Search

The study compared 1-year outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) morphology and clinically similar patients having tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) morphology. There are limited prospective data on TAVR using the SAPIEN 3 device in low-surgical-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and bicuspid anatomy. Low-risk, severe aortic stenosis patients with BAV were candidates for the PARTNER 3 (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves 3) (P3) bicuspid registry or the P3 bicuspid continued access protocol. Patients treated in these registries were pooled and propensity score matched to TAV patients from the P3 randomized TAVR trial. Outcomes were compared between groups. The primary endpoint was the 1-year composite rate of death, stroke, and cardiovascular rehospitalization. Of 320 total submitted BAV patients, 169 (53%) were treated, and most were Sievers type 1. The remaining 151 patients were excluded caused by anatomic or clinical criteria. Propensity score matching with the P3 TAVR cohort (496 patients) yielded 148 pairs. There were no differences in baseline clinical characteristics; however, BAV patients had larger annuli and they experienced longer procedure duration. There was no difference in the primary endpoint between BAV and TAV (10.9% vs 10.2%; P = 0.80) or in the rates of the individual components (death: 0.7% vs 1.4%; P = 0.58; stroke: 2.1% vs 2.0%; P = 0.99; cardiovascular rehospitalization: 9.6% vs 9.5%; P = 0.96). Among highly select bicuspid aortic stenosis low-surgical-risk patients without extensive raphe or subannular calcification, TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve demonstrated similar outcomes to a matched cohort of patients with tricuspid aortic stenosis. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A common complication of transcatheter aortic valve repair (TAVR) is development of conduction defects requiring pacemaker (PPM) implantation. These defects are not universally permanent. Objective: To determine the incidence and predictors of persistent device dependency in patients with PPM implantation following TAVR with a self‐expanding prosthesis. Methods: Records of patients who underwent post‐TAVR PPM implantation were reviewed. Patients with persistent complete AV block (AVBIII) one month post‐TAVR were compared to those regaining conduction. Results: Between September 2014 and March 2017, 485 patients underwent TAVR with a self‐expanding prosthesis; 77 (15.9%) underwent PPM implantation for AVBIII. Device interrogation at one month was available for 61 patients (79%): 22 (36.1%) had resolution of AVBIII while 39 (63.9%) remained pacemaker‐dependent. Pre‐TAVR right bundle branch block was more frequent in device‐dependent patients (19 of 38, 50% vs 4 of 22, 18%; RR 2.75; P = .01). Device‐dependence was associated with AVBIII as the first postprocedural rhythm (37 of 39, 95% vs 12 of 22, 55%; RR 1.74; P < .0001), earlier implantation (median 1d, IQR: 0‐1.5d vs 2d, IQR: 1.0‐4.0d, P = .0004), and a shorter duration of hospitalization (median 3d, IQR: 2‐3.5d vs 4d, IQR: 2‐5.75d, P = .03). Pacemaker dependence was also associated with a higher prosthesis‐to left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) diameter (1.45 ± 0.11 vs 1.39 ± 0.07; P = .02) and the lack of prior aortic valvuloplasty (5 of 39, 13% vs 8 of 22, 36%; RR 0.35; P = .03). Conclusions: In patients receiving a PPM following self‐expanding TAVR, a long‐term pacing requirement can be predicted from the timing of AV block, existing conduction‐system disease, larger prosthesis‐to‐LVOT diameter, and the lack of aortic valvuloplasty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was first approved for use in the United States in 2012, multiple leading surgical and cardiology societies were tasked with creating recommendations and requirements for operators and institutions starting and maintaining TAVR programs. Creation of this consensus document was challenging due to limited experience with this new technology, and a lack of robust centralized data that could be used to validate outcome measures and create benchmarks for self-assessment and improvement. Despite these limitations, this document provided government agencies a framework for regulation that ultimately determined requirements for Medicare payment for TAVR and therefore greatly determined how and where care was delivered for patients with aortic stenosis. After the proliferation of TAVR institutions throughout the US and with data from more than 100,000 cases in the STS/ACC Transcatheter Valve Therapies TM Registry, leaders of the same societies reconvened in 2018 to update their consensus document. The new recommendations include suggested personnel, facilities, training, and assessment of outcomes and competencies required to run a safe and efficient TAVR program. This article seeks to detail the changes from the original consensus document with a particular focus on issues relevant to cardiac anesthesiologists as well as important healthcare policy ramifications for patients and providers in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for low gradient (LG) severe aortic stenosis (AS) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) remains an area of clinical uncertainty.Methods: Retrospective review identified 422 patients who underwent TAVR between September 4, 2014 and July 1, 2016. Procedural indication other than severe AS (n = 22) or LVEF <50% (n = 98) were excluded. Outcomes were defined by valve academic research consortium two criteria when applicable and compared between LG (peak velocity <4.0 m/s and mean gradient <40 mmHg; n = 73) and high gradient (HG) (n = 229) groups. The LG group was further categorized as low stroke volume index (SVI) (n = 41) or normal SVI (n = 32). Median follow-up was 747 days [interquartile range 220-1013].Results: Baseline thirty-day mortality risk (LG 6.2% [3.8-8.1] vs HG 5.7% [4.1-7.4], P = 0.43) did not differ between groups. Short-term outcomes, including procedural success rate (86.1% vs 88.8%, P = 0.53), peri-procedural complications (intra-procedural heart block: 6.8% vs 7.9%, P = 0.99; permanent pacemaker placement: 11.0% vs 13.6%, P = 0.69; moderate paravalvular regurgitation: 2.7% vs 1.3%, P = 0.60), and all-cause in-hospital mortality (2.7% vs 0.9%, P = 0.25) did not differ between LG and HG groups. On long-term follow-up, all-cause mortality also did not differ between LG and HG groups (6.8% vs 10.0%, plog-rank  = 0.33) or between the LG low SVI (9.8%), LG normal SVI (3.1%), and HG (10.0%) groups (plog-rank  = 0.39).Conclusion: Patients with preserved LVEF undergoing TAVR for severe AS with LG, including LG with low SVI, have no significant difference in adverse outcomes when compared to patients with HG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives This study sought to evaluate this transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) bioprosthesis in patients who are poorly suitable for surgical aortic valve (AV) replacement. Background A novel self-expandable TAV bioprosthesis was designed to provide a low-profile delivery system, conformable annular sealing, and the ability to resheath and reposition during deployment. Methods The Evolut R U.S. study included 241 patients with severe aortic stenosis who were deemed to be at least high risk for surgery treated at 23 clinical sites in the United States. Clinical outcomes at 30 days were evaluated using Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. An independent echocardiography laboratory was used to evaluate hemodynamic outcomes. Results Patients were elderly (83.3 ± 7.2 years of age) and had high surgical risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality of 7.4 ± 3.4%). The majority of patients (89.5%) were treated by iliofemoral access. Resheathing or recapturing was performed in 22.6% of patients; more than 1 valve was required in 3 patients (1.3%). The 30-day outcomes included all-cause mortality (2.5%), disabling stroke (3.3%), major vascular complications (7.5%), life-threatening or disabling bleeding (7.1%), and new permanent pacemaker (16.4%). AV hemodynamics were markedly improved at 30 days: the mean AV gradient was reduced from 48.2 ± 13.0 mm Hg to 7.8 ± 3.1 mm Hg (p < 0.001) and AV area increased from 0.6 ± 0.2 cm 2 to 1.9 ± 0.5 cm 2 (p < 0.001). Moderate residual paravalvular leak was identified in 5.3% of patients. Conclusions We conclude that this novel self-expanding TAV bioprosthesis is safe and effective for the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis who are suboptimal for surgery. (Medtronic CoreValve Evolut R U.S. Clinical Study; NCT02207569 ). