Search

Background: Redo-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the treatment of choice for failed transcatheter aortic valves. Currently, implantation of a SAPIEN 3 (S3) is indicated for redo-TAVI in degenerated CoreValve/Evolut (CV/EV) transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) but is not well understood., Aims: We aimed to evaluate S3 function following implantation in explanted calcified CV/EV TAVs and to assess the impact of CV/EV pathology on redo-TAVI outcomes., Methods: Ex vivo hydrodynamic testing was performed per the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 5840-3 standard on 4 S3 TAVs implanted at node 5 in calcified CV/EV explants. The mean gradient (MG), effective orifice area (EOA), peak velocity, regurgitant fraction (RF), geometric orifice area (GOA), leaflet overhang, leaflet pinwheeling, neoskirt height, and frame deformation were evaluated., Results: CV/EV explants were calcified and stenotic. Following S3 implantation, the MG and peak velocity decreased. As per the ISO standard, all S3 implants showed adequate EOA, and 3 out of 4 had an RF within the accepted value (<20%). CV/EV leaflet overhang ranged from 25-37%. Calcified leaflets remained stationary throughout the cardiac cycle (difference <9%) and were not pinned in a manner that constrained S3 systolic flow or appeared to prevent selective frame cannulation. The downstream CV/EV GOA was larger than the upstream S3 GOA during systole. S3 frame underexpansion was seen, resulting in leaflet pinwheeling (range 13-30%). Above the neoskirt, calcium protrusion was observed in contact with the S3 leaflets., Conclusions: S3 implantation at node 5 in calcified CV/EV valves resulted in satisfactory hydrodynamic performance in most configurations tested with stable leaflet overhang throughout the cardiac cycle. The long-term implications of S3 underexpansion, leaflet pinwheeling, and calcium protrusion require future studies.

Importance: Osteosarcopenia is an emerging geriatric syndrome characterized by age-related deterioration in muscle and bone. Despite the established relevance of frailty and sarcopenia among older adults undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), osteosarcopenia has yet to be investigated in this setting., Objective: To determine the association between osteosarcopenia and adverse outcomes following TAVR., Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a post hoc analysis of the Frailty in Aortic Valve Replacement (FRAILTY-AVR) prospective multicenter cohort study and McGill extension that enrolled patients aged 70 years or older undergoing TAVR from 2012 through 2022. FRAILTY-AVR was conducted at 14 centers in Canada, the United States, and France between 2012 and 2016, and patients at the McGill University-affiliated center in Montreal, Québec, Canada, were enrolled on an ongoing basis up to 2022., Exposure: Osteosarcopenia as measured on computed tomography (CT) scans prior to TAVR., Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinically indicated CT scans acquired prior to TAVR were analyzed to quantify psoas muscle area (PMA) and vertebral bone density (VBD). Osteosarcopenia was defined as a combination of low PMA and low VBD according to published cutoffs. The primary outcome was 1-year all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, hospital length of stay, disposition, and worsening disability. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for potential confounders., Results: Of the 605 patients (271 [45%] female) in this study, 437 (72%) were octogenarian; the mean (SD) age was 82.6 (6.2) years. Mean (SD) PMA was 22.1 (4.5) cm2 in men and 15.4 (3.5) cm2 in women. Mean (SD) VBD was 104.8 (35.5) Hounsfield units (HU) in men and 98.8 (34.1) HU in women. Ninety-one patients (15%) met the criteria for osteosarcopenia and had higher rates of frailty, fractures, and malnutrition at baseline. One-year mortality was highest in patients with osteosarcopenia (29 patients [32%]) followed by those with low PMA alone (18 patients [14%]), low VBD alone (16 patients [11%]), and normal bone and muscle status (21 patients [9%]) (P < .001). Osteosarcopenia, but not low VBD or PMA alone, was independently associated with 1-year mortality (odds ratio [OR], 3.18; 95% CI, 1.54-6.57) and 1-year worsening disability (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.19-3.74). The association persisted in sensitivity analyses adjusting for the Essential Frailty Toolset, Clinical Frailty Scale, and geriatric conditions such as malnutrition and disability., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that osteosarcopenia detected using clinical CT scans could be used to identify frail patients with a 3-fold increase in 1-year mortality following TAVR. This opportunistic method for osteosarcopenia assessment could be used to improve risk prediction, support decision-making, and trigger rehabilitation interventions in older adults.

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: Conduction disturbances requiring a permanent pacemaker (PPM) are a frequent complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with few reports of rates, predictors, and long-term clinical outcomes following implantation of the third-generation, balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 (S3) transcatheter heart valve (THV)., Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the rates, predictors, and long-term clinical outcomes of PPM implantation following TAVR with the S3 THV., Methods: The current study included 857 patients in the PARTNER 2 S3 registries with intermediate and high surgical risk without prior PPM, and investigated predictors and 5-year clinical outcomes of new PPM implanted within 30 days of TAVR., Results: Among 857 patients, 107 patients (12.5%) received a new PPM within 30 days after TAVR. By multivariable analysis, predictors of PPM included increased age, pre-existing right bundle branch block, larger THV size, greater THV oversizing, moderate or severe annulus calcification, and implantation depth >6 mm. At 5 years (median follow-up 1,682.0 days [min 2.0 days, max 2,283.0 days]), new PPM was not associated with increased rates of all-cause mortality (Adj HR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.85-1.70; P = 0.30) or repeat hospitalization (Adj HR: 1.22; 95% CI: 0.67-2.21; P = 0.52). Patients with new PPM had a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction at 1 year that persisted at 5 years (55.1 ± 2.55 vs 60.4 ± 0.65; P = 0.02)., Conclusions: PPM was required in 12.5% of patients without prior PPM who underwent TAVR with a SAPIEN 3 valve in the PARTNER 2 S3 registries and was not associated with worse clinical outcomes, including mortality, at 5 years. Modifiable factors that may reduce the PPM rate include bioprosthetic valve oversizing, prosthesis size, and implantation depth., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The PARTNER 2 trial was funded by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr R.T. Hahn reports speaker fees from Abbott Structural, Baylis Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and Philips Healthcare, Siemens Healthineers; she has institutional consulting contracts for which she receives no direct compensation with Abbott Structural, Anteris, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and Novartis; she is Chief Scientific Officer for the Echocardiography Core Laboratory at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation for multiple industry-sponsored valve trials, for which she receives no direct industry compensation. P Pibarot has received institutional funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Pi-Cardia, Cardiac Success, Roche Diagnostics for echocardiography core laboratory analyses, blood biomarker analyses, and research studies in the field of interventional and pharmacologic treatment of valvular heart diseases, for which he received no personal compensation. Dr George has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Zhao is an employee of Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Blanke has institutional core laboratory contracts with Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, PI Cardia, and Conformal; he is a Consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and Laralab Imaging. Dr Babaliaros has received consulting fees from Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Szeto has received grant support from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; and is a consultant for MicroInterventional Devices. Dr Makkar has received research support from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott; and consultant fees/honoraria from Abbott, Cordis Corporation, and Medtronic. Dr Thourani serves on advisory boards for Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Atricure, Cryolife, Jenavalve, Shockwave, and Boston Scientific. Dr Webb is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Michael Mack served as co-primary investigator for the PARTNER Trial for Edwards Lifesciences and COAPT trial for Abbott; and served as study chair for the APOLLO trial for Medtronic (all activities unpaid). Dr Leon serves on the PARTNER Trial Executive Committee for Edwards Lifesciences (unpaid); has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; has been an unpaid advisor for Abbott, Boston Scientific, Sinomed, and Medtronic; and holds equity in Medinol. Dr Kodali has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott; has received consulting fees from Abbott, Admedus, and Meril Lifesciences; and has equity options from Biotrace Medical and Thubrikar Aortic Valve Inc. Dr Nazif has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Teleflex. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are of major importance, but the lack of standardised definitions is challenging for trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Valve Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (VARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organisations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from Europe, the USA, and Asia, with a major focus on TAVI-related bleeding. VARC-HBR is an initiative of the CERC (Cardiovascular European Research Center), aiming to develop a consensus definition of TAVI patients at HBR, based on a systematic review of the available evidence, to provide consistency for future clinical trials, clinical decision-making, and regulatory review. This document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of HBR evaluating the safety and effectiveness of procedures, devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing TAVI..

