Search

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.

Death in high- and intermediate-risk patients after self-expanding transcatheter (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (surgery) differed in mechanisms and timing. In both risk groups, 1-year all-cause mortality was lower in TAVR than in surgery patients. The differences in mechanism and timing of death in low-risk patients has not been studied. This report explores the mechanisms of death during 3 time periods; 0 to 30 days (early), 31 to 120 days (recovery), and 121 to 365 days (late).We retrospectively examined the mechanisms and timing of death following TAVR or surgery in the randomized Evolut Low Risk Trial. Patients were enrolled between March 2016 and November 2018 from 86 designated TAVR centers. Mechanisms of death were categorized as due to technical reasons, failure to repair, complications linked to death, failure to recover or other.All-cause mortality at 1 year was 2.2% for TAVR and 2.8% for surgery, p = 0.44. Early deaths included 3 TAVR patients, all due to technical reasons, and 8 surgery patients (1 technical, 5 complications and 2 failed to recover). Recovery period deaths included 6 TAVR patients (4 complications, 1 failed to recover and 1 other), and 1 surgery patient from complications of valve endocarditis. Late period deaths included 6 TAVR patients and 9 surgery patients, primarily due to complications.In this low-risk study cohort, no patient died from failure to repair the valve; reduction in procedural complications in the TAVR and surgery groups remain opportunities for further improvement in outcomes. Clinical Trial Registrations (clinicaltrials.gov): NCT02701283 (Evolut Low Risk).

Randomized clinical trials have shown that transcatheter aortic valve replacement is noninferior to surgery in low surgical risk patients. We compared outcomes in patients treated with a sutured (stented or stentless) or sutureless surgical valve from the Evolut Low Risk Trial.The Evolut Low Risk Trial enrolled patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk. Patients were randomized to self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgery. Use of sutureless or sutured valves was at the surgeons' discretion.Six hundred eighty patients underwent surgical aortic valve implantation (205 sutureless, 475 sutured). The Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 30-day safety composite endpoint was similar in the sutureless and sutured group (10.8% vs 11.0%, P = .93). All-cause mortality between groups was similar at 30 days (0.5% vs 1.5%, P = .28) and 1 year (3.3% vs 2.6%, P = .74). Disabling stroke was also similar at 30 days (2.0% vs 1.5%, P = .65) and 1 year (2.6% vs 2.2%, P = .76). Permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days was significantly higher in the sutureless compared with the sutured group (14.4% vs 2.9%, P.001). Aortic valve-related hospitalizations occurred more often at 1 year with sutureless valves (9.1% vs 5.1%, P = .04). Mean gradients 1 year after sutureless and sutured aortic valve replacement were 9.9 ± 4.2 versus 11.7 ± 4.7 mm Hg (P.001).Among low-risk patients, sutureless versus sutured valve use did not demonstrate a benefit in terms of 30-day complications and produced marginally better hemodynamics but with an increased rate of pacemaker implantation and valve-related hospitalizations.

Objectives We assessed the impact of conventional delivery system (DS) insertion technique on "Hat-marker" orientation/commissural alignment in patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in the Evolut Low Risk Trial CT substudy versus a modified technique. Background Unlike surgical aortic valve replacement, where alignment of the surgical valve commissures with native commissures can be achieved virtually 100% of the time, commissural alignment during TAVR is not achieved consistently. This may subsequently impact the feasibility of both coronary access and reintervention after TAVR. Methods "Hat-marker" orientations during deployment were characterized as outer curve (OC), center front (CF), inner curve, and center back. Severe commissure-to-CA overlap was 0-20°. "Hat-marker" orientations and CA overlap were compared to 240 patients from a single center using the modified 3-o'clock flush port DS technique. Results In the CT substudy in which conventional DS insertion was performed (flush port at 12 o'clock); 154/249 had both analyzable CT and procedural fluoroscopy to validate "Hat-marker" to C-tab/commissural orientation. On post-TAVR CT, Evolut valve commissural orientation and coronary artery (CA) ostia were identified. Compared to conventional DS technique in the CT substudy, the modified technique had higher rates of "Hat-marker" at OC/CF orientation, improved commissural alignment and reduced severe CA overlap; (left main, 14.2 vs. 27.9%; right coronary artery, 11.7 vs. 27.3% both, 5.0 vs. 13.6%; 1 or both CA, 20.8 vs. 41.6%, all p Conclusions The modified technique improved initial "Hat-marker" orientation during Evolut deployment and resulted in better commissural alignment and reduced CA overlap.

