Search

Background 'Silent' cerebral infarction and stroke are complications of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Objective To assess the occurrence of cerebral infarction, identify predictive risk factors and examine the impact on patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Methods Cerebral diffusion weighted MRI of 31 patients with aortic stenosis undergoing CoreValve TAVI was carried out. HRQoL was assessed at baseline and at 30 days by SF-12v2 and EQ5D questionnaires. Results New cerebral infarcts occurred in 24/31 patients (77%) and stroke in 2 (6%). Stroke was associated with a greater number and volume of cerebral infarcts. Age (r=0.37, p=0.042), severity of atheroma (arch and descending aorta; r=0.91, p<0.001, r=0.69, p=0.001, respectively) and catheterisation time (r=0.45, p=0.02) were predictors of the number of new cerebral infarcts. HRQoL improved overall: SF-12v2 physical component summary increased significantly (32.4±6.2 vs 36.5±7.2; p=0.03) with no significant change in mental component summary (43.5±11.7 vs 43.1±14.3; p=0.85). The EQ5D score and Visual Analogue Scale showed no significant change (0.56±0.26 vs 0.59±0.31; p=0.70, and 54.2±19 vs 58.2±24; p=0.43). Conclusion Multiple small cerebral infarcts occurred in 77% of patients with TAVI. The majority of infarcts were 'silent' with clinical stroke being associated with a both higher infarct number and volume. Increased age and the severity of aortic arch atheroma were independent risk factors for the development of new cerebral infarcts. Overall HRQoL improved and there was no association between the number of new cerebral infarcts and altered health status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is superior to thrombolysis in STEMI (ST segment elevation myocardial infarction) patients. Data on late stent thrombosis (ST) have raised concerns regarding the use of drug-eluting stents during PPCI. We report the first 3-year clinical evaluation of the zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) in patients undergoing PPCI for STEMI, a single-center, prospective cohort study of consecutive patients admitted with STEMI. All underwent PPCI within 12 hours of symptoms; each received one or more ZES in one or more target lesions. All patients received aspirin 300 mg, clopidogrel 600 mg, abciximab, and unfractionated heparin. A total of 102 STEMI patients (76 male, mean 62 years) received 162 ZES (mean 1.6 stents/patient). Median call-to-balloon time was 123 (102-152) minutes. Thirty-day combined major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) rate was 3.9% (n = 4). Subacute ST occurred in 2 patients (1.96%). Combined MACE rates at 12 months and 3 years were 7.8% (n = 8) and 13.7% (n = 14). Late ST occurred in 1 patient (1%) with no occurrence of very late ST. This is the first 3-year report of the use of the ZES in an unselected, consecutive PPCI population. Overall 3-year incidence of MACE and target lesion revascularization (5.9%) was low, and was comparable to that seen with sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in randomized controlled trials. At 3 years there was no occurrence of very late ST. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Historically, women with aortic stenosis have experienced worse outcomes and inadequate recognition compared to men, being both underdiagnosed and undertreated, while also facing underrepresentation in clinical trials., Objective: To determine whether women with small aortic annuli undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement have better clinical and hemodynamic outcomes with a self-expanding valve (SEV) or balloon-expandable valve (BEV)., Design, Setting, Participants: The Small Annuli Randomized to Evolut or SAPIEN Trial (SMART) was a large-scale randomized clinical trial focusing on patients with small aortic annuli undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, randomized to receive SEVs or BEVs and included 716 patients treated at 83 centers in Canada, Europe, Israel, and the US from April 2021 to October 2022. This prespecified secondary analysis reports clinical and hemodynamic findings for all 621 women enrolled in SMART. Data for this report were analyzed from February to April 2024., Interventions: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with an SEV or a BEV., Main Outcomes and Measures: The composite coprimary clinical end point comprised death, disabling stroke, or heart failure-related rehospitalization. The coprimary valve function end point was the incidence of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction, both assessed through 12 months. Secondary end points included the incidence of moderate or severe prosthesis-patient mismatch., Results: A total of 621 women (mean [SD] age, 80.2 [6.2] years; 312 randomized to the SEV group and 309 to the BEV group) were included in the present analysis. At 12 months, there were no significant differences in the coprimary clinical end point between the SEV and BEV groups (9.4% vs 11.8%, absolute risk difference -2.3%; 95% CI -7.2 to 2.5, P = .35). However, SEV implantation was associated with less bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (8.4% vs 41.8%; absolute risk difference, -33.4%; 95% CI, -40.4 to -26.4; P < .001). SEV implantation resulted in lower aortic valve gradients and larger effective orifice areas at 30 days and 12 months and less mild or greater aortic regurgitation at 12 months compared to BEV implantation. Prosthesis-patient mismatch was significantly lower with SEVs, regardless of the definition used and adjustment for body mass index. Use of SEVs was associated with better quality of life outcomes as assessed by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 ordinal quality of life measure., Conclusions and Relevance: Among women with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and small aortic annuli undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the use of SEVs, compared to BEVs, resulted in similar clinical outcomes and a markedly reduced incidence of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction through 12 months, including a lower risk of prosthesis-patient mismatch and better 12-month quality of life., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04722250.