Aims: Early mobilization is associated with improved outcomes in hospitalized older patients. We sought to determine the effect of a nurse-led protocol on mobilization 4 h after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) across different units of care., Methods and Results: We conducted a prospective observational cohort single-centre study of consecutive patients. We implemented a standardized protocol for safe early recovery and progressive mobilization in the critical care and cardiac telemetry units. We measured the time to first mobilization and conducted descriptive statistics to identify patient and system barriers to timely ambulation. We recruited 139 patients (82.5 years, SD = 6.7; 46% women). At baseline, patients who were mobilized early (≤4 h) and late (>4 h) did not differ, except for higher rates of diabetes (25.5% vs. 43.9%, P = 0.032) and peripheral arterial disease (8.2% vs. 26.8%, P = 0.003) in the late mobilization group. The median time to mobilization was 4 h [inter-quartile range (IQR) 3.25, 4]; 98 patients (70.5%) were mobilized successfully after 4 h of bedrest; 118 (84.9%) were walking by the evening of the procedure (<8 h bedrest); and 21 (15.1%) were on bedrest overnight and mobilized the following day. Primary reasons for overnight bedrest were arrhythmia monitoring (n = 10, 7.2%) and haemodynamic and/or neurological instability (n = 6, 4.3%); six patients (4.3%) experienced delayed ambulation due to system issues. Procedure location in the hybrid operating room and transfer to critical care were associated with longer bedrest times., Conclusion: Standardized nurse-led mobilization 4 h after TF TAVI is feasible in the absence of clinical complications and system barriers., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: S.B.L. has been a consultant for Edwards and Medtronic; J.S. has been a consultant for Edwards, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific and received research grants from Edwards and Medtronic; D.A.W. has received research grants from Abbott and Edwards; J.G.W. has been a consultant and/or received research support from Edwards, Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Vivitro Medical., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: There are limited data regarding treatment for failed balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in redo-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)., Aims: We aimed to assess THV performance, neoskirt height and expansion when performing redo-TAVI with the ACURATE platform inside a SAPIEN 3 (S3) compared to redo-TAVI with an S3 in an S3., Methods: Redo-TAVI was performed on the bench using each available size of the S3, the ACURATE neo2 (ACn2) and the next-generation ACURATE Prime XL (AC XL) implanted at 2 different depths within 20 mm/23 mm/26 mm/29 mm S3s serving as the "failed" index THV. Hydrodynamic testing was performed to assess THV function. Multimodality assessment was performed using photography, X-ray, microcomputed tomography (micro-CT), and high-speed videos., Results: The ACURATE in S3 combinations had favourable hydrodynamic performance compared to the S3 in S3 for all size combinations. In the 20 mm S3, redo-TAVI with the ACn2 had lower gradients compared to the S3 (mean gradient 16.3 mmHg for the ACn2 vs 24.7 mmHg for the 20 mm S3 in 20 mm S3). Pinwheeling was less marked for the ACURATE THVs than for the S3s. On micro-CT, the S3s used for redo-TAVI were underexpanded across all sizes. This was also observed for the ACURATE platform, but to a lesser extent., Conclusions: Redo-TAVI with an ACn2/AC XL within an S3 has favourable hydrodynamic performance and less pinwheeling compared to an S3 in S3. This comes at the price of a taller neoskirt.

Background: Acute ischemic stroke remains a serious complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPD) were developed to mitigate the risk of acute ischemic stroke complicating TAVR (AISCT). However, the existing body of evidence does not clearly support CEPD efficacy in AISCT prevention., Objectives: In a cohort of patients with AISCT, we aimed to compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients who have had unprotected TAVR (CEPD-) vs CEPD-protected TAVR (CEPD+)., Methods: Data were derived from an international multicenter registry focusing on AISCT. We included all patients who experienced ischemic stroke within 72 hours of TAVR. Stroke severity was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). Primary outcomes were neurologic disability status according to the modified Rankin Score at 30 days, and 6-month all-cause death. Propensity score matched analysis was used to control for differences between groups., Results: In 18,725 TAVR procedures, 416 AISCT (2.2%) within 72 hours were documented, of which 376 were in the CEPD- TAVR group and 40 in the CEPD+ TAVR group. Although the middle cerebral artery stroke rate was similar in both groups (29.7% CEPD- vs 33.3% CEPD+; P = 0.71), AISCT in the CEPD+ group was characterized by a lower rate of internal carotid artery occlusion (0% vs 4.7%) and higher rate of vertebrobasilar system strokes (15.4% vs 5.7%; P = 0.04). AISCT was severe (NIHSS ≥15) in 21.6% CEPD- and 23.3% CEPD+ AISCT (P = 0.20). Disabling stroke rates (modified Rankin Score >1 at 30 days) were 47.3% vs 42.5% (P = 0.62), and 6-month mortality was 31.3% vs 23.3% (P = 0.61), in the CEPD- and CEPD+ groups, respectively. In the propensity score matched cohort, disabling stroke rates were 56.5% vs 41.6% (P = 0.16), and 6-month mortality was 33% vs 19.5% (P = 0.35), in the CEPD- and CEPD+ groups, respectively., Conclusions: In a large cohort of patients with AISCT, the use of CEPD had little effect on stroke distribution, severity, and outcomes., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Seiffert has received speaker or advisory fees from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Inari Medical, Medtronic, Pfizer, Shockwave Medical, and Siemens Healthineers; and a research grant from Boston Scientific—all unrelated to the submitted work. Dr Pilgrim has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Biotronik; and personal fees from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Abbott, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Van Mieghem has received research grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Daiichi-Sankyo, and AstraZeneca, and advisory/consultancy/speaker fees from JenaValve, Anteris, Siemens, Pie Medical, Materialise, Amgen, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Daiichi-Sankyo, Teleflex, and PulseCath BV. Dr Perl is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr De Backer has received research grants and consultant fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr Wagener has received educational support from Medtronic. Dr Webb has been a consultant to, and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Dr Akodad has received research funding from Medtronic, Biotronik, MUSE Explore, and Federation Française de Cardiologie; and is a consultant for Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Mangieri has received an institutional research grant from Boston Scientific; and has served on a medical advisory board for Boston Scientific. Dr Latib has served on advisory boards for Medtronic and Abbott; and has been a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Søndergaard is chief medical officer at Abbott Structural Heart; and has received consultant fees and/or institutional research funding from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and SMT. 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. All rights reserved.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic adversely affected health care systems. Patients in need of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are especially susceptible to treatment delays., Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global TAVR activity., Methods: This international registry reported monthly TAVR case volume in participating institutions prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic (January 2018 to December 2021). Hospital-level information on public vs private, urban vs rural, and TAVR volume was collected, as was country-level information on socioeconomic status, COVID-19 incidence, and governmental public health responses., Results: We included 130 centers from 61 countries, including 65,980 TAVR procedures. The first and second pandemic waves were associated with a significant reduction of 15% (P < 0.001) and 7% (P < 0.001) in monthly TAVR case volume, respectively, compared with the prepandemic period. The third pandemic wave was not associated with reduced TAVR activity. A greater reduction in TAVR activity was observed in Africa (-52%; P = 0.001), Central-South America (-33%; P < 0.001), and Asia (-29%; P < 0.001). Private hospitals (P = 0.005), urban areas (P = 0.011), low-volume centers (P = 0.002), countries with lower development (P < 0.001) and economic status (P < 0.001), higher COVID-19 incidence (P < 0.001), and more stringent public health restrictions (P < 0.001) experienced a greater reduction in TAVR activity., Conclusions: TAVR procedural volume declined substantially during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in Africa, Central-South America, and Asia. National socioeconomic status, COVID-19 incidence, and public health responses were associated with treatment delays. This information should inform public health policy in case of future global health crises., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Lefèvre has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences; and received minor fees from Boston Scientific, Terumo, and Abbott. Dr Pilgrim has received research, travel, or educational grants to the institution without personal remuneration from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and ATSens; and speaker fees and consultancy fees to the institution from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, Biosensors, and Highlife. Dr Van Mieghem has received research grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Teleflex; and advisory board fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Inari, JenaValve, Medtronic, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Siemens, Pie Medical, and Teleflex. Dr Swaans has served as a proctor/lecturer for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Bioventrix Inc, Cardiac Dimensions, Edwards Lifesciences, GE Healthcare, Medtronic, and Philips Healthcare. Dr Prendergast has received speaker/consultancy fees from Medtronic, MicroPort, Anteris, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Resar has received institutional research funding from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott; and served as a TAVR proctor for Medtronic. Dr Chen has served as a consultant for Venus MedTech. Dr Hildick-Smith has received research funds and speaker fees from Medtronic. Dr Spence has received TAVR proctoring and consultancy fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Bunc has served as a proctor for Abbott, Meril, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Molnár has served as a consultant for Medtronic and Abbott. Dr Toggweiler has served as a consultant and proctor for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Biosensors; has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott Vascular; has served as a consultant for Medira, Shockwave, Teleflex, atHeart Medical, Cardiac Dimensions, and Polares Medical; has received institutional research grants from Boston Scientific, Fumedica, and Novartis; has received speaker honoraria from Sanofi, AstraZeneca, ReCor Medical, and Daiichi Sankyo; and holds equity in Hi-D Imaging. Dr Ojeda has received consulting fees from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences; and speaker fees from Philips and Word Medica. Dr Toutouzas has served as a proctor for Medtronic, Abbott, Myval, and Boston Scientific. Dr AlMerri has served as a TAVR proctor for Medtronic. Dr Noble has served as a proctor for Medtronic; and received institutional grant support from Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, and Medtronic. Dr Kala has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific; served on the Speakers Bureau for Edwards Lifesciences, Servier, and AstraZeneca; and received research support from Novartis. Dr Kurt has served as a TAVR proctor for Abbott. Dr Yin has served as a TAVR proctor for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott. Dr Sztejfman has served as a proctor for Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Meril Life Sciences, and MicroPort. Dr Mendiz has served as a proctor for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Gunasekaran has received fees from Medtronic, Meril Life Sciences, Abbott, and Boston Scientific. Dr Kao has served as a proctor for Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Dager has served as a consultant for Medtronic. Dr Ferrero-Guadagnoli has served as a proctor for Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Modine has served as a consultant for and received honorarium from Abbott, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Hayashida has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott. Dr Makkar has received research grants from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific, and served as a consultant for Cordis and Medtronic. Dr Mylotte has received institutional grant funding from Boston Scientific and Medtronic; and personal fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and MicroPort. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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

Background: A previous analysis in this trial showed that among patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, the rate of the composite end point of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year was significantly lower with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) than with surgical aortic-valve replacement. Longer-term outcomes are unknown., Methods: We randomly assigned patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either TAVR or surgery. The first primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization related to the valve, the procedure, or heart failure. The second primary end point was a hierarchical composite that included death, disabling stroke, nondisabling stroke, and the number of rehospitalization days, analyzed with the use of a win ratio analysis. Clinical, echocardiographic, and health-status outcomes were assessed through 5 years., Results: A total of 1000 patients underwent randomization: 503 patients were assigned to undergo TAVR, and 497 to undergo surgery. A component of the first primary end point occurred in 111 of 496 patients in the TAVR group and in 117 of 454 patients in the surgery group (Kaplan-Meier estimates, 22.8% in the TAVR group and 27.2% in the surgery group; difference, -4.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.9 to 1.3; P = 0.07). The win ratio for the second primary end point was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.51; P = 0.25). The Kaplan-Meier estimates for the components of the first primary end point were as follows: death, 10.0% in the TAVR group and 8.2% in the surgery group; stroke, 5.8% and 6.4%, respectively; and rehospitalization, 13.7% and 17.4%. The hemodynamic performance of the valve, assessed according to the mean (±SD) valve gradient, was 12.8±6.5 mm Hg in the TAVR group and 11.7±5.6 mm Hg in the surgery group. Bioprosthetic-valve failure occurred in 3.3% of the patients in the TAVR group and in 3.8% of those in the surgery group., Conclusions: Among low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR or surgery, there was no significant between-group difference in the two primary composite outcomes. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02675114.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

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.

