Search

The change in practice of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to a minimalist approach is a debate. Online database search for studies that compared the minimalist approach with the standard approach for TAVR were searched from inception through September 2020. We calculated pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the fixed or random-effects model. A total of 9 studies with 2,880 TAVR patients (minimalist TAVR;1066 and standard TAVR; 1,814) were included. Compared to standard approach, there were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, or hospital readmissions. However, there was a reduced risk of acute kidney injury (OR0.49;95%CI0.27���0.89), major bleeding (OR0.21;95%CI0.12���0.38) and major vascular complications (OR0.60,95%CI0.39���0.91) associated with the minimalist TAVR group. There was comparatively shorter hospital length of stay (mean difference ���2.41;95%CI-2.99,-1.83) days, procedural time (mean difference ���43.99;95%CI-67.25,-20.75) minutes, fluoroscopy time (mean difference ���2.69;95%CI-3.44,-1.94) minutes and contrast volume (mean difference ���26.98;95%CI-42.18,-11.79) ml in the minimalist TAVR group. This meta-analysis demonstrated potential benefits of the minimalist TAVR approach over the standard approach regarding some adverse clinical outcomes as well as procedural outcomes without significant differences in mortality or readmission rates.

We describe 4 cases in which technical challenges were anticipated in delivering a self-expanding TAVR valve due to challenging aortic anatomy or a previous placed surgical aortic valve. An upfront snare strategy is described which facilitates valve centralization and atraumatic valve delivery. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.), Central Illustration

Background Few studies have evaluated if diastolic function could predict outcomes in patients with aortic stenosis. Objectives The authors aimed to assess the association between diastoli...

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has strained health care resources around the world, causing many institutions to curtail or stop elective procedures. This has resulted in an inability to care for patients with valvular and structural heart disease in a timely fashion, potentially placing these patients at increased risk for adverse cardiovascular complications, including CHF and death. The effective triage of these patients has become challenging in the current environment, as clinicians have had to weigh the risk of bringing susceptible patients into the hospital environment during the COVID-19 pandemic against the risk of delaying a needed procedure. In this document, the authors suggest guidelines for how to triage patients in need of structural heart disease interventions and provide a framework for how to decide when it may be appropriate to proceed with intervention despite the ongoing pandemic. In particular, the authors address the triage of patients in need of transcatheter aortic valve replacement and percutaneous mitral valve repair. The authors also address procedural issues and considerations for the function of structural heart disease teams during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has strained health care resources around the world, causing many institutions to curtail or stop elective procedures. This has resulted in an inability to care for patients with valvular and structural heart disease in a timely fashion, potentially placing these patients at increased risk for adverse cardiovascular complications, including CHF and death. The effective triage of these patients has become challenging in the current environment as clinicians have had to weigh the risk of bringing susceptible patients into the hospital environment during the COVID-19 pandemic against the risk of delaying a needed procedure. In this document, the authors suggest guidelines for how to triage patients in need of structural heart disease interventions and provide a framework for how to decide when it may be appropriate to proceed with intervention despite the ongoing pandemic. In particular, the authors address the triage of patients in need of transcatheter aortic valve replacement and percutaneous mitral valve repair. The authors also address procedural issues and considerations for the function of structural heart disease teams during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is highly infectious, carries significant morbidity and mortality, and has rapidly resulted in strained health care system and hospital resources. In addition to patient-related care concerns in infected individuals, focus must also relate to diminishing community spread, protection of staff, case selection, and concentration of resources. The current document based on available data and consensus opinion addresses appropriate catheterization laboratory preparedness for treating these patients, including procedure-room readiness to minimize external contamination, safe donning and doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) to eliminate risk to staff, and staffing algorithms to minimize exposure and maximize team availability. Case selection and management of both emergent and urgent procedures are discussed in detail, including procedures that may be safely deferred or performed bedside.

Aortic insufficiency (AI) is a frequent problem after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation and results in increased morbidity and mortality. Advances in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) technology have resulted in this being discussed as a potential option for LVAD patients with AI. While small case series have been published, we report the first case of TAVR thrombosis in an LVAD patient. This case highlights a major diagnostic and management dilemma that should become more present if this strategy becomes more widespread.

