Search

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis is technically challenging and is burdened by an increased risk of paravalvular regurgitation (PVR)., Objectives: The aim of this study was to identify the incidence, predictors, and clinical outcomes of PVR after TAVR in Sievers type 1 BAV stenosis., Methods: Consecutive patients with Sievers type 1 BAV stenosis undergoing TAVR with current-generation transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in 24 international centers were enrolled. PVR was graded as none/trace, mild, moderate, and severe according to echocardiographic criteria. The endpoint of major adverse events (MAEs), defined as a composite of all-cause death, stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure, was assessed at the last available follow-up., Results: A total of 946 patients were enrolled. PVR occurred in 423 patients (44.7%)-mild, moderate, and severe in 387 (40.9%), 32 (3.4%), and 4 (0.4%) patients, respectively. Independent predictors of moderate or severe PVR were a larger virtual raphe ring perimeter (adjusted OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.02-1.13), severe annular or left ventricular outflow tract calcification (adjusted OR: 5.21; 95% CI: 1.45-18.77), a self-expanding valve (adjusted OR: 9.01; 95% CI: 2.09-38.86), and intentional supra-annular THV positioning (adjusted OR: 3.31; 95% CI: 1.04-10.54). At a median follow-up of 1.3 years (Q1-Q3: 0.5-2.4 years), moderate or severe PVR was associated with an increased risk of MAEs (adjusted HR: 2.52; 95% CI: 1.24-5.09)., Conclusions: After TAVR with current-generation THVs in Sievers type 1 BAV stenosis, moderate or severe PVR occurred in about 4% of cases and was associated with an increased risk of MAEs during follow-up., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Aurigemma has reported speaker fees from Abbott, Medtronic, Abiomed, and Terumo. Dr Trani has been involved in advisory board meetings or received speaker fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Terumo, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Abiomed. Dr Adamo has reported speaker honoraria from Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Burzotta has been involved in advisory board meetings or has received speaker fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Terumo, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Abiomed. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become more common than surgical aortic valve replacement since 2016, with over 200,000 procedures globally each year. As patients increasingly outlive their TAVR devices, managing these cases is a growing concern. Treatment options include surgical removal of the old TAVR device (transcatheter aortic valve [TAV] explant) or implantation of a new transcatheter aortic valve (redo TAV). Redo TAV is complex because of the unique designs of TAV devices; compatibility issues; and the need for individualized planning based on factors such as implant depth, shape, and coronary artery relationships. This review serves as a comprehensive guide for redo TAV, detailing the design characteristics of TAV devices, device compatibility, standardized terminology, and a structured approach for computed tomography analysis. It aims to facilitate decision making, risk identification, and achieving optimal outcomes in redo TAV procedures., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Bapat has served as a consultant for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Anteris, Meril Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific. Dr Jilaihawi has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic Inc; and has received institutional research grants from Boston Scientific and Pi-Cardia. Dr Rogers is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Transmural Systems; serves on advisory boards for Medtronic and Boston Scientific; holds an equity interest in Transmural Systems; and is a coinventor on patents, assigned to National Institutes of Health, for transcatheter electrosurgery devices. Dr Khalique is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Restore Medical, Croivalve, Heartflow, and Vdyne; and holds equity in Triflo. Dr Cavalcante is a consultant for 3Mensio, 4C Medical, Abbott Structural, Anteris, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, JenaValve, Medtronic, and Siemens Healthineers. Dr Landes has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Sathananthan has received speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, NVT Medical, and Boston Scientific; is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Anteris; and serves as chief medical officer for structural division of Boston Scientific. Dr Tarantini has received lecture fees from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Boston Scientifics. Dr Tang has received speaker honoraria and has served as a physician proctor, consultant, advisory board member, TAVR publications committee member, APOLLO trial screening committee member, and IMPACT MR steering committee member for Medtronic; has received speaker honoraria and has served as a physician proctor, consultant, advisory board member, and TRILUMINATE trial