Search

Background: Prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) can be measured echocardiographically (measured prosthesis-patient mismatch [PPMm]) or predicted (predicted prosthesis-patient mismatch [PPMp]) using published effective orifice area (EOA) reference values. However, the clinical implications of PPM post-TAVR remain unclear., Objectives: This study aimed to elucidate the prevalence of PPMm and PPMp post-TAVR and their impact on mortality in a large international cohort., Methods: The IMPPACT TAVR (Impact of Measured or Predicted Prosthesis-pAtient mismatCh after TAVR) registry included 38,808 TAVR patients from 26 international centers. Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 criteria were used to define prosthesis-patient mismatch severity. EOA was determined echocardiographically (PPMm) or predicted (PPMp) based on core lab-derived EOA reference values. The primary endpoint was 2-year all-cause mortality., Results: The prevalence of PPMp (moderate: 6.8%, severe: 0.6%) was significantly lower than that of PPMm (moderate: 20.7%, severe: 4.3%; P < 0.001) with negligible correlation between the 2 methods (Kendall's tau c correlation coefficient: 0.063; P < 0.001). In unadjusted analyses, severe PPMm adversely influenced 2-year survival (HR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.02-1.45; P = 0.027), whereas severe PPMp was not associated with outcomes (HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.55-1.19; P = 0.291). After adjusting for confounders, neither PPMm nor PPMp had a significant effect on 2-year all-cause mortality., Conclusions: PPMm and PPMp were associated with different patient characteristics, with PPMm tending toward worse (especially low flow) and PPMp toward better (especially women) survival. After adjusting for confounders, neither PPMm nor PPMp significantly affected 2-year all-cause mortality. Hence, valve selection should not solely be based on hemodynamics but rather on a holistic approach, including patient and procedural specifics., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (397484323) to Drs Guthoff, Matti Adam and Stephan Baldus, and Mauri; PA 2409/5-2 to Drs Thurow and Pauly; the Dean’s Office, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne (clinician scientist position) to Dr Guthoff; and the Center for Molecular Medicine Cologne (Baldus B-02) to Dr Stephan Baldus. Dr Abdel-Wahab’s institution has received speaker honoraria and/or consultancy fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Kim has received proctor and personal fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Meril Life Sciences, and Shockwave Med; is a member of the advisory boards for Abbott, Boston Scientific, and HID Imaging; and Dr Kim’s institution has received fees from Boston Scientific. Dr Nombela-Franco has served as proctor for Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Matjaz Bunc served as proctor for TAVR procedures with Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Meril, and Abbott. Matjaz Bunc is a member of the advisory boards for Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Veulemans has received speaker and/or study honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Dr Tanja Rudolph has received lecture fees from Abbott, SIS Medical and Translumina. Dr Zeus has received speaker and/or study honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: As transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) replacement is increasingly used in patients with longer life expectancy, a sizable proportion will require redo TAV replacement (TAVR). The unique configuration of balloon-expandable TAV (bTAV) vs a self-expanding TAV (sTAV) potentially affects TAV-in-TAV outcome., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to better inform prosthesis selection, TAV-in-TAV outcomes were assessed according to the type of initial and subsequent TAV., Methods: Patients from the Redo-TAVR registry were analyzed using propensity weighting according to their initial valve type (bTAV [n = 115] vs sTAV [n = 106]) and subsequent valve type (bTAV [n = 130] vs sTAV [n = 91])., Results: Patients with failed bTAVs presented later (vs sTAV) (4.9 ± 2.1 years vs 3.7 ± 2.3 years; P < 0.001), with smaller effective orifice area (1.0 ± 0.7 cm 2 vs 1.3 ± 0.8 cm 2 ; P = 0.018) and less frequent dominant regurgitation (16.2% vs 47.3%; P < 0.001). Mortality at 30 days was 2.3% (TAV-in-bTAV) vs 0% (TAV-in-sTAV) (P = 0.499) and 1.7% (bTAV-in-TAV) vs 1.0% (sTAV-in-TAV) (P = 0.612); procedural safety was 72.6% (TAV-in-bTAV) vs 71.2% (TAV-in-sTAV) (P = 0.817) and 73.2% (bTAV-in-TAV) vs 76.5% (sTAV-in-TAV) (P = 0.590). Device success was similar according to initial valve type but higher with subsequent sTAV vs bTAV (77.2% vs 64.3%; P = 0.045), primarily because of lower residual gradients (10.3 mm Hg [8.9-11.7 mm Hg] vs 15.2 mm Hg [13.2-17.1 mm Hg]; P < 0.001). Residual regurgitation (moderate or greater) was similar after bTAV-in-TAV and sTAV-in-TAV (5.7%) and nominally higher after TAV-in-bTAV (9.1%) vs TAV-in-sTAV (4.4%) (P = 0.176)., Conclusions: In selected patients, no association was observed between TAV type and redo TAVR safety or mortality, yet subsequent sTAV was associated with higher device success because of lower redo gradients. These findings are preliminary, and more data are needed to guide valve choice for redo TAVR., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Webb is a consultant to and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. Dr Kim is a proctor for and has received speaker fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Abdel-Wahab has received speaker honoraria and/or consultancy fees to the hospital on his behalf from Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr Barbanti is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences; and is an advisory board member for Biotronik. Dr Søndergaard has received consulting fees and institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Symetis. Dr Redwood