Search

Background: Outcomes from transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low-surgical risk patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis beyond 2 years are limited., Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate 3-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes from the Evolut Low Risk Bicuspid Study., Methods: The Evolut Low Risk Bicuspid Study is a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study conducted in 25 U.S., Centers: Patients with severe aortic stenosis at low surgical risk with bicuspid aortic valve anatomy (all subtypes) underwent TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular Evolut R or PRO (Medtronic) bioprosthesis. An independent clinical events committee adjudicated all deaths and endpoint-related adverse events, and a central echocardiographic core laboratory assessed hemodynamic endpoints., Results: An attempted implant was performed in 150 patients from December 2018 to October 2019. The mean age was 70.3 ± 5.5 years, 48% (72/150) of the patients were women, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 1.3% (Q1-Q3: 0.9%-1.7%). Sievers type 1 was the dominant bicuspid morphology (90.7%, 136/150). The Kaplan-Meier rates of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke were 1.3% (95% CI: 0.3%-5.3%) at 1 year, 3.4% (95% CI: 1.4%-8.1%) at 2 years, and 4.1% (95% CI: 1.6%-10.7%) at 3 years. The incidence of new permanent pacemaker implantation was 19.4% (95% CI: 12.4%-29.6%) at 3 years. There were no instances of moderate or severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation at 2 and 3 years after TAVR., Conclusions: The 3-year results from the Evolut Low Risk Bicuspid Study demonstrate low rates of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke and favorable hemodynamic performance., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Medtronic funded the Low Risk study. Dr Zahr has received grant support/research support from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; and has received consultant fees/honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Ramlawi has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Medtronic, LivaNova, and AtriCure. Dr Reardon has received grants from Medtronic (paid to institution) during the conduct of the study; and has received consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Gore Medical (paid to institution) outside of the submitted work. Dr Deeb has received grants from Medtronic (paid to institution) during the conduct of the trial; and has received personal fees from Medtronic outside the submitted work. Dr Yakubov has received grants from Boston Scientific and Medtronic (paid to institution); and has received personal fees from Medtronic during the conduct of the study. Dr Song has received grant support/research contracts from Medtronic; and has received consultant fees from Medtronic. Dr Kleiman has received clinical trial reimbursement to his institution (Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center) during the conduct of the study. Dr Chetcuti serves on the Advisory Board for Medtronic; and serves as a consultant for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott. Dr Gada has received personal fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Becton Dickinson, and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work. Dr Mumtaz has received grants and personal fees from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, AtriCure, Japanese Organization for Medical Device Development, and Z Medical outside the submitted work. Dr Rovin serves as a consultant, proctor, and speaker for Abbott and Medtronic. Dr Kauten serves as a consultant for Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr Huang is an employee and shareholder of Medtronic. Dr Forrest has received grant support/research contracts from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; and has received consultant fees/honoraria/Speakers Bureau fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. 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: Data on valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are limited., Objectives: The authors compared the 5-year incidence of valve reintervention after self-expanding CoreValve/Evolut TAVR vs SAVR., Methods: Pooled data from CoreValve and Evolut R/PRO (Medtronic) randomized trials and single-arm studies encompassed 5,925 TAVR (4,478 CoreValve and 1,447 Evolut R/PRO) and 1,832 SAVR patients. Reinterventions were categorized by indication, timing, and treatment. The cumulative incidence of reintervention was compared between TAVR vs SAVR, Evolut vs CoreValve, and Evolut vs SAVR., Results: There were 99 reinterventions (80 TAVR and 19 SAVR). The cumulative incidence of reintervention through 5 years was higher with TAVR vs SAVR (2.2% vs 1.5%; P = 0.017), with differences observed early (≤1 year; adjusted subdistribution HR: 3.50; 95% CI: 1.53-8.02) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.48-2.28). The most common reason for reintervention was paravalvular regurgitation after TAVR and endocarditis after SAVR. Evolut had a significantly lower incidence of reintervention than CoreValve (0.9% vs 1.6%; P = 0.006) at 5 years with differences observed early (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12-0.73) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.21-1.74). The 5-year incidence of reintervention was similar for Evolut vs SAVR (0.9% vs 1.5%; P = 0.41)., Conclusions: A low incidence of reintervention was observed for CoreValve/Evolut R/PRO and SAVR through 5 years. Reintervention occurred most often at ≤1 year for TAVR and >1 year for SAVR. Most early reinterventions were with the first-generation CoreValve and managed percutaneously. Reinterventions were more common following CoreValve TAVR compared with Evolut TAVR or SAVR., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This work was supported by Medtronic. Dr Grubb is a proctor, principal investigator, and serves on the Advisory Board for Medtronic; and serves on the Advisory Board or is a consultant for Ancora Heart, Boston Scientific, Abbott, 4C Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, and OpSens. Dr O’Hair has received personal consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; and serves as a proctor for Medtronic. Dr Forrest has received grant support/research contracts and consultant fees/honoraria/Speakers Bureau fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Mahoney has received proctor and consultant fees from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Van Mieghem has received research grants from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Daiichi-Sankyo, and AstraZeneca; and has received advisory and consultancy fees from JenaValve, Anteris, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Amgen, Siemens, Pie Medical, Teleflex, Daiichi-Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. Dr Windecker has received research, travel, or educational grants to the institution without personal remuneration from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Braun, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, CardioValve, Cordis Medical, Corflow Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Farapulse Inc Fumedica, Guerbet, Idorsia, Inari Medical, InfraRedx, Janssen-Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, Medalliance, Medicure, Medtronic, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Miracor Medical, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Organon, OrPha Suisse, Pharming Tech. Pfizer, Polares, Regeneron, Sanofi, Servier, Sinomed, Terumo, Vifor, and V-Wave; and has served as an Advisory Board member and/or member of the steering/executive group of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Bristol Myers Squibb, Edwards Lifesciences, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, Recardio, Sinomed, Terumo, and V-Wave with payments to the institution but no personal payments; and does not receive personal fees from any medical device or pharmaceutical company. Dr Yakubov has received grants and personal fees from Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr Williams has served as a consultant to Medtronic; and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Chetcuti has received grants from Edwards Lifesciences, WL Gore Medical, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific; and has received personal fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Jena. Dr Deeb serves on an Advisory Board for Medtronic; has received institutional grant support from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and has received fees as a proctor for the Medtronic-sponsored SMART Trial. Dr Kleiman has received research grants from Medtronic, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific. Dr Althouse is a full-time employee and shareholder for Medtronic. Dr Reardon has received research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, WL Gore Medical, and Medtronic. 