Purpose of Review: As TAVR is increasingly performed on younger patients with a longer life expectancy, the number of redo-TAVR procedures is likely to increase in the coming years. Limited data is currently available on this sometimes challenging procedure. We provide a summary of currently published literature on management of patients with a failed transcatheter aortic valve., Recent Findings: Recent registry data have increased the clinical knowledge on redo-TAVR. Additionally, numerous bench studies have provided valuable insights into the technical aspects of redo-TAVR with various combinations of valve types. Redo-TAVR can be performed safely in selected cases with a high procedural success and good short-term outcomes. However, at present, the procedure remains relatively infrequent and many patients are not eligible. Bench testing can be useful to understand important concepts such as valve expansion, neoskirt, leaflet overhang, and leaflet deflection as well as their potential clinical implications., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Wood is a consultant to, and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott. Dr Sellers is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences, Anteris, Excision Medical, and Medtronic; and has received research support from Medtronic, Vivitro Labs, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Leipsic is supported by a Canadian Research Chair in Advanced Cardiopulmonary Imaging, consults for MVRX, HeartFlow Inc., and Circle Cardiovascular Imaging; and provides CT core lab services for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Neovasc, Boston Scientific, and Tendyne Holdings, for which no direct compensation is received. Dr Sathananthan has received speaking fees from Edwards Lifesciences; has received research support from Medtronic, Vivitro Labs, and Edwards Lifesciences; and is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, NVT Medical and Medtronic. Dr Webb is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and receives research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

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: Previous studies demonstrated transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with an earlier generation balloon-expandable valve to be noninferior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for death and disabling stroke in intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic, severe aortic stenosis at 5 years. However, limited long-term data are available with the more contemporary SAPIEN 3 (S3) bioprosthesis., Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare 5-year risk-adjusted outcomes in intermediate-risk patients undergoing S3 TAVR vs SAVR., Methods: Propensity score matching was performed to account for baseline differences in intermediate-risk patients undergoing S3 TAVR in the PARTNER 2 (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) S3 single-arm study and SAVR in the PARTNER 2A randomized clinical trial. The primary composite endpoint consisted of 5-year all-cause death and disabling stroke., Results: A total of 783 matched pairs of intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis were studied. There were no differences in the primary endpoint between S3 TAVR and SAVR at 5 years (40.2% vs 42.7%; HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.74-1.03; P = 0.10). The incidence of mild or greater paravalvular regurgitation was more common after S3 TAVR. There were no differences in structural valve deterioration-related stage 2 and 3 hemodynamic valve deterioration or bioprosthetic valve failure., Conclusions: In this propensity-matched analysis of intermediate-risk patients, 5-year rates of death and disabling stroke were similar between S3 TAVR and SAVR. Rates of structural valve deterioration-related hemodynamic valve deterioration were similar, but paravalvular regurgitation was more common after S3 TAVR. Longer-term follow-up is needed to further evaluate differences in late adverse clinical events and bioprosthetic valve durability. (PII S3i [PARTNER II Trial: Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves II - S3 Intermediate], NCT03222128; PII A (PARTNER II Trial: Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves II - XT Intermediate and High Risk], NCT01314313)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Kodali has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and JenaValve; has received consulting fees from Admedus, TriCares, TriFlo, X-Dot, Micro Interventional Devices, Supira, Adona, Tioga, Helix Valve Repair, and Moray Medical; and is a scientific advisory board member for Dura Biotech, Thubrikar Aortic Valve, Philips, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Dr Thourani is an advisory board member for Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Atricure, CryoLife, JenaValve, Shockwave, and Boston Scientific. Dr Makkar has received grant support from and has research contracts with Edwards Lifesciences and St Jude Medical; and has received consulting fees and honoraria from and is a Speakers Bureau member for Abbott Vascular, Cordis Corporation, and Medtronic. Dr Mack has served as co–primary investigator for the PARTNER trial for Edwards Lifesciences and the COAPT trial for Abbott; and has served as study chair for the APOLLO trial for Medtronic (all activities unpaid). Dr Webb is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Herrmann has received institutional research funding from Abbott Vascular, Ancora, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and has received consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and holds equity in Micro Interventional Devices. Dr Cohen has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott Vascular; and has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott Vascular. 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. Dr Hahn has received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular, Baylis Medical, and Edwards Lifesciences; has institutional consulting agreements for which she receives no direct compensation with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Novartis; holds equity with Navigate; and is the Chief Scientific Officer for the echocardiography core laboratory at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. Dr Xu is an employee of Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Alu has received institutional funding (no direct compensation) from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott. Dr Leon serves on the PARTNER trial executive committee for Edwards Lifesciences (unpaid); has received institutional research grants from and is an unpaid adviser for Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; is an unpaid adviser for Sinomed; and holds equity in Medinol. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr De Backer has received institutional research grants from and has been an adviser for Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Sathananthan has received research grants from and is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Anteris Technologies, and Hi-D Imaging. Dr Treede is an adviser for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, JenaValve, and TriCares. Dr Leipsic has conducted institutional computed tomography core laboratory activities for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Pi-Cardia. Dr Bax is a member of the Speakers Bureau for and has received unrestricted research grants from Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Webb is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Chen is a consultant for CardioFlow, Venus MedTech, and Peijia Medical. Dr Reardon is a consultant for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Medical, and Gore Medical. Dr Leon has received institutional clinical research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Søndergaard has received institutional research grants from and has been an adviser for Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

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.

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: The extent of extravalvular cardiac damage is associated with increased risk of adverse events among patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR)., Objectives: The goal was to describe the association of cardiac damage on health status before and after AVR., Methods: Patients from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2 and 3 trials were pooled and classified by echocardiographic cardiac damage stage at baseline and 1 year as previously described (stage 0-4). We examined the association between baseline cardiac damage and 1-year health status (assessed by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Score [KCCQ-OS])., Results: Among 1,974 patients (794 surgical AVR, 1,180 transcatheter AVR), the extent of cardiac damage at baseline was associated with lower KCCQ scores both at baseline and at 1 year after AVR (P < 0.0001) and with increased rates of a poor outcome (death, KCCQ-OS <60, or a decrease in KCCQ-OS of ≥10 points) at 1 year (stages 0-4: 10.6% vs 19.6% vs 29.0% vs 44.7% vs 39.8%; P < 0.0001). In a multivariable model, each 1-stage increase in baseline cardiac damage was associated with a 24% increase in the odds of a poor outcome (95% CI: 9%-41%; P = 0.001). Change in stage of cardiac damage at 1 year after AVR was associated with the extent of improvement in KCCQ-OS over the same period (mean change in 1-year KCCQ-OS: improvement of ≥1 stage +26.8 [95% CI: 24.2-29.4] vs no change +21.4 [95% CI: 20.0-22.7] vs deterioration of ≥1 stage +17.5 [95% CI: 15.4-19.5]; P < 0.0001)., Conclusions: The extent of cardiac damage before AVR has an important impact on health status outcomes, both cross-sectionally and after AVR. (PARTNER II Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves II - XT Intermediate and High Risk (PII A), NCT01314313; The PARTNER II Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves - PII B [PARTNERII B], NCT02184442; PARTNER 3 Trial: Safety and Effectiveness of the SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve in Low Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis [P3], NCT02675114)., Competing Interests: Funding Support And Author Disclosures The PARTNER 2 and PARTNER 3 Trials were sponsored by Edwards Lifesciences (Irvine, California). Dr Généreux has served as a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, BioTrace Medical, Boston Scientific, CARANX Medical, Cardiovascular System Inc (PI Eclipse Trial), Edwards Lifesciences (PI EARLY-TAVR trial, PI PROGRESS trial), GE Healthcare, iRhythm Technologies, Medtronic, Opsens, Pi-Cardia, Puzzle Medical, Saranas, Shockwave, Siemens, Soundbite Medical Inc, Teleflex, and 4C Medical (PI feasibility study); has served as an advisor for Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, BioTrace Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; has received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, BioTrace Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Shockwave; has served as a proctor for and received an institutional research grant from Edwards Lifesciences; and has equity in Pi-Cardia, Puzzle Medical, Saranas, and Soundbite Medical Inc. 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. The Cardiovascular Research Foundation (Drs Redfors, Cohen, Alu, Hahn, and Lyon) receives research funding from Edwards Lifesciences (no direct compensation). Dr Bax reports that the Department of Cardiology (LUMC, the Netherlands) has received research grants from Medtronic, Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific; and has received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular. Drs Zhao and Prince are employees of Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Makkar has received grant support/research contracts from Edwards Lifesciences and St Jude Medical; and has received consultant fees/honoraria from and served on the speaker’s bureau for Abbott Vascular, Cordis Corporation, and Medtronic. Dr Thourani is on the advisory board of Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Atricure, Cryolife, Jenavalve, Shockwave, and Boston Scientific. Dr Mack served as co-primary investigator for the PARTNER Trial for Edwards Lifesciences; served as co-primary investigator for the COAPT trial for Abbott; and served as study chair for the APOLLO trial for Medtronic (all activities unpaid). Dr Nazif is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Dr Lindman has served on the scientific advisory board for Roche Diagnostics; and has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and Roche Diagnostics. Dr Babaliaros has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott. Dr Russo has received grants from Edwards Lifesciences; and has served as a consultant for Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr McCabe has served as a consultant for Edwards, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Cardiovascular System Inc; and has equity in ConKay Medical. Dr Gillam has served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences; and has core lab contracts with Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Hahn has received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular, Baylis Medical, and Edwards Lifescience; has institutional consulting agreements for which she receives no direct compensation with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Novartis; has equity with Navigate; and is the Chief Scientific Officer for the Echocardiography Core Laboratory at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. Dr Webb is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Leon serves on the PARTNER Trial Executive Committee for Edwards Lifesciences (non-paid); and has received institutional research grants from and has served as a nonpaid advisor for Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; has served as a nonpaid advisor for Sinomed; and has equity in Medinol. Dr Cohen has received research grant support and consulting income from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: 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: Rehospitalization is a common end point in clinical trials of structural heart interventions, but whether rehospitalization is clinically and prognostically relevant in these patients is uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of rehospitalization events after aortic valve replacement (AVR) and their association with mortality and health status., Methods: The study population included patients who underwent transcatheter or surgical AVR in the PARTNER I' II' and III trials (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves). Health status was assessed with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-overall summary score. The primary analysis focused on heart failure hospitalization within 1 year after AVR and its association with mortality, poor outcome (death, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-overall summary score <60 or decrease by ≥10), and health status at 1 year using adjusted models. Secondary analyses examined the prognostic associations of rehospitalization due to a composite of heart failure, valve-related, or procedure-related causes., Results: Among 3403 patients treated with AVR (2008 transcatheter AVR, 1395 surgical AVR), the 1-year incidence was 6.7% for heart failure hospitalization and 9.7% for rehospitalization due to a composite of heart failure, valve-related, or procedure-related causes. Heart failure hospitalization after AVR was associated with increased risk of 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 3.97 [2.48 to 6.36]; P <0.001), poor outcome (OR, 2.76 [1.73 to 4.40]; P <0.001), and worse health status (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-overall summary mean difference -9.8 points [-13.8 to -5.8]; P <0.001). Rehospitalization due to a composite of heart failure, valve-related, or procedure-related causes was similarly associated with increased 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 4.64 [3.11 to 6.92]; P <0.001), poor outcome (OR, 2.06 [1.38 to 3.07]; P =0.0004), and worse health status (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-overall summary mean difference -8.8 points [-11.8 to -5.7]; P <0.001). There was no effect modification by treatment type (transcatheter AVR versus surgical AVR) for these associations., Conclusions: Heart failure hospitalization and rehospitalization after AVR are associated with increased risk of mortality and worse 1-year health status. These findings confirm the clinical and prognostic relevance of rehospitalization end points for trials of AVR., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT00530894.

