Search

Interest in the pathophysiology, etiology, management, and outcomes of patients with tricuspid regurgitation (TR) has grown in the wake of multiple natural history studies showing progressively worse outcomes associated with increasing TR severity, even after adjusting for multiple comorbidities. Historically, isolated tricuspid valve surgery has been associated with high in-hospital mortality rates, leading to the development of transcatheter treatment options. The aim of this first Tricuspid Valve Academic Research Consortium document is to standardize definitions of disease etiology and severity, as well as endpoints for trials that aim to address the gaps in our knowledge related to identification and management of patients with TR. Standardizing endpoints for trials should provide consistency and enable meaningful comparisons between clinical trials. A second Tricuspid Valve Academic Research Consortium document will focus on further defining trial endpoints and will discuss trial design options., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Hahn has received speaker fees from Abbott Structural, Baylis Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, and Philips Healthcare; has institutional consulting contracts for which she receives no direct compensation with Abbott Structural, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Novartis; and is Chief Scientific Officer for the Echocardiography Core Laboratory at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation for multiple industry-sponsored trials, for which she receives no direct industry compensation. Dr Lawlor has received grant support from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Davidson has received research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott; has received consulting fees from Philips Healthcare; and acts as an uncompensated consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Badhwar has received institutional research support for clinical trials from Abbott. Dr Spitzer has institutional contracts for which he receives no direct compensation with Boston Scientific, Cardiawave, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Shanghai Microport Medical Co Ltd, NVT GmBH, Pie Medical Imaging, and Siemens Healthcare GmBH. Dr Lurz has received institutional grants from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Lindman has received investigator-initiated research grants from Edwards and Roche Diagnostics. Dr Topilsky has received consulting fees from Edwards, Mitralix, and Mitraltech. Dr Baron has received research support from Abiomed and Boston Scientific Corp; and has served as a consultant, on an advisory board, or as a paid speaker for Zoll Medical, Medtronic, Biotronik, Boston Scientific Corp, and Shockwave. Dr Chadderdon has served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic Inc. Dr Khalique has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Structural, Cardiac Implants, Triflo, and Restore Medical. Dr Tang is a consultant for Medtronic and Abbott Structural Heart. Dr Taramasso has served as a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifescience, Boston Scientific, Shenqi Medical, MEDIRA, CoreMedic, Simulands, MTEX, Occlufit, Ventrimend, and Hi-D Imaging. Dr Grayburn has received research grants from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Cardiovalve, Edwards Lifesciences, W.L. Gore, Medtronic, Neochord, and 4C Medical; and has served as a consultant or on the advisory board of Abbott Vascular, Cardiovalve, Edwards Lifesciences, W.L. Gore, Medtronic, Neochord, and 4C Medical. Dr Badano has served as a member of the Speakers Bureau of GE Healthcare, Philips Medical Systems, and EsaOte SpA; has served as a member of the clinical event committee valve prosthesis trials for Edwards Lifesciences; and has received research grants from GE Healthcare, and EsaOte SpA. Dr Leipsic has served as a consultant for MVRX, CIRCLE CVI, and HeartFlow; has had an Institutional Core Lab with Edwards, Medtronic, PI Cardia, MVRX, Boston, Abbott, and NEO VASC; has received CT core laboratory grants from Edwards, Medtronic, Abbott, Boston, and PI Cardia; and has served on the Speakers Bureau for GE Healthcare and Philips. Dr Lindenfeld has received investigator-initiated research grants from AstraZeneca and Volumetrix; and has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Abbott, Alleviant, Boehringer Ingelheim, CVRx, Edwards Lifesciences, Merck, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, VWave, Vascular Dynamics, and Whiteswell. Dr Windecker has received research, travel, or educational grants to the institution from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, CardioValve, Corflow Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Guerbet, InfraRedx, Janssen-Cilag, Johnson and Johnson, Medicure, Medtronic, Merck Sharp and Dohm, Miracor Medical, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Organon, OrPha Suisse, Pfizer, Polares, Regeneron, Sanofi, Servier, Sinomed, Terumo, Vifor, and V-Wave; has served as an advisory board member and/or member of the steering/executive group of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Bristol Myers Squibb, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, Recardio, Sinomed, Terumo, V-Wave, and Xeltis with payments to the institution but no personal payments; and has been a member of the steering/executive committee group of several investigator-initiated trials that receive funding by industry without impact on his personal remuneration. Dr Vemulapalli has received grants and contracts from the American College of Cardiology, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, National Institutes of Health (R01 and SBIR), Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Food and Drug Administration (Nest cc), and Cytokinetics; and has received advisory board/consulting fees for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, American College of Physicians, and Total CME. Dr Alu has received institutional research support (no direct financial compensation) from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott. Dr Cohen has received research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific; and has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Dr Rodés-Cabau has received institutional research grants and speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Ailawadi has served as a consultant for Medtronic, Edwards, Abbott, Gore, Anteris, AtriCure, Cryolife, Johnson and Johnson, Philips, and Jena. Dr Mack has served as uncompensated Co-PI of the COAPT trial, funded by Abbott, Co-PI of the PARTNER trial, funded by Edwards Lifesciences, and study chair of the Apollo trial, funded by Medtronic. Dr Leon has received institutional clinical research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifescience, and Medtronic. Dr Hausleiter has received speaker honoraria from and served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has gained over time a major reduction in procedural complications. Despite this, clinically relevant bleeding still occurs in a non-negligible proportion of patients and adversely affects prognosis. Patients with severe aortic stenosis are at heightened risk for spontaneous bleeding due to advanced age and a high comorbidity burden. Also, procedural factors and antithrombotic management contribute to define individual bleeding susceptibility. Bleeding prevention represents an emerging area for improving patient care. Because of the tight hemorrhagic/ischemic balance, a tailored approach based on individual bleeding-risk profile, such as a less invasive antithrombotic regimen or appropriate diagnostic preprocedural evaluation, should be pursued to avoid bleeding events. This review aims to provide an in-depth overview of bleeding events in the TAVR field, including definitions, timing and the extent of risk, and clinical impact, as well as updates on antithrombotic management and its potential influence on bleeding complications., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Nuche has received a research grant from the “Fundación Alfonso Martín Escudero” (Madrid, Spain). Dr Rodés-Cabau has received institutional research grants and speaker/consultant fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Rodés-Cabau holds the research chair “Fondation Famille Jacques Larivière” for the Development of Structural Heart Interventions. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Mitral valve transcatheter edge-to-edge repair is safe and effective in treating degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR) patients at prohibitive surgical risk, but outcomes in complex mitral valve anatomy patients vary., Objectives: The PASCAL IID registry assessed safety, echocardiographic, and clinical outcomes with the PASCAL system in prohibitive risk patients with significant symptomatic DMR and complex mitral valve anatomy., Methods: Patients in the prospective, multicenter, single-arm registry had 3+ or 4+ DMR, were at prohibitive surgical risk, presented with complex anatomic features based on the MitraClip instructions for use, and were deemed suitable for the PASCAL system by a central screening committee. Enrolled patients were treated with the PASCAL system. Safety, effectiveness, and functional and quality-of-life outcomes were assessed. Study oversight also included an echocardiographic core laboratory and clinical events committee., Results: The study enrolled 98 patients (37.2% ≥2 independent significant jets, 15.0% severe bileaflet/multi scallop prolapse, 13.3% mitral valve orifice area <4.0 cm 2 , and 10.6% large flail gap and/or large flail width). The implant success rate was 92.9%. The 30-day composite major adverse event rate was 11.2%. At 6 months, 92.4% patients achieved MR ≤2+ and 56.1% achieved MR ≤1+ (P < 0.001 vs baseline). The Kaplan-Meier estimates for survival, freedom from major adverse events, and heart failure hospitalization at 6 months were 93.7%, 85.6%, and 92.6%, respectively. Patients experienced significant symptomatic improvement compared with baseline (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: The outcomes of the PASCAL IID registry establish the PASCAL system as a useful therapy for prohibitive surgical risk DMR patients with complex mitral valve anatomy. (PASCAL IID Registry within the Edwards PASCAL TrAnScatheter Valve RePair System Pivotal Clinical Trial [CLASP IID] NCT03706833)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The PASCAL IID registry is funded by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Hausleiter is a consultant and receives speaker honoraria and institutional research support from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Lim is a consultant for Philips, Venus, and Valgen; and has received research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Gillam is a consultant for Philips, Bracco, and Edwards Lifesciences; and directs an echocardiography core laboratory for Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic, for which she receives no direct compensation. Dr Zahr is a consultant for and receives research grants from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Chadderdon is an educational consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Makkar is a consultant for and receives research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Dr Goldman has provided minimally invasive mitral valve observation for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Rudolph has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Boston Scientific. Dr Hermiller is a consultant and proctor for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Dhoble is a consultant and proctor for Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott. Dr Smalling receives clinical trial grant support from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott; and serves as a consultant for Abbott. Dr Latib is a consultant and serves on the advisory board for Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott, and Philips. Dr Kodali is a consultant for Admedus, Dura Biotech, TriCares, Phillips, and TriFlo; receives institutional research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott, Boston Scientific, and JenaValve; and serves on the scientific advisory for and has received equity from Dura Biotech, MicroInterventional Devices, Thubrikar Aortic Valve Inc, Supira, Admedus, TriFlo, Adona, Tioga, and X-Dot. Dr Lurz receives institutional grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and ReCor. Dr O’Neill is a consultant for Abiomed, BSCI, and Abbott; and was previously a consultant (expired) for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Laham is a speaker for Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Kar is a consultant for Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, WL Gore, Laminar, Intershunt, and V wave; receives institutional research grants from Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Highlife; is the co-national principal investigator for the REPAIR MR trial and EXPAND registry; is the co-national principal investigator for the PINNACLE FLX trial and CHAMPION trial; serves on the steering committee for the Triluminate Trial; and is an executive committee member for the RELIEVE HF trial. Dr Schofer receives travel support from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott/St Jude Medical; has received speaking honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences and Boston Scientific; and is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott. Dr Inglessis-Azuaje is a proctor and serves as a lecturer for Edwards Lifesciences; is a consultant and proctor for Medtronic; and is a lecturer for Boston Scientific. Dr Baldus receives research funding from Abbott; and has received lecturing fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott and Medtronic. Dr Koulogiannis is a consultant and advisory board member for Edwards Lifesciences; and is a speaker for Abbott. Dr Marcoff serves as a member of the echocardiography core laboratory for Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott, for which he receives no direct compensation. Dr Smith is on the CLASP IID trial leadership team and receives institutional grant and travel support for device evaluation from Edwards Lifesciences; receives institutional grants from Artivion; and received honoraria for speaking from Artivion and Medtronic. Dr Rodés-Cabau receives institutional research grants and speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Whisenant is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott Vascular. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a rare but serious complication following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Despite substantial improvements in the TAVR procedure (less invasive) and its expansion to younger and healthier patients, the incidence of IE after TAVR remains stable, with incidence rates similar to those reported after surgical aortic valve replacement. Although IE after TAVR is recognized as a subtype of prosthetic valve endocarditis, this condition represents a particularly challenging scenario given its unique clinical and microbiological profile, the high incidence of IE-related complications, the uncertain role of cardiac surgery, and the dismal prognosis in most patients with TAVR-IE. The number of TAVR procedures is expected to grow exponentially in the coming years, increasing the number of patients at risk of developing this life-threatening complication. Therefore, a detailed understanding of this disease and its complications will be essential to improve clinical outcomes., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr del Val was supported by a grant from the Fundación Alfonso Martín Escudero (Madrid, Spain). Dr Panagides has received research grants from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Microport. Dr Miró has received consulting honoraria and/or research grants from AbbVie, Angelini, Contrafect, Cubist, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and ViiV Healthcare; and has received a personal 80:20 research grant from Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer during the 2017-2023 period. Dr Rodés-Cabau has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific; and holds the Research Chair “Fondation Famille Jacques Larivière” for the Development of Structural Heart Disease Interventions (Laval University). All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Data comparing valve systems in the valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) field have been obtained from retrospective studies., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the hemodynamic results between the balloon-expandable valve (BEV) SAPIEN (3/ULTRA, Edwards Lifesciences) and self-expanding valve (SEV) Evolut (R/PRO/PRO+, Medtronic) in ViV-TAVR., Methods: Patients with a failed small (≤23 mm) surgical valve were randomized to receive a BEV or an SEV. The primary endpoint was valve hemodynamics (maximal/mean residual gradients, severe prosthesis patient mismatch [PPM], or moderate-severe aortic regurgitation) at 30 days as evaluated by Doppler echocardiography., Results: A total of 102 patients were randomized, and of these, 98 patients finally underwent a ViV-TAVR procedure (BEV: n = 46, SEV: n = 52). The procedure was successful in all cases, with no differences in clinical outcomes at 30 days between groups (no death or stroke events). Patients in the SEV group exhibited lower mean and maximal transvalvular gradient values (15 ± 8 mm Hg vs 23 ± 8 mm Hg; P ˂ 0.001; 28 ± 16 mm Hg vs 40 ± 13 mm Hg, P ˂ 0.001), and a tendency toward a lower rate of severe PPM (44% vs 64%; P = 0.07). There were no cases of moderate-severe aortic regurgitation. In total, 55 consecutive patients (SEV: n = 27; BEV: n = 28) underwent invasive valve hemodynamic evaluation during the procedure, with no differences in mean and peak transvalvular gradients between both groups (P = 0.41 and P = 0.70, respectively)., Conclusions: In patients with small failed aortic bioprostheses, ViV-TAVR with an SEV was associated with improved valve hemodynamics as evaluated by echocardiography. There were no differences between groups in intraprocedural invasive valve hemodynamics and 30-day clinical outcomes (Comparison of the Balloon-Expandable Edwards Valve and Self-Expandable CoreValve Evolut R or Evolut PRO System for the Treatment of Small, Severely Dysfunctional Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses. The 'LYTEN' Trial; NCT03520101)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Rodés-Cabau holds the Research Chair “Fondation Famille Jacques Larivière” for the Development of Structural Heart Disease Interventions (Laval University); and has received institutional research grants from and is consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Abbas has received research grants and consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Nombela-Franco holds a research grant (INT19/00040 and CM21/00091) from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Inovation (Instituto de Salud Carlos III); and has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Conradi is a member of the Advisory Board of Medtronic, Abbott, JenaValve, and Neovase; and has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, New Valve Technology, and MicroInterventions. Dr Pibarot has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; and has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) may be caused by structural or nonstructural valve dysfunction. Both surgical and transcatheter bioprosthetic valves have limited durability because of structural valve deterioration. The main objective of this summary of experts participating in a virtual workshop was to propose standardized definitions for nonstructural and structural BVD and BVF following aortic or mitral biological valve replacement with the goal of facilitating research reporting and implementation of these terms in clinical practice. Definitions of structural BVF, based on valve reintervention or death, underestimate the true incidence of BVF. However, definitions solely