Search

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is increasingly being used in younger patients and those with lower peri-procedural risk, meaning more patients will live long enough to experience structural valve deterioration (SVD) of the bioprosthesis, indicating repeated TAVI. Experience of repeated TAVI-transcatheter heart valve (THV) implantation into an index THV is limited. This registry aims to assess the peri-procedural and short-term safety, efficacy and durability of repeated TAVI., Methods: The ReTAVI Prospective observational registry is an investigator-initiated, multicentre, international, prospective registry of patients undergoing repeated TAVI using balloon-expandable SAPIEN prosthesis to evaluate procedural and short-term safety, efficacy and durability as well as anatomical and procedural factors associated with optimal results. The registry will enrol at least 150 patients across 60 high-volume centres. Patients must be ≥18 years old, have had procedural success with their first TAVI, have index THV device failure, intend to undergo repeated TAVI and be considered suitable candidates by their local Heart Team. All patients will undergo a 30-day and 12-month follow-up. The estimated study completion is 2025., Conclusions: The registry will collect pre-, peri-, postoperative and 12-months data on patients undergoing repeated TAVI procedures with THVs for failure of the index THV and determine VARC-3-defined efficacy and safety at 30 days and functional outcome at 12 months. The registry will expand existing data sets and identify patient characteristics/indicators related to complications and clinical benefits for patients with symptomatic severe calcific degenerative aortic stenosis., (© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Clinical Investigation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Stichting European Society for Clinical Investigation Journal Foundation.)

Background: Data on systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are scarce and limited to small cohorts. We aimed to investigate its incidence and mid-term impact in a large cohort of TAVI patients., Methods: From January 2018 to December 2020, 717 patients with severe aortic valve stenosis undergoing TAVI were included. SIRS was defined as fulfilling at least two of the following criteria within 48 h from the procedure: leucocyte count >12.0 or <4.0 × 10 9 /l, respiratory rate > 20 breaths per minute or PaCO 2  ≤ 4.3 kPa/32 mmHg, heart rate > 90 beats per minute and temperature > 38.0 °C or <36.0 °C. Clinical endpoints were 1-year rehospitalization for chronic heart failure (CHF) and 2-years all-cause mortality. Event rates during follow-up were calculated as Kaplan-Meier estimates., Results: SIRS developed in 56.3 % (404/717) of patients after TAVI. SIRS occurred more frequently in patients with post-dilatation (SIRS 34.7 % (140/404) vs. no SIRS 23.3 % (73/313); p < 0.001) and major vascular complications (SIRS 16.1 % (65/404) vs. no SIRS 8.6 % (27/313); p = 0.004). Further, ICU days were more in patients who developed SIRS (SIRS 1.56 ± 1.50 days vs. no SIRS 1.22 ± 1.02 days; p = 0.001). At 2-years, all-cause mortality in the entire population was 23.9 %. However, there was no difference in CHF at 1-year (5.9 % vs. 4.1 %; log-rank = 0.347) nor in all-cause mortality at 2-years (22.0 % vs. 26.2 %; log-rank = 0.690) between the groups., Conclusions: SIRS is a common finding after TAVI, which may prolong hospital stay but is without effect on mortality during 2-years follow-up., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Costanza Pellegrini reports receiving a personal research grant from Else Kröner Fresenius not related to the current work. Stiftung. Tobias Rheude received lecture fees from SIS Medical AG and AstraZeneca and travel support from SIS Medical AG (not related to the current work). Stefan Holdenrieder reports receiving research funding or honoraria from Roche Diagnostics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck KgaA, Sysmex Inostics and Volition SPRL. Michael Joner reports lecture fees and research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Cardiac Dimensions, Infraredx, and Boston Scientific; is a consultant for Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardiac Dimensions, and Shockwave Medical; has received honoraria from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Recor, Shockwave Medical, and Orbus Neich; and is a Member of the Board of Biotronik and Shockwave Medical. The other authors report no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is a lack of comparative data on transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in degenerated surgical prostheses (valve-in-valve [ViV])., Aims: We sought to compare outcomes of using two self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (THV) systems for ViV., Methods: In this retrospective multicentre registry, we included consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral ViV using either the ACURATE neo/neo2 (ACURATE group) or the Evolut R/PRO/PRO+ (EVOLUT group). The primary outcome measure was technical success according to Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3. Secondary outcomes were 30-day all-cause mortality, device success (VARC-3), coronary obstruction (CO) requiring intervention, rates of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), and aortic regurgitation (AR) ≥moderate. Comparisons were made after 1:1 propensity score matching., Results: The study cohort comprised 835 patients from 20 centres (ACURATE n=251; EVOLUT n=584). In the matched cohort (n=468), technical success (ACURATE 92.7% vs EVOLUT 88.9%; p=0.20) and device success (69.7% vs 73.9%; p=0.36) as well as 30-day mortality (2.8% vs 1.6%; p=0.392) were similar between the two groups. The mean gradients and rates of severe PPM, AR ≥moderate, or CO did not differ between the groups. Technical and device success were higher for the ACURATE platform among patients with a true inner diameter (ID) >19 mm, whereas a true ID ≤19 mm was associated with higher device success - but not technical success - among Evolut recipients., Conclusions: ViV TAVI using either ACURATE or Evolut THVs showed similar procedural outcomes. However, a true ID >19 mm was associated with higher device success among ACURATE recipients, whereas in patients with a true ID ≤19 mm, device success was higher when using Evolut.

