Search

BACKGROUND: Coronary accessibility following redo--transcatheter aortic valve replacement (redo-TAVR) is increasingly important, particularly in younger low-risk patients. This study aimed to predict coronary accessibility after simulated Sapien-3 balloon-expandable valve implantation within an Evolut supra-annular, self-expanding valve using pre-TAVR computed tomography (CT) imaging. METHODS: A total of 219 pre-TAVR CT scans from the Evolut Low-Risk CT substudy were analyzed. Virtual Evolut and Sapien-3 valves were sized using CT-based diameters. Two initial Evolut implant depths were analyzed, 3 and 5 mm. Coronary accessibility was evaluated for 2 Sapien-3 in Evolut implant positions: Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 4 and Evolut node 5. RESULTS: With a 3-mm initial Evolut implant depth, suitable coronary access was predicted in 84% of patients with the Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 4, and in 31% of cases with the Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 5 (P<0.001). Coronary accessibility improved with a 5-mm Evolut implant depth: 97% at node 4 and 65% at node 5 (P<0.001). When comparing 3- to 5-mm Evolut implant depth, sinus sequestration was the lowest with Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 4 (13% versus 2%; P<0.001), and the highest at Evolut node 5 (61% versus 32%; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Coronary accessibility after Sapien-3 in Evolut redo-TAVR relates to the initial Evolut implant depth, the Sapien-3 outflow position within the Evolut, and the native annular anatomy. This CT-based quantitative analysis may provide useful information to inform and refine individualized preprocedural CT planning of the initial TAVR and guide lifetime management for future coronary access after redo-TAVR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Redo transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is increasing as patients outlive their transcatheter heart valves (THVs) and present with bioprosthetic valve failure. The Lotus mechanically expanded THV has unique design characteristics, which have specific implications for Redo TAVI. METHODS: The design features of the Lotus valve and their relevance to Redo TAVI were reviewed. Bench-top analysis of Redo TAVI was performed using different contemporary THVs. Procedural and outcome data were obtained from 10 patients who had undergone Redo TAVI for Lotus bioprosthetic valve failure in 5 centers. Recommendations for performing Redo TAVI in Lotus are made, based on these findings. RESULTS: The Lotus leaflets extend from the frame inflow, with a Neoskirt of only 13 mm, hence a low risk of coronary obstruction during Redo TAVI. The Lotus frame posts prevent full apposition of the Redo prosthesis in the upper part of the frame, while implantation of the Redo THV above the Lotus inflow leads to inadequate apposition of the Lotus leaflets. Inflow-to-inflow positioning is therefore recommended for effective sealing and leaflet pinning. The Lotus locking mechanism prevents overexpansion of the frame, limiting Redo THV oversizing. Redo TAVI was favorable with SAPIEN 3, Evolut, and Navitor THVs on bench-top analysis but not with ACURATE Neo 2 due to the upper crowns and short stent preventing inflow-to-inflow deployment. Case review demonstrated satisfactory outcomes in 10 patients treated with Evolut (n=6), SAPIEN 3 (n=3), and Portico (n=1) valves, with no mortality, major morbidity, or coronary obstruction. Three patients had residual mean gradient ≥20 mm Hg, including 2 of 3 SAPIEN cases. Guidance on procedural planning, valve choice, sizing, and positioning is provided. CONCLUSIONS: Redo TAVI in Lotus requires an understanding of unique design characteristics, and adherence to key procedural recommendations, but can be safely and effectively performed with most contemporary valve types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is an established treatment option for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and is most commonly performed through the transfemoral access route. Percutaneous access site closure can be achieved using dedicated plug-based or suture-based vascular closure device (VCD) strategies, but randomized comparative studies are scarce.Methods: The CHOICE-CLOSURE trial (Randomized Comparison of Catheter-based Strategies for Interventional Access Site Closure during Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) is an investigator-initiated, multicenter study, in which patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement were randomly assigned to vascular access site closure using either