Search

The next generation supra-annular, self-expanding Evolut FX transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) system was designed to improve catheter deliverability, provide stable and symmetric valve deployment, and assess commissural alignment during the procedure. The impact of these modifications has not been clinically evaluated. Procedural information was collected by survey in 2 Stages: Stage I comprised 23 centers with extensive experience with Evolut TAV systems, and Stage II comprised an additional 46 centers with a broad range of balloon- and self-expanding system experience. Operators were to compare the experience with the Evolut FX to the predicate Evolut PRO+ system. There were 285 cases during Stage I from June 24 to August 12, 2022, and 254 cases during Stage II from August 15 to September 11, 2022. Overall, the cusp overlap technique was used in 88.6 %, and commissural alignment was achieved in 96.1 % of these cases. Compared to implanter's previous experience with the Evolut PRO+ system, less resistance was noted with the Evolut FX system: in 83.0 % of cases during vascular insertion, in 84.7 % of cases while tracking through the vasculature, in 84.4 % of cases while traversing over the arch, and 76.1 % of cases in advancing across the valve. Better symmetry of valve depth was observed in 423 of 525 cases (80.6 %). Evolut FX system design modifications translated into improvements in catheter deliverability, deployment symmetry and stability, and commissural alignment as assessed by experienced self-expanding and balloon expandable operators. • The Evolut FX was compared to the Evolut PRO+ transcatheter valve in 539 cases. • Data collected from June to September 2022. • Cusp overlap was used in 89 % of patients. • Commissural alignment was achieved in >96 % of patients. • Improved catheter delivery, deployment symmetry & valve stability with Evolut FX. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Several supra-annular self-expanding transcatheter systems are commercially available for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Comparative data in large-scale multicenter studies are scant. Methods: This study included a total of 5175 patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI with the ACURATE neo (n = 1095), Evolut R (n = 3365), or Evolut PRO (n = 715) by a transfemoral approach at five high-volume centers. Propensity score matching resulted in 654 triplets. Outcomes are reported according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 (VARC-3) consensus. Results: Moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) occurred significantly more often in the ACURATE neo group (5.2%) than in the Evolut R (1.8%) and Evolut PRO (3.3%) groups (p = 0.003). The rates of major vascular-/access-related complications (4.6%, 3.8%, and 5.0%; p = 0.56), type 3 or 4 bleeding (3.2%, 2.1%, and 4.1%; p = 0.12), and 30-day mortality (2.4%, 2.6%, and 3.7%; p = 0.40) were comparable. The rate of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) was significantly lower in the ACURATE neo group (9.5%, 17.6%, and 16.8%; p

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 (p < 0.001) 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 (p < 0.001) and the left coronary sinus (p < 0.001), and fewer patients with an implantation depth > 5 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. • Permanent pacemaker implantation following TAVR is a common complication. • Substantial inter-site variability of PPI rates occurs after self-expanding TAVR. • The cusp overlap technique may minimize conduction-system abnormality risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundThe impact of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) leaflet design on long-term device performance is still unknown. This study sought to compare the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of intra- (IA) versus supra-annular (SA) TAVR designs up-to 10-years following implantation.MethodsConsecutive patients with at least 5-years follow-up following TAVR for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis from June 2007 to December 2016 were included. Bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) and hemodynamic valve deterioration (HVD) were defined according to VARC-3 updated definitions and estimated using cumulative incidence function to account for the competing risk of death.ResultsA total of 604 patients (82 years; 53% female) were analyzed and divided into IA (482) and SA (122) groups. Overall survival rates at 10-years were similar (IA 15%, 95%CI: 10–22; SA 11%, 95%CI: 6–20; p = 0.21). Compared to the SA TAVR, mean transaortic gradients were significantly higher and increased over time in the IA group. IA TAVRs showed higher 10-year cumulative incidences of BVF (IA 8% vs. SA 1%, p = 0.02) and severe HVD (IA 5% vs. SA 1%, p = 0.05). The occurrence of BVF and HVD in the IA group occurred primarily in the smallest TAVR devices (20–23-mm). After excluding these sizes, the cumulative incidences of BVF (IA 5% vs. SA 1%, p = 0.40) and severe HVD (IA 2% vs. SA 1%, p = 0.11) were similar.ConclusionIn this study, TAVR leaflet design had no impact on survival at 10-years. IA devices showed higher transaortic gradients and cumulative incidences of HVD and BVF predominantly occurring in the smallest valve sizes.

