Impact of Access Site on Periprocedural Bleeding and Cerebral and Coronary Events in High-Bleeding-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Findings from the RIVA-PCI Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The preference for using transradial access (TRA) over transfemoral access (TFA) in patients requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is based on evidence suggesting that TRA is associated with less bleeding and fewer vascular complications, shorter hospital stays, improved quality of life, and a potential beneficial effect on mortality. We have limited study data comparing the two access routes in a patient population with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing PCI, who have a particular increased risk of bleeding, while AF itself is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism. METHODS: Using data from the RIVA-PCI registry, which includes patients with AF undergoing PCI, we analyzed a high-bleeding-risk (HBR) cohort. These patients were predominantly on oral anticoagulants (OAC) for AF, and the PCI was performed via radial or femoral access. Endpoints examined were in-hospital bleeding (BARC 2-5), cerebral events (TIA, hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke) and coronary events (stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction). RESULTS: Out of 1636 patients, 854 (52.2%) underwent TFA, while 782 (47.8%) underwent the procedure via TRA, including nine patients with brachial artery puncture. The mean age was 75.5 years. Groups were similar in terms of age, sex distribution, AF type, cardiovascular history, risk factors, and comorbidities, except for a higher incidence of previous bypass surgeries, heart failure, hyperlipidemia, and chronic kidney disease (CKD) with a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) < 60 ml/min in the TFA group. No clinically relevant differences in antithrombotic therapy and combinations were present at the time of PCI. However, upon discharge, transradial PCI patients had a higher rate of triple therapy, while dual therapy was preferred after transfemoral procedures. Radial access was more frequently chosen for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and unstable angina pectoris (UAP) cases (NSTEMI 26.6% vs. 17.0%, p < 0.0001; UAP 21.5% vs. 14.5%, p < 0.001), while femoral access was more common for elective PCI (60.3% vs. 44.1%, p < 0.0001). No differences were observed for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Both groups had similar rates of cerebral events (TFA 0.2% vs. TRA 0.3%, p = 0.93), but the TFA group had a higher incidence of bleeding (BARC 2-5) (4.2% vs. 1.5%, p < 0.01), mainly driven by BARC 3 bleeding (1.5% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.05). No significant differences were found for stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction (TFA 0.2% vs. TRA 0.3%, p = 0.93; TFA 0.4% vs. TRA 0.1%, p = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: In HBR patients with AF undergoing PCI for acute or chronic coronary syndrome, the use of TRA might be associated with a decrease in in-hospital bleeding, while not increasing the risk of embolic or ischemic events compared to femoral access. Further studies are required to confirm these preliminary findings.

Current status of antithrombotic therapy and in-hospital outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about current patterns of antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in clinical practice in Germany. METHODS: The RIVA-PCI is a prospective, non-interventional, multicenter study with follow-up until hospital discharge including consecutive patients with AF undergoing PCI. RESULTS: Between January 2018 and March 2020, 1636 patients (elective in 52.6%, non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome [NSTE-ACS] in 39.3%, ST-elevation myocardial infarction in 8.2%) from 51 German hospitals were enrolled in the study. After PCI a dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT) consisting of OAC and a P2Y12 inhibitor was given to 66.0%, triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT) to 26.0%, dual antiplatelet therapy to 5.5%, and a mono-therapy to 2.5% of the patients. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were given to 82.4% and vitamin K antagonists to 11.5% of the patients. In-hospital events included death in 12 cases (0.7%), myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and ischemic stroke in four (0.2%) patients each, while 2.8% of patients had bleeding complications. The recommended durations for DAT or TAT at discharge were 1 month (1.5%), 3 months (2.1%), 6 months (43.1%), and 12 months (45.6%), with a 6-month course of DAT (47.7%) most often recommended after elective PCI and a 12-month course of DAT (40.1%) after ACS. CONCLUSION: The preferred therapy after PCI in patients with AF is DAT with a NOAC and clopidogrel. In-hospital ischemic and bleeding events were rare. The recommended durations for combination therapy vary considerably.

Rivaroxaban in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Who Underwent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Clinical Practice.

