Search

Background and Aims: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the first choice to treat older patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). This study aimed to compare TAVI with surgery in low-risk patients ≤75 years of age, including both tricuspid and bicuspid AS., Methods: The Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention (NOTION)-2 trial enrolled and 1:1 randomized low-risk patients aged ≤75 years with severe symptomatic AS to TAVI or surgery. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, or rehospitalization (related to the procedure, valve, or heart failure) at 12 months., Results: A total of 370 patients were enrolled with a mean age of 71.1 years and a median Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 1.1%. A total of 100 patients had bicuspid AS. The 1-year incidence of the primary endpoint was 10.2% in the TAVI group and 7.1% in the surgery group [absolute risk difference 3.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI), -2.7% to 8.8%; hazard ratio (HR) 1.4; 95% CI, 0.7-2.9; P = .3]. Patients with TAVI, when compared to surgery, had lower risk of major bleeding and new-onset atrial fibrillation and higher risk of non-disabling stroke, permanent pacemaker implantation, and moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation. The risk of the primary composite endpoint was 8.7% and 8.3% in patients with tricuspid AS (HR 1.0; 95% CI, 0.5-2.3) and 14.3% and 3.9% in patients with bicuspid AS (HR 3.8; 95% CI, 0.8-18.5) treated with TAVI or surgery, respectively (P for interaction = .1)., Conclusions: Among low-risk patients aged ≤75 years with severe symptomatic AS, the rate of the composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year was similar between TAVI and surgery. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation outcomes in young bicuspid AS patients warrant caution and should be further investigated. (NOTION-2, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02825134)., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02825134., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: Despite rehospitalization being common after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), an in-depth analysis on this topic is missing. This study sought to report on the incidence, predictors, and prognostic impact of rehospitalization within 1 year following TAVI., Methods and Results: All consecutive patients treated with TAVI between 2016 and 2020 in East Denmark were included. Medical records of all patients were reviewed to validate rehospitalizations up to 1 year after discharge from the index admission. The study population consisted of 1397 patients, of whom 615 (44%) had an unplanned rehospitalization within the first year post-TAVI. The rehospitalization incidence rate was three-fold higher in the early period (within 30 days) compared with the late period (30 days to 1 year; 2.5 vs. 0.8 per patient-year, respectively; P < 0.001). Predictors of early unplanned rehospitalization were procedure-related complications and prior stroke, whereas late unplanned rehospitalization was associated with preexisting comorbidities. Predictors of heart failure (HF) rehospitalization included ischaemic heart disease, the extent of cardiac damage, atrial fibrillation, and New York Heart Association class at baseline. HF rehospitalization within 30 days and 1 year post-TAVI was associated with a markedly increased 1- and 5-year mortality risk [hazard ratio (HR) of 4.3 and 3.2 for 1-year mortality and HR of 3.2 and 2.9 for 5-year mortality, respectively; P< 0.001]., Conclusions: Rehospitalization after TAVI is frequent in real-world practice. Early rehospitalization is mostly procedure related, whereas late rehospitalization is related to preexisting comorbidities. HF rehospitalization is associated with poor long-term survival and could be validated as a prognostically relevant endpoint for TAVI trials., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Raphe-type bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is a potential hostile scenario in trans-catheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) due to pronounced calcium burden, possibly associated with tapered valve configuration. Trans-Catheter heart valve (THV) sizing strategy (annular vs. supra-annular) is controversial in this valve subtype., Objectives: To describe the phenotypical characteristics of severe, tapered, raphe-type, BAV stenosis undergoing TAVR and to explore safety and efficacy of modern-generation THVs, analysing the impact of annular and supra-annular sizing strategies on short- and mid-terms outcomes., Methods: This is a retrospective, multicenter registry enrolling consecutive stenotic Sievers type 1 BAV treated with TAVR. Study population was divided into tapered and non-tapered configuration according to MSCT analysis. Matched comparison between annular and supra-annular sizing groups was performed in tapered population., Results: From January 2016 to June 2023, 897 patients were enrolled. Of them, 696 patients displayed a tapered configuration. Of those, 510 received a THV according to annular sizing. After propensity score matching 186 matched pairs were selected. Technical success (96.2 % vs 94.1 %, OR 1.61 [0.61-4.24], p = 0.34), 30-day device success (83.6 % in both groups, OR 1.42 [0.78-2.57], p = 0.25) and 30-day early safety (71.8 % vs 70.5 %, OR 1.07 [0.68-1.68], p = 0.78) were similar between the annular and supra-annular sizing groups; a higher post-TAVR gradient was observed in supra-annular group, although it was only 2 mmHg mean. At mid-term follow-up, the rate of clinical efficacy was 84.7 %., Conclusions: TAVR with modern-generation devices is safe and effective for tapered raphe-type BAV, showing comparable results for annular and supra-annular sizing strategies., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Data on the likelihood of left ventricle (LV) recovery in patients with severe LV dysfunction and severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and its prognostic value are limited., Aims: We aimed to assess the likelihood of LV recovery following TAVI, examine its association with midterm mortality, and identify independent predictors of LV function., Methods: In our multicentre registry of 17 TAVI centres in Western Europe and Israel, patients were stratified by baseline LV function (ejection fraction [EF] >/≤30%) and LV response: no LV recovery, LV recovery (EF increase ≥10%), and LV normalisation (EF ≥50% post-TAVI)., Results: Our analysis included 10,872 patients; baseline EF was ≤30% in 914 (8.4%) patients and >30% in 9,958 (91.6%) patients. The LV recovered in 544 (59.5%) patients, including 244 (26.7%) patients whose LV function normalised completely (EF >50%). Three-year mortality for patients without severe LV dysfunction at baseline was 29.4%. Compared to this, no LV recovery was associated with a significant increase in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.32; p<0.001). Patients with similar LV function post-TAVI had similar rates of 3-year mortality, regardless of their baseline LV function. Three variables were associated with a higher likelihood of LV recovery following TAVI: no previous myocardial infarction (MI), estimated glomerular filtration rate >60 mL/min, and mean aortic valve gradient (mAVG) (expressed either as a continuous variable or as a binary variable using the standard low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis [AS] definition)., Conclusions: LV recovery following TAVI and the extent of this recovery are major determinants of midterm mortality in patients with severe AS and severe LV dysfunction undergoing TAVI. Patients with no previous MI and those with an mAVG >40 mmHg show the best results following TAVI, which are at least equivalent to those for patients without severe LV dysfunction. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04031274).