Aortic valve stenosis is one of the most frequent valvular heart diseases requiring treatment in industrialized countries. The symptom onset is associated with a significantly increased mortality, so that there is a clear indication for treatment in patients with severe, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis; however, data on the optimal treatment of patients with asymptomatic aortic valve stenosis are scarce. Smaller studies in the field of cardiac surgery suggest that early surgical valve replacement is superior to a conservative approach. For this reason, the results of additional adequately powered randomized trials are awaited with great interest. In this year numerous long-term results from randomized comparisons of the two available treatment options (surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement) were published, which will further guide the heart team to find the best treatment approach for each individual., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MV received grants and/or personal fees from Abbott, Alvimedica/CID, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biotronik, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, CoreFLOW, Daiichi-Sankyo, Department Klinische Forschung of Universität Basel, Health Life, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Medscape, Miracor, Novartis, Radcliffe, Terumo, Vesalio, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Background: New-generation self-expanding transcatheter aortic heart valves (THV) were designed to overcome technical constraints of their preceding generations. We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of the self-expanding ACURATE neo2 (Neo2) versus Evolut PRO (PRO) devices., Methods: Seven hundred nine patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with either Neo2 (n = 496) or PRO (n = 213) were included. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to account for differences in baseline characteristics. In-hospital and 30-day clinical outcomes were evaluated according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria., Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable between both groups after PSM (Neo2: n = 155, Evolut Pro: n = 155). Technical success rates were high in both groups (Neo2: 94.8% vs PRO: 97.4%; p = 0.239). Need for permanent pacemaker implantation was less frequent with Neo2 compared with PRO (7.5% vs 20.6%; p = 0.002), whereas major vascular complications were more frequent with Neo2 (Neo2: 11.6% vs PRO: 4.5%; p = 0.022). Intended valve performance at discharge was high in both groups without relevant differences among groups (Neo2: 97.4% vs. 95.3%; p = 0.328)., Conclusions: Short-term outcomes after TAVI using latest-generation self-expanding THV were excellent, with overall low rates of adverse events. However, Neo2 was associated with lower pacemaker rates and reduced the prevalence of moderate-severe paravalvular leakage. Transprosthetic gradients after TAVI were higher with Neo2 compared with PRO., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) remains a relevant complication after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and its impact on outcome remains controversial., Aims: This study aimed to analyze the effects of implantation depth on PPI at 30 days and assess its impact on outcome with the balloon-expandable Sapien 3 (S3) prosthesis., Methods: Between 2014 and 2018, 849 patients without previous pacemaker undergoing transfemoral TAVI with the S3 were included. Prosthesis implantation depth was measured and divided into Quintiles. An ordinal logistic regression was used to assess its association with PPI, while a multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of PPI. Survival analyses were performed with the Kaplan-Meier method and a multivariable Cox regression was performed to ascertain the impact of PPI on mortality., Results: Overall, incidence of PPI at 30 days was 9.7%. Implantation depth decreased consistently from a median of 6.7 mm [5.55-8.00] in 2014 to 2.7 mm [2.30-3.50] in 2018 (p < 0.001). When considering Quintiles of implantation depth, incidence of PPI was significantly higher in upper Quintiles and risk for PPI was significantly lower for the 1. Quintile compared to the 5. Quintile (OR: 0.34, 95% CI: [0.16-0.73]; p = 0.003). In the adjusted multivariable logistic regression implantation depth persisted ad independent predictor of PPI at 30 days. Patients requiring PPI at 30 days displayed significantly higher mortality at 4 years compared to patients without PPI (49.5% vs. 40.0%; log-rank = 0.022). In a multivariate analysis, increased logistic EuroScore, diabetes mellitus, and history of atrial fibrillation, were independent predictors of all-cause mortality at 2 years., Conclusions: Higher prosthesis implantation relative to the virtual aortic annulus was significantly associated with reduced risk for PPI at 30 days. Patients with PPI at 30 days exhibited higher mortality during follow-up, however, only logistic EuroScore, diabetes mellitus, and history of atrial fibrillation were identified as independent predictors of mortality at 2 years., (© 2023 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) was established as a standard treatment for high-operative risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Although coronary artery disease (CAD) often coexists with AS, clinical and angiographic evaluations of stenosis severity are unreliable in this specific setting. To provide precise risk stratification of coronary lesions, combined near-infrared spectroscopy and intravascular ultrasound (NIRS-IVUS) was developed to integrate morphological and molecular information on plaque composition. However, there is a lack of evidence on the association between NIRS-IVUS derived findings such as maximum 4mm lipid core burden index (maxLCBI 4mm ) and clinical outcomes in AS patients undergoing TAVI. This registry aims to assess feasibility and safety of NIRS-IVUS imaging in the setting of routine pre-TAVI coronary angiography to improve assessment of CAD severity., Methods: The registry is designed as a non-randomized, prospective, observational, multicenter cohort registry. Patients referred for TAVI with angiographic evidence of CAD receive NIRS-IVUS imaging and are followed up to 24 months. Enrolled patients are classified as NIRS-IVUS positive and NIRS-IVUS negative, respectively, based on their maxLCBI 4mm to compare their clinical outcomes. The primary endpoint of the registry is major adverse cardiovascular events over a 24-month follow-up period., Conclusions: Identification of patients likely or unlikely to benefit from revascularization prior to TAVI represents an important unmet clinical need. This registry is designed to investigate whether NIRS-IVUS-derived atherosclerotic plaque characteristics can identify patients and lesions at risk for future adverse cardiovascular events after TAVI, in order to refine interventional decision-making in this challenging patient population., Competing Interests: Disclosures T. Rheude received speaker fees from AstraZeneca and SIS Medical, and travel support from SIS Medical. C. Pellegrini has received the Else Kröner-Memorial grant from the Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung. M. Hadamitzky reports a grant from Cleerly, New York. E. Xhepa reports lecture fees and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific and SIS Medical not related to the current work; proctor fees from Abbott Vascular and financial support for attending meetings and/or travel expenses from Abbott Vascular. A. Kastrati reports personal payments from CRF, New York, for participation on the DSMB Microport TARGET IV trial. H. Schunkert reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca; and personal fees from Vifor Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Brahms, Medtronic, Sanofi-Aventis, MSD, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Servier, Bayer Vital GmbH, Daiichi Sankyo, AMGEN, Novartis, Synlab, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. M. Joner reports personal fees from Abbott, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Biotronik, grants and personal fees from Boston Scientific, personal fees and grants from Cardiac Dimensions, grants, and personal fees from Edwards, grant from Infraredx, a Nipro company, personal fees from Orbus Neich, personal fees from Recor, personal fees from Shockwave, outside the submitted work. The other authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The optimal timing to perform percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) patients remains unknown., Aims: We sought to compare different PCI timing strategies in TAVI patients., Methods: The REVASC-TAVI registry is an international registry including patients undergoing TAVI with significant, stable coronary artery disease (CAD) at preprocedural workup. In this analysis, patients scheduled to undergo PCI before, after or concomitantly with TAVI were included. The main endpoints were all-cause death and a composite of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) or rehospitalisation for congestive heart failure (CHF) at 2 years. Outcomes were adjusted using the inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) method., Results: A total of 1,603 patients were included. PCI was performed before, after or concomitantly with TAVI in 65.6% (n=1,052), 9.8% (n=157) or 24.6% (n=394), respectively. At 2 years, all-cause death was significantly lower in patients undergoing PCI after TAVI as compared with PCI before or concomitantly with TAVI (6.8% vs 20.1% vs 20.6%; p<0.001). Likewise, the composite endpoint was significantly lower in patients undergoing PCI after TAVI as compared with PCI before or concomitantly with TAVI (17.4% vs 30.4% vs 30.0%; p=0.003). Results were confirmed at landmark analyses considering events from 0 to 30 days and from 31 to 720 days., Conclusions: In patients with severe aortic stenosis and stable coronary artery disease scheduled for TAVI, performance of PCI after TAVI seems to be associated with improved 2-year clinical outcomes compared with other revascularisation timing strategies. These results need to be confirmed in randomised clinical trials.

Background: In the SCOPE I trial (Safety and Efficacy of the Symetis ACURATE Neo/TF Compared to the Edwards SAPIEN 3 Bioprosthesis), transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the self-expanding ACURATE neo (NEO) did not meet noninferiority compared with the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 (S3) device regarding a composite end point at 30 days due to higher rates of prosthetic valve regurgitation and acute kidney injury. Data on long-term durability of NEO are scarce. Here, we report whether early differences between NEO and S3 translate into differences in clinical outcomes or bioprosthetic valve failure 3 years after transcatheter aortic valve implantation., Methods: Patients with severe aortic stenosis were randomized to transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation with NEO or S3 at 20 European centers. Clinical outcomes at 3 years are compared using Cox proportional or Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models by intention-to-treat. Bioprosthetic valve failure is reported for the valve-implant cohort., Results: Among 739 patients, 84 of 372 patients (24.3%) had died in the NEO and 85 of 367 (25%) in the S3 group at 3 years. Comparing NEO with S3, the 3-year rates of all-cause death (hazard ratio, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.73-1.33]), stroke (subhazard ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.56-1.92]), and hospitalization for congestive heart failure (subhazard ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.51-1.07]) were similar between the groups. Aortic valve reinterventions were required in 4 NEO and 3 S3 patients (subhazard ratio, 1.32 [95% CI, 0.30-5.85]). New York Heart Association functional class ≤II was observed in 84% (NEO) and 85% (S3), respectively. Mean gradients remained lower after NEO at 3 years (8 versus 12 mm Hg; P <0.001)., Conclusions: Early differences between NEO and S3 did not translate into significant differences in clinical outcomes or bioprosthetic valve failure throughout 3 years., Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov, Unique identifier: NCT03011346., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Lanz has received speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Möllmann has received speaker fees or is a proctor from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Kim is a proctor for Boston Scientific and Abbott, and has received speaker fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Linke is a consultant to Medtronic, Edwards, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Transverse Medical Inc, Astra Zeneca, and Claret Medical. He owns stock options from Emboline and Transverse Medical Inc, and has received speaker honoraria from Edwards, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, and Novartis. Dr Prendergast has received unrestricted research grants and speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Conzelmann reports personal fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Conradi is advisory board member for Abbott, Medtronic, JenaValve, and Neovasc, and has received personal honoraria from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, NVT, and Microinterventions. Dr Stortecky reports grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott; and personal fees from BTG, Teleflex, and Boston Scientific. Dr Windecker reports research and educational grants to the institution from Abbott, Amgen, BMS, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Cardinal Health, CardioValve, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Johnson&Johnson, Medtronic, Querbet, Polares, Sanofi, Terumo, and Sinomed. Dr Windecker serves as unpaid member of the steering/excecutive group of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, BMS, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Cardiovalve, Edwards Lifesciences, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Polares, Sinomed, V-Wave and Xeltis, but has not received personal payments by any pharmaceutical company or device manufacturer. Dr Windecker is also member of the steering/excecutive committee group of several investigated-initiated trials that receive funding by industry without impact on his personal remuneration. Dr Pilgrim has received institutional research grants from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences; speaker/consultancy fees from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Medtronic, and HighLife SAS. The other authors report no conflicts.