Little is known about the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in clinical practice. We therefore conducted a prospective observational study to determine the rate of ischemic, embolic, and bleeding events in patients with AF and PCI treated with rivaroxaban in a real-world experience. The RIVA-PCI ("rivaroxaban in patients with AF who underwent PCI") (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03315650) is a prospective, noninterventional, multicenter study with a follow-up until 14 months, including patients with AF who underwent PCI discharged with rivaroxaban. Between January 2018 and March 2020, 700 patients with PCI treated with rivaroxaban (elective in 50.1%, non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome 43.0%, ST-elevation myocardial infarction in 6.9%) were enrolled at 51 German hospitals. After PCI, a dual antithrombotic therapy consisting of rivaroxaban and a P2Y12 inhibitor was administered in 70.7% and triple antithrombotic therapy in 27.9%, respectively. Follow-up information could be obtained in 695 patients (99.3%). Rivaroxaban has been stopped prematurely in 21.6% of patients. Clinical events under rivaroxaban during the 14-month follow-up compared with those observed in the PIONEER-AF PCI trial included cardiovascular death (2.0% % vs 2.0%), myocardial infarction (0.9% vs 3.0%), stent thrombosis (0.2% vs 0.8%), stroke (1.3% vs 1.3%), International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major (4.2% vs 3.9%), and International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding (15.3% vs 12.9%). Therefore, in this real-world experience, rivaroxaban in patients with AF who underwent PCI is associated with ischemic and bleeding event rates comparable with those observed in the randomized PIONEER-AF PCI trial.

Hemodynamic Performance of Two Current-Generation Transcatheter Heart Valve Prostheses in Severely Calcified Aortic Valve Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of severely calcified aortic valve stenosis is associated with a higher rate of paravalvular leakage (PVL) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI). We hypothesized that the self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (THV) prostheses Evolut Pro (EPro) is comparable to the balloon-expandable Sapien 3 (S3) regarding hemodynamics, PPI, and clinical outcome in these patients. METHODS: From 2014 to 2019, all patients with very severe calcification of the aortic valve who received an EPro or an S3 THV were included. Propensity score matching was utilized to create two groups of 170 patients. RESULTS: At discharge, there was significant difference in transvalvular gradients (EPro vs. S3) (dPmean 8.1 vs. 11.1 mmHg, p ≤ 0.001) and indexed effective orifice area (EOAi) (1.1 vs. 0.9, p ≤ 0.001), as well as predicted EOAi (1 vs. 0.9, p ≤ 0.001). Moderate patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM) was significantly lower in the EPro group (17.7% vs. 38%, p ≤ 0.001), as well as severe PPM (2.9% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.03). PPI and the PVL rate as well as stroke, bleeding, vascular complication, and 30-day mortality were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severely calcified aortic valves, both THVs performed similarly in terms of 30-day mortality, PPI rate, and PVL occurrence. However, patient prothesis mismatch was observed more often in the S3 group, which might be due to the intra-annular design.

High-sensitivity cardiac troponin I after coronary artery bypass grafting for post-operative decision-making.

AIMS: Current troponin cut-offs suggested for the post-operative workup of patients following coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery are based on studies using non-high-sensitive troponin assays or are arbitrarily chosen. We aimed to identify an optimal cut-off and timing for a proprietary high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) assay to facilitate post-operative clinical decision-making. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing elective isolated CABG at our centre between January 2013 and May 2019. Of 4684 consecutive patients, 161 patients (3.48%) underwent invasive coronary angiography after surgery, of whom 86 patients (53.4%) underwent repeat revascularization. We found an optimal cut-off value for peak hs-cTnI of >13 000 ng/L [>500× the upper reference limit (URL)] to be significantly associated with repeat revascularization within 48 h after surgery, which was internally validated through random repeated sampling with 1000 iterations. The same cut-off also predicted 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality after a median follow-up of 3.1 years, which was validated in an external cohort. A decision tree analysis of serial hs-cTnI measurements showed no added benefit of hs-cTnI measurements in patients with electrocardiographic or echocardiographic abnormalities or haemodynamic instability. Likewise, early post-operative hs-cTnI elevations had a low yield for clinical decision-making and only later elevations (at 12-16 h post-operatively) using a threshold of 8000 ng/L (307× URL) were significantly associated with repeat revascularization with an area under the curve of 0.92 (95% confidence interval 0.88-0.95). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that for hs-cTnI, higher cut-offs than currently recommended should be used in the post-operative management of patients following CABG.

