failure. There was 1 device-related thrombosis and 1 pulmonary embolism, both in the setting of subtherapeutic oral anticoagulation. Less than severe TR was observed at echocardiography in 67% of patients at the 2- to 3-year follow-up. Among 15 successfully implanted patients with at least 24-month follow-up, significant improvements in New York Heart Association functional class (p < 0.001), 6-min walk test (+54 m; p = 0.016) and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score (+16 points; p = 0.016) were observed, compared with baseline., Conclusions: TTVr using the FORMA system showed favorable long-term safety profile in high-surgical-risk patients, with sustained functional improvement and acceptable TR reduction up to 3 years., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Among patients with aortic stenosis who are at intermediate or high risk for death with surgery, major outcomes are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic-valve replacement. There is insufficient evidence regarding the comparison of the two procedures in patients who are at low risk., Methods: We randomly assigned patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either TAVR with transfemoral placement of a balloon-expandable valve or surgery. The primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year. Both noninferiority testing (with a prespecified margin of 6 percentage points) and superiority testing were performed in the as-treated population., Results: At 71 centers, 1000 patients underwent randomization. The mean age of the patients was 73 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was 1.9% (with scores ranging from 0 to 100% and higher scores indicating a greater risk of death within 30 days after the procedure). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of the primary composite end point at 1 year was significantly lower in the TAVR group than in the surgery group (8.5% vs. 15.1%; absolute difference, -6.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -10.8 to -2.5; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.79; P = 0.001 for superiority). At 30 days, TAVR resulted in a lower rate of stroke than surgery (P = 0.02) and in lower rates of death or stroke (P = 0.01) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (P<0.001). TAVR also resulted in a shorter index hospitalization than surgery (P<0.001) and in a lower risk of a poor treatment outcome (death or a low Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score) at 30 days (P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in major vascular complications, new permanent pacemaker insertions, or moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation., Conclusions: Among patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, the rate of the composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year was significantly lower with TAVR than with surgery. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02675114.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) is a rapidly evolving therapy. Follow-up of TMVR patients remains limited in duration and number treated., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine outcomes with expanded follow-up for the first 100 patients who underwent TMVR with the prosthesis., Methods: The Global Feasibility Study enrolled symptomatic patients with either primary or secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) who were at high or prohibitive surgical risk. The present investigation examines the first 100 patients treated in this study. Clinical outcomes through last clinical follow-up were adjudicated independently., Results: In the cohort (mean age 75.4 ± 8.1 years; 69% men), there was a high prevalence of severe heart failure symptoms (66%), left ventricular dysfunction (mean ejection fraction 46.4 ± 9.6%), and morbidities (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality, 7.8 ± 5.7%). There were no intraprocedural deaths, 1 instance of major apical bleeding, and no acute conversion to surgery or need for cardiopulmonary bypass. Technical success was 96%. The 30-day rates of mortality and stroke were 6% and 2%, respectively. The 1-year survival free of all-cause mortality was 72.4% (95% confidence interval: 62.1% to 80.4%), with 84.6% of deaths due to cardiac causes. Among survivors at 1 year, 88.5% were New York Heart Association function class I/II, and improvements in 6-min walk distance (p < 0.0001) and quality-of-life measurements occurred (p = 0.011). In 73.4% of survivors, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score improved by ≥10 points., Conclusions: In this study of TMVR, which is the largest experience to date, the prosthesis was highly effective in relieving MR and improving symptoms, with an acceptable safety profile. Further study to optimize the impact on long-term survival is needed., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Severe mitral regurgitation (MR) conveys significant morbidity and mortality, and surgical repair or replacement may not be a desirable option., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a percutaneous transseptal transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) system., Methods: This first-in-human study was conducted between August 2017 and August 2018. The system