Background: Surgical aortic valve replacement can be performed through a minimally invasive (MI) or full sternotomy (FS) approach. The present study compared outcomes of MI vs FS for isolated surgery among patients enrolled in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) 3 low-risk trial., Methods: Patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at low surgical risk with anatomy suitable for transfemoral access were eligible for PARTNER 3 enrollment. The primary outcome was the composite end point of death, stroke, or rehospitalization (valve-, procedure-, or heart failure-related) at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary end point as well as patient-reported health status at 30 days and 1 year., Results: In the PARTNER 3 study, 358 patients underwent isolated valve replacement at 68 centers through an MI (n = 107) or FS (n = 251) approach (8 patients were converted from MI to FS). Mean age and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score were similar between groups. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the primary outcome was similar in the MI vs FS groups (16.9% vs 14.9%; hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.66-2.03; P = .618). There were no significant differences in the 1-year rates of all-cause death (2.8% vs 2.8%), all stroke (1.9% vs 3.6%), or rehospitalization (13.3% vs 10.6%, P > .05 for all). Quality of life, as assessed by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score at 30 days or 1 year, was comparable in both groups., Conclusions: For patients at low risk for isolated surgery, MI and FS approaches were associated with similar in-hospital and 1-year outcomes., (Copyright © 2022 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Failure of transcatheter heart valves (THV) may potentially be treated with repeat transcatheter aortic valve implantation (redo TAVI). We assessed hydrodynamic performance, stability and pinwheeling utilizing the ALLEGRA (New Valve Technology, Hechingen, Germany) THV, a CE approved and marketed THV in Europe, inside different THVs., Methods: Redo TAVI was simulated with the 27 mm ALLEGRA THV at three implantation depths (-4 mm, 0 mm and +4 mm) in seven different 'failed' THVs: 26 mm Evolut Pro, 25 mm Lotus, 25 mm JenaValve, 25 mm Portico, 23 mm Sapien 3, 27 mm ALLEGRA and M ACURATE neo. Hydrodynamic evaluation was performed according to International Standards Organization 5840-3:2021., Results: The ALLEGRA THV was stable with acceptable performance (gradient <20 mmHg, effective orifice area >2 cm 2 , and regurgitant fraction <20%) in all 'failed' THVs except the Evolut Pro at -4 mm implantation depth. In this configuration, the outflow of the ALLEGRA frame was constrained by the Evolut Pro THV and the ALLEGRA leaflets were unable to fully close. Pinwheeling was severe for the ALLEGRA in Evolut Pro. The neo-skirt was higher with taller frame THVs., Conclusion: The ALLEGRA THV had favorable hydrodynamic performance, stability and pinwheeling in all redo TAVI samples except the Evolut Pro at low implantation depth with compromised function. The choice of initial THV may have late implications on new THV choice and function., (© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Biomedical Engineering Society.)

Background: The 3M-TAVR trial (3M-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement) demonstrated the feasibility and safety of next-day hospital discharge after transfemoral TAVR with implementation of a minimalist pathway. However, the economic impact of this approach is unknown. Therefore, we evaluated costs for patients undergoing minimalist TAVR compared with conventional TAVR., Methods: We used propensity matching to compare resource utilization and costs (from a US health care system perspective) for patients in the 3M-TAVR trial with those for transfemoral TAVR patients enrolled in the contemporaneous S3i trial (PARTNER SAPIEN-3 Intermediate Risk). Procedural costs were estimated using measured resource utilization for both groups. For the S3i group, all other costs through 30-day follow-up were assessed by linkage with Medicare claims; for 3M, these costs were assessed using regression models derived from S3i cost and resource utilization data., Results: After 1:1 propensity matching, 351 pairs were included in our study (mean age 82, mean Society of Thoracic Surgery risk score 5.3%). There were no differences in death, stroke, or rehospitalization between the 3M-TAVR and S3i groups through 30-day follow-up. Index hospitalization costs were $10 843/patient lower in the 3M-TAVR cohort, driven by reductions in procedure duration, anesthesia costs, and length of stay. Between discharge and 30 days, costs were similar for the 2 groups such that cumulative 30-day costs were $11 305/patient lower in the 3M-TAVR cohort compared with the S3i cohort ($49 425 versus $60 729, 95% CI for difference $9378 to $13 138; P <0.001)., Conclusions: Compared with conventional transfemoral TAVR, use of a minimalist pathway in intermediate-risk patients was associated with similar clinical outcomes and substantial in-hospital cost savings, which were sustained through 30 days., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02287662.

