One-Year Outcomes From the CLASP IID Randomized Trial for Degenerative Mitral Regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: The CLASP IID (Edwards PASCAL TrAnScatheter Valve RePair System Pivotal Clinical) trial is the first randomized controlled trial comparing the PASCAL system and the MitraClip system in prohibitive risk patients with significant symptomatic degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR). OBJECTIVES: The study sought to report primary and secondary endpoints and 1-year outcomes for the full cohort of the CLASP IID trial. METHODS: Prohibitive-risk patients with 3+/4+ DMR were randomized 2:1 (PASCAL:MitraClip). One-year assessments included secondary effectiveness endpoints (mitral regurgitation [MR] ≤2+ and MR ≤1+), and clinical, echocardiographic, functional, and quality-of-life outcomes. Primary safety (30-day composite major adverse events [MAE]) and effectiveness (6-month MR ≤2+) endpoints were assessed for the full cohort. RESULTS: Three hundred patients were randomized (PASCAL: n = 204; MitraClip: n = 96). At 1 year, differences in survival, freedom from heart failure hospitalization, and MAE were nonsignificant (P > 0.05 for all). Noninferiority of the PASCAL system compared with the MitraClip system persisted for the primary endpoints in the full cohort (For PASCAL vs MitraClip, the 30-day MAE rates were 4.6% vs 5.4% with a rate difference of -0.8% and 95% upper confidence bound of 4.6%. The 6-month MR≤2+ rates were 97.9% vs 95.7% with a rate difference of 2.2% and 95% lower confidence bound (LCB) of -2.5%, for, respectively). Noninferiority was met for the secondary effectiveness endpoints at 1 year (MR≤2+ rates for PASCAL vs MitraClip were 95.8% vs 93.8% with a rate difference of 2.1% and 95% LCB of -4.1%. The MR≤1+ rates were 77.1% vs 71.3% with a rate difference of 5.8% and 95% LCB of -5.3%, respectively). Significant improvements in functional classification and quality of life were sustained in both groups (P <0.05 for all vs baseline). CONCLUSIONS: The CLASP IID trial full cohort met primary and secondary noninferiority endpoints, and at 1 year, the PASCAL system demonstrated high survival, significant MR reduction, and sustained improvements in functional and quality-of-life outcomes. Results affirm the PASCAL system as a beneficial therapy for prohibitive-surgical-risk patients with significant symptomatic DMR.

1-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair in Anatomically Complex Degenerative Mitral Regurgitation Patients.

BACKGROUND: Favorable 6-month outcomes from the CLASP IID Registry (Edwards PASCAL transcatheter valve repair system pivotal clinical trial) demonstrated that mitral valve transcatheter edge-to-edge repair with the PASCAL transcatheter valve repair system is safe and beneficial for treating prohibitive surgical risk degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR) patients with complex mitral valve anatomy. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to assess 1-year safety, echocardiographic and clinical outcomes from the CLASP IID Registry. METHODS: Patients with 3+ or 4+ DMR who were at prohibitive surgical risk, had complex mitral valve anatomy based on the MitraClip Instructions for Use, and deemed suitable for treatment with the PASCAL system were enrolled prospectively. Safety, clinical, echocardiographic, functional, and quality-of-life outcomes were assessed at 1 year. Study oversight included a central screening committee, echocardiographic core laboratory, and clinical events committee. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were enrolled. One-year Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates of freedom from composite major adverse events, all-cause mortality, and heart failure hospitalization were 83.5%, 89.3%, and 91.5%, respectively. Significant mitral regurgitation (MR) reduction was achieved at 1 year (P < 0.001 vs baseline) including 93.2% at MR ≤2+ and 57.6% at MR ≤1+ with improvements in related echocardiographic measures. NYHA functional class and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score also improved significantly (P < 0.001 vs baseline). CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year, treatment with the PASCAL system demonstrated safety and significant MR reduction, with continued improvement in clinical, echocardiographic, functional, and quality-of-life outcomes, illustrating the value of the PASCAL system in the treatment of prohibitive surgical risk patients with 3+ or 4+ DMR and complex mitral valve anatomy.

