Search

Objectives: The authors sought to evaluate the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with contemporary self-expanding valves (SEV)., Background: Need for PPI is frequent post-TAVR, but conflicting data exist on new-generation SEV and on the prognostic impact of PPI., Methods: This study included 3,211 patients enrolled in the multicenter NEOPRO (A Multicenter Comparison of Acurate NEO Versus Evolut PRO Transcatheter Heart Valves) and NEOPRO-2 (A Multicenter Comparison of ACURATE NEO2 Versus Evolut PRO/PRO+ Transcatheter Heart Valves 2) registries (January 2012 to December 2021) who underwent transfemoral TAVR with SEV. Implanted transcatheter heart valves (THV) were Acurate neo (n = 1,090), Acurate neo2 (n = 665), Evolut PRO (n = 1,312), and Evolut PRO+ (n = 144). Incidence and predictors of new PPI and 1-year outcomes were evaluated., Results: New PPI was needed in 362 patients (11.3%) within 30 days after TAVR (8.8%, 7.7%, 15.2%, and 10.4%, respectively, after Acurate neo, Acurate neo2, Evolut PRO, and Evolut PRO+). Independent predictors of new PPI were Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score, baseline right bundle branch block and depth of THV implantation, both in patients treated with Acurate neo/neo2 and in those treated with Evolut PRO/PRO+. Predischarge reduction in ejection fraction (EF) was more frequent in patients requiring PPI (P = 0.014). New PPI was associated with higher 1-year mortality (16.9% vs 10.8%; adjusted HR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.13-2.43; P = 0.010), particularly in patients with baseline EF <40% (P for interaction = 0.049)., Conclusions: New PPI was frequently needed after TAVR with SEV (11.3%) and was associated with higher 1-year mortality, particularly in patients with EF <40%. Baseline right bundle branch block and depth of THV implantation independently predicted the need of PPI., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Pagnesi has received personal fees from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Vifor Pharma. Dr Kim is a proctor for Boston Scientific and Abbott Vascular; and has received personal fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and Meril outside the submitted work. Dr Barbanti has served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr De Marco has served as a proctor for Boston Scientific and Kardia. Dr Adamo has received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular and Medtronic. Dr Estévez-Loureiro has served as a consultant for Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific; and is a proctor for Lifetech Scientific. Dr Conradi has served as an advisory board member for Abbott, Medtronic, JenaValve, and Neovasc; and has received personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and MicroInterventions. Dr Toggweiler is a proctor for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Biosensors/NVT; and is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Biosensors/NVT, Medira, Shockwave, Teleflex, AtHeart, VeoSource, and Equity in Hi-D Imaging. Dr Mylotte is a proctor for Medtronic and Microport. Dr Veulemans has received lecture fees and travel support from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific. Dr Søndergaard has received consultant fees and/or institutional research grants from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and SMT. Dr Wolf is a proctor for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Pilgrim has received institutional research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Biotronik; and has received personal fees from Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Abbott, Medtronic, and HighLifeSAS outside the submitted work. Dr Montorfano serves as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, and Kardia. Dr Hildick-Smith has served as an adviser or proctor for Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Taramasso is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, 4Tech, and CoreMedic; and has received speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Sinning is a proctor for Medtronic and Boston Scientific; has received speaker honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and has received research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic outside the submitted work. Dr Van Mieghem has received research grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi Sankyo; and has received advisory fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Ancora, Medtronic, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr Khogali is a proctor for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr Wood has received grant support from Boston Scientific; and is a consultant for Medtronic. Dr MacCarthy is a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Hamm has served on advisory boards for Medtronic. Dr Schäfer is a proctor for Boston