anatomic eligibility and publications committee member for Abbott Structural Heart; has served as an advisory board member for Boston Scientific and JenaValve, a consultant and physician screening committee member for Shockwave Medical, a consultant for NeoChord, Peija Medical, and Shenqi Medical Technology; and has received speaker honoraria from Siemens Healthineers. Dr Blackman is a consultant, proctor, and advisory board member for Medtronic and Abbott Vascular; and has received institutional research grants from Medtronic. Dr De Backer has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr Mack served as co–primary investigator for the PARTNER trial for Edwards Lifesciences and the COAPT trial for Abbott; and has served as study chair for the APOLLO trial for Medtronic. Dr Leon has received institutional grants for clinical research from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, JenaValve, and Medtronic; and has received stock options (equity) for advisory board participation in Valve Medical, Picardia, and Venus MedTech. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The choice between mechanical valves (MVs) and bioprosthetic valves (BVs) in patients undergoing aortic valve surgery is complex, requiring a balance between the inferior durability of BV and the indicated long-term anticoagulation therapy with MV. This is especially challenging in the middle age group (< 70 years), which has seen an increased use of BV over recent years., Methods: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies using propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability weighting (IPW) was conducted to examine the clinical outcomes of patients < 70 years of age undergoing aortic valve replacement. The primary outcome was overall long-term mortality. Secondary outcomes included bleeding events, reoperation, systemic thromboembolism, and cerebrovascular accident., Results: Fifteen studies (1 RCT, 12 PSM studies, and 2 IPW studies; aggregated sample size 16,876 patients) were included. Median follow-up was 7.8 years. Mortality was higher with BVs vs MVs (hazard ratio [HR] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.49), as was reoperation (HR 3.05, 95% CI 2.22-4.19). Bleeding risk was lower with BVs (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.48-0.69), and the risk of stroke was similar in both valve types (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.83-1.11) CONCLUSIONS: This broadest meta-analysis comparing BV and MV suggests a survival benefit for MVs in patients < 70 years of age. This should lead to reassessment of current patterns used in the choice of valves for patients < 70 among the cardiothoracic surgery community., (Copyright © 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for aortic stenosis (AS) risk assessment is still developing and mostly concerned with mortality in the periprocedural period. We therefore sought to develop and then validate a score to predict 1-year adverse outcome., Methods: Patients that underwent TAVI for severe AS in the Israeli registry. Patients with unsuccessful/suboptimal implantation were excluded. The cohort was split to derivation/validation cohorts by a ratio of 70:30. The outcome was defined as 1-year composite of mortality, stroke, and no improvement in NYHA class (vs. baseline). Logistic regression was used to fit the prediction model., Results: Out of 2,440 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 276 were excluded, leaving 2,160 patients for both cohorts. At 1 year, 299 (14%) patients experienced the adverse ("futile") outcome. The derived prediction model included mean aortic valve (AV) gradient, previous pacemaker, previous oncological disease, need for diuretics, baseline NYHA class, hemoglobin and creatinine levels, and nonfemoral access site. The model's area under the curve (AUC) was 0.69 in the derivation and 0.70 in the validation cohort. Performance of other scores in the validation cohort were lower (0.60 for STS, 0.55 for Euroscore2, 0.56 for TVT score, and 0.53 for TAVI2-score, p = .03). Based on three risk tiers, patients had a low risk (20/306, 7% futility), a medium risk (50/304, 17%), and high risk (18/37, 49%) for futility., Conclusions: The TAVI futility risk model can be used to provide further insight regarding prediction measures and/or patients' outcomes outside of the periprocedural period (NCT02023060)., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectives: To assess the safety and efficacy of the Wattson temporary pacing guidewire., Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) requires a guidewire for device delivery and generally requires temporary pacing wire for burst and back-up pacing. The Wattson wire provides concomitant support and bipolar pacing without the need to place a temporary venous pacemaker (TVP)., Methods: This was a single-center nonrandomized prospective clinical trial enrolling 20 patients. The primary endpoint was defined as successful rapid pacing and transcatheter heart valve (THV) delivery with no loss of capture. Safety, qualitative and quantitative secondary outcomes were also analyzed., Results: Mean age was 77.4 ± 9.0 years. Mean Society of Thoracic Surgery (STS) score was 3.0 ± 1.5%. All patients received a balloon-expandable valve via a transfemoral approach. All patients met the primary end-point. One patient (5%) had balloon predilatation and six patients (30%) had postdilatation, all using the wire. Mean pacing threshold was 2.2 ± 1.2 mA that was evaluated prior to placing an insulating catheter over the wire. One patient required TVP placement and subsequent permanent pacemaker implantation due to complete heart block post THV deployment. There were no incidences of cardiac perforation or tamponade. One patient required valve reintervention, which was not related to the device., Conclusions: The Wattson wire offered predictable guidewire support with concomitant reliable bipolar pacing at low thresholds to allow safe THV delivery in this patient cohort. It has the potential to make TAVR a safer and more efficient procedure., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Large data comparing the performance of new-generation self-expandable versus balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves in bicuspid aortic stenosis are lacking. We aim to compare the safety and performance of balloon-expandable and self-expandable transcatheter heart valves in the treatment of bicuspid aortic stenosis., Methods: The BEAT (balloon versus self-expandable valve for the treatment of bicuspid aortic valve stenosis) registry included 353 consecutive patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation using new-generation Evolut R/PRO or Sapien 3 valves in bicuspid aortic valve., Results: A total of 353 patients (n=242 [68.6%] treated with Sapien 3 and n=111 [68.6%] treated with Evolut R (n=70)/PRO [n=41]) were included. Mean age was 77.8±8.3 years and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 4.4±3.3%. Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 device success was similar between Sapien 3 and Evolut R/PRO (85.6% versus 87.2%; P =0.68). In the Sapien 3 group, 4 patients experienced annular rupture whereas this complication did not occur in the Evolut R/PRO group. After propensity score matching, Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 device success was similar between both groups (Sapien 3=85.7% versus Evolut R/Pro=84.4%; P =0.821). Both in the overall and in the matched population, no differences in the rate of permanent pacemaker implant were observed. At 1-year follow-up, the rate of overall death and cardiovascular death were similar between the 2 groups. In the unmatched population, the 1-year echocardiographic follow-up demonstrated similar rate of moderate-to-severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation (Evolut R/PRO 10.5% versus Sapien 3 4.2%, P =0.077); however, after propensity matching, the rate of moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak became significantly higher among patients treated with self-expandable valves (9.3% versus 0%; P =0.043)., Conclusions: Our study confirms the feasibility of both Sapien 3 and Evolut R/PRO implantation in bicuspid aortic valve anatomy; a higher rate of moderate-severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation was observed in the Evolut R/PRO group at 1-year follow-up in the matched cohort, although patients treated with balloon-expandable valve had a higher rate of annular rupture.

Aims: Although transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is officially indicated for severe aortic stenosis (AS) patients at intermediate or higher surgical risk, the procedure is now increasingly being performed in patients who are at low surgical risk. Data on the benefit of TAVI in this patient population are limited. We therefore aimed to perform an updated meta-analysis of all published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score-matched studies comparing TAVI versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients at low surgical risk., Methods and Results: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs and observational studies with propensity score matching (PSM) of TAVI versus SAVR in patients who are at low surgical risk (mean STS score <4% and/or logistic EuroSCORE <10%). The primary outcome was mortality (examined at 30 days, one year and the longest available follow-up). The secondary outcomes included procedural complications. Nine studies (n=6,124) were included. TAVI was associated with a numerically, but not statistically, significant reduced mortality at 30 days (1.45% vs 2.1%, p=0.05), and similar mortality at one year (5.1% vs 5.0%, p=0.74) and a median of two years (10.8% vs 9.8%, p=0.15). For both time points, there was significant heterogeneity between RCT/PSM studies, with the former suggesting survival advantage for TAVI and the latter for SAVR. In terms of periprocedural complications, TAVI was associated with reduced risk for stroke, bleeding and renal failure and an increase in vascular complications and pacemaker implantation., Conclusions: In patients who are at low surgical risk, TAVI seems to be associated with equivalent mortality up to a median follow-up of two years compared to SAVR. More data are required before TAVI can be routinely considered as an alternative to SAVR in low-risk patients.

