Incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of reintervention after mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair.

OBJECTIVE: The use of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) is growing substantially, and reintervention after TEER by way of repeat TEER or mitral valve surgery (MVS) is increasing as a result. In this nationally representative study we examined the incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of reintervention after index TEER. METHODS: Between July 2013 and November 2017, we reviewed 11,396 patients who underwent index TEER using Medicare beneficiary data. These patients were prospectively tracked and identified as having repeat TEER or MVS. Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, 30-day readmission, 30-day composite morbidity, and cumulative survival. RESULTS: Among 11,396 patients who underwent TEER, 548 patients (4.8%) required reintervention after a median time interval of 4.5 months. Overall 30-day mortality was 8.6%, 30-day readmission was 20.9%, and 30-day composite morbidity was 48.2%. According to reintervention type, 294 (53.7%) patients underwent repeat TEER, and 254 (46.3%) underwent MVS. Patients who underwent MVS were more likely to be younger and female, but had a similar comorbidity burden compared with the repeat TEER cohort. After adjustment, there were no differences in 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.26 [95% CI, 0.65-2.45]) or 30-day readmission (AOR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.72-1.81]). MVS was associated with higher 30-day morbidity (AOR, 4.76 [95% CI, 3.17-7.14]) compared with repeat TEER. Requirement for reintervention was an independent risk factor for long-term mortality in a Cox proportional hazard model (hazard ratio, 3.26 [95% CI, 2.53-4.20]). CONCLUSIONS: Reintervention after index TEER is a high-risk procedure that carries a significant mortality burden. This highlights the importance of ensuring procedural success for index TEER to avoid the morbidity of reintervention altogether.

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.

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).

Causes of death from the randomized CoreValve US Pivotal High-Risk Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Explore causes and timing of death from the CoreValve US Pivotal High-Risk Trial. METHODS: An independent clinical events committee adjudicated causes of death, followed by post hoc hierarchical classification. Baseline characteristics, early outcomes, and causes of death were evaluated for 3 time periods (selected based on threshold of surgical 30-day mortality and on the differences in the continuous hazard between the 2 groups): early (0-30 days), recovery (31-120 days), and late (121-365 days). RESULTS: Differences in the rate of death were evident only during the recovery period (31-120 days), whereas 15 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (4.0%) and 27 surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) patients (7.9%) died (P = .025). This mortality difference was largely driven by higher rates of technical failure, surgical complications, and lack of recovery following surgery. From 0 to 30 days, the causes of death were more technical failures in the TAVR group and lack of recovery in the SAVR group. Mortality in the late period (121-365 days) in both arms was most commonly ascribed to other circumstances, comprising death from medical complications from comorbid disease. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality at 1 year in the CoreValve US Pivotal High-Risk Trial favored TAVR over SAVR. The major contributor was that more SAVR patients died during the recovery period (31-121 days), likely affected by the overall influence of physical stress associated with surgery. Similar rates of technical failure and complications were observed between the 2 groups. This suggests that early TAVR results can improve with technical refinements and that high-risk surgical patients will benefit from reducing complications.

Early Clinical Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Using a Novel Self-Expanding Bioprosthesis in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Who Are Suboptimal for Surgery: Results of the Evolut R U.S. Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate this transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) bioprosthesis in patients who are poorly suitable for surgical aortic valve (AV) replacement. BACKGROUND: A novel self-expandable TAV bioprosthesis was designed to provide a low-profile delivery system, conformable annular sealing, and the ability to resheath and reposition during deployment. METHODS: The Evolut R U.S. study included 241 patients with severe aortic stenosis who were deemed to be at least high risk for surgery treated at 23 clinical sites in the United States. Clinical outcomes at 30 days were evaluated using Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. An independent echocardiography laboratory was used to evaluate hemodynamic outcomes. RESULTS: Patients were elderly (83.3 ± 7.2 years of age) and had high surgical risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality of 7.4 ± 3.4%). The majority of patients (89.5%) were treated by iliofemoral access. Resheathing or recapturing was performed in 22.6% of patients; more than 1 valve was required in 3 patients (1.3%). The 30-day outcomes included all-cause mortality (2.5%), disabling stroke (3.3%), major vascular complications (7.5%), life-threatening or disabling bleeding (7.1%), and new permanent pacemaker (16.4%). AV hemodynamics were markedly improved at 30 days: the mean AV gradient was reduced from 48.2 ± 13.0 mm Hg to 7.8 ± 3.1 mm Hg (p < 0.001) and AV area increased from 0.6 ± 0.2 cm2 to 1.9 ± 0.5 cm2 (p < 0.001). Moderate residual paravalvular leak was identified in 5.3% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that this novel self-expanding TAV bioprosthesis is safe and effective for the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis who are suboptimal for surgery. (Medtronic CoreValve Evolut R U.S. Clinical Study; NCT02207569).

