Search

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis, but data are limited on younger, low-risk patients. This analysis compares outcomes in low-surgical-risk patients aged <75 years receiving TAVR versus surgery., Methods: The Evolut Low Risk Trial randomized 1414 low-risk patients to treatment with a supra-annular, self-expanding TAVR or surgery. We compared rates of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke, associated clinical outcomes, and bioprosthetic valve performance at 3 years between TAVR and surgery patients aged <75 years., Results: In patients <75 years, 352 were randomized to TAVR and 351 to surgery. Mean age was 69.1±4.0 years (minimum 51 and maximum 74); Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 1.7±0.6%. At 3 years, all-cause mortality or disabling stroke for TAVR was 5.7% and 8.0% for surgery ( P =0.241). Although there was no difference between TAVR and surgery in all-cause mortality, the incidence of disabling stroke was lower with TAVR (0.6%) than surgery (2.9%; P =0.019), while surgery was associated with a lower incidence of pacemaker implantation (7.1%) compared with TAVR (21.0%; P <0.001). Valve reintervention rates (TAVR 1.5%, surgery 1.5%, P =0.962) were low in both groups. Valve performance was significantly better with TAVR than surgery with lower mean aortic gradients ( P <0.001) and lower rates of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch ( P <0.001). Rates of valve thrombosis and endocarditis were similar between groups. There were no significant differences in rates of residual ≥moderate paravalvular regurgitation., Conclusions: Low-risk patients <75 years treated with supra-annular, self-expanding TAVR had comparable 3-year all-cause mortality and lower disabling stroke compared with patients treated with surgery. There was significantly better valve performance in patients treated with TAVR., Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02701283., Competing Interests: Dr Modine is a consultant and Senior Advisory Board member for Medtronic. Dr Tchétché is a consultant for Medtronic. Dr Van Mieghem receives grants from Medtronic during the conduct of the trial and grants from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, Abiomed, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work. Dr Chetcuti receives personal fees from Medtronic; grants from Edwards, Boston Scientific, and Jena (paid to institution) during conduct of trial; and on an advisory board for Biotrace and Jena valve without remuneration. Dr Yakubov receives grants from Boston Scientific and Medtronic (paid to institution) and personal fees from Medtronic during the conduct of the trial. Dr Sorajja is a consultant to Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr Gada receives personal fees from Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Becton Dickenson, and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work. Dr Mumtaz is a consultant and has received honoraria and research grants from Medtronic, Edwards, Atricure, Teleflex, Foldax, Japanese Organization for Medical Device Development, and Abbott. Dr Ramlawi receives grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Medtronic, Liva Nova, and AtriCure. Dr Bajwa is a consultant for Medtronic. Dr Teirstein receives research grant and honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Cordis, and Medtronic, and serves on an advisory board for Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr Kleiman receives clinical trial reimbursement to his institution (Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center) during the conduct of the trial. Dr Bagur serves as a consultant for Medtronic. Dr Chu receives Speakers’ honoraria from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Terumo Aortic and Artivion. Dr Huang is an employee and shareholder of Medtronic, plc. Dr Popma is a full-time employee and shareholder for Medtronic. Dr Forrest receives grant support/research contracts and consultant fees/honoraria/Speakers Bureau fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Reardon receives grants from Medtronic (paid to institution) during conduct of trial, and consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Gore Medical (paid to institution) outside of the submitted work. The other authors report no conflicts.

Importance: Greater splanchnic nerve ablation may improve hemodynamics in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)., Objective: To explore the feasibility and safety of endovascular right-sided splanchnic nerve ablation for volume management (SAVM)., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a phase 2, double-blind, 1:1, sham-controlled, multicenter, randomized clinical trial conducted at 14 centers in the US and 1 center in the Republic of Georgia. Patients with HFpEF, left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or greater, and invasively measured peak exercise pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) of 25 mm Hg or greater were included. Study data were analyzed from May 2023 to June 2024., Intervention: SAVM vs sham control procedure., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy end point was a reduction in legs-up and exercise PCWP at 1 month. The primary safety end point was serious device- or procedure-related adverse events at 1 month. Secondary efficacy end points included HF hospitalizations, changes in exercise function and health status through 12 months, and baseline to 1-month change in resting, legs-up, and 20-W exercise PCWP., Results: A total of 90 patients (median [range] age, 71 [47-90] years; 58 female [64.4%]) were randomized at 15 centers (44 SAVM vs 46 sham). There were no differences in adverse events between groups. The primary efficacy end point did not differ between SAVM or sham (mean between-group difference in PCWP, -0.03 mm Hg; 95% CI, -2.5 to 2.5 mm Hg; P = .95). There were also no differences in the secondary efficacy end points. There was no difference in the primary safety end point between the treatment (6.8% [3 of 44]) and sham (2.2% [1 of 46]) groups (difference, 4.6%; 95% CI, -6.1% to 15.4%; P = .36). There was no difference in the incidence of orthostatic hypotension between the treatment (11.4% [5 of 44]) and sham (6.5% [3 of 46]) groups (difference, 4.9%; 95% CI, -9.2% to 18.8%; P = .48)., Conclusions and Relevance: Results show that SAVM was safe and technically feasible, but it did not reduce exercise PCWP at 1 month or improve clinical outcomes at 12 months in a broad population of patients with HFpEF., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04592445.

Background: The next generation supra-annular, self-expanding Evolut FX transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) system was designed to improve catheter deliverability, provide stable and symmetric valve deployment, and assess commissural alignment during the procedure. The impact of these modifications has not been clinically evaluated., Methods: Procedural information was collected by survey in 2 Stages: Stage I comprised 23 centers with extensive experience with Evolut TAV systems, and Stage II comprised an additional 46 centers with a broad range of balloon- and self-expanding system experience. Operators were to compare the experience with the Evolut FX to the predicate Evolut PRO+ system., Results: There were 285 cases during Stage I from June 24 to August 12, 2022, and 254 cases during Stage II from August 15 to September 11, 2022. Overall, the cusp overlap technique was used in 88.6 %, and commissural alignment was achieved in 96.1 % of these cases. Compared to implanter's previous experience with the Evolut PRO+ system, less resistance was noted with the Evolut FX system: in 83.0 % of cases during vascular insertion, in 84.7 % of cases while tracking through the vasculature, in 84.4 % of cases while traversing over the arch, and 76.1 % of cases in advancing across the valve. Better symmetry of valve depth was observed in 423 of 525 cases (80.6 %)., Conclusion: Evolut FX system design modifications translated into improvements in catheter deliverability, deployment symmetry and stability, and commissural alignment as assessed by experienced self-expanding and balloon expandable operators., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Bajwa reports fees for consulting and proctoring from Medtronic; Dr. Attizzani is a consultant for Medtronic and Abbott Vascular; and serves as a proctor and is on the advisory board for Medtronic; Dr. Gada is a consultant to Abbott, Bard, Edwards LifeSciences and Medtronic; Dr. Chetcuti has received grant support and fees for proctoring from Medtronic and is a consultant for Jena valve; Dr. Williams reported personal fees from Medtronic during the conduct of the study and consulting fees from Medtronic outside the submitted work; Dr. Ahmed has no disclosures; Dr. Petrossian has no disclosures; Dr. Saybolt serves on the Medtronic Coronary and Renal Denervation Global Advisory Board; as a consultant to Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and Shockwave, and has received a research grant from Infraredx; Dr. Allaqaband is a proctor and consultant for Medtronic; Dr. Mehri has no disclosures; Dr. Stoler serves as a proctor for Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences; Dr. Bezerra has no disclosures; Dr. Mahoney is a consultant and proctor for Medtronic, Abbott, and Edwards; Dr. Wu has no disclosures; Dr. Jumper has no disclosures; Dr. Lambrecht is an employee and shareholder of Medtronic, plc; Dr. Tang has received speaker's 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's 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 for NeoChord, Shockwave Medical, Peija Medical and Shenqi Medical Technology, and has received speaker's honoraria from Siemens Healthineers., (Copyright © 2024 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: Outcomes from transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low-surgical risk patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis beyond 2 years are limited., Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate 3-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes from the Evolut Low Risk Bicuspid Study., Methods: The Evolut Low Risk Bicuspid Study is a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study conducted in 25 U.S., Centers: Patients with severe aortic stenosis at low surgical risk with bicuspid aortic valve anatomy (all subtypes) underwent TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular Evolut R or PRO (Medtronic) bioprosthesis. An independent clinical events committee adjudicated all deaths and endpoint-related adverse events, and a central echocardiographic core laboratory assessed hemodynamic endpoints., Results: An attempted implant was performed in 150 patients from December 2018 to October 2019. The mean age was 70.3 ± 5.5 years, 48% (72/150) of the patients were women, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 1.3% (Q1-Q3: 0.9%-1.7%). Sievers type 1 was the dominant bicuspid morphology (90.7%, 136/150). The Kaplan-Meier rates of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke were 1.3% (95% CI: 0.3%-5.3%) at 1 year, 3.4% (95% CI: 1.4%-8.1%) at 2 years, and 4.1% (95% CI: 1.6%-10.7%) at 3 years. The incidence of new permanent pacemaker implantation was 19.4% (95% CI: 12.4%-29.6%) at 3 years. There were no instances of moderate or severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation at 2 and 3 years after TAVR., Conclusions: The 3-year results from the Evolut Low Risk Bicuspid Study demonstrate low rates of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke and favorable hemodynamic performance., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Medtronic funded the Low Risk study. Dr Zahr has received grant support/research support from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; and has received consultant fees/honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Ramlawi has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Medtronic, LivaNova, and AtriCure. Dr Reardon has received grants from Medtronic (paid to institution) during the conduct of the study; and has received consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Gore Medical (paid to institution) outside of the submitted work. Dr Deeb has received grants from Medtronic (paid to institution) during the conduct of the trial; and has received personal fees from Medtronic outside the submitted work. Dr Yakubov has received grants from Boston Scientific and Medtronic (paid to institution); and has received personal fees from Medtronic during the conduct of the study. Dr Song has received grant support/research contracts from Medtronic; and has received consultant fees from Medtronic. Dr Kleiman has received clinical trial reimbursement to his institution (Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center) during the conduct of the study. Dr Chetcuti serves on the Advisory Board for Medtronic; and serves as a consultant for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott. Dr Gada has received personal fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Becton Dickinson, and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work. Dr Mumtaz has received grants and personal fees from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, AtriCure, Japanese Organization for Medical Device Development, and Z Medical outside the submitted work. Dr Rovin serves as a consultant, proctor, and speaker for Abbott and Medtronic. Dr Kauten serves as a consultant for Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr Huang is an employee and shareholder of Medtronic. Dr Forrest has received grant support/research contracts from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; and has received consultant fees/honoraria/Speakers Bureau fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rates following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remain a concern. We assessed the PPI rates over time in patients implanted with an Evolut supra-annular, self-expanding transcatheter valve from the US STS/ACC TVT Registry., Methods: Patients who underwent TAVR with an Evolut R, Evolut PRO or Evolut PRO+ valve between July 2018 (Q3) and June 2021 (Q2) were included. PPI rates were reported by calendar quarter. In-hospital PPI rates were reported as proportions and 30-day rates as Kaplan-Meier estimates. A Cox regression model was used to determine potential predictors of a new PPI within 30 days of the TAVR procedure., Results: From July 2018 to June 2021, 54,014 TAVR procedures were performed using Evolut valves. Mean age was 79.3 ± 8.8 years and 49.2 % were male. The 30-day PPI rate was 16.6 % in 2018 (Q3) and 10.8 % in 2021 (Q2, 34.9 % decrease, p < 0.001 for trend across all quarters). The in-hospital PPI rate decreased by 40.1 %; from 14.7 % in 2018 (Q3) to 8.8 % in 2021 (Q2) (p < 0.001 for trend across all quarters). Significant predictors of a new PPI within 30 days included a baseline conduction defect, history of atrial fibrillation, home oxygen, and diabetes mellitus., Conclusion: From 2018 to 2021, TAVR with an Evolut transcatheter heart valve in over 50,000 patients showed a significant decreasing trend in the rates of in-hospital and 30-day PPI, representing the lowest rate of PPI in any large real-world registry of Evolut. During the same evaluated period, high device success and shorter length of stay was also observed., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Harvey is a proctor and serves on the speakers' bureau and advisory board for Medtronic and Boston Scientific, is a proctor and serves on the speakers' bureau for Abiomed, and serves on the advisory board for Avail and Opsens; 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. Grubb has served as a consultant, speaker, proctor and advisory board member for Boston Scientific and Medtronic, as a member of the advisory board for Abbott, and as a principal investigator for Medtronic and a speaker for Edwards Lifesciences; Dr. Yakubov has received institutional research grants from Boston Scientific and Medtronic; Dr. Mahoney is a consultant and proctor for Medtronic, Abbott, and Edwards; Dr. Gada is a consultant to Abbott, Bard, Edwards LifeSciences and Medtronic; Dr. Coylewright has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and Boston Scientific; and has served on consulting/advisory boards for Medtronic, and Occlutech; Dr. Poulin has nothing to disclose; Dr. Chetcuti serves as a consultant for Boston Scientific and consultant and proctor for Medtronic; Dr. Sorajja reports grants and personal fees from Medtronic, grants and personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences, grants and personal fees from Abbott Vascular, personal fees from Anteris, personal fees from WL Gore, grants and personal fees from Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work; Dr. Rovin serves as a consultant, proctor and speaker for Abbott and Medtronic; Ms. Eisenberg is a shareholder and employee of Medtronic plc; Dr. Reardon has received fees to his institution from Medtronic for consulting and providing educational services., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Data on valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are limited., Objectives: The authors compared the 5-year incidence of valve reintervention after self-expanding CoreValve/Evolut TAVR vs SAVR., Methods: Pooled data from CoreValve and Evolut R/PRO (Medtronic) randomized trials and single-arm studies encompassed 5,925 TAVR (4,478 CoreValve and 1,447 Evolut R/PRO) and 1,832 SAVR patients. Reinterventions were categorized by indication, timing, and treatment. The cumulative incidence of reintervention was compared between TAVR vs SAVR, Evolut vs CoreValve, and Evolut vs SAVR., Results: There were 99 reinterventions (80 TAVR and 19 SAVR). The cumulative incidence of reintervention through 5 years was higher with TAVR vs SAVR (2.2% vs 1.5%; P = 0.017), with differences observed early (≤1 year; adjusted subdistribution HR: 3.50; 95% CI: 1.53-8.02) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.48-2.28). The most common reason for reintervention was paravalvular regurgitation after TAVR and endocarditis after SAVR. Evolut had a significantly lower incidence of reintervention than CoreValve (0.9% vs 1.6%; P = 0.006) at 5 years with differences observed early (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12-0.73) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.21-1.74). The 5-year incidence of reintervention was similar for Evolut vs SAVR (0.9% vs 1.5%; P = 0.41)., Conclusions: A low incidence of reintervention was observed for CoreValve/Evolut R/PRO and SAVR through 5 years. Reintervention occurred most often at ≤1 year for TAVR and >1 year for SAVR. Most early reinterventions were with the first-generation CoreValve and managed percutaneously. Reinterventions were more common following CoreValve TAVR compared with Evolut TAVR or SAVR., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This work was supported by Medtronic. Dr Grubb is a proctor, principal investigator, and serves on the Advisory Board for Medtronic; and serves on the Advisory Board or is a consultant for Ancora Heart, Boston Scientific, Abbott, 4C Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, and OpSens. Dr O’Hair has received personal consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; and serves as a proctor for Medtronic. Dr Forrest has received grant support/research contracts and consultant fees/honoraria/Speakers Bureau fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Mahoney has received proctor and consultant fees from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Van Mieghem has received research grants from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Daiichi-Sankyo, and AstraZeneca; and has received advisory and consultancy fees from JenaValve, Anteris, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Amgen, Siemens, Pie Medical, Teleflex, Daiichi-Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. Dr Windecker has received research, travel, or educational grants to the institution without personal remuneration from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Braun, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, CardioValve, Cordis Medical, Corflow Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Farapulse Inc Fumedica, Guerbet, Idorsia, Inari Medical, InfraRedx, Janssen-Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, Medalliance, Medicure, Medtronic, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Miracor Medical, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Organon, OrPha Suisse, Pharming Tech. Pfizer, Polares, Regeneron, Sanofi, Servier, Sinomed, Terumo, Vifor, and V-Wave; and has served as an Advisory Board member and/or member of the steering/executive group of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Bristol Myers Squibb, Edwards Lifesciences, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, Recardio, Sinomed, Terumo, and V-Wave with payments to the institution but no personal payments; and does not receive personal fees from any medical device or pharmaceutical company. Dr Yakubov has received grants and personal fees from Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr Williams has served as a consultant to Medtronic; and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Chetcuti has received grants from Edwards Lifesciences, WL Gore Medical, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific; and has received personal fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Jena. Dr Deeb serves on an Advisory Board for Medtronic; has received institutional grant support from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and has received fees as a proctor for the Medtronic-sponsored SMART Trial. Dr Kleiman has received research grants from Medtronic, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific. Dr Althouse is a full-time employee and shareholder for Medtronic. Dr Reardon has received research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, WL Gore Medical, and Medtronic. 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.)