Highlights •Underserved minorities represent a low proportion of patients undergoing TAVR and SAVR. •Differences in disease prevalence and patient, disease, and health system–related factors may all contribute to treatment disparities. •We present a 4-part intervention aimed at narrowing this treatment gap. •A collaborative effort from all stakeholders is necessary to achieve equity.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is approved for treatment of symptomatic aortic stenosis in patients at increased risk for surgical valve replacement, but outcomes data in patients with severe native aortic regurgitation (AR) treated with TAVI remain limited. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate outcomes among patients identified in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapies Registry who underwent TAVI for native AR with a commercially available self-expanding valve system. From January 2014 to December 2017, 230 patients in the TVT Registry underwent TAVI for primary severe native AR using a commercially available self-expanding valve (n = 81, CoreValve; n = 149, Evolut R). For inclusion, AR was either pure or mixed with predominantly moderate/severe AR and mean aortic valve gradient ≤20 mm Hg. Thirty-day outcomes were evaluated using time-to-event methods. Device success was reported in 81.7% of patients (CoreValve, 72.2%; Evolut R, 86.9%; p = 0.0.01). Thirty-day all-cause mortality was 13.3%. All patients presented with moderate/severe AR at baseline; at 30 days, 9.1% of implanted patients with data continued to have moderate and 1.4% severe AR. There was a significant reduction in residual moderate/severe AR from the CoreValve to Evolut R device (19.1% vs 6.3%, p = 0.02). Multivariable analysis revealed factors associated with 30-day all-cause mortality include number of valves used (hazard ratio [HR] 2.361, 1.643 to 3.391, p0.001), albumin3.3 mg/dL (HR 3.358, 1.551 to 7.273, p=0.002), and left ventricular ejection fraction (HR 0.978, 0.957 to 1.000, p = 0.047). Despite higher 30-day all-cause mortality, self-expanding TAVI may be an option in selected patients with AR who have no surgical options.

Background: Reported rates of acute kidney injury (AKI) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in small observational studies vary widely. Methods: Patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the United States between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2018, were included. Patients without reported baseline or peak creatinine values and those who were previously on hemodialysis were excluded. AKI was defined using AKI Network criteria from stages 0 to 3. Logistic regression was used to assess patient and clinical factors associated with incident in-hospital AKI. Among patients with available data from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrative files, we compared 1-year mortality among patients with and without AKI. Results: Of 107 814 study patients, 11 566 (10.7%) experienced postprocedural AKI. Among patients who developed AKI, 10 220 (9.5%) experienced stage 1 AKI, 134 (0.1%) stage 2 AKI, and 1212 (1.1%) stage 3 AKI. Race, baseline comorbidities, clinical presentation, and procedural factors were associated with the development of stage 3 AKI. In Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services–linked analyses of 62 757 (58.2%) patients, those with AKI had higher adjusted hazard ratio for mortality at 1 year compared with patients who did not experience AKI (stage 1 AKI: adjusted hazard ratio, 2.7 [95% CI, 2.5–2.8], P P P Conclusions: Using data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry registry, we found that AKI is common after transcatheter aortic valve replacement, with over 10% of patients developing postprocedure AKI. Patients who developed stage 3 AKI had 7× higher adjusted 1-year mortality compared with patients who did not develop AKI.

INTRODUCTIONS & AIMS: Heart failure (HF) is a common comorbidity in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We sought to access the temporal trends and outcomes of TAVR or SAVR in HF patients. METHOD: The NIS database from 2011-2014 was queried for patients that underwent TAVR or SAVR and were subsequently diagnosed with HF. Temporal trends in the utilization of TAVR or SAVR in HF patients were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 27,982 patients who were diagnosed with HF of whom 17,681 (63.2%) had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) while 10,301 (36.8%) had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), 9,049 (32.3%) underwent TAVR and 16,933 (76.7%) underwent SAVR. Patients with HFrEF and HFpEF had higher utilization of TAVR compared to SAVR over the course of the study period (p trend < 0.001). TAVR was associated with lower mortality [2.8% in 2012 and 1.8% in 2014 (p 0.013)] compared with SAVR. Similarly, multiple logistic regression showed a statistically significant lower in-hospital mortality in the TAVR group compared to SAVR (aOR 0.634; CI 0.504, 0.798, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: For patients with severe aortic valve stenosis and heart failure who undergo aortic valve intervention, TAVR is associated with less odds of in-hospital mortality compared with SAVR.