Scientific and Medtronic; and has received lecture fees and travel support from both companies. Dr Zeus is a proctor for Medtronic; and has received speaker fees and financial scientific support from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Naber has received lecture fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular; and has served on advisory boards for Boston Scientific and Abbott Vascular. Dr Windecker has received institutional research and educational grants from Abbott Vascular, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardinal Health, CardioValve, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Guerbet, InfraRedx, Johnson & Johnson, Medicure, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, OrPha Suisse, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sinomed, Terumo, and V-Wave. Dr Siqueira is a proctor for Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Sedaghat has received travel grants and support from Medtronic. Dr Metra has received personal fees from Amgen, Vifor Pharma, AstraZeneca, Abbott Vascular, Bayer, Servier, Edwards Therapeutics, Actelion, LivaNova, and Windtree Therapeutics. Dr Latib has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Philips, Edwards Lifesciences. and Abbott Vascular. Dr Mangieri has received an institutional research grant from Boston Scientific; has served on a medical advisory board for Boston Scientific; and has received speaker honoraria from Concept Medical and Boston Scientific. 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 aortic valve implant (TAVI) is gaining momentum in the treatment of severe, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis, and its indication is expanding to lower surgical risk individuals, who are generally younger and have a long life expectancy. Therefore, transcatheter bioprostheses durability appears of critical importance. Aim of the present study is to evaluate mid-term outcomes of TAVI in a high-volume single center cohort., Methods: We analyzed all consecutive patients (n = 408) who underwent transfemoral TAVI at a single, high-volume center, between 2007 and 2014. Study objectives were all-cause death and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) at long term follow-up. Structural valve deterioration (SVD), BVF and valve-related death were defined according to current international standards. Follow-up was performed by in person visit and transthoracic echocardiography, which was obtained only in a minority of patients, or phone call as per patient preference., Results: At a median follow-up of 1821 days, overall mortality was 64.5%, with cardiovascular disease accounting for roughly half of total deaths. Valve-related deaths occurred in 10 patients. Seventeen patients were diagnosed with BVF, and 15 required repeat intervention. Moderate and severe SVD were observed in 10 and 7 patients, respectively. In the subgroup of patients with echocardiographic mid-term follow-up (n = 76), no significant increase of transprosthetic gradients nor increase of significant regurgitation was detected., Conclusion: In the present unselected, all-comers cohort, TAVI bioprostheses appeared to have excellent durability at long-term follow-up., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: We aimed to compare conduction dynamics and need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after CoreValve, Evolut R and PRO (transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR))., Methods: Patients were stratified based on conduction at baseline; Cohort A had normal conduction, Cohort B had conduction abnormalities including atrioventricular (AV)-block, fascicular block or complete bundle branch block. Three different dynamic QRS-patterns were defined: stable QRS-duration, transient QRS-prolongation and persistent QRS-prolongation. We performed multivariable regression analysis to estimate the effect of the three separate transcatheter heart valves (THV's) on need for PPI at 30 days., Results: TAVR was performed with CoreValve (N = 113), Evolut R (N = 157) or Evolut PRO (N = 92). Conduction dynamics were similar between the different THVs. Overall, Evolut R and PRO showed a tendency towards less PPI compared to CoreValve (17% vs. 19% vs. 27%, P = 0.08), which was driven by a lower PPI rate in Cohort A (6% vs. 11% vs. 25%, P = 0.002). Need for PPI was restricted to patients with persistent QRS-prolongation in Cohort A (26/106) but did not correlate with conduction dynamics in Cohort B. In multivariable logistic regression analysis the use of Evolut R (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19-0.78, P = 0.008) and PRO (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19-0.91, P-value = 0.028) were independently associated with less need for PPI., Conclusion: The newer generations Evolut R and PRO were associated with less PPI compared to CoreValve. Acquired persistent