based on the presence of high transprosthetic gradient at a given echocardiogram during follow-up overestimate the incidence of structural BVD and BVF. Definitions of aortic or mitral structural BVD must therefore include the confirmation by imaging of permanent structural changes to the leaflets alongside evidence of deterioration in valve hemodynamic function at echocardiography follow-up., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Pibarot has received funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Pi-Cardia, and Cardiac Phoenix for echocardiography core laboratory analyses and research studies in the field of transcatheter valve therapies, for which he received no personal compensation; and has received lecture fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Herrmann has received institutional research funding from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Highlife, Medtronic, and WL Gore; has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Wells Fargo, and WL Gore; and has equity in Holistick Medical and Microinterventional Devices. Dr Hahn has received speaker fees from Abbott Structural, Edwards Lifesciences, and Philips Healthcare; has institutional consulting contracts for which she receives no direct compensation with Abbott Structural, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and Novartis; and has equity in Navigate. Dr Abbas has received research grants and consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Dweck has served as a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; and has received speaking fees from NVT. Dr Leipsic has served as a consultant for Circle CVI and MVRX; and has received institutional funding for CT core laboratory analyses from Edwards Lifesciences, Neovasc, Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, PI Cardia, and Conformal. Dr Rogers has served as a consultant and physician proctor for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; has served as an advisory board member for Medtronic; and holds equity interest in Transmural Systems. Dr Sathananthan has served as a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; and has received speaking fees from NVT. Dr Guerrero has received institutional research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Ternacle has served as a consultant for Philips Healthcare and Abbott Medical. Dr Barbanti has served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and Boston Scientific. Dr Généreux has served as a consultant and advisor for and received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, BioTrace Medical, and Medtronic; has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific, GE Healthcare, iRhythm Technologies, Opsens, Siemens, and Teleflex; has served as a consultant, PI Eclipse Trial, for Cardiovascular System Inc; has served as a consultant, advisor, and proctor for and received speaker fees and research grant from Edwards LifeSciences for the PI EARLY-TAVR and PI PROGRESS trials; has served as a consultant for and has equity in Pi-Cardia, Puzzle Medical, Saranas, and Soundbite Medical Inc; has served as a consultant for and received speaker fees from Shockwave; and has served as a consultant for the PI Feasibility study for 4C Medical. Dr Kaneko has served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott Structural. Dr Wood has served as a consultant to and his institution (CCI-CIC) receives grant support from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, and Medtronic. Dr Gillam has served as a consultant to Philips and Bracco; is an advisory board member for Edwards Lifesciences; and has core lab contracts with Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott for which she receives no direct compensation. Dr Reardon has served as a consultant for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Medical, and Gore Medical; all fees for such are to his department. Dr Rodes-Cabau has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Dr Thourani has performed consulting/research for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Cryolife, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Shockwave. Dr Bax’s institution (Department of Cardiology, LUMC, the Netherlands) has received research grants from Medtronic, Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific. Dr Mack has served as a co-principal investigator for clinical trials for Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences; and has served as study chair for a trial for Medtronic; all roles were uncompensated. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The optimal treatment of patients developing infective endocarditis (IE) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is uncertain., Objectives: The goal of this study was to investigate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with TAVI-IE treated with cardiac surgery and antibiotics (IE-CS) compared with patients treated with antibiotics alone (IE-AB)., Methods: Crude and inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses were applied for the treatment effect of cardiac surgery vs medical therapy on 1-year all-cause mortality in patients with definite TAVI-IE. The study used data from the Infectious Endocarditis after TAVI International Registry., Results: Among 584 patients, 111 patients (19%) were treated with IE-CS and 473 patients (81%) with IE-AB. Compared with IE-AB, IE-CS was not associated with a lower in-hospital mortality (HR unadj : 0.85; 95% CI: 0.58-1.25) and 1-year all-cause mortality (HR unadj : 0.88; 95% CI: 0.64-1.22) in the crude cohort. After adjusting for selection and immortal time bias, IE-CS compared with IE-AB was also not associated with lower mortality rates for in-hospital mortality (HR adj : 0.92; 95% CI: 0.80-1.05) and 1-year all-cause mortality (HR adj : 0.95; 95% CI: 0.84-1.07). Results remained similar when patients with and without TAVI prosthesis involvement were analyzed separately. Predictors for in-hospital and 1-year all-cause mortality included logistic EuroSCORE I, Staphylococcus aureus, acute renal failure, persistent bacteremia, and septic shock., Conclusions: In this registry, the majority of patients with TAVI-IE were treated with antibiotics alone. Cardiac surgery was not associated with an improved all-cause in-hospital or 1-year mortality. The high mortality of patients with TAVI-IE was strongly linked to patients' characteristics, pathogen, and IE-related complications., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Mangner has received personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Biotronik, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Bayer, Abbott, Abiomed, and Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work. Dr del Val was supported by a research grant from the Fundación Alfonso Martin Escudero (Madrid, Spain). Dr Tchetche has received consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Herrmann has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Webb has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and St. Jude Medical. Dr Makkar has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott, Capricor, and St. Jude Medical; has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences; and has received consulting fees from Medtronic. Dr de Brito has received honoraria from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences for symposium speeches and proctoring cases. Dr Lerakis has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Le Breton has received lecture fees from Edwards Lifesciences, outside the submitted work. Dr Sinning has received speaker honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and has received research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic, outside the submitted work. Dr Kim has received proctor/speaker fees/served on the advisory board for Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Meril Life Sciences, and Shockwave Medical, outside the submitted work. Dr Stortecky has received grants to the institution from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott; and has received personal fees from Boston Scientific, BTG, and Teleflex, outside the submitted work. Dr Søndergaard has received consultant fees and/or institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and SMT. Dr Husser has received personal fees from Boston Scientific; and payments from Abbott. Dr Linke has received personal fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Abiomed, Bayer, and Boehringer outside the submitted work. Dr Rodés-Cabau has received institutional research grants 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 © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The right ventricular (RV)-pulmonary arterial (PA) coupling ratio relates the efficiency with which RV stroke work is transferred into the PA. Lower ratios indicate an inadequate RV contractile response to increased afterload., Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the prognostic significance of RV-PA coupling in patients with tricuspid regurgitation (TR) who were undergoing transcatheter tricuspid valve repair or replacement (TTVR)., Methods: The study investigators calculated RV-PA coupling ratios for patients enrolled in the global TriValve registry by dividing the tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) by the PA systolic pressure (PASP) from transthoracic echocardiograms performed before the procedure and 30 days after the procedure. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 1-year follow-up., Results: Among 444 patients analyzed, their mean age was 76.9 ± 9.1 years, and 53.8% of the patients were female. The median TAPSE/PASP ratio was 0.406 mm/mm Hg (interquartile range: 0.308-0.567 mm/mm Hg). Sixty-three patients died within 1 year of TTVR, 21 with a TAPSE/PASP ratio >0.406 and 42 with a TAPSE/PASP ratio ≤0.406. In multivariable Cox regression analysis, a TAPSE/PASP ratio >0.406 vs ≤0.406 was associated with a decreased risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.35-0.93; P = 0.023). In 234 (52.7%) patients with echocardiograms 30 days after TTVR, a decline in RV-PA coupling was independently associated with reduced odds of all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.19-0.93; P = 0.032). The magnitude of TR reduction after TTVR (≥1+ vs <1+; OR: 2.53; 95% CI: 1.06-6.03; P = 0.037) was independently associated with a reduction in post-TTVR RV-PA coupling., Conclusions: RV-PA coupling is a powerful, independent predictor of all-cause mortality in patients with TR undergoing TTVR. These data suggest that the TAPSE/PASP ratio can inform patient selection and prognostication following TTVR., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Brener has received funding from a National Institute of Health grant (NHLBI-T32HL007343). Dr Lurz has received speaker fees from Abbott. Dr Hausleiter has received speaker honoraria from Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Rodés-Cabau has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Kodali has served on the scientific advisory board for Microinterventional Devices, Dura Biotech, Thubrikar Aortic Valve, and Supira; has served as a consultant for Meril Lifesciences, Admedus, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific; has served on the steering committee for Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott Vascular; has received honoraria from Meril Lifesciences, Admedus, Abbott Vascular, and Dura Biotech; and owns equity in Dura Biotech, Thubrikar Aortic Valve, Supira, and MID. Dr Gavazzoni has served as a consultant for Abbott Vascular. Dr Nazif has served as a consultant for and received consulting honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Biotrace Medical. Dr Latib has served on the advisory board for Medtronic and Abbott Vascular; has served on the Speakers Bureau for Abbott Vascular; has served on the scientific advisory board for Millipede; and has served as a consultant for 4Tech, Mitralign, and Millipede. Dr Alessandrini has received consulting fees from Abbott and Edwards LifeSciences. Dr Braun has received speaker honoraria and travel support from Abbott Vascular. Dr Brochet has received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular. Dr Lubos has received grant support and lecture fees from Abbott; and has received lecture fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Denti has served as a consultant for Abbott Vascular, 4Tech, Neovasc, and InnovHeart; and has received honoraria from Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Ludwig has received travel compensation from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Kalbacher has received lecture fees from Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Estévez-Loureiro has received speaker fees from Abbott, Boston, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Connelly has received honoraria from Abbott. Dr Praz has received travel expenses from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, and Polares Medical. Dr Schofer has served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Sievert has received study honoraria, travel expenses, and consulting fees from 4Tech Cardio, Abbott, Ablative Solutions, Ancora Heart, Bavaria Medizin Technologie, Bioventrix, Boston Scientific, Carag, Cardiac Dimensions, Celonova, Comed BV, Contego, CVRx, Edwards Lifesciences, Endologix, Hemoteq, Lifetech, Maquet Getinge Group, Medtronic, Mitralign, Nuomao Medtech, Occlutech, PFM Medical, ReCor, Renal Guard, Rox Medical, Terumo, Vascular Dynamics, and Vivasure Medical. Dr Tang has served as a consultant, physician advisory board member, and faculty trainer for Abbott Structural Heart; has served as a consultant for Medtronic and NeoChord; and has served as a physician advisory board member for JenaValve. Dr Andreas has served as a proctor/consultant for and has received speaking fees from Abbott, Edwards LifeSciences, and Medtronic; and has received institutional grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Life Systems International. Dr Windecker has received research and educational grants to the institution from Abbott, Amgen, BMS, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Cardinal Health, CardioValve, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Querbet, Polares, Sanofi, Terumo, and Sinomed; has served as an unpaid advisory board member and/or unpaid member of the steering or executive group of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Cardiovalve, Edwards Lifesciences, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, Sinomed, V-Wave, and Xeltis, but has not received personal payments by pharmaceutical companies or device manufacturers; has reported membership on the steering or executive committee group of several investigator-initiated trials that receive funding by industry without an impact on his personal remuneration; and has been an unpaid member of the Pfizer Research Award selection committee in Switzerland. Dr Maisano has served as a consultant for and received consulting fees and honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, Cardiovalve, SwissVortex, Perifect, Xeltis, Transseptal Solutions, Magenta, Valtech, and Medtronic; has reported being a cofounder of 4Tech; has received research grant support from Abbott, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, NVT, and Terumo; has received royalties and owns intellectual property rights from Edwards Lifesciences (FMR surgical annuloplasty); and has reported being a shareholder in Cardiovalve, Swiss Vortex, Magenta, Transseptal Solutions, Occlufit, 4Tech, and Perifect. Dr Leon has received institutional clinical research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Taramasso has served as a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, 4Tech, and CoreMedic; and has received speaker honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Hahn has served as a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Abbott Structural, NaviGate, Philips Healthcare, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and GE Healthcare; has been the Chief Scientific Officer for the Echocardiography Core Laboratory at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation for multiple industry-supported trials, for which she receives no direct industry compensation; has received speaker fees from Boston Scientific and Baylis Medical; and has received nonfinancial support from 3mensio. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Device-related thrombus (DRT) has been considered an Achilles' heel of left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO). However, data on DRT prediction remain limited., Objectives: This study constructed a DRT registry via a multicenter collaboration aimed to assess outcomes and predictors of DRT., Methods: Thirty-seven international centers contributed LAAO cases with and without DRT (device-matched and temporally related to the DRT cases). This study described the management patterns and mid-term outcomes of DRT and assessed patient and procedural predictors of DRT., Results: A total of 711 patients (237 with and 474 without DRT) were included. Follow-up duration was similar in the DRT and no-DRT groups, median 1.8 years (interquartile range: 0.9-3.0 years) versus 1.6 years (interquartile range: 1.0-2.9 years), respectively (P = 0.76). DRTs were detected between days 0 to 45, 45 to 180, 180 to 365, and >365 in 24.9%, 38.8%, 16.0%, and 20.3% of patients. DRT presence was associated with a higher risk of the composite endpoint of death, ischemic stroke, or systemic embolization (HR: 2.37; 95% CI, 1.58-3.56; P < 0.001) driven by ischemic stroke (HR: 3.49; 95% CI: 1.35-9.00; P = 0.01). At last known follow-up, 25.3% of patients had DRT. Discharge medications after LAAO did not have an impact on DRT. Multivariable analysis identified 5 DRT risk factors: hypercoagulability disorder (odds ratio [OR]: 17.50; 95% CI: 3.39-90.45), pericardial effusion (OR: 13.45; 95% CI: 1.46-123.52), renal insufficiency (OR: 4.02; 95% CI: 1.22-13.25), implantation depth >10 mm from the pulmonary vein limbus (OR: 2.41; 95% CI: 1.57-3.69), and non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (OR: 1.90; 95% CI: 1.22-2.97). Following conversion to risk factor points, patients with ≥2 risk points for DRT had a 2.1-fold increased risk of DRT compared with those without any risk factors., Conclusions: DRT after LAAO is associated with ischemic events. Patient- and procedure-specific factors are associated with the risk of DRT and may aid in risk stratification of patients referred for LAAO., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Maarse has received an unrestricted grant from Boston Scientific. Dr Pérez de Prado has served as a proctor for Boston Scientific. Dr Gupta has served as a proctor for Abbott. Dr Sanchez has served as a speaker and proctor for Boston Scientific. Dr Demkow has served as a proctor for Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr Alkhouli has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific. Dr Wang has been a consultant for Edwards LifeSciences, Boston Scientific, and Neochord; and has received research grant support from Boston Scientific assigned to employer Henry Ford health system. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The lymphatic system is an integral part of the circulatory system and plays an important role in the volume homeostasis of the human body. The complex anatomy and physiology paired with a lack of simple diagnostic tools to study the lymphatic system have led to an underappreciation of the contribution of the lymphatic system to acute and chronic heart failure (HF). Herein, we discuss the physiological role of the lymphatic system in volume management and the evidence demonstrating the dysregulation of the lymphatic system in HF. Further, we discuss the opportunity to target the lymphatic system in the management of HF and different potential approaches to accessing the lymphatic system., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Fudim was supported by K23HL151744 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), the American Heart Association grant no. 20IPA35310955, Mario Family Award, Duke Chair’s Award, Translating Duke Health Award, Bayer, and BTG Specialty Pharmaceuticals; and has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, AxonTherapies, CVRx, Daxor, Edwards LifeSciences, Galvani, and NXT Biomedical. Dr Sathananthan has served as a consultant for NXT Biomedical. Dr Pabon-Ramos has served as a consultant for NXT Biomedical, Guerbet, and Medtronic. Dr Schwartz has served as a consultant for NXT Biomedical. Dr Khalifa is an employee of NXT Biomedical. Dr Patel has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, Procyrion, and Heartflow; and is on the advisory board for Bayer, Janssen, Mytonomy, and Procyrion. NXT Biomedical has applied for a patent related to therapy targeting the lymphatic system. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Mitral regurgitation (MR) is the most prevalent valvular heart disease and, when left untreated, it confers a poorer prognosis. Catheter-based repair therapies face some limitations like their applicability on challenging anatomies and the potential recurrence of significant MR over time. Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) has emerged as a less invasive approach potentially overcoming some of the current limitations associated with transcatheter mitral valve repair. Several devices are under clinical investigation, and a growing number of systems allow for a fully percutaneous transfemoral approach. In this review, the authors aimed to delineate the main challenges faced by the TMVR field, to highlight the key aspects for procedural planning, and to describe the clinical results of the TMVR systems under clinical investigation. Finally, they also discuss what the future perspectives are for this emerging field., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr. Alperi is supported by a grant from the Fundacion Alfonso Martin Escudero (Madrid, Spain). Dr. Rodés-Cabau holds the Research Chair “Fondation Famille Jacques Larivière” for the Development of Structural Heart Disease Interventions; and has received institutional research grants from and is consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Granada is a cofounder and an equity shareholder of Cephea Valve Technologies. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Stroke is one of the most common and potentially disabling complications of infective endocarditis (IE). However, scarce data exist about stroke complicating IE after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients with definite IE after TAVR complicated by stroke during index IE hospitalization., Methods: Data from the Infectious Endocarditis after TAVR International Registry (including 569 patients who developed definite IE following TAVR from 59 centers in 11 countries) was analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups according to stroke occurrence during IE admission (stroke [S-IE] vs. no stroke [NS-IE])., Results: A total of 57 (10%) patients had a stroke during IE hospitalization, with no differences in causative microorganism between groups. S-IE patients exhibited higher rates of acute renal failure, systemic embolization, and persistent bacteremia (p < 0.05 for all). Previous stroke before IE, residual aortic regurgitation ≥moderate after TAVR, balloon-expandable valves, IE within 30 days after TAVR, and vegetation size >8 mm were associated with a higher risk of stroke during the index IE hospitalization (p < 0.05 for all). Stroke rate in patients with no risk factors was 3.1% and increased up to 60% in the presence of >3 risk factors. S-IE patients had higher rates of in-hospital mortality (54.4% vs. 28.7%; p < 0.001) and overall mortality at 1 year (66.3% vs. 45.6%; p < 0.001). Surgical treatment was not associated with improved outcomes in S-IE patients (in-hospital mortality: 46.2% in surgical vs. 58.1% in no surgical treatment; p = 0.47)., Conclusions: Stroke occurred in 1 of 10 patients with IE post-TAVR. A history of stroke, short time between TAVR and IE, vegetation size, valve prosthesis type, and residual aortic regurgitation determined an increased risk. The occurrence of stroke was associated with increased in-hospital and 1-year mortality rates, and surgical treatment failed to improve clinical outcomes., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr. del Val was supported by a research grant from the Fundación Alfonso Martin Escudero (Madrid, Spain). Dr. Mangner has received personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Biotronik, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Bayer, outside of the submitted work. Dr. Husser has received personal fees from Boston Scientific; and has received payments from Abbott. Dr. Sinning has received speaker honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and has received research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic, outside of the submitted work. Dr. Won-Keun has received personal fees from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Meril, outside of the submitted work. Dr. Herrmann has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr. Stortecky has received grants to the institution from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott; and has received personal fees from Boston Scientific, BTG, and Teleflex, outside of the submitted work. Dr. Tchetche has received consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Webb has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and St. Jude Medical. Dr. Makkar has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott, Capricor, and St. Jude Medical; has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences; and has received consulting fees from Medtronic. Dr. Lerakis has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. de Brito Jr. has received honoraria from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences for symposium speeches and proctoring cases. Dr. Le Breton has received lecture fees from Edwards Lifesciences, outside of the submitted work. Dr. Linke has received personal fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Abiomed, Bayer, and Boehringer, outside the submitted work. Dr. Rodés-Cabau holds the Research Chair “Fondation Famille Jacques Larivière” for the Development of Structural Heart Disease Interventions; and has received institutional research grants 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 © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) remains one of the main drawbacks of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), but scarce data exist on PPI after valve-in-valve (ViV) TAVR, particularly with the use of newer-generation transcatheter heart valves (THVs)., Objectives: The goal of this study was to determine the incidence, factors associated with, and clinical impact of PPI in a large series of ViV-TAVR procedures., Methods: Data were obtained from the multicenter VIVID Registry and included the main baseline and procedural characteristics, in-hospital and late (median follow-up: 13 months [interquartile range: 3 to 41 months]) outcomes analyzed according to the need of periprocedural PPI. All THVs except CoreValve, Cribier-Edwards, Sapien, and Sapien XT were considered to be new-generation THVs., Results: A total of 1,987 patients without prior PPI undergoing ViV-TAVR from 2007 to 2020 were included. Of these, 128 patients (6.4%) had PPI after TAVR, with a significant decrease in the incidence of PPI with the use of new-generation THVs (4.7% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.017), mainly related to a reduced PPI rate with the Evolut R/Pro versus CoreValve (3.7% vs. 9.0%; p = 0.002). There were no significant differences in PPI rates between newer-generation balloon- and self-expanding THVs (6.1% vs. 3.9%; p = 0.18). In the multivariable analysis, older age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.05 for each increase of 1 year; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02 to 1.07; p = 0.001), larger THV size (OR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.20; p = 0.02), and previous right bundle branch block (OR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.00 to 4.17; p = 0.05) were associated with an increased risk of PPI. There were no differences in 30-day mortality between the PPI (4.7%) and no-PPI (2.7%) groups (p = 0.19), but PPI patients exhibited a trend toward higher mortality risk at follow-up (hazard ratio: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.91; p = 0.04; p = 0.08 after adjusting for age differences between groups)., Conclusions: In a contemporary large series of ViV-TAVR patients, the rate of periprocedural PPI was relatively low, and its incidence decreased with the use of new-generation THV systems. PPI following ViV-TAVR was associated with a trend toward increased mortality at follow-up., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr. Alperi was supported by a grant from the Fundación Alfonso Martin Escudero (Madrid, Spain). Dr. Rodés-Cabau holds the Research Chair “Fondation Famille Jacques Larivière” for the Development of Structural Heart Disease Interventions, and has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr. Montorfano is a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Boston Scientific. Dr. Adam has received personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Boston Scientific; and has received grants and personal fees from Medtronic during the conduct of the study. Dr. Noble has received institutional research grants from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and is a proctor for Medtronic. Dr. Erlebach has received fees from Medtronic. Dr. Kempfert has received fees from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott. Dr. Pilgrim has received institutional research grants from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences; has received speaker fees from Biotronik and Boston Scientific; has received consultancy fees from HighLife SAS (CEC); and has performed proctoring for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr. Kim has received personal fees from, performed proctoring for, and has served on advisory