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: Early studies on transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) outcomes showed that female sex was associated with better survival. With increased use of new-generation valves, the impact of sex on contemporary TAVR outcomes is less well known., Methods: Retrospective analysis using institutional National Cardiovascular Data Registry STS/ACC TVT data was performed on all patients undergoing TAVR at Yale New Haven Hospital from July 2012 to August 2019. New-generation valves were Evolut PRO, Evolut R, and SAPIEN 3. Old-generation valves were CoreValve, SAPIEN, and SAPIEN XT. Log-rank test and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to compare sex differences in survival up to 1 year after TAVR. Cox modeling was used to adjust for baseline and procedural characteristic differences., Results: 927 consecutive patients (41.4% women) underwent TAVR. Women were older (82.8 vs 80.6 years old; p < 0.001) with higher STS mortality scores compared with men (7.6% vs 6.4%; p < 0.001) despite lower prevalence of cardiovascular comorbidities including coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, and smoking. Most cases used transfemoral access (90.5%) and new-generation devices (72.3%). Women received smaller valves compared with men (20-26 mm: 78.0% vs 32.9%; 29-34 mm: 22.1% vs 67.1%; overall p < 0.0001). There were no statistically significant differences between sexes in both unadjusted and adjusted 1-year mortality., Conclusion: Our data show no significant difference in 1-year survival between sexes using primarily new generation valves. Further studies should reassess the impact of sex on TAVR outcomes and whether newer technologies like new valve design and sizes, and CT imaging may have eliminated sex-based disparities., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Ryan Kaple is on the speaker bureau for Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. John Forrest reports grants and personal fees from Medtronic Inc. and Edwards Lifesciences outside the submitted work. Dr. Alexandra Lansky reports consulting fees from MedAlliance, Abiomed, and Boston Scientific as well as an institutional grant from Abbott Vascular, Sinomed, and Abiomed. The remaining authors report no relationships that could be construed as a conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) conduction disturbances and atrial fibrillation (AF) are associated with markedly worse short- and long-term prognosis. Statins have multiple pleotropic effects that may be beneficial in mitigating the risk of these procedural complications as has been found for various other cardiac procedures and surgeries., Methods: Data were retrospectively collected on consecutive patients in the Yale New Haven Health TAVR Registry who did not have a prior pacemaker, had at least 1 pre- and post-TAVR electrocardiogram, and did not have a change to their statin regimen during the index hospitalization. The primary endpoint was the composite of new pacemaker placement, new AF, and other new conduction disturbances evaluated at 7 days post-TAVR., Results: Between, July 2012 and August 2019, 612 patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 162 patients were not on antecedent statins, and 450 were (28 low-intensity, 225 moderate-intensity, and 197 high-intensity). After 1:1 propensity matching, 99 patients on moderate-/high-intensity statins were matched to 99 patients not on antecedent statins. At 7 days, there was no significant difference in the occurrence of the primary endpoint (57 % statin users vs 46 % non-statin users; p = 0.16). There was a trend toward increased conduction disturbances 7 days after TAVR in statin users (56 % vs 42 %; p = 0.07), but rates of AF (5 % vs 8 %; p = 0.39) and pacemaker placement (9 % vs 15 %; p = 0.20) were numerically lower in statin users. There was no significant difference in persistent conduction disturbances (21 % vs 18 %; p = 0.59)., Conclusions: Statins do not appear to reduce the risk of post-TAVR AF or conduction abnormalities in this small retrospective study., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no relevant disclosures., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Mitral valve-in-valve (ViV) is associated with suboptimal hemodynamics and rare left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction., Objectives: This study aimed to determine whether device position and asymmetry are associated with these outcomes., Methods: Patients undergoing SAPIEN 3 (Edwards Lifesciences) mitral ViV included in the VIVID (Valve-in-Valve International Data) Registry were studied. Clinical endpoints are reported according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions. Residual mitral valve stenosis was defined as mean gradient ≥5 mm Hg. Depth of implantation (percentage of transcatheter heart valve [THV] atrial to the bioprosthesis ring) and asymmetry (ratio of 2 measures of THV height) were evaluated., Results: A total of 222 patients meeting the criteria for optimal core lab evaluation were studied (age 74 ± 11.6 years; 61.9% female; STS score = 8.3 ± 7.1). Mean asymmetry was 6.2% ± 4.4%. Mean depth of implantation was 19.0% ± 10.3% atrial. Residual stenosis was common (50%; mean gradient 5.0 ± 2.6 mm Hg). LVOT obstruction occurred in 7 cases (3.2%). Implantation depth was not a predictor of residual stenosis (OR: 1.19 [95% CI: 0.92-1.55]; P = 0.184), but more atrial implantation was protective against LVOT obstruction (0.7% vs 7.1%; P = 0.009; per 10% atrial, OR: 0.48 [95% CI: 0.24-0.98]; P = 0.044). Asymmetry was found to be an independent predictor of residual stenosis (per 10% increase, OR: 2.30 [95% CI: 1.10-4.82]; P = 0.027)., Conclusions: Valve stenosis is common after mitral ViV. Asymmetry was associated with residual stenosis. Depth of implantation on its own was not associated with residual stenosis but was associated with LVOT obstruction. Technical considerations to reduce postdeployment THV asymmetry should be considered., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Whisenant is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Unbehaun is a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Erlebach has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic and Abbott; and is a proctor for Abbott. Dr Guerrero has received institutional research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Bruschi is a consultant for Abbott. Dr Rudolph has received speaker honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences; and is a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Andreas is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Zoll, and AbbVie; and has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and LSI. Dr Dvir is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. 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.)