Background: Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) improves the hemodynamic results of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV TAVR) by facilitating optimal expansion of the transcat...

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.

Background Experience with retrieval of a Watchman left atrial (LA) appendage (LAA) closure device (WD) is limited. An embolized or grossly malpositioned WD warrants retrieval to minimize the risk of thromboembolic complications and vascular occlusion. Objective The purpose of this study was to report approaches for percutaneous retrieval of a WD from multicenter experience. Methods Data on successful WD retrievals were obtained from high-volume operators. Data included clinical characteristics; structural characteristics of the LA and LAA; and procedural details of the deployment and retrieval procedure, type of retrieval (immediate: during the same procedure; delayed: during a separate procedure after the successful deployment), equipment used, complications, and postretrieval management. Results Ten successful percutaneous and 1 surgical retrievals comprised this study. Seven patients had immediate retrieval, while 4 had delayed retrieval. The median duration before delayed retrieval was 45 days (range 1–45 days). The median LAA diameter and size of a successfully deployed WD was 16 mm (range 14–24 mm) and 21 mm (range 21–30 mm), respectively. A WD was retrieved from the LA (n = 1), LAA (n = 2), left ventricle (n = 2), and aorta (n = 6). The reason for retrieval from the LAA was inadequate deployment, resulting in a significant peri-device leak. Retrieval from the LA or LAA was successfully performed using snares (n = 2) and a Raptor grasping device (n = 1). Retrieval from the left ventricle was achieved with a snare (n = 1) and surgery (n = 1). Retrieval from the aorta required snares (n = 5) and retrieval forceps (n = 1). Five patients were successfully reimplanted with a larger size WD. The only complication during percutaneous retrieval was a pseudoaneurysm. Conclusion Retrieval of an embolized or malpositioned WD is feasible, and familiarity with snares and grasping tools can facilitate a successful removal.

This study sought to compare outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement when valve repositioning was performed (repositioned group) versus procedures without repositioning (nonrepositioned group).The Evolut R and Evolut PRO valves were designed to allow repositioning during deployment, yet the effect of repositioning on clinical outcomes remains unclear.Patients implanted with the Evolut R or PRO valve from the SURTAVI (Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial continued access study and the Evolut Low Risk Trial between June 2016 and November 2018 were combined. Baseline multidetector computed tomography data were analyzed for the Evolut Low Risk Trial patients. The primary outcomes were the rate of all-cause mortality and the rate of disabling stroke 30 days. Secondary outcomes were per Valve Academic Research Consortium-2.The Evolut R or PRO valve was implanted in 946 patients, and repositioning was performed in 318 (33.6%). Compared with patients in the nonrepositioned group, patients in the repositioned group had lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (2.3 ± 1.3% vs. 2.6 ± 1.4%; p 0.001) and fewer prior percutaneous coronary interventions (11.9% vs. 19.7%; p = 0.003). There were no differences in baseline multidetector computed tomography parameters between groups. There were no differences in the primary outcome of death (0.3% vs. 0.3%; p = 0.99) or disabling stroke (0.3% vs. 0.5%; p = 0.71) at 30 days or 1 year (1.9% vs. 2.9%; p = 0.44; and 0.8% vs. 0.9%%; p = 0.79, respectively).The utilization of the repositioning feature of the Evolut valves was safe, and no differences in death or disabling stroke were observed at 30 days or 1 year between groups. (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients; NCT02701283; Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System In the Treatment of Severe, Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [SURTAVI]; NCT01586910).

Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a safe and effective therapy for the prevention of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and high bleeding risk with oral anticoagulants. Multimodality imaging with transesophageal echocardiography and computed tomography angiography to define the anatomy and its implications on endocardial exclusion is becoming increasingly important. The only LAAC device currently approved for clinical use in the United States is the WATCHMAN device. Systematic assessment of the transseptal crossing site, left atrial appendage anatomy, adequate device size selection, and device postdeployment evaluation is essential for the safety and efficacy of the procedure.