Aims: To compare transcatheter aortic valve replacement TAVR with self-expandable first-generation Medtronic CoreValve with new-generation Evolut R devices in patients with aortic stenosis., Methods: Multiple databases were screened for all available reports directly or indirectly comparing CoreValve vs Evolut R. Primary endpoint was device success. Procedural, functional and clinical outcomes were assessed as well., Results: Ten retrospective series including 12 294 pts. were found. Overall device success rate was 95.5% and was statistically higher in the Evolut R treated patients as compared with CoreValve: 96.6 vs. 94.8%, respectively; RR (risk ratio) 95%CIs (confidence intervals): 1.02 (1.00-1.04); P = 0.01. There were no statistical differences with regard to postoperative mean aortic gradients 8.5 +/- 5.3 vs 7.9 +/- 4.6 with Evolut R and CoreValve. Evolut R valve demonstrated nearly 50% reduction of the risk for moderate-to-severe paravalvilar leak 0.55 (0.39-0.79); P = 0.001; 60% statistically significant lower risk of developing myocardial injury 0.40 (0.22-0.72); P = 0.002 and numerical reductions in the risk of acute kidney injury, vascular complications and bleeding. Together with significantly reduced risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (0.80 [0.67-0.96]; P = 0.02) the above benefits were associated with 40% reduction in the risk of 30-day all-cause mortality with Evolut R as compared to CoreValve: 0.60 (0.37-1.00); P = 0.05., Conclusions: The use of new-generation Evolut R was associated with improved procedural, functional and clinical outcomes compared with the CoreValve device.

Objectives: The authors sought to collect data on contemporary practice and outcome of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in oncology patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS)., Background: Oncology patients with severe AS are often denied valve replacement. TAVR may be an emerging treatment option., Methods: A worldwide registry was designed to collect data on patients who undergo TAVR while having active malignancy. Data from 222 cancer patients from 18 TAVR centers were compared versus 2,522 "no-cancer" patients from 5 participating centers. Propensity-score matching was performed to further adjust for bias., Results: Cancer patients' age was 78.8 ± 7.5 years, STS score 4.9 ± 3.4%, 62% men. Most frequent cancers were gastrointestinal (22%), prostate (16%), breast (15%), hematologic (15%), and lung (11%). At the time of TAVR, 40% had stage 4 cancer. Periprocedural complications were comparable between the groups. Although 30-day mortality was similar, 1-year mortality was higher in cancer patients (15% vs. 9%; p < 0.001); one-half of the deaths were due to neoplasm. Among patients who survived 1 year after the TAVR, one-third were in remission/cured from cancer. Progressive malignancy (stage III to IV) was a strong mortality predictor (hazard ratio: 2.37; 95% confidence interval: 1.74 to 3.23; p < 0.001), whereas stage I to II cancer was not associated with higher mortality compared with no-cancer patients., Conclusions: TAVR in cancer patients is associated with similar short-term but worse long-term prognosis compared with patients without cancer. Among this cohort, mortality is largely driven by cancer, and progressive malignancy is a strong mortality predictor. Importantly, 85% of the patients were alive at 1 year, one-third were in remission/cured from cancer. (Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Oncology Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis [TOP-AS]; NCT03181997)., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Sizing for transcatheter aortic valve implantation in bicuspid aortic valves (BAV) remains controversial., Methods and Results: The aim of the BAVARD (Bicuspid Aortic Valve Anatomy and Relationship With Devices) retrospective registry is to capture the sizing ratios used for transcatheter aortic valve implantation in BAV and analyze the second-generation prostheses geometry postimplantation. About 101 patients with BAV along with available pre- and post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation multidetector computed tomography were compared with 88 tricuspid aortic valves (TAV) patients. Preprocedural multidetector computed tomography diagnosed type 0 and type 1 BAV in, respectively, 12.9% and 86.1 % of BAV. At baseline, the ellipticity index was similar between BAV and TAV patients: 1.2±0.1 versus 1.2±0.1, P=0.09. The mean annular oversizing was, respectively, 1.14±0.04 and 1.04±0.04, P<0.001, in TAV and