Background: Balloon-expandable valves (BEVs) and self-expanding valves (SEVs) have different features that may impact the outcomes of patients with Sievers type 1 bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement., Objectives: This study sought to compare procedural and clinical outcomes of BEVs and SEVs in Sievers type 1 BAV stenosis., Methods: AD-HOC (Characteristics, Sizing, and Outcomes of Stenotic Raphe-Type Bicuspid Aortic Valves Treated With Transcatheter Device Implantation) is an observational registry enrolling patients with Sievers type 1 BAV stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement with current-generation BEVs and SEVs at 24 international centers. A 1:1 propensity score matching analysis was performed to adjust for baseline imbalances. The primary endpoint was midterm major adverse events, defined as a composite of all-cause death, neurologic events, or hospitalization for heart failure., Results: Among 955 eligible patients, propensity score matching resulted in 301 pairs. At a median follow-up of 1.3 years, BEVs and SEVs had a similar risk of major adverse events (BEV vs SEV: HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.49-1.16; P = 0.200). Technical success was similar (OR: 1.38; 95% CI: 0.63-3.04; P = 0.421). At 30 days, BEVs were associated with a lower risk of new permanent pacemaker implantation (OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.24-0.72; P = 0.002) and moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation (OR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.05-0.48; P = 0.001) but a higher risk of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (OR: 3.03; 95% CI 1.02-8.95; P = 0.045)., Conclusions: Current-generation BEVs and SEVs proved similar technical success and midterm clinical efficacy in Sievers type 1 BAV stenosis. Compared to SEVs, BEVs were associated with less permanent pacemaker implantation and moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation but with more severe patient-prosthesis mismatch., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: This trial sought to assess the safety and efficacy of ShortCut, the first dedicated leaflet modification device, prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients at risk for coronary artery obstruction., Methods: This pivotal prospective study enrolled patients with failed bioprosthetic aortic valves scheduled to undergo TAVI and were at risk for coronary artery obstruction. The primary safety endpoint was procedure-related mortality or stroke at discharge or 7 days, and the primary efficacy endpoint was per-patient leaflet splitting success. Independent angiographic, echocardiographic, and computed tomography core laboratories assessed all images. Safety events were adjudicated by a clinical events committee and data safety monitoring board., Results: Sixty eligible patients were treated (77.0 ± 9.6 years, 70% female, 96.7% failed surgical bioprosthetic valves, 63.3% single splitting and 36.7% dual splitting) at 22 clinical sites. Successful leaflet splitting was achieved in all [100%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 94%-100.0%, P < .001] patients. Procedure time, including imaging confirmation of leaflet splitting, was 30.6 ± 17.9 min. Freedom from the primary safety endpoint was achieved in 59 [98.3%; 95% CI (91.1%-100%)] patients, with no mortality and one (1.7%) disabling stroke. At 30 days, freedom from coronary obstruction was 95% (95% CI 86.1%-99.0%). Within 90 days, freedom from mortality was 95% [95% CI (86.1%-99.0%)], without any cardiovascular deaths., Conclusions: Modification of failed bioprosthetic aortic valve leaflets using ShortCut was safe, achieved successful leaflet splitting in all patients, and was associated with favourable clinical outcomes in patients at risk for coronary obstruction undergoing TAVI., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

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

Background: For patients with severe aortic stenosis, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive but equally effective treatment option compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). In 2019, we reported low rates of TAVI in the UK compared with other countries in western Europe and highlighted profound geographical variation in TAVI care. Here, we provide contemporary data on access to aortic valve replacement by either TAVI or SAVR across clinical commissioning groups in England., Methods: We obtained aggregated data from the UK TAVI registry and the National Adult Cardiac Surgery Audit between 2019 and 2023. Rates of TAVI and SAVR procedures per million population were reported by clinical commissioning groups. The relationship between TAVI and SAVR rates was determined using Pearson correlation coefficients., Results: In 2022/23, the rates of TAVI and SAVR in England were 136 per million population and 60 per million population, respectively. The observed increase in TAVI rates since 2019/20 corresponded with a decline in SAVR rates. There remains substantial variation in access to both procedures, with an over tenfold variation in TAVI rates, and an over fourfold variation in SAVR rates across clinical commissioning groups in England. No relationship was identified between the rates of TAVI and those for SAVR (correlation coefficient 0.06)., Conclusion: Geographical heterogeneity in access to TAVI persists over time, with the low rates of TAVI in many areas not compensated for by higher rates of SAVR, indicating an overall inequality in the treatment of severe aortic stenosis., Competing Interests: Disclosure: SA has received an educational grant from the European Society of Cardiology. NA has received speaker fees from Abbott and Medtronic. NC has received grants from Boston Scientific, Beckman Coulter, Heartflow and Haemonetics, consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, speaker fees from HeartFlow and Abbott Vascular, educational meeting support from Abbott and Edwards and is on the Interventional Cardiology editorial board; this did not influence peer review. ATG is the Clinical Lead of the UK National Adult Cardiac Surgery Audit and a member of the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgeons. DHS is the president of the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society and a proctor/advisory to Medtronic, Abbott, Boston and Edwards. RKK has received institutional grants for trials from Boston Scientific, speaker fees from Boston and Medtronic and is on the advisory board for Boston Scientific and Medtronic. DJB has received institutional research grants from Medtronic and consulting fees from Abbott Vascular and Medtronic and speaker fees from Abbott Vascular and Medtronic. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Data availability: These data are available as part of the series of annual reports of the National Cardiac Audit Program produced by NICOR. Authors’ contributions: Conceptualisation: DJB, DHS, PFL, RKK, ATG; data curation: SA, PDJ; formal analysis: PDJ, SM, SP; investigation: DJB, SA, NA; methodology: DJB, SA, NA; resources: PFL, RKK; software: PDJ, SM, SP; supervision: DJB; validation: DJB, DHS, PFL, RKK, ATG; writing – original draft preparation: SA, NA; writing – review & editing: DB, SA, NA, PL, NC, AG, DHS, RK, PJ, SM, SP. Ethics: This is an observational study. The NICOR Research Committee has confirmed that no ethical approval is required. Consent: All National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) audits and registries have approval under Section 251 of the NHS Act 2006 to use patient data, without obtaining patient consent., (Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Radcliffe Group Ltd.)