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.

AIMS: In patients with aortic stenosis randomised to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), sex-specific differences in complication rates are unclear in intermediate-risk patients. The purpose of this analysis was to identify sex-specific differences in outcome for patients at intermediate surgical risk randomised to TAVI or SAVR in the international Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (SURTAVI) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1,660 intermediate-risk patients underwent TAVI with a supra-annular, self-expanding bioprosthesis or SAVR. The population was stratified by sex and treatment modality (female TAVI=366, male TAVI=498, female SAVR=358, male SAVR=438). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at two years. Compared to males, females had a smaller body surface area, a higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (4.7±1.6% vs 4.3±1.6%, p

Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the evolution of early outcomes for 3 iterative self-expanding transcatheter aortic valves. Background Over the past decade there have been r...

Objectives The aim of this study was to report the 2-year results of the SURTAVI (Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial and confirm the interim Bayesian analysis. Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding valve was noninferior to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis and intermediate operative risk using Bayesian statistical methods. Novel Bayesian designs have been used to shorten the time to primary endpoint analysis in randomized clinical trials, although the predictive value of Bayesian analysis compared with frequentist approaches remains debated. Methods The SURTAVI trial randomized 1,660 patients. An interim analysis was performed 1 year after the 1,400th patient was treated to estimate the primary 2-year endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling strokes for all patients. Results The Kaplan-Meier rate for the complete 2-year primary endpoint was 12.7% in the TAVR group and 12.6% in the surgery group (0.0% difference; 95% confidence interval: −3.4% to 3.5%), compared with 12.6% with TAVR and 14.0% with surgery (−1.4% difference; Bayesian credible interval: −5.2% to 2.3%) in the interim Bayesian analysis. A comparison of individual clinical, hemodynamic, and quality-of-life endpoints using Bayesian and frequentist methods found no significant differences. Conclusions The complete analysis of all patients with aortic stenosis at intermediate risk for surgery in the SURTAVI trial confirmed the noninferiority, with respect to the frequency of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke, of TAVR to surgery, as determined in the interim Bayesian analysis. Follow-up will extend out to 10 years.

We evaluated predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) following self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), examined site-to-site variability of PPI rates, and explored the relationship of implantation methods on the need for PPI. Despite the benefits of TAVR compared to surgical aortic valve replacement, increased PPI remains a limitation. A total of 699 patients without baseline PPI were included in the study. Clinical, echocardiographic, and procedural characteristics were compared in patient with and without new PPI. Clinical outcomes were assessed at 30 days and 1 year. Funnel plots were constructed to display site-to- site variability and identify outliers in PPI. Clinical outcomes were similar in patients with and without PPI. Predictors of a new PPI within 7 days included a baseline right bundle branch block (p0.001) and not using general anesthesia (p = 0.003). There was substantial site to site variability in the rate of PPI. Patients at sites with a lower PPI rate had shallower implantation depth at the non-coronary (p0.001) and the left coronary sinus (p0.001), and fewer patients with an implantation depth5 mm below the annulus (p = 0.004). In low-risk patients undergoing TAVR with Evolut valves, baseline conduction disorders and implant depth were important predictors of PPI. Implantation method may have contributed to this variability in PPI rates across clinical sites.

