Resumen: Consenso internacional para la nomenclatura y clasificación de la válvula aórtica bicúspide congénita y su aortopatía, con fines clínicos, quirúrgicos, intervencionistas y de investigación / Summary: International consensus statement on nomenclature and classification of the congenital bicuspid aortic valve and its aortopathy, for clinical, surgical, interventional and research purposes

resumen está disponible en el texto completo

Abstract This consensus of nomenclature and classification for congenital bicuspid aortic valve and its aortopathy is evidence-based and intended for universal use by physicians (both pediatricians and adults), echocardiographers, advanced cardiovascular imaging specialists, interventional cardiologists, cardiovascular surgeons, pathologists, geneticists, and researchers spanning these areas of clinical and basic research. In addition, as long as new key and reference research is available, this international consensus may be subject to change based on evidence-based data1.

[Summary: International consensus statement on nomenclature and classification of the congenital bicuspid aortic valve and its aortopathy, for clinical, surgical, interventional and research purposes]. / Resumen: Consenso internacional para la nomenclatura y clasificación de la válvula aórtica bicúspide congénita y su aortopatía, con fines clínicos, quirúrgicos, intervencionistas y de investigación.

This consensus of nomenclature and classification for congenital bicuspid aortic valve and its aortopathy is evidence-based and intended for universal use by physicians (both pediatricians and adults), echocardiographers, advanced cardiovascular imaging specialists, interventional cardiologists, cardiovascular surgeons, pathologists, geneticists, and researchers spanning these areas of clinical and basic research. In addition, as long as new key and reference research is available, this international consensus may be subject to change based on evidence-based data1.

Este consenso de nomenclatura y clasificación para la válvula aórtica bicúspide congénita y su aortopatía está basado en la evidencia y destinado a ser utilizado universalmente por médicos (tanto pediatras como de adultos), médicos ecocardiografistas, especialistas en imágenes avanzadas cardiovasculares, cardiólogos intervencionistas, cirujanos cardiovasculares, patólogos, genetistas e investigadores que abarcan estas áreas de investigación clínica y básica. Siempre y cuando se disponga de nueva investigación clave y de referencia, este consenso internacional puede estar sujeto a cambios de acuerdo con datos basados en la evidencia1.

Temporal Trends, Characteristics, and Outcomes of Infective Endocarditis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND: Procedural improvements combined with the contemporary clinical profile of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may have influenced the incidence and outcomes of infective endocarditis (IE) following TAVR. We aimed to determine the temporal trends, characteristics, and outcomes of IE post-TAVR. METHODS: Observational study including 552 patients presenting definite IE post-TAVR. Patients were divided in 2 groups according to the timing of TAVR (historical cohort [HC]: before 2014; contemporary cohort [CC]: after 2014). RESULTS: Overall incidence rates of IE were similar in both cohorts (CC vs HC: 5.45 vs 6.52 per 1000 person-years; P = .12), but the rate of early IE was lower in the CC (2.29‰ vs 4.89‰, P < .001). Enterococci were the most frequent microorganism. Most patients presented complicated IE (CC: 67.7%; HC: 69.6%; P = .66), but the rate of surgical treatment remained low (CC: 20.7%; HC: 17.3%; P = .32). The CC exhibited lower rates of in-hospital acute kidney injury (35.1% vs 44.6%; P = .036) and in-hospital (26.6% vs 36.4%; P = .016) and 1-year (37.8% vs 53.5%; P < .001) mortality. Higher logistic EuroScore, Staphylococcus aureus etiology, and complications (stroke, heart failure, and acute renal failure) were associated with in-hospital mortality in multivariable analyses (P < .05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Although overall IE incidence has remained stable, the incidence of early IE has declined in recent years. The microorganism, high rate of complications, and very low rate of surgical treatment remained similar. In-hospital and 1-year mortality rates were high but progressively decreased over time.