Final 3-year clinical outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation with a supra-annular self-expanding repositionable valve in a real-world setting: Results from the multicenter FORWARD study.

OBJECTIVES: The Evolut R FORWARD study confirmed safety and effectivenesss of the Evolut R THV in routine clinical practice out to 1 year. Herein, we report the final 3-year clinical follow up of the FORWARD study. BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a proven alternative to surgery in elderly patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Long-term clinical outcome data with the Evolut R platform are scarce. METHODS: FORWARD is a prospective multicenter observational study that evaluated the Evolut R system in routine clinical practice at 53 centres. Eligible patients had symptomatic native aortic valve stenosis or failed surgical aortic bioprosthesis and elevated operative risk per Heart-Team assessment. TAVR was attempted in 1039 patients. RESULTS: Mean age was 81.8 ± 6.2 years, 64.9% were women, STS score was 5.5 ± 4.5% and 34.2% were frail. Rates of all-cause mortality and disabling stroke were 24.8% and 4.8% at 3 years. Early need for a new pacemaker implantation after TAVR (all-cause mortality: with new PPI; 21.0% vs. without; 22.8%, p = 0.55) and the presence of > trace paravalvular regurgitation (all-cause mortality: no or trace; 22.0% vs. ≥ mild; 25.5%, p = 0.29) did not affect survival. Between 1 and 3 years incidence rates of valve related intervention, endocarditis and clinically relevant valve thrombosis were low. CONCLUSIONS: The Evolut R valve maintained a favorable safety profile through 3 years in routine clinical practice. Rates of transcatheter heart valve-related adverse events were low.

Idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension phenotypes determined by cluster analysis from the COMPERA registry.

The term idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH) is used to categorize patients with pre-capillary pulmonary hypertension of unknown origin. There is considerable variability in the clinical presentation of these patients. Using data from the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension, we performed a cluster analysis of 841 patients with IPAH based on age, sex, diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO; <45% vs ≥45% predicted), smoking status, and presence of comorbidities (obesity, hypertension, coronary heart disease, and diabetes mellitus). A hierarchical agglomerative clustering algorithm was performed using Ward's minimum variance method. The clusters were analyzed in terms of baseline characteristics; survival; and response to pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) therapy, expressed as changes from baseline to follow-up in functional class, 6-minute walking distance, cardiac biomarkers, and risk. Three clusters were identified: Cluster 1 (n = 106; 12.6%): median age 45 years, 76% females, no comorbidities, mostly never smokers, DLCO ≥45%; Cluster 2 (n = 301; 35.8%): median age 75 years, 98% females, frequent comorbidities, no smoking history, DLCO mostly ≥45%; and Cluster 3 (n = 434; 51.6%): median age 72 years, 72% males, frequent comorbidities, history of smoking, and low DLCO. Patients in Cluster 1 had a better response to PAH treatment than patients in the 2 other clusters. Survival over 5 years was 84.6% in Cluster 1, 59.2% in Cluster 2, and 42.2% in Cluster 3 (unadjusted p < 0.001 for comparison between all groups). The population of patients diagnosed with IPAH is heterogenous. This cluster analysis identified distinct phenotypes, which differed in clinical presentation, response to therapy, and survival.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Pre-Existing Mechanical Mitral Valve Prostheses.

OBJECTIVES: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become standard therapy for aortic stenosis patients with intermediate or high operative risk. Treatment of patients with pre-existing mechanical mitral valve replacement (MVR) is challenging due to possible interference between the TAVI prosthesis and MVR. We present our single-center experience with this special patient cohort. METHODS: A total of 1960 patients underwent TAVI at our institution between 2009 and March 2018; of these, 16 patients had pre-existing mechanical MVR. Device success and adverse events were analyzed according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 criteria. Patients were followed for at least 12 months. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 81.5 ± 4.4 years. The patients had a mean logistic EuroScore of 37.1 ± 13.5% and STS score of 7.1 ± 3.2%. Successful valve deployment was achieved in all patients, peri-interventional stroke rate was 0.0%, and permanent pacemaker was implanted in 2 patients (12.5%). Two patients experienced major complications, with blockage of the MVR disc in 1 patient and annulus rupture in 1 patient. Hence, 30-day mortality was 12.5% and 1-year mortality was 25.0%. CONCLUSION: TAVI in patients with mechanical MVR is challenging and requires careful preparation and choice of TAVI device. Repositionable and retrievable devices seem to be a safer option.