a pure plug-based technique (MANTA, Teleflex) with no additional VCDs or a primary suture-based technique (ProGlide, Abbott Vascular) potentially complemented by a small plug. The primary end point consisted of access site- or access-related major and minor vascular complications during index hospitalization, defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. Secondary end points included the rate of access site- or access-related bleeding, VCD failure, and time to hemostasis.Results: A total of 516 patients were included and randomly assigned. The mean age of the study population was 80.5±6.1 years, 55.4% were male, 7.6% of patients had peripheral vascular disease, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 4.1±2.9%. The primary end point occurred in 19.4% (50/258) of the pure plug-based group and 12.0% (31/258) of the primary suture-based group (relative risk, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.07-2.44], P=0.029). Access site- or access-related bleeding occurred in 11.6% versus 7.4% (relative risk, 1.58 [95%CI: 0.91-2.73], P=0.133) and device failure in 4.7% versus 5.4% (relative risk, 0.86, [95% CI, 0.40-1.82], P=0.841) in the respective groups. Time to hemostasis was significantly shorter in the pure plug-based group (80 [32-180] versus 240 [174-316] seconds, P<0.001).Conclusions: Among patients treated with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement, a pure plug-based vascular closure technique using the MANTA VCD is associated with a higher rate of access site- or access-related vascular complications but a shorter time to hemostasis compared with a primary suture-based technique using the ProGlide VCD. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04459208. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: Editorials; aortic stenosis; paravalvular regurgitation; transcatheter aortic valve implantation; transcatheter aortic valve replacement EN Editorials aortic stenosis paravalvular regurgitation transcatheter aortic valve implantation transcatheter aortic valve replacement 269 272 4 04/20/20 20200128 NES 200128 B Articles, see p 243 and 260 b Since the early stages of development, transcatheter deployment of an aortic bioprosthetic valve required either a balloon-expandable or a self-expandable delivery concept. 2020, 141, 243-259, doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.043785 7 Deharo P, Bisson A, Herbert J, Lacour T, Saint Etienne C, Grammatico-Guillon L, Porto A, Collart F, Bourguignon T, Cuisset T, Impact of Sapien 3 balloon-expandable versus Evolut R self-expandable transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with aortic stenosis: data from a nationwide analysis. Editorials, aortic stenosis, paravalvular regurgitation, transcatheter aortic valve implantation, transcatheter aortic valve replacement. [Extracted from the article]

Aortic regurgitation (AR) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been associated with poor outcomes, but little is known about how it evolves over time. We evaluated left ventricular (LV) function, remodeling, and the occurrence and evolution of AR after TAVI by using cardiac MRI.Forty-three patients treated with transfemoral TAVI underwent cardiac MRI 1 week and 6 months after TAVI. LV volumes and function were assessed by using standard cine MRI sequences. Phase-contrast imaging was performed to quantify the degree of AR. The mean age of the evaluated patients was 80 years, and 65% of patients were women. At baseline MRI, the median LV ejection fraction was 58.1%, which improved significantly at follow-up to 63.4% (P<0.0001). A significant reduction of LV end-diastolic volume (149.7±41.4-140.1±43.9 mL; P=0.014) and of LV mass (156.3±32.8-142.7±39.3 g; P<0.001) was observed. Over time, aortic regurgitant fraction increased slightly but significantly from 5.2% to 7.8% (P=0.04). Subgroup analysis revealed that significant changes of LV ejection fraction, volumes, and mass only occurred in patients with no or mild AR at baseline MRI, whereas those parameters remained unchanged in patients with AR more than or equal to grade II.By using cardiac MRI in patients with TAVI, a significant improvement of LV function, volume, and mass can be documented. Mild-to-moderate AR is commonly seen, and AR shows a small increase over time. More-than-mild AR seems to prevent LV functional and structural recovery after TAVI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Background: Percutaneous intervention of calcified coronary lesions often requires lesion preparation with either balloon dilatation or atherectomy. We sought to evaluate the impact of lesion preparation