Search

Background: Conduction disturbances are a common complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Mobile Cardiac Telemetry (MCT) allows for continuous monitoring with near "real time" alerts and has allowed for timely detection of conduction abnormalities and pacemaker placement in small trials. A standardized, systematic approach utilizing MCT devices post TAVR has not been widely implemented, leading to variation in use across hospital systems., Objectives: Our aim was to evaluate the utility of a standardized, systematic approach utilizing routine MCT to facilitate safe and earlier discharge by identifying conduction disturbances requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) placement. We also sought to assess the occurrence of actionable arrhythmias in post-TAVR patients., Methods: Using guidance from the JACC Scientific Expert Panel, a protocol was implemented starting in December 2019 to guide PPM placement post-TAVR across our health system. All patients who underwent TAVR from December 2019 to June 2021 across four hospitals within Northwell Health, who did not receive or have a pre-existing PPM received an MCT device at discharge and were monitored for 30 days. Clinical and follow-up data were collected and compared to pre initiative patients., Results: During the initiative 693 patients were monitored with MCT upon discharge, 21 of whom required PPM placement. Eight of these patients had no conduction abnormality on initial or discharge ECG. 59 (8.6 %) patients were found to have new atrial fibrillation or flutter via MCT monitoring. There were no adverse events in the initiative group. Prior to the initiative, 1281 patients underwent TAVR over a one-year period. The initiative group had significantly shorter length of stay than pre-initiative patients (2.5 ± 4.5 vs 3.0 ± 3.8 days, p < 0.001) and lower overall PPM placement rate within 30 days post-TAVR (16 % vs 20.5 %, P = 0.0125)., Conclusions: In our study, implementation of a standardized, systematic approach utilizing MCT in post-TAVR patients was safe and allowed for timely detection of conduction abnormalities requiring pacemaker placement. This strategy also detected new atrial fibrillation and flutter. Reduction in post TAVR pacemaker rate and length of stay were also noted although this effect is multifactorial., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Bruce Rutkin reports a relationship with Edwards Lifesciences Corporation that includes: consulting or advisory. Bruce Rutkin reports a relationship with Medtronic Inc. that includes: consulting or advisory. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The etiology of transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) degeneration is poorly understood, particularly noncalcific mechanisms., Objectives: The authors sought to investigate noncalcific and calcific mechanisms of TAV degeneration and evaluate their impact on leaflet function by bench testing, imaging, and histology., Methods: TAV explants were obtained from the EXPLANT THV registry and clinical institutions. Hydrodynamic assessment was performed using a heart valve pulse duplicator system under physiological conditions. Micro-computed tomography, high-resolution photography, high speed video, and hematoxylin and eosin staining were used to evaluate the morphological appearance, leaflet kinematics, and calcium burden of TAVs., Results: A total of 14 explants were evaluated: 10 self-expanding CoreValve/Evolut TAVs (Medtronic), 3 balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 TAVs (Edwards Lifesciences), and 1 mechanically expandable Lotus TAV (Boston Scientific). The median patient age at explantation was 73.0 years (Q1-Q3: 64.5-80.0 years), with a time to explantation of 4 years 1 month (1 year 5 months to 4 years 11 months). Six TAV explants were found to have leaflet calcification (162.4 mm 3 ; 58.8-603.0 mm 3 ), and 8 had no calcification detectable by micro-computed tomography and histology. All samples had impaired leaflet kinematics. There was no significant difference in the hydrodynamic mean gradient between calcified (47.2 mm Hg; 26.6-74.1 mm Hg) and noncalcified (27.6 mm Hg; 15.2-36.7 mm Hg; P = 0.28) TAVs. Leaflet calcification had a weak