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis is technically challenging and is burdened by an increased risk of paravalvular regurgitation (PVR)., Objectives: The aim of this study was to identify the incidence, predictors, and clinical outcomes of PVR after TAVR in Sievers type 1 BAV stenosis., Methods: Consecutive patients with Sievers type 1 BAV stenosis undergoing TAVR with current-generation transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in 24 international centers were enrolled. PVR was graded as none/trace, mild, moderate, and severe according to echocardiographic criteria. The endpoint of major adverse events (MAEs), defined as a composite of all-cause death, stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure, was assessed at the last available follow-up., Results: A total of 946 patients were enrolled. PVR occurred in 423 patients (44.7%)-mild, moderate, and severe in 387 (40.9%), 32 (3.4%), and 4 (0.4%) patients, respectively. Independent predictors of moderate or severe PVR were a larger virtual raphe ring perimeter (adjusted OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.02-1.13), severe annular or left ventricular outflow tract calcification (adjusted OR: 5.21; 95% CI: 1.45-18.77), a self-expanding valve (adjusted OR: 9.01; 95% CI: 2.09-38.86), and intentional supra-annular THV positioning (adjusted OR: 3.31; 95% CI: 1.04-10.54). At a median follow-up of 1.3 years (Q1-Q3: 0.5-2.4 years), moderate or severe PVR was associated with an increased risk of MAEs (adjusted HR: 2.52; 95% CI: 1.24-5.09)., Conclusions: After TAVR with current-generation THVs in Sievers type 1 BAV stenosis, moderate or severe PVR occurred in about 4% of cases and was associated with an increased risk of MAEs during follow-up., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Aurigemma has reported speaker fees from Abbott, Medtronic, Abiomed, and Terumo. Dr Trani has been involved in advisory board meetings or received speaker fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Terumo, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Abiomed. Dr Adamo has reported speaker honoraria from Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Burzotta has been involved in advisory board meetings or has received speaker fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Terumo, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Abiomed. 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.)

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become more common than surgical aortic valve replacement since 2016, with over 200,000 procedures globally each year. As patients increasingly outlive their TAVR devices, managing these cases is a growing concern. Treatment options include surgical removal of the old TAVR device (transcatheter aortic valve [TAV] explant) or implantation of a new transcatheter aortic valve (redo TAV). Redo TAV is complex because of the unique designs of TAV devices; compatibility issues; and the need for individualized planning based on factors such as implant depth, shape, and coronary artery relationships. This review serves as a comprehensive guide for redo TAV, detailing the design characteristics of TAV devices, device compatibility, standardized terminology, and a structured approach for computed tomography analysis. It aims to facilitate decision making, risk identification, and achieving optimal outcomes in redo TAV procedures., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Bapat has served as a consultant for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Anteris, Meril Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific. Dr Jilaihawi has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic Inc; and has received institutional research grants from Boston Scientific and Pi-Cardia. Dr Rogers is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Transmural Systems; serves on advisory boards for Medtronic and Boston Scientific; holds an equity interest in Transmural Systems; and is a coinventor on patents, assigned to National Institutes of Health, for transcatheter electrosurgery devices. Dr Khalique is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Restore Medical, Croivalve, Heartflow, and Vdyne; and holds equity in Triflo. Dr Cavalcante is a consultant for 3Mensio, 4C Medical, Abbott Structural, Anteris, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, JenaValve, Medtronic, and Siemens Healthineers. Dr Landes has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Sathananthan has received speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, NVT Medical, and Boston Scientific; is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Anteris; and serves as chief medical officer for structural division of Boston Scientific. Dr Tarantini has received lecture fees from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Boston Scientifics. Dr Tang has received speaker honoraria and has 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 has 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 Blackman is a consultant, proctor, and advisory board member for Medtronic and Abbott Vascular; and has received institutional research grants from Medtronic. Dr De Backer has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr Mack 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. Dr Leon has received institutional grants for clinical research from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, JenaValve, and Medtronic; and has received stock options (equity) for advisory board participation in Valve Medical, Picardia, and Venus MedTech. 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.)