Impact of predilatation prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the self-expanding acurate neo device (From the Multicenter NEOPRO Registry)

Safety and feasibility of transfemoral Acurate neo implantation without systematic predilatation are not fully investigated. Our aim was to evaluate the use and impact of pre-implantation balloon aortic valvuloplasty (pre-BAV) before transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with Acurate neo. The NEOPRO Registry retrospectively included 1,263 patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI with Acurate neo at 18 centers between January 2012 and March 2018. Information on preBAV was available for 1,262 patients (99.9%). Primary endpoints were pre-discharge moderate-tosevere paravalvular aortic regurgitation (PAR II+), 30-day new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), and 30-day all-cause mortality or stroke. A total of 1,262 patients who underwent TAVI with (n=1,051) or without predilatation (n=211) were included. A reduction in the pre-BAV rate was observed during the study period (from 95.7% in the first date quintile to 78.4% in the last date quintile). Patients who underwent pre-BAV had higher degrees of aortic valve (AV) and left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) calcification. Primary endpoints were similar between pre-BAV and no pre-BAV groups (PAR II+ 5.5% vs. 3.4%, p=0.214; 30-day PPI 9.0% vs. 8.0%, p=0.660; 30-day death or stroke 4.9% vs. 4.4%, p=0.743). The need for postdilatation and other procedural outcomes were comparable between groups. Predilatation did not have a significant impact on primary endpoints across AV and LVOT calcification subgroups (subgroup analyses) and was not independently associated with primary endpoints (multivariate analyses). In conclusion, transfemoral Acurate neo implantation without predilatation appears to be feasible and safe, especially in patients with milder degrees of AV and LVOT calcification. (AU)

Infective endocarditis following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: comparison of balloon- versus self-expandable valves

BACKGROUND: No data exist about the characteristics of infective endocarditis (IE) post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) according to transcatheter valve type. We aimed to determine the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients with IE post-TAVR treated with balloon-expandable valve (BEV) versus self-expanding valve (SEV) systems. METHODS: Data from the multicenter Infectious Endocarditis After TAVR International Registry was used to compare IE patients with BEV versus SEV. RESULTS: A total of 245 patients with IE post-TAVR were included (SEV, 47%; BEV, 53%). The timing between TAVR and IE was similar between groups (SEV, 5.5 [1.2-15] months versus BEV, 5.3 [1.7-11.4] months; P=0.89). Enterococcal IE was more frequent in the SEV group (36.5% versus 15.4%; P<0.01), and vegetation location differed according to valve type (stent frame, SEV, 18.6%; BEV, 6.9%; P=0.01; valve leaflet, SEV, 23.9%; BEV, 38.5%; P=0.01). BEV recipients had a higher rate of stroke/systemic embolism (20.0% versus 8.7%, adjusted OR: 2.46, 95% CI: 1.04-5.82, P=0.04). Surgical explant of the transcatheter valve (SEV, 8.7%; BEV, 13.8%; P=0.21), and in-hospital death at the time of IE episode (SEV, 35.6%; BEV, 37.7%; P=0.74) were similar between groups. After a mean follow-up of 13±12 months, 59.1% and 54.6% of the SEV and BEV recipients, respectively, had died (P=0.66). CONCLUSIONS: The characteristics of IE post-TAVR, including microorganism type, vegetation location, and embolic complications but not early or late mortality, differed according to valve type. These results may help to guide the diagnosis and management of IE and inform future research studies in the field. (AU)

Current generation balloon-expandable transcatheter valve positioning strategies during aortic valve-in-valve procedures and clinical outcomes

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate SAPIEN 3 (S3) (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) positioning using different strategies. BACKGROUND: Aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) is associated with high risk of elevated gradients. METHODS: S3 aortic ViV procedures in stented bioprostheses were studied. Transcatheter heart valve (THV) positioning was analyzed in a centralized core lab blinded to clinical outcomes. A combined endpoint of severely elevated mean gradient ($30 mm Hg) or pacemaker need was established. Two positioning strategies were compared: central marker method and top of S3 method. Optimal final depth was defined as S3 depth #20%. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients met inclusion criteria and were analyzed (76.5 _ 9.7 years of age, 65.8% male, STS score 8 _ 7.6%). THVs had incomplete shortening in comparison to fully expanded valves (92 _ 3.4%), and expansion was more complete in optimal positioning cases compared with others (93.2 _ 2.7% vs. 91.5 _ 3.5%; p » 0.027). The central marker method demonstrated greater correlation with final implantation depth than the top of S3 method (R2 of 0.48 and 0.14; p < 0.001 and p » 0.001, respectively). The combined endpoint rate was 4.3% in the optimal (higher than 3 mm) implantation group, 12% in the intermediate group, and 50% in the low group (p < 0.001). There were no cases of THV embolization. In cases with central marker higher than 3 mm, 72.4% had optimal final depth. In those with central marker higher than 6 mm, 90% had optimal final depth. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal S3 positioning in aortic ViV is associated with better outcomes. Central marker positioning is more reliable than top of S3 positioning. Central marker bottom position should be 3 mm to 6 mm above the ring. (AU)