BAV patients. The mean prosthesis intercommissural distance, ratio was 1.03±0.1. The mean diameter of the prostheses at the annulus matched the mean perimeter-derived diameter of the aortic annulus at baseline with TAV (23.3±2.2 versus 23.6±1.9, P=0.4) and was smaller with BAV (24±2.8 versus 26.8±3.1, P<0.01), confirming 11% underexpansion in BAV. Finally, in situ, prosthesis diameter and ellipticity followed the same pattern, with stable values from the distal edge to 12 mm above, in both groups., Conclusions: Second-generation prostheses similarly reshape the aortic annulus in TAV and BAV. Prostheses keep consistent diameters from distal edge to 12 mm in TAV and BAV. Prosthesis underexpansion is constantly observed in BAV. Annular-based sizing is accurate in BAV with minimal oversizing. The intercommissural distance, 4 mm above the annulus, could be integrated in gray zones., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03495050.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an established treatment for severe aortic stenosis in patients at high or prohibitive surgical risk. Nevertheless, long-term clinical and echocardiographic data are still lacking. We carried out an analysis of 560 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI at our institution from 2008 to 2016 to evaluate temporal changes in TAVI characteristics, predictors of 1-year and long-term outcomes, and to compare the performance of the early- and new-generation valve systems. With time, we have adopted lower risk threshold for patient selection and have been using conscious sedation and transfemoral access preferentially (p <0.001 for all). The incidence of greater than mild PVL decreased from 16% to 7.6%, p = 0.029. Within 5 years, 47% of the patients died, the majority (78%) due to noncardiac causes. Independent predictors of 1-year death included periprocedural aspects (i.e., vascular complications, stroke, and PVL), whereas death occurring later than 1 year was solely related to baseline co-morbidities. Transvalvular gradients and residual regurgitation remained nonclinically significant for up to 5 years of follow-up. New-generation valves were associated with less PVL compared with propensity score-matched early-generation valves (p <0.001). In conclusion, TAVI utilization at our institution has progressed to include lower risk patients with transfemoral access becoming applicable in the great majority. Poor long-term survival is attributable to population factors rather than to procedural factors. Intermediate- and long-term hemodynamics are excellent. PVL has diminished significantly with the new-generation valves. Efforts to improve long- and short-term outcomes remain a therapeutic challenge., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The Evolut-R (Medtronic, Inc) is a transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) system that was built on the well-established foundation of Medtronic's CoreValve device platform. Although already in extensive clinical utilization, it is unknown if the Evolut-R improves TAVI outcomes. Herein, we compared TAVI outcomes of the Evolut-R and CoreValve devices., Methods: A propensity score 1:1 matching was conducted on 358 Evolut-R patients (n = 75) and CoreValve patients (n = 283). Thirty-day outcomes were compared using Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 criteria. A combined 30-day endpoint including all-cause death, stroke, major vascular complication, major bleeding, implantation failure, paravalvular leak (PVL) ≥ moderate, and new pacemaker implantation was also tested., Results: The final study group included 146 patients (73 Evolut-R; 73 CoreValve). Post matching, baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Mean patient age was 82 ± 6 years, mean STS score was 5.2 ± 3.8, 72% were female, and 17% were deemed frail. Implantation success reached 99% with Evolut-R and 94% with CoreValve (P=.10). Both groups had low periprocedural stroke/myocardial infarction/mortality rates and there was also no difference in 30-day vascular complications (P=.18), bleeding (P=.37), PVL (P=.24), and new pacemaker (P=.14). The combined outcome rate was 24% with Evolut-R and 37% with CoreValve (P=.10)., Conclusion: This study indicates that the efficacy and safety of the self-expandable second-generation Evolut-R transcatheter valve is at least comparable with the first-generation CoreValve. The observed improved performance in correct positioning of a single valve and the numerically lower chance to suffer a combined TAVI endpoint needs further investigation.