A 57-year-old man acutely developed chest tightness and dyspnea. Given concern that his symptoms were consistent with COVID-19, the patient self-isolated. After 1 week of worsening symptoms, the patient presented with hypoxia and hypotension. He was found to have an occluded right coronary artery and ruptured posteromedial papillary muscle. (Level of Difficulty: Beginner.), Graphical abstract, A 57-year-old man acutely developed chest tightness and dyspnea. Given concern that his symptoms were consistent with COVID-19, the…

Few studies have evaluated if diastolic function could predict outcomes in patients with aortic stenosis.The authors aimed to assess the association between diastolic dysfunction (DD) and outcomes in patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).Baseline, 30-day, and 1- and 2-year transthoracic echocardiograms from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2 SAPIEN 3 registry were analyzed by a consortium of core laboratories and divided into the American Society of Echocardiography DD groups.Among the 1,750 included, 682 (54.4%) had grade 1 DD, 352 (28.1%) had grade 2 DD, 168 (13.4%) had grade 3 DD, and 51 (4.1%) had indeterminate DD grade. Incremental baseline grades of DD were associated with an increase in combined 1- and 2-year cardiovascular (CV) death/rehospitalization (all p 0.002) and all-cause death at 2 years (p = 0.01) but not at 1 year. Improvement in DD grade/grade 1 DD at 30 days post-TAVR was seen in 70.8% patients. Patients with improvement in ≥1 grade of DD/grade 1 DD had reduced 1-year CV death/rehospitalization (p 0.001) and increased 2-year survival (p = 0.01). Baseline grade 3 DD was a predictor of 1-year CV death/rehospitalization (hazard ratio: 2.73; 95% confidence interval: 1.07 to 6.98; p = 0.04). Improvement in DD grade/grade 1 DD at 30 days was protective for 1-year CV death/rehospitalizations (hazard ratio: 0.39; 95% confidence interval: 0.19 to 0.83; p = 0.01).In the PARTNER 2 SAPIEN 3 registry, baseline DD was a predictor of up to 2 years clinical outcomes in patients who underwent TAVR. Improvement in DD grade at 30 days was associated with improvement in short-term clinical outcomes. (The PARTNER II Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves II - PARTNER II - PARTNERII - S3 Intermediate [PARTNERII S3i]; NCT03222128; PARTNER II Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves II - High Risk and Nested Registry 7 [PII S3HR/NR7]; NCT03222141).

At the time of percutaneous coronary intervention, participants were randomly assigned to prospective rapid point-of-care genotyping ofA total of 504 participants were randomized, 249 to the genotyped and 255 to the usual care group. The participants were primarily men (73%); age, 63±10 years; and 50% had acute coronary syndromes. In the genotyped group, 28% were carriers of loss-of-function alleles (*2, *3). The use of prasugrel or ticagrelor was significantly higher in the genotyped group compared with the usual care group (30% versus 21%; odds ratio, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.07-2.42];In a randomized controlled trial of clinicalURL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT02508116.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the association of tricuspid regurgitation (TR) severity with outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).We analyzed data from 34,576 patients who underwent TAVR at 365 US hospitals from November 2011 through March 2015 submitted to The Society of Thoracic Surgeon/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. We examined unadjusted mortality and heart failure readmission stratified by degree of preoperative TR and used multivariable models for 1-year mortality and heart failure readmission.Tricuspid regurgitation was present in 80% (n = 27,804) of TAVR patients, with mild TR in 56% (n = 19,393), moderate TR in 19% (n = 6687), and severe TR in 5% (n = 1,724). Increasing TR severity was associated with a number of comorbidities and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality increased (p0.001): no TR (7.3 ± 5.4); mild TR (8.0 ± 5.7); moderate TR (9.6 ± 6.8); and severe TR (10.7 ± 7.4). In unadjusted analysis, moderate and severe TR were associated with increased use of cardiopulmonary bypass, longer intensive care unit and hospital stays, new dialysis, inhospital major adverse cardiac event, inhospital mortality, observed-to-expected inhospital mortality ratio, long-term heart failure readmission, and mortality (p0.001). Adjusted mortality at 1 year was significantly worse for patients with severe TR when left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 30% (hazard ratio 1.29, 95% confidence interval: 1.11 to 1.50) as was heart failure readmission (hazard ratio 1.27, 95% confidence interval: 1.04 to 1.54).Tricuspid regurgitation was common among patients undergoing TAVR. Increasing TR severity was associated with higher risk patients and increased mortality and readmission-particularly for patients with severe TR and left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 30%. The effectiveness of TAVR alone in patients with aortic stenosis and concomitant severe TR may warrant further consideration, particularly for lower risk patients.