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with next-generation self-expanding devices: a multicenter, retrospective, propensity-matched comparison of evolut pro versus acurate neo transcatheter heart valves

Abstract OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the Acurate neo (NEO) and Evolut PRO (PRO) devices. BACKGROUND: The NEO and PRO bioprostheses are 2 next-generation self-expanding devices developed for TAVR. METHODS: The NEOPRO (A Multicenter Comparison of Acurate NEO Versus Evolut PRO Transcatheter Heart Valves) registry retrospectively included patients who underwent transfemoral TAVR with either NEO or PRO valves at 24 centers between January 2012 and March 2018. One-to-one propensity score matching resulted in 251 pairs. Pre-discharge and 30-day Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 defined outcomes were evaluated. Binary logistic regression was performed to adjust the treatment effect for propensity score quintiles. RESULTS: A total of 1,551 patients (n = 1,263 NEO; n = 288 PRO) were included. The mean age was 82 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 5.1%. After propensity score matching (n = 502), VARC-2 device success (90.6% vs. 91.6%; p = 0.751) and pre-discharge moderate to severe (II+) paravalvular aortic regurgitation (7.3% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.584) were comparable between the NEO and PRO groups. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in any 30-day clinical outcome between matched NEO and PRO pairs, including all-cause mortality (3.2% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.221), stroke (2.4% vs. 2.8%; p = 1.000), new permanent pacemaker implantation (11.0% vs. 12.8%; p = 0.565), and VARC-2 early safety endpoint (10.6% vs. 10.4%; p = 1.000). Logistic regression on the unmatched cohort confirmed a similar risk of VARC-2 device success, paravalvular aortic regurgitation II+, and 30-day clinical outcomes after NEO and PRO implantation. CONCLUSIONS: (AU)

Impact of Preexisting Left Bundle Branch Block in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Recipients.

BACKGROUND: The impact of preexisting left bundle branch block (LBBB) in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) recipients is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of preexisting LBBB on clinical outcomes after TAVR. METHODS AND RESULTS: This multicenter study evaluated 3404 TAVR candidates according to the presence or absence of LBBB on baseline ECG. TAVR complications and causes of death were defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions. Follow-up outpatient visits or telephone interviews were conducted at 30 days, 12 months, and yearly thereafter. Echocardiography examinations were performed at baseline, at hospital discharge, and at 1-year follow-up. Preexisting LBBB was present in 398 patients (11.7%) and was associated with an increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI; 21.1% versus 14.8%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.12-2.04) but not death (7.3% versus 5.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.84-2.12) at 30 days. At a mean follow-up of 22±21 months, there were no differences between patients with and without preexisting LBBB in overall mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75-1.18) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.68-1.21). In a subanalysis of 2421 patients without PPI at 30 days and with complete follow-up about the PPI, preexisting LBBB was not associated with an increased risk of PPI or sudden cardiac death. Patients with preexisting LBBB had a lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at baseline and at 1-year follow-up ( P <0.001 for both), but those with low LVEF exhibited a similar increase in LVEF over time after TAVR compared with patients with no preexisting LBBB ( P=0.327). CONCLUSIONS: Preexisting LBBB significantly increased the risk of early (but not late) PPI after TAVR, without any significant effect on overall mortality or cardiovascular mortality. Preexisting LBBB was associated with lower LVEF pre-TAVR but did not prevent an increase in LVEF post-TAVR similar to patients without LBBB.

