Search

Introduction: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has matured to the treatment of choice for most patients with aortic stenosis (AS). We sought to identify trends in patient and procedural characteristics, and clinical outcomes in all patients who underwent TAVI between 2005 and 2020., Methods: A single-centre analysis was performed on 1500 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI, divided into three tertiles (T) of 500 patients treated between November 2005 and December 2014 (T1), January 2015 and May 2018 (T2) and June 2018 and April 2020 (T3)., Results: Over time, mean age and gender did not change (T1 to T3: 80, 80 and 79 years and 53%, 55% and 52% men, respectively), while the Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score declined (T1: 4.5% to T3: 2.7%, p < 0.001). Use of general anaesthesia also declined over time (100%, 24% and 1% from T1 to T3) and transfemoral TAVI remained the default approach (87%, 94% and 92%). Median procedure time and contrast volume decreased significantly (186, 114 and 56 min and 120, 100 and 80 ml, respectively). Thirty-day mortality (7%, 4% and 2%), stroke (7%, 3% and 3%), need for a pacemaker (19%, 22% and 8%) and delirium (17%, 12% and 8%) improved significantly, while major bleeding/vascular complications did not change (both approximately 9%, 6% and 6%). One-year survival was 80%, 88% and 92%, respectively., Conclusion: Over our 15 years' experience, patient age remained unchanged but the patient risk profile became more favourable. Simplification of the TAVI procedure occurred in parallel with major improvement in outcomes and survival. Bleeding/vascular complications and the need for pacemaker implantation remain the Achilles' heel of TAVI., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

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

Objective: To compare early clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with three consecutive generations of self-expanding valves (SEVs)., Methods: Clinical endpoints of consecutive patients who underwent TAVI with CoreValve, Evolut R or Evolut PRO were included in a prospective database., Results: TAVI was performed with CoreValve (n = 116), Evolut R (n = 160) or Evolut PRO (n = 92). Evolut R and Evolut PRO showed a tendency towards lower permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rates compared to CoreValve (CoreValve 27% vs Evolut R 16% vs Evolut PRO 18%, p = 0.091). By multivariable regression analysis CoreValve had a significantly higher risk for PPI (odds ratio (OR) 2.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31-5.94, p = 0.008) compared to Evolut R, while Evolut R and PRO were similar. Severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) occurred only with CoreValve, but no significant difference was observed in moderate PVL (10% vs 8% vs 6%, p = 0.49). CoreValve had a tendency towards a higher risk for more-than-mild PVL as compared with the Evolut platform (R + PRO) (OR 2.46, 95% CI 0.98-6.16, p = 0.055). No significant differences in all-cause mortality (7% vs 4% vs 1%, p = 0.10), stroke (6% vs 3% vs 2%, p = 0.21) or major vascular complications (10% vs 12% vs 4%, p = 0.14) were observed., Conclusions: TAVI with self-expanding valves was safe, and device iterations may result in a lower need for PPI. More-than-mild PVL seemed to occur less often with repositionable technology., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Selecting patients with a high chance of endured benefit from transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is becoming relevant with changing indications and increasing number of TAVI being performed. The aim of our study was to investigate the association of the multidimensional prognostic index (MPI) based on a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) on survival. The TAVI Care & Cure program is a prospective, observational registry of patients referred for TAVI at the Erasmus MC University Medical Center. Consecutive patients who underwent a complete CGA and TAVI were included. CGA components were used to calculate the MPI score. The impact of the MPI score on survival was evaluated using Cox regression. Furthermore, 376 patients were included, 143 (38.0%) patients belonged to the MPI-1 group and 233 (61.9%) patients to the MPI-2-3 group. After 3 years, 14.9% of the patients in the MPI-1 group and 30.5% of the patients in the MPI-2-3 group died ( p = 0.001). Patients in MPI-1 had increased chances of overall survival in comparison with patients in MPI group 2-3 Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.57, (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.33-0.98)). In this study we found that the MPI tool could be useful to assess frailty and to predict which patient will have a higher chance of enduring benefit from a TAVI procedure.

