Search

Background: Coronary re-engagement after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using self-expanding transcatheter heart valves (THVs) systematically implanted using commissural alignment (CA) techniques has been poorly investigated., Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate unsuccessful coronary cannulation, and its predictors, after TAVR using self-expanding devices implanted using CA techniques., Methods: RE-ACCESS 2 (Reobtain Coronary Ostia Cannulation Beyond Transcatheter Aortic Valve Stent 2) was an investigator-driven, single-center, prospective study that enrolled consecutive TAVR patients receiving Evolut and ACURATE THVs implanted using CA techniques. The primary endpoint was unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR. The secondary endpoint was the identification of postprocedural predictors of unfeasible, selective coronary ostia re-engagement on computed tomographic angiography performed after TAVR., Results: Among 127 patients enrolled from September 2021 to December 2022, 7 (5.5%) had unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR, and 6 of them received Evolut THVs (7.5% vs 2.3%; P = 0.26). Failure of left coronary artery cannulation was similar between Evolut and ACURATE THVs (2.5% vs 2.1%; P = 1.00), whereas that of right coronary artery cannulation was prevalent in the Evolut group (6.3% vs 0.0%; P = 0.16). Coronary overlap was associated with the inability to selectively cannulate the right coronary artery (OR: 5.6; 95% CI: 1.2-25.8; P = 0.03), but not in ACURATE recipients (P = 0.39). Severe misalignment of Evolut THVs was associated with the inability to selectively cannulate both coronary arteries (OR: 24.7; 95% CI: 1.9-312.9; P = 0.01)., Conclusions: Unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR using self-expanding THVs implanted using CA techniques was reported in 5.5% of cases, with the majority involving the Evolut THV. Commissural misalignment affected coronary cannulation after TAVR mostly in Evolut recipients., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Barbanti is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Tamburino is consultant for Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The performance of latest iteration transcatheter aortic valve replacement platforms in patients with small aortic anatomy remains underexplored., Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate effectiveness and performance between the self-expanding (SE) Evolut PRO and PRO+ and the balloon-expandable (BE) SAPIEN ULTRA in patients with small aortic annuli., Methods: Data from the OPERA-TAVI (Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO vs. SAPIEN 3 ULTRA Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry were used, with 1:1 propensity score matching. Primary endpoints included 1-year effectiveness composite (all-cause mortality, disabling stroke, or heart failure hospitalization) and 30-day device-related (hemodynamic structural valve dysfunction and nonstructural valve dysfunction) outcomes., Results: Among 3,516 patients, 251 matched pairs with aortic annular area <430 mm 2 were assessed. The 1-year primary effectiveness outcome did not differ significantly between cohorts (SE 10.8% vs BE 11.2%; P = 0.91). The 30-day device-oriented composite outcome was more favorable in the Evolut PRO group (SE 4.8% vs BE 10.4%; P = 0.027). Notably, SE valve recipients showed higher rates of disabling stroke (SE 4.0% vs BE 0.0%; P < 0.01) and paravalvular leaks (mild or greater: SE 48.5% vs BE 18.6% [P < 0.001]; moderate: SE 4.5% vs BE 1.2% [P = 0.070]). The BE group had higher rates of prosthesis-patient mismatch (moderate or greater: SE 16.0% vs BE 47.1% [P < 0.001]; severe: SE 1.3% vs BE 5.7% [P = 0.197]) and more patients with residual mean gradients >20 mm Hg (SE 1.0% vs BE 13.5%; P < 0.001)., Conclusions: In patients with small aortic annuli, transcatheter aortic valve replacement with latest iteration devices is safe. SE platforms are associated with more favorable device performance in terms of hemodynamic structural and nonstructural dysfunction. Randomized data are needed to validate these findings and guide informed device selection., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Scotti has served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and NeoChord. Dr Pilgrim has received research, travel, or educational grants to the institution without personal remuneration from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and ATSens; and has received speaker fees and consultancy fees to the institution from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, Biosensors, and Highlife. Dr Meier has received an institutional grant from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Barbanti is a consultant for Boston Scientifics, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Latib has served on advisory boards for Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Shifamed, NeoChord, VDyne, and Philips. 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: Midterm comparative analyses of the latest iterations of the most used Evolut and SAPIEN platforms for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are lacking., Aims: We aimed to compare 1-year clinical outcomes of TAVI patients receiving Evolut PRO/PRO+ (PRO) or SAPIEN 3 Ultra (ULTRA) devices in current real-world practice., Methods: Among patients enrolled in the OPERA-TAVI registry, patients with complete 1-year follow-up were considered for the purpose of this analysis. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to compare TAVI patients receiving PRO or ULTRA devices. The primary endpoint was a composite of 1-year all-cause death, disabling stroke and rehospitalisation for heart failure. Five prespecified subgroups of patients were considered according to leaflet and left ventricular outflow tract calcifications, annulus dimensions and angulation, and leaflet morphology., Results: Among a total of 1,897 patients, 587 matched pairs of patients with similar clinical and anatomical characteristics were compared. The primary composite endpoint did not differ between patients receiving PRO or ULTRA devices (Kaplan-Meier [KM] estimates 14.0% vs 11.9%; log-rank p=0.27). Patients receiving PRO devices had higher rates of 1-year disabling stroke (KM estimates 2.6% vs 0.4%; log-rank p=0.001), predominantly occurring within 30 days after TAVI (1.4% vs 0.0%; p=0.004). Outcomes were consistent across all the prespecified subsets of anatomical scenarios (all p interaction >0.10)., Conclusions: One-year clinical outcomes of patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI and receiving PRO or ULTRA devices in the current clinical practice were similar, but PRO patients had higher rates of disabling stroke. Outcomes did not differ across the different anatomical subsets of the aortic root.

Background: Balloon post-dilation (BPD) is a widely adopted strategy to optimize acute results of TAVI, with a positive impact on both paravalvular leak and mean gradients. On the other hand, the inflation of the balloon inside prosthetic leaflets may damage them increasing the risk of structural valve deterioration (SVD). Furthermore, the impact of BPD on long-term clinical outcomes and valve hemodynamics is yet unknown., Aims: To evaluate the impact of BPD on valve durability and long-term clinical outcomes in patients undergoing self-expanding transcatheter valve implantation (TAVI)., Methods: Echocardiographic and clinical data from the ClinicalService (a nation-based data repository and medical care project) were analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups, those who underwent BPD after TAVI and those who did not. Coprimary endpoints were all-cause death and SVD. Cumulative incidence functions for SVD were estimated., Results: Among 1835 patients included in the study, 417 (22.7%) underwent BPD and 1418 (77.3%) did not undergo BPD. No statistically significant differences at 6-year follow-up were found between groups in terms of all-cause mortality (HR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.9-1.22; p = 0.557) and SVD (2.1% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.381). In addition, BPD did not predispose to higher risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, valve thrombosis, and endocarditis at 6-year follow-up., Conclusions: BPD following TAVI with a self-expanding prosthesis does not seem to be associated with an increased risk of adverse clinical outcomes or SVD at 6-year follow-up., (© 2023 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is an effective treatment for patients with aortic stenosis; however, complications related to paravalvular leakage (PVL) persist, including increased risk of mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and rehospitalisation., Aims: We sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes and valve performance at 1 year in patients with severe aortic stenosis treated with the ACURATE neo2 valve in a post-market clinical setting., Methods: Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 safety events were assessed up to 1 year. Independent core laboratories evaluated echocardiographic measures of valve performance and hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT; as measured by four-dimensional computed tomography)., Results: The study enrolled 250 patients (64% female; mean age: 81 years; baseline Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score: 2.9±2.0%); 246 patients were implanted with ACURATE neo2. All-cause mortality was 0.8% at 30 days and 5.1% at 1 year. The 1-year rates for stroke and disabling stroke were 3.0% and 1.3%, respectively. Overall, HALT of >50% leaflet involvement of at least one leaflet was present in 9% of patients at 30 days and in 12% of patients at 1 year. No association was observed between the presence of HALT and 1-year clinical or haemodynamic outcomes. Early haemodynamic improvements were maintained up to 1 year (mean aortic valve gradient: 47.6±14.5 mmHg at baseline, 7.6±3.2 mmHg at 1 year; mean aortic valve area: 0.7±0.2 cm 2 at baseline, 1.7±0.4 cm 2 at 1 year). At 1 year, 99% of patients had mild or no/trace PVL (<1% had moderate PVL; no patient had severe PVL)., Conclusions: The study outcomes confirm favourable performance and safety up to 1 year in patients treated with ACURATE neo2 in routine clinical practice. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04655248).