Impact of Preexisting Left Bundle Branch Block in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Recipients

BACKGROUND: The impact of preexisting left bundle branch block (LBBB) in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) recipients is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of preexisting LBBB on clinical outcomes after TAVR. METHODS AND RESULTS: This multicenter study evaluated 3404 TAVR candidates according to the presence or absence of LBBB on baseline ECG. TAVR complications and causes of death were defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions. Follow-up outpatient visits or telephone interviews were conducted at 30 days, 12 months, and yearly thereafter. Echocardiography examinations were performed at baseline, at hospital discharge, and at 1-year follow-up. Preexisting LBBB was present in 398 patients (11.7%) and was associated with an increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI; 21.1% versus 14.8%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.12­2.04) but not death (7.3% versus 5.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.84­2.12) at 30 days. At a mean follow-up of 22±21 months, there were no differences between patients with and without preexisting LBBB in overall mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75­1.18) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.68­1.21). In a subanalysis of 2421 patients without PPI at 30 days and with complete follow-up about the PPI, preexisting LBBB was not associated with an increased risk of PPI or sudden cardiac death. Patients with preexisting LBBB had a lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at baseline and at 1-year follow-up (P <0.001 for both), but those with low LVEF exhibited a similar increase in LVEF over time after TAVR compared with patients with no preexisting LBBB (P=0.327). CONCLUSIONS: Preexisting LBBB significantly increased the risk of early (but not late) PPI after TAVR, without any significant effect on overall mortality or cardiovascular mortality. Preexisting LBBB was associated with lower LVEF pre-TAVR but did not prevent an increase in LVEF post-TAVR similar to patients without LBBB.

The Learning Curve and Annual Procedure Volume Standards for Optimum Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Findings From an International Registry

OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to determine the procedural learning curve and minimum annual institutional volumes associated with optimum clinical outcomes for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a complex procedure requiring significant training and experience for successful outcome. Despite increasing use of TAVR across institutions, limited information is available for its learning curve characteristics and minimum annual volumes required to optimize clinical outcomes. METHODS: The study collected data for patients at 16 centers participating in the international TAVR registry since initiation of the respective TAVR program. All cases were chronologically ordered into initial (1 to 75), early (76 to 150), intermediate (151 to 225), high (226 to 300), and very high (>300) experience operators for TAVR learning curve characterization. In addition, participating institutions were stratified by annual TAVR case volume into low-volume (<50), moderate-volume (50 to 100), and high-volume (>100) groups for comparative analysis. Procedural and 30-day clinical outcomes were collected and multivariate regression analysis performed for 30-day mortality and the early safety endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 3,403 patients comprised the study population. On multivariate analysis, all-cause mortality was significantly higher for initial (odds ratio [OR]: 3.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.93 to 7.60), early (OR: 2.41; 95%CI: 1.51 to 5.03), and intermediate (OR: 2.53; 95% CI: 1.19 to 5.40) experience groups compared with the very high experience operators. In addition, the early safety endpoint was significantly worse for all experience groups compared with the very high experience operators. Low annual volume (<50) TAVR institutions had significantly higher all-cause30-day mortality (OR: 2.70; 95% CI: 1.44 to 5.07) and worse early safety endpoint (OR: 1.60; 95% CI: 1.17 to 2.17) compared with the moderate- and high-volume groups. There was no difference in patient outcomes between intermediate and high annual volume groups. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR procedures display important learning curve characteristics with both greater procedural safety and a lower mortality when performed by experienced operators. In addition, TAVR performed at low annual volume (<50 procedures) institutions is associated with decreased procedural safety and higher patient mortality. These findings have important implications for operator training and patient care at centers performing TAVR.