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) provides an option for extreme-risk patients who underwent reoperation for a failed surgical aortic bioprosthesis. Long-term data on patients who underwent TAVR within a failed surgical aortic valve (TAV-in-SAV) are limited. The CoreValve Expanded Use Study evaluated patients at extreme surgical risk who underwent TAV-in-SAV. Outcomes at 5 years were analyzed by SAV failure mode (stenosis, regurgitation, or combined). Echocardiographic outcomes are site-reported. TAV-in-SAV was attempted in 226 patients with a mean age of 76.7 ± 10.8 years; 63.3% were male, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality score was 9.0 ± 6.7%, and 87.5% had a New York Heart Association classification III or IV symptoms. Most of the failed surgical bioprostheses were stented (81.9%), with an average implant duration of 10.2 ± 4.3 years. The 5-year all-cause mortality or major stroke rate was 47.2% in all patients; 54.4% in the stenosis, 37.6% in the regurgitation, and 38.0% in the combined groups (p = 0.046). At 5 years, all-cause mortality was higher in patients with versus without 30-day severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (51.7% vs 38.3%, p = 0.026). The overall aortic valve reintervention rate was 5.9%; highest in the regurgitation group (12.6%). The mean aortic valve gradient was 14.1 ± 9.8 mm Hg and effective orifice area was 1.57 ± 0.70 at 5 years. Few patients had >mild paravalvular regurgitation at 5 years (5.5% moderate, 0.0% severe). TAV-in-SAV with supra-annular, self-expanding TAVR continues to represent a safe and lasting intermediate option for extreme-risk patients who have appropriate sizing of the preexisting failed surgical valve. Clinical and hemodynamic outcomes were stable through 5 years., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Bajwa reports fees for consulting and proctoring from Medtronic; Dr. Laham has received research grants from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott Vascular; Dr. Dauerman is a consultant to Medtronic and Boston Scientific; Data Safety and Monitoring Board member for health care research institute, Recor Medical and Cardiovascular Research Foundation (multiple trials), research grants from Medtronic and Boston Scientific; Dr. Waksman is a member of the advisory board for Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Boston Scientific, Cardioset, Cardiovascular Systems Inc, Medtronic (Abbot), Philips Volcano, Pi-Cardia Ltd; as a Consultant for Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Biosensors, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardioset, Cardiovascular Systems Inc, Medtronic, Philips Volcano, Pi-Cardia Ltd; receives grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Biosensors, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Chiesi; serves on the Speakers Bureau for AstraZeneca and Chiesi; and is an investor in Med Alliance; Dr. Allaqaband is a proctor and consultant for Medtronic; Dr. Caskey reports proctor fees from Medtronic; Dr. Byrne reports proctor fees and honoraria from Medtronic and proctor fees and honoraria from Abbott; Dr. Li is an employee and shareholder of Medtronic; Dr. Kleiman is a consultant for Medtronic and Boston Scientific and receives grant support from Medtronic; Dr. Reardon is a consultant for Medtronic, W.L. Gore and Associates and Boston Scientific; Dr. Chetcuti has received grant support and fees for proctoring from Medtronic and is a consultant for Jena valve; Dr. Deeb serves as on an advisory board and as a proctor for Medtronic; as a consultant and research investigator for Edwards Lifesciences; as a consultant and proctor for Terumo; and as a research investigator for Gore Medical with all fees paid to his institution. The remaining authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The association, if any, between the effective regurgitant orifice area (EROA) to left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) ratio and 1-year mortality is controversial in patients who undergo mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (m-TEER) with the MitraClip system (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA). This study's objective was to determine the association between EROA/LVEDV and 1-year mortality in patients who undergo m-TEER with MitraClip. In patients with severe secondary (functional) mitral regurgitation (MR), we analyzed registry data from 11 centers using generalized linear models with the generalized estimating equations approach. We studied 525 patients with secondary MR who underwent m-TEER. Most patients were male (63%) and were New York Heart Association class III (61%) or IV (21%). Mitral regurgitation was caused by ischemic cardiomyopathy in 51% of patients. EROA/LVEDV values varied widely, with median = 0.19 mm 2 /ml, interquartile range [0.12,0.28] mm 2 /ml, and 187 patients (36%) had values <0.15 mm 2 /ml. Postprocedural mitral regurgitation severity was substantially alleviated, being 1+ or less in 74%, 2+ in 20%, 3+ in 4%, and 4+ in 2%; 1-year mortality was 22%. After adjustment for confounders, the logarithmic transformation (Ln) of EROA/LVEDV was associated with 1-year mortality (odds ratio 0.600, 95% confidence interval 0.386 to 0.933, p = 0.023). A higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was also associated with increased mortality. In conclusion, lower values of Ln(EROA/LVEDV) were associated with increased 1-year mortality in this multicenter registry. The slope of the association is steep at low values but gradually flattens as Ln(EROA/LVEDV) increases., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Lim reports a relation with Abbott that includes funding grants; a relation with Boston Scientific Corp. that includes funding grants; a relation with Corvia Medical that includes funding grants; a relation with Edwards Lifesciences Corporation that includes funding grants; a relation with Medtronic Inc. that includes funding grants; a relation with Trisol that includes funding grants; a relation with Philips that includes consulting or advisory; a relation with Valgen that includes consulting or advisory; and a relation with Venus that includes consulting or advisory. Dr. Rodriguez reports a relation with Abbott that includes consulting or advisory, funding grants, and speaking and lecture fees. Dr. Zahr reports a relation with Medtronic Inc. that includes board membership, consulting or advisory, and funding grants; a relation with Edwards Lifesciences Corporation that includes funding grants; and a relation with SIEMENS that includes: funding grants. Dr. Ailawadi reports a relation with Medtronic Inc. that includes consulting or advisory; a relation with Abbott that includes consulting or advisory; a relation with Edwards Lifesciences Corporation that includes consulting or advisory; a relation with Gore that includes consulting or advisory; a relation with Anteris that includes consulting or advisory; a relation with AtriCure Inc. that includes consulting or advisory; a relation with CryoLife that includes consulting or advisory; a relation with Philips that includes consulting or advisory; and a relation with Johnson & Johnson that includes consulting or advisory. Dr. Rogers reports a relation with Abbott that includes consulting or advisory and funding grants; a relation with Boston Scientific Corp that includes consulting or advisory and funding grants; and a relation with Baylis Medical Company, Inc. that includes consulting or advisory. Dr. Chen reports a relation with Philips that includes consulting or advisory; a relation with Abbott that includes consulting or advisory; and a relation with Akura Medical that includes consulting or advisory. Dr. Vannan reports a relation with Abbott that includes funding grants and speaking and lecture fees. Dr. Duggal reports a relation with Medtronic Inc. that includes consulting or advisory. Dr. Sodhi reports a relation with Medtronic Inc that includes consulting or advisory; and a relation with Boston Scientific Corp that includes consulting or advisory. Dr. Sorajja reports a relation with 4C Medical Technologies Inc. that includes consulting or advisory; a relation with Anteris that includes consulting or advisory; a relation with Abbott that includes consulting or advisory; a relation with Boston Scientific Corp that includes consulting or advisory; a relation with Edwards Lifesciences Corporation that includes consulting or advisory; a relation with Evolution Medical that includes consulting or advisory; a relation with Foldax that includes consulting or advisory; a relation with GLG that includes consulting or advisory; a relation with Medtronic Inc. that includes consulting or advisory; a relation with Philips that includes consulting or advisory; a relation with SIEMENS that includes consulting or advisory; a relation with Shifamed that includes consulting or advisory; a relation with WL Gore that includes consulting or advisory; a relation with vDyne that includes consulting or advisory; and a relation with xDot that includes consulting or advisory. Dr. Yadav reports a relation with Edwards Lifesciences Corporation that includes consulting or advisory and speaking and lecture fees; a relation with Abbott that includes consulting or advisory and speaking and lecture fees; a relation with Boston Scientific Corp. that includes consulting or advisory and speaking and lecture fees; and a relation with Dasi Simulations that includes board membership. Dr. Chadderdon reports a relation with Medtronic Inc that includes consulting or advisory; a relation with Edwards Lifesciences Corporation that includes consulting or advisory; and a relation with GE Healthcare that includes funding grants. Dr. Chetcuti reports a relation with Medtronic Inc. that includes consulting or advisory and funding grants; a relation with Boston Scientific Corp. that includes consulting or advisory and funding grants; a relation with Jena that includes funding grants; a relation with Abbott that includes funding grants; a relation with Edwards Lifesciences Corporation that includes funding grants; and a relation with Gore that includes funding grants. The remaining authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is strongly recommended for a spectrum of cardiovascular conditions and procedures including aortic valve replacement., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to characterize patient and hospital factors associated with CR participation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and determine which factors explain hospital-level variation in CR participation., Methods: We linked clinical and administrative claims data from patients who underwent TAVR at 24 Michigan hospitals between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2020 and obtained rates of CR enrollment within 90 days of discharge. Sequential mixed models were fit to evaluate hospital variation in 90-day post-TAVR CR participation., Results: Among 3,372 patients, 30.6% participated in CR within 90-days after discharge. Several patient factors were negatively associated with CR participation after TAVR including older age, Medicaid insurance, atrial fibrillation/flutter, dialysis use, and slower baseline 5-m walk times. There was substantial hospital variation in CR participation after TAVR ranging from 5% to 60% across 24 hospitals. Patient case mix did not explain hospital variation in CR across hospitals with median OR numerically increasing from 2.11 (95% CI: 1.62-2.67) to 2.13 (95% CI: 1.61-2.68) after accounting for patient-level factors., Conclusions: Less than 1 in 3 patients who underwent TAVR in Michigan participated in CR within 90-days of discharge. Although several patient factors are associated with CR participation, hospital-level variation in CR participation after TAVR is not explained by patient case mix. Identifying hospital processes of care that promote CR participation after TAVR will be critical to improving CR participation after TAVR., Competing Interests: Support for the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2) and the Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) is provided by 10.13039/100001502Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan as part of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Value Partnerships program; however, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect those of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan or any of its employees. Drs Sukul and Albright have received salary support from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan for their role in the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium. Dr Thompson has received salary support from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan for his role with the Michigan Value Collaborative and receives funding from the 10.13039/100000133Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (K01HS027830). Drs Patel, Chetcuti, and Grossman have received salary support for their role in the Michigan Structural Heart Consortium. Dr Villablanca is a consultant for Edwards, Teleflex, and Angiodynamics; and a proctor for Edwards. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Background: Despite the rapid adoption of transcatheter aortic valve replacement since its approval, the frequency and outcomes of aortic valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement are poorly understood., Methods: Valve reinterventions, either surgical transcatheter aortic valve explantation or repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement, between 2012 and 2019 were queried using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database and the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry through the Michigan Statewide quality collaborative. The reintervention frequency and clinical outcomes including observed-to-expected mortality ratio using Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality were reviewed., Results: Among 9694 transcatheter aortic valve replacement recipients, a total of 87 patients (0.90%) received a reintervention, consisting of 34 transcatheter aortic valve explants and 53 repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedures. The transcatheter aortic valve explant group demonstrated a higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality. Reintervention cases increased from 0 in 2012 and 2013 to 26 in 2019. The proportion of transcatheter aortic valve explants among all reinterventions increased and was 65% in 2019. Self-expandable devices had a higher reintervention rate than balloon-expandable devices secondary to a higher transcatheter aortic valve explant frequency (0.58% [23/3957] vs 0.19% [11/5737]; P = .001), whereas repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement rates were similar (0.61% [24/3957] vs 0.51% [29/5737]; P = .51). Among patients with transcatheter aortic valve explants, contraindications to repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement included unfavorable anatomy (75%), need for other cardiac surgery (29%), other structural issues by transcatheter aortic valve device (18%), and endocarditis (12%). For transcatheter aortic valve explant and repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the 30-day mortality was 15% and 2% (P = .032) and the observed-to-expected mortality ratio was 1.8 and 0.3 (P = .018), respectively., Conclusions: Aortic valve reintervention remains rare but is increasing. The clinical impact of surgical device explantation was substantial, and the proportion of transcatheter aortic valve explants was significantly higher in patients with a self-expandable device., (Copyright © 2021 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Randomized data comparing outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with surgery in low-surgical risk patients at time points beyond 2 years is limited. This presents an unknown for physicians striving to educate patients as part of a shared decision-making process., Objectives: The authors evaluated 3-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes from the Evolut Low Risk trial., Methods: Low-risk patients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular valve or surgery. The primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke and several secondary endpoints were assessed at 3 years., Results: There were 1,414 attempted implantations (730 TAVR; 684 surgery). Patients had a mean age of 74 years and 35% were women. At 3 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 7.4% of TAVR patients and 10.4% of surgery patients (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.49-1.00; P = 0.051). The difference between treatment arms for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke remained broadly consistent over time: -1.8% at year 1; -2.0% at year 2; and -2.9% at year 3. The incidence of mild paravalvular regurgitation (20.3% TAVR vs 2.5% surgery) and pacemaker placement (23.2% TAVR vs 9.1% surgery; P < 0.001) were lower in the surgery group. Rates of moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation for both groups were <1% and not significantly different. Patients who underwent TAVR had significantly improved valve hemodynamics (mean gradient 9.1 mm Hg TAVR vs 12.1 mm Hg surgery; P < 0.001) at 3 years., Conclusions: Within the Evolut Low Risk study, TAVR at 3 years showed durable benefits compared with surgery with respect to all-cause mortality or disabling stroke. (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients; NCT02701283)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Medtronic (Minneapolis, Minnesota) supplied funding for this study. Dr Forrest has received grant support/research contracts and consultant fees/honoraria/Speakers Bureau fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Deeb has served on an advisory board for Medtronic; has received institutional grant support from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and has received fees as a proctor for the Medtronic-sponsored SMART (Small Annuli Randomized to Evolut or SAPIEN Trial). Dr Yakubov has received grants and personal fees from Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr Gada has received personal fees from Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Becton Dickenson, and Boston Scientific. Dr Mumtaz has served as a consultant to and has received honoraria and research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, the Japanese Organization for Medical Device Development, Medtronic, and Z-Medical. Dr Ramlawi has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Medtronic, Liva Nova, and AtriCure. Dr Bajwa has received fees for consulting and proctoring from Medtronic. Dr Teirstein has received research grant and honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Cordis, and Medtronic; and has served on an advisory board for Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr Rutkin has served as a consultant to and has received speaking honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Chawla has served as a proctor for Medtronic. Dr Chetcuti has received grants from Edwards Lifesciences, WL Gore Medical, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific; and has received personal fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Jena. Dr Stoler has served as a consultant to and has received honoraria from Biotronik Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Levack has received personal fees from Medtronic. Dr Goel has received personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott; and has served as a consultant for Medtronic. Dr Tchétché has received honoraria or consultation fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Oh has received grants from Medtronic Echo Core; and has received personal fees from Medtronic Consulting. Dr Huang is a full-time employee and shareholder for Medtronic. Dr Popma is a full-time employee and shareholder for Medtronic. Dr Kleiman has received research grants from Medtronic, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific. Dr Reardon has received research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, WL Gore Medical, and Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Aortic stenosis treatment should consider risks and benefits for lifetime management. Although the feasibility of redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains unclear, concerns are emerging regarding reoperation after TAVR., Objectives: The authors sought to define comparative risk of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) after prior TAVR or SAVR., Methods: Data on patients undergoing bioprosthetic SAVR after TAVR and/or SAVR were extracted from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database (2011-2021). Overall and isolated SAVR cohorts were analyzed. The primary outcome was operative mortality. Risk adjustment using hierarchical logistic regression as well as propensity score matching for isolated SAVR cases were performed., Results: Of 31,106 SAVR patients, 1,126 had prior TAVR (TAVR-SAVR), 674 had prior SAVR and TAVR (SAVR-TAVR-SAVR), and 29,306 had prior SAVR (SAVR-SAVR). Yearly rates of TAVR-SAVR and SAVR-TAVR-SAVR increased over time, whereas SAVR-SAVR was stable. The TAVR-SAVR patients were older, with higher acuity, and with greater comorbidities than other cohorts. The unadjusted operative mortality was highest in the TAVR-SAVR group (17% vs 12% vs 9%, respectively; P < 0.001). Compared with SAVR-SAVR, risk-adjusted operative mortality was significantly higher for TAVR-SAVR (OR: 1.53; P = 0.004), but not SAVR-TAVR-SAVR (OR: 1.02; P = 0.927). After propensity score matching, operative mortality of isolated SAVR was 1.74 times higher for TAVR-SAVR than SAVR-SAVR patients (P = 0.020)., Conclusions: The number of post-TAVR reoperations is increasing and represent a high-risk population. Yet even in isolated SAVR cases, SAVR after TAVR is independently associated with increased risk of mortality. Patients with life expectancy beyond a TAVR valve and unsuitable anatomy for redo-TAVR should consider a SAVR-first approach., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The data for this research were provided by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons’ National Database Participant User File Research Program. Data analysis was performed at the investigators’ institution. This work was funded by the Family of Harpreet and Sangeeta Ahluwalia Fund. Dr Patel has received consulting fees from Medtronic, Terumo, and W.L. Gore. Dr Chetcuti has received consulting fees from Medtronic. Dr Ailawadi has received consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, W.L. Gore, Cephea, Admedus, Philips, and Johnson & Johnson. Dr Fukuhara has received consulting fees from Terumo, Medtronic, and Artivion. 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: Procedural success and clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have improved, but residual aortic regurgitation (AR) and new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rates remain variable because of a lack of uniform periprocedural management and implantation., Objectives: The Optimize PRO study evaluates valve performance and procedural outcomes using an "optimized" TAVR care pathway and the cusp overlap technique (COT) in patients receiving the Evolut PRO/PRO+ (Medtronic) self-expanding valves., Methods: Optimize PRO, a nonrandomized, prospective, postmarket study conducted in the United States, Canada, Europe, Middle East, and Australia, is enrolling patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and no pre-existing pacemaker. Sites follow a standardized TAVR care pathway, including early discharge and a conduction disturbance management algorithm, and transfemoral deployment using the COT., Results: A total of 400 attempted implants from the United States and Canada comprised the main cohort of this second interim analysis. The mean age was 78.7 ± 6.6 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons predictive risk of mortality was 3.0 ± 2.4. The median length of stay was 1 day. There were no instances of moderate or severe AR at discharge. At 30 days, all-cause mortality or stroke was 3.8%, all-cause mortality was 0.8%, disabling stroke was 0.7%, hospital readmission was 10.1%, and cardiovascular rehospitalization was 6.1%. The new PPI rate was 9.8%, 5.8% with 4-step COT compliance. In the multivariable model, right bundle branch block and the depth of the implant increased the risk of PPI, whereas using the 4-step COT lowered 30-day PPI., Conclusions: The use of the TAVR care pathway and COT resulted in favorable clinical outcomes with no moderate or severe AR and low PPI rates at 30 days while facilitating early discharge and reproducible outcomes across various sites and operators. (Optimize PRO; NCT04091048)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This study was funded by Medtronic. Dr Grubb is a proctor, principal investigator, and on the advisory board for Medtronic; and serves on the advisory board or is a consultant for Ancora Heart, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Gore, BioVentrix, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Gada has served as a consultant to Abbott, Bard Medical Corporation, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Mittal has received honoraria/consultant fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Nazif is consultant for and has received institutional grants from Edwards LifeSciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Dr Rodes-Cabau has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Dr Fraser is a proctor for Medtronic; and receives speaker fees from Edwards and Medtronic. Dr Rovin is a physician proctor with Medtronic and Abbott; and is a consultant for Medtronic and Abbott. Dr Sultan receives institutional research support from Abbott, Atrivion, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and is a consultant for Medtronic Vascular. Dr Gardner has received research support from Abbott; and is on the advisory board, is a consultant, and has received research support from Medtronic. Dr Chetcuti has received grant support and fees for proctoring from Medtronic; and is a consultant for Jena valve. Dr Patel is a speaker for Medtronic and Penumbra; and is on the advisory board of St. Jude Medical. Dr Harvey has served as a consultant; and is on the advisory board for Boston Scientific. Dr Mahoney is a proctor and consultant for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific. Dr Schwartz is an investigator for Medtronic. Dr Jafar is an investigator for Medtronic. Dr Wang is a speaker and consultant for Boston Scientific; is a consultant for Cordis; and is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Potluri has received honoraria from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Zoll, Gore, Abbott, and Cardinal. Dr Vora serves as a consultant for Medtronic. Dr Sanchez is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Ms Corrigan is an employee and shareholder of Medtronic. Dr Li is an employee and shareholder of Medtronic. Dr Yakubov has received institutional research grants from Medtronic; and serves on an advisory board for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cardiac computed tomography angiography was used to identify anatomical characteristics of the aortic root in patients with severe aortic regurgitation (AR) as compared to those with aortic stenosis (AS) to judge feasibility of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the JenaValve Trilogy system., Methods: Cardiac computed tomography angiography was performed prior to planned TAVR for 107 patients with severe AR and 92 patients with severe AS. Measurements related to aortic root and coronary artery anatomy were obtained and compared between groups. Perimeter >90 mm and aortic annulus angle ​>70 degrees were defined as the theoretical exclusion criteria for TAVR. A combination of sinus of Valsalva diameter <30 mm and coronary height <12 mm was defined as high risk for coronary occlusion., Results: The mean age of patients in the AR group was 74.9 ± 11.2 years, 46% were women, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score for mortality was 3.6 ± 2.1. Comparatively, the mean age of patients in the AS group was 82.3 ± 5.53 years, 65% were women, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeonsrisk score was 5.5 ± 3.3. Annulus area, perimeter, diameter, and angle were larger in patients with severe AR. Sinus of Valsalva diameters and heights were larger in patients with severe AR. More AR patients were excluded based on perimeter (14 vs. 2%) and annulus angle (6 vs. 1%). More AS patients exhibited high-risk anatomy for left main coronary occlusion (21 vs. 7%) and right coronary occlusion (14 vs. 3%). The maximum dimension of the ascending aorta was larger in patients with severe AR (39 vs. 35 mm). The percentage of referred AR patients with significant aortopathy requiring surgical intervention was very low (only 1 AR patient with ascending aorta diameter >5.5 cm)., Conclusions: A significantly larger proportion of patients with severe AR are excluded from TAVR as compared to AS due to large aortic annulus size and steep annulus angulation. By far the most prevalent excluding factor is aortic annulus size, with fewer patients excluded due to angulation. AR patients have lower-risk anatomy for coronary occlusion. Larger transcatheter valve sizes and further delivery system modifications are required to treat a larger proportion of AR patients., Competing Interests: Dr. George is a consultant for Durvena, Cardiomech, Vdyne, Valcare Medical, Atricure, Zimmer Biomet, MITrx, Mitremedical and has institutional grants from Edwards, Medtronic, Abbott. Dr. Khalique is a consultant for Edwards, Abbott Structural, Triflo, Cardiac Implants, Restore Medical, and Croivalve and is a member of a corelab (he receives no direct industry compensation) with contracts with Ancora, Jenavalve, Atricure, and Abbott Structural and holds equity in Triflo and Cardiac Implants. Dr. Vahl reports institutional funding to Columbia University Medical Center from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards, Jenavalve, and Medtronic, and has received consulting fees from 4D Medical Technologies and Baylis Medical. Dr. Chen is a member of a corelab (she receives no direct industry compensation) with contracts with Ancora and Jenavalve and is a consultant for Intrinsic Imaging, LLC. Dr. McCabe is a consultant for Edwards, Boston Scientific, Medtronic and CSI and holds equity in ConKay Medical and Excision Medical. Vinod Thourani is a medical advisor for Edwards, is a national PI for the Jenavalve Pivotal trial, and is co-founder of Apica cardiovascular. Dr. Treede reports consulting fees from TRICARES. Dr. Baldus reports honoraria from Edwards and Abbott, and a research grant from Abbott. Dr. Zahr reports institutional research support from Edwards and Medtronic. Dr. Russo reports honoraria from Edwards and Abbott. Dr. Leon has received institutional grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards, Jenavalve, and Medtronic and holds equity in Valve Medical, Picardia, and Venus MedTech. Dr. Makkar received grant support from Edwards and is a consultant for Abbott, Cordis, and Medtronic., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Background: The 30-day rate of stroke after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been suggested as a hospital quality metric. Thirty-day stroke rates for nonsurgical, high, and moderate-risk TAVR trials were 3.4% to 6.1%, whereas those in the national Transcatheter Valve Therapy (TVT) Registry for the same patient population were much lower. Hospital comprehensive stroke center (CSC) is the highest designation for integrated acute stroke recognition, management, and care., Objectives: Using Michigan TVT data, we assessed whether in-hospital post-TAVR stroke rates varied between CSC and non-CSC institutions., Methods: TVT data submitted from the 22 Michigan Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Collaborative participating institutions between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2019, were included (N = 6,231). Bayesian hierarchical regression models accounting for patient clinical characteristics and hospital clustering were fitted to assess the association between hospital CSC accreditation and in-hospital post-TAVR stroke. Adjusted ORs and 95% credible intervals were estimated. The University of Michigan Institutional Review Board has waived the need for the approval of studies based on the data collected by the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium registry., Results: There were 3,882 (62.3%) patients at 9 CSC sites and 2,349 (37.7%) patients at 13 non-CSC sites. CSC sites had significantly higher rates of in-hospital post-TAVR stroke (CSC: 2.65% vs non-CSC: 1.15%; P < 0.001). After adjustment, patients who underwent TAVR at a CSC hospital had a significantly higher risk of in-hospital stroke (adjusted OR: 2.21; 95% CI: 1.03-4.62). However, CSC designation was not significantly associated with other important post-TAVR clinical outcomes including 30-day mortality., Conclusions: Reported Michigan Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Collaborative TVT stroke rates were significantly higher at sites with Joint Hospital Commission stroke designation status; however, other reported important clinical outcomes did not differ significantly based on this designation. CSC designation is a possible factor in stroke rate detection differences between TAVR institutions and might be a factor in the observed differences in stroke rates between TAVR trials and those reported in TVT. In addition, these data suggest that comparison between hospitals based on post-TAVR stroke rates is potentially problematic., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Michigan TAVR is supported by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. Dr Grossman is a consultant for Medtronic Cardiovascular and Edwards Lifesciences; provides research support for Medtronic Cardiovascular, Edwards Lifesciences; Cardiovascular Systems Inc, and National Institutes of Health; and provides registry support for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. Dr Sukul provides registry support for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. Dr Seth provides registry support for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. Dr Chetcuti is a consultant for Medtronic Cardiovascular and Edwards Lifesciences; provides research support for Medtronic Cardiovascular and Edwards Lifesciences; and provides registry support for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. Dr Patel provides registry support from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. 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.)

