Commissural Alignment After Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Is Associated With Improved Hemodynamic Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is generally performed without control over the alignment of the bioprosthesis to the native aortic valve (AV) commissures. Data on the impact of commissural misalignment (CMA) on the clinical and hemodynamic outcome after TAVR are scarce. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of commissural misalignment (CMA) on the clinical and hemodynamic outcome in patients with severe tricuspid aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR using the balloon-expandable (BE) SAPIEN 3 valve (Edwards LifeSciences). METHODS: Clinical data of consecutive patients who underwent BE TAVR at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Los Angeles, California, USA) enrolled in the RESOLVE (Assessment of TRanscathetER and Surgical Aortic BiOprosthetic Valve Thrombosis and Its TrEatment With Anticoagulation) registry were retrospectively analyzed to evaluate CMA, which was defined as a neocommissure position >30° compared with native commissures on computed tomography. RESULTS: A total of 324 patients (36.6% female, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 3.9%) were included in the analysis. CMA was present in 171 individuals (52.8%). At 30 days, rates of aortic regurgitation greater than mild (5.6%) and a residual AV gradient ≥20 mm Hg (7.4%) were not different between CMA and non-CMA patients. Commissural orientation was independently associated with a relative AV mean gradient increase >50% from discharge to 30 days (per increase of 10° misalignment; OR: 1.3; 95% CI: 1.0-1.4; P = 0.01). The long-term composite outcome of death or stroke was not different between groups (log-rank P = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe tricuspid aortic stenosis who undergo SAPIEN 3 TAVR, the neocommissures align randomly. Our data demonstrate that commissural alignment may impact device performance and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing BE TAVR. (Assessment of TRanscathetEr and Surgical Aortic BiOprosthetic VaLVve Dysfunction with Multimodality Imaging and Its TrEatment with Anticoagulation [RESOLVE]; NCT02318342).

Valve-in-Valve for Degenerated Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Valve-in-Valve for Degenerated Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses: A 3-Center Comparison of Hemodynamic and 1-Year Outcome.

Background As transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is expected to progress into younger patient populations, valve-in-TAVR (ViTAVR) may become a frequent consideration. Data on ViTAVR, however, are limited. This study investigated the outcome of ViTAVR in comparison to valve in surgical aortic valve replacement (ViSAVR), because ViSAVR is an established procedure for higher-risk patients requiring repeated aortic valve intervention. Methods and Results Clinical and procedural data of patients who underwent ViTAVR at 3 sites in the United States and Germany were retrospectively compared with data of patients who underwent ViSAVR at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. A total of 99 consecutive patients, 52.5% women, with a median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 7.2 were identified. Seventy-four patients (74.7%) underwent ViSAVR, and 25 patients (25.3%) underwent ViTAVR. Balloon-expandable devices were used in 72.7%. ViSAVR patients presented with smaller index devices (21.0 versus 26.0 mm median true internal diameter; P<0.001). Significantly better postprocedural hemodynamics (median prosthesis mean gradient, 12.5 [interquartile range, 8.8-16.2] versus 16.0 [interquartile range, 13.0-20.5] mm Hg; P=0.045) were observed for ViTAVR compared with the ViSAVR. Device success, however, was not different (79.2% and 66.2% for ViTAVR and ViSAVR, respectively; P=0.35), as were rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (16.7% versus 5.4%; P=0.1). One-year-mortality was 9.4% and 13.4% for ViTAVR and ViSAVR, respectively (log-rank P=0.38). Conclusions Compared with ViSAVR, ViTAVR provides acceptable outcomes, with slightly better hemodynamics, similar device success rates, and similar 1-year mortality.

Coronary Protection to Prevent Coronary Obstruction During TAVR: A Multicenter International Registry.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of coronary protection by preventive coronary wiring and stenting across the coronary ostia in patients at high risk for coronary obstruction after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: Coronary obstruction following TAVR is a life-threatening complication with high procedural and short-term mortality. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively from a multicenter international registry between April 2011 and February 2019. RESULTS: Among 236 patients undergoing coronary protection with preventive coronary wiring, 143 had eventually stents implanted across the coronary ostia after valve deployment. At 3-year follow-up, rates of cardiac death were 7.8% in patients receiving stents and 15.7% in those not receiving stents (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.42; 95% confidence interval: 0.14 to 1.28; p = 0.13). There were 2 definite stent thromboses (0.9%) in patients receiving stents, both occurring after TAVR in "valve-in-valve" procedures. In patients not receiving stents, there were 4 delayed coronary occlusions (DCOs) (4.3%), occurring from 5 min to 6 h after wire removal. Three cases occurred in valve-in-valve procedures and 1 in a native aortic valve procedure. Distance between the virtual transcatheter valve and the protected coronary ostia <4 mm was present in 75.0% of patients with DCO compared with 30.4% of patients without DCO (p = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TAVR at high risk for coronary obstruction, preventive stent implantation across the coronary ostia is associated with good mid-term survival rates and low rates of stent thrombosis. Patients undergoing coronary protection with wire only have a considerable risk for DCO.