Outcomes in the Randomized CoreValve US Pivotal High Risk Trial in Patients With a Society of Thoracic Surgeons Risk Score of 7% or Less.

Importance: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now a well-accepted alternative to surgical AVR (SAVR) for patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis at increased operative risk. There is interest in whether TAVR would benefit patients at lower risk. Objective: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) has trended downward in US TAVR trials and the STS/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. We hypothesized that if the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) alone is sufficient to define decreased risk, the contribution to survival based on the degree of invasiveness of the TAVR procedure will decrease, making it more difficult to show improved survival and benefit over SAVR. Design, Setting, and Participants: The CoreValve US Pivotal High Risk Trial was a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial. This retrospective analysis evaluated patients who underwent an attempted implant and had an STS PROM of 7% or less. The trial was performed at 45 US sites. Patients had severe aortic stenosis and were at increased surgical risk based on their STS PROM score and other risk factors. Interventions: Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to self-expanding TAVR or to SAVR. Main Outcomes and Measures: We retrospectively stratified patients by the overall median STS PROM score (7%) and analyzed clinical outcomes and quality of life using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire in patients with an STS PROM score of 7% or less. Results: The mean (SD) ages were 81.5 (7.6) years for the TAVR group and 81.2 years (6.6) for the SAVR group. A little more than half were men (57.9% in the TAVR group and 55.8% in the SAVR group). Of 750 patients who underwent attempted implantation, 383 (202 TAVR and 181 SAVR) had an STS PROM of 7% or less (median [interquartile range]: TAVR, 5.3% [4.3%-6.1%]; SAVR, 5.3% [4.1%-5.9%]). Two-year all-cause mortality for TAVR vs SAVR was 15.0% (95% CI, 8.9-10.0) vs 26.3% (95% CI, 19.7-33.0) (log rank P = .01). The 2-year rate of stroke for TAVR vs SAVR was 11.3% vs 15.1% (log rank P = .50). Quality of life by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire summary score showed significant and equivalent increases in both groups at 2 years (mean [SD] TAVR, 20.0 [25.0]; SAVR, 18.6 [23.6]; P = .71; both P < .001 compared with baseline). Medical benefit, defined as alive with a Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire summary score of at least 60 and a less than 10-point decrease from baseline, was similar between groups at 2 years (TAVR, 51.0%; SAVR, 44.4%; P = .28). Conclusions and Relevance: Self-expanding TAVR compares favorably with SAVR in high-risk patients with STS PROM scores traditionally considered intermediate risk. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01240902.

3-Year Outcomes in High-Risk Patients Who Underwent Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: In patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased risk for surgery, self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with improved 2-year survival compared with surgery. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether this clinical benefit was sustained over time. METHODS: Patients with severe aortic stenosis deemed at increased risk for surgery by a multidisciplinary heart team were randomized 1:1 to TAVR or open surgical valve replacement (SAVR). Three-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were obtained in those patients with an attempted procedure. RESULTS: A total of 797 patients underwent randomization at 45 U.S. centers; 750 patients underwent an attempted procedure. Three-year all-cause mortality or stroke was significantly lower in TAVR patients (37.3% vs. 46.7% in SAVR; p = 0.006). Adverse clinical outcome components were also reduced in TAVR patients compared with SAVR patients, including all-cause mortality (32.9% vs. 39.1%, respectively; p = 0.068), all stroke (12.6% vs. 19.0%, respectively; p = 0.034), and major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (40.2% vs. 47.9%, respectively; p = 0.025). At 3 years aortic valve hemodynamics were better with TAVR patients (mean aortic valve gradient 7.62 ± 3.57 mm Hg vs. 11.40 ± 6.81 mm Hg in SAVR; p < 0.001), although moderate or severe residual aortic regurgitation was higher in TAVR patients (6.8% vs. 0.0% in SAVR; p < 0.001). There was no clinical evidence of valve thrombosis in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased risk for surgery had improved 3-year clinical outcomes after TAVR compared with surgery. Aortic valve hemodynamics were more favorable in TAVR patients without differences in structural valve deterioration. (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).

2-Year Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Surgical or Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. pivotal trial for the self-expanding valve found that among patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased risk for surgery, the 1-year survival rate was 4.9 percentage points higher in patients treated with a self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve bioprosthesis than in those treated with a surgical bioprosthesis. OBJECTIVES: Longer-term clinical outcomes were examined to confirm if this mortality benefit is sustained. METHODS: Patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at increased surgical risk were recruited. Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the self-expanding transcatheter valve (transcatheter aortic valve replacement [TAVR] group) or to aortic valve replacement with a surgical bioprosthesis (surgical group). The 2-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were evaluated in these patients. RESULTS: A total of 797 patients underwent randomization at 45 centers in the United States. The rate of 2-year all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the TAVR group (22.2%) than in the surgical group (28.6%; log-rank test p < 0.05) in the as-treated cohort, with an absolute reduction in risk of 6.5 percentage points. Similar results were found in the intention-to-treat cohort (log-rank test p < 0.05). The rate of 2-year death or major stroke was significantly lower in the TAVR group (24.2%) than in the surgical group (32.5%; log-rank test p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at increased surgical risk, the higher rate of survival with a self-expanding TAVR compared with surgery was sustained at 2 years. (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).