The Navitor transcatheter heart valve (THV) is the latest iteration of the Portico self-expanding valve system. Early prospective studies have shown promising outcomes, however, there is a lack of complementary 'real-world' data. This study aimed to assess early safety and efficacy outcomes of the Navitor THV using registry data from 6 high-volume United Kingdom transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) centers. Demographic, procedural, and in-hospital outcome data were retrieved from 6 United Kingdom centers. The primary safety end point was 30-day mortality. Primary efficacy end points were procedural success, mean aortic gradient, and ≥moderate paravalvular leak. Secondary end points included rates of new permanent pacemaker implantation, stroke, and vascular injury. A total of 574 patients (mean age 83.4 years; 54.5% female) underwent Navitor TAVR between January 2020 and May 2023. The 30-day mortality in this patient cohort was 1.6%. Procedural success was 98.1%, mean echo-derived gradient post-TAVR was 7.7 ± 4.8 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.2 to 8.3, p <0.001) and 5.1% of patients had ≥moderate paravalvular leak (sample proportion estimate [p̂] = 0.051, 95% CI [0.035, 0.073], p <0.001). New permanent pacemaker implantation to discharge was required in 11% (p̂ = 0.119, 95% CI 0.088 to 0.158, p <0.001), stroke occurred in 1.2% of patients (p̂ = 0.017, 95% CI 0.006 to 0.036, p <0.001) and significant vascular injury in 1.6% (p̂ = 0.014, 95% CI 0.005 to 0.032, p <0.001). In conclusion, early procedural outcomes with Navitor TAVR compare favorably to new-generation THVs. Procedural success was high with a low incidence of complications., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with severe aortic stenosis and a small aortic annulus are at risk for impaired valvular hemodynamic performance and associated adverse cardiovascular clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR)., Methods: We randomly assigned patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and an aortic-valve annulus area of 430 mm 2 or less in a 1:1 ratio to undergo TAVR with either a self-expanding supraannular valve or a balloon-expandable valve. The coprimary end points, each assessed through 12 months, were a composite of death, disabling stroke, or rehospitalization for heart failure (tested for noninferiority) and a composite end point measuring bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction (tested for superiority)., Results: A total of 716 patients were treated at 83 sites in 13 countries (mean age, 80 years; 87% women; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality, 3.3%). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the percentage of patients who died, had a disabling stroke, or were rehospitalized for heart failure through 12 months was 9.4% with the self-expanding valve and 10.6% with the balloon-expandable valve (difference, -1.2 percentage points; 90% confidence interval [CI], -4.9 to 2.5; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the percentage of patients with bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction through 12 months was 9.4% with the self-expanding valve and 41.6% with the balloon-expandable valve (difference, -32.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -38.7 to -25.6; P<0.001 for superiority). The aortic-valve mean gradient at 12 months was 7.7 mm Hg with the self-expanding valve and 15.7 mm Hg with the balloon-expandable valve, and the corresponding values for additional secondary end points through 12 months were as follows: mean effective orifice area, 1.99 cm 2 and 1.50 cm 2 ; percentage of patients with hemodynamic structural valve dysfunction, 3.5% and 32.8%; and percentage of women with bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction, 10.2% and 43.3% (all P<0.001). Moderate or severe prosthesis-patient mismatch at 30 days was found in 11.2% of the patients in the self-expanding valve group and 35.3% of those in the balloon-expandable valve group (P<0.001). Major safety end points appeared to be similar in the two groups., Conclusions: Among patients with severe aortic stenosis and a small aortic annulus who underwent TAVR, a self-expanding supraannular valve was noninferior to a balloon-expandable valve with respect to clinical outcomes and was superior with respect to bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction through 12 months. (Funded by Medtronic; SMART ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04722250.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

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 and Aims: To develop a suite of quality indicators (QIs) for the evaluation of the care and outcomes for adults undergoing transcatheter aortic valve intervention (TAVI)., Methods: We followed the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) methodology for the development of QIs. Key domains were identified by constructing a conceptual framework for the delivery of TAVI care. A list of candidate QIs were developed by conducting a systematic review of the literature. A modified Delphi method was then used to select the final set of QIs. Finally, we mapped the QIs to the EuroHeart Data Standards for TAVI to ascertain the extent to which the EuroHeart TAVI registry captures information to calculate the QIs., Results: We formed an international group of experts in quality improvement and TAVI, including representatives from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging and the Association of Cardiovascular Nursing & Allied Professions. In total, 27 QIs were selected across eight domains of TAVI care, comprising 22 main (81%) and five secondary (19%) QIs. Of these, 19/27 (70%) are now being utilised in the EuroHeart TAVI registry., Conclusion: We present the 2023 ESC QIs for TAVI, developed using a standard methodology and in collaboration with ESC Associations. The EuroHeart TAVI registry allows calculation of the majority of the QIs, which may be used for benchmarking care and quality improvement initiatives., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Redo transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is increasing as patients outlive their transcatheter heart valves (THVs) and present with bioprosthetic valve failure. The Lotus mechanically expanded THV has unique design characteristics, which have specific implications for Redo TAVI., Methods: The design features of the Lotus valve and their relevance to Redo TAVI were reviewed. Bench-top analysis of Redo TAVI was performed using different contemporary THVs. Procedural and outcome data were obtained from 10 patients who had undergone Redo TAVI for Lotus bioprosthetic valve failure in 5 centers. Recommendations for performing Redo TAVI in Lotus are made, based on these findings., Results: The Lotus leaflets extend from the frame inflow, with a Neoskirt of only 13 mm, hence a low risk of coronary obstruction during Redo TAVI. The Lotus frame posts prevent full apposition of the Redo prosthesis in the upper part of the frame, while implantation of the Redo THV above the Lotus inflow leads to inadequate apposition of the Lotus leaflets. Inflow-to-inflow positioning is therefore recommended for effective sealing and leaflet pinning. The Lotus locking mechanism prevents overexpansion of the frame, limiting Redo THV oversizing. Redo TAVI was favorable with SAPIEN 3, Evolut, and Navitor THVs on bench-top analysis but not with ACURATE Neo 2 due to the upper crowns and short stent preventing inflow-to-inflow deployment. Case review demonstrated satisfactory outcomes in 10 patients treated with Evolut (n=6), SAPIEN 3 (n=3), and Portico (n=1) valves, with no mortality, major morbidity, or coronary obstruction. Three patients had residual mean gradient ≥20 mm Hg, including 2 of 3 SAPIEN cases. Guidance on procedural planning, valve choice, sizing, and positioning is provided., Conclusions: Redo TAVI in Lotus requires an understanding of unique design characteristics, and adherence to key procedural recommendations, but can be safely and effectively performed with most contemporary valve types., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Blackman is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific, and a proctor for Medtronic and Abbott Vascular. J. Sathananthan is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Anteris, Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific. He has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. C. Frawley is employed by Boston Scientific. Dr de Backer received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Van Mieghem has received research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards, Medtronic and Essential Medical/Teleflex. He received advisory fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Ancora, Medtronic, and Essential Medical/Teleflex. Dr Abdel-Wahab reports that his hospital received speakers’ honoraria and consulting fees on his behalf from Medtronic and Boston Scientific. The other authors report no conflicts.