Objective: To compare 1-year outcomes in patients at low surgical risk with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (AS) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and low-risk patients with tricuspid AS following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR)., Background: The pivotal randomized, prospective, multicenter TAVR trials compared TAVR vs SAVR in patients with tricuspid AS. No such trials exist for bicuspid AS., Methods: The Low Risk Bicuspid Study is a prospective, single-arm, TAVR trial that enrolled 150 patients from 25 sites in the United States. A screening committee confirmed bicuspid anatomy and valve classification based on computed tomography using the Sievers classification. Annular measurements guided valve sizing. These patients were propensity-matched to the SAVR patients in the randomized Evolut Low Risk Trial using 1:1 5-to-1-digit Greedy method, resulting in 144 matched pairs. For both trials, an independent clinical events committee adjudicated all serious adverse events, and the same independent core laboratory assessed all echocardiograms., Results: The 1-year composite of death, disabling stroke, or aortic valve-related rehospitalization for bicuspid TAVR vs tricuspid SAVR was 6 (4.2%) vs 6 (4.2%) ( P = .99). The effective orifice area (2.2 ± 0.7 cm 2 vs 2.0 ± 0.6 cm 2 ) was larger and the valve gradient was lower (8.7 ± 3.9 mm Hg vs 11.2 ± 4.7 mm Hg) in the TAVR group at 1 year (both P < .001). Moderate/severe aortic regurgitation was present in 1 TAVR and 2 SAVR patients (0.8% vs 1.6%; P > .99)., Conclusions: In this select group of low-risk bicuspid patients, in the short-term follow-up, TAVR appears to have similar outcomes to those seen in comparable low-risk tricuspid patients undergoing SAVR., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Background: Aortic regurgitation (AR) is common and detrimental in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). Off-label use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a potential treatment option. Further data are required regarding the feasibility and outcomes of TAVR to treat AR in LVAD recipients., Methods: A retrospective review of all patients with LVADs who underwent TAVR for the treatment of AR at a single center was performed. All echocardiograms were independently reviewed to ensure accuracy., Results: Eleven patients with continuous-flow LVADs underwent TAVR for AR. All patients had moderate or severe AR with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III and IV symptoms. Implantation of more than 1 valve was required in 4 (36.3%) patients; 1 patient died during the procedure because of valve migration into the left ventricle and 1 patient died in-hospital after TAVR. Of 9 (81.8%) patients discharged alive, 8 (72.7%) were alive at 12 months and all survivors had improvement in AR severity, natriuretic peptide levels, left ventricle end-diastolic diameter, and NYHA class. Five (62.5%) survivors had a large improvement (>20 points) in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score at 1 year. One survivor experienced heart failure, requiring hospitalization, within 1 year., Conclusions: In this single-center series, TAVR for the treatment of AR in patients with LVADs is technically challenging but feasible in select patients and may produce durable improvements in AR severity, functional status, and quality of life.