Standardized definition of structural valve degeneration for surgical and transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valves

ABSTRACT: Bioprostheses are prone to structural valve degeneration, resulting in limited long-term durability. A significant challenge when comparing the durability of different types of bioprostheses is the lack of a standardized terminology for the definition of a degenerated valve. This issue becomes especially important when we try to compare the degeneration rate of surgically inserted and transcatheter bioprosthetic valves. This document, by the VIVID (Valve-in-Valve International Data), proposes practical and standardized definitions of valve degeneration and provides recommendations for the timing of clinical and imaging follow-up assessments accordingly. Its goal is to improve the quality of research and clinical care for patients with deteriorated bioprostheses by providing objective and strict criteria that can be utilized in future clinical trials. We hope that the adoption of these criteria by both the cardiological and surgical communities will lead to improved comparability and interpretation of durability analyses.

Clinical Impact of Baseline Right Bundle Branch Block in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the influence of baseline right bundle branch block (RBBB) on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality as well as sudden cardiac death (SCD) among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: Few data exist regarding the late clinical impact of pre-existing RBBB in TAVR recipients. METHODS: A total of 3,527 patients (mean age 82 ± 8 years, 50.1% men) were evaluated according to the presence of RBBB on baseline electrocardiography. Intraventricular conduction abnormalities were classified according to the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology Foundation, and Heart Rhythm Society recommendations for standardization and interpretation of the electrocardiogram. TAVR complications and causes of death were defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 definitions. RESULTS: RBBB was present on baseline electrocardiography in 362 patients (10.3%) and associated with higher 30-day rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) (40.1% vs. 13.5%; p < 0.001) and death (10.2% vs. 6.9%; p = 0.024). At a mean follow-up of 20 ± 18 months, pre-existing RBBB was independently associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06 to 1.63; p = 0.014) and cardiovascular mortality (HR: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.89; p = 0.006) but not with SCD (HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.22 to 2.32; p = 0.57). Patients with pre-existing RBBB and without PPI at discharge from the index hospitalization had the highest 2-year risk for cardiovascular death (27.8%; 95% CI: 20.9% to 36.1%; log-rank p = 0.007). In a subanalysis of 1,245 patients without PPI at discharge from the index hospitalization and with complete follow-up regarding the need for PPI, pre-existing RBBB was independently associated with the composite of SCD and PPI (HR: 2.68; 95% CI: 1.16 to 6.17; p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-existing RBBB was found in 10% of TAVR recipients and was associated with poorer clinical outcomes. Patients with baseline RBBB without permanent pacemakers at hospital discharge may be at especially high risk for high-degree atrioventricular block and/or SCD during follow-up. Future studies should evaluate strategies aimed at the early detection of patients at risk for late development of high-degree atrioventricular block.

Aspirin Versus Aspirin Plus Clopidogrel as Antithrombotic Treatment Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With a Balloon-Expandable Valve: The ARTE (Aspirin Versus Aspirin + Clopidogrel Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare aspirin plus clopidogrel with aspirin alone as antithrombotic treatment following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the prevention of ischemic events, bleeding events, and death. BACKGROUND: Few data exist on the optimal antithrombotic therapy following TAVR. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial comparing aspirin (80 to 100 mg/day) plus clopidogrel (75 mg/day) (dual antiplatelet therapy [DAPT]) versus aspirin alone (single-antiplatelet therapy [SAPT]) in patients undergoing TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke or transient ischemic attack, or major or life-threatening bleeding (according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 definitions) within the 3 months following the procedure. The trial was prematurely stopped after the inclusion of 74% of the planned study population. RESULTS: A total of 222 patients were included, 111 allocated to DAPT and 111 to SAPT. The composite of death, MI, stroke or transient ischemic attack, or major or life-threatening bleeding tended to occur more frequently in the DAPT group (15.3% vs. 7.2%, p = 0.065). There were no differences between groups in the occurrence of death (DAPT, 6.3%; SAPT, 3.6%; p = 0.37), MI (DAPT, 3.6%; SAT, 0.9%; p = 0.18), or stroke or transient ischemic attack (DAPT, 2.7%; SAPT, 0.9%; p = 0.31) at 3 months. DAPT was associated with a higher rate of major or life-threatening bleeding events (10.8% vs. 3.6% in the SAPT group, p = 0.038). There were no differences between groups in valve hemodynamic status post-TAVR. CONCLUSIONS: This small trial showed that SAPT (vs. DAPT) tended to reduce the occurrence of major adverse events following TAVR. SAPT reduced the risk for major or life-threatening events while not increasing the risk for MI or stroke. Larger studies are needed to confirm these results. (Aspirin Versus Aspirin + Clopidogrel Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: The ARTE Trial [ARTE], NCT01559298; Aspirin Versus Aspirin+Clopidogrel as Antithrombotic Treatment Following TAVI [ARTE], NCT02640794).