Background: Limited data are available on transcatheter heart valves (THVs) durability in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis., Aims: To evaluate evaluating 4-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients with BAV undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)., Methods: The bicuSpid TAvi duraBILITY (STABILITY) registry is an Italian multicentre registry including all consecutive patients with BAV and severe aortic stenosis (AS), treated by means of TAVI between January 2011 and December 2017. Outcomes of interest were all-cause death at 4-year, over time changes in echocardiographic measurements, and THV durability according to the valve aortic research consortium (VARC)-3 update definitions., Results: Study population included 109 patients (50% females; mean age 78 ± 7.5 years) with a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score of 5.1 ± 4.3%. Median follow-up (FU) duration was 4.1 years [interquartile range: 2.8-5.1]. The overall cumulative incidence of all-cause death by Kaplan-Meier estimates at 4 years was 32%. Compared to baseline, a significant decrease in transprosthetic mean gradient was obtained after TAVI (54 ± 16 vs. 10 ± 5 mmHg; p < 0.001), whereas a significant increase was observed at 4-year (13 ± 6.4 mmHg, p = 0.03). Cumulative incidence of hemodynamic valve dysfunction (HVD) was 4%. Six patients met HVD criteria: three moderate and three severe HVD. All three cases of severe HVD were clinically relevant (bioprosthetic valve failure [BVF]) with two patients receiving a reintervention (TAVI in TAVI), and one patient experiencing a valve-related death due to endocarditis., Conclusions: The STABILITY registry suggests that in patients with severe AS and BAV undergoing TAVI, postprocedural clinical benefits might last, over time, up to 4-year FU. The low rates of severe HVD and BVF may support the hypothesis of good THV durability also in BAV recipient., (© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Horizontal aorta (HA), defined by an aortic angulation (AA) ≥48°, is associated with worse outcomes particularly after self-expanding (SE) trans-catheter heart valve (THV) implantation. Although the SE ACURATE Neo THV demonstrated favorable procedural success rates in patients with HA, it remains associated with a non-negligible rate of moderate or greater paravalvular leak (PVL)., Objectives: Aim of the study was to assess the performance of ACURATE Neo2 in the setting of HA., Methods: We performed a multicenter cohort analysis on patients with severe aortic valve stenosis and HA undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the Neo or Neo2 THV enrolled in the ITAL-neo registry. The primary endpoint was a composite of early safety and clinical efficacy at 30 days according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 (VARC-3). Secondary endpoints included the occurrence of moderate or severe PVL and 90-day clinical outcomes., Results: Among 900 patients included in the ITAL-neo registry, 407 exhibited HA; of these, 300 received a Neo THV and 107 a Neo2 THV. HA, irrespective of the THV implanted, emerged as an independent risk factor for developing ≥ moderate PVL. Technical and device success at 30-day follow-up was comparable between groups. However, Neo2 was associated with a significantly lower rate of ≥moderate PVL vs. Neo: (5% vs. 15%; p < 0.001), which was confirmed also at 90-day follow-up. Additionally, no correlation was found between ≥moderate PVL and AA in the Neo2 group, while PVL degree increased proportionally to the AA in the Neo cohort., Conclusion: In patients with HA, the new generation Acurate Neo2 THV was associated with a comparable device success rate and a significantly lower rate of ≥moderate PVL, when compared with its predecessor., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Treatment of aortic stenosis in patients with small annuli is challenging and can result in prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM)., Aims: We aimed to compare the forward flow haemodynamics and clinical outcomes of contemporary transcatheter valves in patients with small annuli., Methods: The TAVI-SMALL 2 international retrospective registry included 1,378 patients with severe aortic stenosis and small annuli (annular perimeter <72 mm or area <400 mm 2 ) treated with transfemoral self-expanding (SEV; n=1,092) and balloon-expandable valves (BEV; n=286) in 16 high-volume centres between 2011 and 2020. Analyses comparing SEV versus BEV and supra-annular (SAV; n=920) versus intra-annular valves (IAV; n=458) included inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). The primary endpoints were the predischarge mean aortic gradient and incidence of severe PPM. The secondary endpoint was the incidence of more than mild paravalvular leak (PVL)., Results: The predischarge mean aortic gradient was lower after SAV versus IAV (7.8±3.9 vs 12.0±5.1; p<0.001) and SEV versus BEV implantation (8.0±4.1 vs 13.6±4.7; p<0.001). Severe PPM was more common with IAV and BEV when compared to SAV and SEV implantation, respectively, (8.8% vs 3.6%; p=0.007 and 8.7% vs 4.6%; p=0.041). At multivariable logistic regression weighted by IPTW, SAV protected from severe PPM regardless of its definition. More than mild PVL occurred more often with SEV versus BEV (11.6% vs 2.6%; p<0.001)., Conclusions: In small aortic annuli, implantation of SAV and SEV was associated with a more favourable forward haemodynamic profile than after IAV and BEV implantation, respectively. More than mild PVL was more common after SEV than BEV implantation.

Background: Sex-specific characteristics in patients with aortic stenosis and small annuli undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) might affect clinical outcomes and hemodynamics., Methods: TAVI-SMALL 2 international retrospective registry included 1378 patients with severe aortic stenosis and small annuli (annular perimeter <72 mm or area < 400 mm2) treated with transfemoral TAVI at 16 high-volume centers between 2011 and 2020. Women (n = 1233) were compared with men (n = 145). One-to-one propensity score (PS) matching resulted in 99 pairs. Primary endpoint was incidence of all-cause mortality. Incidence of pre-discharge severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and its association with all-cause mortality were investigated. Binary logistic and Cox regression were performed to adjust the treatment effect for PS quintiles., Results: Incidence of all-cause mortality at a median follow-up of 377 days did not differ between sex in the overall (10.3 vs. 9.8%, p = 0.842) and PS-matched (8.5 vs. 10.9%, p = 0.586) populations. After PS matching, pre-discharge severe PPM was numerically higher in women vs. men (10.2 vs. 4.3%), even though no evidence of a difference was found (p = 0.275). Within the overall population, women with severe PPM suffered a higher incidence of all-cause mortality when compared to those with less than moderate PPM (log-rank p = 0.024) and less than severe PPM (p = 0.027)., Conclusions: No difference in all-cause mortality at medium-term follow-up was observed between women and men with aortic stenosis and small annuli undergoing TAVI. Incidence of pre-discharge severe PPM was numerically higher in women than men, and it was associated with increased all-cause mortality in women., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Initial data about the performance of the new-generation SAPIEN 3 Ultra (S3U) valve are highly promising. However, evidence about the longer-term performance and safety of the S3U is scarce., Aims: We aimed to investigate the 1-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using the S3U compared with its predecessor, the SAPIEN 3 valve (S3)., Methods: The SAPIEN 3 Ultra registry included consecutive patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI at 12 European centres with the S3U or S3 between October 2016 and December 2020. One-to-one propensity score (PS) matching was performed to account for differences in baseline characteristics. The primary outcomes of interest were all-cause death and the composite of all-cause death, disabling stroke and hospitalisation for heart failure at 1 year., Results: The overall study cohort encompassed 1,692 patients treated with either the S3U (n=519) or S3 (n=1,173). The PS-matched population had a total of 992 patients (496 per group). At 1 year, the rate of death from any cause was 4.9% in the S3U group and 6.3% in the S3 group (p=0.743). Similarly, there were no significant differences in the rates of the primary composite outcome (9.5% in the S3 group and 6.6% in the S3U group; p=0.162). The S3U was associated with lower rates of mild paravalvular leak (PVL) compared with the S3 (odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.44 to 0.88; p<0.01). No significant differences in transprosthetic gradients were observed between the two groups., Conclusions: Compared with the S3, the S3U transcatheter heart valve was associated with similar 1-year clinical outcomes but reduced rates of mild PVL.