Heart failure medical therapy prior to mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair: the STS/ACC Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is recommended before mitral valve transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (MTEER) in patients with heart failure (HF) and severe functional mitral regurgitation (FMR). Whether MTEER is being performed on the background of optimal GDMT in clinical practice is unknown. METHODS: Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50% who underwent MTEER for FMR from 23 July 2019 to 31 March 2022 in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry were identified. Pre-procedure GDMT utilization was assessed. Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to evaluate associations between pre-MTEER therapy (no/single, double, or triple therapy) and risk of 1-year mortality or HF hospitalization (HFH). RESULTS: Among 4199 patients across 449 sites, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors were used in 85.1%, 44.4%, 28.6%, and 19.9% before MTEER, respectively. Triple therapy was prescribed for 19.2%, double therapy for 38.2%, single therapy for 36.0%, and 6.5% were on no GDMT. Significant centre-level variation in the proportion of patients on pre-intervention triple therapy was observed (0%-61%; adjusted median odds ratio 1.48 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-3.88]; P < .001). In patients eligible for 1-year follow-up (n = 2014; 341 sites), the composite rate of 1-year mortality or HFH was lowest in patients prescribed triple therapy (23.0%) compared with double (24.8%), single (35.7%), and no (41.1%) therapy (P < .01 comparing across groups). Associations persisted after accounting for relevant clinical characteristics, with lower risk in patients prescribed triple therapy [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.73, 95% CI .55-.97] and double therapy (aHR 0.69, 95% CI .56-.86) before MTEER compared with no/single therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Under one-fifth of patients with LVEF <50% who underwent MTEER for FMR in this US nationwide registry were prescribed comprehensive GDMT, with substantial variation across sites. Compared with no/single therapy, triple and double therapy before MTEER were independently associated with reduced risk of mortality or HFH 1 year after intervention.

Comparison of Postdischarge Outcomes Between Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement and Reoperative Surgical Mitral Valve Replacement.

Limited data are available comparing the postdischarge perioperative outcomes of isolated valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement (VIV-TMVR) versus surgical reoperative mitral valve replacement (re-SMVR) on a nationwide scale. The objective of this study was to perform a robust head-to-head assessment of contemporary postdischarge outcomes between isolated VIV-TMVR and re-SMVR using a large national multicenter longitudinal database. Adult patients aged ≥18 years with failed/degenerated bioprosthetic mitral valves who underwent either isolated VIV-TMVR or re-SMVR were identified in the 2015 to 2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database. The risk-adjusted differences in 30-, 90-, and 180-day outcomes were compared using propensity score weighting with overlap weights to mimic the results of a randomized controlled trial. The differences between a transeptal and transapical VIV-TMVR approach were also compared. A total of 687 patients with VIV-TMVR and 2,047 patients with re-SMVR were included. After the overlap weighting to attain balance between treatment groups, VIV-TMVR was associated with significantly lower major morbidity within 30 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)] 0.0.31 [0.22 to 0.46]), 90 (0.34 [0.23 to 0.50]), and 180 (0.35 [0.24 to 0.51]) days. The differences in major morbidity were primarily driven by less major bleeding (0.20 [0.14 to 0.30]), new onset complete heart block (0.48 [0.28 to 0.84]) and need for permanent pacemaker placement (0.26 [0.12 to 0.55]). The differences in renal failure and stroke were not significant. VIV-TMVR was also associated with shorter index hospital stays (median difference [95% CI] -7.0 [4.9 to 9.1] days) and an increased ability for patients to be discharged home (odds ratio [95% CI] 3.35 [2.37 to 4.72]). There were no significant differences in total hospital costs; in-hospital or 30-, 90-, and 180-day mortality; or readmission. The findings remained similar when stratifying the VIV-TMVR access using a transeptal versus a transapical approach. The changes in outcomes over time suggest marked improvements for patients with VIV-TMVR relative to stagnant results for patients with re-SMVR from 2015 to 2019. In this large nationally representative cohort of patients with failed/degenerated bioprosthetic mitral valves, VIV-TMVR appears to confer a short-term advantage over re-SMVR in terms of morbidity, discharge home, and length of stay. It yielded equivalent outcomes for mortality and readmission. Longer-term studies are needed to assess further follow-up beyond 180 days.

Impact of concomitant aortic stenosis on the management and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction hospitalizations in the United States.

