Long-Term Results of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds in Patients With In-Stent Restenosis: The RIBS VI Study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) provide similar results to drug-coated balloons (DCBs) but are inferior to drug-eluting stents (DES) at 1 year. However, the long-term efficacy of BVS in these patients remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of BVS in patients with ISR. METHODS: RIBS VI (Restenosis Intrastent: Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Treatment; NCT02672878) and RIBS VI Scoring (Restenosis Intrastent: Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Treatment With Scoring Balloon; NTC03069066) are prospective multicenter studies designed to evaluate the results of BVS in patients with ISR (N = 220). The inclusion and exclusion criteria were identical to those used in the RIBS IV (ISR of DES) (Restenosis Intra-stent of Drug-eluting Stents: Drug-eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-eluting Stent; NCT01239940) and RIBS V (ISR of bare-metal stents) (Restenosis Intra-stent of Bare Metal Stents: Paclitaxel-eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-eluting Stent; NCT01239953) randomized trials (including 249 ISR patients treated with DCBs and 249 ISR patients treated with DES). A prespecified comparison of the long-term results obtained with these treatment modalities (ie, DES, DCBs, and BVS) was performed. RESULTS: Clinical follow-up at 3 years was obtained in all (100%) 718 patients. The 3-year target lesion revascularization rate after BVS was 14.1% (vs 12.9% after DCBs [not significant], and 5.2% after DES [HR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.47-5.36; P = 0.001]). In a landmark analysis (>1 year), the target lesion revascularization rate after BVS was higher than after DES (adjusted HR: 3.41; 95% CI: 1.15-10.08) and DCBs (adjusted HR: 3.33; 95% CI: 1.14-9.70). Very late vessel thrombosis was also more frequent with BVS (BVS: 1.8%, DCBs: 0.4%, DES: 0%; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ISR, late clinical results of DES are superior to those obtained with DCBs and BVS. Beyond the first year, DCBs are safer and more effective than BVS.

Late bleeding events in TAVI patients receiving vitamin K antagonists or direct oral anticoagulants.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The optimal chronic antithrombotic regimen for patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains uncertain. Our aim was to compare the incidence of late bleeding events between patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and those on vitamin-K antagonists (VKA). METHODS: This single-center observational study included TAVI patients requiring oral anticoagulation at discharge between 2015 and 2021. The primary endpoint was any clinically significant bleeding event. Secondary endpoints were stroke, heart failure, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A total of 702 TAVI procedures were performed, with 297 patients requiring oral anticoagulation at discharge. Among them, 206 (69.4%) received VKA and 91 (30.6%) received DOAC. Baseline clinical, procedural and in-hospital characteristics did not significantly differ between groups, except for better renal function among DOAC patients. The median length of follow-up was 2.8 years. The risk of bleeding events was higher in patients receiving DOACs than in those receiving VKA (HR, 2.27; 95%CI, 1.21-4.26; incidence of 9.7 and 4.2 events per 100 patient-years of follow-up for DOAC and VKA patients, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of stroke (HR, 1.28; 95%CI, 0.4-4.3), heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.92; 95%CI, 0.46-1.86), or all-cause mortality (HR, 1.02; 95%CI, 0.68-1.55). CONCLUSIONS: In older patients undergoing TAVI and receiving anticoagulant therapy for atrial fibrillation, the use of DOAC was associated with a higher risk of late bleeding events than VKA.

Hemodynamic performance of self-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement systems during valve deployment.

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about valve hemodynamic performance during the Evolut and Neo deployment course. We aimed to evaluate transvalvular mean and peak-to-peak gradients over several intraprocedural timepoints during TAVR with Evolut PRO+ (Medtronic) and Neo (Boston Scientific) systems. METHODS: This was single-center pilot sub-study from the SavvyWire EFficacy and SafEty in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Procedures (SAFE-TAVI) trial. Participants received either the Evolut PRO+ or Neo for native valve severe aortic stenosis and the SavvyWire (OpSens Medical) was used for device delivery, pacing, and continuous left ventricular and aortic pressure measurements. For the Evolut, evaluation was done for baseline, two-thirds of valve deployment (still recapturable), 90% of valve deployment (no longer recapturable), and post-deployment hemodynamics. For the Neo, analysis was done at baseline, after the first step (top-crown deployment), and at final status. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were included (Evolut = 15; Neo = 4). There were no statistically significant changes in peak-to-peak gradients (44 mm Hg [IQR:33-69] vs 43 mm Hg [IQR:26-62], P = .41) between baseline and two-thirds of valve deployment in the Evolut patients. There was a significant decrease in mean (40 mm Hg [IQR:32-54] vs 14 mm Hg [IQR:10-18], P less than .001) and peak-to-peak (43 mmHg [IQRS:26-62] vs 9 mm Hg [IQR:8-13], P less than .001) transvalvular gradients between two-thirds and 90% of valve deployment for Evolut. Neo patients exhibited a decrease in transvalvular gradients after top-crown deployment (42.5 mm Hg baseline vs 13 mm Hg). CONCLUSIONS: Transvalvular gradients did not vary between the point of "no-recapture" compared to baseline values in patients receiving the Evolut, whereas a significant reduction in transvalvular gradients was observed when the valve was deployed at 90% and fully deployed. The Neo valve was slightly obstructive after the first step of deployment.

Optimal oversizing in transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the self-expanding Evolut valve system.