Background: ACURATE neo2 (Neo2) implantation is performed after systematic Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty (BAV) in most patients. No reports exist about the feasibility and safety of direct Neo2 transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in comparison to the standard practice., Aim: We aimed to identify the patients' baseline anatomical characteristics, procedural, and early post-procedural outcomes in patients treated using Neo2 with and without BAV., Methodology: This is a retrospective multicentre analysis of 499 patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVI using Neo2. The comparison was done according to the performance or omission of BAV. Echocardiography and computed tomography were analysed by an independent Core Lab. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed based on the annular diameter and AV calcium volume, which identified 84 matched pairs., Results: Among the cohort included, 391 (78%) patients received BAV (BAV-yes) and 108 (22%) were not attempted (BAV-no or Direct TAVI). Patients in BAV-no cohort had smaller annular diameter (22.6 vs 23.4 mm; p < 0.001) and lower calcium volume (163 vs 581 mm 3 ; p < 0.001) compared to BAV-yes cohort. In the matched cohort, VARC-3 device technical success was similar (95%) and all other outcome measures were statistically comparable between cohorts., Conclusion: Direct TAVI using ACURATEneo2 without pre-TAVI balloon aortic valvuloplasty in patients with mild or less valve calcifications might be feasible and associated with comparable early outcomes compared to patients with similar anatomical features undergoing systematic balloon valvuloplasty., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest WK Kim reports proctor/speaker fees/advisory board participation for Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Meril Life Sciences, and Shockwave Medical. A Rück reports grants and non-financial support from Boston Scientific, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Boston Scientific, personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences, outside the submitted work. M Abdel-Wahab reports speakers' honoraria and/or consulting fees from Boston Scientific and Medtronic paid to his institution on his behalf. TK Rudolph reports speakers' honoraria and/or consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic, paid to her institution on her behalf. She also reports institutional research grants from Boston Scientific. A Wolf reports proctoring for Boston Scientific. De Backer reports institutional research grants and consulting fees from Boston Scientific. L Sondergaard is a Chief Medical Officer and Divisional Vice President, Medical Affairs, Abbott Structural Heart. C Hengstenberg reports proctor/speaker fees/advisory board participation for Boston Scientific and Edwards Lifesciences as well as institutional research grants from Medtronic, Abbott, Boston Scientific and Edwards Lifesciences. H Bjursten reports work as consultant for Boston Scientific and receipt of speaker fees from Edwards Lifescience. M Götberg reports proctor/consulting fees from Boston Scientific, and consulting/speaker fees from Abbott, Medtronic, and Philips Healthcare. N Saleh reports grants and non-financial support from Boston Scientific, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Boston Scientific. C Meduri reports advisory board participation and proctoring for Boston Scientific, consulting for Medtronic, and advisory board participation for Cardiovalve and Anteris. O Soliman reports several institutional grants and non-financial support from industry, and is the medical director of Computed Tomography, Echocardiography and Cardiac MRI Core Laboratory at the CORRIB Core Lab for multiple industry-sponsored trials, for which he receives no direct industry compensation. The remaining authors have no disclosures to report., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cardiac damage has gained increasing attention as a valid prognostic marker of mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, studies investigating the possible association between cardiac damage and hospitalization burden in TAVR patients are lacking., Aims: This study aimed to investigate the impact of baseline cardiac damage on the hospitalization burden before, during, and after TAVR in an all-comers population., Methods: All consecutive patients who underwent TAVR between 2016 and 2020 were included. Electronic medical records of all patients were examined to validate cardiovascular (CV) and heart failure (HF) related hospitalizations from 6 months before to 1 year after TAVR. Baseline cardiac damage was defined according to the staging classification by Généreux et al. RESULTS: Among 1397 TAVR patients, 94 (6.7%) had stage 0, 368 (26.4%) stage 1, 736 (52.7%) stage 2, 115 (8.2%) stage 3, and 84 (6.0%) stage 4 cardiac damage. Patients with more advanced cardiac damage at baseline had more HF hospitalizations within 6 months before TAVR (p < 0.01) and with a longer length of stay (LoS) (p < 0.01). Regarding the index TAVR admission, there was no difference in procedure time (p = 0.26) or LoS (p = 0.18) between groups. Still, TAVR patients with more advanced baseline cardiac damage had a higher risk of CV and HF rehospitalization after TAVR (p < 0.05)., Conclusions: Baseline cardiac damage in patients undergoing TAVR has an impact on the pre- and post-procedural cardiovascular hospitalization burden. However, the cardiac damage status does not affect the TAVR procedure time or index TAVR admission length of stay., (© 2024 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Despite transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) having become a routine procedure, access site bleeding and vascular complications are still a concern which contribute to procedure-related morbidity and mortality., Aims: The TAVI-MultiCLOSE study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of a new vascular closure algorithm for percutaneous large-bore arterial access closure following transfemoral (TF)-TAVI., Methods: All consecutive TF-TAVI cases in which the MultiCLOSE vascular closure algorithm was used were prospectively included in a multicentre, observational study. This stepwise algorithm entails the reinsertion of a 6-8 Fr sheath (primary access) following the initial preclosure with one or two suture-based vascular closure devices (VCDs). This provides the operator with the opportunity to perform a quick and easy angiographic control and tailor the final vascular closure with either an additional suture- or plug-based VCD, or neither of these., Results: Among 630 patients who underwent TF-TAVI utilising the MultiCLOSE algorithm, complete arterial haemostasis was achieved in 616 patients (98%). VCD failure occurred in 14 patients (2%), treated with either balloon inflation (N=1), covered stent (N=12) or surgical repair (N=1). Overall, this vascular closure approach resulted in a minor and major vascular complication rate of 2.2% and 0.6%, respectively. At 30 days, only one new minor vascular complication (0.2%) was noted. In-hospital and 30-day all-cause mortality rates were 0.2% and 1.0%, respectively., Conclusions: Use of the MultiCLOSE vascular closure algorithm was demonstrated to contribute to an easy, safe, efficacious and durable vascular closure after TF-TAVI, resulting in a major vascular complication rate of less than 1%.

Background: The performance of latest iteration transcatheter aortic valve replacement platforms in patients with small aortic anatomy remains underexplored., Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate effectiveness and performance between the self-expanding (SE) Evolut PRO and PRO+ and the balloon-expandable (BE) SAPIEN ULTRA in patients with small aortic annuli., Methods: Data from the OPERA-TAVI (Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO vs. SAPIEN 3 ULTRA Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry were used, with 1:1 propensity score matching. Primary endpoints included 1-year effectiveness composite (all-cause mortality, disabling stroke, or heart failure hospitalization) and 30-day device-related (hemodynamic structural valve dysfunction and nonstructural valve dysfunction) outcomes., Results: Among 3,516 patients, 251 matched pairs with aortic annular area <430 mm 2 were assessed. The 1-year primary effectiveness outcome did not differ significantly between cohorts (SE 10.8% vs BE 11.2%; P = 0.91). The 30-day device-oriented composite outcome was more favorable in the Evolut PRO group (SE 4.8% vs BE 10.4%; P = 0.027). Notably, SE valve recipients showed higher rates of disabling stroke (SE 4.0% vs BE 0.0%; P < 0.01) and paravalvular leaks (mild or greater: SE 48.5% vs BE 18.6% [P < 0.001]; moderate: SE 4.5% vs BE 1.2% [P = 0.070]). The BE group had higher rates of prosthesis-patient mismatch (moderate or greater: SE 16.0% vs BE 47.1% [P < 0.001]; severe: SE 1.3% vs BE 5.7% [P = 0.197]) and more patients with residual mean gradients >20 mm Hg (SE 1.0% vs BE 13.5%; P < 0.001)., Conclusions: In patients with small aortic annuli, transcatheter aortic valve replacement with latest iteration devices is safe. SE platforms are associated with more favorable device performance in terms of hemodynamic structural and nonstructural dysfunction. Randomized data are needed to validate these findings and guide informed device selection., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Scotti has served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and NeoChord. Dr Pilgrim has received research, travel, or educational grants to the institution without personal remuneration from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and ATSens; and has received speaker fees and consultancy fees to the institution from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, Biosensors, and Highlife. Dr Meier has received an institutional grant from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Barbanti is a consultant for Boston Scientifics, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Latib has served on advisory boards for Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Shifamed, NeoChord, VDyne, and Philips. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Both surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are Class Ia recommended therapies for specific subgroups of severe aortic stenosis (AS) patients in the latest 2021 European guidelines., Aims: We aimed to report on the multidisciplinary Heart Team evaluation process and real-world practice of treating severe symptomatic AS in East Denmark in the context of the latest European guideline recommendations., Methods: All consecutive patients with severe AS referred for intervention in 2021 (N=672) were discussed in a multidisciplinary Heart Team meeting. All patients (100%) had a cardiac computed tomography (CT) analysis prior to the meeting. Baseline characteristics, Heart Team decision-making, final treatment and 30-day clinical outcomes were prospectively recorded., Results: The majority of severe AS patients (N=456, 68%) were referred for TAVI following discussion in the Heart Team. Ultimately, 94% of patients (N=632) received the Heart Team-recommended treatment. Patients undergoing TAVI (N=439) were significantly older (78.4±6.7 vs 67.2±8.3 years; p<0.001) and more comorbid than patients undergoing SAVR (N=189). The overall 30-day clinical outcomes were satisfactory for both treatment groups (overall 30-day mortality: 1.1%). The mean index hospitalisation length was markedly longer in the SAVR group (8.6±8.3 days) as compared to the TAVI group (1.8±3.2 days)., Conclusions: TAVI was routinely performed in low surgical risk patients in 2021 with two-thirds of all severe AS patients undergoing TAVI, thereby applying the latest European guidelines. A dedicated Heart Team meeting, including CT evaluation for all AS patients, is needed to make individualised management decisions in this new era of aortic valve interventions.