Objective: To evaluate the prevalence, management and outcomes of concomitant aortic stenosis (AS) in admissions with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Methods: We used the HCUP-NIS database (2000-2017) to identify adult AMI admissions with concomitant AS. Outcomes of interest included prevalence of AS, in-hospital mortality, use of cardiac procedures, hospitalization costs, length of stay, and discharge disposition. Results: Among a total of 11,622,528 AMI admissions, 513,688 (4.4 %) were identified with concomitant AS. Adjusted temporal trends revealed an increase in STEMI and NSTEMI hospitalizations with concomitant AS. Compared to admissions without AS, those with AS were on average older, of female sex, had higher comorbidity, higher rates of NSTEMI (78.9 % vs 62.1 %), acute non-cardiac organ failure, and cardiogenic shock. Concomitant AS was associated with significantly lower use of coronary angiography (45.5 % vs 64.4 %), percutaneous coronary intervention (20.1 % vs 42.5 %), coronary atherectomy (1.7 % vs. 2.8 %) and mechanical circulatory support (3.5 % vs 4.8 %) (all p < 0.001). Admissions with AS had higher rates of coronary artery bypass surgery and surgical aortic valve replacement (5.9 % vs 0.1 %) compared to those without AS. Admissions with AMI and AS had higher in-hospital mortality (9.2 % vs. 6.0 %; adjusted OR 1.12 [95 % CI 1.10-1.13]; p <0.001). Concomitant AS was associated with longer hospital stay, more frequent palliative care consultations and less frequent discharges to home. Conclusions: In this 18-year study, an increase in prevalence of AS in AMI hospitalization was noted. Concomitant AS was associated with lower use of guideline-directed therapies and worse clinical outcomes among AMI admissions.

Association Between Peripheral Versus Central Access for Alternative Access Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Mortality and Stroke: A Report From the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry.

BACKGROUND: In some patients, the alternative access route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is utilized because the conventional transfemoral approach is not felt to be either feasible or optimal. However, accurate prognostication of patient risks is not well established. This study examines the associations between peripheral (transsubclavian/transaxillary, and transcarotid) versus central access (transapical and transaortic) in alternative access TAVR and 30-day and 1-year end points of mortality and stroke for all valve platforms. METHODS: Using data from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry with linkage to Medicare claims, patients who underwent alternative access TAVR from June 1, 2015 to June 30, 2018 were identified. Adjusted and unadjusted Cox proportional hazards modeling were performed to determine the association between alternate access TAVR site and 30-day and 1-year end points of mortality and stroke. RESULTS: Of 7187 alternative access TAVR patients, 3725 (52%) had peripheral access and 3462 (48%) had central access. All-cause mortality was significantly lower in peripheral access versus central access group at in-hospital and 1 year (2.9% versus 6.3% and 20.3% versus 26.6%, respectively), but stroke rates were higher (5.0% versus 2.8% and 7.3% versus 5.5%, respectively; all P<0.001). These results persisted after 1-year adjustment (death adjusted hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.62-0.85] and stroke adjusted hazard ratio, 2.92 [95% CI, 2.21-3.85]). When broken down by individual subtypes, compared with transaxillary/subclavian access patients, transapical, and transaortic access patients had higher all-cause mortality but less stroke (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world, contemporary, nationally representative benchmarking study of alternate access TAVR sites, peripheral access was associated with favorable mortality and morbidity outcomes compared with central access, at the expense of higher stroke. These findings may allow for accurate prognostication of risk for patient counseling and decision-making for the heart team with regard to alternative access TAVR.

Exploring experiences associated with aortic stenosis diagnosis, treatment and life impact among middle-aged and older adults.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although multiple studies have examined the clinical aspects of diagnosis, treatment, and management of patients with aortic stenosis (AS), limited data exist regarding patient experiences related to symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, and personal impacts of living with AS. METHODOLOGY: Adults aged ≥40 years diagnosed with AS were recruited and separated into three cohorts: medically managed, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Forty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted (15 per treatment group) via teleconference using open-ended questions and probes. Interview recordings were transcribed, and inductive thematic analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The majority of participants were male (55.6%), White (95.6%), and non-Hispanic (93.3%). Participants noting longer times to diagnosis also reported mild symptom onset and experiences of misdiagnoses. Participants described a strong reliance on their health care professionals (HCPs) to guide them through their treatment decisions, which were influenced by the effects of anticoagulation, future valve interventions, and recovery. Medically managed participants reported having to make lifestyle modifications to manage symptoms, while participants who underwent TAVI or SAVR reported positive sentiments in their ability to return to normal life following their treatment. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Due to the varied experiences of AS patients, there is a need to improve patient resources to advance patient understanding and facilitate informed treatment decisions. Reported experiences also indicate a need for additional HCP education on early referral to a multidisciplinary heart valve team.