Background: Coronary accessibility following redo-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (redo-TAVR) is increasingly important, particularly in younger low-risk patients. This study aimed to predict coronary accessibility after simulated Sapien-3 balloon-expandable valve implantation within an Evolut supra-annular, self-expanding valve using pre-TAVR computed tomography (CT) imaging., Methods: A total of 219 pre-TAVR CT scans from the Evolut Low-Risk CT substudy were analyzed. Virtual Evolut and Sapien-3 valves were sized using CT-based diameters. Two initial Evolut implant depths were analyzed, 3 and 5 mm. Coronary accessibility was evaluated for 2 Sapien-3 in Evolut implant positions: Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 4 and Evolut node 5., Results: With a 3-mm initial Evolut implant depth, suitable coronary access was predicted in 84% of patients with the Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 4, and in 31% of cases with the Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 5 ( P <0.001). Coronary accessibility improved with a 5-mm Evolut implant depth: 97% at node 4 and 65% at node 5 ( P <0.001). When comparing 3- to 5-mm Evolut implant depth, sinus sequestration was the lowest with Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 4 (13% versus 2%; P <0.001), and the highest at Evolut node 5 (61% versus 32%; P <0.001)., Conclusions: Coronary accessibility after Sapien-3 in Evolut redo-TAVR relates to the initial Evolut implant depth, the Sapien-3 outflow position within the Evolut, and the native annular anatomy. This CT-based quantitative analysis may provide useful information to inform and refine individualized preprocedural CT planning of the initial TAVR and guide lifetime management for future coronary access after redo-TAVR., Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02701283., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Tang is a physician proctor, consultant, and physician advisory board member for Medtronic, a consultant and physician advisory board member for Abbott Structural Heart, a consultant for NeoChord, and a physician advisory board member for JenaValve and Boston Scientific. He has received Speaker Honoraria for Siemens Healthineers and East End Medical. Dr Spencer is an employee and shareholder of Medtronic. Dr Rogers is a consultant and physician proctor to Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and Boston Scientific; is an Advisory Board member to Medtronic; has equity in Transmural Systems; and is a co-inventor on patents, assigned to National Institutes of Health, for transcatheter electrosurgery devices. Dr Grubb is a proctor, principal investigator and on the advisory board for Medtronic, serves on the advisory board or is a consultant for Ancora Heart, Boston Scientific, Abbott, 4C Medical, Gore, BioVentrix, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Gleason’s employer receives institutional grants and educational funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott and Medtronic; he has no personal financial disclosures. Dr Gada has served as a consultant to Abbott, Bard Medical Corporation, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Mahoney is a proctor and consultant for Medtronic, Edwards, and Boston Scientific. Dr Dauerman is a consultant for Boston Scientific and Medtronic, and has received grant support from Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr Forrest has received grant support/research contracts and consultant fees/honoraria/speakers’ bureau fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Reardon has received fees to his institution from Medtronic for consulting and providing educational services. Dr Blanke holds institutional research core laboratory agreements with Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott with no personal compensation. Dr Leipsic holds institutional research core laboratory agreements with Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Pi CARDIA with no personal compensation. Dr Abdel-Wahab’s institution receives speaker’s honoraria and consultancy fees on his behalf from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Attizzani is a consultant, serves as a proctor and is on the advisory board of Medtronic and is a consultant for Abbott Vascular. Dr Puri is a consultant, speaker and proctor for Medtronic, consults for Centerline Biomedical, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Philips, Products & Features, Shockwave Medical, VDyne, VahatiCor, Advanced Nanotherapies, NuevoSono, TherOx, GE Healthcare, BioVentrix, Protembis, and has equity interest in Centerline Biomedical, VahatiCor and NuevoSono. Dr Caskey reports proctor fees from Medtronic. Dr Chen is a proctor and is an advisory board member for Medtronic. Dr Allen has received grant support, proctor and speakers’ bureau fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and Abbott with no personal compensation. Dr Chhatriwalla is a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic Inc, is on the speakers bureau for Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic Inc, and has a research grant from Boston Scientific. Dr Htun is a consultant for Medtronic. Dr Blackman is a proctor and consultant for Medtronic and Abbott Vascular, and a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and Boston Scientific. Dr Tarantini has received lecture fees from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Boston Scientific. Dr Zhingre Sanchez is an employee and shareholder of Medtronic. Dr Popma is an employee and shareholder of Medtronic. Dr Sathananthan is a consulta nt to Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; and has received speaking fees from Edwards Lifesciences and NVT. The other authors report no conflicts.

Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) was first performed in 2003, and is now established across the developed world as an effective, minimally invasive treatment option for patients with mitral regurgitation (MR). Multiple large registries have established the efficacy of mitral TEER in patients with primary or degenerative MR in whom surgery is considered prohibitive or high risk, while ongoing randomised-controlled trials will determine its role in younger and lower- risk patients. In patients with secondary or functional MR, in whom mitral valve surgery is not routinely recommended, the pivotal COAPT trial showed a profound reduction in both mortality and heart failure hospitalisation in carefully selected patients. NHS England approved the routine commissioning of mitral TEER in 2019, and following a substantial delay, due in large part to the COVID pandemic, the procedure is now widely available across the UK. This review article describes the TEER procedure, currently available devices, the underlying evidence base, and the key facts needed for clinicians to understand who, how, and where to refer patients for consideration of mitral TEER. The emerging role of TEER in patients with severe symptomatic tricuspid regurgitation is also considered., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest DJB is a Consultant and Proctor for Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. SD is a Consultant and Proctor for Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. RS is a Consultant and Proctor for Abbott Vascular. JB is a Consultant and Proctor for Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. PAM is a Consultant and Proctor for Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. DS none declared., (Copyright © 2023 Medinews (Cardiology) Limited.)

Objective: To assess gender, ethnicity, and deprivation-based differences in provision of aortic valve replacement (AVR) in England for adults with aortic stenosis (AS)., Methods: We retrospectively identified adults with AS from the English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) between April 2016 and March 2019 and those who subsequently had an AVR. We separately used HES-linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) to identify people with AVR and evaluate the timeliness of their procedure (CPRD-AVR cohort). ORs for AVR in people with an AS diagnosis were estimated using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age, region and comorbidity. AVR was considered timely if performed electively and without evidence of cardiac decompensation before AVR., Results: 183 591 adults with AS were identified in HES; of these, 31 436 underwent AVR. The CPRD-AVR cohort comprised 10 069 adults. Women had lower odds of receiving AVR compared with men (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.66); as did people of black (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.82) or South Asian (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.82) compared with people of white ethnicities. People in the most deprived areas were less likely to receive AVR than the least deprived areas (OR 0.8; 95% CI 0.75 to 0.86). Timely AVR occurred in 65% of those of white ethnicities compared with 55% of both those of black and South Asian ethnicities. 77% of the least deprived had a timely procedure compared with 58% of the most deprived; there was no gender difference., Conclusions: In this large, national dataset, female gender, black or South Asian ethnicities and high deprivation were associated with significantly reduced odds of receiving AVR in England. A lower proportion of people of minority ethnicities or high deprivation had a timely procedure. Public health initiatives may be required to increase clinician and public awareness of unconscious biases towards minority and vulnerable populations to ensure timely AVR for everyone., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CTR and SPO'C were employed by CorEvitas (Specialty EMR Data division), which was funded by Medtronic to conduct this research. SB is an employee of Medtronic. DJB is a consultant and proctor for Medtronic. CEA has received honoraria from Medtronic. The remaining authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: A steep rise in the use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for the management of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis occurred. Minimalist TAVI procedures and streamlined patient pathways within experienced Heart Valve Centres are designed to overcome the challenges of ever-increasing procedural volume., Aims: The 2022 European TAVI Pathway Survey aims to describe contemporary TAVI practice across Europe., Materials and Methods: Between October and December 2022, TAVI operators from 32 European countries were invited to complete an online questionnaire regarding their current practice., Results: Responses were available from 147 TAVI centres in 26 countries. In 2021, the participating centres performed a total number of 27,223 TAVI procedures, with a mean of 185 TAVI cases per centre (median 138; IQR 77-194). Treatment strategies are usually (87%) discussed at a dedicated Heart Team meeting. Transfemoral TAVI is performed with local anaesthesia only (33%), with associated conscious sedation (60%), or under general anaesthesia (7%). Primary vascular access is percutaneous transfemoral (99%) with secondary radial access (52%). After uncomplicated TAVI, patients are transferred to a high-, medium-, or low-care unit in 28%, 52%, and 20% of cases, respectively. Time to discharge is day 1 (12%), day 2 (31%), day 3 (29%), or day 4 or more (28%)., Conclusion: Reported adoption of minimalist TAVI techniques is common among European TAVI centres, but rates of next-day discharge remain low. This survey highlights the significant progress made in refining TAVI treatment and pathways in recent years and identifies possible areas for further improvement., Competing Interests: DM: consultant for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Microport. TR: proctor and advisor for JenaValve, speaker’s honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and JenaValve. JW: institutional grant from Medtronic and speaker’s honoraria (also to the institution) from Boston Scientific and Sinomed. SO: consulting fees from Medtronic and Edwards, speaker’s honoraria from Philips and World Medical, and research grant (PI21/00949) from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (Instituto de Salud Carlos III). LL: proctoring and consulting honoraria for Abbott, Edwards, and Medtronic. DB: proctoring and consulting honoraria for Abbott, Edwards, and Medtronic. NM: institutional research grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Medtronic, Daiichi Sankyo, Astra Zeneca, and PulseCath BV; and consultancy fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Medtronic, Daiichi Sankyo, Abiomed, Amgen, JenaValve, Anteris, and PulseCath BV. MG: Boston Scientific—research and travel grants, speaker’s honoraria, proctor, and advisory board member; Medtronic—research and travel grants, speaker’s honoraria, proctor, advisory board member; Abbott—speaker’s honoraria and travel grants; and Edwards Lifesciences—speakers honoraria and travel grants. BP: speaker’s fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Medtronic and consulting fees from Anteris and Microport. ODB: institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The reviewer JS declared a past co-authorship with the author ODB to the handling editor., (© 2023 Rosseel, Mylotte, Cosyns, Vanhaverbeke, Zweiker, Teles, Angerås, Neylon, Rudolph, Wykrzykowska, Patterson, Costa, Ojeda, Tzikas, Abras, Leroux, Van Belle, Tchétché, Bleiziffer, Swaans, Parma, Blackman, Van Mieghem, Grygier, Redwood, Prendergast, Van Camp and De Backer.)