Aims: Transcatheter heart valve (THV) implantation in failed bioprosthetic valves (valve-in-valve [ViV]) offers an alternative therapy for high-risk patients. Elevated post-procedural gradients are a significant limitation of aortic ViV. Our objective was to assess the relationship between depth of implantation and haemodynamics., Methods and Results: Commercially available THVs used for ViV were included in the analysis (CoreValve Evolut, SAPIEN XT and the Portico valve). THVs were implanted in small surgical valves (label size 19 mm) to simulate boundary conditions. Custom-mounted pulse duplicators registered relevant haemodynamic parameters. Twenty-eight experiments were performed (13 CVE, 5 SXT and 10 Portico). Ranges of depth of implantation were: CVE: -1.2 mm to 15.7 mm; SXT: -2.2 mm to 7.5 mm; Portico: 1.4 mm to 12.1 mm. Polynomial regression established a relationship between depth of implantation and valvular mean gradients (CVE: p<0.001; SXT: p=0.01; Portico: p=0.002), as well as with EOA (CVE: p<0.001; SXT: p=0.02; Portico valve: p=0.003). In addition, leaflet coaptation was better in the high implantation experiments for all valves., Conclusions: The current comprehensive bench testing assessment demonstrates the importance of high device position for the attainment of optimal haemodynamics during aortic ViV procedures.

Para-valvular regurgitation (PVR) after transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) implantation is associated with increased mortality. Redo-TAVI may be applied to treat PVR, yet with unknown efficacy. We thought to assess redo-TAVI efficacy in reducing PVR using the Redo-TAVI registry (45 centers; 600 TAV-in-TAV cases). Patients were excluded if redo-TAVI was done urgently (N = 253), for isolated TAV stenosis (N = 107) or if regurgitation location at presentation remained undetermined (N = 123). The study group of patients with PVR (N = 70) were compared against patients with intra-valvular regurgitation (IVR) (N = 41). Echocardiographic examinations of 67 (60%) patients were reassessed in a core-lab for data accuracy validation. Core-lab examination validated the jet location in 66 (98.5%) patients. At 30 days, the rate of residual AR ≥ moderate was 7 (10%) in the PVR cohort vs. 1 (2.4%) in the IVR cohort, p = 0.137. The rate of procedural success was 53 (75.7%) vs. 33 (80.5%), p = 0.561; procedural safety 51 (72.8%) vs. 31 (75.6%), p = 0.727; and mortality 2 (2.9%) vs. 1 (2.4%), p = 0.896 at 30 days and 7 (18.6%) vs. 2 (11.5%), p = 0.671 at 1 year, respectively. Of patients with residual PVR ≥ moderate at 30 days, 5/7 occurred after implanting balloon-expandable in self-expanding TAV and 2/7 after balloon-expandable in balloon-expandable TAV. This study puts in perspective redo-TAVI efficacy and limitations to treat PVR after TAVI. Patient selection for this and other therapies for PVR needs further investigation. • Para-valvular regurgitation (PVR) after TAVI is associated with increased mortality. • Redo-TAVI reduced PVR in 90% of patients with PVR after TAVI. • AR persisted in 10% of patients with PVR vs. 2.4% with intra-valvular AR, p = 0.137. • Procedural success, safety and mortality were comparable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the management of post-Transcatheter Aortic Valve (TAV) para-valvular leak (PVL), which can occur due to various factors such as mal-positioning, under-expansion, and uneven calcium distribution. The choice of treatment depends on the specific cause of the PVL, with redo-TAV implantation and balloon valvuloplasty being potential options. The article also highlights the temporal trends in PVL intervention, which have been influenced by advancements in TAV sizing techniques, design improvements, and better understanding of calcium distribution. The implementation of plug-in-TAV, a technique for PVL closure, has become more widespread as TAVI operators have gained technical proficiency. The PLUGinTAVI registry provides valuable insights into the success rates and outcomes of plug-in-TAV procedures. As the demographic profile of TAVI patients changes, plug-in-TAV may become a preferred option to mitigate risks and facilitate future procedures. [Extracted from the article]