Background: No detailed data on left bundle branch block (LBBB) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) exist from randomised clinical trials comparing the ACURATE neo and CoreValve Evolut devices., Aims: Our aim was to assess the incidence and impact of new LBBB and PPI with self-expanding prostheses from a powered randomised comparison., Methods: From the SCOPE 2 trial, 648 patients with no previous pacemaker were analysed for PPI at 30 days, and 426 patients without previous LBBB were adopted for analysis of LBBB at 30 days.  Results: At 30 days, 16.5% of patients required PPI; rates were higher in CoreValve Evolut compared to ACURATE neo recipients (21.0% vs 12.3%; p=0.004). Previous right bundle branch block (odds ratio [OR] 6.11, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.19-11.73; p<0.001) was associated with an increased risk of PPI at 30 days, whereas the use of the ACURATE neo (OR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.31-0.81; p=0.005) was associated with a decreased risk. One-year mortality was similar in patients with and without new PPI. A total of 9.4% of patients developed persistent LBBB at 30 days, with higher incidences in CoreValve Evolut recipients (13.4% vs 5.5%; p=0.007). New LBBB at 30 days was associated with lower ejection fraction at 1 year (65.7%±11.0 vs 69.1%±7.6; p=0.041)., Conclusions: New LBBB and PPI rates were lower in ACURATE neo compared to CoreValve Evolut recipients. The ACURATE neo valve was associated with a lower risk of PPI at 30 days. No effect on 1-year mortality was determined for PPI at 30 days, while LBBB at 30 days was associated with reduced ejection fraction at 1 year.

Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Background: Head-to-head comparisons of devices for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are mostly limited to 2-arm studies so far. The aim of this study was to compare simultaneously outcomes of the most used, second- and third-generation transcatheter aortic valves in a real-world population., Methods: A total of 2728 patients undergoing TAVI with different second- and third-generation devices, and enrolled in the multicenter, prospective OBSERVANT II study (Observational Study of Effectiveness of TAVI With New Generation Devices for Severe Aortic Stenosis Treatment) from December 2016 to September 2018 were compared according to the transcatheter aortic valve received. Outcomes were adjudicated through a linkage with administrative databases, and adjusted using inverse propensity of treatment weighting. The primary end point was the composite of all-cause death, stroke and rehospitalization for heart failure at 1-year. Rates were reported consecutively for Evolut R, Evolut PRO, SAPIEN 3, ACURATE neo, and Portico groups., Results: The primary end point did not differ among groups (23.9% versus 24.7% versus 21.5% versus 23.7% versus 27.4%, respectively, P =0.56). Permanent pacemaker implantation was significantly lower for patients receiving SAPIEN 3 (19.9% versus 19.3% versus 12.5% versus 14.7% versus 22.1%, respectively, P <0.01) at 1 year. The SAPIEN 3 had lower rates of paravalvular regurgitation (moderate-to-severe grade 10.1% versus 5.0% versus 2.1% versus 13.1% versus 10.8%, respectively, P <0.01) but higher transprosthetic gradients (median mean gradients 7.0 versus 6.0 versus 10.0 versus 7.0 versus 8.0 mm Hg, respectively, P <0.01) after TAVI., Conclusions: Data from real-world practice showed low and comparable rates of complications after TAVI considering all the available devices. Patients receiving SAPIEN 3 valve had lower rates of paravalvular regurgitation and permanent pacemaker implantation, but higher transprosthetic gradients.

Background: As transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) replacement is increasingly used in patients with longer life expectancy, a sizable proportion will require redo TAV replacement (TAVR). The unique configuration of balloon-expandable TAV (bTAV) vs a self-expanding TAV (sTAV) potentially affects TAV-in-TAV outcome., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to better inform prosthesis selection, TAV-in-TAV outcomes were assessed according to the type of initial and subsequent TAV., Methods: Patients from the Redo-TAVR registry were analyzed using propensity weighting according to their initial valve type (bTAV [n = 115] vs sTAV [n = 106]) and subsequent valve type (bTAV [n = 130] vs sTAV [n = 91])., Results: Patients with failed bTAVs presented later (vs sTAV) (4.9 ± 2.1 years vs 3.7 ± 2.3 years; P < 0.001), with smaller effective orifice area (1.0 ± 0.7 cm 2 vs 1.3 ± 0.8 cm 2 ; P = 0.018) and less frequent dominant regurgitation (16.2% vs 47.3%; P < 0.001). Mortality at 30 days was 2.3% (TAV-in-bTAV) vs 0% (TAV-in-sTAV) (P = 0.499) and 1.7% (bTAV-in-TAV) vs 1.0% (sTAV-in-TAV) (P = 0.612); procedural safety was 72.6% (TAV-in-bTAV) vs 71.2% (TAV-in-sTAV) (P = 0.817) and 73.2% (bTAV-in-TAV) vs 76.5% (sTAV-in-TAV) (P = 0.590). Device success was similar according to initial valve type but higher with subsequent sTAV vs bTAV (77.2% vs 64.3%; P = 0.045), primarily because of lower residual gradients (10.3 mm Hg [8.9-11.7 mm Hg] vs 15.2 mm Hg [13.2-17.1 mm Hg]; P < 0.001). Residual regurgitation (moderate or greater) was similar after bTAV-in-TAV and sTAV-in-TAV (5.7%) and nominally higher after TAV-in-bTAV (9.1%) vs TAV-in-sTAV (4.4%) (P = 0.176)., Conclusions: In selected patients, no association was observed between TAV type and redo TAVR safety or mortality, yet subsequent sTAV was associated with higher device success because of lower redo gradients. These findings are preliminary, and more data are needed to guide valve choice for redo TAVR., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Webb is a consultant to and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. Dr Kim is a proctor for and has received speaker fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Abdel-Wahab has received speaker honoraria and/or consultancy fees to the hospital on his behalf from Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr Barbanti is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences; and is an advisory board member for Biotronik. Dr Søndergaard has received consulting fees and institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Symetis. Dr Redwood is a proctor for and has received lecture fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Hamm is an advisory board member for Medtronic. Dr Sinning has received speaker honoraria and research grants from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Sathananthan is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Schofer has received speaker fees and travel compensation from Boston Scientific; and has received travel compensation from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott/St. Jude Medical. Dr Andreas is a proctor, consultant, and speaker for Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Medtronic; and has received institutional grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and LSI. Dr Guerrero has received research grant support from Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Castriota is a proctor for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr Nazif is a consultant for or has received honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Biotrace, and Baylis Medical; and is a consultant for and holds equity in Venus Medtech. Dr Pilgrim has received research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Biotronik; and has received speaker fees from Boston Scientific and Biotronik. Dr Babaliaros is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences; and holds equity in Transmural Systems. Dr Van Mieghem has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Daiichi Sankyo, and PulseCath; and has received institutional research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Latib has received institutional research and grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received personal consulting honoraria from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Hildick-Smith is a proctor and adviser for Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The first-generation ACURATE neo transcatheter heart valve (THV) (Boston Scientific) was associated with a non-negligible occurrence of moderate or greater paravalvular aortic regurgitation (AR) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. To overcome this issue, the ACURATE neo2 iteration, which incorporates a taller outer skirt aimed at reducing the occurrence of paravalvular AR, has recently been developed., Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of the ACURATE neo2 (Boston Scientific) THV in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis., Methods: ITAL-neo was an observational, retrospective, multicenter registry enrolling consecutive patients with severe aortic valve stenosis, treated with first- and second-generation ACURATE neo THVs, via transfemoral and trans-subclavian access, in 13 Italian centers. One-to-one propensity score matching was applied to account for baseline characteristics unbalance. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of moderate or greater paravalvular AR on predischarge echocardiographic assessment. Secondary endpoints included postprocedural technical success and 90-day device success and safety., Results: Among 900 patients included in the registry, 220 received the ACURATE neo2 THV, whereas 680 were treated with the first-generation device. A total of 410 patients were compared after 1:1 propensity score matching. The ACURATE neo2 THV was associated with a 3-fold lower frequency of postprocedural moderate or greater paravalvular AR (11.2% vs 3.5%; P < 0.001). No other hemodynamic differences were observed. Postprocedural technical success was similar between the 2 cohorts. Fewer adverse events were observed in patients treated with the ACURATE neo2 at 90 days., Conclusions: Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement using the ACURATE neo2 was associated with a significant lower frequency of moderate or greater paravalvular AR compared with the earlier generation ACURATE neo device, with encouraging short-term safety and efficacy., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Tamburino is a consultant for Medtronic. Dr Barbanti is a consultant for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Background: To assess the longitudinal changes in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) practice and patients' outcomes in a high-volume Italian center., Methods: We analyzed all patients undergoing TAVI at our Institution from June 2007 to August 2021. We stratified the overall population considering four time periods according to procedural advancements and changes in clinical practice: period 1 (2007-2009, n=107) vs period 2 (2010-2014, n=449) vs period 3 (2015-2019, n=864) vs period 4 (2019-2021, n=638). Baseline and procedural characteristics, and in-hospital outcomes among the four groups were compared., Results: A total of 2058 patients underwent TAVI receiving all the available devices. Patients had a median age of 82 years (78-85) with no differences among time periods. A stepwise reduction of median Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality risk score (3.7 [2.8-5.3] vs 3.6 [2.6-5.4] vs 3.6 [2.5-5.5] vs 3.3 [2.2-4.9]; p=0.01) was observed. In-hospital all-cause-death (7.5% vs 5.1% vs 2.9% vs 3.0%; p<0.05), major stroke (4.7% vs 0.7% vs 1.0% vs 0.8%; p<0.05), major vascular complications (17.8% vs 8.7% vs 10.5% vs 5.8%; p<0.05) and permanent pacemaker implantation (23.4% vs 12.0% vs 8.7% vs 8.8%; p<0.05) rates significantly lowered over time. Device success markedly improved (80.4% vs 87.1% vs 95.0% vs 96.3%; p<0.05) with significant improvement of paravalvular regurgitation after TAVI (moderate-to-severe 16.8% vs 8.1% vs 0.7% vs 0.2%; mild 61.4% vs 38.2% vs 38.5% vs 25.6%; p<0.05)., Conclusions: All-cause death and in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing TAVI significantly improved accordingly to technical advancements and changes in clinical practice over 15-year experience.