Background: The optimal access route in patients with severe peripheral artery disease (PAD) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains undetermined., Objectives: This study sought to compare clinical outcomes with transfemoral access (TFA), transthoracic access (TTA), and nonthoracic transalternative access (TAA) in TAVR patients with severe PAD., Methods: Patients with PAD and hostile femoral access (TFA impossible, or possible only after percutaneous treatment) undergoing TAVR at 28 international centers were included in this registry. The primary endpoint was the propensity-adjusted risk of 30-day major adverse events (MAE) defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), or main access site-related Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 major vascular complications. Outcomes were also stratified according to the severity of PAD using a novel risk score (Hostile score)., Results: Among the 1,707 patients included in the registry, 518 (30.3%) underwent TAVR with TFA after percutaneous treatment, 642 (37.6%) with TTA, and 547 (32.0%) with TAA (mostly transaxillary). Compared with TTA, both TFA (adjusted HR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.45-0.75) and TAA (adjusted HR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.47-0.78) were associated with lower 30-day rates of MAE, driven by fewer access site-related complications. Composite risks at 1 year were also lower with TFA and TAA compared with TTA. TFA compared with TAA was associated with lower 1-year risk of stroke/TIA (adjusted HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.24-0.98), a finding confined to patients with low Hostile scores (P interaction  = 0.049)., Conclusions: Among patients with PAD undergoing TAVR, both TFA and TAA were associated with lower 30-day and 1-year rates of MAE compared with TTA, but 1-year stroke/TIA rates were higher with TAA compared with TFA., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Palmerini has received speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Saia has received consulting and lecture fees from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Kim has received personal fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Merill Life Sciences, and Shockwave Medical. Dr Søndergaard has received consulting fees and/or institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Sahajanand Medical Technologies. Dr Burzotta has received speaker fees from Abiomed, Abbott, Medtronic, and Terumo. Dr Romagnoli has received speaker fees by Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, and Medtronic. Dr Van Mieghem has received research grant support from Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Abiomed, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr Pilgrim has received research grants to his institution from Boston Scientific, Biotronik, and Edwards Lifesciences; and honoraria from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Abbott, and HighLife SAS. Dr Adam has received personal and proctoring fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, JenaValve, and Medtronic (during the conduct of the study). Dr Di Mario has received research grants to his institution from Abbott, Amgen, Boston Scientific, Chiesi, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, and Volcano Philips. Dr Toggweiler has served as a proctor/consultant for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, and Abbott Vascular; has served consultant for Medira, AtHeart Medical, Veosource, Shockwave, Teleflex, and Polares Medical; has received institutional research grants from Biosensors, Boston Scientific, and Fumedica; and holds equity in Hi-D Imaging. Dr Testa has received consulting fees from and served as a proctor Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Merrill. Dr Berti has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Boston Scientific. Dr Ancona has received consultant fees from Abbott. Dr Montorfano has received proctor fees from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific. Dr Castriota has received proctoring fees from Abbott and Medtronic. Dr Petronio has received consultant and research funds from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott. Dr Barbanti has served as a consultant for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific. Dr Tamburino has received speaker honoraria from Abbott and Medtronic. Dr Nickenig has received lecture or advisory board honoraria from Abbott, Amarin, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Berlin Chemie, Biosensus, Biotronik, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, CardioValve, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; owns stock options with Beren, Cardiovalve; has served in clinical trials with Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Berlin Chemie, Biosensus, Biotronik, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, CardioValve, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and has received research funding from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Bundeministerium für Bildung und Forschun, the European Union, Abbott, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr Stefanini has received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Pfizer/Bristol Myers Squibb; research grants to his institution from Boston Scientific. Dr Latib has served as a consultant for Abbott, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, Neovasc, Shifamed, and Philips. Dr Porto has received consulting or speaker fees from Biotronik, Abiomed, Medtronic, Terumo, Philips, Sanofi, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and Bayer, not related to this work. Dr Grube has served on the Speakers Bureau/Scientific Advisory Board for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, JenaValve, and High Life; and owns equity interest in Millipede, Pi-Cardia, Ancora, Laminar, ReNiva Medical, and Shockwave. Dr Stone has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Pulnovo, and Infraredx; has served as a consultant for Valfix, TherOx, Robocath, HeartFlow, Ablative Solutions, Vectorious, Miracor, Neovasc, Abiomed, Ancora, Elucid Bio, Occlutech, CorFlow, Apollo Therapeutics, Impulse Dynamics, Cardiomech, Gore, Amgen, and Adona Medical; owns equity/options in Ancora, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, the Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, Valfix, and Xenter; has a daughter who is an employee at Medtronic; and his employer (Mount Sinai Hospital) has received research support from Abbott, Abiomed, Bioventrix, Cardiovascular Systems, Philips, Biosense Webster, Shockwave, Vascular Dynamics, and V-wave. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: 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.

Objectives: To investigate the feasibility and safety of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) of the iliofemoral arteries (IFA) before transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (Tf-TAVI) in patients with advanced peripheral artery disease (PAD)., Background: Although Tf-TAVI represents the access of choice, alternative vascular access routes are preferred for patients displaying advanced PAD. PTA of the IFA represents a less invasive option, broadening the spectrum of patients eligible for Tf-TAVI., Methods: All patients requiring PTA of the IFA before Tf-TAVI, between 2012 and 2021, were included. Primary efficacy endpoint was the rate of successful transcatheter heart valve (THV) delivery and implantation. Primary safety endpoint was the rate of PTA and access-site-related vascular complications, procedural- and in-hospital complications., Results: Among 2726 Tf-TAVI procedures, 59 patients required IFA predilation. Successful THV delivery and implantation was achieved in 57 (96.6%) patients, respectively. Sheath placement was achieved in 59 (100%) patients with only one minor dissection and no major vascular complications following iliofemoral PTA. Regarding access site complications, two (3.4%) vessel perforations and one (1.7%) vessel rupture were observed, with eight (13.5%) patients requiring unplanned endovascular interventions. There was one intraprocedural death due to THV-induced vessel laceration, while in-hospital all-cause mortality was 8.5% in the present high-risk patient cohort., Conclusions: Predilation of IFA is safe and effective in patients with advanced PAD. Careful preprocedural planning is paramount in improving procedural safety and efficacy. This strategy has the potential to broaden the spectrum of patients eligible for Tf-TAVI., (© 2023 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: No comparative data exist with the latest generation self-expanding ACURATE neo2 (Neo2) and the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 Ultra (Ultra) transcatheter heart valves (THV)., Aims: We aimed to compare the outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using the Neo2 and the Ultra THV., Methods: A total of 1,356 patients at 4 centres were treated either with the Neo2 (n=608) or the Ultra (n=748). The primary endpoint was device success according to the latest Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions. The association of the THV used and the primary endpoint was assessed using inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) and 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), which identified 472 matched pairs.  Results: After PSM, there were no relevant differences between the groups. While rates of moderate to severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) were overall low (0.6% vs 1.1%; p=0.725), elevated transvalvular gradients (≥20 mmHg) were less frequent with the Neo2 (2.4% vs 7.7%; p<0.001), which translated into a significantly higher rate of device success with the Neo2 compared with the Ultra (91.9% vs 85.0%; p<0.001). Consistently, the Neo2 was associated with higher rates of device success in the IPTW analysis (odds ratio [OR] 1.961, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.269-3.031; p=0.002). Rates of mild PVL were significantly lower with the Ultra compared with the Neo2 (20.0% vs 32.8%; p<0.001). Clinical events at 30 days were comparable between the 2 groups., Conclusions: Short-term outcomes after TAVI using the Neo2 or Ultra THV were excellent and, overall, comparable. However, transvalvular gradients were lower with the Neo2, which translated into higher rates of device success. Rates of mild PVL were significantly lower with the Ultra THV.