Importance: In patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding supra-annular valve was noninferior to surgery for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Comparisons of longer-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in these patients are limited., Objective: To report prespecified secondary 5-year outcomes from the Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement (SURTAVI) randomized clinical trial., Design, Setting, and Participants: SURTAVI is a prospective randomized, unblinded clinical trial. Randomization was stratified by investigational site and need for revascularization determined by the local heart teams. Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis deemed to be at intermediate risk of 30-day surgical mortality were enrolled at 87 centers from June 19, 2012, to June 30, 2016, in Europe and North America. Analysis took place between August and October 2021., Intervention: Patients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular transcatheter or a surgical bioprosthesis., Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified secondary end points of death or disabling stroke and other adverse events and hemodynamic findings at 5 years. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated all serious adverse events and an independent echocardiographic core laboratory evaluated all echocardiograms at 5 years., Results: A total of 1660 individuals underwent an attempted TAVR (n = 864) or surgical (n = 796) procedure. The mean (SD) age was 79.8 (6.2) years, 724 (43.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgery Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 4.5% (1.6%). At 5 years, the rates of death or disabling stroke were similar (TAVR, 31.3% vs surgery, 30.8%; hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.85-1.22]; P = .85). Transprosthetic gradients remained lower (mean [SD], 8.6 [5.5] mm Hg vs 11.2 [6.0] mm Hg; P < .001) and aortic valve areas were higher (mean [SD], 2.2 [0.7] cm2 vs 1.8 [0.6] cm2; P < .001) with TAVR vs surgery. More patients had moderate/severe paravalvular leak with TAVR than surgery (11 [3.0%] vs 2 [0.7%]; risk difference, 2.37% [95% CI, 0.17%- 4.85%]; P = .05). New pacemaker implantation rates were higher for TAVR than surgery at 5 years (289 [39.1%] vs 94 [15.1%]; hazard ratio, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.61-4.17]; log-rank P < .001), as were valve reintervention rates (27 [3.5%] vs 11 [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.10-4.45]; log-rank P = .02), although between 2 and 5 years only 6 patients who underwent TAVR and 7 who underwent surgery required a reintervention., Conclusions and Relevance: Among intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, major clinical outcomes at 5 years were similar for TAVR and surgery. TAVR was associated with superior hemodynamic valve performance but also with more paravalvular leak and valve reinterventions.