is a proctor for and has received lecture fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Hamm is an advisory board member for Medtronic. Dr Sinning has received speaker honoraria and research grants from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Sathananthan is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Schofer has received speaker fees and travel compensation from Boston Scientific; and has received travel compensation from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott/St. Jude Medical. Dr Andreas is a proctor, consultant, and speaker for Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Medtronic; and has received institutional grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and LSI. Dr Guerrero has received research grant support from Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Castriota is a proctor for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr Nazif is a consultant for or has received honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Biotrace, and Baylis Medical; and is a consultant for and holds equity in Venus Medtech. Dr Pilgrim has received research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Biotronik; and has received speaker fees from Boston Scientific and Biotronik. Dr Babaliaros is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences; and holds equity in Transmural Systems. Dr Van Mieghem has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Daiichi Sankyo, and PulseCath; and has received institutional research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Latib has received institutional research and grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received personal consulting honoraria from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Hildick-Smith is a proctor and adviser for Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether protamine administration for heparin reversal after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) reduces bleeding complications and affects patient outcomes., Background: Occurrence of major bleeding complications in patients undergoing TAVR is associated with increased morbidity and mortality., Methods: This study included 873 patients undergoing TAVR, of whom 677 received protamine for heparin reversal. Standard access management included the use of pre-closure devices, manual compression, and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty or implantation of a covered stent graft, if necessary. The study complied with Good Clinical Practice guidelines and was approved by the local ethics committee. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients., Results: The primary endpoint, a composite of 30-day all-cause mortality and life-threatening and major bleeding, occurred less frequently in the protamine administration group (3.2%) compared with the control group (8.7%) (p = 0.003). This was driven mainly by lower rates of life-threatening and major bleeding in the protamine group (0.1% vs. 2.6% [p < 0.001] and 1.0% vs. 4.1% [p = 0.008], respectively). Furthermore, protamine administration resulted in a significantly shorter hospital stay (11.1 ± 5.8 days vs. 12.7 ± 7.8 days; p = 0.05). In the overall cohort, stroke was observed in 1.9% and myocardial infarction in 0.2% of patients, with no significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed that only protamine administration (odds ratio: 0.24; 95% confidence interval: 0.10 to 0.58; p = 0.001) and acute kidney injury (odds ratio: 5.82; 95% confidence interval: 2.02 to 16.77; p = 0.001) were independently associated with the primary endpoint., Conclusions: Protamine administration resulted in significantly lower rates of life-threatening and major bleeding complications compared with patients without heparin reversal. Occurrence of stroke and myocardial infarction was not increased by protamine administration., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess acute regurgitation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement, comparing different implanted transcatheter heart valves., Background: Regurgitation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement influences all-cause mortality. Thus far, no quantitative comparison of regurgitation among multiple commercially available transcatheter heart valves has been performed., Methods: Aortograms from a multicenter cohort of consecutive 3,976 transcatheter aortic valve replacements were evaluated in this pooled analysis. A total of 2,258 (58.3%) were considered analyzable by an independent academic core laboratory using video densitometry. Results of quantitative regurgitation are shown as percentages. The valves evaluated were the ACURATE (n = 115), Centera (n = 11), CoreValve (n = 532), Direct Flow Medical (n = 21), Evolut PRO (n = 95), Evolut R (n = 295), Inovare (n = 4), Lotus (n = 546), Lotus Edge (n = 3), SAPIEN XT (n = 239), and SAPIEN 3 (n = 397). For the main analysis, only valves with more than 50 procedures (7 types) were used., Results: The Lotus valve had the lowest mean regurgitation (3.5 ± 4.4%), followed by Evolut PRO (7.4 ± 6.5%), SAPIEN 3 (7.6 ± 7.1%), Evolut R (7.9 ± 7.4%), SAPIEN XT (8.8 ± 7.5%), ACURATE (9.6 ± 9.2%) and CoreValve (13.7 ± 10.7%) (analysis of variance p < 0.001). The only valves that statistically differed from all their counterparts were Lotus (as the lowest regurgitation) and CoreValve (the highest). The proportion of patients presenting with moderate or severe regurgitation followed the same ranking order: Lotus (2.2%), Evolut PRO (5.3%), SAPIEN 3 (8.3%), Evolut R (8.8%), SAPIEN XT (10.9%), ACURATE (11.3%), and CoreValve (30.1%) (chi-square p < 0.001)., Conclusions: In this pooled analysis stemming from daily clinical practice, the Lotus valve was shown to have the best immediate sealing. This analysis reflects the objective evaluation of regurgitation by an academic core laboratory (nonsponsored) in a real-world cohort of patients using a quantitative technique., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)