The cardiac catheterization laboratory is advancing medicine by performing procedures on patients who would usually require sternotomy and cardiopulmonary bypass. These procedures are done percutaneously, allowing them to be performed on patients considered inoperable. Patients have compromised cardiovascular function or advanced age. An anesthesiologist is essential for these procedures in case of hemodynamic compromise. Interventionalists are becoming more familiar with transcatheter aortic valve replacement and the device has become smaller, both contributing to less complications. Left atrial occlusion and the endovascular edge-to-edge mitral valve repair devices were approved. Although these devices require general anesthesia, an invasive surgery and cardiopulmonary bypass machine are not necessary for deployment.

Background: Conscious sedation is used during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with limited evidence as to the safety and efficacy of this practice. Methods: The National Cardiovascular Data Registry Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry was used to characterize the anesthesia choice and clinical outcomes of all US patients undergoing elective percutaneous transfemoral TAVR between April 1, 2014, and June 30, 2015. Raw and inverse probability of treatment-weighted analyses were performed to compare patients undergoing TAVR with general anesthesia with patients undergoing TAVR with conscious sedation on an intention-to-treat basis for the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes including 30-day mortality, in-hospital and 30-day death/stroke, procedural success, intensive care unit and hospital length-of-stay, and rates of discharge to home. Post hoc falsification end point analyses were performed to evaluate for residual confounding. Results: Conscious sedation was used in 1737/10 997 (15.8%) cases with a significant trend of increasing usage over the time period studied ( P for trendP =0.31). The conscious sedation group was less likely to experience in-hospital (1.6% versus 2.5%, P =0.03) and 30-day death (2.9% versus 4.1%, P =0.03). Conversion from conscious sedation to general anesthesia was noted in 102 of 1737 (5.9%) of conscious sedation cases. After inverse probability of treatment-weighted adjustment for 51 covariates, conscious sedation was associated with lower procedural success (97.9% versus 98.6%, P P P P P Conclusions: In US practice, conscious sedation is associated with briefer length of stay and lower in-hospital and 30-day mortality in comparison with TAVR with general anesthesia in both unadjusted and adjusted analyses. These results suggest the safety of conscious sedation in this population, although comparative effectiveness analyses using observational data cannot definitively establish the superiority of one technique over another.

Aortic insufficiency following left ventricular assist device implantation (LVAD) has been reported in up to 40% of patients and is associated with a worse prognosis. We describe the case of a successful transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with a self-expanding bioprosthesis for aortic insufficiency following destination LVAD implantation.

