Coronary Cannulation Following TAVR Using Self-Expanding Devices With Commissural Alignment: The RE-ACCESS 2 Study.

BACKGROUND: Coronary re-engagement after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using self-expanding transcatheter heart valves (THVs) systematically implanted using commissural alignment (CA) techniques has been poorly investigated. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate unsuccessful coronary cannulation, and its predictors, after TAVR using self-expanding devices implanted using CA techniques. METHODS: RE-ACCESS 2 (Reobtain Coronary Ostia Cannulation Beyond Transcatheter Aortic Valve Stent 2) was an investigator-driven, single-center, prospective study that enrolled consecutive TAVR patients receiving Evolut and ACURATE THVs implanted using CA techniques. The primary endpoint was unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR. The secondary endpoint was the identification of postprocedural predictors of unfeasible, selective coronary ostia re-engagement on computed tomographic angiography performed after TAVR. RESULTS: Among 127 patients enrolled from September 2021 to December 2022, 7 (5.5%) had unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR, and 6 of them received Evolut THVs (7.5% vs 2.3%; P = 0.26). Failure of left coronary artery cannulation was similar between Evolut and ACURATE THVs (2.5% vs 2.1%; P = 1.00), whereas that of right coronary artery cannulation was prevalent in the Evolut group (6.3% vs 0.0%; P = 0.16). Coronary overlap was associated with the inability to selectively cannulate the right coronary artery (OR: 5.6; 95% CI: 1.2-25.8; P = 0.03), but not in ACURATE recipients (P = 0.39). Severe misalignment of Evolut THVs was associated with the inability to selectively cannulate both coronary arteries (OR: 24.7; 95% CI: 1.9-312.9; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR using self-expanding THVs implanted using CA techniques was reported in 5.5% of cases, with the majority involving the Evolut THV. Commissural misalignment affected coronary cannulation after TAVR mostly in Evolut recipients.

Evolut PRO and SAPIEN ULTRA Performance in Small Aortic Annuli: The OPERA-TAVI Registry.

BACKGROUND: The performance of latest iteration transcatheter aortic valve replacement platforms in patients with small aortic anatomy remains underexplored. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate effectiveness and performance between the self-expanding (SE) Evolut PRO and PRO+ and the balloon-expandable (BE) SAPIEN ULTRA in patients with small aortic annuli. METHODS: Data from the OPERA-TAVI (Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO vs. SAPIEN 3 ULTRA Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry were used, with 1:1 propensity score matching. Primary endpoints included 1-year effectiveness composite (all-cause mortality, disabling stroke, or heart failure hospitalization) and 30-day device-related (hemodynamic structural valve dysfunction and nonstructural valve dysfunction) outcomes. RESULTS: Among 3,516 patients, 251 matched pairs with aortic annular area <430 mm2 were assessed. The 1-year primary effectiveness outcome did not differ significantly between cohorts (SE 10.8% vs BE 11.2%; P = 0.91). The 30-day device-oriented composite outcome was more favorable in the Evolut PRO group (SE 4.8% vs BE 10.4%; P = 0.027). Notably, SE valve recipients showed higher rates of disabling stroke (SE 4.0% vs BE 0.0%; P < 0.01) and paravalvular leaks (mild or greater: SE 48.5% vs BE 18.6% [P < 0.001]; moderate: SE 4.5% vs BE 1.2% [P = 0.070]). The BE group had higher rates of prosthesis-patient mismatch (moderate or greater: SE 16.0% vs BE 47.1% [P < 0.001]; severe: SE 1.3% vs BE 5.7% [P = 0.197]) and more patients with residual mean gradients >20 mm Hg (SE 1.0% vs BE 13.5%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with small aortic annuli, transcatheter aortic valve replacement with latest iteration devices is safe. SE platforms are associated with more favorable device performance in terms of hemodynamic structural and nonstructural dysfunction. Randomized data are needed to validate these findings and guide informed device selection.

Sex-Related Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Self-Expanding or Balloon-Expandable Valves: Insights from the OPERA-TAVI Registry.