OBJECTIVES: Valve oversizing has been associated with reduced paravalvular leaks (PVL) and valve migration risk. However, no optimal cut-off oversizing value has been defined for the Evolut system (Medtronic). The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between the degree of oversizing and moderate-to-severe PVL and determine the optimal oversizing cut-off value. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter study that included 740 consecutive patients with multidetector computed tomography (CT) data. Valve size was selected according to manufacturer recommendations, with oversizing ranging from 10% to 30%. The primary endpoint was moderate-to-severe PVL. RESULTS: The median age was 84 years (79-87 years), with 58.4% women, and a median EuroSCORE II of 4.1% (2.4-7.3%). Moderate-to-severe PVL was observed in 7.0% of the patients. An inverse relationship was found between oversizing and both PVL (11.3%, 8.6%, 5.4%, and 2.7% for quartiles Q1 to Q4; P = .007) and the need for post-dilation (P = .016). The multivariable analysis showed an association between oversizing and PVL (OR: 0.915 for each 1%-increase, P = .002). The optimal oversizing cut-off value to predict PVL was 20%, and PVL was significantly higher in patients with oversizing less than 20% (10.5% vs.4.2%, P less than .001). There were no differences in major clinical events according to the degree of oversizing, and a higher oversizing did not translate into an increased risk of permanent pacemaker (18.4% vs18.3%, P = .976). CONCLUSIONS: In TAVR with the Evolut valve, a higher oversizing was associated with lower rates of moderate-to-severe PVL and a lower need for post-dilation, with no negative impact on procedural and early clinical outcomes. A 20% oversizing threshold could be suggested to reduce PVLs. Further prospective studies are warranted to validate optimal oversizing for this valve system.

Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and Small Aortic Annulus: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment in patients with severe aortic stenosis and small aortic annulus (SAA) remains to be determined. This study aimed to compare the hemodynamic and clinical outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with a SAA. METHODS: This prospective multicenter international randomized trial was performed in 15 university hospitals. Participants were 151 patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA (mean diameter <23 mm) randomized (1:1) to TAVR (n=77) versus SAVR (n=74). The primary outcome was impaired valve hemodynamics (ie, severe prosthesis patient mismatch or moderate-severe aortic regurgitation) at 60 days as evaluated by Doppler echocardiography and analyzed in a central echocardiography core laboratory. Clinical events were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The mean age of the participants was 75.5±5.1 years, with 140 (93%) women, a median Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality of 2.50% (interquartile range, 1.67%-3.28%), and a median annulus diameter of 21.1 mm (interquartile range, 20.4-22.0 mm). There were no differences between groups in the rate of severe prosthesis patient mismatch (TAVR, 4 [5.6%]; SAVR, 7 [10.3%]; P=0.30) and moderate-severe aortic regurgitation (none in both groups). No differences were found between groups in mortality rate (TAVR, 1 [1.3%]; SAVR, 1 [1.4%]; P=1.00) and stroke (TAVR, 0; SAVR, 2 [2.7%]; P=0.24) at 30 days. After a median follow-up of 2 (interquartile range, 1-4) years, there were no differences between groups in mortality rate (TAVR, 7 [9.1%]; SAVR, 6 [8.1%]; P=0.89), stroke (TAVR, 3 [3.9%]; SAVR, 3 [4.1%]; P=0.95), and cardiac hospitalization (TAVR, 15 [19.5%]; SAVR, 15 [20.3%]; P=0.80). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA (women in the majority), there was no evidence of superiority of contemporary TAVR versus SAVR in valve hemodynamic results. After a median follow-up of 2 years, there were no differences in clinical outcomes between groups. These findings suggest that the 2 therapies represent a valid alternative for treating patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA, and treatment selection should likely be individualized according to baseline characteristics, additional anatomical risk factors, and patient preference. However, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution because of the limited sample size leading to an underpowered study, and need to be confirmed in future larger studies. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03383445.

Safety and Efficacy of TAVR With a Pressure Sensor and Pacing Guidewire: SAFE-TAVI Trial.

BACKGROUND: The SavvyWire (OpSens Inc) is a 0.035-inch preshaped guidewire with dedicated pacing properties and a distal pressure sensor allowing for continuous hemodynamic pressure monitoring. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the efficacy and safety of the guidewire during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter clinical study included patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR in 8 European centers. The primary efficacy endpoint was defined as effective left ventricular rapid pacing runs with the guidewire translating into a significant systemic pressure drop (below 60 mm Hg). The safety outcome included the absence of major procedural complications related to the guidewire. RESULTS: A total of 121 patients (mean age: 82.2 ± 5.9 years, 50% women) were included in the study, and 119 (98.3%) patients were finally treated with the study device. A balloon-expandable valve was implanted in 45 (37.8%) patients. Predilatation and postdilatation were performed in 89 (74.8%) and 14 (11.8%) patients, respectively. The primary efficacy endpoint was achieved in 116 (98.3%) patients, and the mean aortic systolic arterial pressure achieved during rapid pacing was 46.6 ± 11.3 mm Hg. Hemodynamic assessment with the use of the OptoMonitor 3 (OpSens Inc) without additional catheter exchange was achieved in 117 (99.2%) patients. The safety endpoint was achieved in 117 (99.2%) patients. No procedural mortality, stroke, or ventricular perforation was reported. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the guidewire during TAVR procedures appeared to be efficacious and safe. This device could help minimize interventions during the procedure and improve the clinical decision making after transcatheter heart valve deployment. (SavvyWire Efficacy and Safety in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Procedures [SAFE-TAVI]; NCT05492383).