Aim: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a mainstay in the management of severe aortic valve stenosis in elderly patients, but there is uncertainty on their long-term effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term outcome of patients undergoing TAVI with the Portico valve., Methods: We retrospectively collected the data on patients in whom TAVI with Portico was attempted from 7 high-volume centres. Only patients theoretically eligible for 3 or more years of follow-up were included. Clinical outcomes, including death, stroke, myocardial infarction, reintervention for valve degeneration and hemodynamic valve performance were systematically assessed., Results: A total of 803 patients were included, with 504 (62.8%) women, mean age of 82 years, median EuroSCORE II of 3.1%, and 386 (48.1%) subjects at low/moderate risk. The median follow-up was 3.0 years (3.0; 4.0). The composite of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and reintervention for valve degeneration occurred in 37.5% (95% confidence interval: 34.1-40.9%), with all-cause death in 35.1% (31.8-38.4%), stroke in 3.4% (1.3-3.4%), myocardial infarction in 1.0% (0.3-1.5%), and reintervention for valve degeneration in 1.1% (0.6-2.1%). The mean aortic valve gradient at follow-up was 8.1 ± 4.6 mmHg, and at least moderate aortic regurgitation was present in 9.1% (6.7-12.3%). Independent predictors of major adverse events or death were: peripheral artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, estimated glomerular filtration rate, atrial fibrillation, prior pacemaker implantation, EuroSCORE II, and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (all p < 0.05)., Conclusions: Portico use is associated with favorable long-term clinical outcomes. Clinical outcomes were largely impacted by baseline risk factors and surgical risk., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Midterm comparative analyses of the latest iterations of the most used Evolut and SAPIEN platforms for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are lacking., Aims: We aimed to compare 1-year clinical outcomes of TAVI patients receiving Evolut PRO/PRO+ (PRO) or SAPIEN 3 Ultra (ULTRA) devices in current real-world practice., Methods: Among patients enrolled in the OPERA-TAVI registry, patients with complete 1-year follow-up were considered for the purpose of this analysis. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to compare TAVI patients receiving PRO or ULTRA devices. The primary endpoint was a composite of 1-year all-cause death, disabling stroke and rehospitalisation for heart failure. Five prespecified subgroups of patients were considered according to leaflet and left ventricular outflow tract calcifications, annulus dimensions and angulation, and leaflet morphology., Results: Among a total of 1,897 patients, 587 matched pairs of patients with similar clinical and anatomical characteristics were compared. The primary composite endpoint did not differ between patients receiving PRO or ULTRA devices (Kaplan-Meier [KM] estimates 14.0% vs 11.9%; log-rank p=0.27). Patients receiving PRO devices had higher rates of 1-year disabling stroke (KM estimates 2.6% vs 0.4%; log-rank p=0.001), predominantly occurring within 30 days after TAVI (1.4% vs 0.0%; p=0.004). Outcomes were consistent across all the prespecified subsets of anatomical scenarios (all p interaction >0.10)., Conclusions: One-year clinical outcomes of patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI and receiving PRO or ULTRA devices in the current clinical practice were similar, but PRO patients had higher rates of disabling stroke. Outcomes did not differ across the different anatomical subsets of the aortic root.

Background: Transaxillary (TAx) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a preferred alternative access in patients ineligible for transfemoral TAVI., Aims: This study used the Trans-AXillary Intervention (TAXI) registry to compare procedural success according to different types of transcatheter heart valves (THV)., Methods: For the TAXI registry anonymized data of patients treated with TAx-TAVI were collected from 18 centers. Acute procedural, early and 1-month clinical outcomes were adjudicated in accordance with standardized VARC-3 definitions., Results: From 432 patients, 368 patients (85.3%, SE group) received self-expanding (SE) THV and 64 patients (14.8%, BE group) received balloon-expandable (BE) THV. Imaging revealed lower axillary artery diameters in the SE group (max/min diameter in mm: 8.4/6.6 vs 9.4/6.8 mm; p < 0.001/p = 0.04) but a higher proportion of axillary tortuosity in BE group (62/368, 23.6% vs 26/64, 42.6%; p = 0.004) with steeper aorta-left ventricle (LV) inflow (55° vs 51°; p = 0.002) and left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT)-LV inflow angles (40.0° vs 24.5°; 0.002). TAx-TAVI was more often conducted by right sided axillary artery in the BE group (33/368, 9.0% vs 17/64, 26.6%; p < 0.001). Device success was higher in the SE group (317/368, 86.1% vs 44/64, 68.8%, p = 0.0015). In logistic regression analysis, BE THV were a risk factor for vascular complications and axillary stent implantation., Conclusions: Both, SE and BE THV can be safely used in TAx-TAVI. However, SE THV were more often used and were associated with a higher rate of device success. While SE THV were associated with lower rates of vascular complications, BE THV were more often used in cases with challenging anatomical circumstances., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany.)

Background: When a balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve (THV) is chosen to treat a failed balloon-expandable THV, there is a risk of underexpansion with a potential impact on performance., Aims: We aimed to assess the impact of pre- and post-dilatation on the expansion of balloon-expandable THVs after redo-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)., Methods: Redo-TAVI was performed on the bench with a 23 mm SAPIEN 3 (S3) implanted within a 23 mm SAPIEN XT (SXT) or a 23 mm S3, both of which served as the "failed" THVs. Pre- and/or post-dilatation was performed using a 23 mm non-compliant TRUE balloon. Expansion of the index and redo-THVs were assessed before and after pre-/post-dilatation using microcomputed tomography (micro-CT), and THV hydrodynamic testing was conducted., Results: Without pre- or post-dilatation, the S3 was underexpanded, for all combinations, particularly in the mid-portion of the THV (18.6 mm and 19.7 mm representing 81% and 86% of the nominal diameter inside the SXT and S3, respectively). Pre- and post-dilatation had an additive effect on diameter expansion of the redo-THV, which remained constrained in most combinations. The only combination to achieve nominal expansion was the S3 in S3 when both pre- and post-dilatation were performed. The S3 remained underexpanded inside the SXT despite pre- and post-dilatation (93% in the mid-portion). Improved redo-THV expansion was accompanied by 2.7 mm (12%) overexpansion of the index THV. While all samples had acceptable hydrodynamic performance, the underexpanded samples had worse leaflet pinwheeling., Conclusions: When performing redo-TAVI with a 23 mm S3 inside a 23 mm SXT or S3, only the S3 in S3 with the use of pre- and post-dilatation reached full expansion. This underlines the importance of CT assessment of THV expansion and the role of pre-/post-dilatation.