The SCAI Publications Committee and Emerging Leadership Mentorship (ELM) Fellows concisely summarize and provide context on the most important coronary trials presented at large international meetings in 2016, including SCAI, ACC, TCT, EuroPCR, ESC, and AHA. The intent is to allow quick assimilation of trial results into interventional practice, and enable busy interventional cardiologists to stay up to date. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Neurological complications after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be reduced with transcatheter cerebral embolic protection (TCEP).This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of TCEP during TAVR.Nineteen centers randomized 363 patients undergoing TAVR to a safety arm (n = 123), device imaging (n = 121), and control imaging (n = 119). The primary safety endpoint consisted of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 30 days, and the primary efficacy endpoint was reduction in new lesion volume in protected brain territories on magnetic resonance imaging scans at 2 to 7 days. Patients underwent neurocognitive assessments, and the debris captured was analyzed.The rate of MACCE (7.3%) was noninferior to the performance goal (18.3%, pTCEP was safe, captured embolic debris in 99% of patients, and did not change neurocognitive function. Reduction in new lesion volume on magnetic resonance scans was not statistically significant. (Cerebral Protection in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement [SENTINEL]; NCT02214277).

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an effective, nonsurgical treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis. The optimal treatment strategy for treating concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) has not been tested prospectively in a randomized clinical trial. Nevertheless, it is standard practice in the United States to perform coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention for significant CAD at least 1 month before TAVR. All existing clinical trials were designed using this strategy. Therefore, it is wrong to extrapolate current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Appropriate Use Criteria against invasive procedures in asymptomatic patients to the TAVR population when evaluating the quality of care by cardiologists or hospitals. In this statement from the Interventional Section Leadership Council of the ACC, it is recommended that percutaneous coronary intervention should be considered in all patients with significant proximal coronary stenosis in major coronary arteries before TAVR, even though the indication is not covered in current guidelines.

Innovation for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has transformed a medically complex treatment into a standardized procedure. While Edwards SAPIEN and Medtronic CoreValve occupy the market for TAVR in the United States (US), additional valve systems are being developed. The Boston Scientific Lotus Valve system was recently FDA-approved and will represent the third valve in the US market. This evidence-based review will summarize advantages, disadvantages, and projected impact of this new TAVR system. The Lotus Valve system demonstrates superiority in terms of rates of paravalvular leak, with similar rates of mortality and disabling stroke. This benefit is at the expense of increased pacemaker implantation rates, though preliminary data from subsequent iterations of the Lotus Valve suggest decreasing rates over time. There is much anticipation from ongoing trials utilizing the Lotus Edge system, which may perform best for those with pre-existing pacemakers or anatomy that increases likelihood of paravalvular leak.

Underserved minorities make up a disproportionately small subset of patients in the United States undergoing transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. The reasons for these treatment gaps include differences in disease prevalence and patient, health care system, and disease-related factors. This has major implications not only for minority patients, but also for other groups who face similar challenges in accessing state-of-the-art care for structural heart disease. The authors propose the following key strategies to address these treatment disparities: 1) implementation of measure-based quality improvement programs; 2) effective culturally competent communication and team-based care; 3) improving patient health care access, education, and effective diagnosis; and 4) changing the research paradigm that creates an innovation pipeline for patients. Only a concerted effort from all stakeholders will achieve equitable and broad application of this and other novel structural heart disease treatment modalities in the future.