conduction abnormalities predicted PPI after TAVR only in patients with normal conduction at baseline. Our findings may help identify eligible patients for early discharge after Evolut R/PRO TAVR., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest HK:no conflicts of interest to declare. LVG:no conflicts of interest to declare. MVW:no conflicts of interest to declare. JO:no conflicts of interest to declare. FZ:no conflicts of interest to declare. ZR:no conflicts of interest to declare. NEF:no conflicts of interest to declare. AM:no conflicts of interest to declare. IK:no conflicts of interest to declare. JD:no conflicts of interest to declare. PDJ:is proctor for Boston Scientific. NVMhas received research grants from Medtronic, Boston scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, PulseCath. He is advisor to PulseCath, Ancora, Boston Scientific, Medtronic., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: We compared the prognostic value of the ADDED Index with visually estimated diameter (DS) of residual coronary stenosis (RS) in STEMI patients after successful PCI of the culprit lesion. Even though associated with a positive outcome, the functional assessment of non-culprit stenosis remains largely underused, especially in STEMI patients. The Angiography-DeriveD hEmoDynamic index (ADDED index) showed high accuracy to predict FFR and it might be used to better guide the diagnostic and therapeutic work-up of such patients., Methods: We retrospectively included 596 patients grouped on the basis of either the ADDED Index (ADDED Negative (<2.23, n = 153) vs ADDED Positive (≥2.23, n = 129)) or the DS of the RS (RS Negative (<50%, n = 177) vs RS Positive (≥50%, n = 105)). Patients without any RS served as control (n = 314). Primary endpoints were: 1) major adverse cardiac events (MACE), composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), clinically driven revascularizations (CDR); 2) non-culprit vessel oriented clinical events (VOCE), composite of all-cause death, non-culprit vessel related MI and CDR., Results: At 24 months the rate of both MACE and VOCE was significantly higher in both the ADDED Positive and RS Positive groups. However, differently from patients in whom complete revascularization was deferred on the basis of the angiography (RS Negative), no additional risk was found for patients in the ADDED Negative group., Conclusions: In STEMI patients with MVD deferring treatment of RS on the basis of the ADDED index, rather than the visually estimated DS, is associated with a favorable clinical outcome., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to test the superiority in terms of efficacy and safety of a dedicated plug-based vascular closure device (VCD) during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) over a suture-based VCD., Background: Vascular complications after TAVR are relevant and often associated with VCD failure., Methods: The MASH (MANTA vs. Suture-based vascular closure after transcatHeter aortic valve replacement) trial is an international, 2-center pilot randomized controlled trial comparing the MANTA VCD (Teleflex, Wayne, Pennsylvania) versus 2 ProGlides (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, Illinois). The primary composite endpoint consisted of access site-related major or minor vascular complications at 30-days' follow-up. Secondary endpoints included clinically relevant access site bleeding, time to hemostasis, and modified VCD failure (defined as failure to achieve hemostasis within 5 min or requiring additional endovascular maneuvers such as endovascular stenting, surgical techniques, or additional closure devices). Adverse events were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee according to the VARC-2 definitions., Results: A total of 210 TAVR patients were included between October 2018 and January 2020. Median age was 81 years, 54% were male, and the median STS score was 2.7%. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of access site-related vascular complications between MANTA and ProGlide (10% vs. 4%; p = 0.16). Clinically significant access site bleedings were similar with both closure techniques (9% vs. 6%; p = 0.57). Modified VCD failure occurred less frequently in MANTA versus ProGlide (20% vs. 40%; p < 0.01). Suture-based closure required more often additional closure devices, whereas MANTA numerically needed more covered stents and surgical bailouts., Conclusions: Plug-based large-bore arteriotomy closure was not superior to suture-based closure. Plug-based closure required fewer, but a different kind of bailout maneuvers., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Dr. Tchétché has been a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and 4Tech. Dr. Daemen has received institutional research support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Pie Medical, and PulseCath BV; and has received consultancy and speaker fees from Boston Scientific, ReCor, Pie Medical, Medtronic, and PulseCath BV. Dr. Dumonteil has received consultancy and proctoring fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Van Mieghem has received research grants and advisory fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Essential Medical/Teleflex, Medtronic, and PulseCath BV. 