Self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement using alternative access sites in symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis deemed extreme risk of surgery.

OBJECTIVES: The CoreValve Extreme Risk US Pivotal Trial enrolled patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis deemed unsuitable for surgical aortic valve replacement. Implants were attempted using transfemoral access (n = 489) or an alternative access (n = 150). In present analysis, we sought to examine the safety and efficacy of CoreValve transcatheter aortic valve replacement using alternative access. METHODS: The present study included 150 patients with prohibitive iliofemoral anatomy who were treated with the CoreValve transcatheter heart valve delivered by way of the subclavian artery (n = 70) or a direct aortic approach (n = 80). The echocardiograms were read by an independent core laboratory. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality or major stroke at 12 months. RESULTS: The preoperative aortic valve area was 0.72 ± 0.27 cm(2) and mean aortic valve gradient was 49.5 ± 17.0 mm Hg. After the transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the effective aortic valve area was 1.82 ± 0.64 cm(2) at 1 month and 1.85 ± 0.51 cm(2) at 12 months. The mean aortic valve gradient was 9.7 ± 5.8 mm Hg at 30 days and 9.5 ± 5.7 mm Hg at 12 months. The death or major stroke rate was 15.3% at 30 days and 39.4% at 12 months. The individual rate of all-cause mortality and major stroke was 11.3% and 7.5% at 30 days and 36.0% and 9.1% at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that the CoreValve transcatheter heart valve delivered by an alternative access provides a suitable alternative for treatment of extreme risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, who have prohibitive iliofemoral anatomy and no surgical options.

Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis.

BACKGROUND: We compared transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR), using a self-expanding transcatheter aortic-valve bioprosthesis, with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis and an increased risk of death during surgery. METHODS: We recruited patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at increased surgical risk as determined by the heart team at each study center. Risk assessment included the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predictor Risk of Mortality estimate and consideration of other key risk factors. Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to TAVR with the self-expanding transcatheter valve (TAVR group) or to surgical aortic-valve replacement (surgical group). The primary end point was the rate of death from any cause at 1 year, evaluated with the use of both noninferiority and superiority testing. RESULTS: A total of 795 patients underwent randomization at 45 centers in the United States. In the as-treated analysis, the rate of death from any cause at 1 year was significantly lower in the TAVR group than in the surgical group (14.2% vs. 19.1%), with an absolute reduction in risk of 4.9 percentage points (upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval, -0.4; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P = 0.04 for superiority). The results were similar in the intention-to-treat analysis. In a hierarchical testing procedure, TAVR was noninferior with respect to echocardiographic indexes of valve stenosis, functional status, and quality of life. Exploratory analyses suggested a reduction in the rate of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and no increase in the risk of stroke. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at increased surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding transcatheter aortic-valve bioprosthesis was associated with a significantly higher rate of survival at 1 year than surgical aortic-valve replacement. (Funded by Medtronic; U.S. CoreValve High Risk Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01240902.).

Temporal trends, safety, and efficacy of bivalirudin in elective percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of bivalirudin based therapy among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for stable coronary artery disease in a large multicenter registry. BACKGROUND: The REPLACE I trial demonstrated the non-inferiority of a strategy of bivalirudin compared with heparin and glycoprotein (GP) IIbIIIa inhibition in patients undergoing PCI. There is a paucity of outcome data with bivalirudin use in the setting of real-world PCI practice. METHODS: We evaluated the outcome of 11,719 patients who underwent elective PCI for stable coronary artery disease (CAD) from 2002 to 2004 in a large regional consortium, and who were treated with bivalirudin (n = 2051) or with heparin and GP IIbIIIa inhibitors (n = 9,668). The primary endpoints were transfusion and in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as the composite of death, MI, stroke, and any coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: Compared with patients who received heparin plus GP IIbIIIa inhibitors, patients who received bivalirudin had a similar incidence of post-procedural MI, stroke, in-hospital death, MACE (2.88 vs. 2.48, P = 0.30), or transfusion (2.83% vs. 2.41%, P = 0.27). Patients at greater risk of bleeding were more likely to be treated with bivalirudin. After adjusting for the propensity to receive bivalirudin and for baseline co-morbidities, there was no difference in the odds of MACE or the need for transfusion between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Compared with heparin plus GP IIbIIIa inhibition, use of bivalirudin in patients undergoing PCI for stable CAD is associated with similar ischemic and bleeding complications. Given the ease of administration and lower cost, bivalirudin provides an attractive treatment option in this patient population.