strategy on stent expansion following preparation of severely calcified coronary lesions with modified (cutting/scoring) balloons (MB) versus rotational atherectomy (RA) and to evaluate the impact of calcium burden as assessed by optical coherence tomography (OCT) on acute stent performance. Methods: In the PREPARE-CALC trial (Comparison of Strategies to Prepare Severely Calcified Coronary Lesions), 200 patients with severely calcified coronary lesions were randomly assigned to receive either lesion preparation with MB or RA. In 122 patients, OCT was performed before lesion preparation and at the end of the procedure. The principal end point of this OCT sub-analysis was stent expansion as assessed by OCT. The key secondary end points included stent asymmetry and eccentricity. Results: The maximal calcific arc (257.5±96.7° versus 248.7±82.1°, P =0.59), thickness (1.34±0.29 versus 1.32±0.27 mm, P =0.76), and length of calcification (21.1±9.7 versus 24.0±10.9 mm, P =0.12) did not differ between the MB versus RA group. Lesion preparation with MB versus RA lead to comparable stent expansion (73.5±13.3% versus 73.1±12.2%, respectively, P =0.85). The use of RA did not have a significant impact on stent asymmetry or eccentricity compared with the use of MB. Length of calcified plaque appeared to be increased in patients with stent underexpansion, while thickness of calcified plaque was increased in patients with stent asymmetry. Target lesion revascularization at 9 months was 3.3% when MB was used and 1.6% when RA was performed (P =0.62). Conclusions: In this OCT sub-analysis from the PREPARE-CALC trial, calcified plaque length was increased in patients with stent underexpansion, while its thickness was higher in patients with stent asymmetry, with no impact of the lesion preparation strategy. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02502851. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Background: High bleeding risk (HBR) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention have been widely excluded from randomized device registration trials. The LF study (LEADERS FREE) reported superior outcomes of HBR patients receiving 30-day dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention with a polymer-free drug-coated stent (DCS). LFII was designed to assess the reproducibility and generalizability of the benefits of DCS observed in LF to inform the US Food and Drug Administration in a device registration decision. Methods: LFII was a single-arm study using HBR inclusion/exclusion criteria and 30-day dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention with DCS, identical to LF. The 365-day rates of the primary effectiveness (clinically indicated target lesion revascularization) and safety (composite cardiac death and myocardial infarction) end points were reported using a propensity-stratified analysis compared with the LF bare metal stent arm patients as controls. Results: A total of 1203 LFII patients were enrolled with an average 1.7 HBR criteria per patient, including 60.7% >75 years of age, 34.1% on anticoagulants, and 14.7% with renal failure. Propensity-adjusted 365-day clinically indicated target lesion revascularization was significantly lower with DCS (7.2% versus 9.2%; hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.52–0.98]; P =0.0338 for superiority), as was the primary safety (cardiac death and myocardial infarction) composite (9.3% versus 12.4%; hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.55–0.94]; P =0.0150 for superiority). Stent thrombosis rates were 2.0% DCS and 2.2% bare metal stent. Major bleeding at 1 year occurred in 7.2% DCS patients and 7.2% bare metal stent. Conclusions: LFII reproduces the results of the DCS arm of LF in an independent, predominantly North American cohort of HBR patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Background: No data exist about the characteristics of infective endocarditis (IE) post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) according to transcatheter valve type. We aimed to determine the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients with IE post-TAVR treated with balloon-expandable valve (BEV) versus self-expanding valve (SEV) systems. Methods: Data from the multicenter Infectious Endocarditis After TAVR International Registry was used to compare IE patients with BEV versus SEV. Results: A total of 245 patients with IE post-TAVR were included (SEV, 47%; BEV, 53%). The timing between TAVR and IE was similar between groups (SEV, 5.5 [1.2–15] months versus BEV, 5.3 [1.7–11.4] months; P =0.89). Enterococcal IE was more frequent in the SEV group (36.5% versus 