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Many patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have a pre-existing, permanent pacemaker (PPM) or receive one as a consequence of the procedure. We hypothesised that chronic pacing may have adverse effects on TAVI outcomes.Methods and Results: Four groups of patients undergoing TAVI in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial and registries were compared: prior PPM (n=586), new PPM (n=173), no PPM (n=1612), and left bundle branch block (LBBB)/no PPM (n=160). At 1 year, prior PPM, new PPM and LBBB/no PPM had higher all-cause mortality than no PPM (27.4%, 26.3%, 27.7% and 20.0%, p<0.05), and prior PPM or new PPM had higher rehospitalisation or mortality/rehospitalisation (p<0.04). By Cox regression analysis, new PPM (HR 1.38, 1.00 to 1.89, p=0.05) and prior PPM (HR 1.31, 1.08 to 1.60, p=0.006) were independently associated with 1-year mortality. Surviving prior PPM, new PPM and LBBB/no PPM patients had lower LVEF at 1 year relative to no PPM (50.5%, 55.4%, 48.9% and 57.6%, p<0.01). Prior PPM had worsened recovery of LVEF after TAVI (Δ=10.0 prior vs 19.7% no PPM for baseline LVEF <35%, p<0.0001; Δ=4.1 prior vs 7.4% no PPM for baseline LVEF 35-50%, p=0.006). Paced ECGs displayed a high prevalence of RV pacing (>88%).Conclusions: In the PARTNER trial, prior PPM, along with new PPM and chronic LBBB patients, had worsened clinical and echocardiographic outcomes relative to no PPM patients, and the presence of a PPM was independently associated with 1-year mortality. Ventricular dyssynchrony due to chronic RV pacing may be mechanistically responsible for these findings.Trial Registration Number: (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00530894). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent multicenter trials have shown that transcatheter aortic valve replacement is an alternative to surgery in a high risk population of patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis. Echocardiography and multislice computed tomographic imaging are accepted tools in the pre-procedural imaging of the aortic valve complex and vascular access. Transesophageal echocardiography can be valuable for intraprocedural confirmation of the landing zone morphology and measurements, positioning of the valve and post-procedural evaluation of complications. The current paper provides recommendations for pre-procedural and intraprocedural imaging used in assessing patients for transcatheter aortic valve replacement with either balloon-expandable or self-expanding transcatheter heart valves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim The impact of paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains uncertain. In this analysis, we sought to evaluate the impact of varying degrees of PVR on both mortality and changes in ventricular geometry and function. Methods and results Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients who underwent TAVR from the randomized cohorts and continued access registries in the PARTNER trial were analysed after stratifying by severity of post-implant PVR, which was graded as none/trace in 52.9% (n = 1288), mild in 38.0% (n = 925), and moderate/severe in 9.1% (n = 221). There were significant differences in baseline clinical and echocardiographic characteristics. After TAVR, all the patients demonstrated increase in left ventricular (LV) function and reduction in the LV mass index, although the magnitude of mass regression was lower in the moderate/severe PVR group. The 30-day mortality (3.1 vs. 3.4 vs. 4.5%, P = 0.56) and stroke (3.4 vs. 3.7 vs. 2.3%, P = 0.59) were similar in all groups (none/trace, mild, and moderate/severe). At 1 year, there was increased all-cause mortality (15.9 vs. 22.2 vs. 35.1%, P < 0.0001), cardiac mortality (6.1 vs. 7.4% vs. 16.3%, P < 0.0001) and re-hospitalization (14.4 vs. 23.0 vs. 31.3%, P < 0.0001) with worsening PVR. A multivariable analysis indicated that the presence of moderate/severe PVR (HR: 2.18, 95% CI: 1.57–3.02, P < 0.0001) or mild PVR (HR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.14–1.90, P = 0.012) was associated with higher late mortality. Conclusion Differences in baseline characteristics in patients with increasing severities of PVR may increase the risk of this complication. Despite these differences, multivariable analysis demonstrated that both mild and moderate/severe PVR predicted higher 1-year mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Aortic valve stenosis is the most common form of valvular heart disease in the elderly population and occurs frequently in conjunction with coronary artery disease. The standard treatment option for patients with these two conditions has been surgical aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting. The arrival of transcatheter aortic valve replacement has considerably shifted the treatment paradigms. Nevertheless, a lot of questions remain unanswered regarding the management of coronary artery disease in the setting of the transcatheter options for severe aortic stenosis. This article includes a comprehensive review of the literature and seeks to describe the actual knowledge on the topic of aortic stenosis and concomitant coronary artery disease. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objectives This study sought to determine the impact of quantity and location of aortic valve calcification (AVC) on paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) and rates of post-dilation (PD) immediately after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Background The impact of AVC in different locations within the aortic valve complex is incompletely understood. Methods This study analyzed 150 patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR. Total AVC volume scores were calculated from contrast-enhanced multidetector row computed tomography imaging. AVC was divided by leaflet sector and region (Leaflet, Annulus, left ventricular outflow tract [LVOT]), and a combination of LVOT and Annulus (AnnulusLVOT). Asymmetry was assessed. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis was performed with greater than or equal to mild PVR and PD as classification variables. Logistic regression was performed. Results Quantity of and asymmetry of AVC for all regions of the aortic valve complex predicted greater than or equal to mild PVR by receiver-operating characteristic analysis (area under the curve = 0.635 to 0.689), except Leaflet asymmetry. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis for PD was significant for quantity and asymmetry of AVC in all regions, with higher area under the curve values than for PVR (area under the curve = 0.648 to 0.741). On multivariable analysis, Leaflet and AnnulusLVOT calcification were independent predictors of both PVR and PD regardless of multidetector row computed tomography area cover index. Conclusions Quantity and asymmetry of AVC in all regions of the aortic valve complex predict greater than or equal to mild PVR and performance of PD, with the exception of Leaflet asymmetry. Quantity of AnnulusLVOT and Leaflet calcification independently predict PVR and PD when taking into account multidetector row computed tomography area cover index. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study sought to examine sex-specific differences in outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. Background: The PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) trial demonstrated similar 2-year survival with SAVR or TAVR for high-risk patients, but sex-specific outcomes are unknown. Methods: In all, 699 patients (300 female) were randomly assigned 1:1 to either SAVR or TAVR with a balloon expandable pericardial tissue valve. Baseline characteristics and 2-year outcomes of TAVR versus SAVR were compared among males and females. Results: Baseline characteristics differed between the sexes. Despite higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality risk scores (11.9 vs. 11.6; p = 0.05), female patients had lower prevalence of coronary artery disease (64.4% vs. 83.7%), prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery (19.8% vs. 61.2%), peripheral vascular disease (36.4% vs. 46.9%), diabetes mellitus (35.6% vs. 45.6%), and elevated creatinine (11.7% vs. 23.9%). Among female patients, procedural mortality trended lower with TAVR versus SAVR (6.8% vs. 13.1%; p = 0.07) and was maintained throughout follow-up (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44 to 1.00; p = 0.049), driven by the transfemoral arm (HR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.93; p = 0.02). Among male patients, although procedural mortality was lower with TAVR (6% vs. 12.1%; p = 0.03), there was no overall survival benefit (HR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.61; p = 0.42). Conclusions: In this retrospective subanalysis of high-risk, symptomatic aortic stenosis patients in the PARTNER trial, female subjects had lower late mortality with TAVR versus SAVR. This was especially true among patients suitable for transfemoral access and suggests that TAVR may be preferred over surgery for high-risk female patients. A randomized, controlled trial conducted specifically in female patients is necessary to properly study differences in mortality between treatment modalities. (THE PARTNER TRIAL: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial; NCT00530894) [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Patients with severe aortic stenosis are commonly elderly and with significant comorbidity. Surgical intervention can improve symptoms and survival in severe aortic stenosis. However, a large proportion of patients do not undergo surgical intervention because they are deemed to be inoperable or too high risk. Over the last decade, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been developed, providing an effective, less-invasive alternative to open cardiac surgery for inoperable or high-risk patients. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of risk assessment in TAVR. Specifically, this article reviews the epidemiology of aortic stenosis, describes the risks and benefits of TAVR across multiple outcome measures, explores frailty and other elderly risk factors as metrics for improved risk assessment and discusses the application of improved risk assessment in TAVR decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a research study which examined the efficacy and safety of postdilatation in reducing paravulvar regurgitation during balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The researchers reviewed procedural transesophageal echocardiography imaging for a subgroup of patients. Findings revealed no significant difference in aortic injury and permanent pacemaker implantation rates between the patient groups.

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is currently the standard of care to treat patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) and is generally accepted to alleviate symptoms and prolong survival. Based on the results of randomized trials, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the new standard of care for patients with symptomatic AS who are deemed ‘inoperable’. Debatably, TAVI is also an alternative to SAVR in selected patients who are at high risk but operable. As we approach 10 years of clinical experience with TAVI, with over 50 000 implantations in 40 countries, a review of the current literature and clinical outcomes with this rapidly evolving technology is appropriate. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been increasingly recognized as a curative treatment for severe aortic stenosis (AS). Despite important improvements in current device technology and implantation techniques, specific complications still remain and warrant consideration. Vascular complications and peri-procedural neurological events were the first concerns to emerge with this new technology. Recently, significant post procedural para-valvular leak has been shown to be more frequent after TAVI than after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), and its potential association with worse long-term prognostic has raised concerns. In moving toward treatment of lower risk populations, structural integrity and long-term durability of heat valve prosthesis are becoming of central importance. Emerging technologies and newer generations of devices seem promising in dealing with these matters. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the impact of frailty in older adults undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for symptomatic aortic stenosis. Background: Frailty status impacts prognosis in older adults with heart disease; however, the impact of frailty on prognosis after TAVR is unknown. Methods: Gait speed, grip strength, serum albumin, and activities of daily living status were collected at baseline and used to derive a frailty score among patients who underwent TAVR procedures at a single large-volume institution. The cohort was dichotomized on the basis of median frailty score into frail and not frail groups. The impact of frailty on procedural outcomes (stroke, bleeding, vascular complications, acute kidney injury, and mortality at 30 days) and 1-year mortality was evaluated. Results: Frailty status was assessed in 159 subjects who underwent TAVR (age 86 ± 8 years, Society of Thoracic Surgery Risk Score 12 ± 4). Baseline frailty score was not associated with conventionally ascertained clinical variables or Society of Thoracic Surgery score. Although high frailty score was associated with a longer post-TAVR hospital stay when compared with lower frailty score (9 ± 6 days vs. 6 ± 5 days, respectively, p = 0.004), there were no significant crude associations between frailty status and procedural outcomes, suggesting adequacy of the standard selection process for identifying patients at risk for periprocedural complications after TAVR. Frailty status was independently associated with increased 1-year mortality (hazard ratio: 3.5, 95% confidence interval: 1.4 to 8.5, p = 0.007) after TAVR. Conclusions: Frailty was not associated with increased periprocedural complications in patients selected as candidates to undergo TAVR but was associated with increased 1-year mortality after TAVR. Further studies will evaluate the independent value of this frailty composite in older adults with aortic stenosis. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial showed that among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, the 1-year survival rates are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical replacement. However, longer-term follow-up is necessary to determine whether TAVR has prolonged benefits. Methods: At 25 centers, we randomly assigned 699 high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis to undergo either surgical aortic-valve replacement or TAVR. All patients were followed for at least 2 years, with assessment of clinical outcomes and echocardiographic evaluation. Results: The rates of death from any cause were similar in the TAVR and surgery groups (hazard ratio with TAVR, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.15; P=0.41) and at 2 years (Kaplan–Meier analysis) were 33.9% in the TAVR group and 35.0% in the surgery group (P=0.78). The frequency of all strokes during follow-up did not differ significantly between the two groups (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.23; P=0.52). At 30 days, strokes were more frequent with TAVR than with surgical replacement (4.6% vs. 2.4%, P=0.12); subsequently, there were 8 additional strokes in the TAVR group and 12 in the surgery group. Improvement in valve areas was similar with TAVR and surgical replacement and was maintained for 2 years. Paravalvular regurgitation was more frequent after TAVR (P<0.001), and even mild paravalvular regurgitation was associated with increased late mortality (P<0.001). Conclusions: A 2-year follow-up of patients in the PARTNER trial supports TAVR as an alternative to surgery in high-risk patients. The two treatments were similar with respect to mortality, reduction in symptoms, and improved valve hemodynamics, but paravalvular regurgitation was more frequent after TAVR and was associated with increased late mortality. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00530894.) [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the technical success and clinical outcomes of an adjunctive crossover balloon occlusion technique (CBOT) combined with the 10-F Prostar percutaneous closure device (PCD) on the incidence of vascular and bleeding complications in patients after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Background: Vascular closure following large-vessel access has most commonly been performed using a surgical cut-down and repair procedure. Methods: Between November 2008 and September 2010, 58 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis underwent TAVI via a retrograde femoral artery approach using the Edwards-SAPIEN transcatheter valve. Among these patients, 56 were treated with a CBOT using the “pre-close” technique and the 10-F Prostar system. The technical success of this new CBOT and the 30-day frequency of clinical events, including all-cause mortality, major vascular complications, and major bleeding (defined according to a modified version of the Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria), were assessed. Results: Successful closure was obtained in all but 3 patients (94.6%). The 30-day frequencies of mortality, major vascular complications, and major bleeding were 7.1%, 14.3%, and 5.4% respectively. No deaths were directly related to access site complications. Fourteen patients (25%) received at least 1 transfusion during the index hospitalization, of which 8 (57.1%) were not related to vascular complications. The mean and median hospital lengths of stay were 7.8 and 6.0 days. Conclusions: This new percutaneous adjunctive CBOT combined with the Prostar PCD resulted in controlled, safe, and successful percutaneous closure in most patients after TAVI. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The development of lesser invasive transcatheter techniques for aortic valve replacement (AVR) to treat high surgical risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) has engendered controversy among traditional cardiovascular therapists. Presently, there are two catheter-based treatment systems (the Cribier–Edwards Aortic Bioprosthesis™ and the CoreValve Revalving™ System) utilizing either a balloon-expandable or a self-expanding stent (or cage) platform which unfolds a pericardial tissue valve within the displaced diseased aortic valve. After ex vivo durability testing and animal studies, several clinical registries with these transcatheter AVR systems in almost 300 patients worldwide have demonstrated the following: (1) good acute hemodynamic performance with reduction in mean aortic valve gradients to <10 mm Hg; (2) frequent para-valvular regurgitation, which has improved with self-expanding devices and the use of larger (26 mm) valve sizes; (3) acceptable periprocedural (30-day) mortality (<10%) with the newest generation devices and improved operator techniques. Enlightened interdisciplinary treatment teams incorporating surgeons, interventionalists, and medical therapists as well as rigorously conducted randomized clinical trials will be required to determine if these innovative transcatheter AVR approaches will represent a viable therapy for high-risk patients with severe AS in the future. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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 cm2, 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Diet and hyperlipidemia are correlated to coronary atherosclerosis, whose progression may be modulated by statin therapy. Aortic stenosis and calcification are atherosclerotic processes but they are not influenced by statin therapy. Limited data is available on the influence or correlates of diet on aortic valve calcification. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that diet may be related to aortic valve calcification (AVC) on computed tomography (CT). Methods: Consecutive patients with severe or critical aortic stenosis (AS) were evaluated in a busy Heart Valve Clinic and underwent both detailed dietary evaluation with a rate your plate (RYP) questionnaire and a high resolution CT as part of their work-up for valvular intervention (medical therapy, surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement). AVC volume was quantified using a validated method based on a higher threshold of detection from the contrast CT (850 Hounsfield Units, HU-850). Dietary data was separated according to patients in the highest tertile of AVC. Results: A total of 117 patients were evaluated. The upper tertile threshold of AVC was identified as 284.5 mm3 (figure: examples above and below this threshold are shown). Higher scores on RYP identify heart-healthy choices. There were no differences in the overall total RYP score or percentages of specific heart-healthy dietary choices according to AVC severity (table). Conclusions: AVC severity is unrelated to heart-healthy dietary choices in patients with aortic stenosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Little has been reported on dietary choices and obesity in patients with valvular heart disease. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that obesity is prevalent in patients with aortic stenosis and that significant differences in heart-healthy dietary choices may be observed between obese and non-obese patients. Methods: Consecutive patients with severe or critical aortic stenosis (AS) were evaluated in a busy Heart Valve Clinic for consideration of surgical or transcatheter valve replacement. All patients underwent a detailed dietary evaluation with a rate your plate (RYP) questionnaire. Obesity was defined as body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2. Dietary data was stratified according to presence of obesity. Data was analyzed by student's t-test for continuous data and chi-squared analysis for categorical data. Results: A total of 138 patients were evaluated; of these, 41 (29.7%) were obese. Overall there was no difference in the RYP score for obese and non-obese patients. However, obese patients scored significantly worse on RYP heart-healthy (HH) choices for fried foods and grains (table) with no significant differences in other categories. Conclusions: Obesity is common in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Self-reported heart-healthy choices differ only in categories of fried foods and grains (figure) which may be a good initial focus for nutritional intervention in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives The study objectives were to (1) compare the safety of high-risk surgical aortic valve replacement in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) I trial with Society of Thoracic Surgeons national benchmarks; (2) reference intermediate-term survival to that of the US population; and (3) identify subsets of patients for whom aortic valve replacement may be futile, with no survival benefit compared with