but nonsignificant association with the hydrodynamic mean gradient (r = 0.42; P = 0.14)., Conclusions: TAV function can be severely impacted by noncalcific and calcific mechanisms of tissue degeneration. Importantly, functional stenosis can occur in TAVs in the absence of obvious and significant calcification., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This work was supported by Medtronic, USA, and the Cardiovascular Translational Laboratory, Canada. Dr Sathananthan is the chief medical officer for Interventional Cardiology Therapies from Boston Scientific; a consultant to Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences; has received speaking fees from Edwards Lifesciences, and NVT; and has received research support from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Vivitro Labs. Mr Nigade, Dr Spencer, and Mr Navarro are employees and shareholders of Medtronic. Dr Meier has received an institutional grant from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Pirelli is a consultant and receives speakers honoraria from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Webb is a consultant to and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and ViVitro Labs. Dr Wood is a consultant and receives unrestricted grant support from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott Vascular. Dr Lutter is a consultant to Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott. Dr Puehler is a consultant to Abbott. Dr Tang has received speaker honoraria and served as a physician proctor, consultant, advisory board member, TAVR publications committee member, APOLLO trial screening committee member and IMPACT MR steering committee member for Medtronic, has received speaker honoraria and served as a physician proctor, consultant, advisory board member and TRILUMINATE trial anatomic eligibility and publications committee member for Abbott Structural Heart, has served as an advisory board member for Boston Scientific and JenaValve, a consultant and physician screening committee member for Shockwave Medical, a consultant for NeoChord, Peija Medical and Shenqi Medical Technology, and has received speaker honoraria from Siemens Healthineers. Dr Fukuhara is a consultant for Medtronic, Terumo Aortic, and Artivion. Dr Sellers is a consultant for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Anteris; and has received research support from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Vivitro Labs, and HeartFlow. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients undergoing TAVR varies and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. We evaluated the outcomes of complex and high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (CHIP-PCIs) and TAVR compared with standard PCI and TAVR. Between January 2014 and March 2021, a total of 276 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) who underwent TAVR and PCI at 3 centers within Northwell Health were retrospectively reviewed. CHIP-PCI was defined as PCI with one of the following: left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <30%; left main coronary artery (LMCA)/chronic total occlusion (CTO) intervention; atherectomy; or need for left ventricular (LV) support. One hundred twenty- seven patients (46%) had CHIP-PCI prior to TAVR and 149 patients (54%) had standard PCI. Thirteen percent of CHIP-PCI and 22% of standard PCI cases were done concomitantly with TAVR. CHIP-PCI criteria were met for low EF (19%), LMCA (25%), CTO (3%), LV support (20%), and atherectomy (50%). The types of valves used were similarly divided (49% balloon expandable vs 51% self expanding. Major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rate for CHIP-PCI/TAVR was 4.9% at 30 days vs 1.3% for standard PCI/TAVR (P=.09), driven by in-hospital stroke. At 1 year, the rates of MACCE for CHIP-PCI/TAVR remained higher than for standard PCI/TAVR, but was not statistically significant (8.7% vs 4%; P=.06), driven by revascularization. We found no differences between major and/or minor vascular complications. New York Heart Association classification at 1 month was similar (I/II 93% vs 95%; P=.87). Our study suggests that CHIP-PCI can be safely performed in patients with complex CAD and concomitant severe AS.