Background: 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)., Methods: 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 mm 2 or perimeter <72 mm), medium-annulus (area ≥ 400 and < 575 mm 2 , perimeter ≥72 mm and< 85 mm), large-annulus (area ≥ 575 mm 2 or perimeter ≥85 mm). Primary endpoint was Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) device success., Results: 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., Conclusions: 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., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objectives: We evaluated the acute and two-year safety and efficacy of using the Corevalve, Evolut R, and Evolut PRO valves for treating failed surgical bioprosthesis from the Italian CoreValve Clinical Service Project., Background: Valve-in-valve (ViV) TAVR is an emerging treatment option for failed surgical bioprosthesis. Choice of transcatheter valve is an important determinant of procedural and clinical outcomes, however, longer-term data are lacking., Methods: The Clinical Service Project is a national clinical data repository evaluating the use of implantable devices across Italy. The present multi-center analysis includes consecutive patients who underwent ViV-TAVR with the Medtronic CoreValve series between October 2008 to June 2019. Evaluated endpoints included rates of overall mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accidents at 2-year follow-up. Procedural success, complications, and echocardiographic outcomes were reported according to VARC-2 criteria., Results: A total of 139 patients (mean age, 80 ± 7 years; 47.5% male; mean STS score, 10.0 ± 9.7%) underwent ViV-TAVR with CoreValve (28.5%), Evolut R (68.6%), and Evolut Pro (2.9%) valves. Device success was achieved in 68% and acute coronary obstruction requiring PCI was observed in 4 patients (2.9%). Moderate PVL was observed in 3.7% and 2.8% of patients at 30-day and 2-year follow-up and moderate structural valve degeneration seen only 5 patients (3.6%). All-cause and cardiovascular mortality were 3.6% and 2.9% at 30 days, respectively, and 20.6% and 10.2% at 2-year follow-up., Conclusions: This real-world nationwide analysis demonstrates the acute and longer-term safety and efficacy of using the self-expanding Medtronic THV for ViV-TAVR.

Objectives: To compare clinical outcomes of balloon-expandable (BE) and self-expanding (SE) transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) up to 5 years., Background: To date, no robust, comparative data of BE and SE TAVs at long-term are available., Methods: We considered a total of 1,440 patients enrolled in the multicenter OBSERVANT study and undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) with either supra-annular SE (n = 830, 57.6%) and intra-annular BE (n = 610, 42.4%) valves. Clinical outcomes of the two groups were compared after adjustment using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and confirmed by sensitivity analysis with propensity score matching., Results: Patients receiving SE valve showed a higher all-cause mortality at 5 years (Kaplan-Meier estimates 52.3% vs. 47.7%; Hazard ratio [HR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.38, p = .04). Landmark analyses showed that there was a not statistically significant reversal of risk excess against the BE group starting from 3 years after TAVI (3-5 years HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.76-1.25, p = .86). Post-procedural, moderate/severe paravalvular regurgitation (PVR)(HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.14-1.87; p < .01) and acute kidney injury (AKI)(HR 3.89, 95% CI 2.47-6.38; p < .01) showed to be independent predictors of 5-year all-cause mortality in multivariable analysis., Conclusions: Considering the intrinsic limitations of the OBSERVANT study, we found that patients undergoing TF-TAVI with a supra-annular SE valve had a higher all-cause mortality compared to those receiving an intra-annular BE valve at 5 years. A late catch up phenomenon of patients receiving the BE valve was observed beyond 3 years. Post-procedural moderate/severe PVR seems to play a crucial role in determining this finding. Comparative studies of new generation devices with longer follow-up are needed to evaluate the benefit of each specific TAV type., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Aim: To assess the outcome of nonagenarians patients receiving transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Methods: We aimed to stratify the overall population from an Italian, multicenter, observational project including a total of 3792 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR with CoreValve and Evolut R/PRO devices between April 2009 and October 2018, into four groups according to their age class (≥90 vs. 80-89 years vs. 70-79 vs. <70 years) and to compare outcomes up to 4 years after TAVR., Results: At 4 years, survival estimates showed no difference in terms of overall survival [Kaplan-Meier estimates (KM est.) 49.9 vs. 58.1% vs. 57.0 vs. 69.3%; Plogrank = 0.28] among the four groups. After 2 years from the procedure, landmark analysis showed an age-based difference in overall survival (KM est. 63.8 vs. 75.0% vs. 75.1 vs. 88.7%; Plogrank = 0.025) but no difference in terms of survival from cardiovascular death (KM est. 87.8 vs. 87.4% vs. 86.1 vs. 96.1%; Plogrank = 0.43). Finally, age itself was not correlated with overall mortality at 4 years (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.86-1.30, P = 0.591)., Conclusion: TAVR with self-expanding CoreValve and Evolut prostheses was demonstrated to have good long-term outcomes, regardless of the patient's age. At 4 years, no difference in overall mortality was reported among age-based groups, while a higher overall mortality was reported in nonagenarians after 2 years from the procedure. TAVR showed good long-term outcomes even in nonagenarian patients, and it could be the therapy of choice for selected elderly patients., (Copyright © 2020 Italian Federation of Cardiology - I.F.C. All rights reserved.)