therapy without aortic valve replacement. Methods From May 2007 to October 2009, 699 patients with high surgical risk, aged 84 ± 6.3 years, were randomized in PARTNER-IA; 313 patients underwent surgical aortic valve replacement. Median follow-up was 2.8 years. Survival for therapy without aortic valve replacement used 181 PARTNER-IB patients. Results Operative mortality was 10.5% (expected 9.3%), stroke 2.6% (expected 3.5%), renal failure 5.8% (expected 12%), sternal wound infection 0.64% (expected 0.33%), and prolonged length of stay 26% (expected 18%). However, calibration of observed events in this relatively small sample was poor. Survival at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years was 75%, 68%, 57%, and 44%, respectively, lower than 90%, 81%, 73%, and 65%, respectively, in the US population, but higher than 53%, 32%, 21%, and 14%, respectively, in patients without aortic valve replacement. Risk factors for death included smaller body mass index, lower albumin, history of cancer, and prosthesis–patient mismatch. Within this high-risk aortic valve replacement group, only the 8% of patients with the poorest risk profiles had estimated 1-year survival less than that of similar patients treated without aortic valve replacement. Conclusions PARTNER selection criteria for surgical aortic valve replacement, with a few caveats, may be more appropriate, realistic indications for surgery than those of the past, reflecting contemporary surgical management of severe aortic stenosis in high-risk patients at experienced sites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous studies demonstrated transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with an earlier generation balloon-expandable valve to be noninferior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for death and disabling stroke in intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic, severe aortic stenosis at 5 years. However, limited long-term data are available with the more contemporary SAPIEN 3 (S3) bioprosthesis. The aim of this study was to compare 5-year risk-adjusted outcomes in intermediate-risk patients undergoing S3 TAVR vs SAVR. Propensity score matching was performed to account for baseline differences in intermediate-risk patients undergoing S3 TAVR in the PARTNER 2 (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) S3 single-arm study and SAVR in the PARTNER 2A randomized clinical trial. The primary composite endpoint consisted of 5-year all-cause death and disabling stroke. A total of 783 matched pairs of intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis were studied. There were no differences in the primary endpoint between S3 TAVR and SAVR at 5 years (40.2% vs 42.7%; HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.74-1.03; P = 0.10). The incidence of mild or greater paravalvular regurgitation was more common after S3 TAVR. There were no differences in structural valve deterioration–related stage 2 and 3 hemodynamic valve deterioration or bioprosthetic valve failure. In this propensity-matched analysis of intermediate-risk patients, 5-year rates of death and disabling stroke were similar between S3 TAVR and SAVR. Rates of structural valve deterioration–related hemodynamic valve deterioration were similar, but paravalvular regurgitation was more common after S3 TAVR. Longer-term follow-up is needed to further evaluate differences in late adverse clinical events and bioprosthetic valve durability. (PII S3i [PARTNER II Trial: Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves II – S3 Intermediate], NCT03222128 ; PII A (PARTNER II Trial: Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves II – XT Intermediate and High Risk], NCT01314313) [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis at low surgical risk, transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the SAPIEN 3 valve has been shown to reduce the composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 2-year follow-up compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Whether TAVR is cost-effective compared with SAVR for low-risk patients remains uncertain. Methods: Between 2016 and 2017, 1000 low-risk patients with aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve or SAVR in the PARTNER 3 trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves). Of these patients, 929 underwent valve replacement, were enrolled in the United States, and were included in the economic substudy. Procedural costs were estimated using measured resource use. Other costs were determined by linkage with Medicare claims or by regression models when linkage was not feasible. Health utilities were estimated using the EuroQOL 5-item questionnaire. With the use of a Markov model informed by in-trial data, lifetime cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the US health care system was estimated in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results: Although procedural costs were nearly $19 000 higher with TAVR, total index hospitalization costs were only $591 more with TAVR compared with SAVR. Follow-up costs were lower with TAVR such that TAVR led to 2-year cost savings of $2030/patient compared with SAVR (95% CI, –$6222 to $1816) and a gain of 0.05 quality-adjusted life-years (95% CI, –0.003 to 0.102). In our base-case analysis, TAVR was projected to be an economically dominant strategy with a 95% probability that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for TAVR would be <$50 000/quality-adjusted life-year gained (consistent with high economic value from a US health care perspective). These findings were sensitive to differences in long-term survival, however, such that a modest long-term survival advantage with SAVR would render SAVR cost-effective (although not cost saving) compared with TAVR. Conclusions: For patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk similar to those enrolled in the PARTNER 3 trial, transfemoral TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve is cost saving compared with SAVR at 2 years and is projected to be economically attractive in the long run as long as there are no substantial differences in late death between the 2 strategies. Long-term follow-up will be critical to ultimately determine the preferred treatment strategy for low-risk patients from both a clinical and economic perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study sought to identify the incidence, predictors, and prognostic impact of bleeding complications (BC) after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) compared with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Background: Bleeding complications after SAVR and TAVR are frequent and may be associated with an unfavorable prognosis. Methods: In the randomized controlled PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) I trial, 657 patients from cohort A (operable high risk) were randomly assigned to SAVR or TAVR (transfemoral [TF] if iliofemoral access was suitable or transapical [TA] if not) and received the designated treatment. First-generation Edwards SAPIEN valves and delivery systems (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) were used for TAVR, through a 22- or 24-F sheath. The 30-day rates of major BC (modified Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions), predictors of BC, and their association with 1-year mortality were assessed. Results: A total of 71 (22.7%), 27 (11.3%), and 9 (8.8%) patients had major BC within 30 days of the procedure after SAVR, TF-TAVR, and TA-TAVR, respectively (p < 0.0001). SAVR was associated with a significantly higher 30-day rate of transfusion (17.9%) than either TF-TAVR (7.1%) or TA-TAVR (4.8%; p < 0.0001). Independent predictors of major BC were the occurrence of major vascular complications and use of intraprocedural hemodynamic support among TF-TAVR patients, severe procedural complications requiring conversion to open surgery among TA-TAVR patients, and the presence of low hemoglobin