Feasibility of Transfemoral Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Aortic Disease and Simultaneous or Sequential Endovascular Aortic Repair.

OBJECTIVES: The transfemoral approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) is associated with a significant survival benefit for intermediate and high-risk patients. Due to the increased procedural risk, many operators avoid TF-TAVI in patients with aortic disease. Moreover, significant peri-interventional device interaction may occur in patients with previous endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). We evaluated the feasibility of TF-TAVI in patients with aortic disease in combination with simultaneous or sequential EVAR. METHODS: Data from 15 TF-TAVI patients with concomitant aortic disease treated between 2009 and 2019 in three German heart centers representing 4410 TAVI procedures were analyzed. RESULTS: Two patients with progressive penetrating atherosclerotic ulcers (PAUs) in the descending thoracic aorta underwent sequential and simultaneous thoracic EVAR (TEVAR), respectively. One patient with stable PAU and 4 patients with not yet relevant abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) underwent isolated TF-TAVI. One patient with relevant AAA underwent TF-TAVI and sequential EVAR. Seven patients with previous EVAR due to an AAA underwent TF-TAVI (5 with a bifurcated graft and 2 with a straight graft). TF-TAVI and sequential or simultaneous TEVAR were technically successful in all patients. Vascular complications occurred in 1 patient. One patient died within 30 days and 2 patients died within 12 months. CONCLUSION: TF-TAVI can be performed successfully in patients with aortic disease or previous endovascular aortoiliac intervention. Simultaneous and sequential (T)EVAR is feasible.

Outcomes of left main revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndromes and stable ischemic heart disease: Analysis from the EXCEL trial.

BACKGROUND: Prompt revascularization is often required in acute coronary syndromes (ACS), whereas stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) may allow for more measured procedural planning. Whether the acuity of presentation preferentially affects outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) is unknown. We investigated whether the acuity of presentation discriminated patients who derived a differential benefit from PCI versus CABG in the randomized Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization (EXCEL) trial. METHODS: We used multivariable Cox models to assess the interaction between the acuity of presentation, type of revascularization and outcomes in patients with low or intermediate SYNTAX scores enrolled in EXCEL. RESULTS: At baseline, 1151 patients (60.7%) presented with SIHD and 746 patients (39.3%) presented with an ACS. The acuity of presentation was not associated with the primary endpoint of all-cause death, MI, or stroke at 3 years (multivariable adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.94; 95% CI 0.70-1.26, P = .64). The primary endpoint rate was similar in patients assigned to PCI versus CABG whether they presented with SIHD (adjusted HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.73-1.48]) or with ACS (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.54-1.26) (Pinteraction = .34). CONCLUSIONS: The acuity of presentation did not predict outcomes in patients with LMCAD undergoing revascularization, nor did it discriminate patients who derive greater event-free survival from PCI versus CABG.

1-Year Outcomes With the Evolut R Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve: From the International FORWARD Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to report the 1-year safety and efficacy outcomes in the FORWARD (CoreValve Evolut R FORWARD) study following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the next-generation Evolut R device (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) in routine clinical practice. BACKGROUND: The FORWARD study reported low incidences of mortality, disabling stroke, and significant paravalvular leak following TAVR in routine clinical practice at 30 days. Longer-term results in large patient populations with the Evolut R self-expanding, repositionable transcatheter heart valve (THV) are lacking. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-arm, multinational, multicenter, observational study investigating efficacy and safety following TAVR with the next-generation self-expanding THV. Between January and December 2016, 1,040 patients underwent attempted implant of the Evolut R self-expanding repositionable valve at 53 sites worldwide. An independent Clinical Events Committee adjudicated safety endpoints based on Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions. An independent echocardiographic core laboratory evaluated all echocardiograms. RESULTS: The mean age was 81.8 ± 6.2 years, 64.8% were women, and patients had a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score of 5.5 ± 4.5% and EuroSCORE II of 5.7 ± 5.0%. The 1-year all-cause mortality rate was 8.9%, with a cardiovascular mortality rate of 6.9%. At 1 year, the incidence of disabling stroke was 2.1%, and a pacemaker was implanted in 19.7% of patients. The incidence of more than mild paravalvular leak was 1.2%. CONCLUSIONS: The FORWARD study demonstrated good safety and efficacy profiles for the next-generation Evolut R THV up to 1-year follow-up, with very low mortality and adverse events. (CoreValve Evolut R FORWARD Study [FORWARD]; NCT02592369).