Background: The recent approval of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with low operative risk has paved the way for the introduction of novel and potentially improved technologies. The safety and efficacy of these novel technologies should be investigated in randomized control trials against the contemporary TAVR devices. The objective of the LANDMARK trial is to compare the balloon-expandable Myval transcatheter heart valve (THV) series with contemporary THV (SAPIEN THV and Evolut THV series) series in patients with severe symptomatic native aortic stenosis., Methods/design: The LANDMARK trial (ClinicalTrials.govNCT04275726, EudraCT number 2020-000,137-40) is a prospective, randomized, multinational, multicenter, open-label, and noninferiority trial of approximately 768 patients treated with TAVR via the transfemoral approach. Patients will be allocated in a 1:1 randomization to Myval THV series (n = 384) or to contemporary THV (n = 384) (either of SAPIEN THV or Evolut THV series). The primary combined safety and efficacy endpoint is a composite of all-cause mortality, all stroke (disabling and nondisabling), bleeding (life-threatening or disabling), acute kidney injury (stage 2 or 3), major vascular complications, prosthetic valve regurgitation (moderate or severe), and conduction system disturbances (requiring new permanent pacemaker implantation), according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria at 30-day follow-up. All patients will have follow-up to 10 years following TAVR., Summary: The LANDMARK trial is the first randomized head-to-head trial comparing Myval THV series to commercially available THVs in patients indicated for TAVR. We review prior data on head-to-head comparisons of TAVR devices and describe the rationale and design of the LANDMARK trial., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr. Soliman and Dr. Onuma report institutional research grants related to their work as the chairman of cardiovascular imaging core labs of several clinical trials and registry sponsored by industry, for which they receive no direct compensation. Dr. Bedogni reports personal fees from Medtronic, personal fees from Boston Scientific, personal fees from Abbott, personal fees from Terumo, personal fees from Meril Life Sciences. Dr. Neumann reports personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from Biotronic, grants and personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences, grants from Medtronic, grants and personal fees from Bayer Healthcare, personal fees from Novartis, grants from GlaxoSmithKline, grants and personal fees from Boston Scientific, personal fees from Ferrer, outside the submitted work. Dr. Abdel-Wahab reports other from Boston Scientific, other from Medtronic, outside the submitted work. Dr. Webster has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Emboliner and Medeon Biodesign. Dr. Morice is a minor shareholder of electroducer. Dr. Mylotte is a consultant for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Microport. Dr. Wijns reports grants and personal fees from MicroPort, outside the submitted work; and co-founder of Argonauts, an innovation facilitator. Dr. Baumbach reports Institutional Research Support from Abbott Vascular and honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Sinomed, Microport, Abbott Vascular, Cardinal Health, KSH, outside the submitted work. Dr. Serruys reports personal fees from Biosensors, Medtronic, Micel Technologies, Sinomedical Sciences Technology, St. Jude Medical, Philips/Volcano, Xeltis, and HeartFlow, outside the submitted work. All other authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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 cm 2 vs. 1.37 ± 0.5 cm 2 ; 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., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Dr. Webb is a consultant to and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and ViVitro Labs. Dr. Kim has received proctor or speaker fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Barbanti is a consultant for Edwards; and is an Advisory Board member for Biotronik. Dr. Sondergaard has received consultant fees and institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Symetis. Dr. Redwood is a proctor for and has received lecture fees from Edwards. Dr. Hamm is an Advisory Board member for Medtronic. Dr. Sinning has received speaker honoraria and research grants from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Wood is a consultant to and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. Dr. Sathananthan is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Schofer has received speaker fees and travel compensation from Boston Scientific; and has received travel compensation from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott/St. Jude Medical. Dr. Leipsic is a consultant to Circle CVI and Edwards Lifesciences; and provides institutional core laboratory services to Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Neovasc. Dr. Andreas is a proctor for Edwards and Abbott; and is an Advisory Board member for Medtronic. Dr. Guerrero has received research grant support from Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Castriota is a proctor for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr. Kodali has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific; has received grants and personal fees from Abbott Vascular and JenaValve; has received personal fees from Meril Lifesciences; has received personal fees from and holds equity in Admedus; and holds equity in Supira, Microinterventional Devices, Dura Biotech, and Thubrikar Aortic Valve. Dr. Conradi is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Neovasc, and JenaValve. Dr. Nazif has received consulting fees or honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Biotrace, and Baylis Medical; and has received consulting fees from and holds equity in Venus Medtech. Dr. Pilgrim has received research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Biotronik; and has received speaker fees from Boston Scientific and Biotronik. Dr. Babaliaros is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences; and holds equity in Transmural Systems. Dr. Van Mieghem has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Daiichi-Sankyo, and PulseCath; and has received institutional research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Latib has received institutional research or grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received personal consulting honoraria from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Hildick-Smith is a proctor and adviser to Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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

Aims: The Evolut PRO is a new transcatheter heart valve with an outer pericardial wrap intended to reduce paravalvular leak and facilitate tissue ingrowth. We aimed to evaluate the clinical performance and safety of the Evolut PRO valve in standard practice., Methods and Results: FORWARD PRO is a prospective, multinational, multicentre observational study. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the Evolut PRO valve (23, 26, or 29 mm) was attempted in 629 non-consecutive patients from 39 centres from February 2018 to January 2019. The primary endpoint was the rate of all-cause mortality at 30 days compared to a pre-specified performance goal. An independent clinical events committee adjudicated safety endpoints based on VARC-2 definitions. All echocardiograms were centrally assessed by an independent core laboratory (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA). Baseline characteristics included mean age 81.7±6.1 years, 61.8% female, STS score 4.7±3.3%, and 33.6% were frail. All-cause mortality at 30 days was 3.2%, which was lower than the pre-specified performance goal of 5.5% (p=0.004). Greater than mild AR was present in 1.8% of patients at discharge., Conclusions: The FORWARD PRO study confirmed the safety and efficacy of the Evolut PRO transcatheter aortic valve system with an external pericardial wrap. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03417011