Background: The best management of stable coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is still unclear due to the marked inconsistency of the available evidence., Methods: The REVASC-TAVI registry (Management of Myocardial Revascularization in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Coronary Artery Disease) collected data from 30 centers worldwide on patients undergoing TAVI who had significant, stable CAD at preprocedural work-up. For the purposes of this analysis, patients with either complete or incomplete myocardial revascularization were compared in a propensity score matched analysis, to take into account of baseline confounders. The primary and co-primary outcomes were all-cause death and the composite of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and rehospitalization for heart failure, respectively, at 2 years., Results: Among 2407 patients enrolled, 675 pairs of patients achieving complete or incomplete myocardial revascularization were matched. The primary (21.6% versus 18.2%, hazard ratio' 0.88 [95% CI, 0.66-1.18]; P =0.38) and co-primary composite (29.0% versus 27.1%, hazard ratio' 0.97 [95% CI, 0.76-1.24]; P =0.83) outcome did not differ between patients achieving complete or incomplete myocardial revascularization, respectively. These results were consistent across different prespecified subgroups of patients (< or >75 years of age, Society of Thoracic Surgeons score > or <4%, angina at baseline, diabetes, left ventricular ejection fraction > or <40%, New York Heart Association class I/II or III/IV, renal failure, proximal CAD, multivessel CAD, and left main/proximal anterior descending artery CAD; all P values for interaction >0.10)., Conclusions: The present analysis of the REVASC-TAVI registry showed that, among TAVI patients with significant stable CAD found during the TAVI work-up, completeness of myocardial revascularization achieved either staged or concomitantly with TAVI was similar to a strategy of incomplete revascularization in reducing the risk of all cause death, as well as the risk of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and rehospitalization for heart failure at 2 years, regardless of the clinical and anatomical situations.

Objective: A novel artificial intelligence-based phenotyping approach to stratify patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) prior to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been proposed, based on echocardiographic and haemodynamic data. This study aimed to analyse the recovery of extra-aortic valve cardiac damage in accordance with this novel stratification system following TAVR., Methods: The proposed phenotyping approach was previously established employing data from 366 patients with severe AS from a bicentric registry. For this consecutive study, echocardiographic follow-up data, obtained on day 147±75.1 after TAVR, were available from 247 patients (67.5%)., Results: Correction of severe AS by TAVR significantly reduced the proportion of patients suffering from concurrent severe mitral regurgitation (from 9.29% to 3.64%, p value: 0.0015). Moreover, pulmonary artery pressures were ameliorated (estimated systolic pulmonary artery pressure: from 47.2±15.8 to 43.3±15.1 mm Hg, p value: 0.0079). However, right heart dysfunction as well as the proportion of patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation remained unchanged. Clusters with persistent right heart dysfunction ultimately displayed 2-year survival rates of 69.2% (95% CI 56.6% to 84.7%) and 74.6% (95% CI 65.9% to 84.4%), which were significantly lower compared with clusters with little or no persistent cardiopulmonary impairment (88.3% (95% CI 83.3% to 93.5%) and 85.5% (95% CI 77.1% to 94.8%))., Conclusions: This phenotyping approach preprocedurally identifies patients with severe AS, who will not recover from extra-aortic valve cardiac damage following TAVR and whose survival is therefore significantly reduced. Importantly, not the degree of pulmonary hypertension at initial presentation, but the irreversibility of right heart dysfunction determines prognosis., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Direct comparisons of latest-generation balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter heart valves (THV) are scarce. To compare outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with SAPIEN 3 Ultra (Ultra) versus Evolut R or Pro (Evolut) THVs., Methods: 1612 consecutive patients undergoing TAVR with either Ultra (n = 616) or Evolut (n = 996) were included. After propensity score matching (PSM), 467 and 205 matched pairs were identified in the entire cohort and with latest-generation THVs, respectively. Outcomes were investigated up to 30 days after TAVR., Results: After PSM, baseline characteristics were comparable in the entire cohort (n = 934). Device success (92.7% vs. 87.6%; p = 0.011) and need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) (15.2% vs. 8.4%; p = 0.002) were higher for Evolut compared with Ultra. Elevated gradients (≥20 mm Hg) were less frequent (1.6% vs. 10.4%; p < 0.001), whereas rates of ≥ moderate paravalvular leakage (PVL II+) were more frequent for Evolut compared with Ultra (3.7% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.019). With latest-generation THVs (n = 410), device success was comparable (93.2% vs. 89.8%; p = 0.216), whereas the need for PPI was higher for Evolut Pro compared with Ultra (15.6% vs. 9.8%; p = 0.075). Elevated gradients were less frequent (0% vs. 8%; p < 0.001), whereas rates of PVL II+ were more frequent for Evolut compared with Ultra (5.4% vs. 1.5%; p = 0.028)., Conclusions: Device success rates were high with both THV platforms with low rates of adverse events up to 30 days after TAVR. Compared with Ultra, Evolut was associated with higher pacemaker rates as well as PVL II+, but with less elevated gradients., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To investigate the clinical outcomes associated with an antithrombotic therapy with or without clopidogrel after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Methods and Results: This is a study-level meta-analysis including all randomized trials investigating antithrombotic regimens after TAVR. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020191036). We searched electronic scientific databases for eligible studies. The primary outcome was all-cause death. Main secondary outcome was major bleeding. Other outcomes were life-threatening (or disabling) bleeding, myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke. Six eligible trials randomly allocated 3056 TAVR patients to aspirin or oral anticoagulation (OAC) with clopidogrel (n = 1525) versus aspirin and/or OAC without clopidogrel (n = 1531). In the overall estimates, an antithrombotic therapy with clopidogrel versus without displayed a comparable risk of all-cause death [Risk Ratio-RR = 0.83, 95% Confidence intervals-CI (0.57-1.20); P = 0.25] and major bleeding [RR = 1.33, 95% CI (0.61-2.92); P = 0.39]. However, the combination of aspirin or OAC with clopidogrel doubled the risk of major bleeding as compared to aspirin or OAC without clopidogrel [RR = 2.08, 95% CI (1.27-3.42); P = 0.015, P for interaction = 0.021]. Treatment strategies did not differ with respect to the risk of life-threatening bleeding, MI and stroke., Conclusions: In patients receiving TAVR, a therapeutic strategy of aspirin or OAC with clopidogrel significantly increases the risk of major bleeding without impact on mortality and ischemic outcomes compared to aspirin or OAC without clopidogrel. The performance of different antithrombotic regimens in terms of long-term clinical outcomes and bioprosthesis valve function requires further investigation. Forest plots from pairwise and network meta-analyses associated with an antithrombotic therapy with or without clopidogrel Risk ratio for all outcomes of interest calculated with the pairwise meta-analysis (left side) and for main outcomes calculated with the network meta-analysis (right side) in patients allocated to an antithrombotic therapy with clopidogrel or without. The diamonds indicate the point estimate and the left and the right ends of the lines the [95% CI]. CI: Confidence intervals; OAC; oral anticoagulation., (© 2020. The Author(s).)