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a treatment option for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis across the entire spectrum of surgical risk. Recent trial data have led to the expansion of TAVR into lower-risk patients. With iterative technological advances and successive increases in procedural experience, the occurrence of complications following TAVR has declined. One of the most feared complications remains stroke, and patients consider stroke a worse outcome than death. There has therefore been great interest in strategies to mitigate the risk of stroke in patients undergoing TAVR. In this paper, we will discuss mechanisms and predictors of stroke after TAVR and describe the currently available cerebral embolic protection devices, including their design and relevant clinical studies pertaining to their use. We will also review the current overall evidence base for cerebral embolic protection during TAVR and ongoing randomized controlled trials. Finally, we will discuss our pragmatic recommendations for the use of cerebral embolic protection devices in patients undergoing TAVR., Competing Interests: John K Forrest is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic and receives grant support from 10.13039/100006520Edwards Lifesciences, and 10.13039/100004374Medtronic. Raj Makkar has received research grants from 10.13039/100006520Edwards Lifesciences, 10.13039/100000046Abbott, 10.13039/100004374Medtronic, and 10.13039/100008497Boston Scientific; has served as national Principal Investigator for Portico (Abbott) and Acurate (Boston Scientific) U.S. investigation device exemption trials; has received personal proctoring fees from Edwards Lifesciences; and has received travel support from 10.13039/100006520Edwards Lifesciences, 10.13039/100000046Abbott, and 10.13039/100008497Boston Scientific. Martin B. Leon has received research support to his institution from 10.13039/100006520Edwards Lifesciences, 10.13039/100004374Medtronic, 10.13039/100008497Boston Scientific, and 10.13039/100000046Abbott; has served on Advisory Boards for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Gore, Meril Lifescience, and Abbott; and has served as the Co-Principal Investigator of the PARTNER 3 trial (Edwards Lifesciences, no direct compensation). Alexandra Lansky reports research grants from Sinomed, 10.13039/501100018918Microport, 10.13039/100020297Abiomed, and 10.13039/100008497Boston Scientific, and speaker/consulting fees from Sinomed, Microport, Astra Zeneca, and Medtronic. The other authors had no conflicts to declare., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

We evaluated predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) following self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), examined site-to-site variability of PPI rates, and explored the relationship of implantation methods on the need for PPI. Despite the benefits of TAVR compared to surgical aortic valve replacement, increased PPI remains a limitation. A total of 699 patients without baseline PPI were included in the study. Clinical, echocardiographic, and procedural characteristics were compared in patient with and without new PPI. Clinical outcomes were assessed at 30 days and 1 year. Funnel plots were constructed to display site-to- site variability and identify outliers in PPI. Clinical outcomes were similar in patients with and without PPI. Predictors of a new PPI within 7 days included a baseline right bundle branch block (p < 0.001) and not using general anesthesia (p = 0.003). There was substantial site to site variability in the rate of PPI. Patients at sites with a lower PPI rate had shallower implantation depth at the non-coronary (p < 0.001) and the left coronary sinus (p < 0.001), and fewer patients with an implantation depth > 5 mm below the annulus (p = 0.004). In low-risk patients undergoing TAVR with Evolut valves, baseline conduction disorders and implant depth were important predictors of PPI. Implantation method may have contributed to this variability in PPI rates across clinical sites., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Hemal Gada reports financial support, administrative support, statistical analysis, and writing assistance were provided by Medtronic. Hemal Gada reports a relationship with Abbott Cardiovascular Structural Heart Division that includes: consulting or advisory. Hemal Gada reports a relationship with C R Bard Inc. that includes: consulting or advisory. Hemal Gada reports a relationship with Boston Scientific Corp that includes: consulting or advisory. Hemal Gada reports a relationship with Edwards Lifesciences Corp that includes: consulting or advisory. Hemal Gada reports a relationship with Medtronic that includes: consulting or advisory. Amit Vora reports a relationship with Medtronic Inc. that includes: consulting or advisory. Gilbert Tang reports a relationship with Abbott Cardiovascular Structural Heart Division that includes: consulting or advisory and speaking and lecture fees. Gilbert Tang reports a relationship with WL Gore and Associates that includes: consulting or advisory. Mubashir Mumtaz reports a relationship with Edwards Lifesciences Corp that includes: consulting or advisory and funding grants. Mubashir Mumtaz reports a relationship with Japanese Organization for Medical Device Development that includes: consulting or advisory and funding grants. Mubashir Mumtaz reports a relationship with Medtronic that includes: consulting or advisory and funding grants. Mubashir Mumtaz reports a relationship with Z-Medical that includes: consulting or advisory and funding grants. John Forrest reports a relationship with Edwards Lifesciences Corp that includes: consulting or advisory, funding grants, and speaking and lecture fees. John Forrest reports a relationship with Medtronic that includes: consulting or advisory, funding grants, and speaking and lecture fees. Roger Laham reports a relationship with Medtronic that includes: funding grants. Roger Laham reports a relationship with Abbott Vascular Redwood City that includes: funding grants. Roger Laham reports a relationship with Boston Scientific Corp that includes: funding grants. Jian Huang reports a relationship with Medtronic that includes: employment. Michael Reardon reports a relationship with Medtronic that includes: consulting or advisory., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background/purpose: The prevalence of dementia and aortic stenosis (AS) increases with each decade of age. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a definitive treatment for AS, but there are scarce data on morbidity, mortality, and readmission risk after TAVR in patients with dementia., Methods/materials: We identified all admissions for TAVR in patients with AS in the National Readmissions Database in 2017-2018 and stratified them according to the presence or absence of a secondary diagnosis of dementia. Inpatient outcomes were compared using logistic regression. Cox proportional-hazards models were used to compare 30-, 60-, and 90-day readmissions., Results: A total of 48,923 index hospitalizations for TAVR were identified, of which 2192 (4.5 %) had a secondary diagnosis of dementia. Presence of dementia was associated with higher odds of delirium, pacemaker placement, acute kidney injury, and fall in hospital. The hazard of 30-day readmission was not significantly different between patients with and without dementia, but patients with dementia experienced a higher hazard of 60-day readmission (HR 1.15, 95 % CI 1.03-1.26, p = 0.011) in the unadjusted model and higher hazard of 90-day readmission in both unadjusted (HR 1.18, 95 % CI 1.08-1.30, p < 0.001) and adjusted models (aHR 1.14, 95 % CI 1.04-1.25, p = 0.004)., Conclusions: Patients with dementia who undergo TAVR are at higher risk of in-hospital adverse outcomes and 60- and 90-day readmissions compared with patients without dementia. These estimates should be integrated into shared decision-making discussions with patients and families., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Michael G. Nanna reports a relationship with American College of Cardiology Foundation that includes: funding grants. Michael G. Nanna reports a relationship with National Institutes of Health that includes: funding grants. John K. Forrest reports a relationship with Edwards Lifesciences Corporation that includes: consulting or advisory. John K. Forrest reports a relationship with Medtronic that includes: consulting or advisory., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Bicuspid aortic valve disease (BAVD) is present in up to half of all patients referred for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) yet was an exclusion criterion for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to SAVR. Nonetheless, approximately 10% of patients currently treated with TAVR have BAVD and available observational data for performing TAVR in these patients are limited by selection bias. Many in the cardiovascular community have advocated for RCTs in this population, but none have been performed. The Heart Valve Collaboratory (HVC) is a multidisciplinary community of stakeholders with the aim of creating significant advances in valvular heart disease by stimulating clinical research, engaging in educational activities, and advancing regulatory science. In December 2020, the HVC hosted a Global Multidisciplinary workshop involving over 100 international experts in the field. Following this 2-day symposium, working groups with varied expertise were convened to discuss BAVD, including the need for and design of RCTs. This review, conducted under the auspices of the HVC, summarizes available data and knowledge gaps regarding procedural therapy for BAVD, outlining specific challenges for trials in this population. We also propose several potential studies that could be performed and discuss respective strengths and weaknesses of each approach. Finally, we present a roadmap for future directions in clinical research in TAVR for BAVD with an emphasis both on RCTs and also prospective registries focused on disease phenotyping to develop parameters and risk scores that could ultimately be applied to patients to inform clinical decision-making., Competing Interests: Dr Madhavan was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to Columbia University Irving Medical Center (T32 HL007854). Dr Baron reports consulting for Boston Scientific Corp, Abiomed, Abbott, Edwards, and Mitra Labs and research support from Abiomed and Boston Scientific Corp. Dr Forrest is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic and receives grant support from Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Leipsic reports unrestricted research grants from GE Healthcare, stock options and consulting fees from HeartFlow and Circle CVI, payment or honoraria from Philips, board of directors of SCCT, deputy editor for Radiology: Cardiothoracic Imaging. Dr Cavalcante has received research grants from and is a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Circle Cardiovascular Imaging, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Siemens Healthineers, and Edwards Lifesciences; is a consultant for VDyne and Triflo; and is a member of the Speakers Bureau for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging, Medtronic, Siemens Healthineers. Dr Wang has served as a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, NeoChord, and Boston Scientific; and received research grant support from Boston Scientific assigned to her employer, the Henry Ford Health System. Dr McCarthy has received royalties and honoraria for speaking for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Szerlip has served as National Principal Investigator for trial sponsored by Edwards Lifesciences; has served on steering committees for trials by Abbott and Medtronic; and has served as speaker for Medtronic, Abbott, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Makkar has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific; has served as national Principal Investigator for Portico (Abbott) and Acurate (Boston Scientific) U.S. investigation device exemption trials; has received personal proctoring fees from Edwards Lifesciences; and has received travel support from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Boston Scientific. Dr Mack has served as a co-principal investigator for Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott; and as a study chair for Medtronic. Dr Leon has received research support to his institution from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott; has served on Advisory Boards for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Gore, Meril Lifescience, and Abbott; and has served as the Co-Principal Investigator of the PARTNER 3 trial (Edwards Lifesciences, no direct compensation). Dr Cohen has received institutional research grants and personal fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott Vascular, outside the submitted work. The other authors had no conflicts to declare., (© 2022 The Author(s).)