Procedural outcomes of the 34 mm EvolutR Transcatheter valve in a real-world population insights from the HORSE multicenter collaborative registry.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of real-world patients with aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the 34 mm Evolut R (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota). BACKGROUND: Larger aortic annulus has been associated with increased incidence of paravalvular leaks (PVLs) after TAVR. However, little is known, so far, about the performance of the 34 mm Evolut R in this setting. METHODS: From the multicenter, international, retrospective Horizontal Aorta in Transcatheter Self-expanding Valves (HORSE) registry, including patients who underwent TAVR for native severe AS, we selected patients treated with the 34 mm Evolut R evaluating procedural characteristics and VARC-2 defined device success. We also compared 34 mm Evolut R with other Evolut R sizes. RESULTS: Among the 4434 patients included in the registry, 572 (13%) received the 34 mm Evolut R valve. Mean age was 80.8 ± 6.5 years and the median STS PROM score was 4 [interquartile range 2-6]. Device success was achieved in 87.4% with 7.7% of PVLs; moreover, the rate of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI) was 22.4%. Patients who underwent 34 mm Evolut R implantation experienced more in-hospital permanent pacemaker implantation (22.4% vs. 15%; p < 0.001). At multivariate analysis, 34 mm Evolut R did not affect device success (OR: 0.81 [0.60-1.09]; p = 0.151). Device success was consistent with other THVs sizes (87.4% vs. 89.6%; p = 0.157). CONCLUSIONS: THV replacement in patients requiring 34 mm Evolut R has an acceptable performance. Compared to other Medtronic sizes it demonstrated to be comparable in terms of device success, despite an increased rate of pacemaker implantation.

Aortic angle distribution and predictors of horizontal aorta in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: Horizontal aorta (HA) is an anatomical feature that can pose significant technical challenges for the successful positioning of the bioprosthetic valve during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Physiological range of aortic angle (AA) is unknown; hence there is no cutoff AA for classifying HA. Moreover, patient characteristics predicting HA are under-investigated. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of prospective collected data from 16 heart valve centers in Europe. The study utilized a common dataset with a priori agreed-upon definitions and variables. Eligible patients underwent TAVR between 2014 and 2020 and had multidetector computed tomographic imaging data available for determining the AA. The analysis described the distribution of AA and potential predictors of HA. Inter-center variability was also explored. RESULTS: For 4022 patients analyzed, the mean AA ± standard deviation was 49.4° ± 9.4° (median 49°, inter-quartile range [IQR] 12°, range 18-90°). There was no significant difference in mean AA between men and women (49.4° ± 9.1° vs. 49.6° ± 9.3°, respectively; p = 0.53); therefore, 49.4° was accepted as the cutoff value for HA in subsequent analyses. Covariates significantly associated with HA included age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.04, p < 0.001), body mass index (OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.05-1.08, p < 0.01), previous cardiac surgery (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.45-0.75, p < 0.001), and porcelain aorta (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.52-0.85, p = 0.001). Some inter-center variability was observed. CONCLUSIONS: We defined 49.4° as the mean AA, and also associated predictors of HA in a large case series of patients with severe aortic stenosis candidates for TAVR.