Background: Bicuspid aortic valve may be associated with increased complications during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)., Aims: Compare balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve (THV) safety and efficacy in severe tricuspid (TAV) and bicuspid (BAV) aortic stenosis., Methods: Transfemoral TAVI was performed in 743 patients (Jan 2014-June 2019) using the SAPIEN 3 THV. Aortic valve morphology was determined using computed tomography. Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) derived safety and efficacy endpoints at 1 year were evaluated., Results: BAV patients (n = 78), were younger (77 [72, 81] vs. 81 [78, 85] years, p < 0.001) with lower surgical risk (EuroSCORE II 2.96% vs. 4.51% p < 0.001). Bicuspid valves were more calcified (BAV 1308mm 3 , TAV 848mm 3 p < 0.001) with more asymmetric calcification (BAV 63/78 (81%), TAV 239/665 (36%), p < 0.001). Device success (BAV 94%, TAV 90%, p = 0.45) and major vascular complications (BAV 6%, TAV 9%, p = 0.66) were comparable. At 1 year, there was a trend toward lower combined all-cause mortality and rehospitalization for congestive heart failure in BAV patients (BAV 7%, TAV 13%, p = 0.08) with significantly lower all-cause mortality in this cohort (BAV 1%, TAV 9%, p = 0.020). VARC-2 time-related valve safety (BAV 22%, TAV 20%, p = 0.60) was comparable; however, bioprosthetic valve thrombosis remained more common in BAV patients (BAV 7%, TAV 2%, p = 0.010, Hazard ratio 3.57 [95% confidence interval 1.26, 10.10]). After propensity score matching, only bioprosthetic valve thrombosis remained significantly different., Conclusions: Safety and efficacy of the SAPIEN 3 balloon-expandable THV in BAV is comparable with TAV. Higher rates of bioprosthetic valve thrombosis require further investigation., (© 2021. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become standard treatment for elderly patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis. The ACURATE neo AS study evaluates 30-day and 1-year clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in patients treated with the ACURATE neo2 valve., Methods: The primary endpoint of this single-arm multicenter study is 30-day all-cause mortality. Other key endpoints include device performance, echocardiographic measures assessed by an independent core laboratory, and VARC-2 clinical efficacy and safety endpoints through 12 months., Results: The study enrolled 120 patients (mean age 82.1 ± 4.0 years; 67.5% female, mean baseline STS score 4.8 ± 3.8%). The VARC-2 composite safety endpoint at 30 days occurred in 13.3% of patients. All-cause mortality was 3.3% at 30 days and 11.9% at 1 year. The 30-day stroke rate was 2.5% (disabling stroke 1.7%); there were no new strokes between 30 days and 12 months. The rate of permanent pacemaker implantation was 15.0% (18/120) at 30 days and 17.8% (21/120) at 1 year. No patients required re-intervention for valve-related dysfunction and there were no cases of valve thrombosis or endocarditis. Patients demonstrated significant improvement in mean aortic valve gradient (baseline 38.9 ± 13.1 mmHg, 1 year 7.8 ± 3.5 mmHg; P < 0.001 in a paired analysis). In the overall population, paravalvular leak was evaluated at 1 year as none/trace in 60.5%, mild in 37.0%, and moderate in 2.5%; no patients had severe PVL., Conclusions: One-year outcomes from the ACURATE neo AS study support the safety and performance of TAVI with the ACURATE neo2 valve., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objectives: The aim of this retrospective analysis was to categorize patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) according to clinical presentation by applying unsupervised machine learning., Background: Patients with severe AS present with heterogeneous clinical phenotypes, depending on disease progression and comorbidities., Methods: Unsupervised agglomerative clustering was applied to preprocedural data from echocardiography and right heart catheterization from 366 consecutively enrolled patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe AS., Results: Cluster analysis revealed 4 distinct phenotypes. Patients in cluster 1 (n = 164 [44.8%]), serving as a reference, presented with regular cardiac function and without pulmonary hypertension (PH). Accordingly, estimated 2-year survival was 90.6% (95% CI: 85.8%-95.6%). Clusters 2 (n = 66 [18.0%]) and 4 (n = 91 [24.9%]) both comprised patients with postcapillary PH. Yet patients in cluster 2 with preserved left and right ventricular structure and function showed a similar survival as those in cluster 1 (2-year survival 85.8%; 95% CI: 76.9%-95.6%), whereas patients in cluster 4 with dilatation of all heart chambers and a high prevalence of mitral and tricuspid regurgitation (12.5% and 14.8%, respectively) died more often (2-year survival 74.9% [95% CI: 65.9%-85.2%]; HR for 2-year mortality: 2.8 [95% CI: 1.4-5.5]). Patients in cluster 3, the smallest (n = 45 [12.3%]), displayed the most extensive disease characteristics (ie, left and right heart dysfunction together with combined pre- and postcapillary PH), and 2-year survival was accordingly reduced (77.3% [95% CI: 65.2%-91.6%]; HR for 2-year mortality: 2.6 [95% CI: 1.1-6.2])., Conclusions: Unsupervised machine learning aids in capturing complex clinical presentations as observed in patients with severe AS. Importantly, structural alterations in left and right heart morphology, possibly due to genetic predisposition, constitute an equally sensitive indicator of poor prognosis compared with high-grade PH., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Lachmann has received funding from the Technical University of Munich (clinician scientist grant) and from the Else Kröner-Fresenius Foundation (clinician scientist grant). The 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.)

As we approach 20 years of clinical experience with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), a vast portfolio of high-quality clinical data has accumulated, confirming the safety and efficacy of TAVR across the entire spectrum of surgical risk. Although many aspects of this innovative therapy have been thoroughly studied, several challenges remain. As TAVR is expanding to include younger low-risk patients, with longer life expectancy, one major unsolved issue is represented by transcatheter heart valve (THV) durability, since robust THV durability data are currently limited to approximately 5-6 years. Additionally, steric interactions between THV components and coronary ostia may render coronary access particularly difficult, and thus personalized decisions regarding THV type and implanting techniques are of paramount importance to secure future coronary access. Since bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis may be associated with unfavorable anatomic factors, it has represented an exclusion criterion in major randomized TAVR trials. Albeit promising data are available from multicenter registries, results of specifically designed randomized trials are eagerly needed to inform use of TAVR for BAV stenosis. Although valve-in-valve (ViV) TAVR has emerged as an effective treatment option for degenerated aortic bioprostheses, ViV procedures are associated with specific risks, which mandated the development of specific techniques aimed at reducing the occurrence of periprocedural adverse events. Despite the transfemoral approach represents the access of choice for TAVR, a significant proportion of patients have significant peripheral artery disease and alternative vascular access routes have been increasingly evaluated with encouraging data regarding their safety and feasibility., (© 2021. Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Aims: The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic value of the H 2 FPEF score in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe aortic stenosis (AS) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (EF)., Methods and Results: In this multicentre study, a total of 832 patients from two German high-volume centres, who received TAVI for severe AS and preserved EF (≥50%), were identified for calculation of the H 2 FPEF score. Patients were dichotomized according to low (0-5 points; n = 570) and high (6-9 points; n = 262) H 2 FPEF scores. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were applied to assess the prognostic impact of the H 2 FPEF score. We observed a decrease in stroke volume index (-2.04 mL/m 2 /point) and mean transvalvular gradients (-1.14 mmHg/point) with increasing H 2 FPEF score translating into a higher prevalence of paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient AS among patients with high H 2 FPEF score. One year after TAVI, the rates of all-cause (low vs. high H 2 FPEF score: 8.0% vs. 19.4%, P < 0.0001) and cardiovascular (CV) mortality (1.9% vs. 9.0%, P < 0.0001) as well as the rate of CV mortality or rehospitalization for congestive heart failure (6.4% vs. 23.2%, P < 0.0001) were higher in patients with high H 2 FPEF score compared with those with low H 2 FPEF score. After multivariable analysis, a high H 2 FPEF score remained independently predictive of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio 1.59 (1.28-2.35), P = 0.018] and CV mortality or rehospitalization for congestive heart failure [hazard ratio 2.92 (1.65-5.15), P < 0.001]. Among the H 2 FPEF score variables, atrial fibrillation, pulmonary hypertension, and elevated left ventricular filling pressure were the strongest outcome predictors., Conclusions: The H 2 FPEF score serves as an independent predictor of adverse CV and heart failure outcome among TAVI patients with preserved EF. A high H 2 FPEF score is associated with the presence of paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient AS, the HFpEF in patients with AS. By identifying patients in advanced stages of HFpEF, the H 2 FPEF score might be useful as a risk prediction tool in patients with preserved EF scheduled for TAVI., (© 2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the incidence and causes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at different time periods following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Background: Coronary artery disease (CAD) and aortic stenosis frequently coexist, but the optimal management of CAD following TAVR remains incompletely elucidated., Methods: Patients undergoing unplanned PCI after TAVR were retrospectively included in an international multicenter registry., Results: Between July 2008 and March 2019, a total of 133 patients (0.9%; from a total cohort of 15,325) underwent unplanned PCI after TAVR (36.1% after balloon-expandable bioprosthesis, 63.9% after self-expandable bioprosthesis). The median time to PCI was 191 days (interquartile range: 59 to 480 days). The daily incidence of PCI was highest during the first week after TAVR and then declined over time. Overall, the majority of patients underwent PCI due to an acute coronary syndrome, and specifically 32.3% had non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, 15.4% had unstable angina, 9.8% had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and 2.2% had cardiac arrest. However, chronic coronary syndromes are the main indication beyond 2 years. PCI success was reported in almost all cases (96.6%), with no significant differences between patients treated with balloon-expandable and self-expandable bioprostheses (100% vs. 94.9%; p = 0.150)., Conclusions: Unplanned PCI after TAVR is rare, with an incidence declining over time after TAVR. The main indication to PCI is acute coronary syndrome in the first 2 years after TAVR, and thereafter chronic coronary syndromes become prevalent. Unplanned PCIs are frequently successfully performed after TAVR, with no apparent differences between balloon-expandable and self-expandable bioprostheses. (Revascularization After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation [REVIVAL]; NCT03283501)., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Dr. Stefanini has received institutional research grant support from Boston Scientific; and has received speaker/consultant fees from B. Braun, Biosensors, and Boston Scientific. Dr. Pilgrim has received research grants and personal fees from Biotronik and Boston Scientific; and has received personal fees from HighLife SAS. Dr. Nombela-Franco has served as proctor for Abbott and received speaker/consultant fees from Boston Scientific 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.)