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) after contrast-guided interventions is associated with adverse outcomes, but the role of contrast in the context of renal function is less well described for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Methods: Patients from the Michigan TAVR registry between January 2016 and December 2019 were included. AKI was defined using Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 definitions. An integer cut point for the ratio of contrast volume (CV) to renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]) as a predictor of AKI was calculated., Results: Of 7112 cases, AKI occurred in 629 (8.8%) patients. Unadjusted mortality was higher among patients with AKI (32.5% vs 9.0%, P  ​< ​.0001). AKI remained significantly associated with the risk of mortality after multivariable adjustment (hazard ratio = 4.50, P  ​< ​.001). Procedural characteristics associated with AKI included CV/eGFR >2 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.36, P = .003, 95% CI = 1.10-1.67), CV/eGFR >3 (aOR = 1.38, P  ​= ​.009, 95% CI = 1.09-1.77), and use of general anesthesia (aOR = 1.67, P  ​< ​.0001, 95% CI = 1.38-2.03)., Conclusions: CV in the context of renal function administrated during TAVR is a robust tool to predict AKI. AKI after TAVR is associated with an increased risk of mortality. Incorporation of thresholds of >2× and > 3× eGFR into procedural planning should be considered as a quality initiative., Competing Interests: S. Gualano, W. Merhi, C. Schwartz, and F. Shannon have no disclosures. S. Chetcuti has been a consultant and proctor for Medtronic, with research support from 10.13039/100004374Medtronic, Gore, 10.13039/100008497Boston Scientific, 10.13039/100006520Edwards Lifesciences, and JenaValve. D. Sukul receives research funding from 10.13039/100001502Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. H. Patel is a consultant for Medtronic and WL Gore. H. Gurm receives research funding from 10.13039/100001502Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and the 10.13039/100000002National Institutes of Health Center for Accelerated Innovation and is a consultant for Osprey Medical. W. O’Neill is a consultant for Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Abiomed, with research grant support from Abiomed, 10.13039/100001316Abbott, 10.13039/100006520Edwards Lifesciences, and 10.13039/100004374Medtronic. P. Grossman is a consultant for Medtronic Cardiovascular, has research support from 10.13039/100004374Medtronic Cardiovascular, 10.13039/100006520Edwards Life Sciences, and 10.13039/100016476Cardiovascular Systems Incorporated, has registry support from 10.13039/100001502Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, and has research support from 10.13039/100000002National Institutes of Health. None of the authors have any conflicts directly relevant to this study.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare 1-year outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low surgical risk patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis to patients with tricuspid aortic stenosis., Background: The pivotal TAVR trials excluded patients with bicuspid aortic valves. The Low Risk Bicuspid Study 30-day primary endpoint of death or disabling stroke was 1.3%., Methods: The Low Risk Bicuspid Study is a prospective, single-arm, TAVR trial that enrolled patients from 25 U.S. sites. A screening committee confirmed bicuspid anatomy and valve classification on computed tomography using the Sievers classification. Valve sizing was by annular measurements. An independent clinical events committee adjudicated all serious adverse events, and an independent core laboratory assessed all echocardiograms. The 150 patients from the Low Risk Bicuspid Study were propensity matched to the TAVR patients in the randomized Evolut Low Risk Trial using the 1:1 5- to-1-digit greedy method, resulting in 145 pairs., Results: All-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 1 year was 1.4% in the bicuspid and 2.8% in the tricuspid group (P = 0.413). A pacemaker was implanted in 16.6% of bicuspid and 17.9% of tricuspid patients (P = 0.741). The effective orifice area was similar between groups at 1 year (2.2 ± 0.7 cm 2 vs 2.3 ± 0.6 cm 2 , P = 0.677) as was the mean gradient (8.7 ± 3.9 mm Hg vs 8.5 ± 3.1 mm Hg, P = 0.754). Fewer patients in the bicuspid group had mild or worse paravalvular leak (21.3% vs 42.6%, P < 0.001)., Conclusions: There were no significant differences in clinical or forward flow hemodynamic outcomes between the propensity-matched groups at 1 year., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Deeb serves on an advisory board for Medtronic; and has received institutional grant support from Boston Scientific, Edwards LifeSciences, and Medtronic; he receives no personal remunerations. Dr Reardon has received fees to his institution from Medtronic for consulting and providing educational services. Dr Ramlawi has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Medtronic, Liva Nova, and AtriCure. Dr Chetcuti serves as a proctor for and reports grant support from Medtronic. Dr Kleiman has received educational and research grants from Medtronic. Dr Yakubov has received institutional research grants from Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr Mangi has received grant support/research contracts and consultant fees/honoraria/proctoring fees and Speakers Bureau fees from Thoratec Corporation, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Zahr has received educational and research grant from Medtronic. Dr Song has received grant support/research contracts and consultant fees from Medtronic. Dr Gada serves as a consultant for Abbott, Bard, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Mumtaz serves as a consultant to Atricure, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Millipede, Japanese Organization for Medical Device Development, Abbott, and Terumo. Dr Kirshner serves as a consultant and proctor for Medtronic. Dr Noel serves as a proctor and has received educational grants from Medtronic. Dr Byrne has received proctor fees and honoraria from Medtronic; and has received consultative fees and honoraria from Abbott. Dr Huang is an employee and shareholder of Medtronic plc. Dr Forrest has received grant support/research contracts and consultant fees/honoraria/Speakers Bureau fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Evolut Low Risk Trial (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients) showed that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a supra-annular, self-expanding valve was noninferior to surgery for the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. This finding was based on a Bayesian analysis performed after 850 patients had reached 1 year of follow-up., Objectives: The goal of this study was to report the full 2-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes for patients enrolled in the Evolut Low Risk Trial., Methods: A total of 1,414 low-surgical risk patients with severe aortic stenosis were randomized to receive TAVR or surgical AVR. An independent clinical events committee adjudicated adverse events, and a central echocardiographic core laboratory assessed hemodynamic endpoints., Results: An attempted implant was performed in 730 TAVR and 684 surgical patients from March 2016 to May 2019. The Kaplan-Meier rates for the complete 2-year primary endpoint of death or disabling stroke were 4.3% in the TAVR group and 6.3% in the surgery group (P = 0.084). These rates were comparable to the interim Bayesian rates of 5.3% with TAVR and 6.7% with surgery (difference: -1.4%; 95% Bayesian credible interval: -4.9% to 2.1%). All-cause mortality rates were 3.5% vs 4.4% (P = 0.366), and disabling stroke rates were 1.5% vs 2.7% (P = 0.119), respectively. Between years 1 and 2, there was no convergence of the primary outcome curves., Conclusions: The complete 2-year follow-up from the Evolut Low Risk Trial found that TAVR is noninferior to surgery for the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke, with event rates that were slightly better than those predicted by using the Bayesian analysis. (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients [Evolut Low Risk Trial]; NCT02701283)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This study was funded by Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. Dr Forrest has received grant support/research contracts and consultant fees/honoraria/Speakers Bureau fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Deeb receives institutional research grants from Medtronic and Edwards LifeSciences; serves as a consultant and research investigator for Edwards Lifesciences; serves as a consultant and proctor for Terumo; serves as a research investigator for Gore Medical; and receives no personal remunerations. Dr Yakubov has received institutional research grants from Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr Rovin serves as a consultant, proctor, and speaker for Abbott and Medtronic. Dr Mumtaz serves as a consultant to and receives honoraria and research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, the Japanese Organization for Medical Device Development, Medtronic, and Z-Medical. Dr Gada is a consultant to Abbott, Bard, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr O’Hair has received grant support from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; and serves as a proctor for Medtronic. Dr Bajwa serves as a consultant and proctor for Medtronic. Dr Sorajja serves as a consultant to Abbott, Anteris, Baylis, Boston Scientific, Evolution MedVenture, Half Moon Medical, Medtronic, Neovasc, Shifamed, TriFlo, WL Gore, and vDyne; and receives institutional grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Mangi has received grant support/research contracts and consultant fees/honoraria/proctoring fees and Speakers Bureau fees from Thoratec Corporation, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Kleiman has received educational and research grants from Medtronic. Dr Chetcuti serves as a proctor for, and receives grant support from Medtronic. Dr Teirstein has received research grant and honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Cordis, and Medtronic; and serves on an advisory board for Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr Zorn serves as a consultant for Medtronic. Dr Tadros serves as a consultant for Medtronic and Abbott. Dr Tchétché has received honoraria or consultation fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Resar has received proctoring fees from Medtronic. Dr Walton serves as an advisor and proctor for Medtronic. Dr Gleason serves on a medical advisory board for Abbott but receives no remuneration. Dr Ramlawi has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Medtronic, Liva Nova, and AtriCure. Dr Iskander serves as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Caputo serves as a consultant for Medtronic and Cordis. Dr Oh is the Director of the Echocardiography Core Laboratory and is a consultant for Medtronic; and has received research grants from REDNVIA Co. Ltd. Dr Huang is an employee and shareholder of Medtronic, plc. Dr Reardon has received fees to his institution from Medtronic for consulting and providing educational services. 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: Despite the rapid adoption of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) since its initial approval in 2011, the frequency and outcomes of surgical explantation of TAVR devices (TAVR-explant) is poorly understood., Methods: Patients undergoing TAVR-explant between January 2012 and June 2020 at 33 hospitals in Michigan were identified in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database and linked to index TAVR data from the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry through a statewide quality collaborative. The primary outcome was operative mortality. Indications for TAVR-explant, contraindications to redo TAVR, operative data, and outcomes were collected from Society of Thoracic Surgeons and Transcatheter Valve Therapy databases. Baseline Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was compared between index TAVR and TAVR-explant., Results: Twenty-four surgeons at 12 hospitals performed TAVR-explants in 46 patients (median age, 73). The frequency of TAVR-explant was 0.4%, and the number of explants increased annually. Median time to TAVR-explant was 139 days and among known device types explanted, most were self-expanding valves (29/41, 71%). Common indications for TAVR-explant were procedure-related failure (35%), paravalvular leak (28%), and need for other cardiac surgery (26%). Contraindications to redo TAVR included need for other cardiac surgery (28%), unsuitable noncoronary anatomy (13%), coronary obstruction (11%), and endocarditis (11%). Overall, 65% (30/46) of patients underwent concomitant procedures, including aortic repair/replacement in 33% (n=15), mitral surgery in 22% (n=10), and coronary artery bypass grafting in 16% (n=7). The median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 4.2% at index TAVR and 9.3% at TAVR-explant (P=0.001). Operative mortality was 20% (9/46) and 76% (35/46) of patients had in-hospital complications. Of patients alive at discharge, 37% (17/37) were discharged home and overall 3-month survival was 73±14%., Conclusions: TAVR-explant is rare but increasing, and its clinical impact is substantial. As the utilization of TAVR expands into younger and lower-risk patients, providers should consider the potential for future TAVR-explant during selection of an initial valve strategy.

Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Dr. Chetcuti is a consultant and proctor for Medtronic. Dr. Bolling is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Gore, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Medtronic. Dr. Ailawadi is a consultant for Gore, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, Admedus, and Atricure. All other authors have reported that they have no other relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Importance: The outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low-risk patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis have not been studied in a large scale, multicentered, prospective fashion., Objective: To evaluate the procedural safety, efficacy, and 30-day outcomes of TAVR in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis at low surgical risk., Design, Setting, and Participants: The Low Risk Bicuspid Study is a prospective, single-arm trial study with inclusion/exclusion criteria developed from the Evolut Low Risk Randomized Trial. Follow-up is planned for 10 years. Patients underwent TAVR at 25 centers in the United States who were also participating in the Evolut Low Risk Randomized Trial from December 2018 to October 2019. Eligible patients had severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis and met American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guideline indications for aortic valve replacement., Interventions: Patients underwent attempted implant of an Evolut or Evolut PRO transcatheter aortic valve, with valve size based on annular measurements., Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified primary end point was the incidence of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 30 days. The prespecified primary efficacy end point was device success defined as the absence of procedural mortality, the correct position of 1 bioprosthetic heart valve in the proper anatomical location, and the absence of more than mild aortic regurgitation postprocedure., Results: A total of 150 patients underwent an attempted implant. Baseline characteristics include mean age of 70.3 (5.5) years, 48.0% female (n = 72), and a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 1.4 (0.6%). Most patients (136; 90.7%) had Sievers type I valve morphology. The incidence of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke was 1.3% (95% CI, 0.3%-5.3%) at 30 days. The device success rate was 95.3% (95% CI, 90.5%-98.1%). At 30 days, the mean (SD) AV gradient was 7.6 (3.7) mm Hg and effective orifice area was 2.3 (0.7) cm2. A new permanent pacemaker was implanted in 22 patients (15.1%). No patients had greater than mild paravalvular leak., Conclusions and Relevance: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low-surgical risk patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis achieved favorable 30-day results, with low rates of death and stroke and high device success rate., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03635424.

Background: The Cardiac Surgical Societies Valve Labeling Task Force consensus document acknowledged inconsistent sizing and labeling of prosthetic heart valves. This study compared the labeled size, internal diameter, and hemodynamics of different surgical and transcatheter valve types implanted into the same size annulus, measured by preprocedural computed tomography (CT)., Methods: Patients were retrospectively sorted into 3 CT annular diameter size groups: small (less than 23 mm), medium (23 to less than 26 mm), and large (26 mm or greater). Surgical valves were sorted into 4 categories based on tissue and design: (stentless porcine, standard stented bovine, wraparound stented bovine, and stented porcine). Comparisons were made within the surgical types and with a transcatheter valve. Echocardiograms were independently assessed and CTs were centrally measured., Results: We analyzed 726 surgical and 923 transcatheter valve paired data sets. Among the various valve types implanted into the same size CT annulus, there were significant differences regarding size, internal diameter, and hemodynamics within all 3 size groups. Root enlargement procedures occurred in 1.2% with no differences across valve types or size groups. Transcatheter valve hemodynamics were similar to stentless valves and were significantly better than all stented valves. There was no difference in hemodynamics between the 2 bovine stented valve types, and stented porcine valves were inferior to all valve types., Conclusions: This study documents that prosthetic heart valve sizing and labeling inconsistencies exist. Use of preoperative CT annular dimensions is the most accurate method to compare size, internal diameter, and hemodynamics of bioprosthetic aortic valves because it compares values among various valve types implanted into the same size annulus., (Copyright © 2020 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The SURTAVI trial demonstrated the noninferiority of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at intermediate surgical risk. Most TAVI patients received an early generation device which is no longer commercially available. This analysis compares TAVI outcomes in patients that received the Evolut R valve to those of similar patients randomized to SAVR in the SURTAVI trial. The continued access study of SURTAVI (CAS) enrolled 290 patients. Of them, 252 were implanted with the 23, 26, or 29 mm Evolut R device. Propensity-score matching between this group and SURTAVI SAVR patients with annular diameter of 26 mm or less was based on 22 clinical characteristics, resulting in 197 matched pairs for analysis. The primary end point for comparison was the rate of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 1-year. The mean age for TAVI and SAVR patients in the propensity-score matched population was 79.1 years and STS-PROM was 4.0 ± 1.5% for TAVI and 3.9% ± 1.3% for SAVR. The rate of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 30-days significantly favored TAVI (0.5% vs 5.1%; p = 0.006). At 1-year TAVI was numerically favored (4.1% vs 8.2%; p = 0.082). In conclusion, compared with SAVR, TAVI using Evolut R had a favorable 30-day safety profile, significantly better hemodynamic performance, and a comparable 1-year rate of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke, suggesting this may be a preferred treatment for patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at intermediate surgical risk., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: This multicenter retrospective study of the initial U.S. experience evaluated the safety and efficacy of temporary cardiac pacing with the Tempo® Temporary Pacing Lead., Background: Despite increasing use of temporary cardiac pacing with the rapid growth of structural heart procedures, temporary pacing leads have not significantly improved. The Tempo lead is a new temporary pacing lead with a soft tip intended to minimize the risk of perforation and a novel active fixation mechanism designed to enhance lead stability., Methods: Data from 269 consecutive structural heart procedures were collected. Outcomes included device safety (absence of clinically significant cardiac perforation, new pericardial effusion, or sustained ventricular arrhythmia) and efficacy (clinically acceptable pacing thresholds with successful pace capture throughout the index procedure). Postprocedure practices and sustained lead performance were also analyzed., Results: The Tempo lead was successfully positioned in the right ventricle and achieved pacing in 264 of 269 patients (98.1%). Two patients (0.8%) experienced loss of pace capture. Procedural mean pace capture threshold (PCT) was 0.7 ± 0.8 mA. There were no clinically significant perforations, pericardial effusions, or sustained device-related arrhythmias. The Tempo lead was left in place postprocedure in 189 patients (71.6%) for mean duration of 43.3 ± 0.7 hr (range 2.5-221.3 hr) with final PCT of 0.84 ± 1.04 mA (n = 80). Of these patients, 84.1% mobilized out of bed with no lead dislodgment., Conclusion: The Tempo lead is safe and effective for temporary cardiac pacing for structural heart procedures, provides stable peri and postprocedural pacing and allows mobilization of patients who require temporary pacing leads., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Predictors of hospital readmissions and tools to predict readmissions after TAVR are scarce. Our objective was to identify predictors of early hospital readmission following TAVR in contemporary clinical practice and develop a risk calculator., Methods: Patients with a contemporary self-expanding TAVR between 2015 and 2017 in the STS/ACC/TVT Registry™ database were included. Patients were divided into a derivation and validation cohort (2:1). A risk score was calculated using the derivation cohort based on multivariable predictors of 30-day unplanned readmissions and applied to the validation cohort., Results: A total of 10,345 TAVR patients at 350 centers were included. Unplanned 30-day hospital readmission was 9.2%. Patients with an early readmission had higher 30-day rates for mortality (2.3% vs. 0.8%, p ≪ 0.001), stroke (4.1% vs. 2.7% p = 0.009), major vascular complications (2.0% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.003) and new pacemaker implantation (25.7% vs. 18.6%, p ≪ 0.001). Multivariable predictors of 30-day readmission included diabetes, atrial fibrillation, advanced heart failure symptoms, home oxygen, decreased 5-m gait speed or the inability to walk, serum creatinine ≫1.6 mg/dL, index hospitalization length of stay ≫5 days, major vascular complication and ≥ moderate post-procedure aortic or mitral valve regurgitation. Based on these predictors, we stratified 30-day readmission risk into low-, moderate- and high-risk subsets. There was a 2.5× difference in readmission rates between the low- (5.8%) and high-risk subsets (14.6%)., Conclusion: We stratified the risk of early hospital readmission after TAVR based on a simple scoring system. This score may improve discharge planning centered on the individual's readmission risk., Summary: Unplanned readmissions in the United States are prevalent and costly accounting for $41.3 billion in annual hospital payments and are associated with adverse clinical outcomes. We found that diabetes, atrial fibrillation, advanced heart failure symptoms, home oxygen, frailty, acute kidney injury, prolonged hospitalization, major vascular complications, and moderate or worse post-procedure aortic or mitral valve regurgitation predicted of 30-day readmission following self-expanding TAVR. This information may improve discharge planning centered on each patient's readmission risk., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Sanchez serves as proctor for Medtronic; Dr. Hermiller serves as a Medtronic faculty educator; Dr. Forrest has received grant support/research contracts and consultant fees/honoraria/speakers' bureau fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; Dr. Pinto grant support/research contracts and consultant fees/honoraria/speakers' bureau fees from Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; Dr. Chetcuti serves as a proctor for Medtronic and consultant for Jena valve; Dr. Arshi serves on an advisory board for Boston Scientific; Dr. Huang is an employee and shareholder of Medtronic, plc; Dr. Yakubov has received institutional research grants from Boston Scientific and Medtronic. This research was supported by the American College of Cardiology's National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR). The views expressed in this manuscript represent those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NCDR or its associated professional societies identified at CVQuality.ACC.org/NCDR., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an option when a surgical valve demonstrates deterioration and dysfunction. This study reports 3-year results following valve-in-valve with self-expanding TAVR., Methods: The CoreValve US Expanded Use Study is a prospective, nonrandomized, single-arm study that evaluates safety and effectiveness of TAVR in extreme risk patients with symptomatic failed surgical biologic aortic valves. Study end points include all-cause mortality, need for valve reintervention, hemodynamic changes over time, and quality of life through 3 years. Patients were stratified by presence of preexisting surgical valve prosthesis-patient mismatch., Results: From March 2013 to May 2015, 226 patients deemed extreme risk (STS-PROM [Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality] 9.0±7%) had attempted valve-in-valve TAVR. Preexisting surgical valve prosthesis-patient mismatch was present in 47.2% of the cohort. At 3 years, all-cause mortality or major stroke was 28.6%, and 93% of patients were in New York Heart Association I or II heart failure. Valve performance was maintained over 3 years with low valve reintervention rates (4.4%), an improvement in effective orifice area over time and a 2.7% rate of severe structural valve deterioration. Preexisting severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was not associated with 3-year mortality but was associated with significantly less improvement in quality of life at 3-year follow-up ( P =0.01)., Conclusions: Self-expanding TAVR in patients with failed surgical bioprostheses at extreme risk for surgery was associated with durable hemodynamics and excellent clinical outcomes. Preexisting surgical valve prosthesis-patient mismatch was not associated with mortality but did limit patient improvement in quality of life over 3-year follow-up., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01675440.