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: Despite advances in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), periprocedural acute ischemic stroke remains a concern., Objectives: The aims of this study were to investigate acute ischemic stroke complicating TAVR (AISCT) and to describe the indications and outcomes of interventions to treat AISCT., Methods: An international multicenter registry was established focusing on AISCT within 30 days of TAVR. Stroke severity was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale. Primary outcomes were 1-year all-cause death and neurologic disability status at 90 days according to modified Rankin scale score., Results: Of 16,615 TAVR procedures, 387 patients with AISCT were included (2.3%). Rates of 1-year death were 28.9%, 35.9%, and 77.5% in patients with mild, moderate, and severe stroke, respectively (P < 0.001). Although 348 patients were managed conservatively, 39 patients (10.1%) underwent neurointervention (NI) with either mechanical thrombectomy (n = 26) or thrombolytic therapy (n = 13). In a subanalysis excluding patients with mild stroke, there was no clear 1-year survival benefit for NI compared with conservative management (47.6% vs 41.1%, respectively; P = 0.78). In a logistic regression model controlling for stroke severity, NI was associated with 2.9-fold odds (95% CI: 1.2-7.0; P = 0.016) of independent survival at 90 days., Conclusions: AISCT carries significant morbidity and mortality, which is correlated with stroke severity. The present findings suggest that neurologic disability for patients with moderate or worse stroke could potentially be improved by timely intervention and highlight the importance of collaboration between cardiologists and neurologists to optimize AISCT outcomes., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Pilgrim has received research grants to the institution from Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Biotronik; has received personal fees from Biotronik and Boston Scientific; has received other compensation from HighLife SAS and Medira; and is a proctor for Medtronic. Dr De Backer has received research grants and consulting fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr Søndergaard has received consulting fees and institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Van Mieghem has received research grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi Sankyo; and has received advisory fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Ancora, Medtronic, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr Webb has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Dr Cockburn is a proctor for Boston Scientific. Dr Seiffert has served as a consultant for JenaValve and Boston Scientific; has received travel compensation from Edwards Lifesciences, JenaValve, Boston Scientific, and Biotronik; and has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic. Dr Mangieri has received a research grant (to the institution) from Boston Scientific; and has served on a medical advisory board for Boston Scientific. Dr Latib has served on advisory boards for Medtronic and Abbott; and has been a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Akodad has received research funding from Medtronic, Biotronik, MUSE Explore, and Federation Française de Cardiologie. Dr Perl is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Infective endocarditis (IE) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been associated with a dismal prognosis. However, scarce data exist on IE perivalvular extension (PEE) in such patients., Methods: This multicenter study included 579 patients who had the diagnosis of definite IE at a median of 171 (53-421) days following TAVR. PEE was defined as the presence of an intracardiac abscess, pseudoaneurysm, or fistula., Results: A total of 105 patients (18.1%) were diagnosed with PEE (perivalvular abscess, pseudoaneurysm, fistula, or a combination in 87, 7, 7, and 4 patients, respectively). A history of chronic kidney disease (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj], 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.27-3.41; P = .003) and IE secondary to coagulase-negative staphylococci (ORadj, 2.71; 95% CI: 1.57-4.69; P < .001) were associated with an increased risk of PEE. Surgery was performed at index IE episode in 34 patients (32.4%) with PEE (vs 15.2% in patients without PEE, P < .001). In-hospital and 2-year mortality rates among PEE-IE patients were 36.5% and 69.4%, respectively. Factors independently associated with an increased mortality were the occurrence of other complications (stroke post-TAVR, acute renal failure, septic shock) and the lack of surgery at index IE hospitalization (padj < 0.05 for all)., Conclusions: PEE occurred in about one-fifth of IE post-TAVR patients, with the presence of coagulase-negative staphylococci and chronic kidney disease determining an increased risk. Patients with PEE-IE exhibited high early and late mortality rates, and surgery during IE hospitalization seemed to be associated with better outcomes., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. J. R.-C. has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. V. P. has received institutional research grants from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Microport. D. T. has received consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. H. C. H. has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic and consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. J. G. W. has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and St. Jude Medical. R. M. has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott, Capricor, and St. Jude Medical; has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences; and has received consulting fees from Medtronic. F. S. de B. has received honoraria from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences for symposium speeches and proctoring cases. S. L. has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. H. Le B. has received lecture fees from Edwards Lifesciences outside the submitted work. J. M. S. has received speaker honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic and research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic outside the submitted work. K. W.-K. has received personal fees from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Meril outside the submitted work. S. S. reports grants to their institution from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott and has received personal fees from Boston Scientific, BTG, and Teleflex outside the submitted work. O. H. has received personal fees from Boston Scientific and payments from Abbott. N. M. has received personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Biotronik, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Bayer outside the submitted work. All remaining authors: No reported conflicts of interest. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The impact of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on progression/regression of extravalvular cardiac damage and its association with subsequent prognosis is unknown., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to describe the evolution of cardiac damage post-AVR and its association with outcomes., Methods: Patients undergoing transcatheter or surgical AVR from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2 and 3 trials were pooled and classified by cardiac damage stage at baseline and 1 year (stage 0, no damage; stage 1, left ventricular damage; stage 2, left atrial or mitral valve damage; stage 3, pulmonary vasculature or tricuspid valve damage; and stage 4, right ventricular damage). Proportional hazards models determined association between change in cardiac damage post-AVR and 2-year outcomes., Results: Among 1,974 patients, 121 (6.1%) were stage 0, 287 (14.5%) stage 1, 1,014 (51.4%) stage 2, 412 (20.9%) stage 3, and 140 (7.1%) stage 4 pre-AVR. Two-year mortality was associated with extent of cardiac damage at baseline and 1 year. Compared with baseline, cardiac damage improved in ∼15%, remained unchanged in ∼60%, and worsened in ∼25% of patients at 1 year. The 1-year change in cardiac damage stage was independently associated with mortality (adjusted HR for improvement: 0.49; no change: 1.00; worsening: 1.95; P = 0.023) and composite of death or heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR for improvement: 0.60; no change: 1.00; worsening: 2.25; P < 0.001) at 2 years., Conclusions: In patients undergoing AVR, extent of extravalvular cardiac damage at baseline and its change at 1 year have important prognostic implications. These findings suggest that earlier detection of aortic stenosis and intervention before development of irreversible cardiac damage may improve global cardiac function and prognosis. (PARTNER II Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves II - XT Intermediate and High Risk [PII A], NCT01314313; The PARTNER II Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves - PII B [PARTNERII B], NCT02184442; and PARTNER 3 Trial: Safety and Effectiveness of the SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve in Low Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis [P3], NCT02675114)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The PARTNER II and PARTNER 3 Trials were Sponsored by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Généreux has served as a consultant for, advisor for, and received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, BioTrace Medical, and Medtronic; has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific, CARANX Medical, GE Healthcare, iRhythm Technologies, Opsens, Teleflex, and Siemens; has served as a consultant and PI for the Eclipse Trial for Cardiovascular System Inc; has served as a consultant, advisor, and proctor, and received speaker fees and institutional research grants for PI EARLY-TAVR and PI PROGRESS trials from Edwards Lifesciences; has received equity from and served as a consultant for 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 consultant for and PI of the Feasibility study for 4C Medical. 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. The Cardiovascular Research Foundation (Drs Redfors, Vincent, Alu, Hahn, Leon, and Cohen) receives research funding from Edwards Lifesciences (no direct compensation). Dr Bax’s department (Department of Cardiology, LUMC, the Netherlands) has received research grants from Medtronic, Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific; and he has received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular. Dr Zhao is an employee of Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Makkar has received grant support/research contracts from Edwards Lifesciences and St. Jude Medical; and has received consultant fees/honoraria from/served on the speaker's bureau for Abbott Vascular, Cordis Corporation, and Medtronic. Dr Thourani has served on the Advisory Board of Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Atricure, Cryolife, Jenavalve, Shockwave, and Boston Scientific. Dr Mack has served as coprimary investigator for the PARTNER Trial for Edwards Lifesciences and COAPT trial for Abbott; and has served as study chair for the APOLLO trial for Medtronic (all activities unpaid). Dr Nazif is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Dr Lindman has served on the Scientific Advisory Board for Roche Diagnostics; and has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and Roche Diagnostics. Dr Babaliaros has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott. Dr Russo has received grants from Edwards Lifesciences; and has served as a consultant for Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr McCabe has served as a consultant for Edwards, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Cardiovascular System Inc; and has equity in ConKay Medical. Dr Gillam has served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences; and has received core laboratory contracts from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Hahn has received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular, Baylis Medical, and Edwards Lifesciences; has institutional consulting agreements for which she receives no direct compensation with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Novartis; has equity with Navigate; and is the Chief Scientific Officer for the Echocardiography Core Laboratory at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. Dr Webb is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Leon serves on the PARTNER Trial Executive Committee for Edwards Lifesciences (nonpaid); has received institutional research grants from and is a nonpaid advisor for Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; has served as a nonpaid advisor for Sinomed; and has equity in Medinol. Dr Cohen has received research grant support and consulting income from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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