Minimally invasive versus transapical versus transfemoral aortic valve implantation: A one-to-one-to-one propensity score-matched analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Although transcatheter aortic valve implantation was the treatment of choice in inoperable and high-risk patients, the effect of transcatheter aortic valve implantation relative to conventional aortic valve replacement via ministernotomy in patients with moderate surgical risk remains unclear. METHODS: We consecutively enrolled patients who underwent minimally invasive aortic valve replacements via ministernotomy (n = 1929), transapical (n = 607), and transfemoral (n = 1273) aortic valve implantations from a single center during the period from July 2009 to July 2017. Of those, we conducted a 1:1:1 propensity score matching according to 23 preoperative risk factors. RESULTS: We were able to find 177 triplets (n = 531). The median European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II was 3.0% versus 3.4% versus 2.9%, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 3.2% versus 3.6% versus 3.4%, respectively. According to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 criteria, there were no significant periprocedural differences regarding 30-day mortality (2.3% minimally invasive aortic valve replacement vs 4.5% transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs 1.7% transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation, P = .34), stroke (1.1% minimally invasive aortic valve replacement vs 0.6% transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs 1.7% transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation, P = .84), or myocardial infarction (0.6% minimally invasive aortic valve replacement vs 0.0% transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs 0.0% transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation, P = .83). Both intensive care and hospitalization times were significantly longer in the transapical group. Regarding midterm survival, transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation was associated with a tendency toward a less favorable outcome (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-2.31; P = .17) compared with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world propensity score-matched minimally invasive aortic valve replacement, transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation, transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation cohort of intermediate-risk patients, early mortality was not significantly different, whereas the rates of periprocedural complications were different depending on the approach. During follow-up, there was a tendency in the transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation group toward a less favorable survival outcome, although there was no significant difference among the 3 groups.

Delayed Coronary Obstruction After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Delayed coronary obstruction (DCO) is an uncommon and barely reported complication following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the incidence and pathophysiological features of DCO after TAVR, obtained from a large international multicenter registry. METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected from an international multicenter registry consisting of 18 centers between November 2005 and December 2016. RESULTS: During the study period, 38 DCO (incidence 0.22%) cases were identified from a total of 17,092 TAVR procedures. DCO occurred more commonly after valve-in-valve procedures (0.89% vs. 0.18%; p < 0.001) and if self-expandable valves were used during the index procedure (0.36% vs. 0.11% balloon expandable; p < 0.01). DCO was most likely to occur ≤24 h after the TAVR procedure (47.4%; n = 18); 6 (15.8%) cases occurred between 24 h and ≤7 days, with the remaining 14 (36.8%) at ≥60 days. The most frequent presentation was cardiac arrest (31.6%; n = 12), followed by ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (23.7%; n = 9). The left coronary artery was obstructed in most cases (92.1%; n = 35). Percutaneous coronary intervention was attempted in the majority of cases (74.3% left main; 60% right coronary), and stent implantation was successful in 68.8%. The overall in-hospital death rate was 50% (n = 19), and was higher if DCO occurred ≤7 days from the index procedure (62.5% vs. 28.6%; p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: DCO following TAVR is a rare phenomenon that is associated with a high in-hospital mortality rate. Clinicians should be aware that coronary obstruction can occur after the original TAVR procedure and have a low threshold for performing coronary angiography when clinically suspected.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation with CoreValve/Evolut R© for degenerated small versus bigger bioprostheses.