comprises a nitinol dock, which encircles the chordae tendineae, and a balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve. The dock and transcatheter heart valve form an ensemble, with the native mitral valve leaflets secured in between, thereby abolishing MR. Key inclusion criteria were severe symptomatic MR and high surgical risk; exclusion criteria included left ventricular ejection fraction <30% or screening suggesting unfavorable anatomy. The primary endpoint was technical success as defined by Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) criteria at completion of the index procedure. The secondary endpoint was freedom from mortality, stroke, and device dysfunction (MR grade >1, mitral gradient >6 mm Hg, left ventricular outflow tract gradient >20 mm Hg) at 30 days., Results: Ten patients with severe MR of various etiologies (4 degenerative, 4 functional, and 2 mixed) were treated. The device was successfully implanted and the primary endpoint was achieved in 9 of 10 patients (90%). By transesophageal echocardiography, total MR was reduced to ≤ trivial in all implanted patients, and mean transmitral gradient was 2.3 ± 1.4 mm Hg. A pericardial effusion occurred in 1 patient: pericardiocentesis was performed, and the device was not implanted. Median length of hospital stay was 1.5 days. At 30 days, there was no stroke, myocardial infarction, rehospitalization, left ventricular outflow tract obstruction, device migration, embolization, or conversion to mitral surgery. One patient had recurrent regurgitation due to a paravalvular leak, treated with a closure device. All other treated patients had ≤1+ MR. No patients died., Conclusions: Percutaneous transvenous transseptal TMVR is feasible and safe in patients with severe MR who are at high risk for mitral valve surgery. Further evaluation is warranted., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Amid rapid growth in transcatheter valvular interventions computed tomography (CT) has emerged as a pivotal noninvasive imaging resource that can be used throughout many stages of the transcatheter heart valve process, enhancing procedural success and efficacy. It affords a three-dimensional assessment of the aortic and challenging saddle-shaped mitral annulus, facilitating appropriate device selection, sizing, and preprocedural prediction angles for prosthetic deployment. Postprocedural imaging allows documentation of procedural success, evaluation of prosthesis positioning, and identifying asymptomatic complications. This article provides an overview of the role of CT in both trancatheter aortic valve repair (TAVR) and transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR)., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The role of noninvasive imaging to help guide transcatheter aortic valvular interventions is well established and has grown with the advances in the procedure. With the rapid development of new transcatheter mitral valve interventions there is both an opportunity and a challenge for noninvasive imaging to grow understanding of mitral valve anatomy and disease, help with patient selection, and improve downstream clinical outcomes. This review will discuss the role of both echocardiography and multidetector CT in the diagnosis of mitral regurgitation, as well as grading of its severity and defining its etiology. Additionally, new concepts including measurements pertaining to mitral annular sizing, segmentation of mitral annular calcium, prediction of neo-left ventricular out flow tract obstruction, hybrid or fusion multidetector CT/echocardiographic imaging, and CT-based fluoroscopic guidance will be discussed., (© RSNA, 2018.)

Adaptation and evolution of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) technologies has led to approval of TAVR for consideration in patients at intermediate risk for surgical aortic valve intervention. As TAVR becomes more mainstream, attention is shifting toward percutaneous mitral valve (MV) repair and transcatheter MV replacement (TMVR) techniques. Transcatheter heart valves (both purpose-built and off-label-use TAVR valves) are being implanted during TMVR procedures to treat clinically significant MV disease (native disease, degenerated bioprosthetic valves, and dysfunctional surgical MV annuloplasty repairs) when the risk of open heart MV surgery is prohibitive. The success of these high-risk procedures is directly related to accurate periprocedural imaging with echocardiography and other modalities. Although a multidisciplinary heart valve team approach is necessary for optimal patient selection, a multimodality team-based imaging approach and comprehensive understanding of the MV are required for safe procedural planning. Collaboration between noninvasive cardiac imagers and the intraprocedural interventional imaging team and translation of the periprocedural imaging to the implanting team are crucial to the success of TMVR technology. Currently, the TMVR procedures discussed here are conducted either as part of clinical research or off label. The US Food and Drug Administration-approved mitral valve-in-valve procedures for the treatment of degenerated mitral bioprosthetic valves are not discussed here., (Copyright © 2018 American Society of Echocardiography. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)