Background: Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at increased risk for death from surgery; less is known about TAVR in low-risk patients., Methods: We performed a randomized noninferiority trial in which TAVR with a self-expanding supraannular bioprosthesis was compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients who had severe aortic stenosis and were at low surgical risk. When 850 patients had reached 12-month follow-up, we analyzed data regarding the primary end point, a composite of death or disabling stroke at 24 months, using Bayesian methods., Results: Of the 1468 patients who underwent randomization, an attempted TAVR or surgical procedure was performed in 1403. The patients' mean age was 74 years. The 24-month estimated incidence of the primary end point was 5.3% in the TAVR group and 6.7% in the surgery group (difference, -1.4 percentage points; 95% Bayesian credible interval for difference, -4.9 to 2.1; posterior probability of noninferiority >0.999). At 30 days, patients who had undergone TAVR, as compared with surgery, had a lower incidence of disabling stroke (0.5% vs. 1.7%), bleeding complications (2.4% vs. 7.5%), acute kidney injury (0.9% vs. 2.8%), and atrial fibrillation (7.7% vs. 35.4%) and a higher incidence of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation (3.5% vs. 0.5%) and pacemaker implantation (17.4% vs. 6.1%). At 12 months, patients in the TAVR group had lower aortic-valve gradients than those in the surgery group (8.6 mm Hg vs. 11.2 mm Hg) and larger effective orifice areas (2.3 cm 2 vs. 2.0 cm 2 )., Conclusions: In patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding supraannular bioprosthesis was noninferior to surgery with respect to the composite end point of death or disabling stroke at 24 months. (Funded by Medtronic; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02701283.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Objectives: To assess the treatment effect of TAVR versus SAVR on clinical outcomes to 3 years in patients stratified by chronic kidney disease (CKD) by retrospectively studying patients randomized to TAVR or SAVR., Background: The impact of CKD on mid-term outcomes of patients undergoing TAVR versus SAVR is unclear., Methods: Patients randomized to TAVR or SAVR in the CoreValve US Pivotal High Risk Trial were retrospectively stratified by eGFR: none/mild or moderate/severe CKD. To evaluate the impact of baseline CKD in TAVR patients only, all patients undergoing an attempted TAVR implant in the US Pivotal Trial and CAS were stratified by baseline eGFR into none/mild, moderate, and severe CKD. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular and renal events (MACRE), a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke/TIA, and new requirement of dialysis., Results: Moderate/severe CKD was present in 62.7% and 60.7% of high-risk patients randomized to TAVR or SAVR, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar between TAVR and SAVR patients in both CKD subgroups, except for higher rates of diabetes and higher serum creatinine in SAVR patients. Among high-risk patients with moderate/severe CKD, TAVR provided a lower 3-year MACRE rate compared with SAVR: 42.1% vs. 51.0, P = .04. Of 3,733 extreme- and high-risk TAVR patients, 39.9% had none/mild, 53.8% moderate, and 6.4% severe CKD. Worsening baseline CKD was associated with increased 3-year MACRE rates [none/mild 51.5%, moderate 54.5%, severe 63.1%, P = .001]., Conclusions: TAVR results in lower 3-year MACRE versus SAVR in high-risk patients with moderate/severe CKD. In patients undergoing TAVR, worsening CKD increases mid-term mortality and MACRE. Randomized trials of TAVR vs. SAVR in patients with moderate-severe CKD would help elucidate the best treatment for these complex patients., Trial Registration: CoreValve US Pivotal Trial: NCT01240902. CoreValve Continued Access Study: NCT01531374., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectives: The authors sought to compare clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in patients receiving transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for low-gradient (LG) aortic stenosis in the CoreValve EUS (Expanded Use Study) versus those with high-gradient (HG) aortic stenosis from the CoreValve U.S. Pivotal Extreme Risk Trial and CAS (Continued Access Study)., Background: The EUS examined the impact of TAVR in patients unsuitable for surgical aortic valve replacement who were excluded from the U.S. Pivotal Extreme Risk Trial due to LG aortic stenosis., Methods: EUS patients were stratified by left ventricular ejection fraction: normal (≥50%, LG-normal ejection fraction), and low (<50%, did not respond to dobutamine by generating a mean gradient >40 mm Hg and/or velocity >4.0 m/s, "nonresponders"), and compared with extreme-risk patients from U.S. Pivotal and CAS that had either low resting gradient and responded to dobutamine ("responders"), or a high resting gradient (HG) or velocity. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality or major stroke at 1 year. Hemodynamics and quality of life are reported at 30 days and 1 year., Results: At 30 days, patients with LG/low left ventricular ejection fraction (nonresponders and responders) had significantly higher rates of all-cause mortality or major stroke, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality than both HG and LG-normal ejection fraction patients. At 1 year, only the responders had higher rates of these outcomes in comparison to the other 3 groups. Mean gradient and effective orifice area improved significantly in all patients and were maintained through 1 year. New York Heart Association functional classification and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores improved (p < 0.05) in all cohorts through 1 year. When all 4 subgroups were pooled, both decreasing mean gradient and stroke volume index were associated with increased mortality. Pre-procedural mean gradient was the only hemodynamic independent predictor of 1-year mortality by multivariate analysis., Conclusions: In this study, TAVR provided EUS patients significant hemodynamic relief with both 1-year survival and quality of life outcomes comparable to Pivotal and CAS patients (Safety & Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System-Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis With Significant Comorbidities in Extreme Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement, NCT01675440; Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement, NCT01240902; Safety and Efficacy Continued Access Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in Very High Risk Subjects and High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement, NCT01531374)., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: This analysis evaluates the relationship of annular size to hemodynamics and the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) in surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) patients., Methods: The CoreValve US Pivotal High Risk Trial, described previously, compared TAVR using a self-expanding valve with SAVR. Multislice computed tomography was used to categorize TAVR and SAVR subjects according to annular perimeter-derived diameter: large (≥26 mm), medium (23 to <26 mm), and small (<23 mm). Hemodynamics, PPM, and clinical outcomes were assessed., Results: At all postprocedure visits, mean gradients were significantly lower for TAVR compared with SAVR in small and medium size annuli (p < 0.001). Annular size was significantly associated with mean gradient after SAVR, with small annuli having the highest gradients (p < 0.05 at all timepoints); gradients were similar across all annular sizes after TAVR. In subjects receiving SAVR, the frequency of PPM was significantly associated with annular size, with small annuli having the greatest incidence. No difference in PPM incidence by annular sizing was observed with TAVR. In addition, TAVR subjects had significantly less PPM than SAVR subjects in small and medium annuli (p < 0.001), with no difference in the incidence of PPM between TAVR and SAVR in large annuli (p = 0.10)., Conclusions: Annular size has a significant effect on hemodynamics and the incidence of PPM in SAVR subjects, not observed in TAVR subjects. With respect to annular size, TAVR results in better hemodynamics and less PPM for annuli less than 26 mm and should be strongly considered when choosing a tissue valve for small and medium size annuli., (Copyright © 2018 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The authors sought to compare the outcomes of commercial transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the repositionable Evolut R platform to those observed with the CoreValve device in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) Transcatheter Valve Therapy (TVT) Registry., Background: TAVR continues to evolve, with rapid adoption of iterative changes for commercial practice. Insight into the outcomes of this adoption is needed., Methods: Patients in the TVT Registry who had TAVR using a 23-, 26-, or 29-mm self-expanding prosthesis were enrolled. Site-reported events for procedural, in-hospital, and 30-day outcomes were examined., Results: Between January 2014 and April 2016, 9,616 patients underwent TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis with data entered in the TVT Registry. Compared with patients treated with CoreValve TAVR, those who received Evolut R TAVR had a lower STS-PROM score (8.0 ± 5.4% vs. 8.7 ± 5.3%; p < 0.001), more iliofemoral access (91.6% vs. 89.2%; p < 0.001), and more frequently had conscious sedation (27.4% vs. 12.7%; p < 0.001). With Evolut R TAVR, there was less need for a second prosthesis (2.2% vs. 4.5%; p < 0.001), less device migration (0.2% vs. 0.6%; p = 0.01), a lower incidence of moderate/severe paravalvular regurgitation (post-procedure, 4.4% vs. 6.2%; p < 0.001), and shorter median hospital stay (4.0 vs. 5.0 days; p < 0.001). Patients treated with Evolut R TAVR had greater device success (96.3% vs. 94.9%; p = 0.001). At 30 days, Evolut R patients had both lower mortality (3.7% vs. 5.3%; p < 0.001) and less need for a pacemaker (18.3% vs. 20.1%; p = 0.03)., Conclusions: Commercial adoption of the Evolut R platform is associated with significant improvements in acute outcomes for patients undergoing TAVR for aortic stenosis., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with surgical valve failure (SVF)., Background: Self-expanding TAVR is superior to medical therapy for patients with severe native aortic valve stenosis at increased surgical risk., Methods: The CoreValve U.S. Expanded Use Study was a prospective, nonrandomized study that enrolled 233 patients with symptomatic SVF who were deemed unsuitable for reoperation. Patients were treated with self-expanding TAVR and evaluated for 30-day and 1-year outcomes after the procedure. An independent core laboratory was used to evaluate serial echocardiograms for valve hemodynamics and aortic regurgitation., Results: SVF occurred through stenosis (56.4%), regurgitation (22.0%), or a combination (21.6%). A total of 227 patients underwent attempted TAVR and successful TAVR was achieved in 225 (99.1%) patients. Patients were elderly (76.7 ± 10.8 years), had a Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score of 9.0 ± 6.7%, and were severely symptomatic (86.8% New York Heart Association functional class III or IV). The all-cause mortality rate was 2.2% at 30 days and 14.6% at 1 year; major stroke rate was 0.4% at 30 days and 1.8% at 1 year. Moderate aortic regurgitation occurred in 3.5% of patients at 30 days and 7.4% of patients at 1 year, with no severe aortic regurgitation. The rate of new permanent pacemaker implantation was 8.1% at 30 days and 11.0% at 1 year. The mean valve gradient was 17.0 ± 8.8 mm Hg at 30 days and 16.6 ± 8.9 mm Hg at 1 year. Factors significantly associated with higher discharge mean aortic gradients were surgical valve size, stenosis as modality of SVF, and presence of surgical valve prosthesis patient mismatch (all p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Self-expanding TAVR in patients with SVF at increased risk for surgery was associated with a low 1-year mortality and major stroke rate, significantly improved aortic valve hemodynamics, and low rates of moderate and no severe residual aortic regurgitation, with improved quality of life., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: End-stage renal disease (ESRD) poses unique challenges in the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis. Although surgical valve replacement in ESRD patients has been associated with increased mortality, the outcomes from transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are not clearly defined., Methods: The CoreValve US Expanded Use Study is a prospective, nonrandomized study of TAVR in extreme-risk patients with comorbidities excluding them from the Pivotal Trial. We report on patients with ESRD. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality or major stroke at 1 year., Results: Ninety-six patients with ESRD underwent TAVR with the CoreValve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) and have reached 1-year follow-up. Mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 16.2% ± 8.4%. The rate of all-cause mortality or major stroke at 1 year was 30.3%. The all-cause mortality rate was 5.3% at 30 days and 30.3% at 1 year. The rate at 1 year of any stroke or transient ischemic attack was 2.1%; major vascular injury was 5.2%; and new permanent pacemaker was 26.8%. Valve performance improved postprocedure and remained improved at 1 year (effective orifice area 1.71 cm 2 , mean gradient 9.33 mm Hg) CONCLUSIONS: Early mortality in patients with ESRD is comparable to previously published data on extreme-risk patients without ESRD, but our data suggest a higher mortality rate at 1 year for ESRD patients, likely due to comorbid conditions. Stroke and major vascular injury are infrequent, and improved valve hemodynamics are maintained at 1 year., (Copyright © 2017 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the impact of simulation training on complications associated with femoral arterial access obtained by first year cardiology fellows., Background: Prior studies demonstrate a higher incidence of arterial access related complications among patients undergoing invasive cardiac procedures., Methods: First year cardiology fellows at four teaching hospitals in Michigan tracked their femoral access experience and any associated complications between July 2011 and June 2013. Fellows starting their academic training in July 2012 were first trained on a specially developed simulator before starting their rotation in the catheterization laboratory. The primary outcome was access proficiency, defined as five successful femoral access attempts without any complication or need to seek help from a more experienced team member., Results: A total of 1,278 femoral access attempts were made by 21 fellows in 2011-2012 compared with 869 femoral access attempts made by 21 fellows in 2012-2013. There was a lower rate of access related complications in patients undergoing access attempts by first year fellows in year 2 compared with year 1 (2.1% versus 4.5%, P = 0.003). The number of procedures to achieve procedural proficiency was significantly higher in year 1 compared with year 2 (median 20 versus 10, P = 0.007)., Conclusions: Incorporation of simulation in the training of first year fellows was associated with an improvement in proficiency and a clinically meaningful reduction in vascular complications., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: We have developed new universal strain software (USS) that can be used to perform speckle tracking of any Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) image, regardless of the ultrasound system used to obtain it., Methods: Fifty patients prospectively underwent echocardiography immediately prior to cardiac catheterization. Biplane peak global longitudinal strain (GLS), peak systolic longitudinal strain rate (SSR), peak early diastolic longitudinal strain rate (DSR), and peak early diastolic circumferential strain rate (DCSR) were determined using conventional strain software (CSS) that uses raw data, and using the new USS applied to DICOM images., Results: Universal strain software correlated with CSS for GLS (r = 0.78, P < 0.001), SSR (r = 0.78, P < 0.001), DSR (r = 0.54, P < 0.001), and DCSR (r = 0.43, P = 0.019). GLS and SSR using USS correlated with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (r = -0.67 and -0.71, respectively) as well as using CSS (r = -0.66 and -0.71). Patients with diastolic dysfunction had significantly lower DSR (0.61 vs. 0.87/sec, P = 0.02) and DCSR (0.89 vs. 1.23/sec, P = 0.03), and less negative GLS (-10.8 vs. -16.1%, P = 0.002) using USS in all patients, as well as among those with LVEF ≥ 50%. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis for detection of diastolic dysfunction revealed a sensitivity and specificity of 82% and 83% for DCSR < 1.09/sec (area under the curve [AUC = 0.80]) and 85% and 83% for GLS > -13.7% (AUC = 0.84) using USS., Conclusion: Universal strain software can be used to accurately assess LV systolic and diastolic function using speckle tracking echocardiography., (© 2014, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Introduction: Standard print and verbal information provided to patients undergoing treatments are often difficult to understand and may impair their ability to be truly informed. This study examined the effect of an interactive multimedia informational program with in-line exercises and corrected feedback on patients' real-time understanding of their cardiac catheterization procedure., Methods: 151 adult patients scheduled for diagnostic cardiac catheterization were randomized to receive information about their procedure using either the standard institutional verbal and written information (SI) or an interactive iPad-based informational program (IPI). Subject understanding was evaluated using semi-structured interviews at baseline, immediately following catheterization, and 2 weeks after the procedure. In addition, for those randomized to the IPI, the ability to respond correctly to several in-line exercises was recorded. Subjects' perceptions of, and preferences for the information delivery were also elicited., Results: Subjects randomized to the IPI program had significantly better understanding following the intervention compared with those randomized to the SI group (8.3±2.4 vs 7.4±2.5, respectively, 0-12 scale where 12=complete understanding, P<0.05). First-time correct responses to the in-line exercises ranged from 24.3% to 100%. Subjects reported that the in-line exercises were very helpful (9.1±1.7, 0-10 scale, where 10=extremely helpful) and the iPad program very easy to use (9.0±1.6, 0-10 scale, where 10=extremely easy) suggesting good clinical utility., Discussion: Results demonstrated the ability of an interactive multimedia program to enhance patients' understanding of their medical procedure. Importantly, the incorporation of in-line exercises permitted identification of knowledge deficits, provided corrected feedback, and confirmed the patients' understanding of treatment information in real-time when consent was sought., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: We sought to evaluate trends in door-to-balloon (D2B) times and false activation rates for the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In patients with STEMI, national efforts have focused on reducing D2B times for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (P-PCI). This emphasis on time-to-treatment may increase the rate of false CCL activations and unnecessary healthcare utilization., Study Design: Retrospective quality improvement chart review., Methods: We examined all emergent CCL activations for P-PCI between 2007 and 2011 at the University of Michigan Hospital. False activation was defined as emergent CCL activation when the patient did not require CCL care or emergent cardiology evaluation in the ED. Pre-hospital or ED false activation rates and mean D2B time were retrospectively determined by chart review., Results: The CCL was activated 717 times for suspected STEMI. The number of CCL activations increased from 96 in 2007 to 190 in 2011. False CCL activations accounted for 28% of all prehospital and 29% of all ED activations. The false activation rate increased from 15% of all cases in 2007 to 40% of all cases in 2011. The median D2B time decreased from 67 minutes in 2007 to 55 minutes in 2011., Conclusions: Over a 5-year period with a strong emphasis on reducing D2B times, there has been an increased CCL false activation rate for P-PCI.