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare 1-year outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low surgical risk patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis to patients with tricuspid aortic stenosis., Background: The pivotal TAVR trials excluded patients with bicuspid aortic valves. The Low Risk Bicuspid Study 30-day primary endpoint of death or disabling stroke was 1.3%., Methods: The Low Risk Bicuspid Study is a prospective, single-arm, TAVR trial that enrolled patients from 25 U.S. sites. A screening committee confirmed bicuspid anatomy and valve classification on computed tomography using the Sievers classification. Valve sizing was by annular measurements. An independent clinical events committee adjudicated all serious adverse events, and an independent core laboratory assessed all echocardiograms. The 150 patients from the Low Risk Bicuspid Study were propensity matched to the TAVR patients in the randomized Evolut Low Risk Trial using the 1:1 5- to-1-digit greedy method, resulting in 145 pairs., Results: All-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 1 year was 1.4% in the bicuspid and 2.8% in the tricuspid group (P = 0.413). A pacemaker was implanted in 16.6% of bicuspid and 17.9% of tricuspid patients (P = 0.741). The effective orifice area was similar between groups at 1 year (2.2 ± 0.7 cm 2 vs 2.3 ± 0.6 cm 2 , P = 0.677) as was the mean gradient (8.7 ± 3.9 mm Hg vs 8.5 ± 3.1 mm Hg, P = 0.754). Fewer patients in the bicuspid group had mild or worse paravalvular leak (21.3% vs 42.6%, P < 0.001)., Conclusions: There were no significant differences in clinical or forward flow hemodynamic outcomes between the propensity-matched groups at 1 year., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Deeb serves on an advisory board for Medtronic; and has received institutional grant support from Boston Scientific, Edwards LifeSciences, and Medtronic; he receives no personal remunerations. Dr Reardon has received fees to his institution from Medtronic for consulting and providing educational services. Dr Ramlawi has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Medtronic, Liva Nova, and AtriCure. Dr Chetcuti serves as a proctor for and reports grant support from Medtronic. Dr Kleiman has received educational and research grants from Medtronic. Dr Yakubov has received institutional research grants from Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr Mangi has received grant support/research contracts and consultant fees/honoraria/proctoring fees and Speakers Bureau fees from Thoratec Corporation, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Zahr has received educational and research grant from Medtronic. Dr Song has received grant support/research contracts and consultant fees from Medtronic. Dr Gada serves as a consultant for Abbott, Bard, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Mumtaz serves as a consultant to Atricure, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Millipede, Japanese Organization for Medical Device Development, Abbott, and Terumo. Dr Kirshner serves as a consultant and proctor for Medtronic. Dr Noel serves as a proctor and has received educational grants from Medtronic. Dr Byrne has received proctor fees and honoraria from Medtronic; and has received consultative fees and honoraria from Abbott. Dr Huang is an employee and shareholder of Medtronic plc. Dr Forrest has received grant support/research contracts and consultant fees/honoraria/Speakers Bureau fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. 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.)

Aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD) frequently coexist, with up to two thirds of patients with AS having significant CAD. Given the challenges when both disease states are present, these patients require a tailored approach diagnostically and therapeutically. In this review the authors address the impact of AS and aortic valve replacement (AVR) on coronary hemodynamic status and discuss the assessment of CAD and the role of revascularization in patients with concomitant AS and CAD. Remodeling in AS increases the susceptibility of myocardial ischemia, which can be compounded by concomitant CAD. AVR can improve coronary hemodynamic status and reduce ischemia. Assessment of the significance of coexisting CAD can be done using noninvasive and invasive metrics. Revascularization in patients undergoing AVR can benefit certain patients in whom CAD is either prognostically or symptomatically important. Identifying this cohort of patients is challenging and as yet incomplete. Patients with dual pathology present a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge; both AS and CAD affect coronary hemodynamic status, they provoke similar symptoms, and their respective treatments can have an impact on both diseases. Decisions regarding coronary revascularization should be based on understanding this complex relationship, using appropriate coronary assessment and consensus within a multidisciplinary team., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Patel is supported by a clinical research training fellowship from the British Heart Foundation (FS/19/48/34523) and an unrestricted research grant from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Treibel is directly and indirectly supported by the University College London Hospital and Barts National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Units. Dr Mullen has received grants and personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences; and has received personal fees from Abbott Vascular. 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.)