Objectives To examine whether transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a safe and effective treatment option for aortic stenosis in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Background Patients with ESRD undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement have an operative mortality approaching 20% and a 10-year survival of approximately 12%. We investigated whether TAVR is a more reasonable option. Methods This is a multicenter, retrospective study of all patients with ESRD who underwent TAVR in 8 institutions between 12/2011 and 02/2013. Demographic characteristics, mortality, major, and minor complications were evaluated. Outcomes were stratified by operative approach. Results Forty-three patients with a mean age 76.2 ± 11.0 years and a mean STS predicted risk of mortality of 15.53 ± 8.70% underwent TAVR. Mean duration of dialysis was 45.2 ± 52.3 months (median 29.5 months). Transfemoral (TF) TAVR was performed in 31/43 (72.1%), transapical in 11/43 (25.6%), and transaortic in 1/43 (2.3%). Operative mortality was 14.0% (6/43) with TF mortality 6.5% (2/31) and 33.3% (4/12) in non-TF patients. Six-month mortality was 11/43 (25.6%: 16.1% TF, 50.0% non-TF). Complications included stroke in 2.3% (1/43) and life-threatening or major bleeding in 14.0% (6/43). Discharge to another healthcare facility was 27.0% (10/37). Readmission within 30 days of procedure for any cause was 18.9% (7/37). Conclusions Patients with ESRD who undergo TAVR are at high risk for mortality and complications. TAVR outcomes are comparable to but not substantially better than those with SAVR. Transfemoral TAVR seems to be at least as safe and effective as the current standard SAVR in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The SCAI Publications Committee and Emerging Leadership Mentorship (ELM) Fellows concisely summarize and provide context on the most important coronary trials presented at large international meetings in 2015, including the MATRIX, ABSORB, and TOTAL trials. The intent is to allow quick assimilation of trial results into interventional practice, and enable busy interventional cardiologists to stay up to date. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Eccentric valve deployment after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been associated with abnormal leaflet shear stresses that may accelerate structural valve deterioration (SVD). This phenomenon has not been studied in patients receiving Sapien 3 prostheses (Edwards Lifesciences).A retrospective cohort analysis of 100 patients who received Sapien 3 valves between 2013 and 2015 at a single institution was performed. Axial fluoroscopic images from the co-planar view were used to assess TAVR asymmetry, which was defined as a ratio of left-to-right valve heights ≤0.9 or ≥1.1. Transthoracic echocardiograms (TTEs) were obtained at follow-up to analyze peak and mean aortic valve (AV) gradients, paravalvular leak (PVL), and aortic insufficiency (AI).Overall, 26 mm and 29 mm valves had greater asymmetry (45.2% and 46.9%) compared to 23 mm valves (21.2%; P=.06). There was no relationship between pre-TAVR eccentricity and post-TAVR asymmetry, but greater annular calcification was associated with a higher incidence of TAVR asymmetry. Although asymmetry was associated with higher mean and peak AV gradients among 23 mm and 26 mm valves at both 1-year and 2-year follow-up exams, these results did not reach significance. There were no significant differences in PVL or AI severity between asymmetric and symmetric valves.Asymmetric deployment of Sapien 3 valves is common, particularly among 26 mm and 29 mm prostheses. Overall, we detected a small increase in gradients in smaller prostheses, which could reflect early subclinical SVD. Longer follow-up will be necessary to determine the extent to which eccentricity is associated with clinically significant SVD.

Objectives The aim of this study was to determine factors affecting paravalvular leak (PVL) in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the Edwards SAPIEN 3 (S3) valve in extremely large annuli. Background The largest recommended annular area for the 29-mm S3 is 683 mm2. However, experience with S3 TAVR in annuli >683 mm2 has not been widely reported. Methods From December 2013 to July 2017, 74 patients across 16 centers with mean area 721 ± 38 mm2 (range: 684 to 852 mm2) underwent S3 TAVR. The transfemoral approach was used in 95%, and 39% were under conscious sedation. Patient, anatomic, and procedural characteristics were retrospectively analyzed. Valve Academic Research Consortium–2 outcomes were reported. Results Procedural success was 100%, with 2 deaths, 1 stroke, and 2 major vascular complications at 30 days. Post-dilatation occurred in 32%, with final balloon overfilling (1 to 5 ml extra) in 70% of patients. Implantation depth averaged 22.3 ± 12.4% at the noncoronary cusp and 20.7 ± 9.9% at the left coronary cusp. New left bundle branch block occurred in 17%, and 6.3% required new permanent pacemakers. Thirty-day echocardiography showed mild PVL in 22.3%, 6.9% moderate, and none severe. There was no annular rupture or coronary obstruction. Mild or greater PVL was associated with larger maximum annular and left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) diameters, larger LVOT area and perimeter, LVOT area greater than annular area, and higher annular eccentricity. Conclusions TAVR with the 29-mm S3 valve beyond the recommended range by overexpansion is safe, with acceptable PVL and pacemaker rates. Larger LVOTs and more eccentric annuli were associated with more PVL. Longer term follow-up will be needed to determine durability of S3 TAVR in this population.

Calcific aortic stenosis (CAS) is the end manifestation of calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD). There are no medical therapies to reverse or slow the progression of CAVD [(1)][1]. Circulating biomarkers may provide insights into CAVD pathogenesis. Biomarkers identified in association with CAVD