ImportanceThe frequency and clinical importance of structural valve deterioration (SVD) in patients undergoing self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgery is poorly understood.ObjectiveTo evaluate the 5-year incidence, clinical outcomes, and predictors of hemodynamic SVD in patients undergoing self-expanding TAVI or surgery.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis post hoc analysis pooled data from the CoreValve US High Risk Pivotal (n = 615) and SURTAVI (n = 1484) randomized clinical trials (RCTs); it was supplemented by the CoreValve Extreme Risk Pivotal trial (n = 485) and CoreValve Continued Access Study (n = 2178). Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis deemed to be at intermediate or increased risk of 30-day surgical mortality were included. Data were collected from December 2010 to June 2016, and data were analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.InterventionsPatients were randomized to self-expanding TAVI or surgery in the RCTs or underwent self-expanding TAVI for clinical indications in the nonrandomized studies.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary end point was the incidence of SVD through 5 years (from the RCTs). Factors associated with SVD and its association with clinical outcomes were evaluated for the pooled RCT and non-RCT population. SVD was defined as (1) an increase in mean gradient of 10 mm Hg or greater from discharge or at 30 days to last echocardiography with a final mean gradient of 20 mm Hg or greater or (2) new-onset moderate or severe intraprosthetic aortic regurgitation or an increase of 1 grade or more.ResultsOf 4762 included patients, 2605 (54.7%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 82.1 (7.4) years. A total of 2099 RCT patients, including 1128 who received TAVI and 971 who received surgery, and 2663 non-RCT patients who received TAVI were included. The cumulative incidence of SVD treating death as a competing risk was lower in patients undergoing TAVI than surgery (TAVI, 2.20%; surgery, 4.38%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.78; P = .004). This lower risk was most pronounced in patients with smaller annuli (23 mm diameter or smaller; TAVI, 1.32%; surgery, 5.84%; HR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.73; P = .02). SVD was associated with increased 5-year all-cause mortality (HR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.46-2.82; P P = .006), and valve disease or worsening heart failure hospitalizations (HR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.23-3.84; P = .008). Predictors of SVD were developed from multivariate analysis.Conclusions and RelevanceThis study found a lower rate of SVD in patients undergoing self-expanding TAVI vs surgery at 5 years. Doppler echocardiography was a valuable tool to detect SVD, which was associated with worse clinical outcomes.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01240902, NCT01586910, and NCT01531374

Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with supra‐annular transcatheter heart valves has been adopted in patients with degenerated surgical aortic valves. The next generation self‐expanding Evolut PRO valve has not been evaluated in patients with surgical valve failure. Methods and Results Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in degenerated surgical aortic valve procedures using the Evolut R or Evolut PRO transcatheter heart valves in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry between April 2015 and June 2019 were evaluated. Transcatheter valve performance was evaluated by clinical site echocardiography. In‐hospital, 30‐day, and 1‐year clinical outcomes were based on the Society of Thoracic Surgeons‐American College of Cardiology‐Transcatheter Valve Therapy registry definitions. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in degenerated surgical aortic valve was performed in 5897 patients (5061 [85.8%] patients received the Evolut R valve and 836 [14.2%] received the Evolut PRO valve). Thirty‐day transcatheter heart valves hemodynamic performance was excellent in both groups (mean gradient: Evolut PRO: 13.8±7.5 mm Hg; Evolut R: 14.5±8.1 mm Hg), while paravalvular regurgitation was significantly different between valve types ( P =0.02). Clinical events were low at 30 days (Evolut PRO: for the all‐cause mortality, 2.8%, any stroke was 1.8%, new pacemaker implantation, 3.0%: Evolut R:all‐cause mortality, 2.5%, any stroke was 2.2%, new pacemaker implantation, 5.3%) and 1 year (Evolut PRO: all‐cause mortality, 9.2%; any stroke, 3.1%; Evolut R: all‐cause mortality, 9.8%; any stroke, 2.9%). Conclusions Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in degenerated surgical aortic valve with self‐expandable supra‐annular transcatheter heart valves is associated with excellent clinical outcomes and valve hemodynamics. Additional reductions in residual paravalvular regurgitation were obtained with the next generation Evolut PRO.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has comparable outcomes with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis, including those at low risk for surgery. Less is known about TAVI outcomes in asymptomatic patients. This analysis compares clinical, hemodynamic, and quality of life (QOL) outcomes after TAVI or SAVR for low-risk asymptomatic patients. The randomized Evolut Low Risk trial enrolled asymptomatic patients treated with TAVI (n = 76) and SAVR (n = 62). New York Heart Association functional class I identified patients without symptoms. Clinical outcomes, echocardiographic findings, and QOL in both groups were compared 30 days and 12 months after AVR. Asymptomatic patients had a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 1.7 ± 0.6, 73% were men, and mean age was 74.2 ± 5.8 years. The composite end point of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke was similar at 12 months in patients with TAVI (1.3%) and SAVR (6.5%; p = 0.11), although patients with SAVR tended to have higher rates of all-cause mortality (4.8%) compared with patients with TAVI (0.0%, p = 0.05). Patients with TAVI had lower mean aortic valve gradients (8.1 ± 3.2 mm Hg) and larger mean effective orifice area (2.3 ± 0.6 mm Hg) than patients with SAVR (10.8 ± 3.8; p0.001 and 1.9 ± 0.6; p = 0.001, respectively), and showed significant improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores from baseline to 30 days (∆12.1 ± 23.6; p0.001), whereas patients with SAVR did not (∆2.2 ± 20.3; p = 0.398). Patients with TAVI and SAVR had a significant improvement in QOL by 12 months compared with baseline. In conclusion, low risk asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVI had comparable clinical outcomes to SAVR, with superior valve performance and faster QOL improvement.