This International Consensus Classification and Nomenclature for the congenital bicuspid aortic valve condition recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valves: 1. The fused type (right-left cusp fusion, right-non-coronary cusp fusion and left-non-coronary cusp fusion phenotypes); 2. The 2-sinus type (latero-lateral and antero-posterior phenotypes); and 3. The partial-fusion (forme fruste) type. The presence of raphe and the symmetry of the fused type phenotypes are critical aspects to describe. The International Consensus also recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valve-associated aortopathy: 1. The ascending phenotype; 2. The root phenotype; and 3. Extended phenotypes., (Copyright © 2021 Jointly between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, and the Radiological Society of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This International evidence-based nomenclature and classification consensus on the congenital bicuspid aortic valve and its aortopathy recognizes 3 types of bicuspid aortic valve: 1. Fused type, with 3 phenotypes: right-left cusp fusion, right-non cusp fusion and left-non cusp fusion; 2. 2-sinus type with 2 phenotypes: Latero-lateral and antero-posterior; and 3. Partial-fusion or forme fruste. This consensus recognizes 3 bicuspid-aortopathy types: 1. Ascending phenotype; root phenotype; and 3. extended phenotypes., (Copyright © 2021 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, and the Radiological Society of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the outcomes of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) in the TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry in patients undergoing supra-annular transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for de novo stenosis or failed surgical bioprostheses (transcatheter aortic valve [TAV]-in-surgical aortic valve [SAV])., Background: Severe PPM has been associated with adverse outcomes following TAVR, yet the clinical outcome of severe PPM after supra-annular TAVR is largely unknown., Methods: Supra-annular TAVR was performed in patients enrolled in the TVT Registry with de novo stenosis (n = 42,174) or TAV-in-SAV (n = 5,446). Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria were used to define severe PPM. The clinical impact of severe PPM on 1-year mortality and valve-related readmission was assessed using multivariate regression. A generalized linear mixed model was used to evaluate predictors of severe PPM., Results: Severe PPM was found in 5.3% of patients undergoing de novo TAVR and 27.0% of patients undergoing TAV-in-SAV. The presence of severe PPM was not significantly associated with 1-year mortality or valve-related readmissions in both groups. Mean aortic gradients were higher in patients with severe PPM than in those without severe PPM at 1 month (9.7 ± 5.7 mm Hg vs. 7.3 ± 4.0 mm Hg; p < 0.001) and 1 year (10.2 ± 6.4 mm Hg vs. 8.0 ± 4.3 mm Hg; p < 0.001). Pre-procedural factors, including a <20-mm aortic annulus, were positive predictors of severe PPM in patients undergoing de novo TAVR (area under the curve = 0.795) and TAV-in-SAV (area under the curve = 0.764)., Conclusions: Severe PPM after supra-annular TAVR was not associated with increased 1-year mortality or valve-related readmissions. Longer-term follow-up is needed to determine if higher residual gradients in patients with severe PPM predict long-term outcomes. (STS/ACC Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry [TVT Registry]; NCT01737528)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Medtronic obtained the data from the TVT Registry and funded the analyses for this report. Dr. Tang is a physician proctor for Medtronic; and is a consultant for Medtronic, Abbott Structural Heart, and W. L. Gore & Associates. Dr. Bapat has served as a consultant for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, 4C, and Boston Scientific. Dr. Adams has received other support from Medtronic during the conduct of the study; other support from NeoChord and Medtronic outside the submitted work; and receives patent royalties from Edwards Lifesciences (US9526615 B2 and US9011529 B2) and Medtronic (US8764821 B2). Dr. Sharma has served on the Speakers Bureau for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, TriReme, and Cardiovascular Systems. Dr. Kodali has received grants and research support from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Claret Medical, and Edwards Lifesciences; has served on steering committees for Claret Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, and Meril; has held equity in Thubrikar Aortic Valve; and has received honoraria from Claret Medical and St. Jude Medical. Dr. Ramlawi has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Medtronic, Liva Nova, and AtriCure. Dr. Gada has served as a consultant to Abbott, Bard Medical, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Vora serves as a consultant to Medtronic. Dr. Forrest has received grant support and research contracts and consultant fees, honoraria, and Speakers Bureau fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr. Kaple is a speaker for Abbott and has received honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Liu is an employee and shareholder of Medtronic. Dr. Reardon has received fees to his institution from Medtronic for consulting and providing educational services. 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.)

Background: Paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. PVR continues to plague TAVR jeopardizing long-term results. New device iterations, such as the self-expandable Evolut PRO valve, aim to decrease PVR while maintaining optimal hemodynamics. This study sought to evaluate clinical and hemodynamic performance of the Evolut PRO system at 3 years., Methods: The Evolut PRO US Clinical Study included 60 patients at high or extreme surgical risk undergoing TAVR with the Evolut PRO valve at 8 centers in the United States. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 criteria and included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, disabling stroke and valve complications. An independent core laboratory centrally assessed all echocardiographic measures., Results: At 3 years, all-cause mortality was 25.8% (cardiovascular mortality 16.5%) and the disabling stroke rate was 10.7%. There were no cases of repeat valve intervention, endocarditis or coronary obstruction. Valve thrombosis was identified in 1 patient 2 years post-procedure and was treated medically. Hemodynamics at 3 years included a mean gradient of 7.2 ± 4.5 mm Hg, an effective orifice area of 2.0 ± 0.5 cm 2 , and 88.2% of patients had no or trace PVR. The remaining patients had mild PVR. Most of the surviving patients (80.6%) had New York Heart Association class I symptoms at 3 years., Conclusion: Outcomes at 3-years following TAVR with a contemporary self-expanding prosthesis are favorable, with no signal of valve deterioration, excellent hemodynamics including very low prevalence of PVR., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. von Ballmoos serves as a consultant and on an advisory board to Boston Scientific and LivaNova and as a proctor for LivaNova; Dr. Reardon has received fees to his institution from Medtronic for consulting and providing educational services; Dr. Williams serves as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; as a speaker for Abbott Laboratories; and