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

Background: Surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are now both used to treat aortic stenosis in patients in whom life expectancy may exceed valve durability. The choice of initial bioprosthesis should therefore consider the relative safety and efficacy of potential subsequent interventions., Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare TAVR in failed transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) versus surgical aortic valves (SAVs)., Methods: Data were collected on 434 TAV-in-TAV and 624 TAV-in-SAV consecutive procedures performed at centers participating in the Redo-TAVR international registry. Propensity score matching was applied, and 330 matched (165:165) patients were analyzed. Principal endpoints were procedural success, procedural safety, and mortality at 30 days and 1 year., Results: For TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV, procedural success was observed in 120 (72.7%) versus 103 (62.4%) patients (p = 0.045), driven by a numerically lower frequency of residual high valve gradient (p = 0.095), ectopic valve deployment (p = 0.081), coronary obstruction (p = 0.091), and conversion to open heart surgery (p = 0.082). Procedural safety was achieved in 116 (70.3%) versus 119 (72.1%) patients (p = 0.715). Mortality at 30 days was 5 (3%) after TAV-in-TAV and 7 (4.4%) after TAV-in-SAV (p = 0.570). At 1 year, mortality was 12 (11.9%) and 10 (10.2%), respectively (p = 0.633). Aortic valve area was larger (1.55 ± 0.5 cm 2 vs. 1.37 ± 0.5 cm 2 ; p = 0.040), and the mean residual gradient was lower (12.6 ± 5.2 mm Hg vs. 14.9 ± 5.2 mm Hg; p = 0.011) after TAV-in-TAV. The rate of moderate or greater residual aortic regurgitation was similar, but mild aortic regurgitation was more frequent after TAV-in-TAV (p = 0.003)., Conclusions: In propensity score-matched cohorts of TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV patients, TAV-in-TAV was associated with higher procedural success and similar procedural safety or mortality., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Dr. Webb is a consultant to and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and ViVitro Labs. Dr. Kim has received proctor or speaker fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Barbanti is a consultant for Edwards; and is an Advisory Board member for Biotronik. Dr. Sondergaard has received consultant fees and institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Symetis. Dr. Redwood is a proctor for and has received lecture fees from Edwards. Dr. Hamm is an Advisory Board member for Medtronic. Dr. Sinning has received speaker honoraria and research grants from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Wood is a consultant to and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. Dr. Sathananthan is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Schofer has received speaker fees and travel compensation from Boston Scientific; and has received travel compensation from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott/St. Jude Medical. Dr. Leipsic is a consultant to Circle CVI and Edwards Lifesciences; and provides institutional core laboratory services to Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Neovasc. Dr. Andreas is a proctor for Edwards and Abbott; and is an Advisory Board member for Medtronic. Dr. Guerrero has received research grant support from Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Castriota is a proctor for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr. Kodali has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific; has received grants and personal fees from Abbott Vascular and JenaValve; has received personal fees from Meril Lifesciences; has received personal fees from and holds equity in Admedus; and holds equity in Supira, Microinterventional Devices, Dura Biotech, and Thubrikar Aortic Valve. Dr. Conradi is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Neovasc, and JenaValve. Dr. Nazif has received consulting fees or honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Biotrace, and Baylis Medical; and has received consulting fees from and holds equity in Venus Medtech. Dr. Pilgrim has received research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Biotronik; and has received speaker fees from Boston Scientific and Biotronik. Dr. Babaliaros is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences; and holds equity in Transmural Systems. Dr. Van Mieghem has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Daiichi-Sankyo, and PulseCath; and has received institutional research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Latib has received institutional research or grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received personal consulting honoraria from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Hildick-Smith is a proctor and adviser to Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) brings symptom relief and improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in the majority of patients treated for symptomatic, severe aortic stenosis. However, there is a substantial group of patients that do not benefit from TAVI. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of frailty on HRQoL 1 year after TAVI., Methods: The TAVI Care & Cure Program is an ongoing, prospective, observational study including patients referred for TAVI to our institution. A comprehensive geriatric assessment was performed to evaluate existence of frailty using the Erasmus Frailty Score (EFS). HRQoL was assessed using the EQ-5D-5 L at baseline and 1 year after TAVI., Results: 239 patients underwent TAVI and completed HRQoL assessment 1 year after TAVI. Seventy (29.3%) patients were classified as frail (EFS ≥ 3). In non-frail patients, the EQ-5D-5 L index did not change (0.71(± 0.22) to 0.68(± 0.33) points, P = 0.22); in frail patients, the EQ-5D-5 L index decreased from 0.55(±0.26) to 0.44 points (±0.33) (P = 0.022). Frailty was an independent predictor of deteriorated HRQoL 1 year after TAVI (OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.07-4.70, P = 0.003). In frail patients, the absence of peripheral artery disease (OR 0.17, 95% 0.05-0.50, P = 0.001) and renal dysfunction (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04-0.41, P = <0.001) at baseline was associated with improved HRQoL 1 year after TAVI., Conclusion: Frailty is associated with deterioration of HRQoL 1 year after TAVI. Notably, HRQoL did improve in frail patients with no peripheral arterial disease or renal impairment at baseline., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society.)

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) use is increasing in patients with longer life expectancy, yet robust data on the durability of transcatheter heart valves (THVs) are limited. Redo-TAVR may play a key strategy in treating patients in whom THVs fail., Objectives: The authors sought to examine outcomes following redo-TAVR., Methods: The Redo-TAVR registry collected data on consecutive patients who underwent redo-TAVR at 37 centers. Patients were classified as probable TAVR failure or probable THV failure if they presented within or beyond 1 year of their index TAVR, respectively., Results: Among 63,876 TAVR procedures, 212 consecutive redo-TAVR procedures were identified (0.33%): 74 within and 138 beyond 1 year of the initial procedure. For these 2 groups, TAVR-to-redo-TAVR time was 68 (38 to 154) days and 5 (3 to 6) years. The indication for redo-TAVR was THV stenosis in 12 (16.2%) and 51 (37.0%) (p = 0.002) and regurgitation or combined stenosis-regurgitation in 62 (83.8%) and 86 (62.3%) (p = 0.028), respectively. Device success using VARC-2 criteria was achieved in 180 patients (85.1%); most failures were attributable to high residual gradients (14.1%) or regurgitation (8.9%). At 30-day and 1-year follow-up, residual gradients were 12.6 ± 7.5 mm Hg and 12.9 ± 9.0 mm Hg; valve area 1.63 ± 0.61 cm 2 and 1.51 ± 0.57 cm 2 ; and regurgitation ≤mild in 91% and 91%, respectively. Peri-procedural complication rates were low (3 stroke [1.4%], 7 valve malposition [3.3%], 2 coronary obstruction [0.9%], 20 new permanent pacemaker [9.6%], no mortality), and symptomatic improvement was substantial. Survival at 30 days was 94.6% and 98.5% (p = 0.101) and 83.6% and 88.3% (p = 0.335) at 1 year for patients presenting with early and late valve dysfunction, respectively., Conclusions: Redo-TAVR is a relatively safe and effective option for selected patients with valve dysfunction after TAVR. These results are important for applicability of TAVR in patients with long life expectancy in whom THV durability may be a concern., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)