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) Think Tank is a collaborative venture that brings together interventional cardiologists, administrative partners, and select members of the cardiovascular industry community annually for high-level field-wide discussions. The 2021 Think Tank was organized into four parallel sessions reflective of the field of interventional cardiology: (a) coronary intervention, (b) endovascular medicine, (c) structural heart disease, and (d) congenital heart disease. Each session was moderated by a senior content expert and co-moderated by a member of SCAI's Emerging Leader Mentorship program. This document presents the proceedings to the wider cardiovascular community in order to enhance participation in this discussion, create additional dialog from a broader base, and thereby aid SCAI, the industry community and external stakeholders in developing specific action items to move these areas forward.

Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a proven alternative to long term anticoagulation to reduce the risk of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. 1 Implantation of a Watchma...

Background Coronary stenting without angioplasty pretreatment (direct stenting) may simplify procedures in appropriate lesions. Direct stenting is facilitated by smaller profile coronary stent platforms. The present study was designed for regulatory approval of a novel drug-eluting coronary stent and incorporates both randomized comparison for non-inferiority to an approved predicate device as well as a nested evaluation of subjects eligible for direct stenting. Study Design and Objectives. Prospective, single-blind, randomized, active-control, multi-center study designed to assess the safety and efficacy of the novel Svelte sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) systems. A total of 1630 subjects with up to 3 target lesions will be randomized 1:1 to the Svelte SES versus either the Xience or Promus everolimus-eluting stents (control). Randomization will be stratified by whether or not a direct stenting strategy is planned by the investigator. The primary endpoint is target lesion failure (TLF) at 12 months post index procedure, defined as cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization, and the primary analysis is a non-inferiority test with a non-inferiority margin of 3.58%. Secondary clinical endpoints include individual components of TLF, stent thrombosis and measures of procedural resource utilization including contrast administration, fluoroscopy exposure and procedural resource utilization as well as costs. Conclusion The OPTMIZE Trial will evaluate the safety, efficacy and clinical value of the novel Svelte SES in subjects with up to 3 lesions, and will provide a comparison of direct stenting between randomized devices.

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 know...

Background: For patients with severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease, the completely percutaneous approach to aortic valve replacement and revascularization has not been compared with the standard surgical approach. Methods: The prospective SURTAVI trial (Safety and Efficiency Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Severe, Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement) enrolled intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis from 87 centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe between June 2012 and June 2016. Complex coronary artery disease with SYNTAX score (Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery Trial) >22 was an exclusion criterion. Patients were stratified according to the need for revascularization and then randomly assigned to treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Patients assigned to revascularization in the TAVR group underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, whereas those in the SAVR group had coronary artery bypass grafting. The primary end point was the rate of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Results: Of 1660 subjects with attempted aortic valve implants, 332 (20%) were assigned to revascularization. They had a higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score for mortality (4.8±1.7% versus 4.4±1.5%; P P P =0.62), or between TAVR and SAVR (11.9%; 95% CI, 9.5–14.7 versus 12.3%; 95% CI, 9.8–15.4; P =0.76). Conclusions: For patients at intermediate surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis and noncomplex coronary artery disease (SYNTAX score ≤22), a complete percutaneous approach of TAVR and percutaneous coronary intervention is a reasonable alternative to SAVR and coronary artery bypass grafting. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01586910.

