Multidisciplinary Approach to Patent Foramen Ovale Closure for Cryptogenic Stroke: Brain-Heart Board Experience.

Background and Objectives: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is present in approximately 25% of adult population. The prevalence of PFO is high in patients with cryptogenic stroke suggesting paradoxical embolism. PFO closure in carefully selected patients is an effective secondary preventive strategy in these patients. We report predictors of management recommendations by the multidisciplinary Board and their impact on outcomes. Methods: Brain-Heart Board comprises vascular and interventional neurology and cardiology subspecialties (structural, electrophysiology, and cardiac imaging). Adult patients referred to the Board for consideration of PFO closure between October 2017 to March 2021 were included in this retrospective cohort analysis. Demographics, comorbid conditions, risk of paradoxical embolism (RoPE) score, event frequencies (transient ischemic attack [TIA] or stroke, intracranial hemorrhage [ICH], post-PFO closure cardiac arrhythmias), and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 1 year were compared between the groups (PFO closure vs medical management). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with management recommendation and chi-square tests to test differences in outcomes for patients according to management. Results: Two hundred seventy patients (229 stroke; 41 TIA) were discussed by the Board for PFO closure. 119 (44.0%) patients were recommended for PFO closure of which 117 (98.3%) had evidence of ischemic infarct on imaging. In univariate analysis, age was similar (50 ± 11.9 vs 52 ± 12.8, p = 0.17), but RoPE score was higher in closure as compared with the medical management group (6 [IQR 5-7] vs 5 [IQR 4-7], p < 0.05). In multivariable analysis, TIA as the index event was an independent predictor of Board recommendation against PFO closure (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.19, p < 0.05). Event frequency was low in both cohorts (5.9% vs 4.8%, p > 0.05) and comprised cardiac arrhythmias (6 cases of atrial fibrillation and 1 ICH in closure group; 1 TIA and 1 recurrent stroke in medical management group). Excellent functional outcome (mRS 0-1) was similar in both cohorts (66.3% vs 70.7%, p > 0.05) at 1 year. Discussion: Multidisciplinary Brain-Heart Board provides a clinical practice model of collaborative care to ensure proper patient selection for PFO closure. TIA as the index event is associated with recommendation of medical management by the multidisciplinary Brain-Heart Board.

Use and performance of the evolut FX transcatheter aortic valve system.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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 %). CONCLUSION: 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.

Quality of Life 5 Years Following Transfemoral TAVR or SAVR in Intermediate Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) sustain comparable improvements in health status over 5 years after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or SAVR. Whether a similar long-term benefit is observed among intermediate-risk AS patients is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess health status outcomes through 5 years in intermediate risk patients treated with a self-expanding TAVR prosthesis or SAVR using data from the SURTAVI (Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial. METHODS: Intermediate-risk patients randomized to transfemoral TAVR or SAVR in the SURTAVI trial had disease-specific health status assessed at baseline, 30 days, and annually to 5 years using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). Health status was compared between groups using fixed effects repeated measures modelling. RESULTS: Of the 1,584 patients (TAVR, n = 805; SAVR, n = 779) included in the analysis, health status improved more rapidly after TAVR compared with SAVR. However, by 1 year, both groups experienced large health status benefits (mean change in KCCQ-Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OS) from baseline: TAVR: 20.5 ± 22.4; SAVR: 20.5 ± 22.2). This benefit was sustained, albeit modestly attenuated, at 5 years (mean change in KCCQ-OS from baseline: TAVR: 15.4 ± 25.1; SAVR: 14.3 ± 24.2). There were no significant differences in health status between the cohorts at 1 year or beyond. Similar findings were observed in the KCCQ subscales, although a substantial attenuation of benefit was noted in the physical limitation subscale over time in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In intermediate-risk AS patients, both transfemoral TAVR and SAVR resulted in comparable and durable health status benefits to 5 years. Further research is necessary to elucidate the mechanisms for the small decline in health status noted at 5 years compared with 1 year in both groups. (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).