OBJECTIVES: We present our single center experience with Medtronic CoreValve and Evolut R regarding procedural outcome and 3 years follow-up in patients with degenerated bioprostheses. METHODS: From 1645 patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI at our institution between February 2009 and December 2016, 37 patients with degenerated bioprosthesis were treated with Medtronic CoreValve/Evolut R. All data concerning baseline characteristic, procedural outcomes and follow-up were entered into a dedicated database. RESULTS: Mean age was 83.9 ± 4.4 years and patients showed an average logistic EuroSCORE of 33.2 ± 16.7%. Successful ViV deployment was achieved in all cases, a permanent pacemaker was implanted in 16.2%, no periinterventional stroke and no coronary obstruction occurred. Mortality at 30 days was 2.7%, at 1-year follow-up 5.7% and at three years 13.5%. Depending on bioprosthesis size <23 mm versus ≥23 mm echocardiographic mean gradients post implantation were significantly higher in the smaller bioprostheses, 22.8 mmHg ± 9.4 mmHg versus 15.1 ± 7.1, P = 0.013. CONCLUSION: ViV-TAVI with CoreValve/R is demonstrated to be safe and effective in terms of no coronary obstruction and very low mortality up to 3 years despite slightly higher mean transprosthetic gradients especially in very small bioprostheses.

Impact of procedure-related conduction disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve implantation on myocardial performance and survival evaluated by conventional and speckle tracking echocardiography.

OBJECTIVES: Although procedure-related new cardiac conduction disturbances (CCDs) remain an important issue in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), their effect on myocardial function and overall patient outcome remains unclear. The goal of this study was to analyze the influence of procedure-related CCDs on systolic and diastolic LV performance and on patient survival after TAVI. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ninety-five patients who underwent TAVI for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) and had a complete follow-up were evaluated with respect to procedure-related CCDs. Left ventricular (LV) performance was measured using standard echocardiographic parameters and speckle tracking analysis. Survival was assessed during longer-term follow-up (mean: 29.1 ± 16.9 months). After TAVI, the improvement of global LV function expressed as ejection fraction (LVEF; from 45.5 ± 10.0 to 47.8 ± 13.9%, P = .13) was not significant. New CCDs were found in 35.7% of TAVI recipients. A comparison between patients with and without new CCDs showed that LV systolic function improved in those without CCDs, while it tended to deteriorate in patients with CCDs (change in LVEF: 5.5 ± 12.3% vs -4.9% ± 11.5%, P = .001; change in global longitudinal strain (GLS): -1.1 ± 4.6% vs 1.2 ± 4.5%, P = .01). Changes in diastolic function did not differ significantly between the groups (changes in transmitral E/A-ratio: -0.3 ± 0.6 vs -0.5 ± 0.5, P = .1). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed no significant differences between the two cohorts (P = .795). CONCLUSION: Procedure-related conduction abnormalities after TAVI lead to an LBBB-related dyssynchrony with impairment of LV performance but not of overall survival.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Nonagenarians: Procedural Outcome and Mid-Term Results.

BACKGROUND: For nonagenarians with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a feasible therapeutic option. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the procedural outcomes and mid-term follow-up in this patient group and compare this to octogenarians. METHODS: From 1359 patients who underwent TAVI at our institution between March 2009 and February 2016, 82 patients were nonagenarians and 912 were octogenarians. In nonagenarians, mean age was 91.9±1.4years and compared to octogenarians showed a significantly higher logistic EuroScore (27.7±14.8% vs. 23.1±14.4, p=0.005) and STS Score (8.5±4.8% vs. 6.3±6.7, p=0.001). RESULTS: There were no significant differences with regard to stroke rate, pacemaker implantation rate and major vascular complications between the two groups. Thirty-day mortality was 9.8% in nonagenarians and 4.1% in octogenarians (p=0.04). At 1 year, all-cause mortality increased to 30.9% vs. 18.6% (n.s.). CONCLUSION: Nonagenarians showed an increased periprocedural mortality during TAVI and higher mortality in follow-up compared to octogenarians. Age alone is not a predictive factor but indication for treatment should be carefully evaluated by the heart team on an individual basis.