Objectives: The aims of this study were to investigate the feasibility of coronary ostia cannulation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and to assess potential predictors of coronary access impairment., Background: Certain data concerning the feasibility and reproducibility of coronary cannulation after TAVR are lacking., Methods: RE-ACCESS (Reobtain Coronary Ostia Cannulation Beyond Transcatheter Aortic Valve Stent) was an investigator-driven, single-center, prospective, registry-based study that enrolled consecutive patients undergoing TAVR using all commercially available devices. All patients underwent coronary angiography before and after TAVR. The primary endpoint was the rate of unsuccessful coronary ostia cannulation after TAVR. Secondary endpoints were the identification of factors associated with the inability to selectively cannulate coronary ostia after TAVR., Results: Among 300 patients enrolled in the RE-ACCESS study from December 2018 to January 2020, a total of 23 cases (7.7%) of unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR were documented. This issue occurred in 22 of 23 cases with the use of Evolut R/PRO transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) (17.9% vs. 0.4%; p < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, the use of Evolut R/PRO TAVs (odds ratio [OR]: 29.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.6 to 335.0; p < 0.01), the TAV-sinus of Valsalva relation (OR: 1.1 per 1-mm increase; 95% CI: 1.0 to 1.2; p < 0.01), and the mean TAV implantation depth (OR: 1.7 per 1-mm decrease; 95% CI: 1.3 to 2.3; p < 0.01) were found to be independent predictors of unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR. A model combining these factors was demonstrated to predict with very high accuracy the risk for unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR (area under the curve: 0.94; p < 0.01)., Conclusions: Unsuccessful coronary cannulation following TAVR was observed in 7.7% of patients and occurred almost exclusively in those receiving Evolut TAVs. The combination of Evolut TAV, a higher TAV-sinus of Valsalva relation, and implantation depth predicts with high accuracy the risk for unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR. (Reobtain Coronary Ostia Cannulation Beyond Transcatheter Aortic Valve Stent [RE-ACCESS]; NCT04026204)., Competing Interests: Author Relationship With Industry Dr. Barbanti is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences; and is an advisory board member for Biotronik. Dr. Tamburino has received speaking honoraria from Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific. Dr. Webb is a consultant to and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and ViVitro Labs. Dr. Leon has received research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and is an unpaid member on the scientific advisory boards of Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Gore, and Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate predictors and safety of next-day discharge (NDD) after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) in unselected patients receiving either balloon-expandable or self-expanding devices., Methods and Results: From June 2007 to August 2018, 1,232 consecutive patients undergoing TF-TAVI were discharged alive from our institution. They had a mean age of 80.9±5.4 years and an intermediate estimated surgical mortality risk; they received either balloon-expandable (26.1%) or self-expanding prostheses (73.9%). We compared patients discharged within 24 hours from the procedure (n=160, 13.0%) with those discharged later, and accounted for confounding variables through a propensity matching adjustment. After adjustment, no differences in all-cause mortality (1.2% vs 0.0%, for NDD and no-NDD matched groups, respectively, p=0.16) or permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after TAVI (0.6% vs 0.6%, respectively) were encountered at 30 days. At one year, no difference in the composite endpoint of all-cause death and heart failure (HF) rehospitalisation was encountered (Kaplan-Meier [KM] estimates 91.9% vs 90.6% for NDD and no-NDD matched groups, respectively, p=0.69). After excluding patients with post-procedural major complications from the unmatched population, prior PPI (OR 2.06, 95% CI: 1.21-3.51; p<0.01) and availability of preprocedural computed tomography angiography (CTA) (OR 1.71, 95% CI: 1.15-2.54; p<0.01) were found to be predictors of NDD after TAVI., Conclusions: NDD in unselected patients after TF-TAVI using either balloon-expandable or self-expanding devices was demonstrated to be a safe strategy up to one year in the absence of procedural complications. Patients with prior PPI and undergoing preprocedural CTA had a higher chance of NDD.

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.

Background: The OBSERVANT study evaluated the medium and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus surgical aortic valve replacement obtaining comparative effectiveness results at least for the first-generation devices. The OBSERVANT II study enrolled a new series of TAVI procedures to evaluate whether the use of new-generation devices has modified outcome differences recorded in the OBSERVANT study. The aim of this paper is to describe the clinical characteristics of the OBSERVANT II population and compare them with those of the OBSERVANT population., Methods: OBSERVANT II is a prospective multicenter observational study, which enrolled patients with severe aortic stenosis, who underwent a TAVI procedure in 30 Italian centers from December 2016 to September 2018. Clinical, anatomical and procedural information was recorded for each patient as well as procedure characteristics and any periprocedural outcomes. An administrative follow-up will allow to obtain information on medium and long-term outcomes., Results: The enrolled population consists of 3001 patients with a mean age similar to that recorded in OBSERVANT (81.7 ± 6.3 vs 81.9 ± 6.2 years; p=0.336). OBSERVANT II patients show a lower prevalence of several morbid conditions than OBSERVANT patients (i.e. chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, peripheral arterial disease, etc.), though having very similar mean values of EuroSCORE II (7.2 ± 7.6% vs 7.4 ± 7.9%; p=0.558). According to three EuroSCORE II risk classes (≤3; 3-7; ≥7), the in-hospital mortality rates for patients enrolled in the two studies are 1.0% vs 2.0% (p≤0.000), 1.4% vs 4.1% (p<0.000) and 2.4% vs 7.7% (p<0.000), respectively., Conclusions: The first results of the OBSERVANT II study show that patients undergoing TAVI with new-generation devices are elderly, have a lower risk profile than patients enrolled in the OBSERVANT study but comparable mean values of EuroSCORE II. The in-hospital mortality rate for patients enrolled in the OBSERVANT II study is lower than that recorded in the OBSERVANT study across all the EuroSCORE II risk classes.

Aims: In the last decade, transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) replacement determined a paradigm shift in the treatment of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Data on long-term TAV performance are still limited. We sought to evaluate the clinical and haemodynamic outcomes of the CoreValve self-expandable valve up to 8-year follow-up (FU)., Methods and Results: Nine hundred and ninety inoperable or high-risk patients were treated with the CoreValve TAV in eight Italian Centres from June 2007 to December 2011. The median FU was 4.4 years (interquartile range 1.4-6.7 years). Longest FU reached 11 years. A total of 728 died within 8-year FU (78.3% mortality from Kaplan-Meier curve analysis). A significant functional improvement was observed in the majority of patients and maintained over time, with 79.3% of surviving patients still classified New York Heart Association class ≤ II at 8 years. Echocardiographic data showed that the mean transprosthetic aortic gradient remained substantially unchanged (9 ± 4 mmHg at discharge, 9 ± 5 mmHg at 8 years, P = 0.495). The rate of Grade 0/1 paravalvular leak was consistent during FU with no significant change from post-procedure to FU ≥5 years in paired analysis (P = 0.164). Structural valve deterioration (SVD) and late bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) were defined according to a modification of the 2017 EAPCI/ESC/EACTS criteria. In cumulative incidence functions at 8 years, moderate and severe SVD were 3.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1-4.3%] and 1.6% (95% CI 0.6-3.9%), respectively, while late BVF was 2.5% (95% CI 1.2-5%)., Conclusion: While TAVs are questioned about long-term performance and durability, the results of the present research provide reassuring 8-year evidence on the CoreValve first-generation self-expandable bioprosthesis., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) use is increasing in patients with longer life expectancy, yet robust data on the durability of transcatheter heart valves (THVs) are limited. Redo-TAVR may play a key strategy in treating patients in whom THVs fail., Objectives: The authors sought to examine outcomes following redo-TAVR., Methods: The Redo-TAVR registry collected data on consecutive patients who underwent redo-TAVR at 37 centers. Patients were classified as probable TAVR failure or probable THV failure if they presented within or beyond 1 year of their index TAVR, respectively., Results: Among 63,876 TAVR procedures, 212 consecutive redo-TAVR procedures were identified (0.33%): 74 within and 138 beyond 1 year of the initial procedure. For these 2 groups, TAVR-to-redo-TAVR time was 68 (38 to 154) days and 5 (3 to 6) years. The indication for redo-TAVR was THV stenosis in 12 (16.2%) and 51 (37.0%) (p = 0.002) and regurgitation or combined stenosis-regurgitation in 62 (83.8%) and 86 (62.3%) (p = 0.028), respectively. Device success using VARC-2 criteria was achieved in 180 patients (85.1%); most failures were attributable to high residual gradients (14.1%) or regurgitation (8.9%). At 30-day and 1-year follow-up, residual gradients were 12.6 ± 7.5 mm Hg and 12.9 ± 9.0 mm Hg; valve area 1.63 ± 0.61 cm 2 and 1.51 ± 0.57 cm 2 ; and regurgitation ≤mild in 91% and 91%, respectively. Peri-procedural complication rates were low (3 stroke [1.4%], 7 valve malposition [3.3%], 2 coronary obstruction [0.9%], 20 new permanent pacemaker [9.6%], no mortality), and symptomatic improvement was substantial. Survival at 30 days was 94.6% and 98.5% (p = 0.101) and 83.6% and 88.3% (p = 0.335) at 1 year for patients presenting with early and late valve dysfunction, respectively., Conclusions: Redo-TAVR is a relatively safe and effective option for selected patients with valve dysfunction after TAVR. These results are important for applicability of TAVR in patients with long life expectancy in whom THV durability may be a concern., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of coronary protection by preventive coronary wiring and stenting across the coronary ostia in patients at high risk for coronary obstruction after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Background: Coronary obstruction following TAVR is a life-threatening complication with high procedural and short-term mortality., Methods: Data were collected retrospectively from a multicenter international registry between April 2011 and February 2019., Results: Among 236 patients undergoing coronary protection with preventive coronary wiring, 143 had eventually stents implanted across the coronary ostia after valve deployment. At 3-year follow-up, rates of cardiac death were 7.8% in patients receiving stents and 15.7% in those not receiving stents (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.42; 95% confidence interval: 0.14 to 1.28; p = 0.13). There were 2 definite stent thromboses (0.9%) in patients receiving stents, both occurring after TAVR in "valve-in-valve" procedures. In patients not receiving stents, there were 4 delayed coronary occlusions (DCOs) (4.3%), occurring from 5 min to 6 h after wire removal. Three cases occurred in valve-in-valve procedures and 1 in a native aortic valve procedure. Distance between the virtual transcatheter valve and the protected coronary ostia <4 mm was present in 75.0% of patients with DCO compared with 30.4% of patients without DCO (p = 0.19)., Conclusions: In patients undergoing TAVR at high risk for coronary obstruction, preventive stent implantation across the coronary ostia is associated with good mid-term survival rates and low rates of stent thrombosis. Patients undergoing coronary protection with wire only have a considerable risk for DCO., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To evaluate outcomes of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) using three different new-generation devices., Background: Although new generation transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) have demonstrated to improve procedural outcomes, to date few head-to-head comparisons are available among these devices., Methods: This is a single center, retrospective study. From September 2014 to February 2018, 389 patients underwent elective TF-TAVI for native, severe aortic stenosis using a new-generation transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) with a preprocedural multi-detector computed tomography assessment. Among these, 346 patients received an Edwards SAPIEN 3 (n = 134), Medtronic Evolut R (n = 111), or Boston ACURATE neo (n = 101) prosthesis. Differences in baseline clinical characteristics between groups were accounted using the propensity score weighting method., Results: The mean age for the entire study cohort was 81.4 ± 5.2 years while the Society of Thoracic Surgery predicted risk of mortality was 4.0 ± 2.5%. After propensity score weighting adjustment, TAVs did not differently impact on 30-day all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Evolut R device showed an increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after the procedure (8.3% for SAPIEN 3 vs. 16.7% for Evolut R vs. 2.1% for ACURATE neo, p < .05). At 30 days, patients treated with SAPIEN 3 valve showed a higher mean transvalvular gradient (9.7 ± 7.5 mmHg vs. 6.1 ± 2.4 mmHg vs. 8.4 ± 3.5 mmHg for SAPIEN 3, Evolut R, and ACURATE neo, respectively, p < .01) and a lower rate of more-than-trace paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) (18.8 vs. 47.9 vs. 45.8%, for SAPIEN 3, Evolut R, and ACURATE neo, respectively, p < .01). At 1 year, SAPIEN 3, Evolut R, and ACURATE neo TAVs showed excellent and comparable outcomes with no difference in terms of freedom from major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) (p log-rank = 0.534)., Conclusions: TAVI using new-generation prostheses was associated with high device success (97.0% vs. 92.8% vs. 95.0% for SAPIEN 3, Evolut R and ACURATE neo, respectively) and low complications rates up to 1 year. Evolut R valve was associated with a higher rate of PPI whereas SAPIEN 3 valve was associated with a higher mean transvalvular gradient and lower rate of more-than-trace PVR. At 1-year, MACCE rates were similar among the three groups., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