Background: The extent of myocardial fibrosis in patients with severe aortic stenosis might have an important prognostic value. Non-invasive imaging to quantify myocardial fibrosis by measuring extracellular volume fraction might have an important clinical utility prior to aortic valve intervention. Methods: Seventy-five consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis, and 19 normal subjects were prospectively recruited and underwent pre- and post-contrast computed tomography for estimating myocardial extracellular volume fraction. Serum level of galectin-3 was measured and 2-dimensional echocardiography was performed to characterize the extent of cardiac damage using a recently published aortic stenosis staging classification. Results: Extracellular volume fraction was higher in patients with aortic stenosis compared to normal subjects (40.0±11% vs. 21.6±5.6%; respectively, p<0.001). In patients with aortic stenosis, extracellular volume fraction correlated with markers of left ventricular decompensation including New York Heart Association functional class, left atrial volume, staging classification of aortic stenosis and lower left ventricular ejection fraction. Out of 75 patients in the AS group, 49 underwent TAVI, 6 surgical AVR, 2 balloon valvuloplasty, and 18 did not undergo any type of intervention. At 12-months after aortic valve intervention, extracellular volume fraction predicted the combined outcomes of stroke and hospitalization for heart failure with an area under the curve of 0.77 (95% confidence interval: 0.65–0.88). A trend for correlation between serum galectin-3 and extracellular volume was noted. Conclusion: In patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing computed tomography before aortic valve intervention, quantification of extracellular volume fraction correlated with functional status and markers of left ventricular decompensation, and predicted the 12-months composite adverse clinical outcomes. Implementation of this novel technique might aid in the risk stratification process before aortic valve interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are now both used to treat aortic stenosis in patients in whom life expectancy may exceed valve durability. The choice of initial bioprosthesis should therefore consider the relative safety and efficacy of potential subsequent interventions.Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare TAVR in failed transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) versus surgical aortic valves (SAVs).Methods: Data were collected on 434 TAV-in-TAV and 624 TAV-in-SAV consecutive procedures performed at centers participating in the Redo-TAVR international registry. Propensity score matching was applied, and 330 matched (165:165) patients were analyzed. Principal endpoints were procedural success, procedural safety, and mortality at 30 days and 1 year.Results: For TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV, procedural success was observed in 120 (72.7%) versus 103 (62.4%) patients (p = 0.045), driven by a numerically lower frequency of residual high valve gradient (p = 0.095), ectopic valve deployment (p = 0.081), coronary obstruction (p = 0.091), and conversion to open heart surgery (p = 0.082). Procedural safety was achieved in 116 (70.3%) versus 119 (72.1%) patients (p = 0.715). Mortality at 30 days was 5 (3%) after TAV-in-TAV and 7 (4.4%) after TAV-in-SAV (p = 0.570). At 1 year, mortality was 12 (11.9%) and 10 (10.2%), respectively (p = 0.633). Aortic valve area was larger (1.55 ± 0.5 cm2 vs. 1.37 ± 0.5 cm2; p = 0.040), and the mean residual gradient was lower (12.6 ± 5.2 mm Hg vs. 14.9 ± 5.2 mm Hg; p = 0.011) after TAV-in-TAV. The rate of moderate or greater residual aortic regurgitation was similar, but mild aortic regurgitation was more frequent after TAV-in-TAV (p = 0.003).Conclusions: In propensity score-matched cohorts of TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV patients, TAV-in-TAV was associated with higher procedural success and similar procedural safety or mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is safe and feasible in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), but