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 cm2 vs 2.3 ± 0.6 cm2, P = 0.677) as was the mean gradient (8.7 ± 3.9 mm Hg vs 8.5 ± 3.1 mm Hg, P = 0.754). Fewer patients in the bicuspid group had mild or worse paravalvular leak (21.3% vs 42.6%, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in clinical or forward flow hemodynamic outcomes between the propensity-matched groups at 1 year. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This case demonstrates the feasibility and procedural success of a novel supra-annular transcatheter mitral valve, the AltaValve via transapical approach in a patient with severe symptomatic mitral regurgitation who was a prohibitive surgical risk candidate. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.)

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

The aim of this study was to assess the outcomes of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) in the TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry in patients undergoing supra-annular transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for de novo stenosis or failed surgical bioprostheses (transcatheter aortic valve [TAV]–in–surgical aortic valve [SAV]). Severe PPM has been associated with adverse outcomes following TAVR, yet the clinical outcome of severe PPM after supra-annular TAVR is largely unknown. Supra-annular TAVR was performed in patients enrolled in the TVT Registry with de novo stenosis (n = 42,174) or TAV-in-SAV (n = 5,446). Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria were used to define severe PPM. The clinical impact of severe PPM on 1-year mortality and valve-related readmission was assessed using multivariate regression. A generalized linear mixed model was used to evaluate predictors of severe PPM. Severe PPM was found in 5.3% of patients undergoing de novo TAVR and 27.0% of patients undergoing TAV-in-SAV. The presence of severe PPM was not significantly associated with 1-year mortality or valve-related readmissions in both groups. Mean aortic gradients were higher in patients with severe PPM than in those without severe PPM at 1 month (9.7 ± 5.7 mm Hg vs. 7.3 ± 4.0 mm Hg; p < 0.001) and 1 year (10.2 ± 6.4 mm Hg vs. 8.0 ± 4.3 mm Hg; p < 0.001). Pre-procedural factors, including a <20-mm aortic annulus, were positive predictors of severe PPM in patients undergoing de novo TAVR (area under the curve = 0.795) and TAV-in-SAV (area under the curve = 0.764). Severe PPM after supra-annular TAVR was not associated with increased 1-year mortality or valve-related readmissions. Longer-term follow-up is needed to determine if higher residual gradients in patients with severe PPM predict long-term outcomes. (STS/ACC Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry [TVT Registry]; NCT01737528) [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Few randomized trials have compared bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and no trials have compared bioprostheses with supra-annular design. The SCOPE 2 trial (Safety and Efficacy Comparison of Two TAVI Systems in a Prospective Randomized Evaluation 2) was designed to compare the clinical outcomes of the ACURATE neo and CoreValve Evolut bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.Methods: SCOPE 2 was a randomized trial performed at 23 centers in 6 countries between April 2017 and April 2019. Patients ≥75 years old with an indication for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement as agreed by the heart team were randomly assigned to receive treatment with either the ACURATE neo (n=398) or the CoreValve Evolut bioprostheses (n=398). The primary end point, powered for noninferiority of the ACURATE neo bioprosthesis, was all-cause death or stroke at 1 year. The key secondary end point, powered for superiority of the ACURATE neo bioprosthesis, was new permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days.Results: Among 796 randomized patients (mean age, 83.2±4.3 years; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score, 4.6±2.9%), clinical follow-up information was available for 778 (98%) patients. Within 1 year, the primary end point occurred in 15.8% of patients in the ACURATE neo group and in 13.9% of patients in the CoreValve Evolut group (absolute risk difference, 1.8%, upper 1-sided 95% confidence limit, 6.1%; P=0.0549 for noninferiority). The 30-day rates of new permanent pacemaker implantation were 10.5% in the ACURATE neo group and 18.0% in the CoreValve Evolut group (absolute risk difference, -7.5% [95% CI, -12.4 to -2.60]; P=0.0027). No significant differences were observed in the components of the primary end point. Cardiac death at 30 days (2.8% versus 0.8%; P=0.03) and 1 year (8.4% versus 3.9%; P=0.01), and moderate or severe aortic regurgitation at 30 days (10% versus 3%; P=0.002) were significantly increased in the ACURATE neo group.Conclusions: Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the self-expanding ACURATE neo did not meet noninferiority compared with the self-expanding CoreValve Evolut in terms of all-cause death or stroke at 1 year, and it was associated with a lower incidence of new permanent pacemaker implantation. In secondary analyses, the ACURATE neo was associated with more moderate or severe aortic regurgitation at 30 days and cardiac death at 30 days and 1 year. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03192813. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to assess the safety and performance of a newly introduced transfemoral self-expanding supra-annular transcatheter heart valve. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has become an established procedure, and newer transcatheter heart valves aim to supplement the current armamentarium. BIOVALVE-I is a prospective, single-center feasibility study enrolling 13 high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, and BIOVALVE-II is a multicenter pilot study enrolling a further 55 patients under the same protocol. Patients' mean age was 82.4 ± 5.3 years, 57.4% had concomitant coronary artery disease, 50.0% had renal insufficiency stage ≥3, 32.4% had diabetes mellitus, 29.4% had current anemia, 19.1% had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 19.1% were frail, and 17.6% had prior cerebrovascular events. The primary endpoint, early safety according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 guidelines, was observed in 13 patients (19.1%). One patient (1.5%) died through 30 days of a noncardiac cause, and 4 patients (7.8%) died through 180 days. Disabling stroke occurred at 30 days in 1 patient (1.5%) and at 180 days in 2 patients (3.2%). New permanent pacemakers up to 30 days were implanted in 9 patients (13.4%). Two patients (3.8%) had moderate or severe paravalvular leakage at 30 days and 4 (9.1%) at 6 months, mean effective orifice area was 2.0 ± 0.4 cm2 and 1.9 ± 0.5 cm2, and mean gradient was 6.4 mm Hg at 30 days and 6 months. Clinical outcomes with the Biovalve self-expanding transcatheter heart valve were similar to those seen in other first-in-human studies with first-generation devices for severe aortic stenosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transaxillary access has been the most frequently used nonfemoral access route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding valve. Use of transcarotid TAVR is increasing; however, comparative data on these methods are limited. We compared outcomes following transcarotid or transaxillary TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular valve., Methods: The Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry was queried for TAVR procedures using transaxillary and transcarotid access between July 2015 and June 2021. Patients received a self-expanding Evolut R, PRO, or PRO + valve (Medtronic) and had 1-year follow-up. Thirty-day and 1-year outcomes were compared in transcarotid and transaxillary groups after 1:2 propensity score-matching. Multivariable regression models were fitted to identify predictors of key end points., Results: The propensity score-matched cohort included 576 patients receiving transcarotid and 1142 receiving transaxillary access. Median procedure time (99 vs 118 minutes; P  < .001) and hospital stay (2 vs 3 days; P  < .001) were shorter with transcarotid versus transaxillary access. At 30 days, patients with transcarotid access had similar mortality (Kaplan-Meier estimates 3.7% vs 4.3%, P  = .57) but significantly lower stroke (3.1% vs 5.9%; P  = .017) and mortality or stroke (6.0% vs 8.9%; P  = .033) compared with patients receiving transaxillary access. Similar differences were observed at 1 year. Transaxillary access was associated with increased risk of 30-day stroke (hazard ratio, 2.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-3.58) by multivariable regression analysis., Conclusions: Transcarotid versus transaxillary access for TAVR using a self-expanding valve is associated with procedural benefits and significantly lower stroke and mortality or stroke at 30 days. In patients with unsuitable femoral anatomy, transcarotid access may be the preferred delivery route for self-expanding valves., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Objective: Several supra-annular self-expanding transcatheter systems are commercially available for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Comparative data in large-scale multicenter studies are scant., Methods: This study included a total of 5175 patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI with the ACURATE neo (n = 1095), Evolut R (n = 3365), or Evolut PRO (n = 715) by a transfemoral approach at five high-volume centers. Propensity score matching resulted in 654 triplets. Outcomes are reported according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 (VARC-3) consensus., Results: Moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) occurred significantly more often in the ACURATE neo group (5.2%) than in the Evolut R (1.8%) and Evolut PRO (3.3%) groups (p = 0.003). The rates of major vascular-/access-related complications (4.6%, 3.8%, and 5.0%; p = 0.56), type 3 or 4 bleeding (3.2%, 2.1%, and 4.1%; p = 0.12), and 30-day mortality (2.4%, 2.6%, and 3.7%; p = 0.40) were comparable. The rate of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) was significantly lower in the ACURATE neo group (9.5%, 17.6%, and 16.8%; p < 0.001). Independent predictors for 2-year survival were a Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score ≥5%, diabetes mellitus, a glomerular filtration rate <30 ml/min, baseline mean transvalvular gradient ≤ 30 mm Hg, treating center, and relevant PVR., Conclusion: In this multicenter study, TAVI with the ACURATE neo, Evolut R, or Evolut PRO was feasible and safe. The rate of relevant PVR was more frequent after the ACURATE neo implantation, with, however, lower rates of PPI. Two-year survival was mainly driven by baseline comorbidities., (Copyright © 2022 Hellenic Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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