Reinterventions After CoreValve/Evolut Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Data on valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are limited. OBJECTIVES: The authors compared the 5-year incidence of valve reintervention after self-expanding CoreValve/Evolut TAVR vs SAVR. METHODS: Pooled data from CoreValve and Evolut R/PRO (Medtronic) randomized trials and single-arm studies encompassed 5,925 TAVR (4,478 CoreValve and 1,447 Evolut R/PRO) and 1,832 SAVR patients. Reinterventions were categorized by indication, timing, and treatment. The cumulative incidence of reintervention was compared between TAVR vs SAVR, Evolut vs CoreValve, and Evolut vs SAVR. RESULTS: There were 99 reinterventions (80 TAVR and 19 SAVR). The cumulative incidence of reintervention through 5 years was higher with TAVR vs SAVR (2.2% vs 1.5%; P = 0.017), with differences observed early (≤1 year; adjusted subdistribution HR: 3.50; 95% CI: 1.53-8.02) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.48-2.28). The most common reason for reintervention was paravalvular regurgitation after TAVR and endocarditis after SAVR. Evolut had a significantly lower incidence of reintervention than CoreValve (0.9% vs 1.6%; P = 0.006) at 5 years with differences observed early (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12-0.73) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.21-1.74). The 5-year incidence of reintervention was similar for Evolut vs SAVR (0.9% vs 1.5%; P = 0.41). CONCLUSIONS: A low incidence of reintervention was observed for CoreValve/Evolut R/PRO and SAVR through 5 years. Reintervention occurred most often at ≤1 year for TAVR and >1 year for SAVR. Most early reinterventions were with the first-generation CoreValve and managed percutaneously. Reinterventions were more common following CoreValve TAVR compared with Evolut TAVR or SAVR.

Self-Expanding or Balloon-Expandable TAVR in Patients with a Small Aortic Annulus.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe aortic stenosis and a small aortic annulus are at risk for impaired valvular hemodynamic performance and associated adverse cardiovascular clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and an aortic-valve annulus area of 430 mm2 or less in a 1:1 ratio to undergo TAVR with either a self-expanding supraannular valve or a balloon-expandable valve. The coprimary end points, each assessed through 12 months, were a composite of death, disabling stroke, or rehospitalization for heart failure (tested for noninferiority) and a composite end point measuring bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction (tested for superiority). RESULTS: A total of 716 patients were treated at 83 sites in 13 countries (mean age, 80 years; 87% women; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality, 3.3%). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the percentage of patients who died, had a disabling stroke, or were rehospitalized for heart failure through 12 months was 9.4% with the self-expanding valve and 10.6% with the balloon-expandable valve (difference, -1.2 percentage points; 90% confidence interval [CI], -4.9 to 2.5; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the percentage of patients with bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction through 12 months was 9.4% with the self-expanding valve and 41.6% with the balloon-expandable valve (difference, -32.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -38.7 to -25.6; P<0.001 for superiority). The aortic-valve mean gradient at 12 months was 7.7 mm Hg with the self-expanding valve and 15.7 mm Hg with the balloon-expandable valve, and the corresponding values for additional secondary end points through 12 months were as follows: mean effective orifice area, 1.99 cm2 and 1.50 cm2; percentage of patients with hemodynamic structural valve dysfunction, 3.5% and 32.8%; and percentage of women with bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction, 10.2% and 43.3% (all P<0.001). Moderate or severe prosthesis-patient mismatch at 30 days was found in 11.2% of the patients in the self-expanding valve group and 35.3% of those in the balloon-expandable valve group (P<0.001). Major safety end points appeared to be similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe aortic stenosis and a small aortic annulus who underwent TAVR, a self-expanding supraannular valve was noninferior to a balloon-expandable valve with respect to clinical outcomes and was superior with respect to bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction through 12 months. (Funded by Medtronic; SMART ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04722250.).

1-Year Outcomes Following Transfemoral Transseptal Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement: Intrepid TMVR Early Feasibility Study Results.