Scarce data exist on mitral valve (MV) infective endocarditis (IE) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). This multicenter study included a total of 579 patients with a diagnosis of definite IE after TAVI from the IE after TAVI International Registry and aimed to evaluate the incidence, characteristics, management, and outcomes of MV-IE after TAVI. A total of 86 patients (14.9%) had MV-IE. These patients were compared with 284 patients (49.1%) with involvement of the transcatheter heart valve (THV) only. Two factors were found to be associated with MV-IE: the use of self-expanding valves (adjusted odds ratio 2.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23 to 5.07, p = 0.012), and the presence of an aortic regurgitation ≥2 at discharge (adjusted odds ratio 3.33; 95% CI 1.43 to 7.73, p <0.01). There were no differences in IE timing and causative microorganisms between groups, but surgical management was significantly lower in patients with MV-IE (6.0%, vs 21.6% in patients with THV-IE, p = 0.001). All-cause mortality rates at 2-year follow-up were high and similar between patients with MV-IE (51.4%, 95% CI 39.8 to 64.1) and patients with THV-IE (51.5%, 95% CI 45.4 to 58.0) (log-rank p = 0.295). The factors independently associated with increased mortality risk in patients with MV-IE were the occurrence of heart failure (adjusted p <0.001) and septic shock (adjusted p <0.01) during the index hospitalization. One of 6 IE episodes after TAVI is localized on the MV. The implantation of a self-expanding THV and the presence of an aortic regurgitation ≥2 at discharge were associated with MV-IE. Patients with MV-IE were rarely operated on and had a poor prognosis at 2-year follow-up., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To compare outcomes in Sapien 3 Ultra (S3U) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with extreme annular undersizing (EAU) versus nominal annular sizing (NAS)., Background: The Edwards S3U valve has reduced paravalvular leak (PVL) in TAVR but outcomes remain unknown in extremely undersized anatomy. Implanting a smaller S3U valve may facilitate future redo-TAVR but risk compromising hemodynamics., Methods: From December 2019 to July 2021, 366 patients with native aortic stenosis underwent S3U TAVR. Patients with EAU (annular areas >430 mm 2 for 23 mm or >546 mm 2 for 26 mm) were compared to NAS (338-430 mm 2 for 23 mm or 430-546 mm 2 for 26 mm). In-hospital and 30-day outcomes, and redo-TAVR feasibility were determined., Results: There were 79 (21.6%) EAU patients, with more bicuspid (p = 0.0014) and ≥moderate annular/left ventricular outflow tract calcification (p < 0.001). The EAU group had less annular oversizing than NAS group (23 mm: -8.2 ± 2.6% vs. 4.0 ± 7.0%, p < 0.001; 26 mm: -8.9 ± 2.2% vs. 6.7 ± 6.9%, p < 0.001), more balloon overfilling (71.3% vs. 11.6%, p < 0.001), and postdilatation (15.0% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.016). No differences were found in in-hospital or 30-day mortality and stroke (p > 0.05). Mild PVL (13.4% EAU vs. 11.5% NAS, p = 0.56) and mean gradients (23 mm: 13.0 ± 4.5 vs. 14.1 ± 5.4 mmHg, p = 0.40; 26 mm: 11.4 ± 4.1 vs. 11.5 ± 3.9 mmHg, p = 1.0) were similar at 30 days. Had the EAU group undergone NAS with the larger Sapien 3/S3U, by computed tomography analysis simulating 80:20 or 90:10 target implant depth, 33.3%-60.9% (vs. 4.3%-23.2%) would not be feasible for redo-TAVR due to high risk of coronary obstruction., Conclusions: In this first report of EAU with S3U TAVR, similar excellent short-term outcomes can be achieved compared to NAS, and may preserve future redo-TAVR option., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Since the first-in-human procedure in 2002, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a well-established therapeutic option for severe aortic stenosis, and is offered increasingly to patients at lower surgical risk, who are typically younger. Increasing lifespan carries concerns that "minor" complications that may have little impact in elderly patients could have a greater long-term impact in younger patients. Issues such as mild paravalvular regurgitation, hypoattenuated leaflet thickening, atrioventricular block with need for permanent pacemaker implantation or future coronary access may have a substantial cumulative undesirable impact. Additionally, as with surgical bioprosthetic valves, transcatheter bioprosthetic valves will eventually degenerate, and may require repeat intervention. Although durability data for transcatheter heart valves (THVs) is encouraging, very late data are lacking. Redo TAVI has been shown to be feasible with acceptable outcomes in patients with failed THVs, but in some patients, anatomical or device considerations may preclude a repeatable procedure because of the risk of coronary obstruction. Various strategies for lifetime management in this lower-risk and younger population have been proposed: surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) first, followed by TAVI; TAVI then SAVR; TAVI then TAVI, etc. A tailored approach may be considered according to patient co-morbidities, anatomy and the relative advantages and disadvantages of the two therapies. This review offers an overview of current challenges when considering TAVI in populations at lower risk, and summarizes the different approaches that have been developed to address these concerns., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The study compared 1-year outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) morphology and clinically similar patients having tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) morphology., Background: There are limited prospective data on TAVR using the SAPIEN 3 device in low-surgical-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and bicuspid anatomy., Methods: Low-risk, severe aortic stenosis patients with BAV were candidates for the PARTNER 3 (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves 3) (P3) bicuspid registry or the P3 bicuspid continued access protocol. Patients treated in these registries were pooled and propensity score matched to TAV patients from the P3 randomized TAVR trial. Outcomes were compared between groups. The primary endpoint was the 1-year composite rate of death, stroke, and cardiovascular rehospitalization., Results: Of 320 total submitted BAV patients, 169 (53%) were treated, and most were Sievers type 1. The remaining 151 patients were excluded caused by anatomic or clinical criteria. Propensity score matching with the P3 TAVR cohort (496 patients) yielded 148 pairs. There were no differences in baseline clinical characteristics; however, BAV patients had larger annuli and they experienced longer procedure duration. There was no difference in the primary endpoint between BAV and TAV (10.9% vs 10.2%; P = 0.80) or in the rates of the individual components (death: 0.7% vs 1.4%; P = 0.58; stroke: 2.1% vs 2.0%; P = 0.99; cardiovascular rehospitalization: 9.6% vs 9.5%; P = 0.96)., Conclusions: Among highly select bicuspid aortic stenosis low-surgical-risk patients without extensive raphe or subannular calcification, TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve demonstrated similar outcomes to a matched cohort of patients with tricuspid aortic stenosis., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The PARTNER 3 trial was funded by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Williams has served as a consultant to Medtronic; and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Jilaihawi has served as a consultant to Boston Scientific and Medtronic plc; and has received research funding from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic plc, and HLT. Dr Makkar has received grant support from Abbott, Medtronic plc, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr O’Neill has served as a consultant for Abiomed, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic plc, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, and St. Jude Medical; and has served on the Board of Directors of Neovasc. Dr Guyton has served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Malaisrie has received consulting fees from Medtronic plc and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received lecture fees from Abbott, CryoLife, and Terumo Aortic. Dr Brown has reported that he has no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose. Dr Blanke has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Tendyne (Abbott), Circle Cardiovascular Imaging, Neovasc, and Gore. Dr Leipsic has received core laboratory grant support, paid to his institution, from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic plc, Boston Scientific, Abbott, MVRX, and PI Cardia; and has received consulting fees Circle Cardiovascular Imaging, MVRX, and HeartFlow. Dr Pibarot has received core laboratory grant support, paid to his institution, from Edwards Lifesciences, Pi-Cardia, and Medtronic plc. Dr Hahn has received speaker fees from Abbott Structural, Edwards Lifesciences, and Philips Healthcare; has received consulting fees from Abbott Structural, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Gore and Associates; owns equity in Navigate; and is Chief Scientific Officer for the Echocardiography Core Laboratory at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation for multiple industry-sponsored trials, for which she has received no direct industry compensation. Dr Leon has received grant support, paid to his institution, from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott, and Boston Scientific; and has received advisory fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Boston Scientific, Gore, and Meril Life Sciences. Dr Cohen has received grant support, paid to his institution, from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic plc, Boston Scientific, and Abbott Vascular; and has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic plc, Boston Scientific, and Abbott Vascular. Dr Bax has received grant support, paid to his institution, from Biotronik, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, GE Healthcare, Bayer, and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Kodali holds equity in Dura Biotech, MicroInterventional Devices, Thubrikar Aortic Valve Inc, Supira, Admedus, TriFlo, and Adona; has received consulting fees from Admedus and Dura Biotech; and has received institutional funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and JenaValve. Dr Mack has received consulting fees from Gore; has served as a trial coprimary investigator for Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott; and served as a study chair for Medtronic. Dr Lu is an employee of Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Webb has received consulting fees and fees for serving as a proctor from Edwards Lifesciences., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The optimal treatment of patients developing infective endocarditis (IE) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is uncertain., Objectives: The goal of this study was to investigate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with TAVI-IE treated with cardiac surgery and antibiotics (IE-CS) compared with patients treated with antibiotics alone (IE-AB)., Methods: Crude and inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses were applied for the treatment effect of cardiac surgery vs medical therapy on 1-year all-cause mortality in patients with definite TAVI-IE. The study used data from the Infectious Endocarditis after TAVI International Registry., Results: Among 584 patients, 111 patients (19%) were treated with IE-CS and 473 patients (81%) with IE-AB. Compared with IE-AB, IE-CS was not associated with a lower in-hospital mortality (HR unadj : 0.85; 95% CI: 0.58-1.25) and 1-year all-cause mortality (HR unadj : 0.88; 95% CI: 0.64-1.22) in the crude cohort. After adjusting for selection and immortal time bias, IE-CS compared with IE-AB was also not associated with lower mortality rates for in-hospital mortality (HR adj : 0.92; 95% CI: 0.80-1.05) and 1-year all-cause mortality (HR adj : 0.95; 95% CI: 0.84-1.07). Results remained similar when patients with and without TAVI prosthesis involvement were analyzed separately. Predictors for in-hospital and 1-year all-cause mortality included logistic EuroSCORE I, Staphylococcus aureus, acute renal failure, persistent bacteremia, and septic shock., Conclusions: In this registry, the majority of patients with TAVI-IE were treated with antibiotics alone. Cardiac surgery was not associated with an improved all-cause in-hospital or 1-year mortality. The high mortality of patients with TAVI-IE was strongly linked to patients' characteristics, pathogen, and IE-related complications., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Mangner has received personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Biotronik, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Bayer, Abbott, Abiomed, and Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work. Dr del Val was supported by a research grant from the Fundación Alfonso Martin Escudero (Madrid, Spain). Dr Tchetche has received consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Herrmann has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Webb has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and St. Jude Medical. Dr Makkar has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott, Capricor, and St. Jude Medical; has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences; and has received consulting fees from Medtronic. Dr de Brito has received honoraria from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences for symposium speeches and proctoring cases. Dr Lerakis has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Le Breton has received lecture fees from Edwards Lifesciences, outside the submitted work. Dr Sinning has received speaker honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and has received research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic, outside the submitted work. Dr Kim has received proctor/speaker fees/served on the advisory board for Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Meril Life Sciences, and Shockwave Medical, outside the submitted work. Dr Stortecky has received grants to the institution from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott; and has received personal fees from Boston Scientific, BTG, and Teleflex, outside the submitted work. Dr Søndergaard has received consultant fees and/or institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and SMT. Dr Husser has received personal fees from Boston Scientific; and payments from Abbott. Dr Linke has received personal fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Abiomed, Bayer, and Boehringer outside the submitted work. Dr Rodés-Cabau has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to determine the degree of Evolut (Medtronic) leaflet pinning, diameter expansion, leaflet overhang, and performance at different implant depths of the balloon-expandable Sapien 3 (S3, Edwards Lifesciences LLC) transcatheter heart valve (THV) within the Evolut THV., Background: Preservation of coronary access and flow is a major factor when considering the treatment of failed Evolut THVs., Methods: An in vitro study was performed with 20-, 23-, 26-, and 29-mm S3 THVs deployed within 23-, 26-, 29-, and 34-mm Evolut R THVs, respectively. The S3 outflow was positioned at various depths at node 4, 5, and 6 of the Evolut R. Neoskirt height, leaflet overhang, performance, and Evolut R valve housing diameter expansion were assessed under physiological conditions as per ISO 5840-3 standard., Results: The neoskirt height for the Evolut R was shorter when the S3 outflow was positioned at node 4 compared with node 6 (node 4 height for 23 mm = 16.3 mm, 26 mm = 17.1 mm, 29 mm = 18.3 mm, and 34 mm = 19.9 mm vs node 6 height for 23 mm = 23.9 mm, 26 mm = 23.4 mm, 29 mm = 24.7 mm, and 34 mm = 27 mm Evolut R). All configurations exhibited acceptable hydrodynamic performance irrespective of the degree of leaflet overhang, except the 29-mm S3 implanted in 34-mm Evolut R at node 4 (regurgitant fraction >20%). The valve housing radius of the index Evolut R increased when the S3 was implanted, with the increase ranging from 0 to 2.5 mm., Conclusions: Placement of the S3 at a lower implant position within an index Evolut R reduces the neoskirt height with no significant compromise to S3 valve function despite a higher degree of leaflet overhang. Low S3 implantation may facilitate future coronary access after redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Funding for the study was provided by Medtronic. Dr Akodad has received research funding from Medtronic, Biotronik, MUSE Explore, and Federation Française de Cardiologie. Dr Tang is a physician proctor and consultant for Medtronic; is a consultant for Abbott Structural Heart and NeoChord; and is a physician advisory board member for Abbott Structural Heart and JenValve. Dr Gada is a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Bard Medical, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Rogers is a consultant and physician proctor to Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; has equity in Transmural Systems; and is a co-inventor on dedicated electrosurgery devices assigned to NIH. Dr Rutkin serves as a consultant for Medtronic. Dr Puri is a consultant to Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Philips, Bioventrix, Products & Features, Shockwave Medical, Centerline Biomedical, and VDyne. Dr Rovin is a physician proctor with Medtronic and Abbott; and is a Speakers Bureau for Medtronic and Abbott. Dr Leipsic holds institutional research core lab agreements with Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Pi CARDIA. Dr Caskey serves as a proctor for Medtronic. Dr Sondergaard has received consultant fees and/or institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Sahajanand Medical Technology. Dr Grubb is a speaker, proctor, and principal investigator for Edwards Lifesciences; is a speaker, proctor, and principal investigator for Medtronic; and her employer receives institutional grants and educational funding from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Gleason’s employer receives institutional grants and educational funding from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; he has no personal financial disclosures. Ms Garde, Mr Tadros, and Mr Teodoru are all employees and shareholders of Medtronic. Dr Wood is a consultant and receives unrestricted grant support from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott Vascular. Mr Sathananthan is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; and has received speaking fees from Edwards Lifesciences and NVT. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Circadian rhythms may influence myocardial tolerance to ischemia-reperfusion phenomena occurring during cardiac procedures. While conflicting results exist on the effect of time-of-day on surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), afternoon procedures could be associated with a reduced risk of death, rehospitalization or periprocedural myocardial infarction, compared with morning procedures. We examined the impact of procedure time-of-day on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or SAVR., Methods: We analyzed patients at intermediate- or high-surgical risk who underwent elective TAVR (n=4457) or SAVR (n=1129) in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) 1 and 2 trials and registries according to time-of-day (morning versus afternoon) using the Kaplan-Meier event rates and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using 1:1 propensity-score matching. The primary end point was all-cause death or rehospitalization at 2 years., Results: At 2 years, no difference was observed between patients operated in the morning versus the afternoon within the SAVR (32.3% versus 30.6%, adjusted hazard ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.82-1.41], P =0.58) and TAVR cohorts (35.7% versus 35.4%, adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.89-1.14], P =0.86) with regards to the primary end point. Rates of periprocedural myocardial infarction were low and similar between morning and afternoon in SAVR (1.6% versus 1.0%, P =0.51) and TAVR (0.4% versus 0.4%, P =0.86), as were all other clinical end points. Similar results were observed in propensity-score matched analysis., Conclusions: Procedure time-of-day was not associated with clinical outcomes after TAVR or SAVR. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT00530894, NCT01314313, NCT03222141, and NCT03222128.