Impact of sheath diameter of different sheath types on vascular complications and mortality in transfemoral TAVI approaches using the Proglide closure device.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the impact of the sheath diameter on vascular complications and mortality in transfemoral aortic valve implantation. METHOD: Between 2012 and 2014, 183 patients underwent the procedure using a sheath diameter of 18-24 F. This collective was divided into two groups: group 1, with a sheath diameter of 18F (G1, n = 94), consisted of patients with 18F Medtronic Sentrant and 18 F Direct Flow sheaths, and group 2 with a sheath diameter of 19-24 F (G2, n = 89) consisted of patients with Edwards expandable e-sheath and Solopath sheaths. Perclose-Proglide® was used as a closure device in all patients. RESULTS: G1 had significantly more female patients (64.9% vs. 46.1% in G2, p = 0.01) and the average BMI was lower (26 ± 4.5% vs. 27.4 ± 4.7%, p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in the incidence of major and minor vascular complications (G1: 12.8% vs. G2: 12.4%, p = 0.9). 30-day mortality was similar in both groups (G1: 6.4 ± 2.5% [95% CI: 0.88-0.98], G2: 3.7 ± 1.9% [95% CI: 0.92-0.99]. The Kaplan Meier analysis of survival revealed no significant differences either. CONCLUSION: The difference in sheath diameter had no effect on either incidence or severity of vascular complications. There was no impact on mortality either.

Clinical Outcomes With a Repositionable Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Prosthesis: The International FORWARD Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical outcomes in large patient populations from real-world clinical practice with a next-generation self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve are lacking. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to document the clinical and device performance outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a next-generation, self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (THV) system in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) in routine clinical practice. METHODS: The FORWARD (CoreValve Evolut R FORWARD) study is a prospective, single-arm, multinational, multicenter, observational study. An independent clinical events committee adjudicated safety endpoints based on Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions. An independent echocardiographic core laboratory evaluated all echocardiograms. From January 2016 to December 2016, TAVR with the next-generation self-expanding THV was attempted in 1,038 patients with symptomatic, severe AS at 53 centers on 4 continents. RESULTS: Mean age was 81.8 ± 6.2 years, 64.9% were women, the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 5.5 ± 4.5%, and 33.9% of patients were deemed frail. The repositioning feature of the THV was applied in 25.8% of patients. A single valve was implanted in the proper anatomic location in 98.9% of patients. The mean aortic valve gradient was 8.5 ± 5.6 mm Hg, and moderate or severe aortic regurgitation was 1.9% at discharge. All-cause mortality was 1.9%, and disabling stroke occurred in 1.8% at 30 days. The expected-to-observed early surgical mortality ratio was 0.35. A pacemaker was implanted in 17.5% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR using the next-generation THV is clinically safe and effective for treating older patients with severe AS at increased operative risk. (CoreValve Evolut R FORWARD Study [FORWARD]; NCT02592369).

Impact of closure devices on vascular complication and mortality rates in TAVI procedures.

BACKGROUND: Currently two closure devices are available for the vascular access in TAVI procedures. Their impact on vascular complications and mid-term mortality is yet unknown. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2014, 398 patients underwent TAVI TF procedures in which two different closure devices were used, Prostar® XL (n=215) and Perclose-Proglide® (n=183). In the cases with Prostar we used one device and in cases with Perclose-Proglide, two devices. The two groups were compared with respect to the criteria of the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) II. The mean follow-up period was 679.7±481.8 (727) days. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics of both patient groups. In the Prostar® group, complications were more frequent (26.6% vs. 12.6%, p=0.005); in detail, these were bleeding (14.9% vs. 7.1%, [p]=0.02), suture rupture (4.7% vs. 1.3%, p=0.04), and pseudoaneurysms (10.2% vs. 1.2%, p<0.001). Multivariate regression analysis revealed two predictors for vascular complications: female sex (OR 2.3; 95% CI 1.3-3.8, p=0.002) and closure devices (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.3-0.8, p=0.007) in favour of Proglide®. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality (Prostar: 5.6±1.6% vs. Proglide: 4.9±1.6%). However, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed a significantly higher survival rate over the entire follow-up period for the Proglide® group (p=0.03). CONCLUSION: Vascular complications occurred more often in the Prostar® group. Although 30-day mortality showed no significant difference between the groups, the mortality over complete follow-up was significantly lower in the Proglide® group.