Trends in Utilization of Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Despite the rapid growth of aortic valve replacement (AVR) for aortic stenosis (AS), limited data suggest symptomatic severe AS remains undertreated. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate temporal trends in AVR utilization among patients with a clinical indication for AVR. METHODS: Patients with severe AS (aortic valve area <1 cm2) on transthoracic echocardiograms from 2000 to 2017 at 2 large academic medical centers were classified based on clinical guideline indications for AVR and divided into 4 AS subgroups: high gradient with normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (HG-NEF), high gradient with low LVEF (HG-LEF), low gradient with normal LVEF (LG-NEF), and low gradient with low LVEF (LG-LEF). Utilization of AVR was examined and predictors identified. RESULTS: Of 10,795 patients, 6,150 (57%) had an indication or potential indication for AVR, of whom 2,977 (48%) received AVR. The frequency of AVR varied by AS subtype with LG groups less likely to receive an AVR (HG-NEF: 70%, HG-LEF: 53%, LG-NEF: 32%, LG-LEF: 38%, P < 0.001). AVR volumes grew over the 18-year study period but were paralleled by comparable growth in the number of patients with an indication for AVR. In patients with a Class I indication, younger age, coronary artery disease, smoking history, higher hematocrit, outpatient index transthoracic echocardiogram, and LVEF ≥0.5 were independently associated with an increased likelihood of receiving an AVR. AVR was associated with improved survival in each AS-subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Over an 18-year period, the proportion of patients with an indication for AVR who did not receive AVR has remained substantial despite the rapid growth of AVR volumes.

Association of Myocardial Blood Flow Reserve With Adverse Left Ventricular Remodeling in Patients With Aortic Stenosis: The Microvascular Disease in Aortic Stenosis (MIDAS) Study.

Importance: Impaired myocardial flow reserve (MFR) and stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) on positron emission tomography (PET) myocardial perfusion imaging may identify adverse myocardial characteristics, including myocardial stress and injury in aortic stenosis (AS). Objective: To investigate whether MFR and stress MBF are associated with LV structure and function derangements, and whether these parameters improve after aortic valve replacement (AVR). Design, Setting, and Participants: In this single-center prospective observational study in Boston, Massachusetts, from 2018 to 2020, patients with predominantly moderate to severe AS underwent ammonia N13 PET myocardial perfusion imaging for myocardial blood flow (MBF) quantification, resting transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) for assessment of myocardial structure and function, and measurement of circulating biomarkers for myocardial injury and wall stress. Evaluation of health status and functional capacity was also performed. A subset of patients underwent repeated assessment 6 months after AVR. A control group included patients without AS matched for age, sex, and summed stress score who underwent symptom-prompted ammonia N13 PET and TTE within 90 days. Exposures: MBF and MFR quantified on ammonia N13 PET myocardial perfusion imaging. Main Outcomes and Measures: LV structure and function parameters, including echocardiographic global longitudinal strain (GLS), circulating high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-cTnT), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-pro BNP), health status, and functional capacity. Results: There were 34 patients with AS (1 mild, 9 moderate, and 24 severe) and 34 matched control individuals. MFR was independently associated with GLS and LV ejection fraction, (ß,-0.31; P = .03; ß, 0.41; P = .002, respectively). Stress MBF was associated with hs-cTnT (unadjusted ß, -0.48; P = .005) and log NT-pro BNP (unadjusted ß, -0.37; P = .045). The combination of low stress MBF and high hs-cTnT was associated with higher interventricular septal thickness in diastole, relative wall thickness, and worse GLS compared with high stress MBF and low hs-cTnT (12.4 mm vs 10.0 mm; P = .008; 0.62 vs 0.46; P = .02; and -13.47 vs -17.11; P = .006, respectively). In 9 patients studied 6 months after AVR, mean (SD) MFR improved from 1.73 (0.57) to 2.11 (0.50) (P = .008). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, in AS, MFR and stress MBF were associated with adverse myocardial characteristics, including markers of myocardial injury and wall stress, suggesting that MFR may be an early sensitive marker for myocardial decompensation.