IMPORTANCE: Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has increased risk for patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and a history of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be an alternative. OBJECTIVE: To compare TAVR with SAVR outcomes in patients at intermediate operative risk with prior CABG surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this post hoc analysis of the Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (SURTAVI) noninferiority randomized clinical trial, patients with severe, symptomatic AS at intermediate operative risk were enrolled from 87 centers across the United States, Europe, and Canada from June 2012 to June 2016 and followed-up with up to July 2017. Those with a history of CABG surgery were considered for analysis. Data were analyzed from September to December 2017. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 1746 patients were enrolled and randomized 1:1 to self-expanding TAVR or SAVR. An implant was attempted in 1660 patients, of whom 273 had prior CABG surgery, including 136 who underwent attempted TAVR and 137 who underwent attempted SAVR. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 1-year follow-up. Efficacy outcomes included quality of life, measured using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire at 30 days, 6 months, and 1 year, and distance walked in 6 minutes, measured using the 6-minute walk test at 30 days and 1 year. RESULTS: Of the 136 patients in the TAVR cohort, 111 (81.6%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 76.9 (6.5) years; of the 137 in the SAVR cohort, 117 (85.4%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 76.6 (6.5) years. The mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 5.0% (1.6%) in the TAVR cohort and 5.2% (1.7%) in the SAVR cohort. All-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 1-year follow-up was 8.9% (95% CI, 5.2-15.2) in the TAVR cohort and 6.7% (95% CI, 3.5-12.8) in the SAVR cohort (log-rank P = .53). Compared with patients receiving SAVR, the mean (SD) Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire summary score was significantly better among patients receiving TAVR at 30 days (81.4 [19.2] vs 69.7 [22.6]; P

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.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%.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.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 cmThere were no significant differences in clinical or forward flow hemodynamic outcomes between the propensity-matched groups at 1 year.

Background: Older adults with comorbidities who are at extreme risk for surgical aortic valve replacement may be appropriate candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We present the 5-year clinical, echocardiographic, and health status outcomes of such patients treated with CoreValve self-expanding supra-annular TAVR. Methods: The CoreValve US Extreme Risk Pivotal Trial was a prospective, nonrandomized, single-arm clinical trial of TAVR at 41 sites in the United States. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality or major stroke. Secondary outcomes included echocardiographic parameters and patient-reported health status, assessed with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. Results: Between February 2011 and August 2012, 639 patients with severe aortic stenosis at extreme surgical risk underwent attempted TAVR (mean age 82.8±8.4 years, 53% women, mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality 10.4±5.6%, 77% iliofemoral access). The 5-year Kaplan-Meier rate of death or major stroke was 72.6% ([95% CI, 68.4%–76.7%]; death 71.6%, major stroke 11.5%), with no significant differences according to access site. Among patients who survived 5 years, mean transvalvular gradient was 7.5±5.9 mm Hg, and 3.1% had moderate or severe aortic regurgitation. Health status measures improved significantly by 1 month after TAVR through 1 year (mean change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire–Overall Summary score 24.8 points [95% CI, 22.4–27.2]). Beyond 1 year, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire–Overall Summary score decreased gradually but remained significantly improved from pre-TAVR through 5 years of follow-up among surviving patients (mean change from baseline, 14.3 points [95% CI, 10.7–17.9]). Conclusions: Patients with severe aortic stenosis at extreme surgical risk who are treated with self-expanding supra-annular TAVR have high 5-year mortality. However, the short-term benefits of TAVR in terms of valve hemodynamics and quality of life are mostly preserved among surviving patients at 5 years, thereby supporting the continued use of TAVR in these challenging patients. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01240902.