at baseline among SAVR patients. Major BC was identified as the strongest independent predictor of 1-year mortality among the full cohort. However, risk-adjusted analyses demonstrated a significant interaction between BC and treatment strategy with respect to mortality, suggesting that BC after SAVR have a greater impact on prognosis than after TAVR. Conclusions: Among high-risk aortic stenosis patients enrolled in the PARTNER I randomized trial, BC were more common after SAVR than after TAVR and were also associated with a worse long-term prognosis. (THE PARTNER TRIAL: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial; NCT00530894) [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: In low surgical risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, the PARTNER 3 (Safety and Effectiveness of the SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve in Low Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis) trial demonstrated superiority of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgery for the primary endpoint of death, stroke, or re-hospitalization at 1 year.Objectives: This study determined both clinical and echocardiographic outcomes between 1 and 2 years in the PARTNER 3 trial.Methods: This study randomly assigned 1,000 patients (1:1) to transfemoral TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve versus surgery (mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score: 1.9%; mean age: 73 years) with clinical and echocardiography follow-up at 30 days and at 1 and 2 years. This study assessed 2-year rates of the primary endpoint and several secondary endpoints (clinical, echocardiography, and quality-of-life measures) in this as-treated analysis.Results: Primary endpoint follow-up at 2 years was available in 96.5% of patients. The 2-year primary endpoint was significantly reduced after TAVR versus surgery (11.5% vs. 17.4%; hazard ratio: 0.63; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 0.88; p = 0.007). Differences in death and stroke favoring TAVR at 1 year were not statistically significant at 2 years (death: TAVR 2.4% vs. surgery 3.2%; p = 0.47; stroke: TAVR 2.4% vs. surgery 3.6%; p = 0.28). Valve thrombosis at 2 years was increased after TAVR (2.6%; 13 events) compared with surgery (0.7%; 3 events; p = 0.02). Disease-specific health status continued to be better after TAVR versus surgery through 2 years. Echocardiographic findings, including hemodynamic valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure, were similar for TAVR and surgery at 2 years.Conclusions: At 2 years, the primary endpoint remained significantly lower with TAVR versus surgery, but initial differences in death and stroke favoring TAVR were diminished and patients who underwent TAVR had increased valve thrombosis. (Safety and Effectiveness of the SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve in Low Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis [PARTNER 3]; NCT02675114). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Subclinical leaflet thrombosis, characterized by hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT) and reduced leaflet motion observed on 4-dimensional computed tomography (CT), may represent a form of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction.Objectives: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration mandated CT studies to understand the natural history of this finding, differences between transcatheter and surgical valves, and its association with valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes.Methods: The PARTNER 3 (The Safety and Effectiveness of the SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve in Low-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis) CT substudy randomized 435 patients with low-surgical-risk aortic stenosis to undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (n = 221) or surgery (n = 214). Serial 4-dimensional CTs were performed at 30 days and 1 year and were analyzed independently by a core laboratory.Results: The incidence of HALT increased from 10% at 30 days to 24% at 1 year. Spontaneous resolution of 30-day HALT occurred in 54% of patients at 1 year, whereas new HALT appeared in 21% of patients at 1 year. HALT was more frequent in transcatheter versus surgical valves at 30 days (13% vs. 5%; p = 0.03), but not at 1 year (28% vs. 20%; p = 0.19). The presence of HALT did not significantly affect aortic valve mean gradients at 30 days or 1 year. Patients with HALT at both 30 days and 1 year, compared with those with no HALT at 30 days and 1 year, had significantly increased aortic valve gradients at 1 year (17.8 ± 2.2 mm Hg vs. 12.7. ± 0.3 mm Hg; p = 0.04).Conclusions: Subclinical leaflet thrombosis was more frequent in transcatheter compared with surgical valves at 30 days, but not at 1 year. The impact of HALT on thromboembolic complications and structural valve degeneration needs further assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at low surgical risk, treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) results in lower rates of death, stroke, and rehospitalization at 1 year compared with surgical aortic valve replacement; however, the effect of treatment strategy on health status is unknown.Objectives: This study sought to compare health status outcomes of TAVR versus surgery in low-risk patients with severe AS.Methods: Between March 2016 and October 2017, 1,000 low-risk patients with AS were randomized to transfemoral TAVR using a balloon-expandable valve or surgery in the PARTNER 3 (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial. Health status was assessed at baseline and 1, 6, and 12 months using the KCCQ (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire), SF-36 (Short Form-36 Health Survey), and EQ-5D (EuroQoL). The primary endpoint was change in KCCQ-OS (KCCQ Overall Summary) score over time. Longitudinal growth curve modeling was used to compare changes in health status between treatment groups over time.Results: At 1 month, TAVR was associated with better health status than surgery (mean difference in KCCQ-OS 16.0 points; p < 0.001). At 6 and 12 months, health status remained better with TAVR, although the effect was reduced (mean difference in KCCQ-OS 2.6 and 1.8 points respectively; p < 0.04 for both). The proportion of patients with an excellent outcome (alive with KCCQ-OS ≥75 and no significant decline from baseline) was greater with TAVR than surgery at 6 months (90.3% vs. 85.3%; p = 0.03) and 12 months (87.3% vs. 82.8%; p = 0.07).Conclusions: Among low-risk patients with severe AS, TAVR was associated with meaningful early and late health status benefits compared with surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is an accepted alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high surgical risk, less is known about comparative outcomes among patients with aortic stenosis who are at intermediate surgical risk.Methods: We evaluated the clinical outcomes in intermediate-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis in a randomized trial comparing TAVR (performed with the use of a self-expanding prosthesis) with surgical aortic-valve replacement. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause or disabling stroke at 24 months in patients undergoing attempted aortic-valve replacement. We used Bayesian analytical methods (with a margin of 0.07) to evaluate the noninferiority of TAVR as compared with surgical valve replacement.Results: A total of 1746 patients underwent randomization at 87 centers. Of these patients, 1660 underwent an attempted TAVR or surgical procedure. The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 79.8±6.2 years, and all were at intermediate risk for surgery (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality, 4.5±1.6%). At 24 months, the estimated incidence of the primary end point was 12.6% in the TAVR group and 14.0% in the surgery group (95% credible interval [Bayesian analysis] for difference, -5.2 to 2.3%; posterior probability of noninferiority, >0.999). Surgery was associated with higher rates of acute kidney injury, atrial fibrillation, and transfusion requirements, whereas TAVR had higher rates of residual aortic regurgitation and need for pacemaker implantation. TAVR resulted in lower mean gradients and larger aortic-valve areas than surgery. Structural valve deterioration at 24 months did not occur in either group.Conclusions: TAVR was a noninferior alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, with a different pattern of adverse events associated with each procedure. (Funded by Medtronic; SURTAVI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01586910 .). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous trials have shown that among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, survival rates are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic-valve replacement. We evaluated the two procedures in a randomized trial involving intermediate-risk patients.Methods: We randomly assigned 2032 intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, at 57 centers, to undergo either TAVR or surgical replacement. The primary end point was death from any cause or disabling stroke at 2 years. The primary hypothesis was that TAVR would not be inferior to surgical replacement. Before randomization, patients were entered into one of two cohorts on the basis of clinical and imaging findings; 76.3% of the patients were included in the transfemoral-access cohort and 23.7% in the transthoracic-access cohort.Results: The rate of death from any cause or disabling stroke was similar in the TAVR group and the surgery group (P=0.001 for noninferiority). At 2 years, the Kaplan-Meier event rates were 19.3% in the TAVR group and 21.1% in the surgery group (hazard ratio in the TAVR group, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.09; P=0.25). In the transfemoral-access cohort, TAVR resulted in a lower rate of death or disabling stroke than surgery (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.00; P=0.05), whereas in the transthoracic-access cohort, outcomes were similar in the two groups. TAVR resulted in larger aortic-valve areas than did surgery and also resulted in lower rates of acute kidney injury, severe bleeding, and new-onset atrial fibrillation; surgery resulted in fewer major vascular complications and less paravalvular aortic regurgitation.Conclusions: In intermediate-risk patients, TAVR was similar to surgical aortic-valve replacement with respect to the primary end point of death or disabling stroke. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01314313.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Based on the early results of the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an accepted treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are not suitable for surgery. However, little information is available about the late clinical outcomes in such patients. Methods We did this randomised controlled trial at 21 experienced valve centres in Canada, Germany, and the USA. We enrolled patients with severe symptomatic inoperable aortic stenosis and randomly assigned (1:1) them to transfemoral TAVR or to standard treatment, which often included balloon aortic valvuloplasty. Patients and their treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The randomisation was done centrally, and sites learned of the assignment only after a patient had been screened, consented, and entered into the database. The primary outcome of the trial was all-cause mortality at 1 year in the intention-to-treat population, here we present the prespecified findings after 5 years. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00530894. Findings We screened 3015 patients, of whom 358 were enrolled (mean age 83 years, Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality 11·7%, 54% female). 179 were assigned to TAVR treatment and 179 were assigned to standard treatment. 20 patients crossed over from the standard treatment group and ten withdrew from study, leaving only six patients at 5 years, of whom five had aortic valve replacement treatment outside of the study. The risk of all-cause mortality at 5 years was 71·8% in the TAVR group versus 93·6% in the standard treatment group (hazard ratio 0·50, 95% CI 0·39–0·65; p<0·0001). At 5 years, 42 (86%) of 49 survivors in the TAVR group had New York Heart Association class 1 or 2 symptoms compared with three (60%) of five in the standard treatment group. Echocardiography after TAVR showed durable haemodynamic benefit (aortic valve area 1·52 cm2 at 5 years, mean gradient 10·6 mm Hg at 5 years), with no evidence of structural valve deterioration. Interpretation TAVR is more beneficial than standard treatment for treatment of inoperable aortic stenosis. TAVR should be strongly considered for patients who are not surgical candidates for aortic valve replacement to improve their survival and functional status. Appropriate selection of patients will help to maximise the benefit of TAVR and reduce mortality from severe comorbidities. INSET: Research in context.. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The goal of this study was to examine the impact of reasons for surgical inoperability on outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Background: Patients with severe aortic stenosis may be deemed inoperable due to technical or clinical reasons. The relative impact of each designation on early and late outcomes after TAVR is unclear. Methods: Patients were studied from the inoperable arm (cohort B) of the randomized PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) trial and the nonrandomized continued access registry. Patients were classified according to whether they were classified as technically inoperable (TI) or clinically inoperable (CLI). Reasons for TI included porcelain aorta, previous mediastinal radiation, chest wall deformity, and potential for injury to previous bypass graft on sternal re-entry. Reasons for CLI were systemic factors that were deemed to make survival unlikely. Results: Of the 369 patients, 23.0% were considered inoperable for technical reasons alone; the remaining were judged to be CLI. For TI, the most common cause was a porcelain aorta (42%); for CLI, it was multiple comorbidities (48%) and frailty (31%). Quality of life and 2-year mortality were significantly better among TI patients compared with CLI patients (mortality 23.3% vs. 43.8%; p < 0.001). Nonetheless, TAVR led to substantial survival benefits compared with standard therapy in both inoperable cohorts. Conclusions: Patients undergoing TAVR based solely on TI have better survival and quality of life improvements than those who are inoperable due to clinical comorbidities. Both TI and CLI TAVR have significant survival benefit in the context of standard therapy. (THE PARTNER TRIAL: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial; NCT00530894) [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background-The prognosis and treatment of patients with low-flow (LF) severe aortic stenosis are controversial. Methods and Results-The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial randomized patients with severe aortic stenosis to medical management versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR; inoperable cohort) and surgical aortic valve replacement versus TAVR (high-risk cohort). Among 971 patients with evaluable echocardiograms (92%), LF (stroke volume index ≤35 mL/m²) was observed in 530 (55%); LF and low ejection fraction (<50%) in 225 (23%); and LF, low ejection fraction, and low mean gradient (<40 mmHg) in 147 (15%). Two-year mortality was significantly higher in patients with LF compared with those with normal stroke volume index (47% versus 34%; hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-1.89; P=0.006). In the inoperable cohort, patients with LF had higher mortality than those with normal flow, but both groups improved