BACKGROUND: High surgical risk may preclude mitral valve replacement in many patients. Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) using transfemoral transseptal access is a novel technology for the treatment of mitral regurgitation (MR) in high-risk surgical patients. OBJECTIVES: This analysis evaluates 30-day and 1-year outcomes of the Intrepid TMVR Early Feasibility Study in patients with ≥moderate-severe MR. METHODS: The Intrepid TMVR Early Feasibility Study is a multicenter, prospective, single-arm study. Clinical events were adjudicated by a clinical events committee; endpoints were defined according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria. RESULTS: A total of 33 patients, enrolled at 9 U.S. sites between February 2020 and August 2022, were included. The median age was 80 years, 63.6% of patients were men, and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality for mitral valve replacement was 5.3%. Thirty-one (93.9%) patients were successfully implanted. Median postprocedural hospitalization length of stay was 5 days, and 87.9% of patients were discharged to home. At 30 days, there were no deaths or strokes, 8 (24.2%) patients had major vascular complications and none required surgical intervention, there were 4 cases of venous thromboembolism all successfully treated without sequelae, and 1 patient had mitral valve reintervention for severe left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. At 1 year, the Kaplan-Meier all-cause mortality rate was 6.7%, echocardiography showed ≤mild valvular MR, there was no/trace paravalvular leak in all patients, median mitral valve mean gradient was 4.6 mm Hg (Q1-Q3: 3.9-5.3 mm Hg), and 91.7% of survivors were in NYHA functional class I/II with a median 11.4-point improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores. CONCLUSIONS: The early benefits of the Intrepid transfemoral transseptal TMVR system were maintained up to 1 year with low mortality, low reintervention, and near complete elimination of MR, demonstrating a favorable safety profile and durable valve function.

Structural Valve Deterioration After Self-Expanding Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients at Intermediate or High Risk.

Importance: The frequency and clinical importance of structural valve deterioration (SVD) in patients undergoing self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgery is poorly understood. Objective: To evaluate the 5-year incidence, clinical outcomes, and predictors of hemodynamic SVD in patients undergoing self-expanding TAVI or surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 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. Interventions: Patients 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 Measures: The 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. Results: Of 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 < .001), cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.20-2.90; 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 Relevance: This 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 Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01240902, NCT01586910, and NCT01531374.

Self-expanding Transcatheter vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients: 5-Year Outcomes of the SURTAVI Randomized Clinical Trial.

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.

Comparison of Radiation Exposure Among Interventional Echocardiographers, Interventional Cardiologists, and Sonographers During Percutaneous Structural Heart Interventions.

Importance: Transesophageal echocardiography during percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAO) and transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (TEER) require an interventional echocardiographer to stand near the radiation source and patient, the primary source of scatter radiation. Despite previous work demonstrating high radiation exposure for interventional cardiologists performing percutaneous coronary and structural heart interventions, similar data for interventional echocardiographers are lacking. Objective: To assess whether interventional echocardiographers are exposed to greater radiation doses than interventional cardiologists and sonographers during structural heart procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this single-center cross-sectional study, radiation doses were collected from interventional echocardiographers, interventional cardiologists, and sonographers at a quaternary care center during 30 sequential LAAO and 30 sequential TEER procedures from July 1, 2016, to January 31, 2018. Participants and study personnel were blinded to radiation doses through data analysis (January 1, 2020, to October 12, 2021). Exposures: Occupation defined as interventional echocardiographers, interventional cardiologists, and sonographers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Measured personal dose equivalents per case were recorded using real-time radiation dosimeters. Results: A total of 60 (30 TEER and 30 LAAO) procedures were performed in 60 patients (mean [SD] age, 79 [8] years; 32 [53.3%] male) with a high cardiovascular risk factor burden. The median radiation dose per case was higher for interventional echocardiographers (10.6 µSv; IQR, 4.2-22.4 µSv) than for interventional cardiologists (2.1 µSv; IQR, 0.2-8.3 µSv; P < .001). During TEER, interventional echocardiographers received a median radiation dose of 10.5 µSv (IQR, 3.1-20.5 µSv), which was higher than the median radiation dose received by interventional cardiologists (0.9 µSv; IQR, 0.1-12.2 µSv; P < .001). During LAAO procedures, the median radiation dose was 10.6 µSv (IQR, 5.8-24.1 µSv) among interventional echocardiographers and 3.5 (IQR, 1.3-6.3 µSv) among interventional cardiologists (P < .001). Compared with interventional echocardiographers, sonographers exhibited low median radiation doses during both LAAO (0.2 µSv; IQR, 0.0-1.6 µSv; P < .001) and TEER (0.0 µSv; IQR, 0.0-0.1 µSv; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, interventional echocardiographers were exposed to higher radiation doses than interventional cardiologists during LAAO and TEER procedures, whereas sonographers demonstrated comparatively lower radiation doses. Higher radiation doses indicate a previously underappreciated occupational risk faced by interventional echocardiographers, which has implications for the rapidly expanding structural heart team.