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: Prospective data about transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) patients are limited., Aims: We aimed to evaluate the clinical impact of the Evolut PRO and R (34 mm) self-expanding prostheses in BAV patients and explore the impact of different computed tomography (CT) sizing algorithms in a prospective registry., Methods: A total of 149 bicuspid patients were treated in 14 countries. The primary endpoint was the intended valve performance at 30 days. Secondary endpoints were 30-day and 1-year mortality, severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) and the ellipticity index at 30 days. All study endpoints were adjudicated according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 criteria., Results: The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 2.6% (1.7-4.2). Type I L-R BAV was observed in 72.5% of the patients. Evolut valve sizes 29 and 34 mm were utilised in 49.0% and 36.9% of the cases, respectively. The 30-day cardiac death rate was 2.6%; the 1-year cardiac death rate was 11.0%. Valve performance at 30 days was observed in 142/149 (95.3%) patients. The mean aortic valve area post-TAVI was 2.1 (1.8-2.6) cm 2 , and the mean aortic gradient was 7.2 (5.4-9.5) mmHg. No patient had more than moderate aortic regurgitation at 30 days. PPM was observed in 13/143 (9.1%) surviving patients and was severe in 2 patients (1.6%). Valve function was maintained at 1 year. The mean ellipticity index remained 1.3 (interquartile range 1.2-1.4). Overall, 30-day and 1-year clinical and echocardiography outcomes were similar between the two sizing strategies., Conclusions: BIVOLUTX demonstrated a favourable bioprosthetic valve performance and good clinical outcomes after TAVI with the Evolut platform in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis. No impact from the sizing methodology could be identified.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established therapy for severe, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis even in patients with impaired left ventricular systolic function. However, there is uncertainty on the clinical effectiveness of the currently available TAVR devices in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The LOSTAVI (Low Systolic function and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry is a retrospective observational study using baseline, procedural, discharge, and long-term follow-up details. A total of 3 groups of interest were distinguished: extremely reduced LVEF (<25%), severely reduced LVEF (25% to 30%), and reduced LVEF (31% to 35%). Unadjusted and adjusted analyses were carried out for in-hospital and follow-up outcomes. A total of 923 patients were included from 12 centers, with 146 patients (16%) with LVEF <25%, 425 (46%) with LVEF 25% to 30%, and 352 (38%) with LVEF 31% to 35%. Several baseline and procedural features were different across groups, including age, risk, functional class, and prevalence of bicuspid disease (all p <0.05). In-hospital mortality was similar in the 3 groups (7 [4.8%], 18 [4.2%], and 7 [2.0%], respectively, p = 0.661), but major adverse events were more common in those with extremely reduced and severely reduced LVEF (19 [13%], 53 [13%], and 25 [7.1%], respectively, p = 0.024). The 12-month follow-up confirmed the significant detrimental impact of reduced LVEF on both death (21 [14%], 49 [12%], and 25 [7.1%], respectively, p = 0.024) and major adverse events (37 [25%], 89 [21%], and 53 [15%], respectively, p = 0.016). The adjusted analysis confirmed the significant prognostic role of LVEF on both outcomes, whereas TAVR device type was not associated with death or major adverse events (all p >0.05). In conclusion, TAVR yields favorable early and 1-year results in patients with reduced LVEF, including those with extremely depressed systolic dysfunction. However, reduced LVEF still represents a major adverse prognostic factor for both short- and mid-term outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Biondi-Zoccai has consulted for Amarin, Balmed, Cardionovum, Crannmedical, Endocore Lab, Eukon, Innovheart, Guidotti, Meditrial, MicroPort, Opsens Medical, Terumo, and Translumina. Lars Sondergaard has received consultant fees and/or institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and SMT. Dr. Schaefer has received speaker honoraria from Abbott. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Standardized data definitions are necessary for the quantification of quality of care and patient outcomes in observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomised Trials (EuroHeart) project of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) aims to create pan-European data standards for cardiovascular diseases and interventions, including transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)., Methods and Results: We followed the EuroHeart methodology for cardiovascular data standard development. A Working Group of 29 members representing 12 countries was established and included a patient representative, as well as experts in the management of valvular heart disease from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) and the Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery. We conducted a systematic review of the literature and used a modified Delphi method to reach consensus on a final set of variables. For each variable, the Working Group provided a definition, permissible values, and categorized the variable as mandatory (Level 1) or additional (Level 2) based on its clinical importance and feasibility. In total, 93 Level 1 and 113 Level 2 variables were selected, with the level 1 variables providing the dataset for registration of patients undergoing TAVI on the EuroHeart IT platform., Conclusion: This document provides details of the EuroHeart data standards for TAVI processes of care and in-hospital outcomes. In the context of EuroHeart, this will facilitate quality improvement, observational research, registry-based RCTs and post-marketing surveillance of devices, and pharmacotherapies., One-Sentence Summary: The EuroHeart data standards for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are a set of internationally agreed data variables and definitions that once implemented will facilitate improvement of quality of care and outcomes for patients receiving TAVI., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

A higher incidence of conduction disturbances and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) has been observed after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with bicuspid aortic valves (BAVs) as compared to those with tricuspid aortic valves (TAVs). This study aimed to provide an anatomical explanation for this observation, supported by an in-depth anatomical mapping of the membranous septum (MS) in a large cohort of BAVs and TAVs using cardiac computed tomography (CT). A total of 300 cardiac CT scans were analysed, revealing a significantly shorter sub-annular length of the MS in BAVs at all measuring points compared to TAVs (p < 0.001). In the current BAV cohort, the MS was found to be at its shortest at the RCC site, measuring less than 1 mm in depth. In addition, the MS was located more anteriorly towards the RCC in BAVs, where the transcatheter aortic valve tends to be implanted deeper, and we observed a trend towards a higher PPI rate in BAVs. Future studies should investigate whether anatomical mapping of the MS in patients undergoing TAVI could be a useful tool for decision-making and potentially mitigate the risk of conduction disturbances., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)

Background ACURATE neo2 is a transcatheter aortic valve implantation system consisting of a self-expanding bioprosthetic valve with supra-annular leaflet position and featuring innovations to facilitate placement accuracy and reduce paravalvular regurgitation. Methods and Results The goal of the Early neo2 (Early neo2 Registry of the ACURATE neo2 TAVI Prosthesis) was to gather real-life data on safety and efficacy in a European transcatheter aortic valve implantation population treated with ACURATE neo2 . Data were collected from 554 consecutive patients treated with ACURATE neo2 at 12 European sites (mean age, 82 years; 66% women; mean European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II, 4.5%±3.8%) between September 2020 and March 2021. The composite primary end point was the occurrence of any of the following: postoperative (in-hospital) paravalvular regurgitation grade ≥2, in-hospital acute kidney injury stage 3, postoperative pacemaker implantation, 30-day death, and 30-day stroke. The primary end point occurred in 12.6% of patients. The 30-day rates for all-cause death and all stroke were 1.3% and 2.7%, respectively, and 1.5% of patients exhibited stage 3 acute kidney injury. A total of 34 patients (6.2%) received a postoperative permanent pacemaker. Per core laboratory-adjudicated echocardiographic analysis, mean postoperative aortic valve gradient was 7.6±3.3 mm Hg, and 2.8% of patients exhibited paravalvular regurgitation grade ≥2. Conclusions In this report of postmarket use of the ACURATE neo2 valve in a real-world transcatheter aortic valve implantation population, patients exhibited favorable postoperative hemodynamics and clinical outcomes and a low rate of postoperative pacemaker implantation.