Clinical impact of baseline right bundle branch block in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement

This study sought to assess the influence of baseline right bundle branch block (RBBB) on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality as well as sudden cardiac death (SCD) among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Few data exist regarding the late clinical impact of pre-existing RBBB in TAVR recipients. A total of 3,527 patients (mean age 82 8 years, 50.1% men) were evaluated according to the presence of RBBB on baseline electrocardiography. Intraventricular conduction abnormalities were classified according to the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology Foundation, and Heart Rhythm Society recommendations for standardization and interpretation of the electrocardiogram. TAVR complications and causes of death were defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 definitions. RBBB was present on baseline electrocardiography in 362 patients (10.3%) and associated with higher 30-day rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) (40.1% vs. 13.5%; p < 0.001) and death (10.2% vs. 6.9%; p » 0.024). At a mean follow-up of 20 18 months, pre-existing RBBB was independently associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06 to 1.63; p » 0.014) and cardiovascular mortality (HR: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.89; p » 0.006) but not with SCD (HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.22 to 2.32; p » 0.57). Patients with pre-existing RBBB and without PPI at discharge from the index hospitalization had the highest 2-year risk for cardiovascular death (27.8%; 95% CI: 20.9% to 36.1%; log-rank p » 0.007). In a subanalysis of 1,245 patients without PPI at discharge from the index hospitalization and with complete follow-up regarding the need for PPI, pre-existing RBBB was independently associated with the composite of SCD and PPI (HR: 2.68; 95% CI: 1.16 to 6.17; p » 0.023)

Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement in Native Mitral Valve Disease With Severe Mitral Annular Calcification: Results From the First Multicenter Global Registry.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the outcomes of the early experience of transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) with balloon-expandable valves in patients with severe mitral annular calcification (MAC) and reports the first large series from a multicenter global registry. BACKGROUND: The risk of surgical mitral valve replacement in patients with severe MAC is high. There are isolated reports of successful TMVR with balloon-expandable valves in this patient population. METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective review of clinical outcomes of patients with severe MAC undergoing TMVR. RESULTS: From September 2012 to July of 2015, 64 patients in 32 centers underwent TMVR with compassionate use of balloon-expandable valves. Mean age was 73 ± 13 years, 66% were female, and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 14.4 ± 9.5%. The mean mitral gradient was 11.45 ± 4.4 mm Hg and the mean mitral area was 1.18 ± 0.5 cm(2). SAPIEN valves (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) were used in 7.8%, SAPIEN XT in 59.4%, SAPIEN 3 in 28.1%, and Inovare (Braile Biomedica, Brazil) in 4.7%. Access was transatrial in 15.6%, transapical in 43.8%, and transseptal in 40.6%. Technical success according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria was achieved in 46 (72%) patients, primarily limited by the need for a second valve in 11 (17.2%). Six (9.3%) had left ventricular tract obstruction with hemodynamic compromise. Mean mitral gradient post-procedure was 4 ± 2.2 mm Hg, paravalvular regurgitation was mild or absent in all. Thirty-day all-cause mortality was 29.7% (cardiovascular = 12.5% and noncardiac = 17.2%); 84% of the survivors with follow-up data available were in New York Heart Association functional class I or II at 30 days (n = 25). CONCLUSIONS: TMVR with balloon-expandable valves in patients with severe MAC is feasible but may be associated with significant adverse events. This strategy might be an alternative for selected high-risk patients with limited treatment options.