This study sought to evaluate patient-centered metrics in intermediate-surgical-risk aortic stenosis patients enrolled in the SURTAVI (Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial treated with self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgery.Studies have shown TAVR to be an alternative to surgery in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis but have focused on "hard endpoints," including all-cause mortality and stroke, rather than on comparative patient-centered metrics, such as functional status and symptom burden.The study analyzed functional status (6-minute walk test [6MWT]) and symptom burden (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire) in 1,492 patients from the SURTAVI trial at baseline, 30 days, 1 year, and 2 years. Patients were categorized by baseline functional status into tertiles of slow, medium, and fast walkers.Patients with lowest capacity baseline functional status were commonly women, had higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores, and had more New York Heart Association functional class III or IV symptoms; reduced baseline functional status was associated with higher aortic valve- and heart failure-related hospitalization at 2 years. There was greater improvement in 6MWT distance in TAVR compared with surgery patients at 30 days (P 0.001) and 1 year (P = 0.012), but at 2 years, both groups had similar improvement (P = 0.091). The percentage of patients with large improvement in 6MWT was greatest in patients categorized as slow walkers and lowest in fast walkers. Symptom burden improved after TAVR at 30 days and after both procedures at 1 and 2 years.In this substudy of patients from the SURTAVI trial, patients receiving TAVR demonstrated a more rapid improvement in functional status and symptom burden compared with patients undergoing surgery; however, both groups had similar improvements in long-term follow-up. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System in the Treatment of Severe, Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [SURTAVI]; NCT01586910).

Background Self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) was non-inferior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in a randomized clinical trial of patients with severe aortic stenosis at low operative risk. Randomization was stratified by the need for revascularization, but it remains unclear how this has impacted the results of TAVI and SAVR. Purpose To compare TAVI and SAVR outcomes in a prespecified analysis according to the need for revascularization. Methods A total of 1403 patients underwent attempted TAVI (n=725) or SAVR (n=678) at 87 centres worldwide. Patients were deemed at low risk of early mortality ( Results There were 85/725 (11.7%) TAVI patients and 79/678 (11.7%) SAVR patients identified as needing revascularization. Previous CABG had occurred in 3 (1.8%) patients and previous PCI had been performed in 31 (18.9%) patients. The baseline characteristics for the TAVI and SAVR cohorts are shown in the table. In the TAVI revascularization group, 44 of 85 (51.8%) received PCI concomitant or staged with TAVI and 6 of 639 (0.9%) received PCI in the no revascularization group. In the SAVR revascularization group, 65 of 79 (82.3%) underwent concomitant CABG and 27 of the 599 (4.5%) patients in the no revascularization group had concomitant CABG. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 1-year all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at the time of the interim analysis are provided for TAVI and SAVR patients by need for revascularization (Table). Conclusions The proportion of low-risk patients needing revascularization was small in this low risk population. The complete 1-year follow-up for the entire 1403 patient cohort will be available for presentation in August. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Private company. Main funding source(s): Medtronic, plc

Background Infective endocarditis is a rare complication of aortic valve replacement with high morbidity and mortality. Data of randomized trials comparing the incidence and outcomes between surgical (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are scarce. Purpose To compare the frequency, timing and outcomes of infective endocarditis after TAVR and SAVR from 3 prospective randomized trials and examine the clinical outcomes. Methods Clinical data from the CoreValve Pivotal High-Risk, the intermediate-risk SURTAVI and the Evolut Low Risk randomized trials, which compared TAVR with a supra-annular, self-expanding transcatheter valve to SAVR, was pooled. Cases of infective endocarditis were independently adjudicated based on Duke's criteria necessitating 2 major criteria, or 1 major and 3 minor criteria, or 5 minor criteria. Baseline clinical and procedural characteristics for patients with and without endocarditis were obtained. The cumulative incidence of endocarditis through 5 years after TAVR or SAVR was determined using death as a competing risk. Kaplan-Meier estimates of all-cause mortality and the composite of all-cause mortality or stroke through 2 years were calculated for both treatment groups. Results Among 2249 TAVR patients, 12 cases of endocarditis (0.5%) were documented and among 1828 SAVR patients, 21 (1.1%) over a mean follow-up time of 2.25±1.58 years. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between the TAVR and SAVR patients with endocarditis. The cumulative incidence of endocarditis at 5 years was significantly different between the two groups (figure). The prevalence of diabetes was significantly higher in patients with endocarditis than in those without (57.6% vs. 34.2%, p=0.005). In endocarditis patients the rate of all-cause mortality was 39.4% for TAVR patients and 67.8% for SAVR patients at 2 years (log-rank p=0.133). The rates of all-cause mortality or stroke were 55.0% for TAVR and 64.6% for SAVR patients (log-rank p=0.078). Conclusions In this pooled analysis of three randomized trials comparing TAVR with a supra-annular, self-expanding bioprosthesis to SAVR, overall rates of endocarditis were low. The cumulative incidence of infective endocarditis at 5 years was lower in the TAVR group. Mortality after endocarditis was high. Figure 1 Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Private company. Main funding source(s): Medtronic