boards for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Meril, Medtronic, and Shockwave Med. Dr. Hildick-Smith has served as a proctor and advisor for Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Dvir has provided consulting for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Among patients with acute coronary syndrome following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), those presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are at highest risk., Objectives: The goal of this study was to determine the clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes of STEMI after TAVR., Methods: This was a multicenter study including 118 patients presenting with STEMI at a median of 255 days (interquartile range: 9 to 680 days) after TAVR. Procedural features of STEMI after TAVR managed with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were compared with all-comer STEMI: 439 non-TAVR patients who had primary PCI within the 2 weeks before and after each post-TAVR STEMI case in 5 participating centers from different countries., Results: Median door-to-balloon time was higher in TAVR patients (40 min [interquartile range: 25 to 57 min] vs. 30 min [interquartile range: 25 to 35 min]; p = 0.003). Procedural time, fluoroscopy time, dose-area product, and contrast volume were also higher in TAVR patients (p < 0.01 for all). PCI failure occurred more frequently in patients with previous TAVR (16.5% vs. 3.9%; p < 0.001), including 5 patients in whom the culprit lesion was not revascularized owing to coronary ostia cannulation failure. In-hospital and late (median of 7 months [interquartile range: 1 to 21 months]) mortality rates were 25.4% and 42.4%, respectively (20.6% and 38.2% in primary PCI patients), and estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.02; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.42 to 6.43; p = 0.004), Killip class ≥2 (HR: 2.74; 95% CI: 1.37 to 5.49; p = 0.004), and PCI failure (HR: 3.23; 95% CI: 1.42 to 7.31; p = 0.005) determined an increased risk., Conclusions: STEMI after TAVR was associated with very high in-hospital and mid-term mortality. Longer door-to-balloon times and a higher PCI failure rate were observed in TAVR patients, partially due to coronary access issues specific to the TAVR population, and this was associated with poorer outcomes., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr. Faroux has received fellowship support from Institut Servier and the Association Régionale de Cardiologie de Champagne-Ardenne (ARCCA); and has received research grants from Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Abdel-Wahab has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr. Windecker has received research and educational grants from Abbott, Amgen, BMS, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Cardinal Health, CardioValve, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Querbet, Polares, Sanofi, Terumo, and Sinomed. Dr. Auffret has received lecture fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr. Trillo-Nouche has served as a proctor for Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr. Toggweiler has served as a consultant and proctor for Abbott, Boston Scientific, Biosensors, and Medtronic. Dr. Tarantini has received lecture fees from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Gada, and Medtronic. Dr. Saia has served as a member of advisory boards for Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Durand has served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Asmarats has served as a proctor for Abbott. Dr. Nejjari has served as a proctor for Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr. Muntané-Carol was supported by a grant from the Fundación Alfonso Martín Escudero (Madrid, Spain). Dr. Mangieri has received an institutional grant from Boston Scientific. Dr. Rodés-Cabau has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific; and holds the Research Chair “Fondation Famille Jacques Larivière” for the Development of Structural Heart Disease Interventions. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has changed the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis. However, the occurrence of conduction disturbances has not decreased significantly over time and remains the main drawback of the procedure. In addition, new-onset atrial fibrillation is the most frequent tachyarrhythmia during the hospitalization period and is associated with worse clinical outcomes. However, little is known regarding the incidence and clinical impact of arrhythmic events beyond the periprocedural TAVR period. Ambulatory electrocardiogram (AECG) monitoring has recently emerged as a tool to unravel the complex issue of arrhythmic disorders (bradyarrhythmias and tachyarrhythmias) before and after TAVR. To date, the preliminary results from the initial experience using AECG monitoring systems showed the safety, usefulness, and potential clinical implications of this diagnostic tool in TAVR recipients. This review provides an overview of the current status, clinical implications, and future perspectives of AECG monitoring in the TAVR setting., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Drs. Muntané-Carol and Alperi were supported by a grant from the Fundacion Alfonso Martin Escudero. Dr. Rodés-Cabau holds the Research Chair “Fondation Famille Jacques Larivière” for the Development of Structural Heart Disease Interventions; and has received institutional research grants from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Recent randomized trials including low-risk patients showed positive results for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), but patients with non-tricuspid aortic valve (NTAV), severe coronary artery disease (SevCAD), and those requiring concomitant mitral/tricuspid valve (CMTV) or concomitant ascending aorta replacement (CAAR) interventions were excluded., Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the presence and impact of the main clinical variables not evaluated in TAVR versus SAVR trials (NTAV, SevCAD, and CMTV or CAAR intervention) in a large series of consecutive low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (SAS) undergoing SAVR., Methods: Single-center study including consecutive patients with SAS and low surgical risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of <4%) undergoing SAVR. Baseline, procedural characteristics, and 30-day outcomes were prospectively collected., Results: Of 6,772 patients with SAS who underwent SAVR between 2000 and 2019, 5,310 (78.4%) exhibited a low surgical risk (mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score: 1.94 ± 0.87%). Of these, 2,165 patients (40.8%) had at least 1 of the following: NTAV (n = 1,468, 27.6%), SevCAD (n = 307, 5.8%), CMTV (n = 306, 5.8%), and CAAR (n = 560, 10.5%). The 30-day mortality and stroke rates for the overall low-risk SAS cohort were 1.9% and 2.4%, respectively. The mortality rate was similar in the SevCAD (2.6%) and CAAR (2.1%) groups versus the rest of the cohort (odds ratio [OR]: 1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85 to 3.75, and OR: 1.64; 95% CI: 0.88 to 3.05, respectively), lower in the NTAV group (0.9%; OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.81), and higher in the CMTV group (5.9%; OR: 2.61; 95% CI: 1.51 to 4.5)., Conclusions: In a real-world setting, close to one-half of the low-risk patients with SAS undergoing SAVR exhibited at least 1 major criterion not evaluated in TAVR versus SAVR randomized trials. Clinical outcomes were better than or similar to those predicted by surgical scores in all groups but those patients requiring CMTV intervention. These results may help determine the impact of implementing the results of TAVR-SAVR trials in real practice and may inform future trials in specific groups., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Drs. Alperi and Silva were supported by a research grant from Martín Escudero foundation (Madrid, Spain). Dr. Rodés-Cabau holds the Research Chair “Fondation Famille Jacques Larivière” for the Development of Structural Heart Disease Interventions; and has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are now both used to treat aortic stenosis in patients in whom life expectancy may exceed valve durability. The choice of initial bioprosthesis should therefore consider the relative safety and efficacy of potential subsequent interventions., Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare TAVR in failed transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) versus surgical aortic valves (SAVs)., Methods: Data were collected on 434 TAV-in-TAV and 624 TAV-in-SAV consecutive procedures performed at centers participating in the Redo-TAVR international registry. Propensity score matching was applied, and 330 matched (165:165) patients were analyzed. Principal endpoints were procedural success, procedural safety, and mortality at 30 days and 1 year., Results: For TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV, procedural success was observed in 120 (72.7%) versus 103 (62.4%) patients (p = 0.045), driven by a numerically lower frequency of residual high valve gradient (p = 0.095), ectopic valve deployment (p = 0.081), coronary obstruction (p = 0.091), and conversion to open heart surgery (p = 0.082). Procedural safety was achieved in 116 (70.3%) versus 119 (72.1%) patients (p = 0.715). Mortality at 30 days was 5 (3%) after TAV-in-TAV and 7 (4.4%) after TAV-in-SAV (p = 0.570). At 1 year, mortality was 12 (11.9%) and 10 (10.2%), respectively (p = 0.633). Aortic valve area was larger (1.55 ± 0.5 cm 2 vs. 1.37 ± 0.5 cm 2 ; p = 0.040), and the mean residual gradient was lower (12.6 ± 5.2 mm Hg vs. 14.9 ± 5.2 mm Hg; p = 0.011) after TAV-in-TAV. The rate of moderate or greater residual aortic regurgitation was similar, but mild aortic regurgitation was more frequent after TAV-in-TAV (p = 0.003)., Conclusions: In propensity score-matched cohorts of TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV patients, TAV-in-TAV was associated with higher procedural success and similar procedural safety or mortality., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Dr. Webb is a consultant to and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and ViVitro Labs. Dr. Kim has received proctor or speaker fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Barbanti is a consultant for Edwards; and is an Advisory Board member for Biotronik. Dr. Sondergaard has received consultant 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. 