with TAVR (46% versus 76% with LF and 38% versus 53% with normal flow; P<0.001). In the high-risk cohort, there was no difference between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement. In patients with paradoxical LF and low gradient (preserved ejection fraction), TAVR reduced 1-year mortality from 66% to 35% (hazard ratio, 0.38; P=0.02). LF was an independent predictor of mortality in all patient cohorts (hazard ratio, ≈1.5), whereas ejection fraction and gradient were not. Conclusions-LF is common in severe aortic stenosis and independently predicts mortality. Survival is improved with TAVR compared with medical management and similar with TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement. A measure of flow (stroke volume index) should be included in the evaluation and therapeutic decision making of patients with severe aortic stenosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study sought to identify incidence, predictors, and impact of vascular complications (VC) after transfemoral (TF) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Background: VC after TF-TAVR are frequent and may be associated with unfavorable prognosis. Methods: From the randomized controlled PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve) trial, a total of 419 patients (177 from cohort B [inoperable] and 242 from cohort A [operable high-risk]) were randomly assigned to TF-TAVR and actually received the designated treatment. First-generation Edwards-Sapien valves and delivery systems were used, via a 22- or 24-F sheath. The 30-day rates of major and minor VC (modified Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions), predictors, and effect on 1-year mortality were assessed. Results: Sixty-four patients (15.3%) had major VC and 50 patients (11.9%) had minor VC within 30 days of the procedure. Among patients with major VC, vascular dissection (62.8%), perforation (31.3%), and access-site hematoma (22.9%) were the most frequent modes of presentation. Major VC, but not minor VC, were associated with significantly higher 30-day rates of major bleeding, transfusions, and renal failure requiring dialysis, and with a significantly higher rate of 30-day and 1-year mortality. The only identifiable independent predictor of major VC was female gender (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.31 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08 to 4.98], p = 0.03). Major VC (HR: 2.31 [95% CI: 1.20 to 4.43], p = 0.012), and renal disease at baseline (HR: 2.26 [95% CI: 1.34 to 3.81], p = 0.002) were identified as independent predictors of 1-year mortality. Conclusions: Major VC were frequent after TF-TAVR in the PARTNER trial using first-generation devices and were associated with high mortality. However, the incidence and impact of major VC on 1-year mortality decreased with lower-risk populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study sought to compare health status and quality-of-life outcomes for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and high surgical risk treated with either transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Background: For high-risk patients with severe AS, TAVR has been shown to result in similar 12-month survival but differing adverse events compared with AVR. Methods: We evaluated the health status of 628 patients with severe, symptomatic AS at high risk of surgical complications who were randomized to either TAVR or AVR in the PARTNER Trial. Health status was assessed at baseline and 1, 6, and 12 months using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, the Short Form-12, and the EuroQol-5D. Results: The primary outcome, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire summary score, improved more rapidly with TAVR, but was similar for the 2 groups at 6 and 12 months. However, there was a significant interaction between the benefit of TAVR and access site (transapical vs. transfemoral). Patients eligible for transfemoral TAVR demonstrated significant health status benefits with TAVR versus AVR at 1 month (difference, 9.9 points; 95% confidence interval: 4.9 to 14.9; p < 0.001), whereas patients treated via the TA approach demonstrated no benefits with TAVR compared with AVR at any time point. Results for Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire subscales and generic measures demonstrated similar patterns. Conclusions: In high-risk patients with severe AS, health status improved substantially between baseline and 1 year after either TAVR or AVR. TAVR via the transfemoral, but not the transapical route, was associated with a short-term advantage compared with surgery. (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve [PARTNER] trial; NCT00530894) [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Stroke is a potential complication of treating patients with aortic stenosis via surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR), transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), and balloon aortic valvuloplasty. Because there are limited and heterogeneous data on the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of stroke among patients being treated for aortic stenosis, we performed a comprehensive review of the literature. The risk of stroke after AVR in the general population is approximately 1.5%, and the risk is increased (to approximately 2% to 4%) in older and higher-risk patients. Strokes were reported in 1.5% to 6% of patients treated with TAVR, and in the only randomized trial of AVR versus TAVR, there was an increased risk of 30-day strokes (minor and major strokes and transient ischemic attacks) with TAVR (5.5% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.04). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of transcatheter aortic-valve replacement has been shown to reduce mortality among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis who are not candidates for surgical replacement. However, the two procedures have not been compared in a randomized trial involving high-risk patients who are still candidates for surgical replacement. Methods: At 25 centers, we randomly assigned 699 high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis to undergo either transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable bovine pericardial valve (either a transfemoral or a transapical approach) or surgical replacement. The primary end point was death from any cause at 1 year. The primary hypothesis was that transcatheter replacement is not inferior to surgical replacement. Results: The rates of death from any cause were 3.4% in the transcatheter group and 6.5% in the surgical group at 30 days (P=0.07) and 24.2% and 26.8%, respectively, at 1 year (P=0.44), a reduction of 2.6 percentage points in the transcatheter group (upper limit of the 95% confidence interval, 3.0 percentage points; predefined margin, 7.5 percentage points; P=0.001 for noninferiority). The rates of major stroke were 3.8% in the transcatheter group and 2.1% in the surgical group at 30 days (P=0.20) and 5.1% and 2.4%, respectively, at 1 year (P=0.07). At 30 days, major vascular complications were significantly more frequent with transcatheter replacement (11.0% vs. 3.2%, P<0.001); adverse events that were more frequent after surgical replacement included major bleeding (9.3% vs. 19.5%, P<0.001) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (8.6% vs. 16.0%, P=0.006). More patients undergoing transcatheter replacement had an improvement in symptoms at 30 days, but by 1 year, there was not a significant between-group difference. Conclusions: In high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, transcatheter and surgical procedures for aortic-valve replacement were associated with similar rates of survival at 1 year, although there were important differences in periprocedural risks. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; Clinical Trials.gov number, NCT00530894.) [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]