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

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an established treatment for aortic stenosis. Cerebral embolic protection (CEP) devices may impact periprocedural stroke by capturing debris destined for the brain. However, there is a lack of high-quality randomised trial evidence supporting the use of CEP during TAVI. The British Heart Foundation (BHF) PROTECT-TAVI trial will address whether the routine use of CEP reduces the incidence of stroke in patients undergoing TAVI. BHF PROTECT-TAVI is a prospective, open-label, outcome-adjudicated, multicentre randomised controlled trial. The trial is open to all adult patients scheduled for TAVI at participating specialist cardiac centres across the United Kingdom who are able to receive the CEP device. The trial will recruit 7,730 participants. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to undergo TAVI with CEP or TAVI without CEP (standard of care). The primary outcome is the incidence of stroke at 72 hours post-TAVI. Key secondary outcomes include the incidence of stroke and all-cause mortality up to 12 months post-TAVI, disability and cognitive outcomes, stroke severity, access site complications and a health economics analysis. The sample size of 7,730 participants has 80% power to detect a 33% relative risk reduction from a 3% incidence of the primary outcome in the controls. Trial recruitment commenced in October 2020. As of October 2022, 3,068 patients have been enrolled. BHF PROTECT-TAVI is designed to provide definitive evidence on the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of using routine CEP with the SENTINEL device to reduce stroke in TAVI.

Background: With expansion of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) into younger patients, valve durability is critically important., Aims: We aimed to evaluate long-term valve function and incidence of severe structural valve deterioration (SVD) among patients ≥ 10-years post-TAVI and with echocardiographic follow-up at least 5-years postprocedure., Methods: Data on patients who underwent TAVI from 2007 to 2011 were obtained from the UK TAVI registry. Patients with paired echocardiograms postprocedure and ≥5-years post-TAVI were included. Severe SVD was determined according to European task force guidelines., Results: 221 patients (79.4 ± 7.3 years; 53% male) were included with median echocardiographic follow-up 7.0 years (range 5-13 years). Follow-up exceeded 10 years in 43 patients (19.5%). Valve types were the supra-annular self-expanding CoreValve (SEV; n = 143, 67%), balloon-expandable SAPIEN/XT (BEV; n = 67, 31%), Portico (n = 4, 5%) and unknown (n = 7, 3%). There was no difference between postprocedure and follow-up peak gradient in the overall cohort (19.3 vs. 18.4 mmHg; p = NS) or in those with ≥10-years follow-up (21.1 vs. 21.1 mmHg; p = NS). Severe SVD occurred in 13 patients (5.9%; median 7.8-years post-TAVI). Three cases (23.1%) were due to regurgitation and 10 (76.9%) to stenosis. Valve-related reintervention/death occurred in 5 patients (2.3%). Severe SVD was more frequent with BEV than SEV (11.9% vs. 3.5%; p = 0.02), driven by a difference in patients treated with small valves (BEV 28.6% vs. SEV 3.0%; p < 0.01)., Conclusions: Hemodynamic function of transcatheter heart valves remains stable up to more than 10 years post-TAVI. Severe SVD occurred in 5.9%, and valve-related death/reintervention in 2.3%. Severe SVD was more common with BEV than SEV., (© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: There is a paucity of real-world data assessing the association of operator volumes and mortality specific to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI)., Methods: Demographic, clinical and outcome data for all patients undergoing PPCI in Leeds General Infirmary, UK, between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2011, and 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013, were obtained prospectively. Operator volumes were analysed according to annual operator PPCI volume (low volume: 1-54 PPCI per year; intermediate volume: 55-109 PPCI per year; high volume: ≥110 PPCI per year). Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were undertaken to investigate 30-day and 12-month all-cause mortality, adjusting for confounding factors., Results: During this period, 4056 patients underwent PPCI, 3703 (91.3%) of whom were followed up for a minimum of 12 months. PPCI by low-volume operators was associated with significantly higher adjusted 30-day mortality (HR 1.48 (95% CI 1.05 to 2.08); p=0.02) compared with PPCI performed by high-volume operators, with no significant difference in adjusted 12-month mortality (HR 1.26 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.65); p=0.09). Comparisons between low-volume and intermediate-volume operators, and between intermediate and high-volume operators, showed no significant differences in 30-day and 12-month mortality., Conclusions: Low operator volume is independently associated with higher probability of 30-day mortality compared with high operator volume, suggesting a volume-outcome relationship in PPCI at a threshold higher than current recommendations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To assess the impact of balloon use for predilation, valve implantation, or postdilation on in-hospital mortality among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Background: TAVR utilizes self-expanding, mechanically expanding, or balloon-expandable valves. Balloon inflation is inherent to deployment of balloon-expandable valves. Balloons may additionally be used with all valve types for pre- and postdilation. The relationships between valve mechanism, balloon use, and in-hospital mortality are not fully characterized., Methods: Prospective data were collected on 4063 patients undergoing TAVR for aortic stenosis at 4 high-volume centers in the United Kingdom. In-hospital mortality was analyzed according to valve expansion mechanism, use of balloons for pre- and postdilation, and specific cause of death., Results: Mean patient age was 83 ± 8 years. Implanted valves were self expanding (n = 2241; 55%), mechanically expanding (n = 1092; 27%), or balloon expandable (n = 727; 18%). In-hospital death occurred in 66 cases (1.6%). Thirty-six deaths (54.5%) were classified as implantation-related mortalities, with rates of 0.8%, 0.5%, and 1.7% (P=.04) among self-expanding, mechanically expanding, and balloon-expandable technologies, respectively. Patients who underwent balloon inflation at any stage of their procedure (n = 2556; 63%) had significantly higher implantation-related mortality than those who did not (1.3% vs 0.3%, respectively; P<.01). Balloon-expandable valve procedures were associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality (2.6% vs 1.4%; P=.02) and implantation-related mortality (1.7% vs 0.7%; P=.02) than non-balloon-expandable valve procedures. Balloon-related complications accounted for 18 cases (26%) of total in-hospital mortality, including all 12 cases (17.4%) of annular rupture and 5 cases (7.2%) of coronary occlusion., Conclusions: Balloon use for predilation, valve implantation, or postdilation was associated with an increased mortality risk. Balloon-related complications were the largest contributor to in-hospital mortality, comprising all cases of annular rupture and the majority of coronary occlusion cases.