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a low-dose imaging protocol to reduce intraprocedural radiation during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Observational analysis: 802 transfemoral TAVI patients receiving balloon-expandable devices ≥23 mm at a high-volume centre. After propensity score matching, a standard-dose group (SD, n = 333) treated between January 2014 and February 2016 was compared with a low-dose group (LD, n = 333) treated between August 2017 and March 2019 after departmental uptake of a low-dose imaging protocol (reduced field size, high table height, use of "fluoro save," 3.75 frames/second acquisition, increased filtering). Primary end point was dose-area product (DAP). Secondary safety end points were VARC-2 device success and a composite of in-hospital complications. The LD protocol was associated with lower DAP (4.64 [2.93, 8.42] vs 22.73 [12.31, 34.58] Gy⋅cm 2 , p <0.001) and fluoroscopy time (10.4 [8.1, 13.9] vs 11.5 [9.1, 15.3] minutes, p = 0.001). Contrast use was higher in the LD group (LD 110 [94, 130] vs SD 100 [80, 135] milliliters, p = 0.042). Device success (LD 88.3% vs SD 91.3%, p = 0.25), and the composite end point (LD 8.1% vs SD 11.4%, p = 0.19) were similar. In multivariate analysis, the low-dose protocol was associated with a 19.8 Gy⋅cm 2 reduction in procedural DAP (p <0.001). In conclusion, compared with standard imaging, a low-dose protocol for TAVI significantly reduced radiation dose without compromising outcomes., Competing Interests: Disclosures This study was performed without external or industry funding. Dr. Michel has received honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Kasel is a consultant and proctor for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Frangieh is a consultant and proctor for Edwards Lifesciences. The remaining authors report no disclosures., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Bioprosthetic valve thrombosis may complicate transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). This meta-analysis sought to evaluate the prevalence and clinical impact of subclinical leaflet thrombosis (SLT) and clinical valve thrombosis (CVT) after TAVI. We summarized diagnostic strategies, prevalence of SLT and/or CVT and estimated their impact on the risk of all-cause death and stroke. Twenty studies with 12,128 patients were included. The prevalence of SLT and CVT was 15.1% and 1.2%, respectively. The risk of all-cause death was not significantly different between patients with SLT (relative risk [RR] 0.77; p = 0.22) and CVT (RR 1.29; p = 0.68) compared with patients without. The risk of stroke was higher in patients with CVT (RR 7.51; p <0.001) as compared with patients without, while patients with SLT showed no significant increase in the risk of stroke (RR 1.81; p = 0.17). Reduced left ventricular function was associated with increased prevalence, while oral anticoagulation was associated with reduced prevalence of bioprosthetic valve thrombosis. Bioprosthetic valve thrombosis is frequent after TAVI, but does not increase the risk of death. Clinical valve thrombosis is associated with a significantly increased risk of stroke. Future studies should focus on prevention and treatment of bioprosthetic valve thrombosis., (Copyright © 2020 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.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the SAPIEN 3 Ultra (Ultra) and SAPIEN 3 (S3) transcatheter heart valves (THVs)., Background: The latest generation balloon-expandable Ultra THV incorporates new technical features and might improve outcomes following TAVR., Methods: This registry included all consecutive patients who underwent TAVR with either the Ultra or S3 between January 2014 and January 2020. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to account for differences in baseline characteristics. In-hospital and 30-day Valve Academic Research Consortium-2-defined outcomes were investigated., Results: A total of 310 patients (n = 155 Ultra, n = 155 S3) were included. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics after propensity score matching. Procedures were significantly more often performed under conscious sedation with Ultra compared with S3 (97.4% vs. 71.6%; p < 0.001). Pre-dilatation was more frequent with S3 compared with Ultra (85.2% vs. 42.6%; p < 0.001). In-hospital outcomes, including device success (91.6% vs. 95.5%; p = 0.165), major vascular complications (12.3% vs. 11.0%; p = 0.723), and new pacemaker implantation (5.8% vs. 4.5%; p = 0.608), were comparable between S3 and Ultra patients, respectively. Post-procedural mean transprosthetic gradients (13.2 ± 5.7 mm Hg vs. 13.1 ± 4.7 mm Hg; p = 0.829) and rate of moderate or greater paravalvular leakage (PVL) (1.3% vs. 2.7%; p = 0.414) were comparable, whereas mild PVL was more frequent with S3 compared with Ultra (43.0% vs. 18.7%; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Device success rates were high with both balloon-expandable THVs, with overall low rates of adverse events up to 30 days after TAVR. Despite a lower frequency of pre-dilatation, significant reduction of mild PVL confirms improved annular sealing properties of the novel Ultra THV., Competing Interests: Author Relationship With Industry Dr. Joner has received lecture fees and research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and Boston Scientific; and is a consultant for Biotronik and Orbus Neich. Dr. Kasel is a consultant and proctor for Edwards Lifesciences. 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.)

Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (tf-TAVI) has become an established therapy-option for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Conscious sedation (CS) has proven to be an alternative to general anesthesia . So far, the outcome of patients undergoing unplanned periprocedural conversion from CS to general anesthesia has not been investigated. All patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation in CS between 2014 and 2019 were included. The primary end point was early safety at 30 days according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. The reasons for conversion and length of ICU-/ hospital stay were further analyzed. Of 1,058 included patients 35 (3.3%) required a conversion. The end point was documented in 13 (37%) of the converted and 110 (11%) of nonconverted patients (p < 0.001). The causes were: unrest in 11/35 patients, procedural complications in 10/35 patients, respiratory distress in 8/35, and cardiovascular decompensation in 6 patients (17.1%). Compared with the group without conversion (Median (interquartile range ), 4 [4-5] days), length of hospital stay was longest in the group with procedural complications (6 [1-11] days) followed by cardiovascular decompensation (5 [4-7] days). In conclusion, the conversion rate to general anesthesia was low in a large cohort of unselected transcatheter aortic valve implantation patients. Additionally, hospital stay was longer dependent on the reason for conversion., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Elevated gradients have been proposed to be associated with haemodynamic structural valve deterioration (SVD) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI); however, data regarding their characterisation remain scarce. This study sought to investigate the prevalence and predictors of moderate or greater SVD and the prevalence of valve thrombosis during follow-up after TAVI with balloon-expandable valves., Methods and Results: A total of 691 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI were enrolled. The primary endpoint was moderate or severe haemodynamic SVD during 12-month follow-up after TAVI, defined as (I) mean transvalvular gradient ≥20 mmHg or (II) mean transvalvular gradient increase ≥10 mmHg. The primary endpoint was observed in 10.3% after TAVI. Use of a 20 mm valve, valve-in-valve procedure and oral anticoagulation (OAC) were independently associated with haemodynamic SVD, whereas valve-in-valve procedure and OAC were the only significant variables after accounting for death as a competing event. OAC was significantly associated with haemodynamic SVD (RR 8.65; p=0.004) and death (RR 3.57; p=0.06), whereas valve-in-valve procedure was only associated with haemodynamic SVD (RR 52.76; p<0.001). Valve thrombosis was present in 0.87% (6/691) of the patients., Conclusions: The prevalence of moderate or greater haemodynamic SVD during the first 12 months after TAVI is 10.3%. Procedural factors and pharmacotherapy seem to play a key role during manifestation. Future studies should focus on the underlying mechanisms.