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of transcatheter heart valve (THV) choice in patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction., Background: The management congestive heart failure with combined LV systolic dysfunction and severe aortic stenosis (AS) is challenging, yet transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a suitable treatment option in such patients. Head-to-head comparisons among the balloon-expandable (BEV) and self-expandable (SEV) THV remain limited in this subgroup of patients., Methods: In this retrospective study, we included patients with severe AS with LV systolic dysfunction (LVEF ≤40%) who underwent TAVR at four high volume centers. Two thousand and twenty-eight consecutive patients were analyzed, of which 335 patients met inclusion criteria. One hundred fourty-six patients (43%) received a SEV, and 189 patients (57%) received a BEV., Results: Baseline characteristics were similar except for a higher proportion of females in the SEV group. The primary composite endpoint of in-hospital mortality, moderate or greater paravalvular (PVL), stroke, conversion to open surgery, aortic valve reintervention, and/or need for permanent pacemaker (PPM) was no different among THV choice. There was more PVL in the SEV group, but higher transaortic gradients in the BEV group. Clinical outcomes and quality of life measures were similar up to 1 year follow-up., Conclusion: The choice of THV in patients with severe AS and systolic dysfunction must be weighed on a case-by-case basis., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

A shift to lifetime management has gained more focus with the approval of low-risk transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This paper is therefore focused on the different approaches for lifetime management. Herein we discuss the procedural safety, durability, performance, and future options for each lifetime management strategy. In younger patients that elect to undergo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), options for bioprosthetic failure are TAV-in-SAV or redo SAVR. Among patients that undergo TAVR, options for valve failure include TAVR explant with SAVR or TAV-in-TAV. Additionally, there are patients who may require a third valvular intervention. The initial therapy may limit re-intervention options down the road. This review discusses how options for future therapies affect the decision of SAVR vs TAVR in younger patients., (Copyright © 2021 Japanese College of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Drs Kliger and Pirelli have been consultants and have received speaking honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical characteristics, mechanisms of failure, and outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) explantation., Background: Surgical explantation following TAVR may be required for structural valve degeneration, paravalvular leak, infection, or other reasons. However, in-depth data on indications and outcomes are lacking., Methods: Data from a multicenter, international registry (EXPLANT-TAVR) of patients who underwent TAVR explantation were reviewed retrospectively. Explantations performed during the same admission as initial TAVR were excluded. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were evaluated. Median follow-up duration was 6.7 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.0-18.8 months) after TAVR explantation and was 97.7% complete at 30 days and 86.1% complete at 1 year., Results: From November 2009 to September 2020, 269 patients across 42 centers with a mean age of 72.7 ± 10.4 years underwent TAVR explantation. About one quarter (25.9%) were deemed low surgical risk at index TAVR, and median Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk at TAVR explantation was 5.6% (IQR: 3.2%-9.6%). The median time to explantation was 11.5 months (IQR: 4.0-32.4 months). Balloon-expandable and self-expanding or mechanically expandable valves accounted for 50.9% and 49.1%, respectively. Indications for explantation included endocarditis (43.1%), structural valve degeneration (20.1%), paravalvular leak (18.2%), and prosthesis-patient mismatch (10.8%). Redo TAVR was not feasible because of unfavorable anatomy in 26.8% of patients. Urgent or emergency cases were performed in 53.1% of patients, aortic root replacement in 13.4%, and 54.6% had concomitant cardiac procedures. Overall survival at last follow-up was 76.1%. In-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year mortality rates were 11.9%, 13.1%, and 28.5%, respectively, and stroke rates were 5.9%, 8.6%, and 18.7%, respectively., Conclusions: The EXPLANT-TAVR registry reveals that surgical risks associated with TAVR explantation are not negligible and should be taken into consideration in the lifetime management of aortic stenosis., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Bapat has served as a consultant for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, 4C Medical, and Boston Scientific. Dr Fukuhara is a consultant for Terumo Aortic. Dr Pirelli is a physician proctor for and has received speaker honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences; and is a consultant for Medtronic. Dr Wyler von Ballmoos has served as a consultant for LivaNova, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Dr Chu has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Terumo Aortic. Dr Rodés-Cabau has received institutional research grants from and is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Dr Borger has reported that his hospital receives speaker honoraria and/or consulting fees on his behalf from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott, and CryoLife. Dr Lange is a consultant for Medtronic. Dr Hagl has received speaker honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Denti has received speaker honoraria from Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences; and is a consultant for InnovHeart. Dr Modine is a physician proctor and consultant for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott. Dr Kaneko is a speaker for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott, and Baylis Medical; and is a consultant for 4C Medical. Dr Tang is a physician proctor for Medtronic; is a consultant for Medtronic, Abbott, and NeoChord; and is an advisory board member for Abbott and JenaValve. 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.)

Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Drs. Pirelli and Kliger are consultants to and have received speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Background: Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a valuable option in patients with bioprosthetic failure. However, potential issues with ViV TAVR may occur in patients with high-risk anatomy for coronary obstruction and patients with baseline smaller bioprosthetic valves at risk for patient prosthesis mismatch. The purpose of this study was, therefore, to use preoperative electrocardiography-gated, multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in patients undergoing isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) to (1) identify which would be high risk for coronary occlusion with ViV TAVR, and (2) predict intraoperative SAVR sizing., Methods: Among 223 patients from our institutions' database that underwent SAVR for aortic insufficiency (AI) or aortic stenosis (AS) between January 2012 and January 2020, 48 patients had MDCT imaging before surgery (AI; n = 31, AS; n = 17). Of all patients, 67% (n = 32) were bicuspid morphology., Results: With the use of virtual valve implantation, all patients with AI and bicuspid AS had feasible anatomy for ViV TAVR, while 38% of patients with tricuspid AS were high risk for coronary obstruction. There was a strong correlation between actual valve size implanted and preoperative MDCT measurements using annulus average diameter, area, and/or perimeter., Conclusion: Preoperative MDCT in patients undergoing SAVR is a useful tool for lifetime management, particularly in patients with tricuspid AS. Decisions for surgical management may change based on MDCT's ability to predict intraoperative SAVR size and determine which patients may be high-risk candidates for future ViV TAVR due to coronary artery obstruction., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Valve-in-valve implantation (ViV) has become a valid option for the treatment of bioprosthetic valve failure. We describe the first in-man transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or "turducken" in a patient with previous TAVR within surgical aortic valve replacement with preprocedural guidance utilizing three-dimensional (3D) printing and intraprocedural guidance with fusion imaging., Case Summary: A 65-year-old male with a previous valve-in-valve with a transcatheter Melody valve presented with symptomatic severe valvular and paravalvular aortic incompetence. Using 3D printing for preprocedural guidance and computed tomography angiography-fluoroscopy fusion imaging for intraprocedural guidance we successfully placed a 29 mm self-expanding valve with minimal residual gradients. The patient continued to be asymptomatic at 1- and 5-year follow-up., Discussion: We describe the first in man aortic valve-in-valve-in-valve using preprocedural guidance with 3D printing and intraprocedural guidance with fusion imaging. The valve has continued to demonstrate good function up to 5 years postprocedure suggesting that transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve-in-valve may be feasible with the proper pre- and intraprocedural guidance., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objective: There is a high prevalence of concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) and aortic stenosis (AS), and these conditions can be treated with a variety of invasive and/or percutaneous approaches. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of a staged transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) after a hybrid minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery (MIDCAB) to treat combined complex CAD and AS., Methods: Six patients with concomitant CAD and severe AS underwent staged treatment of their CAD with MIDCAB and TAVR. All patients had significant complex left main or left anterior descending artery (LAD) stenosis deemed to be not amenable to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Results: The average syntax score was 22±8 and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score for surgical AVR was 8±3%. All patients underwent a single vessel MIDCAB for revascularization of the LAD (three patients required additional PCI for non-LAD disease). Two patients had pre-TAVR balloon aortic valvuloplasty and one patient also required treatment of severe mitral valve regurgitation with percutaneous edge-to-edge repair (the MitraClip). There was no intraprocedural or hospital mortality. No neurological deficits or vascular complications were recorded., Conclusions: A hybrid staged approach for combined complex CAD and severe AS with MIDCAB, PCI, and TAVR is a valid option in high-risk patients. The order and timing of these procedures must be tailored to the patient's clinical symptoms, stability, and severity of disease.