Objectives: To determine whether a permanent pacemaker (PPM) in situ can enhance survival after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), in a predominantly inoperable or high risk cohort., Background: New conduction disturbances are the most frequent complication of TAVI, often necessitating PPM implantation before hospital discharge., Methods: We performed an observational cohort analysis of the UK TAVI registry (2007-2015). Primary and secondary endpoints were 30-day post-discharge all-cause mortality and long-term survival, respectively., Results: Of 8,651 procedures, 6,815 complete datasets were analyzed. A PPM at hospital discharge, irrespective of when implantation occurred (PPM 1.68% [22/1309] vs. no PPM 1.47% [81/5506], odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.84; p = .58), or a PPM implanted peri- or post-TAVI only (PPM 1.44% [11/763] vs. no PPM 1.47% [81/5506], OR 0.98 [0.51-1.85]; p = .95) did not significantly reduce the primary endpoint. Patients with a PPM at discharge were older, male, had right bundle branch block at baseline, were more likely to have received a first-generation self-expandable prosthesis and had experienced more peri- and post-procedural complications including bailout valve-in-valve rescue, bleeding and acute kidney injury. A Cox proportional hazards model demonstrated significantly reduced long-term survival in all those with a PPM, irrespective of implantation timing (hazard ratio [HR] 1.14 [1.02-1.26]; p = .019) and those receiving a PPM only at the time of TAVI (HR 1.15 [1.02-1.31]; p = .032). The reasons underlying this observation warrant further investigation., Conclusions: A PPM did not confer a survival advantage in the first 30 days after hospital discharge following TAVI., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objectives: We sought to identify baseline demographics and procedural factors that might independently predict in-hospital stroke following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)., Background: Stroke is a recognized, albeit infrequent, complication of TAVI. Established predictors of procedure-related in-hospital stroke; however, remain poorly defined., Methods: We conducted an observational cohort analysis of the multicenter UK TAVI registry. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of in-hospital stroke., Results: A total of 8,652 TAVI procedures were performed from 2007 to 2015. There were 205 in-hospital strokes reported by participating centers equivalent to an overall stroke incidence of 2.4%. Univariate analysis showed that the implantation of balloon-expandable valves caused significantly fewer strokes (balloon-expandable 96/4,613 [2.08%] vs. self-expandable 95/3,272 [2.90%]; p = .020). After multivariable analysis, prior cerebrovascular disease (CVD) (odds ratio [OR] 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI 1.05-2.17]; p = .03), advanced age at time of operation (OR 1.02 [0.10-1.04]; p = .05), bailout coronary stenting (OR 5.94 [2.03-17.39]; p = .008), and earlier year of procedure (OR 0.93 [0.87-1.00]; p = .04) were associated with an increased in-hospital stroke risk. There was a reduced stroke risk in those who had prior cardiac surgery (OR 0.62 [0.41-0.93]; p = .01) and a first-generation balloon-expandable valve implanted (OR 0.72 [0.53-0.97]; p = .03). In-hospital stroke significantly increased 30-day (OR 5.22 [3.49-7.81]; p < .001) and 1-year mortality (OR 3.21 [2.15-4.78]; p < .001)., Conclusions: In-hospital stroke after TAVI is associated with substantially increased early and late mortality. Factors independently associated with in-hospital stroke were previous CVD, advanced age, no prior cardiac surgery, and deployment of a predominantly first-generation self-expandable transcatheter heart valve., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a proven treatment for life-threatening aortic valve disease, predominantly severe aortic stenosis. However, even among developed nations, access to TAVI is not uniform. The Valve for Life initiative was launched by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions in 2015 with the objective of improving access to transcatheter valve interventions across Europe. The UK has been identified as a country with low penetration of these procedures and has been selected as the fourth nation to be included in the initiative. Specifically, the number of TAVI procedures carried out in the UK is significantly lower than almost all other European nations. Furthermore, there is substantial geographical inequity in access to TAVI within the UK. As a consequence of this underprovision, waiting times for TAVI are long, and mortality among those waiting intervention is significant. This article reviews these issues, reports new data on access to TAVI in the UK and presents the proposals of the UK Valve for Life team to address the current problems in association with the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)