15.4%; P <0.01), and vegetation location differed according to valve type (stent frame, SEV, 18.6%; BEV, 6.9%; P =0.01; valve leaflet, SEV, 23.9%; BEV, 38.5%; P =0.01). BEV recipients had a higher rate of stroke/systemic embolism (20.0% versus 8.7%, adjusted OR: 2.46, 95% CI: 1.04–5.82, P =0.04). Surgical explant of the transcatheter valve (SEV, 8.7%; BEV, 13.8%; P =0.21), and in-hospital death at the time of IE episode (SEV, 35.6%; BEV, 37.7%; P =0.74) were similar between groups. After a mean follow-up of 13±12 months, 59.1% and 54.6% of the SEV and BEV recipients, respectively, had died (P =0.66). Conclusions: The characteristics of IE post-TAVR, including microorganism type, vegetation location, and embolic complications but not early or late mortality, differed according to valve type. These results may help to guide the diagnosis and management of IE and inform future research studies in the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Background: Limited data exist on clinical valve thrombosis after transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) implantation. Our objective was to determine the incidence, timing, clinical characteristics, and treatment outcomes of patients diagnosed with clinical ViV thrombosis. Methods and Results: Centers participating in the Valve-in-Valve International Data Registry were surveyed for thrombosis cases, and clinical valve thrombosis was defined based on a combination of the presence of new valve dysfunction and an imaging evidence of leaflet thrombosis. Three hundred ViV implantations were included. The surgical valve was stented in 86.3% and stentless in 13.7% of cases; and the transcatheter heart valve was self-expanding in 50%, balloon-expandable in 49%, and mechanically expanding in 1.0%. The incidence of clinical valve thrombosis was 7.6% (n=23), diagnosed at a median time of 101 days (interquartile range, 21–226) after the procedure. Fifteen patients (65%) presented with worsening symptoms and 21 (91%) with transvalvular mean gradient elevation. The mean gradient at the time of diagnosis (median 39 mm Hg; interquartile range, 30–44) was significantly higher than immediately post-ViV (13 mm Hg; interquartile range, 8–20.5; P <0.001) and was significantly reduced after oral anticoagulation therapy (17.5 mm Hg; interquartile range, 11–20.5; P <0.001). There were no deaths or strokes related to valve thrombosis. Factors associated with valve thrombosis were oral anticoagulation (odds ratio [95% confidence limits]: 0.067 [0.008–0.543], P =0.011), surgical valve true internal diameter indexed to body surface area (0.537 [0.331–0.873], P =0.012), and Mosaic or Hancock II stented porcine bioprostheses (4.01 [1.287–12.485], P =0.017). Conclusions: Clinical valve thrombosis after transcatheter aortic ViV implantation is common, especially in patients not on oral anticoagulation. Although aortic ViV is commonly associated with elevated gradients, valve thrombosis should be ruled out if gradients increase compared with early postprocedural values. A higher incidence was observed after treatment of certain stented porcine surgical valve types, suggesting a specific adjustment of the adjunctive antithrombotic therapy in this subset of ViV patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Background: Balloon dilatation or debulking seems to be essential to allow successful stent implantation in calcified coronary lesions. Compared with standard balloon predilatation, debulking using high-speed rotational atherectomy (RA) is associated with higher initial procedural success albeit with higher in-stent late lumen loss at intermediate-term follow-up. Whether modified (scoring or cutting) balloons (MB) could achieve similar procedural success compared with RA is not known. In addition, whether new-generation drug-eluting stents could counterbalance the excessive neointimal proliferation triggered by RA remains to be determined. Methods and Results: We randomly assigned patients with documented myocardial ischemia and severely calcified native coronary lesions undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention to a strategy of lesion preparation using MB or RA followed by drug-eluting stent implantation. Stenting was performed using a third-generation sirolimus-eluting stent with a bioabsorbable polymer. The trial had 2 primary end points: strategy success (defined as successful stent delivery and expansion with attainment of <20% in-stent residual stenosis in the presence of TIMI [Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction] 3 flow without crossover or stent failure; powered for superiority) and in-stent late