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

Aims: The aims of this study were to determine the appropriateness of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after TAVI through an analysis of PM dependency at follow-up, and to assess long-term outcomes of patients undergoing PPI after TAVI., Methods and Results: From June 2007 to February 2018, 1,116 consecutive patients without prior PM underwent TAVI in our institution. We assessed the incidence and predictors of PM dependency of patients who underwent PPI within 30 days, and also the six-year outcomes among patients who did not undergo PPI at 30 days. At 30 days, PPI was reported in 145 patients (13.0%). Rates of PM dependency were 35.7%, 35.8% and 33.3% at 1, 6 and 12 months, respectively. Analysing PPI timing, implantation on day 1 was found to be a predictor of PM dependency at six months (OR 20.7 [95% CI: 3.4-126.7]; p=0.001) and 12 months (OR 7.5 [95% CI: 1.4-40.2]; p=0.019). An interaction between PM dependency and the presence of baseline right bundle branch block (RBBB) at six months (pinteraction=0.024) and 12 months (pinteraction=0.028) was reported when PPI was performed on the same day as TAVI. At six years, patients who received a PM at 30 days showed a higher all-cause death rate (KM estimate 41.7% vs 57%; plog-rank=0.034)., Conclusions: Among patients receiving PPI after TAVI, PM dependency rates were about 33-36% at one year. Patients with a baseline RBBB undergoing PPI at day 0 or at day 1 when severe CDs persisted for 24 hours after TAVI, irrespective of baseline CDs, had a higher chance of being PM-dependent at follow-ups. Finally, PPI after TAVI was associated with increased six-year mortality.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is the gold standard for severe valvular aortic stenosis in patients at high/prohibitive surgical risk. This procedure has also been used in patients with previous mitral valve (MV) prostheses, with contrasting outcomes reported. The aim of this study is to describe procedural and early outcomes of patients with previous MV prostheses undergoing TAVR., Methods: This is a retrospective registry of 154 patients with previous MV prostheses who underwent TAVR across high-volume medical centres at a mean of 11.7 ± 8.4 years after mitral surgery., Results: Mean mitroaortic distance at computed tomography was 9.7 ± 4.8 mm. Procedural success was achieved in 150 (97.4%) patients, with reduction of aortic gradients (42.6 ± 14.2 to 10.0 ± 7.0 mm Hg; P < 0.001). Device success was achieved in 133 (86.3%) patients. MV prosthesis interference by the TAVR device was observed in 2 patients; in both, the mitroaortic distance was <5 mm, with 1 complicated by TAVR prosthesis embolization. Periprocedural complications included 4 (2.6%) cerebrovascular accidents, 10 (6.6%) major vascular complications, 22 (14.4%) severe bleedings, 1 (0.7%) myocardial infarction, and 5 (3.2%) in-hospital deaths (all cases cardiovascular or procedure related). At a median follow-up of 13.5 (interquartile range 1.0 to 36.0) months, 26 (16.9%) deaths occurred; 15 (9.7%) were cardiac related. Late fatal mitral prosthesis thromboses occurred in 2 patients. We recorded a case of fatal hemorrhagic stroke; hospital readmission was observed in 25 (16.2%) patients due to worsening heart failure., Conclusions: TAVR in patients with previous mitral prostheses appears to be safe and feasible, with good hemodynamic results at 30-day and at longer-term follow-up., (Copyright © 2019 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a well-established treatment option for severe aortic stenosis (AS). AS and coronary artery disease frequently coincide, and therefore some patients may require coronary angiography (CAG) and/or intervention (PCI) post-TAVR. Due to valve stent design, most self-expanding prostheses always cover the coronary ostium, and therefore may hinder future access. The objective of this research was to evaluate the incidence, safety and feasibility of CAG/PCI in patients with prior self-expanding TAVR valves., Methods: Among 2170 patients (age 82 ± 6 years, 43% male) who underwent TAVR with Corevalve or Evolut prostheses, as part of the Italian CoreValve ClinicalService® framework (data from 13 Italian centers), the occurrence of CAG/PCI following TAVR and periprocedural characteristics were examined., Results: During median follow-up of 379 days, 41 patients (1.9%) required CAG and/or PCI (total 46; 16 CAG, 14 PCI, 16 both PCI/CAG). 56.5% of the procedures were performed under emergency/urgency settings. Left system coronary angiography was successfully performed in most cases (28/32, 87.5%), while right coronary angiography was successful only in 50.0% (16/32). PCI procedures (20 for left system, 3 for right system, 4 for graft) were successfully performed in 93.3% (28/30) of the procedures. No CAG/PCI procedure-related complications including prosthesis dislodgment or coronary ostium dissection occurred., Conclusions: CAG and PCI procedures following CoreValve TAVR is safe and mostly feasible, although the success rate of selective right coronary angiography was relatively low when compared to the left system. Further investigations are required to explore this issue., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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