Optimizing Care of Patients With Right Bundle Branch Block Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of temporary-permanent pacemaker (TPP) in patients with right bundle branch block (RBBB) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We also sought to identify key predictors of permanent pacemaker (PPM) within 30 days of TAVR in this population. BACKGROUND: RBBB is a well-recognized risk factor for PPM post TAVR. TPP provides stable transient pacing and reduces the need for critical care beds. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of 371 patients who underwent TAVR at our institution. All patients with pre-existing RBBB had TPP placed prior to TAVR (n = 37). The primary outcome was the need for critical care beds. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of PPM within 30 days of TAVR. RESULTS: 67 patients required PPM within 30 days of TAVR, and 56 implanted before discharge. 51% (19 out of 37) of TPP group required PPM before discharge compared to 11% (37 out of 334) of No TPP (p < 0.001), yet TPP group spent significantly fewer hours in a critical care bed (19 vs 28 h, p = 0.01). Length of membranous septum (LMS) <8.49 mm was the strongest independent predictor of PPM within 30 days of TAVR (RAUC of 0.80, Sensitivity 0.7 and Specificity 0.8) and 98% of patients with LMS < 7 mm required PPM within 30 days. CONCLUSION: TPP-TAVR is a well-defined multidisciplinary protocol that reduces the need for critical care beds in patients with pre-existing RBBB referred for TAVR. Additionally, LMS is the strongest predictor of PPM implantation in this population. CONDENSED ABSTRACT (100 WORDS): This study evaluated the use of temporary-permanent pacemakers (TPP) in patients with right bundle branch block (RBBB) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). TPP-TAVR provided stable pacing allowing for early mobilization and reduced the need for critical care beds. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified length of membranous septum (LMS) <8.49 mm in patients with RBBB as the strongest independent predictor of PPM need within 30 days of TAVR. 98% of patients with RBBB and LMS < 7 mm required PPM at 30 days regardless of other characteristics including valve type and size.

Propensity-Matched 1-Year Outcomes Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Bicuspid and Tricuspid Patients.

OBJECTIVES: 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. BACKGROUND: 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%. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in clinical or forward flow hemodynamic outcomes between the propensity-matched groups at 1 year.

2-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: The Evolut Low Risk Trial (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients) showed that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a supra-annular, self-expanding valve was noninferior to surgery for the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. This finding was based on a Bayesian analysis performed after 850 patients had reached 1 year of follow-up. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to report the full 2-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes for patients enrolled in the Evolut Low Risk Trial. METHODS: A total of 1,414 low-surgical risk patients with severe aortic stenosis were randomized to receive TAVR or surgical AVR. An independent clinical events committee adjudicated adverse events, and a central echocardiographic core laboratory assessed hemodynamic endpoints. RESULTS: An attempted implant was performed in 730 TAVR and 684 surgical patients from March 2016 to May 2019. The Kaplan-Meier rates for the complete 2-year primary endpoint of death or disabling stroke were 4.3% in the TAVR group and 6.3% in the surgery group (P = 0.084). These rates were comparable to the interim Bayesian rates of 5.3% with TAVR and 6.7% with surgery (difference: -1.4%; 95% Bayesian credible interval: -4.9% to 2.1%). All-cause mortality rates were 3.5% vs 4.4% (P = 0.366), and disabling stroke rates were 1.5% vs 2.7% (P = 0.119), respectively. Between years 1 and 2, there was no convergence of the primary outcome curves. CONCLUSIONS: The complete 2-year follow-up from the Evolut Low Risk Trial found that TAVR is noninferior to surgery for the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke, with event rates that were slightly better than those predicted by using the Bayesian analysis. (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients [Evolut Low Risk Trial]; NCT02701283).

Outcomes in Patients With Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis (from the Evolut Low Risk Trial).

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; p <0.001 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; p <0.001), 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.