lumen loss at 9 months (powered for noninferiority). Two hundred patients were enrolled at 2 centers in Germany (n=100 in each treatment group). The mean age of the study population was 74.9±7.0 years; 76% were men, and 33.5% had diabetes mellitus. Strategy success was significantly more common in the RA group (81% versus 98%; relative risk of failure with an MB- versus RA-based strategy, 9.5; 95% CI, 2.3–39.7; P =0.0001), but mean fluoroscopy time was longer (19.6±13.4 versus 23.9±12.2 minutes; P =0.03). At 9 months, mean in-stent late lumen loss was 0.16±0.39 mm in the MB group and 0.22±0.40 mm in the RA group (P =0.21, P =0.02 for noninferiority). Target lesion revascularization (7% versus 2%; P =0.17), definite or probable stent thrombosis (0% versus 0%; P =1.00), and target vessel failure (8% versus 6%; P =0.78) were low and not significantly different between the MB and RA groups. Conclusions: Lesion preparation with upfront RA before drug-eluting stent implantation is feasible in nearly all patients with severely calcified coronary lesions, is more commonly successful as a primary strategy compared with MB, and is not associated with excessive late lumen loss. A strategy of provisional MB remains feasible, safe, and effective as long as bailout RA is readily available and may offer the advantages of compatibility with smaller sized catheters and less irradiation. Both strategies are associated with excellent clinical outcome at 9 months. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02502851. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The potential benefit of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with nonsevere aortic stenosis (AS) and heart failure is controversial. This study aimed to assess outcomes of patients with nonsevere low-gradient AS (LGAS) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction undergoing TAVR or medical management., Methods: Patients undergoing TAVR for LGAS and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (<50%) were included in a multinational registry. True-severe low-gradient AS (TS-LGAS) and pseudo-severe low-gradient AS (PS-LGAS) were classified according to computed tomography-derived aortic valve calcification thresholds. A medical control group with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and moderate AS or PS-LGAS was used (Medical-Mod). Adjusted outcomes between all groups were compared. Among patients with nonsevere AS (moderate or PS-LGAS), outcomes after TAVR and medical therapy were compared using propensity score-matching., Results: A total of 706 LGAS patients undergoing TAVR (TS-LGAS, N=527; PS-LGAS, N=179) and 470 Medical-Mod patients were included. After adjustment, both TAVR groups showed superior survival compared with Medical-Mod patients (all P <0.001), while no difference was found between TS-LGAS and PS-LGAS TAVR patients ( P =0.96). After propensity score-matching among patients with nonsevere AS, PS-LGAS TAVR patients showed superior 2-year overall (65.4%) and cardiovascular survival (80.4%) compared with Medical-Mod patients (48.8% and 58.5%, both P ≤0.004). In a multivariable analysis including all patients with nonsevere AS, TAVR was an independent predictor of survival (hazard ratio, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.27-0.55]; P <0.0001)., Conclusions: Among patients with nonsevere AS and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, TAVR represents a major predictor of superior survival. These results reinforce the need for randomized-controlled trials comparing TAVR versus medical management in heart failure patients with nonsevere AS., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04914481., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Ludwig was supported by grant from the German Heart Foundation (DHS), has received speaker honoraria from Abbott, travel compensation from Edwards Lifesciences and advisory fees from Bayer. Dr Schofer has received speaking honoraria and proctor fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Renker received speaker fees from St. Jude Medical and Abbott. Dr Hamm receives honoraria from Astra-Zeneca, Sanofi, and Lilly and research funding from AstraZeneca and TMC. Dr Coisne is proctor for Abbott Vascular and speaker for Abbot Vascular and GE Healthcare Dr Kim received personal fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Meril Life Sciences, Shockwave Med. Dr Clavel has received funding from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic for computed tomography core laboratory analyses and research studies in the field of surgical bioprostheses. The other authors report no conflicts.