Risk prediction scores for long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are lacking. This study aimed to develop preprocedural risk scores for 5-year clinical outcomes after TAVI or SAVR. This analysis included 1,660 patients at an intermediate surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis randomly assigned to TAVI (n = 864) or SAVR (n = 796) from the SURTAVI (Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 5 years. The secondary end point was a composite of cardiovascular mortality or hospitalizations for valve disease or worsening heart failure at 5 years. Preprocedural multivariable predictors of clinical outcomes were used to calculate a simple risk score for both procedures. At 5 years, the primary end point occurred in 31.3% of the patients with TAVI and 30.8% of the patients with SAVR. Preprocedural predictors differed between TAVI and SAVR. Baseline anticoagulant use was a common predictor for events in both procedures, whereas male sex and a left ventricular ejection fraction <60% were significant predictors for events in patients with TAVI and SAVR, respectively. A total of 4 simple scoring systems were created based on these multivariable predictors. The C-statistics of all models were modest but performed better than the contemporary risk scores. In conclusion, preprocedural predictors of events differ between TAVI and SAVR, necessitating separate risk models. Despite the modest predictive value of the SURTAVI risk scores, they appeared superior to other contemporary scores. Further research is needed to strengthen and validate our risk scores, possibly by including biomarker and echocardiographic parameters., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Wykrzykowska has received institutional grant support from Medtronic. Dr. van Mieghem has received grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic and advisory fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Pulse Cath BV, and Medtronic. Dr. Windecker reports research, travel or educational grants to the institution from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim (Ingelheim, Germany), Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, CardioValve, Corflow Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Guerbet, InfraRedx, Janssen-Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, Medicure, Medtronic (United States), Merck Sharp & Dohm, Miracor Medical, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Organon, OrPha Suisse, Pfizer, Polares, Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis (Bridgewater, NJ, United States), Servier, Sinomed, Terumo, Vifor, V-Wave. Dr. Windecker serves as unpaid advisory board member and/or unpaid member of the steering/executive group of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Bristol Myers Squibb, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen, Med Alliance, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, Recardio, Sinomed, Terumo, V-Wave, and Xeltis but has not received personal payments by pharmaceutical companies or device manufacturers. He is also member of the steering/executive committee group of several investigator-initiated trials that receive funding by industry without impact on his personal remuneration. Dr. Sondergaard reports institutional grant support and consultant fees from Medtronic. Dr. Gada serves as a consultant for Abbott Vascular, BD, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Li is an employee and shareholder of Medtronic. Dr. Hanson is an employee and shareholder of Medtronic. Dr. Deeb serves on an advisory board for Medtronic and has received institutional grant support from Boston Scientific, Edwards LifeSciences, and Medtronic; he receives no personal remunerations. Dr. Voors has received institutional grant support from Medtronic. Dr. Reardon has received fees to his institution from Medtronic for consulting and providing educational services. Dr. van Bergeijk has no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A small aortic annulus (SAA) is a risk factor for prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) in patients undergoing surgical or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Data regarding TAVI in patients with extra-SAA are scarce., Aims: The aim of this study was to analyse the safety and efficacy of TAVI in patients with extra-SAA., Methods: A multicentre registry study including patients with extra-SAA (defined as an aortic annulus area <280 mm 2 and/or perimeter <60 mm) undergoing TAVI was established. Primary efficacy and safety endpoints were defined as device success and early safety at 30 days, respectively, using the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria, and were analysed according to valve type: self-expanding (SEV) versus balloon-expandable (BEV)., Results: A total of 150 patients were included, of which 139 (92.7%) were women, and 110 (73.3%) received an SEV. Intraprocedural technical success was 91.3%, with a higher rate in patients receiving an SEV (96.4% vs 77.5% with BEV; p=0.001). Overall, 30-day device success was 81.3%, (85.5% with SEV vs 70.0% with BEV; p=0.032). The primary safety endpoint occurred in 72.0% of patients (with no difference between groups; p=0.118). Severe PPM occurred in 12% (9.0% with SEV and 24.0% with BEV; p=0.039), with no impact on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or heart failure readmission at 2-year follow-up., Conclusions: TAVI is a safe and feasible treatment in patients with extra-SAA with a high rate of technical success. The use of SEV was associated with a lower rate of intraprocedural complications, higher device success at 30 days and better haemodynamic outcomes compared to BEV.

Background: The Navitor transcatheter heart valve (THV) is a self-expanding valve, with an intra-annular leaflet position and an outer cuff intended to reduce paravalvular leak (PVL)., Aims: The aim of the PORTICO NG Study is to assess the safety and performance of the Navitor THV in patients with symptomatic, severe aortic stenosis who are at high or extreme surgical risk., Methods: PORTICO NG is a prospective, multicentre, global, single-arm, investigational study with follow-up at 30 days, 1 year, and annually up to 5 years. The primary endpoints are all-cause mortality and moderate or greater PVL at 30 days. Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 events and valve performance are assessed by an independent clinical events committee and echocardiographic core laboratory., Results: A total of 120 high- or extreme-risk subjects (age 83.5±5.4 years; 58.3% female; Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 4.0±2.0%) were enrolled in the European conformity (CE) mark cohort. Procedural success was high at 97.5%. At 30 days, the rate of all-cause mortality was 0%, and no subjects had moderate or greater PVL. The rate of disabling stroke was 0.8%, life-threatening bleeding was 2.5%, stage 3 acute kidney injury 0%, major vascular complications 0.8%, and new pacemaker implantation 15.0%. At 1 year, the rates of all-cause mortality and disabling stroke were 4.2% and 0.8%, respectively. The rate of moderate PVL was 1.0% at 1 year. Haemodynamic performance with a mean gradient of 7.5±3.2 mmHg and effective orifice area of 1.9±0.4 cm 2 was sustained up to 1 year., Conclusions: The PORTICO NG Study demonstrates low rates of adverse events and PVL up to 1 year in patients at high or extreme surgical risk, confirming the safety and efficacy of the Navitor THV system.

Background: Coronary obstruction and access are concerns in patients undergoing redo transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)., Aims: We sought to assess the neoskirt height, leaflet overhang, leaflet deflection,and transcatheter heart valve (THV) expansion and performance, at 2 different implant depths, of the SAPIEN 3 Ultra (S3U) within the ACURATE neo2 (ACn2) THV., Methods: An in vitro study was performed with a 23 mm S3U deployed within a small (S) ACn2 and a 26 mm S3U deployed within a medium (M) and a large (L) ACn2. The S3U outflow was positioned at the top of the ACn2 crown (low implant) and at the base of the commissural post of the ACn2 (high implant). Testing was performed under physiological conditions as per ISO-5840-3 standard., Results: The neoskirt height was shorter when the S3U outflow was positioned at a low implantation depth (S: 9.6 mm, M: 12.2 mm, L: 13.8 mm vs S: 15.2 mm, M: 15.1 mm, L: 17.8 mm ACn2 for high implants). Hydrodynamic performance was acceptable for all configurations. Leaflet overhang was <50% for all configurations except the low implant of the 26 mm S3U in the L ACn2 (77.6%). There was a gap from the side of the neoskirt to the outer border of the THV frame which was >2 mm for all configurations. The S3U was underexpanded for all configurations, and the achieved area was 77.9%-92.9% of the expected nominal area., Conclusions: Redo TAVI with an S3U within an ACn2 has favourable hydrodynamics and moderate leaflet overhang. Importantly, the design of the ACn2 results in a neoskirt that is not deflected all the way to the outer dimensions of the THV, hence creating a space that facilitates coronary flow and access.

Significant coronary artery disease (CAD) is a frequent finding in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), and the management of these two conditions becomes of particular importance with the extension of the procedure to younger and lower-risk patients. Yet, the preprocedural diagnostic evaluation and the indications for treatment of significant CAD in TAVI candidates remain a matter of debate. In this clinical consensus statement, a group of experts from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) in collaboration with the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery aims to review the available evidence on the topic and proposes a rationale for the diagnostic evaluation and indications for percutaneous revascularisation of CAD in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter treatment. Moreover, it also focuses on commissural alignment of transcatheter heart valves and coronary re-access after TAVI and redo-TAVI.