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.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the outcomes of transcatheter self-expandable prostheses in patients with small annuli., Background: Transcatheter aortic heart valves appear to have better performance than surgical valves in terms of prosthesis-patient mismatch, especially in patients with aortic stenosis with small aortic annuli., Methods: TAVI-SMALL (International Multicenter Registry to Evaluate the Performance of Self-Expandable Valves in Small Aortic Annuli) is a retrospective registry of patients with severe aortic stenosis and small annuli (annular perimeter <72 mm or area <400 mm 2 on computed tomography) treated with transcatheter self-expandable valves (n = 859; Evolut R, n = 397; Evolut PRO, n = 84; ACURATE, n = 201; Portico, n = 177). Primary endpoints were post-procedural mean aortic gradient, indexed effective orifice area, and rate of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch., Results: Pre-discharge gradients were consistently low in every group, with a slight benefit with the Evolut R (8.1 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.7 to 8.5 mm Hg) and Evolut PRO (6.9 mm Hg; 95% CI: 6.3 to 7.6 mm Hg) compared with the ACURATE (9.6 mm Hg; 95% CI: 8.9 to 10.2 mm Hg) and Portico (8.9 mm Hg; 95% CI: 8.2 to 9.6 mm Hg) groups (p < 0.001). Mean indexed effective orifice area was 1.04 cm 2 /m 2 (95% CI: 1.01 to 1.08 cm 2 /m 2 ) with a trend toward lower values with the Portico. No significant differences were reported in terms of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (overall rate 9.4%; p = 0.134), permanent pacemaker implantation (15.6%), and periprocedural and 1-year adverse events. Pre-discharge more than mild paravalvular leaks were significantly more common with the Portico (19.2%) and less common with the Evolut PRO (3.6%) compared with the Evolut R (11.8%) and ACURATE (9%) groups., Conclusions: Transcatheter self-expandable valves showed optimal clinical and echocardiographic results in patients with small aortic annuli, although supra-annular functioning transcatheter heart valves seemed to slightly outperform intra-annular functioning ones. The role of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with self-expandable valves for the treatment of aortic stenosis in patients with small annuli needs to be confirmed in larger trials., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the Acurate neo (NEO) and Evolut PRO (PRO) devices., Background: The NEO and PRO bioprostheses are 2 next-generation self-expanding devices developed for TAVR., Methods: The NEOPRO (A Multicenter Comparison of Acurate NEO Versus Evolut PRO Transcatheter Heart Valves) registry retrospectively included patients who underwent transfemoral TAVR with either NEO or PRO valves at 24 centers between January 2012 and March 2018. One-to-one propensity score matching resulted in 251 pairs. Pre-discharge and 30-day Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 defined outcomes were evaluated. Binary logistic regression was performed to adjust the treatment effect for propensity score quintiles., Results: A total of 1,551 patients (n = 1,263 NEO; n = 288 PRO) were included. The mean age was 82 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 5.1%. After propensity score matching (n = 502), VARC-2 device success (90.6% vs. 91.6%; p = 0.751) and pre-discharge moderate to severe (II+) paravalvular aortic regurgitation (7.3% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.584) were comparable between the NEO and PRO groups. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in any 30-day clinical outcome between matched NEO and PRO pairs, including all-cause mortality (3.2% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.221), stroke (2.4% vs. 2.8%; p = 1.000), new permanent pacemaker implantation (11.0% vs. 12.8%; p = 0.565), and VARC-2 early safety endpoint (10.6% vs. 10.4%; p = 1.000). Logistic regression on the unmatched cohort confirmed a similar risk of VARC-2 device success, paravalvular aortic regurgitation II+, and 30-day clinical outcomes after NEO and PRO implantation., Conclusions: In this multicenter registry, transfemoral TAVR with the NEO and PRO bioprostheses was associated with high device success, acceptable rates of paravalvular aortic regurgitation II+, and good 30-day clinical outcomes. After adjusting for potential confounders, short-term outcomes were similar between the devices., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)