Background: Procedural improvements combined with the contemporary clinical profile of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may have influenced the incidence and outcomes of infective endocarditis (IE) following TAVR. We aimed to determine the temporal trends, characteristics, and outcomes of IE post-TAVR., Methods: Observational study including 552 patients presenting definite IE post-TAVR. Patients were divided in 2 groups according to the timing of TAVR (historical cohort [HC]: before 2014; contemporary cohort [CC]: after 2014)., Results: Overall incidence rates of IE were similar in both cohorts (CC vs HC: 5.45 vs 6.52 per 1000 person-years; P = .12), but the rate of early IE was lower in the CC (2.29‰ vs 4.89‰, P < .001). Enterococci were the most frequent microorganism. Most patients presented complicated IE ( CC: 67.7%; HC: 69.6%; P = .66), but the rate of surgical treatment remained low (CC: 20.7%; HC: 17.3%; P = .32). The CC exhibited lower rates of in-hospital acute kidney injury (35.1% vs 44.6%; P = .036) and in-hospital (26.6% vs 36.4%; P = .016) and 1-year (37.8% vs 53.5%; P < .001) mortality. Higher logistic EuroScore, Staphylococcus aureus etiology, and complications (stroke, heart failure, and acute renal failure) were associated with in-hospital mortality in multivariable analyses (P < .05 for all)., Conclusions: Although overall IE incidence has remained stable, the incidence of early IE has declined in recent years. The microorganism, high rate of complications, and very low rate of surgical treatment remained similar. In-hospital and 1-year mortality rates were high but progressively decreased over time., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: THV implantation within failed surgical valves is well established. However, the implications of THV implantation within failed THVs are poorly understood., Aims: This study aimed to assess the impact of different transcatheter heart valve (THV) designs and implant positioning strategies on hydrodynamic performance after redo transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)., Methods: THVs of varying design (SAPIEN 3, Evolut PRO, ACURATE neo, ALLEGRA, and Portico) and size were implanted inside SAPIEN XT and Evolut R THVs. Hydrodynamic function as per International Organization for Standardization (ISO) specifications was evaluated using a pulse duplicator, and multi-modality imaging was performed., Results: The majority of tested THV-in-THV combinations resulted in stable anchoring of the new implant. However, some combinations resulted in unstable anchoring with the potential for dislodgement or embolisation. Hydrodynamic function was favourable for all tested THV designs implanted in the intra-annular SAPIEN XT THV. SAPIEN 3 implantation within an Evolut THV with supra-annular leaflets must be appropriately sized to ensure adequate anchoring. Avoidance of an intra-annular deployment mitigated leaflet overhang of the Evolut leaflets and optimised hydrodynamic performance., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that most THV designs and implantation strategies can result in favourable hydrodynamic performance following redo TAVI. Whether the leaflets of a failed THV are intra- or supra-annular may have important implications for the positioning of a redo-THV implant. Certain THV designs or implantation positions may be more desirable when performing redo TAVI.