Background: Few randomized trials have compared bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and no trials have compared bioprostheses with supra-annular design. The SCOPE 2 trial (Safety and Efficacy Comparison of Two TAVI Systems in a Prospective Randomized Evaluation 2) was designed to compare the clinical outcomes of the ACURATE neo and CoreValve Evolut bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement., Methods: SCOPE 2 was a randomized trial performed at 23 centers in 6 countries between April 2017 and April 2019. Patients ≥75 years old with an indication for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement as agreed by the heart team were randomly assigned to receive treatment with either the ACURATE neo (n=398) or the CoreValve Evolut bioprostheses (n=398). The primary end point, powered for noninferiority of the ACURATE neo bioprosthesis, was all-cause death or stroke at 1 year. The key secondary end point, powered for superiority of the ACURATE neo bioprosthesis, was new permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days., Results: Among 796 randomized patients (mean age, 83.2±4.3 years; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score, 4.6±2.9%), clinical follow-up information was available for 778 (98%) patients. Within 1 year, the primary end point occurred in 15.8% of patients in the ACURATE neo group and in 13.9% of patients in the CoreValve Evolut group (absolute risk difference, 1.8%, upper 1-sided 95% confidence limit, 6.1%; P =0.0549 for noninferiority). The 30-day rates of new permanent pacemaker implantation were 10.5% in the ACURATE neo group and 18.0% in the CoreValve Evolut group (absolute risk difference, -7.5% [95% CI, -12.4 to -2.60]; P =0.0027). No significant differences were observed in the components of the primary end point. Cardiac death at 30 days (2.8% versus 0.8%; P =0.03) and 1 year (8.4% versus 3.9%; P =0.01), and moderate or severe aortic regurgitation at 30 days (10% versus 3%; P =0.002) were significantly increased in the ACURATE neo group., Conclusions: Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the self-expanding ACURATE neo did not meet noninferiority compared with the self-expanding CoreValve Evolut in terms of all-cause death or stroke at 1 year, and it was associated with a lower incidence of new permanent pacemaker implantation. In secondary analyses, the ACURATE neo was associated with more moderate or severe aortic regurgitation at 30 days and cardiac death at 30 days and 1 year. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03192813.

Background: The role of intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) in cardiogenic shock is still a subject of intense debate despite the neutral results of the IABP-SHOCK II trial (Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II) with subsequent downgrading in international guidelines. So far, randomized data on the impact of IABP on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction are lacking. Furthermore, only limited evidence is available on general long-term outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock treated by contemporary practice., Methods: The IABP-SHOCK II trial is a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial. Between 2009 and 2012, 600 patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction undergoing early revascularization were randomized to IABP versus control., Results: Long-term follow-up was performed 6.2 years (interquartile range 5.6-6.7) after initial randomization. Follow-up was completed for 591 of 600 patients (98.5%). Mortality was not different between the IABP and the control group (66.3% versus 67.0%; relative risk, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.88-1.11; P =0.98). There were also no differences in recurrent myocardial infarction, stroke, repeat revascularization, or rehospitalization for cardiac reasons (all P >0.05). Survivors' quality of life as assessed by the EuroQol 5D questionnaire and the New York Heart Association class did not differ between groups., Conclusions: IABP has no effect on all-cause mortality at 6-year long-term follow-up. Mortality is still very high, with two thirds of patients with cardiogenic shock dying despite contemporary treatment with revascularization therapy., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov/. Unique identifier: NCT00491036.