Association between transcatheter aortic valve replacement and subsequent infective endocarditis and in-hospital death

IMPORTANCE: Limited data exist on clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients who had infective endocarditis after undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). OBJECTIVE: To determine the associated factors, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients who had infective endocarditis after TAVR. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Infectious Endocarditis after TAVR International Registry included patients with definite infective endocarditis after TAVR from 47 centers from Europe, North America, and South America between June 2005 and October 2015. EXPOSURE: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for incidence of infective endocarditis and infective endocarditis for in-hospital mortality. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Infective endocarditis and in-hospital mortality after infective endocarditis. RESULTS: A total of 250 cases of infective endocarditis occurred in 20 006 patients after TAVR (incidence, 1.1% per person-year; 95% CI, 1.1%-1.4%; median age, 80 years; 64% men). Median time from TAVR to infective endocarditis was 5.3 months (interquartile range [IQR], 1.5-13.4 months). The characteristics associated with higher risk of progressing to infective endocarditis after TAVR was younger age (78.9 years vs 81.8 years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.97 per year; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99), male sex (62.0% vs 49.7%; HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13-2.52), diabetes mellitus (41.7% vs 30.0%; HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.29), and moderate to severe aortic regurgitation (22.4% vs 14.7%; HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.28-3.28). Health care-associated infective endocarditis was present in 52.8% (95% CI, 46.6%-59.0%) of patients...

Appropriate patient selection or health care rationing? Lessons from surgical aortic valve replacement in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves I trial.

OBJECTIVES: The study objectives were to (1) compare the safety of high-risk surgical aortic valve replacement in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) I trial with Society of Thoracic Surgeons national benchmarks; (2) reference intermediate-term survival to that of the US population; and (3) identify subsets of patients for whom aortic valve replacement may be futile, with no survival benefit compared with therapy without aortic valve replacement. METHODS: From May 2007 to October 2009, 699 patients with high surgical risk, aged 84 ± 6.3 years, were randomized in PARTNER-IA; 313 patients underwent surgical aortic valve replacement. Median follow-up was 2.8 years. Survival for therapy without aortic valve replacement used 181 PARTNER-IB patients. RESULTS: Operative mortality was 10.5% (expected 9.3%), stroke 2.6% (expected 3.5%), renal failure 5.8% (expected 12%), sternal wound infection 0.64% (expected 0.33%), and prolonged length of stay 26% (expected 18%). However, calibration of observed events in this relatively small sample was poor. Survival at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years was 75%, 68%, 57%, and 44%, respectively, lower than 90%, 81%, 73%, and 65%, respectively, in the US population, but higher than 53%, 32%, 21%, and 14%, respectively, in patients without aortic valve replacement. Risk factors for death included smaller body mass index, lower albumin, history of cancer, and prosthesis-patient mismatch. Within this high-risk aortic valve replacement group, only the 8% of patients with the poorest risk profiles had estimated 1-year survival less than that of similar patients treated without aortic valve replacement. CONCLUSIONS: PARTNER selection criteria for surgical aortic valve replacement, with a few caveats, may be more appropriate, realistic indications for surgery than those of the past, reflecting contemporary surgical management of severe aortic stenosis in high-risk patients at experienced sites.

Late cardiac death in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND Little evidence exists of the burden and predictors of cardiac death after transcatheter aortic valvereplacement (TAVR).OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence and predictors of cardiac death from advancedheart failure (HF) and sudden cardiac death (SCD) in a large patient cohort undergoing TAVR.METHODS The study included a total of 3,726 patients who underwent TAVR using balloon (57%) or self-expandable(43%) valves. Causes of death were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium–2.RESULTS At a mean follow-up of 22 18 months, 155 patients had died due to advanced HF (15.2% of total deaths,46.1% of deaths from cardiac causes) and 57 had died due to SCD (5.6% of deaths, 16.9% of cardiac deaths). Baselinecomorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, left ventricular ejection fraction #40%, lowermean transaortic gradient, pulmonary artery systolic pressure >60 mm Hg; p 160 ms had a greater SCD risk (HR: 4.78, 95% CI: 1.56 to 14.63; p » 0.006).CONCLUSIONS Advanced HF and SCD accounted for two-thirds of cardiac deaths in patients after TAVR.Potentially modifiable or treatable factors leading to increased risk of mortality for HF and SCD were identified. Future.