Association Between Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid vs Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis and Mortality or Stroke Among Patients at Low Surgical Risk.

Importance: There are limited data on outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for bicuspid aortic stenosis in patients at low surgical risk. Objective: To compare the outcomes of TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis in patients who are at low surgical risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: Registry-based cohort study of patients undergoing TAVR at 684 US centers. Participants were enrolled in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapies Registry from June 2015 to October 2020. Among 159 661 patients (7058 bicuspid, 152 603 tricuspid), 37 660 patients (3243 bicuspid and 34 417 tricuspid) who were at low surgical risk (defined as STS risk score <3%) were included in the analysis. Exposures: TAVR for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Coprimary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year mortality and stroke. Secondary outcomes included procedural complications and valve hemodynamics. Results: Among 159 661 patients (7058 bicuspid; 152 603 tricuspid), 3168 propensity-matched pairs of patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic stenosis at low surgical risk were analyzed (mean age, 69 years; 69.8% men; mean [SD] STS-predicted risk of mortality, 1.7% [0.6%] for bicuspid and 1.7% [0.7%] for tricuspid). There was no significant difference between the bicuspid and tricuspid groups' rates of death at 30 days (0.9% vs 0.8%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.18 [95% CI, 0.68-2.03]; P = .55) and at 1 year (4.6% vs 6.6%; HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.55-1.02]; P = .06) or stroke at 30 days (1.4% vs 1.2%; HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.73-1.78]; P = .55) and at 1 year (2.0% vs 2.1%; HR 1.03 [95% CI, 0.69-1.53]; P = .89).There were no significant differences between the bicuspid and tricuspid groups in procedural complications, valve hemodynamics (aortic valve gradient: 13.2 mm Hg vs 13.5 mm Hg; absolute risk difference [RD], 0.3 mm Hg [95% CI, -0.9 to 0.3 mm Hg]), and moderate or severe paravalvular leak (3.4% vs 2.1%; absolute RD, 1.3% [95% CI, -0.6% to 3.2%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this preliminary, registry-based study of propensity-matched patients at low surgical risk who had undergone TAVR for aortic stenosis, patients treated for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis had no significant difference in mortality or stroke at 30 days or 1 year. Because of the potential for selection bias and absence of a control group treated surgically for bicuspid aortic stenosis, randomized trials are needed to adequately assess the efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid aortic stenosis in patients at low surgical risk.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in a Young Patient With Mandibuloacral Dysplasia.

A young woman with mandibuloacral dysplasia, a syndrome on the progeria spectrum with accelerated vascular calcification and calcific valve stenosis, presented with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. She underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement with a balloon-expandable valve, and her exertional symptoms improved significantly. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

Preventing Coronary Obstruction During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Results From the Multicenter International BASILICA Registry.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the safety of the BASILICA (bioprosthetic or native aortic scallop intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction) procedure. BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement causes coronary artery obstruction in 0.7% of cases, with 40% to 50% mortality. BASILICA is a procedure to prevent coronary obstruction. Safety and feasibility in a large patient cohort is lacking. METHODS: The international BASILICA registry was a retrospective, multicenter, real-world registry of patients at risk of coronary artery obstruction undergoing BASILICA and transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions were used to adjudicate events. RESULTS: Between June 2017 and December 2020, 214 patients were included from 25 centers in North America and Europe; 72.8% had bioprosthetic aortic valves and 78.5% underwent solo BASILICA. Leaflet traversal was successful in 94.9% and leaflet laceration in 94.4%. Partial or complete coronary artery obstruction was seen in 4.7%. Procedure success, defined as successful BASILICA traversal and laceration without mortality, coronary obstruction, or emergency intervention, was achieved in 86.9%. Thirty-day mortality was 2.8% and stroke was 2.8%, with 0.5% disabling stroke. Thirty-day death and disabling stroke were seen in 3.4%. Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 composite safety was achieved in 82.8%. One-year survival was 83.9%. Outcomes were similar between solo and doppio BASILICA, between native and bioprosthetic valves, and with the use of cerebral embolic protection. CONCLUSIONS: BASILICA is safe, with low reported rates of stroke and death. BASILICA is feasible in the real-world setting, with a high procedure success rate and low rates of coronary artery obstruction.