whether annular size may influence TAVR results in BAV patients remains unclear. We aimed at evaluating the impact of aortic annular size on procedural and clinical outcomes of BAV patients undergoing TAVR, as well as potential interactions between annular dimension and trans-catheter heart valve (THV) type (balloon-expandable (BEV) vs. self-expanding (SEV). BEAT is a multicenter registry of consecutive BAV stenosis undergoing TAVR. For this sub-study patients were classified according to annular dimension in small-annulus (area < 400 mm2 or perimeter <72 mm), medium-annulus (area ≥ 400 and < 575 mm2, perimeter ≥72 mm and< 85 mm), large-annulus (area ≥ 575 mm2 or perimeter ≥85 mm). Primary endpoint was Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) device success. 45(15.5%) patients had small, 132(45.3%) medium, and 114(39.2%) large annuli. Compared with other groups, patients with large annuli were more frequently male, younger, with higher body mass index, larger aortic valve area, higher rate of moderate-severe calcification, lower mean trans-aortic valve gradient and lower left ventricular ejection fraction. In large-annuli SEVs were associated with a lower VARC-2 device success (75.9% vs. 90.6%, p = 0.049) driven by a higher rate of paravalvular valvular leak (PVL) compared to BEVs (20.7% vs. 1.2%, p < 0.001). However, no differences in clinical outcomes were observed according to annular size nor THV type. TAVR in BAV patients is feasible irrespective of annular size. However in patients with large aortic annulus SEVs were associated with a significantly higher rate of PVLs compared to BEVs. • TAVR can be successfully performed in severe bicuspid aortic stenosis. • However, interaction between annular size and THV type is still unclear. • We compared BEV and SEV hemodynamics by aortic annulus size in BAV patients. • In large annuli a higher rate of PVLs was observed SEVs compared to BEVs. • No differences in clinical outcomes were observed according to annular size nor THV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is not considered a "sweet spot" to trans-catheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), a certain number of BAV underwent TAVR. Whether BAV phenotype affects outcomes following TAVR remains debated. We aimed at evaluating the impact of BAV phenotype on procedural and clinical outcomes after TAVR using new generation trans-catheter heart valves (THVs). patients included in the BEAT registry were classified according to the BAV phenotype revealed at multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) in type 0 (no raphe) vs. type 1 (1 raphe). Primary end-point was Valve Academic Research Consortium–2 (VARC-2) device success. Secondary end-points included procedural complications, rate of permanent pacemaker implantation, clinical outcomes at 30-day and 1-year. Type 0 BAV was present in 25(7.1%) cases, type 1 in 218(61.8%). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups. Moderate-severe aortic valve calcifications at MSCT were less frequently present in type 0 vs. type 1 (52%vs.71.1%, p = 0.05). No differences were reported for THV type, size, pre and post-dilation between groups. VARC-2 success tended to be lower in type 0 vs. type 1 BAV (72%vs86.7%; p = 0.07). Higher rate of mean transprosthetic gradient ≥20 mmHg was observed in type 0 vs. type 1 group (24%vs6%, p = 0.007). No differences were reported in the rate of post-TAVR moderate-severe aortic regurgitation and clinical outcomes between groups. Our study confirms TAVR feasibility in both BAV types, however a trend toward a lower VARC-2 device success and a higher rate of mean transprosthetic gradient ≥20 mmHg was observed in type 0 vs. type 1 BAV. • Despite being a relative contraindication a certain number of BAV underwent TAVR. • We assessed the impact of BAV type on procedural and clinical outcomes post TAVR. • VARC-2 success tended to be lower in type 0 vs. type 1 BAV. • higher rate of high residual gradient was observed in type 0 compared to type 1 BAV. • No differences were noted in the rate of AR and clinical outcomes between BAV types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]