Aims: Paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The effect of transcatheter interventions to treat PVR after the index TAVI was investigated., Methods and Results: A registry of consecutive patients who underwent transcatheter intervention for ≥ moderate PVR after the index TAVI at 22 centers. The principal outcomes were residual aortic regurgitation (AR) and mortality at 1 year after PVR treatment. A total of 201 patients were identified: 87 (43%) underwent redo-TAVI, 79 (39%) plug closure, and 35 (18%) balloon valvuloplasty. Median TAVI-to-re-intervention time was 207 (35; 765) days. The failed valve was self-expanding in 129 (63.9%) patients. The most frequent devices utilized were a Sapien 3 valve for redo-TAVI (55, 64%), an AVP II as plug (33, 42%), and a True balloon for valvuloplasty (20, 56%). At 30 days, AR ≥ moderate persisted in 33 (17.4%) patients: 8 (9.9%) after redo-TAVI, 18 (25.9%) after plug, and 7 (21.9%) after valvuloplasty (P = 0.036). Overall mortality was 10 (5.0%) at 30 days and 29 (14.4%) at 1 year: 0, 8 (10.1%), and 2 (5.7%) at 30 days (P = 0.010) and 11 (12.6%), 14 (17.7%), and 4 (11.4%) at 1 year (P = 0.418), after redo-TAVI, plug, and valvuloplasty, respectively. Regardless of treatment strategy, patients in whom AR was reduced to ≤ mild had lower mortality at 1 year compared with those with AR persisting ≥ moderate [11 (8.0%) vs. 6 (21.4%); P = 0.007]., Conclusion: This study describes the efficacy of transcatheter treatments for PVR after TAVI. Patients in whom PVR was successfully reduced had better prognosis. The selection of patients and the optimal PVR treatment modality require further investigation., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest J.G.W.: consultant to, and has received research funding from, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. W-K.K.: proctor or speaker fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Meril Life Sciences. M.A-W.: received speaker's honoraria and/or consultancy fees on his behalf from Boston Scientific and Medtronic. M.B.: consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. L.S.: consultant fees and institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Symetis. C.H.: Advisory Board Medtronic. J.M. Sinning: speaker honoraria and research grants from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. J.S.: consultant to Edwards Lifesciences. M. Andreas: proctor/consultant/speaker for Edwards, Abbott, and Medtronic, received institutional grants (Edwards, Abbott, Medtronic, and LSI). Dr. M. Guerrero: research grant support from Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. F. Castriota: proctor for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. T.N.: consulting or honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Consulting and equity with Venus MedTech. T.P.: research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Biotronik; speaker fees/consultancy fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Abbott, Biotronik, and HighLife SAS. V.C. Babaliaros: consultant to Edwards Lifesciences and equity in transmural system. M.M.: consultant fee from Abbott, Boston, Kardia, and Medtronic. N.V.M.: institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Daiichi Sankyo, and PulseCath BV and institutional research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences. A.L.: institutional research/grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences; and personal consulting honoraria from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. D.H-S.: proctor and advisory to Boston, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott. R.M. received grant support from Edwards Lifesciences Corporation; he is a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Cordis, and Medtronic and holds equity in Entourage Medical. All other authors have no conflict of interest to report in relation with this manuscript., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) can be used to improve transcatheter heart valve (THV) haemodynamics following a valve-in-valve (ViV) intervention. However, whether BVF should be performed before or after THV deployment and the implications on durability are unknown.  Aims: We sought to assess the impact of BVF timing on long-term THV durability., Methods: The impact of BVF timing was assessed using small ACURATE neo (ACn) or 23 mm SAPIEN 3 (S3) THV deployed in 21 mm Mitroflow valves compared to no-BVF controls. Valves underwent accelerated wear testing up to 200 million (M) cycles (equivalent to 5 years). At 200M cycles, THV were evaluated by hydrodynamic testing, second-harmonic generation (SHG) microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and histology., Results: At 200M cycles, the regurgitant fraction (RF) and effective orifice area (EOA) for the ACn were 8.03±0.30%/1.74±0.01 cm 2 (no BVF), 12.48±0.70%/1.97±0.02 cm 2 (BVF before ViV) and 9.29±0.38%/2.21±0.0 cm 2 (BVF after ViV), respectively. For the S3 these values were 2.63±0.51%/1.26±0.01 cm 2 , 2.03±0.42%/1.65±0.01 cm 2 , and 1.62±0.38%/2.22±0.01 cm 2 , respectively. Further, SHG and SEM revealed a higher degree of superficial leaflet damage when BVF was performed after ViV for the ACn and S3. However, the histological analysis revealed significantly less damage, as determined by matrix density analysis, through the entire leaflet thickness when BVF was performed after ViV with the S3 and a similar but non-significant trend with the ACn.  Conclusions: BVF performed after ViV appears to offer superior long-term EOA without increased RF. Ultrastructure leaflet analysis reveals that the timing of BVF can differentially impact leaflets, with more superficial damage but greater preservation of overall leaflet structure when BVF is performed after ViV.

Background: The ACURATE neo2 (NEO2) and Evolut PRO/PRO+ (PRO) bioprostheses are new-generation self-expanding valves developed for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Aims: We sought to compare the performance of the ACURATE neo2 and Evolut PRO/PRO+ devices., Methods: The NEOPRO-2 registry retrospectively included patients who underwent TAVR for severe aortic stenosis with either the NEO2 or PRO devices between August 2017 and December 2021 at 20 centres. In-hospital and 30-day Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3 defined outcomes were evaluated. Propensity score (PS) matching and binary logistic regression were performed to adjust the treatment effect for PS quintiles. A subgroup analysis assessed the impact of aortic valve calcification., Results: A total of 2,175 patients (NEO2: n=763; PRO: n=1,412) were included. The mean age was 82±6.2 years and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 4.2%. Periprocedural complications were low, and both groups achieved high rates of technical success (93.1% vs 94.1%; p=0.361) and predischarge intended valve performance (96.0% vs 94.1%; p=0.056), both in the unmatched and matched analysis (452 pairs). Device success at 30 days was comparable (84.3% vs 83.6%; p=0.688), regardless of aortic valve calcification severity (p>0.05 for interaction). A suggestion for higher VARC-3 early safety in the NEO2 group was mainly driven by reduced rates of new permanent pacemaker implantation (7.7% vs 15.6%; p<0.001)., Conclusions: This retrospective analysis reports a similar short-term performance of the ACURATE neo2 platform compared with the new-generation Evolut PRO/PRO+ devices. Randomised studies are needed to confirm our exploratory findings.

Indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have expanded in many countries to include patients with aortic stenosis who are at low surgical risk, and a similar expansion to this cohort is anticipated elsewhere in the world, together with an increase in the proportion of patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) morphology as the age of the patients being treated decreases. To date, patients with BAV have been excluded from major randomized trials of TAVI owing to anatomical considerations. As a consequence, BAV has been a relative contraindication to the use of TAVI in international guidelines. Although clinical experience and observational data are accumulating, BAV presents numerous anatomical challenges for successful TAVI, despite advances in device design. Furthermore, in those with BAV, substantial geographical variation exists in patient characteristics, clinical approach and procedural strategy. Therefore, in this Roadmap article, we summarize the existing evidence and provide consensus recommendations from an international group of experts on the application of TAVI in patients with BAV in advance of the anticipated growth in the use of this procedure in this challenging cohort of patients., (© 2022. Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: Coronary artery disease (CAD) frequently coexists with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) in patients planned for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). How to manage CAD in this patient population is still an unresolved question. In particular, it is still not known whether fractional flow reserve (FFR) guided revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is superior to medical treatment for CAD in terms of clinical outcomes., Study Design: The third Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention (NOTION-3) Trial is an open-label investigator-initiated, multicenter multinational trial planned to randomize 452 patients with severe AS and significant CAD to either FFR-guided PCI or medical treatment, in addition to TAVI. Patients are eligible for the study in the presence of at least 1 significant PCI-eligible coronary stenosis. A significant stenosis is defined as either FFR ≤0.80 and/or diameter stenosis >90%. The primary end point is a composite of first occurring all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization (PCI or coronary artery bypass graft performed during unplanned hospital admission) until the last included patient have been followed for 1 year after the TAVI., Summary: NOTION-3 is a multicenter, multinational randomized trial aiming at comparing FFR-guided revascularization vs medical treatment of CAD in patients with severe AS planned for TAVI., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest None reported., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In recent years, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) techniques and technology have continuously improved. Data regarding the impact of these advancements on outcomes in large real-world settings are still limited. The aim of this study was to investigate temporal trends and assess contemporary outcomes after TAVR with Evolut PRO/PRO+ supra-annular self-expanding valves., Methods: This study included patients enrolled in the multicenter NEOPRO (A Multicenter Comparison of Acurate NEO Versus Evolut PRO Transcatheter Heart Valves) and NEOPRO-2 (A Multicenter Comparison of ACURATE NEO2 Versus Evolut PRO/PRO+ Transcatheter Heart Valves 2) registries who underwent transfemoral TAVR with Evolut PRO/PRO+. Procedural dates (August 2017 through November 2021) were stratified in quartiles (Q) and used to investigate temporal trends in TAVR outcomes. Predischarge, 30-day Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 defined, and 1-year outcomes were evaluated., Results: In total, 1616 patients from 28 centers were included. Over time, patients had lower Society of Thoracic Surgeon-Predicted Risk of Mortality score (Q1-4, 4.1% [2.8-6.3%], 3.7% [2.6-5.3%], 3.3% [2.4-4.9%], 2.9% [2.2-4.3%]; P <0.001) and more moderate or heavy valve calcification (Q1-4, 80%, 80%, 82%, 88%; P =0.038). Overall Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 technical success was 94.1%, with 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality of 2.4% and 10%, respectively. Throughout the study period, procedures were associated with higher rates of 30-day device success (Q1-4, 81.2%, 82.2%, 82.0%, 88.0%; Cochran-Armitage P =0.023) and early safety (Q1-4, 66.8%, 67.5%, 74.0%, 77.6%; Cochran-Armitage P <0.001), with fewer permanent pacemaker implantations (Q1-4: 15.3%, 20.0%, 12.1%, 11.6%; Cochran-Armitage P =0.023) and residual mild or greater paravalvular leaks (Q1-4, 50.4%, 42.1%, 36.5%, 35.8%; Cochran-Armitage P <0.001)., Conclusions: TAVR with Evolut PRO/PRO+ self-expanding valve is safe and effective. Despite the treatment of heavier calcified anatomies, procedural outcomes are improving over time with less need for pacemaker implantation and less significant paravalvular leaks.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an established management strategy for severe aortic valve stenosis. Percutaneous axillary approach for TAVI holds the promise of improving safety without jeopardizing effectiveness in comparison to surgical access. We aimed at appraising the comparative effectiveness of percutaneous vs. surgical axillary approaches for TAVI., Methods: We performed an international retrospective observational study using de-identified details on baseline, procedural, and 1-month follow-up features. Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3 criteria were applied throughout. Outcomes of interest were clinical events up to 1 month of follow-up, compared with unadjusted and propensity score-adjusted analyses., Results: A total of 432 patients were included, 189 (43.8%) receiving surgical access, and 243 (56.2%) undergoing percutaneous access. Primary hemostasis failure was more common in the percutaneous group (13.2% vs. 4.2%, P<0.001), leading to more common use of covered stent implantation (13.2% vs. 3.7%, P<0.001). Irrespectively, percutaneous access was associated with shorter hospital stay (-2.6 days [95% confidence interval: -5.0; -0.1], P=0.038), a lower risk of major adverse events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, type 3 bleeding, and major access-site related complication; odds ratio=0.44 [0.21; 0.95], P=0.036), major access-site non-vascular complications (odds ratio=0.21 [0.06; 0.77], P=0.018), and brachial plexus impairment (odds ratio=0.16 [0.03; 0.76], P=0.021), and shorter hospital stay (-2.6 days [-5.0; -0.1], P=0.038)., Conclusions: Percutaneous axillary access provides similar or better results than surgical access in patients undergoing TAVI with absolute or relative contraindications to femoral access.

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.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the ACURATE neo device has been associated with a non-negligible incidence of paravalvular aortic regurgitation (AR). The new-generation ACURATE neo2 has been designed to mitigate this limitation., Aims: The aim of the study was to compare TAVR with the ACURATE neo and neo2 devices., Methods: The NEOPRO and NEOPRO-2 registries retrospectively included patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR with self-expanding valves at 24 and 20 centres, respectively. Patients receiving the ACURATE neo and neo2 devices (from January 2012 to December 2021) were included in this study. Predischarge and 30-day VARC-3 defined outcomes were evaluated. The primary endpoint was predischarge moderate or severe paravalvular AR. Subgroup analyses per degree of aortic valve calcification were performed., Results: A total of 2,026 patients (neo: 1,263, neo2: 763) were included. Predischarge moderate or severe paravalvular AR was less frequent for the neo2 group (2% vs 5%; p<0.001), resulting in higher VARC-3 intended valve performance (96% vs 90%; p<0.001). Furthermore, more patients receiving the neo2 had none/trace paravalvular AR (59% vs 38%; p<0.001). The reduction in paravalvular AR with neo2 was mainly observed with heavy aortic valve calcification. New pacemaker implantation and VARC-3 technical and device success rates were similar between the 2 groups; there were more frequent vascular and bleeding complications for the neo device. Similar 1-year survival was detected after TAVR (neo2: 90% vs neo: 87%; p=0.14)., Conclusions: TAVR with the ACURATE neo2 device was associated with a lower prevalence of moderate or severe paravalvular AR and more patients with none/trace paravalvular AR. This difference was particularly evident with heavy aortic valve calcification.