Valve-in-Surgical-Valve With SAPIEN 3 for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Based on Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality.

BACKGROUND: The use of valve-in-valve­transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) in degenerated aortic bioprosthesis has been increasing, but the Food and Drug Administration approval is limited to high-risk patients. We analyzed the real-world experience of SAPIEN 3 VIV-TAVR, especially in lower-risk patients, based on the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score. METHODS: All transfemoral VIV-TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 and Ultra valves between June 2015 and January 2020 were identified using the STS/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapies Registry. Patients were grouped based on STS score (low score: <4%, intermediate score: 4%≤ and≤8%, high score: >8%). Propensity-matched (1:3) analysis was conducted to compare to patients undergoing native TAVR. RESULTS: Of 145 917 SAPIEN 3 TAVR patients, 4460 (3%) underwent transfemoral VIV-TAVR with available baseline STS data in 4276 patients. Average age was 73.9±11.2, 66.4% were male, and the mean STS score was 6.9±6.0%. Overall 30-day mortality was 2.4% (observed to expected ratio, 0.33), and 1-year mortality was 10.8%. 30-day mortality and observed to expected ratio were 0.9% and 0.32 in low-score, 2.2% and 0.38 in the intermediate-score, and 4.3% and 0.31 in the high-score group. Based on propensity-matched analysis, 30-day mortality was similar and 1-year mortality was lower in VIV compared to native TAVR among all risk groups. When the groups were analyzed based on the Heart Team risk stratification using high-risk and non­high risk, the findings remained consistent. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study, VIV-TAVR had excellent 30-day and 1-year outcomes, especially in lower-risk patients. These findings may suggest the feasibility and expansion of VIV-TAVR in lower-risk patients. However, long-term follow-up continues to be crucial.

Short-Term Outcomes of Transcatheter Versus Isolated Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Mediastinal Radiation-Associated Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is associated with adverse outcomes in patients with radiation-associated aortic stenosis. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may improve outcomes in this population. METHODS: We evaluated 1668 TAVR and 2611 patients with SAVR enrolled in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons' database between 2011 and 2018. Multiple logistic regression was used to compare 30- day outcomes between TAVR and SAVR. Propensity-matched analysis was performed to confirm results of the overall cohort. Additionally, the cohort was stratified into early (2011-2014) versus contemporary (2015-2018) TAVR eras, and 30-day outcomes for TAVR and SAVR were compared. Finally, outcomes with transfemoral TAVR versus SAVR were compared. RESULTS: In the overall cohort, TAVR was associated with significantly reduced 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR]TAVR/SAVR=0.60 [0.40-0.91]). Postoperative atrial fibrillation, pneumonia, pleural effusion, renal failure, and bleeding also occurred less frequently with TAVR. Stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA; ORTAVR/SAVR, 2.03 [1.09-3.77]) and pacemaker implantation (ORTAVR/SAVR, 1.62 [1.21-2.17]) were higher with TAVR. Propensity-matched analysis yielded similar results as the overall cohort. Following stratification by era, TAVR versus SAVR was associated with reduced 30-day mortality in the contemporary but not early era (OREarly, 0.78 [0.48-1.28]; ORContemporary, 0.31 [0.14-0.65]). Pacemaker implantation was higher with TAVR versus SAVR in both eras (OREarly, 1.60 [1.03-2.46]; ORContemporary, 1.64 [1.10-2.45]). There was also a nonsignificant trend towards increased stroke/TIA with TAVR during both eras (OREarly, 1.39 [0.58-3.36]; ORContemporary, 2.46 [0.99-6.10]). Finally, transfemoral TAVR (N=1369) versus SAVR revealed similar findings as the overall cohort; however, the association of TAVR with stroke/TIA was not statistically significant (ORStroke/TIA, 1.57 [0.79-3.09]). CONCLUSIONS: TAVR provides an effective and evolving alternative to SAVR for radiation-associated severe aortic stenosis and was associated with lower 30-day mortality and postoperative complications. TAVR was associated with increased pacemaker implantation and a trend towards increased stroke/TIA. In this unique population with extensive valvular and vascular calcifications, the risk of stroke/TIA with TAVR requires careful consideration and further investigation.