has received research grants from Medtronic. Dr. Forrest has received grant support/research contracts and consultant fees/honoraria/speakers' bureau fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; Dr. Mangi has received speaking fees and consulting fees from Thoratec Corporation; and speaking, training, and proctoring fees from Medtronic Corporation and Edwards LifeSciences; Dr. Kleiman has received fees for providing educational services from Medtronic. Dr. Yakubov has received institutional research grants from Medtronic and Boston Scientific; and serves on an advisory board for Medtronic and Boston Scientific; Dr. Watson serves on the speakers' bureau and is a proctor for Boston Scientific, Edwards, Medtronic, and Liva Nova; Dr. Kodali has received grant/research support from Boston Scientific, Claret Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; serves on the steering committee for Claret Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, and Meril; holds equity in Thubrikar Aortic Valve and Dura Biotech; and received honoraria from Claret Medical and St. Jude Medical; Dr. George is a consultant for CardioMech, Vdyne, WL Gore and Atricure; Dr. Tadros is a consultant and proctor and has received research support from Medtronic and St. Jude Medical; Dr. Zorn receives consulting fees from Medtronic; Dr. Kipperman is a consultant for Medtronic; Dr. Oh is the director of the echocardiographic core laboratory for the Evolut PRO US Study; Dr. Qiao is an employee and shareholder of Medtronic, plc; Dr. Forrest has received grant support/research contracts and consultant fees/honoraria/speakers' bureau fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to compare outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement when valve repositioning was performed (repositioned group) versus procedures without repositioning (nonrepositioned group)., Background: The Evolut R and Evolut PRO valves were designed to allow repositioning during deployment, yet the effect of repositioning on clinical outcomes remains unclear., Methods: Patients implanted with the Evolut R or PRO valve from the SURTAVI (Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial continued access study and the Evolut Low Risk Trial between June 2016 and November 2018 were combined. Baseline multidetector computed tomography data were analyzed for the Evolut Low Risk Trial patients. The primary outcomes were the rate of all-cause mortality and the rate of disabling stroke 30 days. Secondary outcomes were per Valve Academic Research Consortium-2., Results: The Evolut R or PRO valve was implanted in 946 patients, and repositioning was performed in 318 (33.6%). Compared with patients in the nonrepositioned group, patients in the repositioned group had lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (2.3 ± 1.3% vs. 2.6 ± 1.4%; p < 0.001) and fewer prior percutaneous coronary interventions (11.9% vs. 19.7%; p = 0.003). There were no differences in baseline multidetector computed tomography parameters between groups. There were no differences in the primary outcome of death (0.3% vs. 0.3%; p = 0.99) or disabling stroke (0.3% vs. 0.5%; p = 0.71) at 30 days or 1 year (1.9% vs. 2.9%; p = 0.44; and 0.8% vs. 0.9%%; p = 0.79, respectively)., Conclusions: The utilization of the repositioning feature of the Evolut valves was safe, and no differences in death or disabling stroke were observed at 30 days or 1 year between groups. (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients; NCT02701283; Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System In the Treatment of Severe, Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [SURTAVI]; NCT01586910)., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to compare outcomes in patients with bicuspid versus tricuspid anatomy undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Background: TAVR has shown excellent safety and efficacy in patients with tricuspid aortic valve stenosis, but limited data are available on the use of self-expanding valves in patients with bicuspid valves., Methods: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology TVT Registry was used to analyze patients who underwent TAVR with the Evolut R or Evolut PRO valves. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were analyzed through 1-year follow-up., Results: Between July 2015 and September 2018 a total of 932 patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis underwent elective TAVR with the self-expanding Evolut R or Evolut PRO valve. These patients were compared with a group of 26,154 patients with tricuspid aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR during that same time period. At baseline, patients with bicuspid valves were younger, had fewer cardiac comorbidities, and had lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality scores (5.3 ± 4.2% vs. 6.9 ± 4.8%; p < 0.001). To account for these differences, propensity matching was performed, which resulted in 929 matched pairs. Within these match groups, the rates of all-cause mortality at 30 days (2.6% vs. 1.7%; p = 0.18) and 1 year (10.4% vs. 12.1%; p = 0.63), as well the rate of stroke at 30 days (3.4% vs. 2.7%; p = 0.41) and 1 year (3.9% vs. 4.4%; p = 0.93), were comparable., Conclusions: All-cause mortality, stroke, and valve hemodynamics did not differ at 30 days or 1 year between patient groups. In patients at increased surgical risk, TAVR for bicuspid aortic valve stenosis indicates acceptable safety outcomes with low complications rates., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Predictors of hospital readmissions and tools to predict readmissions after TAVR are scarce. Our objective was to identify predictors of early hospital readmission following TAVR in contemporary clinical practice and develop a risk calculator., Methods: Patients with a contemporary self-expanding TAVR between 2015 and 2017 in the STS/ACC/TVT Registry™ database were included. Patients were divided into a derivation and validation cohort (2:1). A risk score was calculated using the derivation cohort based on multivariable predictors of 30-day unplanned readmissions and applied to the validation cohort., Results: A total of 10,345 TAVR patients at 350 centers were included. Unplanned 30-day hospital readmission was 9.2%. Patients with an early readmission had higher 30-day rates for mortality (2.3% vs. 0.8%, p ≪ 0.001), stroke (4.1% vs. 2.7% p = 0.009), major vascular complications (2.0% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.003) and new pacemaker implantation (25.7% vs. 18.6%, p ≪ 0.001). Multivariable predictors of 30-day readmission included diabetes, atrial fibrillation, advanced heart failure symptoms, home oxygen, decreased 5-m gait speed or the inability to walk, serum creatinine ≫1.6 mg/dL, index hospitalization length of stay ≫5 days, major vascular complication and ≥ moderate post-procedure aortic or mitral valve regurgitation. Based on these predictors, we stratified 30-day readmission risk into low-, moderate- and high-risk subsets. There was a 2.5× difference in readmission rates between the low- (5.8%) and high-risk subsets (14.6%)., Conclusion: We stratified the risk of early hospital readmission after TAVR based on a simple scoring system. This score may improve discharge planning centered on the individual's readmission risk., Summary: Unplanned readmissions in the United States are prevalent and costly accounting for $41.3 billion in