Evidence regarding gender-related differences in response to transcatheter aortic valve implantation according to the valve type is lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of gender on the treatment effect of Evolut PRO/PRO+ (PRO) or SAPIEN 3 Ultra (ULTRA) devices on clinical outcomes. The Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO vs SAPIEN 3 Ultra Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (OPERA-TAVI) is a multicenter, multinational registry including patients who underwent the latest-iteration PRO or ULTRA implantation. Overall, 1,174 of 1,897 patients were matched based on valve type and compared according to gender, whereas 470 men and 630 women were matched and compared according to valve type. The 30-day and 1-year outcomes were evaluated. In the PRO and ULTRA groups, men had a higher co-morbidity burden, whereas women had smaller aortic root. The 30-day (device success [DS], early safety outcome, permanent pacemaker implantation, patient-prosthesis mismatch, paravalvular regurgitation, bleedings, vascular complications, and all-cause death) and 1-year outcomes (all-cause death, stroke, and heart failure hospitalization) did not differ according to gender in both valve groups. However, the male gender decreased the likelihood of 30-day DS with ULTRA versus PRO (p for interaction = 0.047). A higher risk of 30-day permanent pacemaker implantation and 1-year stroke and a lower risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch was observed in PRO versus ULTRA, regardless of gender. In conclusion, gender did not modify the treatment effect of PRO versus ULTRA on clinical outcomes, except for 30-day DS, which was decreased in men (vs women) who received ULTRA (vs PRO).

One-year clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the latest iteration of self-expanding or balloonexpandable devices: insights from the OPERA-TAVI registry.

BACKGROUND: Midterm comparative analyses of the latest iterations of the most used Evolut and SAPIEN platforms for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are lacking. AIMS: We aimed to compare 1-year clinical outcomes of TAVI patients receiving Evolut PRO/PRO+ (PRO) or SAPIEN 3 Ultra (ULTRA) devices in current real-world practice. METHODS: Among patients enrolled in the OPERA-TAVI registry, patients with complete 1-year follow-up were considered for the purpose of this analysis. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to compare TAVI patients receiving PRO or ULTRA devices. The primary endpoint was a composite of 1-year all-cause death, disabling stroke and rehospitalisation for heart failure. Five prespecified subgroups of patients were considered according to leaflet and left ventricular outflow tract calcifications, annulus dimensions and angulation, and leaflet morphology. RESULTS: Among a total of 1,897 patients, 587 matched pairs of patients with similar clinical and anatomical characteristics were compared. The primary composite endpoint did not differ between patients receiving PRO or ULTRA devices (Kaplan-Meier [KM] estimates 14.0% vs 11.9%; log-rank p=0.27). Patients receiving PRO devices had higher rates of 1-year disabling stroke (KM estimates 2.6% vs 0.4%; log-rank p=0.001), predominantly occurring within 30 days after TAVI (1.4% vs 0.0%; p=0.004). Outcomes were consistent across all the prespecified subsets of anatomical scenarios (all pinteraction>0.10). CONCLUSIONS: One-year clinical outcomes of patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI and receiving PRO or ULTRA devices in the current clinical practice were similar, but PRO patients had higher rates of disabling stroke. Outcomes did not differ across the different anatomical subsets of the aortic root.

Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severely Reduced Left Ventricular Systolic Function in the Low Systolic Function and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (LOSTAVI) International Registry.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established therapy for severe, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis even in patients with impaired left ventricular systolic function. However, there is uncertainty on the clinical effectiveness of the currently available TAVR devices in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The LOSTAVI (Low Systolic function and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry is a retrospective observational study using baseline, procedural, discharge, and long-term follow-up details. A total of 3 groups of interest were distinguished: extremely reduced LVEF (<25%), severely reduced LVEF (25% to 30%), and reduced LVEF (31% to 35%). Unadjusted and adjusted analyses were carried out for in-hospital and follow-up outcomes. A total of 923 patients were included from 12 centers, with 146 patients (16%) with LVEF <25%, 425 (46%) with LVEF 25% to 30%, and 352 (38%) with LVEF 31% to 35%. Several baseline and procedural features were different across groups, including age, risk, functional class, and prevalence of bicuspid disease (all p <0.05). In-hospital mortality was similar in the 3 groups (7 [4.8%], 18 [4.2%], and 7 [2.0%], respectively, p = 0.661), but major adverse events were more common in those with extremely reduced and severely reduced LVEF (19 [13%], 53 [13%], and 25 [7.1%], respectively, p = 0.024). The 12-month follow-up confirmed the significant detrimental impact of reduced LVEF on both death (21 [14%], 49 [12%], and 25 [7.1%], respectively, p = 0.024) and major adverse events (37 [25%], 89 [21%], and 53 [15%], respectively, p = 0.016). The adjusted analysis confirmed the significant prognostic role of LVEF on both outcomes, whereas TAVR device type was not associated with death or major adverse events (all p >0.05). In conclusion, TAVR yields favorable early and 1-year results in patients with reduced LVEF, including those with extremely depressed systolic dysfunction. However, reduced LVEF still represents a major adverse prognostic factor for both short- and mid-term outcomes.