30-Day Outcomes Following Transfemoral Transseptal Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement: Intrepid TMVR Early Feasibility Study Results.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) with transfemoral access in patients at prohibitive or high surgical risk. BACKGROUND: Prohibitive surgical risk may preclude mitral valve replacement surgery in some patients. The investigational Intrepid TMVR system has previously been evaluated using transapical access for delivery of a self-expanding bioprosthetic valve. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized early feasibility study evaluated the safety and performance of the Intrepid valve using transfemoral access enabling transseptal delivery in patients with moderate to severe or severe symptomatic mitral regurgitation at high surgical risk. Candidacy was determined by heart teams, with approval by a central screening committee. Echocardiographic data were evaluated by an independent core laboratory. Clinical events were adjudicated by a clinical events committee. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were enrolled at 6 sites from February 2020 to May 2021. The median age was 80 years, and median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 4.7%; 87% of patients were men, and 53% had undergone prior sternotomy. Fourteen implants were successful. One patient was converted to surgery during the index procedure. Patients stayed a median of 5 days postprocedure. There were 6 access site bleeds (40%) and 11 iatrogenic atrial septal defect closures (73%). At 30 days, there were no deaths, strokes, or reinterventions. All patients undergoing implantation had trace or no valvular or paravalvular mitral regurgitation, and the mean gradient was 4.7 mm Hg (IQR: 3.0-6.7 mm Hg). CONCLUSIONS: Thirty-day results from the Intrepid transfemoral TMVR early feasibility study demonstrate excellent valve function and no mortality or stroke. Additional patients and longer follow-up are needed to confirm these findings. ([The Early Feasibility Study of the Intrepid™ TMVR Transseptal System]; NCT02322840).

Clinical outcomes of TAVI or SAVR in men and women with aortic stenosis at intermediate operative risk: a post hoc analysis of the randomised SURTAVI trial.

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<0.01) and were more frail. Men required more concomitant revascularisation (23% vs 16%). All-cause mortality or disabling stroke at two years was similar between TAVI and SAVR for females (10.2% vs 10.5%, p=0.90) and males (14.5% vs 14.4%, p=0.99); the difference between females and males was 10.2% vs 14.5%, for TAVI (p=0.08) and 10.5% vs 14.4%, SAVR (p=0.13). Functional status improvement was more pronounced after TAVI in females than in males. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic valve replacement, either by surgical or transcatheter approach, appears similarly effective and safe for males and females at intermediate surgical risk. Functional status appears to improve most in females after TAVI. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://clinicaltrials.gov NCT01586910.

Midterm Outcomes for Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in the Failed Freestyle Bioprosthesis.

BACKGROUND: Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is acceptable in patients at high risk for reoperation. Studies suggest that ViV TAVR in stentless valves may be technically more challenging. This study sought to evaluate midterm outcomes for ViV TAVR in the degenerative Freestyle ((Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN)) stentless bioprosthesis. METHODS: Between October 2014 and January 2019, 56 patients underwent ViV TAVR for a failed Freestyle valve at a single institution using a commercially available self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve. Patient baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes data were collected retrospectively. Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions were applied. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 75 ± 8 years and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons mean risk score was 9% ± 8%. The predominant mode of Freestyle valve failure was regurgitation (77%), and 36 patients (64%) required urgent intervention for refractory acute heart failure. Device success using a self-expanding TAVR was 82%, with 6 cases (11%) requiring deployment of two transcatheter valves. There were 3 operative mortalities (5%). At 30-day follow-up, no patient had greater than moderate perivalvular regurgitation. Device success was higher in the later patients compared with patients done earlier (P = .02). Mean aortic valve gradients at 30 days and 1 year were 11 ± 8 and 9 ± 8 mm Hg, respectively. For patients alive beyond day 30, 3-year survival was 82%. CONCLUSIONS: Performing ViV TAVR in the Freestyle valve using a self-expanding transcatheter valve presents a technical challenge, but may be feasible with good midterm results. Procedural success is associated with an early hazard learning curve.