Aortic stenosis and mitral regurgitation are increasingly treated by percutaneous interventions including transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and several mitral valve repair techniques, changing the landscape of valvular therapies in which surgery was predominant. Several randomised studies on TAVI have led to the use of this procedure in patients at intermediate or higher operative risk and have set strong foundations for future trials aiming to expand indications or to overcome several residual issues with TAVI. On the other hand, randomised evidence for percutaneous mitral valve repair (PMVR) techniques is still limited, supporting restricted indications to patients with high surgical risk when medical therapy fails. However, in the mitral field, several ongoing trials comparing PMVR with medical therapy or surgery will help to define optimal mitral regurgitation management in this era of evolving catheter-based treatment options. The present review will summarise randomised trials comparing TAVI or PMVR with medical therapy or surgery across the risk spectrum which have set the basis for guideline recommendations and for clinical use of transcatheter interventions. Characteristics, results, implications, unresolved issues and cost-effectiveness analysis of those trials, grouped according to the surgical risk of enrolled patients, will be appraised.

Background Long-term data on durability of currently available transcatheter heart valves are sparse. We sought to assess the incidence of long-term (8-year) structural valve dysfunction and bioprosthetic valve failure in a cohort of patients with transcatheter aortic valve replacement ( TAVR ) who reached at least 5-year follow-up. Methods and Results Consecutive patients with at least 5-year follow-up available undergoing TAVR from June 4, 2007 to March 30, 2012 were included. Structural valve dysfunction and bioprosthetic valve failure were defined according to newly standardized European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions/ European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery criteria and reported as cumulative incidence function to account for the competing risk of death. A total of 288 consecutive patients with a mean age of 80.7±5.3 years and with a mean Society of Thoracic Surgery mortality score of 8.1±5.1% were analyzed. Survival rate at 8 years was 29.8%. Mean pressure gradients decreased from 53.3±15.9 mm Hg (pre- TAVR ) to 10.5±4.5 mm Hg (in-hospital post- TAVR ) ( P<0.001). There was a small, not significant, increase in the transaortic gradient throughout follow-up. Bioprosthetic valve failure was observed in a total of 11 patients (8-year cumulative incidence function: 4.51%; 95% confidence interval , 1.95%-8.76%). Severe and moderate structural valve dysfunctions were reported in 7 patients (8-year cumulative incidence function: 2.39%; 95% confidence interval, 0.77%-5.71%) and 13 patients (8-year cumulative incidence function: 5.87%; 95% confidence interval , 3.06%-9.96%), respectively. Aortic valve reintervention (redo TAVR ) was successfully performed in 2 patients (0.7%) presenting with symptomatic severe restenosis and intraprosthetic regurgitation subsequent to endocarditis. Conclusions In an aged population of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis treated with first-generation bioprostheses, TAVR was associated with a survival rate of 30% but low rates of bioprosthetic valve failure and structural valve dysfunction at 8 years.

Aims: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for a failing surgical bioprosthesis (TAV-in-SAV) has become an alternative for patients at high risk for redo surgical aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR). Comparisons between these approaches are non-existent. This study aimed to compare clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients undergoing TAV-in-SAV versus redo-SAVR after accounting for baseline differences by propensity score matching., Methods and Results: Patients from seven centres in Europe and Canada who had undergone either TAV-in-SAV (n=79) or redo-SAVR (n=126) were identified. Significant independent predictors used for propensity scoring were age, NYHA functional class, number of prior cardiac surgeries, urgent procedure, pulmonary hypertension, and COPD grade. Using a calliper range of ±0.05, a total of 78 well-matched patient pairs were found. All-cause mortality was similar between groups at 30 days (6.4% redo-SAVR vs. 3.9% TAV-in-SAV; p=0.49) and one year (13.1% redo-SAVR vs. 12.3% TAV-in-SAV; p=0.80). Both groups also showed similar incidences of stroke (0% redo-SAVR vs. 1.3% TAV-in-SAV; p=1.0) and new pacemaker implantation (10.3% redo-SAVR vs. 10.3% TAV-in-SAV; p=1.0). The incidence of acute kidney injury requiring dialysis was numerically lower in the TAV-in-SAV group (11.5% redo-SAVR vs. 3.8% TAV-in-SAV; p=0.13). The TAV-in-SAV group had a significantly shorter median total hospital stay (12 days redo-SAVR vs. 9 days TAV-in-SAV; p=0.001)., Conclusions: Patients with aortic bioprosthesis failure treated with either redo-SAVR or TAV-in-SAV have similar 30-day and one-year clinical outcomes.

Objective: The aim of this study was to conduct a weighted meta-analysis to determine the rates of acute (≤30days) major outcomes after (TAVR) with second-generation devices., Methods: A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases from January 2011 to May 2017 was conducted using predefined criteria. New-generation TAVR devices were defined as any device which received CE mark approval or is still under evaluation for CE marking after CoreValve and SAPIEN XT prostheses., Results: A total of 37 studies including 10,822 patients met inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Devices investigated in the studies were the following: SAPIEN 3 (n=5423, 45.9%), Lotus Valve (n=3007, %), Portico (n=130, 1.1%), JenaValve (n=345, 2.9%), Symetis Acurate (n=1314, 11,1%), and Evolut R (n=1603, 13.6%). Thirty-day all-cause and cardiovascular 30-day death were 2.2% (95% CI: 1.6% to 2.8%) and 1.6% (95% CI: 0.9% to 2.3%), respectively; Any stroke and major/disabling stroke occurred at a pooled estimate rate of 2.6% (95% CI: 2.0% to 3.3%) and 0.9% (95% CI: 0.2% to 1.6%), respectively; life-threatening bleeding, 3.9% (95% CI: 2.9% to 5.0%); major vascular complications, 4.5% (95% CI: 3.7% to 5.4%); pacemaker implantation, 16.2% (95% CI: 12.7% to 19.6%); more than mild aortic regurgitation, 1.6% (95% CI: 0.9 to 2.3)., Conclusions: Second-generation TAVR devices are associated with very low mortality and major complications rates at 30-day, and improved prosthesis performance with <2% of patients having more than mild post-procedural aortic regurgitation. On the other hand, the need for pacemaker implantation seems to remain an unresolved issue, and warrants further investigation., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Extensive evidence relating to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has accumulated in recent years, but mid-term outcomes are less reported. We investigated 996 patients after implantation of the CoreValve prosthesis for severe aortic stenosis in a real-world setting., Objective: To report clinical and echocardiographic 3-year results from the ADVANCE study., Methods: ADVANCE is a prospective, multicenter, fully monitored, nonrandomized clinical study. This analysis assessed valve-related events, predictors of early and mid-term mortality after TAVR, and systolic and diastolic prosthesis performance over 3 years., Results: Three years after TAVR, the rate of major adverse cardiac/cerebrovascular events was 38.5%. All-cause mortality was 33.7%; cardiovascular mortality, 22.3%; VARC-1 stroke, 6.5%; and New York Heart Association class III/IV, 19.5%. Mean effective orifice area was consistently 1.7 cm 2 from discharge to 3 years, and average mean aortic valve gradient remained ≤10 mmHg. At 3 years, 12.6% of patients had moderate and none had severe paravalvular regurgitation. Multivariable analysis identified Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score, device migration, prior atrial fibrillation, and major vascular complication as predictors of early mortality. Predictors of mid-term mortality included male gender, STS score, history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, history of cancer, stroke, life-threatening/disabling or major bleeding, and valve deterioration., Conclusions: Our 3-year data demonstrate significant hemodynamic benefits and durable symptom relief after CoreValve prosthesis implantation. Postprocedural patient management should be carefully considered, since postprocedural valve-related events were identified as independent predictors of mid-term mortality., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01074658.