Background: Transcatheter valve implantation inside failed bioprosthetic surgical valves (valve-in-valve [ViV]) may offer an advantage over reoperation. Supra-annular transcatheter valve position may be advantageous in achieving better hemodynamics after ViV. Our objective was to define targets for implantation that would improve hemodynamics after ViV., Methods and Results: Cases from the Valve-in-Valve International Data (VIVID) registry were analyzed using centralized core laboratory assessment blinded to clinical events. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of elevated postprocedural gradients (mean ≥20 mm Hg). Optimal implantation depths were defined by receiver operating characteristic curve. A total of 292 consecutive patients (age, 78.9±8.7 years; 60.3% male; 157 CoreValve Evolut and 135 Sapien XT) were evaluated. High implantation was associated with significantly lower rates of elevated gradients in comparison with low implantation (CoreValve Evolut, 15% versus 34.2%; P=0.03 and Sapien XT, 18.5% versus 43.5%; P=0.03, respectively). Optimal implantation depths were defined: CoreValve Evolut, 0 to 5 mm; Sapien XT, 0 to 2 mm (0-10% frame height); sensitivities, 91.3% and 88.5%, respectively. The strongest independent correlate for elevated gradients after ViV was device position (high: odds ratio, 0.22; confidence interval, 0.1-0.52; P=0.001), in addition to type of device used (CoreValve Evolut: odds ratio, 0.5; confidence interval, 0.28-0.88; P=0.02) and surgical valve mechanism of failure (stenosis/mixed baseline failure: odds ratio, 3.12; confidence interval, 1.51-6.45; P=0.002)., Conclusions: High implantation inside failed bioprosthetic valves is a strong independent correlate of lower postprocedural gradients in both self- and balloon-expandable transcatheter valves. These clinical evaluations support specific implantation targets to optimize hemodynamics after ViV., (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Valve thrombosis has yet to be fully evaluated after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. This study aimed to report the prevalence, timing, and treatment of transcatheter heart valve (THV) thrombosis., Methods and Results: THV thrombosis was defined as follows (1) THV dysfunction secondary to thrombosis diagnosed based on response to anticoagulation therapy, imaging modality or histopathology findings, or (2) mobile mass detected on THV suspicious of thrombus, irrespective of dysfunction and in absence of infection. Between January 2008 and September 2013, 26 (0.61%) THV thromboses were reported out of 4266 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation in 12 centers. Of the 26 cases detected, 20 were detected in the Edwards Sapien/Sapien XT cohort and 6 in the Medtronic CoreValve cohort. In patients diagnosed with THV thrombosis, the median time to THV thrombosis post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation was 181 days (interquartile range, 45-313). The most common clinical presentation was exertional dyspnea (n=17; 65%), whereas 8 (31%) patients had no worsening symptoms. Echocardiographic findings included a markedly elevated mean aortic valve pressure gradient (40.5±14.0 mm Hg), presence of thickened leaflets or thrombotic apposition of leaflets in 20 (77%) and a thrombotic mass on the leaflets in the remaining 6 (23%) patients. In 23 (88%) patients, anticoagulation resulted in a significant decrease of the aortic valve pressure gradient within 2 months., Conclusions: THV thrombosis is a rare phenomenon that was detected within the first 2 years after transcatheter aortic valve implantation and usually presented with dyspnea and increased gradients. Anticoagulation seems to have been effective and should be considered even in patients without visible thrombus on echocardiography., (© 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation is an emerging therapeutic alternative for patients with a failed surgical bioprosthesis and may obviate the need for reoperation. We evaluated the clinical results of this technique using a large, worldwide registry., Methods and Results: The Global Valve-in-Valve Registry included 202 patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves (aged 77.7±10.4 years; 52.5% men) from 38 cardiac centers. Bioprosthesis mode of failure was stenosis (n=85; 42%), regurgitation (n=68; 34%), or combined stenosis and regurgitation (n=49; 24%). Implanted devices included CoreValve (n=124) and Edwards SAPIEN (n=78). Procedural success was achieved in 93.1% of cases. Adverse procedural outcomes included initial device malposition in 15.3% of cases and ostial coronary obstruction in 3.5%. After the procedure, valve maximum/mean gradients were 28.4±14.1/15.9±8.6 mm Hg, and 95% of patients had ≤+1 degree of aortic regurgitation. At 30-day follow-up, all-cause mortality was 8.4%, and 84.1% of patients were at New York Heart Association functional class I/II. One-year follow-up was obtained in 87 patients, with 85.8% survival of treated patients., Conclusions: The valve-in-valve procedure is clinically effective in the vast majority of patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves. Safety and efficacy concerns include device malposition, ostial coronary obstruction, and high gradients after the procedure.