annual hospital payments and are associated with adverse clinical outcomes. We found that diabetes, atrial fibrillation, advanced heart failure symptoms, home oxygen, frailty, acute kidney injury, prolonged hospitalization, major vascular complications, and moderate or worse post-procedure aortic or mitral valve regurgitation predicted of 30-day readmission following self-expanding TAVR. This information may improve discharge planning centered on each patient's readmission risk., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Sanchez serves as proctor for Medtronic; Dr. Hermiller serves as a Medtronic faculty educator; Dr. Forrest has received grant support/research contracts and consultant fees/honoraria/speakers' bureau fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; Dr. Pinto grant support/research contracts and consultant fees/honoraria/speakers' bureau fees from Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; Dr. Chetcuti serves as a proctor for Medtronic and consultant for Jena valve; Dr. Arshi serves on an advisory board for Boston Scientific; Dr. Huang is an employee and shareholder of Medtronic, plc; Dr. Yakubov has received institutional research grants from Boston Scientific and Medtronic. This research was supported by the American College of Cardiology's National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR). The views expressed in this manuscript represent those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NCDR or its associated professional societies identified at CVQuality.ACC.org/NCDR., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the evolution of early outcomes for 3 iterative self-expanding transcatheter aortic valves., Background: Over the past decade there have been rapid advancements in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) technologies, including 3 generations of supra-annular self-expanding transcatheter systems., Methods: Data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry for patients undergoing TAVR with CoreValve, Evolut R, or Evolut PRO valves to treat tricuspid aortic stenosis between January 2014 and September 2017 were obtained. Patient risk and echocardiographic data are site reported. Valves analyzed included 23-, 26-, and 29-mm sizes to fit 18- to 26-mm annular diameters. Propensity score matching was performed using the Evolut PRO group as the common reference., Results: Of 18,874 patients undergoing TAVR at 381 centers, 5,514 patients were implanted with CoreValve, 11,295 with Evolut R, and 2,065 with Evolut PRO valves. At 30 days, there were significantly fewer patients with more than mild aortic regurgitation for the unmatched (7.8% CoreValve, 5.2% Evolut R, and 2.8% Evolut PRO; p < 0.001) and matched populations (8.3% CoreValve, 5.4% Evolut R, and 3.4% Evolut PRO; p = 0.032). The mean aortic valve gradients at 30 days in the matched populations were <8 mm Hg for all 3 valves (7.3 mm Hg CoreValve, 7.5 mm Hg Evolut R, 7.2 mm Hg Evolut PRO)., Conclusions: Advancements in transcatheter valve technologies and expanding indications for TAVR have resulted in improved outcomes for patients undergoing TAVR in the United States with self-expanding, supra-annular valves. In particular, the addition of an outer pericardial tissue wrap designed to enhance sealing at the level of the aortic annulus has resulted in very low rates of significant aortic regurgitation while maintaining excellent hemodynamic status., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the Medtronic Evolut PRO Transcatheter Aortic Valve System in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis., Background: A next-generation self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve was designed with an external pericardial wrap with the intent to reduce paravalvular leak while maintaining the benefits of a low-profile, self-expanding, and repositionable supra-annular valve., Methods: The Medtronic Evolut PRO Clinical Study included 60 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the Evolut PRO valve at 8 investigational sites in the United States. Clinical outcomes at 30 days were evaluated using Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. The 2 primary safety endpoints were the incidence of all-cause mortality at 30 days and the incidence of disabling stroke at 30 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with no or trace prosthetic valve regurgitation at 30 days. An independent echocardiographic core laboratory (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota) was used to adjudicate all echocardiographic assessments., Results: All 60 patients received the Evolut PRO valve. At 30 days, 1 patient (1.7%) died and 1 patient (1.7%) experienced a nonfatal disabling stroke. Paravalvular regurgitation at 30 days was absent or trace in 72.4% of patients and was mild in the remainder of patients, with no patients having worse than mild paravavlular leak. The mean atrioventricular gradient was 6.4 ± 2.1 mm Hg and effective orifice area was 2.0 ± 0.5 cm 2 at 30 days., Conclusions: The safety and efficacy results of this study support the use of the Evolut PRO System for the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis in patients who are at increased surgical risk, resulting in excellent hemodynamics and minimal paravalvular leak (The Medtronic TAVR 2.0 US Clinical Study; NCT02738853)., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with surgical valve failure (SVF)., Background: Self-expanding TAVR is superior to medical therapy for patients with severe native aortic valve stenosis at increased surgical risk., Methods: The CoreValve U.S. Expanded Use Study was a prospective, nonrandomized study that enrolled 233 patients with symptomatic SVF who were deemed unsuitable for reoperation. Patients were treated with self-expanding TAVR and evaluated for 30-day and 1-year outcomes after the procedure. An independent core laboratory was used to evaluate serial echocardiograms for valve hemodynamics and aortic regurgitation., Results: SVF occurred through stenosis (56.4%), regurgitation (22.0%), or a combination (21.6%). A total of 227 patients underwent attempted TAVR and successful TAVR was achieved in 225 (99.1%) patients. Patients were elderly (76.7 ± 10.8 years), had a Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score of 9.0 ± 6.7%, and were severely symptomatic (86.8% New York Heart Association functional class III or IV). The all-cause mortality rate was 2.2% at 30 days and 14.6% at 1 year; major stroke rate was 0.4% at 30 days and 1.8% at 1 year. Moderate aortic regurgitation occurred in 3.5% of patients at 30 days and 7.4% of patients at 1 year, with no severe aortic regurgitation. The rate of new permanent pacemaker implantation was 8.1% at 30 days and 11.0% at 1 year. The mean valve gradient was 17.0 ± 8.8 mm Hg at 30 days and 16.6 ± 8.9 mm Hg at 1 year. Factors significantly associated with higher discharge mean aortic gradients were surgical valve size, stenosis as modality of SVF, and presence of surgical valve prosthesis patient mismatch (all p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Self-expanding TAVR in patients with SVF at increased risk for surgery was associated with a low 1-year mortality and major stroke rate, significantly improved aortic valve hemodynamics, and low rates of moderate and no severe residual aortic regurgitation, with improved quality of life., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)