Background: Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of aortic stenosis can lead to embolization of debris. Capture of debris by devices that provide cerebral embolic protection (CEP) may reduce the risk of stroke., Methods: We randomly assigned patients with aortic stenosis in a 1:1 ratio to undergo transfemoral TAVR with CEP (CEP group) or without CEP (control group). The primary end point was stroke within 72 hours after TAVR or before discharge (whichever came first) in the intention-to-treat population. Disabling stroke, death, transient ischemic attack, delirium, major or minor vascular complications at the CEP access site, and acute kidney injury were also assessed. A neurology professional examined all the patients at baseline and after TAVR., Results: A total of 3000 patients across North America, Europe, and Australia underwent randomization; 1501 were assigned to the CEP group and 1499 to the control group. A CEP device was successfully deployed in 1406 of the 1489 patients (94.4%) in whom an attempt was made. The incidence of stroke within 72 hours after TAVR or before discharge did not differ significantly between the CEP group and the control group (2.3% vs. 2.9%; difference, -0.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -1.7 to 0.5; P = 0.30). Disabling stroke occurred in 0.5% of the patients in the CEP group and in 1.3% of those in the control group. There were no substantial differences between the CEP group and the control group in the percentage of patients who died (0.5% vs. 0.3%); had a stroke, a transient ischemic attack, or delirium (3.1% vs. 3.7%); or had acute kidney injury (0.5% vs. 0.5%). One patient (0.1%) had a vascular complication at the CEP access site., Conclusions: Among patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral TAVR, the use of CEP did not have a significant effect on the incidence of periprocedural stroke, but on the basis of the 95% confidence interval around this outcome, the results may not rule out a benefit of CEP during TAVR. (Funded by Boston Scientific; PROTECTED TAVR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04149535.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Para-valvular regurgitation (PVR) after transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) implantation is associated with increased mortality. Redo-TAVI may be applied to treat PVR, yet with unknown efficacy. We thought to assess redo-TAVI efficacy in reducing PVR using the Redo-TAVI registry (45 centers; 600 TAV-in-TAV cases)., Methods: Patients were excluded if redo-TAVI was done urgently (N = 253), for isolated TAV stenosis (N = 107) or if regurgitation location at presentation remained undetermined (N = 123). The study group of patients with PVR (N = 70) were compared against patients with intra-valvular regurgitation (IVR) (N = 41). Echocardiographic examinations of 67 (60%) patients were reassessed in a core-lab for data accuracy validation., Results: Core-lab examination validated the jet location in 66 (98.5%) patients. At 30 days, the rate of residual AR ≥ moderate was 7 (10%) in the PVR cohort vs. 1 (2.4%) in the IVR cohort, p = 0.137. The rate of procedural success was 53 (75.7%) vs. 33 (80.5%), p = 0.561; procedural safety 51 (72.8%) vs. 31 (75.6%), p = 0.727; and mortality 2 (2.9%) vs. 1 (2.4%), p = 0.896 at 30 days and 7 (18.6%) vs. 2 (11.5%), p = 0.671 at 1 year, respectively. Of patients with residual PVR ≥ moderate at 30 days, 5/7 occurred after implanting balloon-expandable in self-expanding TAV and 2/7 after balloon-expandable in balloon-expandable TAV., Conclusions: This study puts in perspective redo-TAVI efficacy and limitations to treat PVR after TAVI. Patient selection for this and other therapies for PVR needs further investigation., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Midterm data comparing clinical outcomes after successful implantation of self-expanding and balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves (THV) are limited. We aimed to compare 2-year outcomes after successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the Edwards balloon-expandable or the Medtronic self-expanding THV., Methods: Two-year outcomes were analyzed according to the implanted THV in the GALILEO trial. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) was a composite of all-cause death or thromboembolic events including stroke, myocardial infarction, symptomatic valve thrombosis, systemic embolism, deep-vein thrombosis, or pulmonary embolism., Results: Among 1644 patients recruited in 136 centers across 16 countries between 2015 and 2018, 499 received a self-expanding and 757 patients received a balloon-expandable THV. Patients treated with a self-expanding THV were more likely to be female, and had higher surgical risk, lower hemoglobin levels, and more frequent valve-in-valve procedures than those with a balloon-expandable THV. After multivariable adjustment, there were no significant differences in major clinical outcomes between self-expanding versus balloon-expandable THV: MACCE (17.0% vs. 13.4%, adjusted-hazard ratios [HR] 1.18, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.82-1.69); all-cause death (11.4% vs. 9.3%, adjusted-HR 1.26; 95% CI: 0.78-2.05); cardiovascular death (8.5% vs. 4.0%, adjusted-HR 1.53; 95% CI: 0.82-2.86), any stroke (5.1% vs. 3.7%, adjusted-HR 0.86; 95% CI: 0.43-1.73); major or life-threatening bleeding (5.9% vs. 6.8%, adjusted-HR 0.93; 95% CI: 0.53-1.63)., Clinical Trial Registration: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov. NCT02556203., Conclusions: Two-year follow-up data from the GALILEO trial indicate that successful TAVI either with self-expanding or balloon-expandable THVs according to physician discretion did not show difference in rates of MACCE., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and infectious diseases may vary according to sex., Methods: This multicentre study aimed to determine the sex differences in clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes of infective endocarditis (IE) after TAVR. A total of 579 patients (217 women, 37.5%) who had the diagnosis of definite IE following TAVR were included retrospectively from the Infectious Endocarditis After TAVR International Registry., Results: Women were older (80 ± 8 vs 78 ± 8 years; P = 0.001) and exhibited a lower comorbidity burden. Clinical characteristics and microbiological profiles were similar between men and women, but culture-negative IE was more frequent in women (9.9% vs 4.3%; P = 0.009). A high proportion of patients had a clinical indication for surgery (54.4% in both groups; P = 0.99), but a surgical intervention was performed in a minority of patients (women 15.2%, men 20.3%; P = 0.13). The mortality rate at index IE hospitalisation was similar in both groups (women 35.4%, men 31.7%; P = 0.37), but women exhibited a higher mortality rate at 2-year follow-up (63% vs 52.1%; P = 0.021). Female sex remained an independent risk factor for cumulative mortality in the multivariable analysis (adjusted HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.02-1.62; P = 0.035). After adjustment for in-hospital events, surgery was not associated with better outcomes in women., Conclusions: There were no significant sex-related differences in the clinical characteristics and management of IE after TAVR. However, female sex was associated with increased 2-year mortality risk., (Copyright © 2022 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) may be caused by structural or nonstructural valve dysfunction. Both surgical and transcatheter bioprosthetic valves have limited durability because of structural valve deterioration. The main objective of this summary of experts participating in a virtual workshop was to propose standardized definitions for nonstructural and structural BVD and BVF following aortic or mitral biological valve replacement with the goal of facilitating research reporting and implementation of these terms in clinical practice. Definitions of structural BVF, based on valve reintervention or death, underestimate the true incidence of BVF. However, definitions solely based on the presence of high transprosthetic gradient at a given echocardiogram during follow-up overestimate the incidence of structural BVD and BVF. Definitions of aortic or mitral structural BVD must therefore include the confirmation by imaging of permanent structural changes to the leaflets alongside evidence of deterioration in valve hemodynamic function at echocardiography follow-up., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Pibarot has received funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Pi-Cardia, and Cardiac Phoenix for echocardiography core laboratory analyses and research studies in the field of transcatheter valve therapies, for which he received no personal compensation; and has received lecture fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Herrmann has received institutional research funding from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Highlife, Medtronic, and WL Gore; has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Wells Fargo, and WL Gore; and has equity in Holistick Medical and Microinterventional Devices. Dr Hahn has received speaker fees from Abbott Structural, Edwards Lifesciences, and Philips Healthcare; has institutional consulting contracts for which she receives no direct compensation with Abbott Structural, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and Novartis; and has equity in Navigate. Dr Abbas has received research grants and consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Dweck has served as a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; and has received speaking fees from NVT. Dr Leipsic has served as a consultant for Circle CVI and MVRX; and has received institutional funding for CT core laboratory analyses from Edwards Lifesciences, Neovasc, Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, PI Cardia, and Conformal. Dr Rogers has served as a consultant and physician proctor for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; has served as an advisory board member for Medtronic; and holds equity interest in Transmural Systems. Dr Sathananthan has served as a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; and has received speaking fees from NVT. Dr Guerrero has received institutional research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Ternacle has served as a consultant for Philips Healthcare and Abbott Medical. Dr Barbanti has served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and Boston Scientific. Dr Généreux has served as a consultant and advisor for and received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, BioTrace Medical, and Medtronic; has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific, GE Healthcare, iRhythm Technologies, Opsens, Siemens, and Teleflex; has served as a consultant, PI Eclipse Trial, for Cardiovascular System Inc; has served as a consultant, advisor, and proctor for and received speaker fees and research grant from Edwards LifeSciences for the PI EARLY-TAVR and PI PROGRESS trials; has served as a consultant for and has equity in Pi-Cardia, Puzzle Medical, Saranas, and Soundbite Medical Inc; has served as a consultant for and received speaker fees from Shockwave; and has served as a consultant for the PI Feasibility study for 4C Medical. Dr Kaneko has served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott Structural. Dr Wood has served as a consultant to and his institution (CCI-CIC) receives grant support from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, and Medtronic. Dr Gillam has served as a consultant to Philips and Bracco; is an advisory board member for Edwards Lifesciences; and has core lab contracts with Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott for which she receives no direct compensation. Dr Reardon has served as a consultant for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Medical, and Gore Medical; all fees for such are to his department. Dr Rodes-Cabau has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Dr Thourani has performed consulting/research for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Cryolife, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Shockwave. Dr Bax’s institution (Department of Cardiology, LUMC, the Netherlands) has received research grants from Medtronic, Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific. Dr Mack has served as a co-principal investigator for clinical trials for Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences; and has served as study chair for a trial for Medtronic; all roles were uncompensated. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)