Since the inception of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), there have been significant reductions in complications due to improvements of transcatheter heart valve (THV) designs and technologies. Given expanding TAVR applications, reducing complications further and better understanding THV durability has become a focus within the structural heart space. Recently, dedicated cardiac computed tomographic angiography (CTA) performed at 1 month post-TAVR has identified subclinical leaflet thrombosis (SLT), with rates as high as 40%. From the SLT imaging hallmarks of hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT) to hypoattenuation affecting motion (HAM), a postulated timeline of THV thrombosis advancing to clinical symptoms can be recognized. This review article focuses on leaflet thrombosis particularly following TAVR explaining the spectrum of this disease process, its diagnosis, current treatment options, and future directions in the field., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectives: Iliofemoral arteries have been the preferred access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). When these arteries are too small, calcified or tortuous, an alternative access must be considered. Transinnominate (TI) access is an extrathoracic approach that does not require manipulation of major neurovascular structures or the apex. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TI TAVR as an alternative access in patients with severe aortic stenosis not amenable to a transfemoral approach., Methods: Thirteen patients with severe aortic stenosis underwent TI TAVR between February 2016 and January 2017 at our institution. The average Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score was 7.7 ± 4.5%. Eight patients had previous surgical revascularization, 7 of which involved the left thoracic artery. All patients underwent preoperative computed tomography angiography that revealed significant atheromatous and calcific disease of the iliofemoral vessels and/or the descending aorta. The innominate artery was found to be of appropriate calibre (>10 mm), free of plaque and easy to access via surgical incision. Fusion multimodality imaging was utilized in all cases to guide the procedure., Results: The innominate artery was accessed via a 2-inch right parasternal supraclavicular incision. Nine self-expandable valves and 4 balloon-expandable valves were implanted. Procedural success occurred in all cases without intraprocedural and in-hospital mortality. No neurological deficits or vascular complications were recorded; postoperative bleeding was trivial. Ten patients were discharged on Day 3 and 3 patients who required PPM on Day 5., Conclusions: TI approach represents a safe, reproducible and minimally invasive hybrid technique for TAVR in high-risk patients. In our early experience, surgical trauma and perioperative complications are minimal with rapid patient recovery., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative and now recommended therapy for patients who meet indications for surgical valve replacement and are high or prohibitive surgical risk. Available TAVR technologies are rapidly emerging to treat this complex patient population. This review discusses the specific valve designs of the transcatheter heart valves currently used, newer generation modifications to overcome limitations of earlier valve designs, and novel imaging modalities, such as computed tomographic angiography-fluoroscopy and echocardiography-fluoroscopy fusion imaging, available for pre-procedural planning and intra-procedural guidance.

Treatment of congestive heart failure (CHF) with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction and severe aortic stenosis (AS) is challenging, yet transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a suitable treatment option in such patients. We compared the periprocedural outcomes of TAVR in patients with an ejection fraction (EF) of ≤20% (VLEF group) to patients with an EF > 20% to ≤40% (LEF group). We included patients with severe AS and reduced LV ejection fraction (LVEF ≤ 40%) who underwent TAVR at four centers within Northwell Health between January 2016 and December 2020. Over 2000 consecutive patients were analyzed, of which 355 patients met the inclusion criteria. The primary composite endpoint was in-hospital mortality, moderate or greater paravalvular (PVL), stroke, conversion to open surgery, aortic valve re-intervention, and/or need for PPM. Secondary endpoints were length of stay, NYHA classification at 1 month and 1 year, mortality at 1 month and 1 year, mean valve gradient at 1 month, KCCQ score at 1 month, and ≥ moderate PVL at 1 month. There was no difference in the primary composite endpoint between the two groups (23.6% for VLEF vs. 25.3% for LEF, p = 0.29). During TAVR placement, 40% of patients in the VLEF group required ≥1 vasopressors for hypotension lasting ≥30 min vs. only 21% of patients in the LEF group (p < 0.01). Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use during procedure was greater in the VLEF group (9% vs. 1%, p < 0.01)—all placed post TAVR. Emergency ECMO use was higher in the VLEF group as well (5% vs. 0%). Total length of stay was significantly different between the two groups as well (6 days vs. 3 days, p < 0.01). Both groups had a change in LVEF of ~10%. One-year outcomes were similar between the groups. All-cause mortality at 1 year was not significantly different at 1 year (13% for VLEF vs. 11% for LEF), and KCC scores were also similar (77.54 vs. 74.97). Mean aortic valve gradients were also similar (12 mmHg vs. 11 mmHg, p = 0.48). Our study suggests that patients with EF ≤ 20% can safely have TAVR with similar periprocedural outcomes compared to patients with EF > 20% to ≤40% despite higher rates of vasopressor and mechanical support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]