Importance In the CoreValve High-Risk Trial, patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis had similar clinical outcomes with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) over 5 years of follow-up, with mortality rates of more than 50% in both groups. Objective To describe the long-term health status of surviving patients randomized to self-expanding TAVR vs SAVR. Design, Setting, and Participants This randomized clinical trial included patients at high surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis who completed a baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and were randomized to either self-expanding TAVR or SAVR from 45 US clinical sites. Patients were enrolled from February 2011 to September 2012. Analysis began May 2018 and ended June 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures Change in KCCQ and the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey over 5 years, as assessed by repeated-measures analysis of covariance. Because there were significant interactions between access site and treatment for 1-month health status outcomes, all analyses were stratified by access site (iliofemoral or noniliofemoral). Results Of 713 patients, 377 (53%) were men, and the mean (SD) age was 83 (7) years. Prior to treatment, the mean (SD) KCCQ overall summary score (range, 0-100; higher score indicated better health status) was 47 (23), indicating substantial health status impairment. Among surviving patients, the KCCQ overall summary score increased significantly in both groups with greater early benefit with iliofemoral TAVR than SAVR (1-month difference, 16.8 points; 95% CI, 12.4-21.2). However, this early treatment difference between TAVR and SAVR was no longer apparent by 6 months, and there was no significant difference in health status between groups thereafter. At 5 years, 44% (134 of 305) of patients who underwent iliofemoral TAVR and 39% (105 of 266) who underwent SAVR were alive in this high-risk elderly cohort. Among surviving patients for whom health status data were available, 61% (48 of 79) in the TAVR group and 65% (46 of 71) in the SAVR group had KCCQ overall summary score more than 60 (P = .61). In the noniliofemoral cohort, there were no significant health status differences at any time between TAVR and SAVR. Results were similar for individual KCCQ domains and the Short-Form Health Survey. Conclusions and Relevance In high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, there was an early health status benefit with self-expanding iliofemoral TAVR vs SAVR but no difference between groups in long-term health status. Although mortality at 5 years was high in this population, the majority of surviving patients continued to report reasonable health status. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT01240902

Background Paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. PVR continues to plague TAVR jeopardizing long-term results. New device iterations, such as the self-expandable Evolut PRO valve, aim to decrease PVR while maintaining optimal hemodynamics. This study sought to evaluate clinical and hemodynamic performance of the Evolut PRO system at 3 years. Methods The Evolut PRO US Clinical Study included 60 patients at high or extreme surgical risk undergoing TAVR with the Evolut PRO valve at 8 centers in the United States. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 criteria and included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality , disabling stroke and valve complications. An independent core laboratory centrally assessed all echocardiographic measures. Results At 3 years, all-cause mortality was 25.8% (cardiovascular mortality 16.5%) and the disabling stroke rate was 10.7%. There were no cases of repeat valve intervention, endocarditis or coronary obstruction . Valve thrombosis was identified in 1 patient 2 years post-procedure and was treated medically. Hemodynamics at 3 years included a mean gradient of 7.2 ± 4.5 mm Hg, an effective orifice area of 2.0 ± 0.5 cm 2 , and 88.2% of patients had no or trace PVR. The remaining patients had mild PVR. Most of the surviving patients (80.6%) had New York Heart Association class I symptoms at 3 years. Conclusion Outcomes at 3-years following TAVR with a contemporary self-expanding prosthesis are favorable, with no signal of valve deterioration , excellent hemodynamics including very low prevalence of PVR.