Background: The impact of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) leaflet design on long-term device performance is still unknown. This study sought to compare the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of intra- (IA) versus supra-annular (SA) TAVR designs up-to 10-years following implantation., Methods: Consecutive patients with at least 5-years follow-up following TAVR for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis from June 2007 to December 2016 were included. Bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) and hemodynamic valve deterioration (HVD) were defined according to VARC-3 updated definitions and estimated using cumulative incidence function to account for the competing risk of death., Results: A total of 604 patients (82 years; 53% female) were analyzed and divided into IA (482) and SA (122) groups. Overall survival rates at 10-years were similar (IA 15%, 95%CI: 10-22; SA 11%, 95%CI: 6-20; p = 0.21). Compared to the SA TAVR, mean transaortic gradients were significantly higher and increased over time in the IA group. IA TAVRs showed higher 10-year cumulative incidences of BVF (IA 8% vs. SA 1%, p = 0.02) and severe HVD (IA 5% vs. SA 1%, p = 0.05). The occurrence of BVF and HVD in the IA group occurred primarily in the smallest TAVR devices (20-23-mm). After excluding these sizes, the cumulative incidences of BVF (IA 5% vs. SA 1%, p = 0.40) and severe HVD (IA 2% vs. SA 1%, p = 0.11) were similar., Conclusion: In this study, TAVR leaflet design had no impact on survival at 10-years. IA devices showed higher transaortic gradients and cumulative incidences of HVD and BVF predominantly occurring in the smallest valve sizes., Competing Interests: GT reports honoraria for lectures/consulting from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Abbott. AL is an advisor and reports honoraria for consulting from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Abbott. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Scotti, Fovino, Coisne, Fabris, Cardaioli, Massussi, Rodinò, Barolo, Boiago, Continisio, Montonati, Sciarretta, Zuccarelli, Bernardini, Masiero, Napodano, Fraccaro, Marchese, Esposito, Granada, Latib, Iliceto and Tarantini.)

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 < 0.01)., Conclusions: The modified technique improved initial "Hat-marker" orientation during Evolut deployment and resulted in better commissural alignment and reduced CA overlap., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objectives: The Evolut R FORWARD study confirmed safety and effectivenesss of the Evolut R THV in routine clinical practice out to 1 year. Herein, we report the final 3-year clinical follow up of the FORWARD study., Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a proven alternative to surgery in elderly patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Long-term clinical outcome data with the Evolut R platform are scarce., Methods: FORWARD is a prospective multicenter observational study that evaluated the Evolut R system in routine clinical practice at 53 centres. Eligible patients had symptomatic native aortic valve stenosis or failed surgical aortic bioprosthesis and elevated operative risk per Heart-Team assessment. TAVR was attempted in 1039 patients., Results: Mean age was 81.8 ± 6.2 years, 64.9% were women, STS score was 5.5 ± 4.5% and 34.2% were frail. Rates of all-cause mortality and disabling stroke were 24.8% and 4.8% at 3 years. Early need for a new pacemaker implantation after TAVR (all-cause mortality: with new PPI; 21.0% vs. without; 22.8%, p = 0.55) and the presence of > trace paravalvular regurgitation (all-cause mortality: no or trace; 22.0% vs. ≥ mild; 25.5%, p = 0.29) did not affect survival. Between 1 and 3 years incidence rates of valve related intervention, endocarditis and clinically relevant valve thrombosis were low., Conclusions: The Evolut R valve maintained a favorable safety profile through 3 years in routine clinical practice. Rates of transcatheter heart valve-related adverse events were low., (© 2021 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: This study compares two latest-generation self-expanding transcatheter heart valves (THV), the supra-annular ACURATE neo (Boston Scientific) and the intra-annular Centera THV (Edwards Lifesciences)., Methods: In this single center observational cohort trial 317 patients treated with the ACURATE neo and 78 patients treated with the Centera TVH were included. The main endpoints were device success and the early safety endpoint at 30 days., Results: Besides higher incidence of diabetes mellitus and higher body mass index in patients treated with the ACURATE neo THV, there were no baseline differences between the groups. Device success was similar in both groups (neo: 91.8% vs. Centera: 93.6%; P=0.598), with numerically higher rates of moderate to severe paravalvular leakage in the ACURATE neo group (4.7% vs. 1.3%; P=0.214). At 30 days all-cause mortality rates were low in both groups (0.3% vs. 0%; P=0.620) and no difference occurred in the early safety at 30 days (19.3% vs. 16.7%; P=0.599). However, all-cause stroke rates were significantly higher in patients treated with the Centera THV (6.4 vs. 1.6%; P=0.015)., Conclusions: The ACURATE neo and the Centera THV show low mortality rates as well as comparable, favorable hemodynamics. The finding of higher stroke rates at 30 days with the repositionable Centera SE-THV needs further assessment., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-20-1700). AMK reports that he is a proctor and consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2020 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved.)