Background and Aim of the Study: The study aim was to determine if significant ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR) is adequately addressed in patients undergoing multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Methods: The cardiac catheterization laboratory database at the authors' institution was accessed over a five-year interval to identify those patients who had undergone multi-vessel PCI. Both, pre- and post-revascularization echocardiographic data were retrieved, and clinical data, MR presence and severity, and outcomes were each assessed., Results: In total, 150 patients (100 males, 50 females; mean age 63 +/- 12 years) underwent PCI. Of these 150 patients, pre-procedural echocardiograms were not performed in 54 cases (35%); hence, the study group comprised 96 patients with both pre- and postprocedural echocardiograms. Of these patients, 21 (22%) had moderate or greater (2+) IMR. The severity of the IMR did not change significantly after multivessel PCI (2 +/- 0.8+ preoperatively versus 1.9 +/- 1.0+ postoperatively)., Conclusion: Clinically significant IMR occurred not infrequently among patients treated with multivessel PCI, but the severity did not change with percutaneous revascularization, despite this being predominantly complete. In more than one-third of the patients, adequate pre-PCI echocardiography was unavailable, which suggested the possibility that not all IMR had been identified.

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the effect of age on procedure type, periprocedural management, and in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing lower-extremity (LE) peripheral vascular intervention (PVI)., Background: Surgical therapy of peripheral arterial disease is associated with significant morbidity and mortality in the elderly. There are limited data related to the influence of advanced age on the outcome of patients undergoing percutaneous LE PVI., Methods: Clinical presentation, comorbidities, and in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing LE PVI in a multicenter, multidisciplinary registry were compared between 3 age groups: < 70 years, between 70 and 80 years, and ≥ 80 years (elderly group)., Results: In our cohort, 7,769 patients underwent LE PVI. The elderly patients were more likely to be female and to have a greater burden of comorbidities. Procedural success was lower in the elderly group (74.2% for age ≥ 80 years vs. 78% for age 70 to < 80 years and 81.4% in patients age < 70 years, respectively; p < 0.0001). Unadjusted rates of procedure-related vascular access complications, post-procedure transfusion, contrast-induced nephropathy, amputation, and major adverse cardiac events were higher in elderly patients. After adjustment for baseline covariates, the elderly patients were more likely to experience vascular access complications; however, advanced age was not found to be associated with major adverse cardiac events, transfusion, contrast-induced nephropathy, or amputation., Conclusions: Contemporary PVI can be performed in elderly patients with high procedural and technical success with low rates of periprocedural complications including mortality. These findings may support the notion of using PVI as a preferred revascularization strategy in the treatment of severe peripheral arterial disease in the elderly population., (Copyright © 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The optimal degree of heparin anticoagulation for peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs) has not been defined. We sought to correlate total heparin dose and peak procedural activated clotting time (ACT) with postprocedural outcomes in patients undergoing PVI., Methods and Results: We studied 4743 patients who received heparin during PVIs in a regional, multicenter registry. From those, 1246 had recorded peak procedural ACT with the same point-of-care device. Periprocedural and in-hospital outcomes were compared between patients who received a total heparin dose <60 U/kg (n=2161) and ≥60 U/kg (n=2582). Similarly, outcomes were evaluated between groups with a peak procedural ACT <250 seconds (n=855) and ≥250 seconds (n=391). Technical and procedural success as well as intraprocedural thrombotic events did not differ between groups. Patients with heparin dose ≥60 U/kg had a higher rate of postprocedural hemoglobin drop ≥3 g/dL (7.09% versus 5.09%, respectively, P=0.004) and a higher transfusion rate compared with those with heparin dose <60 U/kg (4.92% versus 3.15%, respectively, P=0.002). In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of bleeding requiring transfusion were total heparin dose ≥60 U/kg, ACT ≥250 seconds, female sex, age ≥70 years, prior anemia, prior heart failure, low creatinine clearance, hybrid vascular surgery, rest pain, and below-knee intervention. In propensity-matched, risk-adjusted models and after hierarchical modeling, total heparin dose ≥60 U/kg and ACT ≥250 seconds remained strong predictors of post-PVI drop in hemoglobin ≥3 g/dL or transfusion., Conclusions: During PVI, higher total heparin dose (≥60 U/kg) and peak ACT ≥250 seconds were predictors of postprocedural transfusion. The high technical and procedural success in all groups suggests that use of weight-based heparin dosing with a target ACT <250 seconds in PVI may minimize the bleeding risk without compromising procedural success or increasing thromboembolic complications.

Objectives: We evaluated the association between guiding catheter size and complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Background: The association between guiding catheter size and complications of PCI in contemporary practice remains controversial., Methods: Procedure and outcome variables from 103,070 consecutive patients that underwent PCI with 6-F (n = 64,335), 7-F (n = 32,676), and 8-F (n = 6,059) guide catheters were compared., Results: Compared with 6-F guides, PCIs performed with 7- and 8-F guides were associated with incrementally more contrast agent use, and more post-PCI complications including contrast-induced nephropathy, vascular access site complications, bleeding, transfusion, major adverse cardiac event, and death. After multivariate analysis, the use of larger guides were associated with a higher risk of contrast-induced nephropathy (7-F odds ratio [OR]: 1.18, p = 0.0004; 8-F OR: 1.44, p < 0.0001), vascular complications (7-F OR: 1.19, p = 0.0002, 8-F OR: 1.68, p < 0.0001), decline in hemoglobin >3 g/dl (7-F OR: 1.12, p < 0.0001, 8-F OR: 1.72, p < 0.0001), and post-procedure blood transfusion (7-F OR: 1.08, p = 0.03; 8-F OR: 1.80, p < 0.0001), whereas major adverse cardiac events (7-F OR: 1.06, p = 0.13; 8-F OR: 1.37, p < 0.0001) and in-hospital mortality (7-F OR: 1.11, p = 0.13; 8-F OR: 1.34, p = 0.03) were increased with 8-F but not 7-F guides., Conclusions: Compared with 6-F guides, PCIs performed with 7- and 8-F guides were associated with more contrast medium use, renal complications, bleeding, vascular access site complications, greater need for post-procedure transfusion, and 8-F guides with increased nephropathy requiring dialysis, in-hospital major adverse cardiac events, and mortality. These data suggest that selection of smaller guide catheters may result in improved clinical outcome in patients undergoing contemporary PCI.

Aims: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing routine stenting (ST) with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) for symptomatic superficial femoral-popliteal artery (SFPA) disease., Methods and Results: Ten trials were pooled randomizing patients to ST (n = 724 limbs) or PTA with provisional stenting (n = 718 limbs) with a follow-up period of 9-24 months. The mean lesion length was similar in the two groups (45.8 mm in the ST group and 43.3 mm in the PTA group). We calculated the summary risk ratios (RRs) for immediate technical failure, restenosis, and target vessel revascularization (TVR) using random-effects models. The immediate technical failure was higher in the PTA group than in the ST group [17.1 vs. 5.9%, respectively, RR = 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.15-0.54, P < 0.001], with 10.3% of the PTA patients undergoing stenting because of suboptimal result. There was a trend for lower restenosis in the ST group (37.6% in ST vs. 45.3% in PTA, RR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.69-1.06, P = 0.146), but no difference in the need for TVR (20% in ST vs. 20.2% in PTA, RR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.78-1.23, P = 0.89). In an analysis restricted to nitinol stents, there was a trend towards reduction in TVR (RR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.59-1.06, P = 0.12)., Conclusion: Despite the higher immediate success, routine stenting was not associated with a significant reduction in the rate of restenosis or TVR. Our data do not support use of routine stenting as the primary endovascular treatment for short SFPA lesions.

Blood transfusions are a relatively common occurrence after performing any percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Although guidelines for blood transfusion have been previously specified, retrospective analysis of transfusion practices have suggested that these guidelines are rarely applied. We describe a model for the application of a continuous quality improvement program including benchmarking and available guidelines for blood transfusion, aimed toward reducing transfusion rates among patients undergoing PCI.