Objectives: To evaluate 1-year outcome using the ACURATE neo (Symetis S.A., a Boston Scientific Company, Ecublens, Switzerland) according to the updated Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC-2) with emphasis on the composite endpoints "clinical efficacy after 30 days" and "time-related valve safety"., Background: Initial reports on the clinical performance of patients treated with the ACURATE neo are promising; however, information regarding one-year outcome is scarce, especially with regard to the composite endpoints proposed by the VARC-2., Methods: One hundred and fifty one consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the ACURATE neo for severe aortic valve stenosis were enrolled. Data were prospectively collected and event rates during follow-up were calculated as the Kaplan-Meier estimates., Results: Mean age was 81.1 ± 5.9 years and 49.7% (75/151) were female with a median logistic EuroScore of 13.8% [8.2-20.5]. Device success was achieved in 88.1% (133/151) and procedure related mortality was 0.7% (1/151). At one-year, all-cause mortality was 3.3% (5/151), while permanent pacemaker implantation occurred in 12.7% (19/151) of patients. The "clinical efficacy after 30 days" was observed in 24.8% (37/151), where the main contributor was symptom worsening in 14.8% (22/151) of cases. "Time-related valve safety" occurred in 22.0% (33/151) with structural valve deterioration as main contributor in 10.7% (16/151) of cases., Conclusions: Using the ACURATE neo, we found a favorable safety profile with low all-cause mortality at 1 year. The reported VARC-2 defined composite endpoints at 1 year reveal low rates of "clinical efficacy after 30 days" and "time-related valve safety"., (© 2019 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is the preferred treatment option for older patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Differences in the properties of available TAVR systems can affect clinical outcomes. Among patients undergoing TAVR, we compared the self-expanding ACURATE neo TAVR system with the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 TAVR system with regard to early safety and efficacy., Methods: In this randomised non-inferiority trial, patients (aged ≥75 years) undergoing transfemoral TAVR for treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, and who were deemed to be at increased surgical risk, were recruited at 20 tertiary heart valve centres in Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the UK. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive treatment with the ACURATE neo or the SAPIEN 3 with a computer-based randomly permuted block scheme, stratified by study centre and Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) category. The primary composite safety and efficacy endpoint comprised all-cause death, any stroke, life-threatening or disabling bleeding, major vascular complications, coronary artery obstruction requiring intervention, acute kidney injury (stage 2 or 3), rehospitalisation for valve-related symptoms or congestive heart failure, valve-related dysfunction requiring repeat procedure, moderate or severe prosthetic valve regurgitation, or prosthetic valve stenosis within 30 days of the procedure. Endpoint assessors were masked to treatment allocation. Non-inferiority of ACURATE neo compared with SAPIEN 3 was assessed in the intention-to-treat population on the basis of a risk-difference margin of 7·7% for the primary composite endpoint, with a one-sided α of 0·05. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT03011346) and is ongoing but not recruiting., Findings: Between Feb 8, 2017, and Feb 2, 2019, up to 5132 patients were screened and 739 (mean age 82·8 years [SD 4·1]; median STS-PROM score 3·5% [IQR 2·6-5·0]) were enrolled. 30-day follow-up was available for 367 (99%) of 372 patients allocated to the ACURATE neo group, and 364 (99%) of 367 allocated to the SAPIEN 3 group. Within 30 days, the primary endpoint occurred in 87 (24%) patients in the ACURATE neo and in 60 (16%) in the SAPIEN 3 group; thus, non-inferiority of the ACURATE neo was not met (absolute risk difference 7·1% [upper 95% confidence limit 12·0%], p=0·42). Secondary analysis of the primary endpoint suggested superiority of the SAPIEN 3 device over the ACURATE neo device (95% CI for risk difference -1·3 to -12·9, p=0·0156). The ACURATE neo and SAPIEN 3 groups did not differ in incidence of all-cause death (nine patients [2%] vs three [1%]) and stroke (seven [2%] vs 11 [3%]); whereas acute kidney injury (11 [3%] vs three [1%]) and moderate or severe prosthetic aortic regurgitation (34 [9%] vs ten [3%]) were more common in the ACURATE neo group., Interpretation: TAVR with the self-expanding ACURATE neo did not meet non-inferiority compared to the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 device in terms of early safety and clinical efficacy outcomes. An early composite safety and efficacy endpoint was useful in discriminating the performance of different TAVR systems., Funding: Boston Scientific (USA)., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction and Objectives: Galectin-3 (Gal-3) and carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125) have been associated with adverse outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Experimental data have suggested a potential molecular interaction. Therefore, we assessed the association of Gal-3 and CA125 with prognosis after TAVI., Methods: A total of 439 patients were enrolled. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality or readmission for worsening heart failure after TAVI., Results: The primary endpoint occurred in 16.4%. Gal-3 was dichotomized at ≥ 8.71 ng/mL into elevated and not elevated. Gal-3 was elevated in 31.9% and was associated with a higher risk of the primary endpoint (25% vs 12.4%, HR, 2.26; P<.001). After multivariable adjustment, the association of elevated Gal-3 with the primary endpoint was borderline significant (HR, 1.59; P=.068). CA125 was dichotomized at ≥ 18.4 U/mL, accordingly. CA125 was elevated in 51.9% and was also associated with a higher risk of the primary endpoint (25.4% vs 6.6%, HR, 4.20; P<.001). After multivariable adjustment, elevated CA125 (HR, 2.83; P=.001) remained independently associated with the primary endpoint. A differential prognostic effect of Gal-3 was found across CA125 status (P for interaction=.048). Elevated Gal-3 was associated with a higher risk of the primary endpoint when CA125 was elevated (38.8% vs 18.2%, HR, 2.02; P=.015) but lacked significance when CA125 was not elevated (6.6% vs 6.7%, HR, 1.16; P=.981)., Conclusions: In patients undergoing TAVI, Gal-3 predicted adverse clinical outcomes only when CA125 was elevated., (Copyright © 2018 Sociedad Española de Cardiología. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To evaluate 1-year outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using the SAPIEN 3 (S3) prosthesis with emphasis on the composite endpoints "clinical efficacy after 30 days" and "time-related valve safety" proposed by the updated Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC-2)., Methods and Results: Four hundred and two consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI with the S3 were enrolled. Mean age was 81 ± 6 years, 43% were female and median logistic EuroSCORE I was 12% [8-19]. Device success was achieved in 93% (374/402) with moderate or severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) in 2%. At 1 year all-cause mortality was 8.9% [95% CI 6.4-12.2] and new permanent pacemaker implantation rate was 16% [95% CI 12.7-20.4]. The composite endpoint time-related valve safety occurred in 29% with structural valve deterioration, defined as elevated gradients or more than moderate PVL, occurring in 13%. The clinical efficacy endpoint after 30 days was observed in 37% of patients with the main contributor symptom worsening with New York Heart Association functional class III + in 17% of cases., Conclusions: For the first time, VARC-2-defined composite endpoints at 1 year are reported and reveal a considerable proportion of patients experiencing the endpoint of time-related valve safety (29%) and clinical efficacy after 30 days (37%).

Patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are typically elderly with several co-morbidities, which might limit prognosis despite successful procedural outcome. To date, the prevalence and clinical impact of iron deficiency (ID) in patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVI remains poorly defined. This study included 495 patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. ID was defined as ferritin <100 ng/ml or ferritin 100 to 300 ng/ml, when transferrin saturation was <20%. The primary end point of the study was a composite of all-cause mortality, unplanned readmission for worsening heart failure or red blood cell transfusions during the first year after TAVI, which occurred in 22% (109 of 495) of the population. ID was present in 54% (268 of 495) of the entire cohort and was associated with a higher rate of the primary end point (27.6% [74 of 268] vs 15.4% [35 of 227]; p = 0.001). After multivariable adjustment, the association of ID with the primary end point remained significant (hazard ratio 1.64, 95% confidence interval [1.08 to 2.48]; p = 0.019). In a subgroup of ferropenic patients (n = 56), treatment with intravenous iron before TAVI was feasible, resulting in a considerable improvement of ferritin, transferrin saturation and symptoms at 30-day follow-up. In conclusion, ID is common in TAVI patients and is associated with adverse clinical outcome after TAVI. Correction of ID with intravenous iron seems feasible in contemporary TAVI patients. Whether this reduces transfusion rates and impacts clinical outcome after TAVI remains to be investigated in future prospective trials., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the impact of the ACURATE neo (NEO) (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Massachusetts) versus SAPIEN 3 (S3) (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) on permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) in patients with pre-existing right bundle branch block (RBBB) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement., Background: Pre-existing RBBB is the strongest patient-related predictor for PPI after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. No comparison of newer-generation transcatheter heart valves with regard to PPI in these patients exists., Methods: This multicenter registry includes 4,305 patients; 296 (6.9%) had pre-existent RBBB and no pacemaker at baseline and formed the study population. The primary endpoint was new PPI at 30 days. The association of NEO versus S3 with PPI was assessed using binary logistic regression analyses and inverse probability treatment weighting in a propensity-matched population., Results: The 30-day PPI rate was 39.2%. The S3 and NEO were used in 66.9% and 33.1%, respectively. The NEO was associated with lower rates of PPI compared with the S3 (29.6% vs. 43.9%; p = 0.025; odds ratio [OR]: 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32 to 0.89; p = 0.018), after multivariable adjustment (OR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.86; p = 0.014), and in the inverse probability treatment weighting analysis (OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.55; p < 0.001). There was no difference in device failure (8.2% vs. 6.6%; p = 0.792) or in-hospital course. In the propensity-matched population, PPI rate was also lower in the NEO versus S3 (23.1% vs. 44.6%; p = 0.016; OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.78; p = 0.010), with no difference in device failure (9.2% vs. 6.2%; p = 0.742)., Conclusions: In patients with RBBB, risk of PPI was significantly lower with the NEO compared with the S3, suggesting the possibility of a patient tailored transcatheter heart valve therapy., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction and Objectives: A certain degree of prosthesis oversizing (OS) is recommended for the SAPIEN 3 to achieve device success. However, an increase in OS may increase permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rates. We therefore investigated the influence of OS on device failure and PPI., Methods: A total of 804 patients were treated with SAPIEN 3 at 3 centers. Multislice computed tomography-derived OS was calculated and analyzed both as a continuous variable and categorized in 5% increments with -4% to 0% as reference., Results: Device failure occurred in 8.8% of patients. Median OS was lower in patients with device failure vs those with device success (+4% vs +8%; P=.038). A nonlinear risk pattern was shown for OS with a significantly reduced device failure rate within 4% to +22% of OS. There was no case of paravalvular leakage II+ between +10% to +20% of OS. The overall PPI rate was 16.2% and the median OS was significantly larger in patients with PPI (PPI: +9% vs no PPI: +7%; P = .025), while implantation depth did not vary in patients with vs without PPI (6.9±1.7 mm vs 6.6±1.9 mm; P=.101). The risk of PPI increased with increasing OS and was highest in the 2 highest categories., Conclusions: An increase in OS reduces the risk for device failure but increases the risk for PPI. There was no ideal range of OS to minimize both device failure and PPI., (Copyright © 2018 Sociedad Española de Cardiología. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background: This study investigated the impact of prophylactic veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (pECMO) in patients with depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (dLVEF) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)., Methods: Out of 1490 patients undergoing TAVI at two centers (2010-2015), 222 patients had dLVEF (≤ 40%). Of these, 21 patients (10%) underwent TAVI with pECMO. Complications and outcome according to pECMO were analyzed in the entire and in a propensity-matched population., Results: In the entire population, patients with pECMO had a higher logEuroScore I (33% ± 19 vs. 25% ± 17; p = 0.037), worse LVEF (26% ± 7 vs. 32% ± 7; p = 0.001), more major bleedings (29% vs. 9%; p = 0.015), higher transfusion rate (30% vs. 10%; p = 0.019) and longer in-hospital stay (9.0 [7.0;14.0] vs. 7.0 [5.0;10.0] days; p = 0.024). After propensity matching only transfusion rate remained higher with pECMO (30% vs. 7%; p = 0.025). In the entire population, rate and risk of 30-day mortality was higher with pECMO (24% vs. 6%, HR 95%CI 4.29 [1.51-12.19]; p = 0.006). In the matched population, this effect was attenuated (24% vs. 12%, HR 95%CI 2.09 [0.61-7.23]; p = 0.243). Cumulative rate and risk of 1-year mortality did not differ in the entire (log-rank p = 0.069; 39% vs. 22%, HR 95%CI 1.99 [0.94-4.24]; p = 0.074) nor in the matched population (log-rank p = 0.520; 39% vs. 31%, HR 95%CI 1.34 [0.55-3.28]; p = 0.523)., Conclusion: In patients with dLVEF undergoing TAVI, periprocedural pECMO support does not seem to improve patient outcome.

Introduction and Objectives: The incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) and new conduction abnormalities (CA) with the ACURATE neo (Symetis S.A., Eclubens, Switzerland) has not been studied in detail. We aimed to analyze their predictors, evaluating patient- and device-related factors, including implantation depth and device-to-annulus ratio (DAR)., Methods: Two analyses of a multicenter population were performed: new PPI in pacemaker-naive patients (n = 283), and PPI/new-CA in patients without prior CA or pacemaker (n = 232)., Results: A new PPI was required in 9.9% of patients, who had a higher body mass index, higher rate of right bundle branch block and bradycardia. Neither implantation depth nor DAR differed in patients with PPI compared with those without. In the multivariable analysis neither DAR (OR, 1.010; 95%CI, 0.967-1.055; P = .7) nor implantation depth (OR, 0.972; 95%CI, 0.743-1.272; P = .8) predicted PPI. Only high body mass index, bradycardia and right bundle branch block persisted as independent predictors. PPI/new-onset CA occurred in 22.8% of patients and was associated with a higher logistic EuroSCORE. Neither implantation depth nor DAR differed in patients with PPI/new-CA vs those without (7.3 ± 1.9 vs 7.1 ± 1.5mm; P = .6 and 41.0 ± 7.9 vs 42.2 ± 10.1%; P = .4). The only predictor of PPI/new-CA was a higher logistic EuroSCORE (OR, 1.039; 95%CI, [1.008-1.071]; P = .013)., Conclusions: New PPI and new-onset CA rates were low with the ACURATE neo. These were mainly influenced by patient characteristics and not by device-depending factors., (Copyright © 2018 Sociedad Española de Cardiología. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background: Transfemoral TAVR (tf-TAVR) under conscious sedation (CS) has become popular. The need of anesthesiologic support during tf-TAVR has been questioned. Critical events during the procedure might require immediate action. We analyzed the frequency of periprocedural critical adverse events (CAE) during tf-TAVR with CS in our institution., Methods: Tf-TAVR has been performed at our institution since 2007. We excluded patients from the first four years to minimize the influence of any learning curve. CAE were defined as occurrence of 1.) "CPR", 2.) "defibrillation", 3.) "emergency extracorporeal circulation (ECC)" and 4.) "conversion to general anesthesia (GA) not related to 1.)-3.)". Data was prospectively collected in our AVIATOR TAVR registry., Results: 601 patients were analyzed retrospectively. Overall, CAE were recorded in 54 patients (9%). CPR was necessary in 12 patients (2%) and defibrillation in 10 patients (1.6%). ECC was rarely needed (n = 2, 0.3%). Conversion to GA was necessary in 34 patients (5.65%). Procedure-related conversion was necessary in 10 patients. With 24 patients, sedation-related conversion occurred more frequently. Unrest and pain were the most common reasons for conversion (n = 13, 2%) and respiratory distress in 11 patients (2%). Catecholaminergic support was needed in 269 (45%) patients. Vasopressors were more often applied (n = 249, 41%) than inotropes (n = 59, 10%)., Conclusion: Even in a high-volume center, CAE may occur in nearly every tenth patient. Conversion to GA was the most common CAE. Catecholaminergic support (primary vasopressor support) was needed in nearly every second patient. These points underline the necessity of a cardiac anaesthesiologist to be in the room during the procedure., Summary: Despite experience, critical adverse events (CAE) still occur in TAVR patients. We analyzed the occurrence of CAE and the need for catecholaminergic support in sedated TAVR patients., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)