First-in-Man Study Evaluating the Emblok Embolic Protection System During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the feasibility of complete cerebral protection during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a novel embolic protection device. BACKGROUND: Evidences and data about new cerebral embolic protection devices are lacking and scarce. METHODS: A prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter, first-in-man pilot study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cerebral embolic protection utilizing the Emblok embolic protection system (Innovative Cardiovascular Solutions, Grand Rapids, Michigan) during TAVR. The Emblok is a transfemoral aortic filter that provide full coverage of the epiaortic vessels. Brain diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) was performed at baseline and 2 to 5 days after TAVR. Primary endpoints were technical success and immediate cerebral embolic burden after TAVR, defined as number and volume of new brain lesions detected with DW-MRI at days 2 to 5 post-TAVR compared with baseline. RESULTS: A total of 20 subjects were enrolled. The Emblok system was successfully positioned in all the cases. At 30-day follow-up, no major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events occurred. Nineteen (95%) patients had new ischemic defects at post-procedural DW-MRI. The median number of new lesions per patient was 10.00 (interquartile range [IQR]: 4.75 to 15.25). The total new lesion volume was 199.9 mm3 (IQR: 83.9 to 447.5 mm3) and the mean lesion volume per lesion was 42.5 mm3 (IQR: 21.5 to 75.6 mm3). Histopathologic analysis showed evidence of significant debris in 18 (90%) filters. CONCLUSIONS: The Emblok embolic protection system appears to be feasible and safe during TAVR. The device was successfully placed and retrieved in all cases and no neurological events were observed. Cerebral total new lesion volume was similar to other trials on cerebral protection during TAVR, thus warranting a larger study. (European Study Evaluating the Emblok Embolic Protection System During TAVR; NCT03130491).

Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Valve in Low-Risk Patients.

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 known about TAVR in low-risk patients. METHODS: We performed a randomized noninferiority trial in which TAVR with a self-expanding supraannular bioprosthesis was compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients who had severe aortic stenosis and were at low surgical risk. When 850 patients had reached 12-month follow-up, we analyzed data regarding the primary end point, a composite of death or disabling stroke at 24 months, using Bayesian methods. RESULTS: Of the 1468 patients who underwent randomization, an attempted TAVR or surgical procedure was performed in 1403. The patients' mean age was 74 years. The 24-month estimated incidence of the primary end point was 5.3% in the TAVR group and 6.7% in the surgery group (difference, -1.4 percentage points; 95% Bayesian credible interval for difference, -4.9 to 2.1; posterior probability of noninferiority >0.999). At 30 days, patients who had undergone TAVR, as compared with surgery, had a lower incidence of disabling stroke (0.5% vs. 1.7%), bleeding complications (2.4% vs. 7.5%), acute kidney injury (0.9% vs. 2.8%), and atrial fibrillation (7.7% vs. 35.4%) and a higher incidence of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation (3.5% vs. 0.5%) and pacemaker implantation (17.4% vs. 6.1%). At 12 months, patients in the TAVR group had lower aortic-valve gradients than those in the surgery group (8.6 mm Hg vs. 11.2 mm Hg) and larger effective orifice areas (2.3 cm2 vs. 2.0 cm2). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding supraannular bioprosthesis was noninferior to surgery with respect to the composite end point of death or disabling stroke at 24 months. (Funded by Medtronic; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02701283.).

5-Year Outcomes of Self-Expanding Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: The CoreValve U.S. Pivotal High Risk Trial was the first randomized trial to show superior 1-year mortality of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) among high operative mortality-risk patients. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare TAVR to SAVR for mid-term 5-year outcomes of safety, performance, and durability. METHODS: Surgical high-risk patients were randomized (1:1) to TAVR with the self-expanding bioprosthesis or SAVR. VARC-1 (Valve Academic Research Consortium I) definitions were applied. Severe hemodynamic structural valve deterioration was defined as a mean gradient ≥40 mm Hg or a change in gradient ≥20 mm Hg or new severe aortic regurgitation. Five-year follow-up was planned. RESULTS: A total of 797 patients were randomized at 45 U.S. centers, of whom 750 underwent an attempted implant (TAVR = 391, SAVR = 359). The overall mean age was 83 years, and the STS score was 7.4%. All-cause mortality rates at 5 years were 55.3% for TAVR and 55.4% for SAVR. Subgroup analysis showed no differences in mortality. Major stroke rates were 12.3% for TAVR and 13.2% for SAVR. Mean aortic valve gradients were 7.1 ± 3.6 mm Hg for TAVR and 10.9 ± 5.7 mm Hg for SAVR. No clinically significant valve thrombosis was observed. Freedom from severe SVD was 99.2% for TAVR and 98.3% for SAVR (p = 0.32), and freedom from valve reintervention was 97.0% for TAVR and 98.9% for SAVR (p = 0.04). A permanent pacemaker was implanted in 33.0% of TAVR and 19.8% of SAVR patients at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows similar mid-term survival and stroke rates in high-risk patients following TAVR or SAVR. Severe structural valve deterioration and valve reinterventions were uncommon. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902).