Background The treatment of aortic stenosis is evolving rapidly. Pace of change in the care of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) differs. We sought to determine differences in temporal changes in 30-day mortality, 30-day readmission, and length of stay after TAVR and SAVR. Methods and Results We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients treated in the United States between 2012 and 2019 using data from the Medicare Data Set Analytic File 100% Fee for Service database. We included consecutive patients enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B and aged ≥65 years who had SAVR or transfemoral TAVR. We defined 3 study cohorts, including all SAVR, isolated SAVR (without concomitant procedures), and elective isolated SAVR and TAVR. The primary end point was 30-day mortality; secondary end points were 30-day readmission and length of stay. Statistical models controlled for patient demographics, frailty measured by the Hospital Frailty Risk Score, and comorbidities measured by the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI). Cox proportional hazard models were developed with TAVR versus SAVR as the main covariates with a 2-way interaction term with index year. We repeated these analyses restricted to full aortic valve replacement hospitals offering both SAVR and TAVR. The main study cohort included 245 269 patients with SAVR and 188 580 patients with TAVR, with mean±SD ages 74.3±6.0 years and 80.7±6.9 years, respectively, and 36.5% and 46.2% female patients, respectively. Patients with TAVR had higher ECI scores (6.4±3.6 versus 4.4±3) and were more frail (55.4% versus 33.5%). Total aortic valve replacement volumes increased 61% during the 7-year span; TAVR volumes surpassed SAVR in 2017. The magnitude of mortality benefit associated with TAVR increased until 2016 in the main cohort (2012: hazard ratio [HR], 0.76 [95% CI, 0.67-0.86]; 2016: HR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.36-0.43]); although TAVR continued to have lower mortality rates from 2017 to 2019, the magnitude of benefit over SAVR was attenuated. A similar pattern was seen with readmission, with a lower risk of readmission from 2012 to 2016 for patients with TAVR (2012: HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.63-0.73]; 2016: HR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.41-0.45]) followed by a lesser difference from 2017 to 2019. Year over year, TAVR was associated with increasingly shorter lengths of stay compared with SAVR (2012: HR, 1.91 [95% CI, 1.84-1.98]; 2019: HR, 5.34 [95% CI, 5.22-5.45]). These results were consistent in full aortic valve replacement hospitals. Conclusions The rate of improvement in TAVR outpaced SAVR until 2016, with the recent presence of U-shaped phenomena suggesting a narrowing gap between outcomes. Future longitudinal research is needed to determine the long-term implications of lowering risk profiles across treatment options to guide case selection and clinical care.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare 5-year cardiovascular, renal, and bioprosthetic valve durability outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR)., Background: Patients with severe AS and CKD undergoing TAVR or SAVR are a challenging, understudied clinical subset., Methods: Intermediate-risk patients with moderate to severe CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/m 2 ) from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) 2A trial (patients randomly assigned to SAPIEN XT TAVR or SAVR) and SAPIEN 3 Intermediate Risk Registry were pooled. The composite primary outcome of death, stroke, rehospitalization, and new hemodialysis was evaluated using Cox regression analysis. Patients with and without perioperative acute kidney injury (AKI) were followed through 5 years. A core laboratory-adjudicated analysis of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure was also performed., Results: The study population included 1,045 TAVR patients (512 SAPIEN XT, 533 SAPIEN 3) and 479 SAVR patients. At 5 years, SAVR was better than SAPIEN XT TAVR (52.8% vs 68.0%; P = 0.04) but similar to SAPIEN 3 TAVR (52.8% vs 58.7%; P = 0.89). Perioperative AKI was more common after SAVR than TAVR (26.3% vs 10.3%; P < 0.001) and was independently associated with long-term outcomes. Compared with SAVR, bioprosthetic valve failure and stage 2 or 3 structural valve deterioration were significantly greater for SAPIEN XT TAVR (P < 0.05) but not for SAPIEN 3 TAVR., Conclusions: In intermediate-risk patients with AS and CKD, SAPIEN 3 TAVR and SAVR were associated with a similar risk for the primary endpoint at 5 years. AKI was more common after SAVR than TAVR, and SAPIEN 3 valve durability was comparable with that of surgical bioprostheses., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Edwards Lifesciences funded the PARTNER 2A trial and the SAPIEN 3 Intermediate Risk Registry. Dr Garcia has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, BSCI, and Biotronik; is a consultant for NeoChord, Medtronic, BSCI, and Abbott Vascular; and is a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Cubeddu is an educational speaker and has conducted proctor-related activities for Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott Vascular. Dr Hahn has received speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Philips Healthcare; has received consulting fees from Abbott Structural, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Gore & Associates, and Medtronic; holds equity with Navigate; and is chief scientific officer for the echocardiography core laboratory at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation for multiple industry-sponsored trials, for which she receives no direct industry compensation. Dr Kapadia has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences (no direct physician compensation). Dr Kodali is a consultant (honoraria) for Admedus and Dura Biotech; is a scientific advisory board member (equity) for Dura Biotech, MicroInterventional Devices, Thubrikar Aortic Valve, Supira, Admedus, TriFlo, and Adona; and has received institutional research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, JenaValve, and Keystone Medical. Dr Thourani is a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Cryolife, Edwards Lifesciences, JenaValve, Shockwave, and W.L. Gore. Dr Jaber receives monetary institutional support for echocardiography core laboratory in TAVR, with no direct or indirect personal compensation. Dr Elmariah has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular; and is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Makkar has received grants from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott; and has served as a consultant for Cordis and Medtronic. Dr Webb has served as a proctor and consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Herrmann has received institutional research grants from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and has received consulting and speaker honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Lu is an employee of Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Devireddy has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, ReCor Medical, and Shockwave Medical. Dr Malaisrie has received consulting fees Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Cryolife. Dr Smith has been reimbursed for travel and other customary expenses related to trial management as a principal investigator of the PARTNER trials. Dr Mack has received consulting fees from Gore; has served as a trial coprimary investigator for Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott; and has served as a study chair for Medtronic. Dr Sorajja has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; and is a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, NeoVasc, TeleFlex, TriFlo, VDyne, and W.L. Gore. Dr Cavalcante has received research grants from and is a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Circle Cardiovascular Imaging, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Siemens Healthineers, and Edwards Lifesciences; is a consultant for VDyne and Triflo; and is a member of the Speakers Bureau for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging, Medtronic, Siemens Healthineers. Dr Goessl is a consultant for Abbott Vascular. Dr Leon has received institutional research support from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott. Dr Pibarot has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic for echocardiography core laboratory or in vitro analyses in TAVR, with no personal compensation. 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.)

Importance: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) failure is often managed by an urgent implantation of a supplementary valve during the procedure (2-valve TAVR [2V-TAVR]). Little is known about the factors associated with or sequelae of 2V-TAVR., Objective: To examine the incidence, causes, and outcomes of 2V-TAVR., Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was performed using data from an international registry of 21 298 TAVR procedures performed from January 1, 2014, through February 28, 2019. Among the 21 298 patients undergoing TAVR, 223 patients (1.0%) undergoing 2V-TAVR were identified. Patient-level data were available for all the patients undergoing 2V-TAVR and for 12 052 patients (56.6%) undergoing 1V-TAVR. After excluding patients with missing 30-day follow-up or data inconsistencies, 213 2V-TAVR and 10 010 1V-TAVR patients were studied. The 2V-TAVR patients were compared against control TAVR patients undergoing a 1-valve TAVR (1V-TAVR) using 1:4 17 propensity score matching. Final analysis included 1065 (213:852) patients., Exposures: Urgent implantation of a supplementary valve during TAVR., Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality at 30 days and 1 year., Results: The 213 patients undergoing 2V-TAVR had similar age (mean [SD], 81.3 [0.5] years) and sex (110 [51.6%] female) as the 10 010 patients undergoing 1V-TAVR (mean [SD] age, 81.2 [0.5] years; 110 [51.6%] female). The 2V-TAVR incidence decreased from 2.9% in 2014 to 1.0% in 2018 and was similar between repositionable and nonrepositionable valves. Bicuspid aortic valve (odds ratio [OR], 2.20; 95% CI, 1.17-4.15; P = .02), aortic regurgitation of moderate or greater severity (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.49-2.73; P < .001), atrial fibrillation (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.07-1.93; P = .02), alternative access (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.72-3.89; P < .001), early-generation valve (OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.69-3.19; P < .001), and self-expandable valve (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.17-2.43; P = .004) were associated with higher 2V-TAVR risk. In 165 patients (80%), the supplementary valve was implanted because of residual aortic regurgitation after primary valve malposition (94 [46.4%] too high and 71 [34.2%] too low). In the matched 2V-TAVR vs 1V-TAVR cohorts, the rate of device success was 147 (70.4%) vs 783 (92.2%) (P < .001), the rate of coronary obstruction was 5 (2.3%) vs 3 (0.4%) (P = .10), stroke rate was 9 (4.6%) vs 13 (1.6%) (P = .09), major bleeding rates were 25 (11.8%) vs 46 (5.5%) (P = .03) and annular rupture rate was 7 (3.3%) vs 3 (0.4%) (P = .03). The hazard ratios for mortality were 2.58 (95% CI, 1.04-6.45; P = .04) at 30 days, 1.45 (95% CI, 0.84-2.51; P = .18) at 1 year, and 1.20 (95% CI, 0.77-1.88; P = .42) at 2 years. Nontransfemoral access and certain periprocedural complications were independently associated with higher risk of death 1 year after 2V-TAVR., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, valve malposition was the most common indication for 2V-TAVR. Incidence decreased over time and was low overall, although patients with a bicuspid or regurgitant aortic valve, nontransfemoral access, and early-generation or self-expandable valve were at higher risk. These findings suggest that compared with 1V-TAVR, 2V-TAVR is associated with high burden of complications and mortality at 30 days but not at 1 year.

The next generation SAPIEN 3 Ultra (Edwards Lifesciences, CA, USA) builds on the success of the SAPIEN 3 (S3) transcatheter heart valve. The textured polyethylene terephthalate external skirt is 40% taller than the S3 valve skirt. The Edwards Commander delivery system and Edwards eSheath remain unchanged from S3 with proven results regarding valve deliverability and low rates of vascular complications.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and prognostic impact of early and late postoperative atrial fibrillation or flutter (POAF) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR)., Background: There is an ongoing controversy regarding the incidence, recurrence rate, and prognostic impact of early (in-hospital) POAF and late (postdischarge) POAF in patients with AS undergoing TAVR or SAVR., Methods: In the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) 3 trial, patients with severe AS at low surgical risk were randomized to TAVR or SAVR. Analyses were performed in the as-treated population excluding patients with preexistent atrial fibrillation or flutter., Results: Among 781 patients included in the analysis, early POAF occurred in 152 (19.5%) (18 of 415 [4.3%] and 134 of 366 [36.6%] following TAVR and SAVR, respectively). Following discharge, 58 new or recurrent late POAF events occurred within 1 year following the index procedure in 55 of 781 patients (7.0%). Early POAF was not an independent predictor of late POAF following discharge (odds ratio: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.52-2.08; P = 0.90). Following adjustment, early POAF was not an independent predictor of the composite outcome of death, stroke, or rehospitalization (hazard ratio: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.64-1.92; P = 0.72), whereas late POAF was associated with an increased adjusted risk for the composite outcome (hazard ratio: 8.90; 95% CI: 5.02-15.74; P < 0.0001), irrespective of treatment modality., Conclusions: In the PARTNER 3 trial, early POAF was more frequent following SAVR compared with TAVR. Late POAF, but not early POAF, was significantly associated with worse outcomes at 2 years, irrespective of treatment modality., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The PARTNER 3 trial was funded by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Malaisrie is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott. Dr George is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Thourani does research and is a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Allergen, Boston Scientific, CryoLife, Edwards Lifesciences, Gore Vascular, and JenaValve. Dr Babaliaros has received institutional research funding from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences; and holds equity in Transmural Systems. Dr Kodali has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott; has received consulting fees from Abbott, Admedus, and Meril Life; and holds equity options from Biotrace Medical and Thubrikar Aortic Valve. Dr Nazif is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Dr Genereux has received consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cardinal Health, Cardiovascular Systems, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Opsens, Siemens, SoundBite Medical Solutions, Sig.Num, Saranas, Teleflex, and Tryton Medical; and has equity in Pi-Cardia, Sig.Num, SoundBite Medical Solutions, Saranas, and Puzzle Medical. Drs Lu and Yu are employees of Edwards Lifesciences. Ms Alu has received institutional research support (no direct compensation) from Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Webb is a proctor and consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Mack has received institutional research support (no direct physician compensation) from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Leon has received institutional research support from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott; and is a consultant or advisory board member for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Gore, Meril Life, and Abbott. Dr Kosmidou has received institutional research support from Amgen; and is a consultant for Sanofi. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

[Figure: see text].