Multimarker Approach to Improve Risk Stratification of Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Background: A blood multimarker approach may be useful to enhance risk stratification in patients undergoing TAVI. Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine the prognostic value of multiple blood biomarkers in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) patients. Methods: In this prospective study, several blood biomarkers of cardiovascular function, inflammation, and renal function were measured in 362 patients who underwent TAVI. The cohort was divided into 3 groups according to the number of elevated blood biomarkers (ie, ≥ median value for the whole cohort) for each patient before the procedure. Survival analyses were conducted to evaluate the association between blood biomarkers and risk of adverse event following TAVI. Results: During a median follow-up of 2.5 (IQR: 1.9-3.2) years, 34 (9.4%) patients were rehospitalized for heart failure, 99 (27%) patients died, and 113 (31.2%) met the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or heart failure rehospitalization. Compared to patients with 0 to 3 elevated biomarkers (referent group), those with 4 to 7 and 8 to 9 elevated biomarkers had a higher risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 1.54 [95% CI: 0.84-2.80], P = 0.16, and HR: 2.81 [95% CI: 1.53-5.15], P < 0.001, respectively) and of the composite endpoint (HR: 1.65 [95% CI: 0.95-2.84], P = 0.07, and HR: 2.67 [95% CI: 1.52-4.70] P < 0.001, respectively). Moreover, adding the number of elevated blood biomarkers into the clinical multivariable model provided significant incremental predictive value for all-cause mortality (Net Reclassification Index = 0.71, P < 0.001). Conclusions: An increasing number of elevated blood biomarkers is associated with higher risks of adverse clinical outcomes following TAVI. The blood multimarker approach may be helpful to enhance risk stratification in TAVI patients.

Mid-term clinical and echocardiographic results of the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve: a retrospective comparison to the Magna Ease.

OBJECTIVES: The INSPIRIS aortic valve combines the RESILIA proprietary tissue preservation process and an expandable stent frame to benefit future transcatheter valve-in-valve procedures. As the INSPIRIS valve became commercially available in 2017, mid-term outcome reports are scarce. We aimed to evaluate mid-term safety and echocardiographic performance of the INSPIRIS valve in comparison to its predecessor, the Carpentier Edwards Perimount Magna Ease (ME). METHODS: This study was a retrospective single-centre study. Clinical results included early postoperative outcomes, mid-term mortality and readmission for cardiovascular cause or stroke. Echocardiographic follow-up (FU) was performed at discharge and 1-3, 6, 12 and 24 months. Clinical end point analyses were accomplished with a propensity score matching analysis and FU echocardiographic data comparisons using pairwise analyses and linear mixed-effect models. RESULTS: We included 953 patients who received an INSPIRIS (n = 488) or ME (n = 463) bioprosthesis between January 2018 and July 2021. In the matched population (n = 217 per group), no significant difference in short-term outcomes was observed, survival was similar at 30 months (INSPIRIS: 94% vs ME: 91%, P = 0.89), but freedom from readmission was higher in the INSPIRIS group (94% vs 86%, P = 0.014). INSPIRIS valves had a lower gradient at discharge (∼10 vs 14 mmHg, P < 0.001), 1-3 months (∼10 vs 12 mmHg, P < 0.001) and 24 months (∼11 vs 17 mmHg, P < 0.001) in paired analyses and significantly lower evolution of mean transvalvular gradients compared to ME. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the largest comparative evaluation of the INSPIRIS to the ME valves, which demonstrated safe clinical outcomes and favourable haemodynamic performance at 2 years. Long-term FU is underway.

Impact of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction on Clinical Outcomes in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic impact of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) disease has not been previously studied. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the prognostic impact of LVEF in BAV patients according to the type of aortic valve dysfunction. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data collected in 2,672 patients included in an international registry of patients with BAV. Patients were classified according to the type of aortic valve dysfunction: isolated aortic stenosis (AS) (n = 749), isolated aortic regurgitation (AR) (n = 554), mixed aortic valve disease (MAVD) (n = 190), or no significant aortic valve dysfunction (n = 1,179; excluded from this analysis). The study population was divided according to LVEF strata to investigate its impact on clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The risk of all-cause mortality and the composite endpoint of aortic valve replacement or repair (AVR) and all-cause mortality increased when LVEF was <60% in the whole cohort as well as in the AS and AR groups, and when LVEF was <55% in MAVD group. In multivariable analysis, LVEF strata were significantly associated with increased rate of mortality (LVEF 50%-59%: HR: 1.83 [95% CI: 1.09-3.07]; P = 0.022; LVEF 30%-49%: HR: 1.97 [95% CI: 1.13-3.41]; P = 0.016; LVEF <30%: HR: 4.20 [95% CI: 2.01-8.75]; P < 0.001; vs LVEF 60%-70%, reference group). CONCLUSIONS: In BAV patients, the risk of adverse clinical outcomes increases significantly when the LVEF is <60%. These findings suggest that LVEF cutoff values proposed in the guidelines to indicate intervention should be raised from 50% to 60% in AS or AR and 55% in MAVD.

Hemodynamic and Clinical Outcomes in Redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement vs. Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve.

Background: Transcatheter valve-in-valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) has emerged as an alternative to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SAVR) for the treatment of failed surgical aortic bioprostheses. However, the benefit of ViV-TAVR compared with Redo-SAVR remains debated with regard to short-term hemodynamic results and short- and long-term clinical outcomes. Objective: This study aimed to compare short-term hemodynamic performance and long-term clinical outcomes of ViV-TAVR vs. Redo-SAVR in patients treated for surgical aortic bioprosthetic valve failure. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data prospectively collected in 184 patients who underwent Redo-SAVR or ViV-TAVR. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed before and after the procedure and analyzed in an echocardiography core laboratory using the new Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria. An inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to compare the outcomes between both procedures. Results: ViV-TAVR showed lower rate of intended hemodynamic performance (39.2% vs. 67.7%, p < 0.001) at 30 days, which was essentially driven by a higher rate (56.2% vs. 28.8%, p = 0.001) of high residual gradient (mean transvalvular gradient ≥20 mm Hg). Despite a trend for higher 30-day mortality in the Redo-SAVR vs. ViV-TAVR group (8.7% vs. 2.5%, odds ratio [95% CI]: 3.70 [0.77-17.6]; p = 0.10), the long-term mortality was significantly lower (24.2% vs. 50.1% at 8 years; hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.48 [0.26-0.91]; p = 0.03) in the Redo-SAVR group. After inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis, Redo-SAVR remained significantly associated with reduced long-term mortality compared with ViV-TAVR (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.32 [0.22-0.46]; p < 0.001). Conclusions: ViV-TAVR was associated with a lower rate of intended hemodynamic performance and numerically lower mortality at 30 days but higher rates of long-term mortality compared with Redo-SAVR.