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. Wood is a consultant to and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. 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. Leipsic is a consultant to Circle CVI and Edwards Lifesciences; and provides institutional core laboratory services to Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Neovasc. Dr. Andreas is a proctor for Edwards and Abbott; and is an Advisory Board member for Medtronic. Dr. Guerrero has received research grant support from Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Castriota is a proctor for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr. Kodali has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific; has received grants and personal fees from Abbott Vascular and JenaValve; has received personal fees from Meril Lifesciences; has received personal fees from and holds equity in Admedus; and holds equity in Supira, Microinterventional Devices, Dura Biotech, and Thubrikar Aortic Valve. Dr. Conradi is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Neovasc, and JenaValve. Dr. Nazif has received consulting fees or honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Biotrace, and Baylis Medical; and has received consulting fees from 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 or 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 to 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 © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the COMPLETE (Complete vs Culprit-only Revascularization to Treat Multi-vessel Disease After Early PCI for STEMI) trial, angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of nonculprit lesions with the aim of complete revascularization reduced major cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI) and multivessel coronary artery disease., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of nonculprit-lesion stenosis severity measured by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) on the benefit of complete revascularization., Methods: Among 4,041 patients randomized in the COMPLETE trial, nonculprit lesion stenosis severity was measured using QCA in the angiographic core laboratory in 3,851 patients with 5,355 nonculprit lesions. In pre-specified analyses, the treatment effect in patients with QCA stenosis ≥60% versus <60% on the first coprimary outcome of CV death or new MI and the second co-primary outcome of CV death, new MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization was determined., Results: The first coprimary outcome was reduced with complete revascularization in the 2,479 patients with QCA stenosis ≥60% (2.5%/year vs. 4.2%/year; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47 to 0.79), but not in the 1,372 patients with QCA stenosis <60% (3.0%/year vs. 2.9%/year; HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.50; interaction p = 0.02). The second coprimary outcome was reduced in patients with QCA stenosis ≥60% (2.9%/year vs. 6.9%/year; HR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.54) to a greater extent than patients with QCA stenosis <60% (3.3%/year vs. 5.2%/year; HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.89; interaction p = 0.04)., Conclusions: Among patients with ST-segment elevation MI and multivessel coronary artery disease, complete revascularization reduced major CV outcomes to a greater extent in patients with stenosis severity of ≥60% compared with <60%, as determined by quantitative coronary angiography., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Despite the widespread use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) to guide structural cardiac interventions, studies evaluating safety in this context are lacking., Objectives: This study sought to determine the incidence, types of complications, and factors associated with esophageal or gastric lesions following TEE manipulation during structural cardiac interventions., Methods: This was a prospective study including 50 patients undergoing structural cardiac interventions in which TEE played a central role in guiding the procedure (mitral and tricuspid valve repair, left atrial appendage closure, and paravalvular leak closure). An esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) was performed before and immediately after the procedure to look for new injuries that might have arisen during the course of the intervention. Patients were divided in 2 cohorts according to the type of injury: complex lesions (intramural hematoma, mucosal laceration) and minor lesions (petechiae, ecchymosis). The factors associated with an increased risk of complications were assessed., Results: Post-procedural EGD showed a new injury in 86% (n = 43 of 50) of patients, with complex lesions accounting for 40% (n = 20 of 50) of cases. Patients with complex lesions presented more frequently with an abnormal baseline EGD (70% vs. 37%; p = 0.04) and had a higher incidence of post-procedural dysphagia or odynophagia (40% vs. 10%; p = 0.02). Independent factors associated with an increased risk of complex lesions were a longer procedural time under TEE manipulation (for each 10-min increment in imaging time, odds ratio: 1.27; 95% confidence interval: 1.01 to 1.59) and poor or suboptimal image quality (odds ratio: 4.93; 95% confidence interval: 1.10 to 22.02)., Conclusions: Most patients undergoing structural cardiac interventions showed some form of injury associated with TEE, with longer procedural time and poor or suboptimal image quality determining an increased risk. Imaging experts performing this technique should be aware of the nature of potential complications, to take the necessary precautions to prevent their occurrence and facilitate early diagnosis and treatment., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) use is increasing in patients with longer life expectancy, yet robust data on the durability of transcatheter heart valves (THVs) are limited. Redo-TAVR may play a key strategy in treating patients in whom THVs fail., Objectives: The authors sought to examine outcomes following redo-TAVR., Methods: The Redo-TAVR registry collected data on consecutive patients who underwent redo-TAVR at 37 centers. Patients were classified as probable TAVR failure or probable THV failure if they presented within or beyond 1 year of their index TAVR, respectively., Results: Among 63,876 TAVR procedures, 212 consecutive redo-TAVR procedures were identified (0.33%): 74 within and 138 beyond 1 year of the initial procedure. For these 2 groups, TAVR-to-redo-TAVR time was 68 (38 to 154) days and 5 (3 to 6) years. The indication for redo-TAVR was THV stenosis in 12 (16.2%) and 51 (37.0%) (p = 0.002) and regurgitation or combined stenosis-regurgitation in 62 (83.8%) and 86 (62.3%) (p = 0.028), respectively. Device success using VARC-2 criteria was achieved in 180 patients (85.1%); most failures were attributable to high residual gradients (14.1%) or regurgitation (8.9%). At 30-day and 1-year follow-up, residual gradients were 12.6 ± 7.5 mm Hg and 12.9 ± 9.0 mm Hg; valve area 1.63 ± 0.61 cm 2 and 1.51 ± 0.57 cm 2 ; and regurgitation ≤mild in 91% and 91%, respectively. Peri-procedural complication rates were low (3 stroke [1.4%], 7 valve malposition [3.3%], 2 coronary obstruction [0.9%], 20 new permanent pacemaker [9.6%], no mortality), and symptomatic improvement was substantial. Survival at 30 days was 94.6% and 98.5% (p = 0.101) and 83.6% and 88.3% (p = 0.335) at 1 year for patients presenting with early and late valve dysfunction, respectively., Conclusions: Redo-TAVR is a relatively safe and effective option for selected patients with valve dysfunction after TAVR. These results are important for applicability of TAVR in patients with long life expectancy in whom THV durability may be a concern., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Tricuspid regurgitation is associated with increased rates of heart failure (HF) and mortality. Transcatheter tricuspid valve interventions (TTVI) are promising, but the clinical benefit is unknown., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential benefit of TTVI over medical therapy in a propensity score matched population., Methods: The TriValve (Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Therapies) registry collected 472 patients from 22 European and North American centers who underwent TTVI from 2016 to 2018. A control cohort formed by 2 large retrospective registries enrolling medically managed patients with ≥ moderate tricuspid regurgitation in Europe and North America (n = 1,179) were propensity score 1:1 matched (distance ± 0.2 SD) using age, EuroSCORE II, and systolic pulmonary artery pressure. Survival was tested with Cox regression analysis. Primary endpoint was 1-year mortality or HF rehospitalization or the composite., Results: After matching, 268 adequately matched pairs of patients were identified. Compared with control subjects, TTVI patients had lower 1-year mortality (23 ± 3% vs. 36 ± 3%; p = 0.001), rehospitalization (26 ± 3% vs. 47 ± 3%; p < 0.0001), and composite endpoint (32 ± 4% vs. 49 ± 3%; p = 0.0003). TTVI was associated with greater survival and freedom from HF rehospitalization (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46 to 0.79; p = 0.003 unadjusted), which remained significant after adjusting for sex, New York Heart Association functional class, right ventricular dysfunction, and atrial fibrillation (HR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.59; p < 0.0001) and after further adjustment for mitral regurgitation and pacemaker/defibrillator (HR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.54; p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: In this propensity-matched case-control study, TTVI is associated with greater survival and reduced HF rehospitalization compared with medical therapy alone. Randomized trials should be performed to confirm these results., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Despite major improvements in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) periprocedural complications in recent years, the occurrence of conduction disturbances has not decreased over time and remains the most frequent complication of the procedure. Additionally, there has been an important lack of consensus on the management of these complications, which has indeed translated into a high degree of uncertainty regarding the most appropriate treatment of a large proportion of such patients along with major differences between centers and studies in pacemaker rates post-TAVR. There is therefore an urgent need for a uniform strategy regarding the management of conduction disturbances after TAVR. The present expert consensus scientific panel document has been formulated by a multidisciplinary group of interventional cardiologists, electrophysiologists, and cardiac surgeons as an initial attempt to provide a guide for the management of conduction disturbances after TAVR based on the best available data and group expertise., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Several studies have demonstrated the benefits of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with aortic stenosis, but the presence of persistent fibrosis and myocardial hypertrophy has been related to worse prognosis., Objectives: The aim of this study was to explore the potential benefits of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors on left ventricular remodeling and major clinical outcomes following successful transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Methods: Patients from 10 institutions with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR between August 2007 and August 2017 were included. All baseline data were prospectively recorded, and pre-specified follow-up was performed. Doses and types of RAS inhibitors at discharge were recorded, and matched comparison according to their prescription at discharge was performed., Results: A total of 2,785 patients were included. Patients treated with RAS inhibitors (n = 1,622) presented similar surgical risk scores but a higher rate of all cardiovascular risk factors, coronary disease, and myocardial infarction. After adjustment for these baseline differences, reduction of left ventricular volumes and hypertrophy was greater and cardiovascular mortality at 3-year follow-up was lower (odds ratio: 0.59; 95% confidence interval: 0.41 to 0.87; p = 0.007) in patients treated with RAS inhibitors. Moreover, RAS inhibitors demonstrated a global cardiovascular protective effect with significantly lower rates of new-onset atrial fibrillation, cerebrovascular events, and readmissions., Conclusions: Post-TAVR RAS inhibitors are associated with lower cardiac mortality at 3-year follow-up and offer a global cardiovascular protective effect that might be partially explained by a positive left ventricular remodeling. An ongoing randomized trial will help confirm these hypothesis-generating findings. (Renin-Angiotensin System Blockade Benefits in Clinical Evolution and Ventricular Remodeling After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation [RASTAVI]; NCT03201185)., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

About one-half of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) candidates have coronary artery disease (CAD), and controversial results have been reported regarding the effect of the presence and severity of CAD on clinical outcomes post-TAVR. In addition to coronary angiography, promising data has been recently reported on both the use of computed tomography angiography and the functional invasive assessment of coronary lesions in the work-up pre-TAVR. While waiting for the results of ongoing randomized trials, percutaneous revascularization of significant coronary lesions has been the routine strategy in TAVR candidates with CAD. Also, scarce data exists on the incidence, characteristics, and management of coronary events post-TAVR, and increasing interest exist on potential coronary access challenges in patients requiring coronary angiography/intervention post-TAVR. This review provides an updated overview of the current landscape of CAD in TAVR recipients, focusing on its prevalence, clinical impact, pre- and post-procedural evaluation and management, unresolved issues and future perspectives., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure is the gold standard for treating patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO. However, scarce data exist on the long-term outcomes following PFO closure., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the long-term (>10 years) clinical outcomes (death, ischemic, hemorrhagic events) following transcatheter PFO closure., Methods: We included 201 consecutive patients (mean age: 47 ± 12 years, 51% women) who underwent PFO closure due to a cryptogenic embolism (stroke: 76%, transient ischemic attack [TIA]: 32%, systemic embolism: 1%). Echocardiographic examinations were performed at 1- to 6-month follow-up. Ischemic and bleeding events and antithrombotic medication were collected at a median follow-up of 12 years (range 10 to 17 years), and follow-up was complete in 96% of the patients., Results: The PFO closure device was successfully implanted in all cases, and residual shunt was observed in 3.3% of patients at follow-up echocardiography. A total of 13 patients died at follow-up (all from noncardiovascular causes), and nondisabling stroke and TIA occurred in 2 and 6 patients, respectively (0.08 strokes per 100 patient-years; 0.26 TIAs per 100 patient-years). A history of thrombophilia (present in 15% of patients) tended to associate with a higher rate of ischemic events at follow-up (p = 0.067). Bleeding events occurred in 13 patients and were major (intracranial bleeding) in 4 patients (all of them under aspirin therapy at the time of the event). A total of 42 patients stopped the antithrombotic treatment at a median of 6 months (interquartile range 6 to 14 months) post-PFO closure, and none of them had any ischemic or bleeding episode after a mean of 10 ± 4 years following treatment cessation., Conclusions: PFO closure was associated with a low rate of ischemic events (stroke, 1%) at >10 years of follow-up. Major bleeding events occurred in 2% of the patients (all of them in patients on antiplatelet therapy). One-fifth of patients stopped the antithrombotic therapy during the follow-up period (the majority within the first-year post-PFO closure), and this was not associated with any increase in ischemic events at long-term follow-up., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The new self-expanding, repositionable transcatheter heart valve (THV) system was designed for treatment of severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis in patients with high surgical risk., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to report 1-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the new THV system., Methods: This ongoing, international, multicenter study evaluated patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis implanted with the THV via transfemoral access and follow-up at 30 days, 1 year, and annually through 5 years. The primary endpoint is all-cause mortality at 1 year; secondary endpoints include clinical outcomes and echocardiographic measurements, both adjudicated., Results: A total of 941 patients (82.4 ± 5.9 years; 65.7% female; Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Operative Mortality score: 5.8%) were enrolled and underwent an implant at 61 sites in Europe, Australia, and Canada. At 1 year, Kaplan-Meier estimates for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, disabling stroke rates, and myocardial infarction were 12.1%, 6.6%, 2.2%, and 2.5%, respectively. Mean aortic transvalvular gradient and aortic valve area were 8.66 mm Hg and 1.75 cm 2 , respectively. Paravalvular leakage was moderate or higher in 2.6% of patients with no severe leakage. New pacemaker rates were 18.7% and 21.3% for pacemaker naïve patients at 30 days and 1 year, respectively. Functional class, exercise capacity, and quality of life improved significantly from baseline to 1 year., Conclusions: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the new THV in patients who are at increased surgical risk is associated with low 1-year mortality and stroke rates. Favorable hemodynamic results at 1 year are observed with low transvalvular pressure gradient and incidence of significant paravalvular leakage. (5 Year Observation of Patients With PORTICO Valves [PORTICO-I]; NCT01802788)., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

Background: Dysmetabolic profile has been associated with native aortic valve stenosis. However, there are limited data on the effects of an atherogenic milieu and its potential implications on the structural and hemodynamic deterioration of aortic bioprosthetic valves., Objectives: This prospective longitudinal study sought to determine the predictors and impact on outcomes of hemodynamic valve deterioration (HVD) of surgically implanted aortic bioprostheses., Methods: A total of 137 patients with an aortic bioprosthesis implanted for a median time of 6.7 (interquartile range: 5.1 to 9.1) years prospectively underwent a first (baseline) assessment with complete Doppler echocardiography, quantitation of bioprosthesis leaflet calcification by multidetector computed tomography (CT), and a fasting blood sample to assess cardiometabolic risk profile. All patients underwent a second (follow-up) Doppler echocardiography examination at 3 (interquartile range: 2.9 to 3.3) years post-baseline visit. HVD was defined by an annualized change in mean transprosthetic gradient ≥3 mm Hg/year and/or worsening or transprosthetic regurgitation by ≥1/3 class. The primary endpoint was a nonhierarchical composite of death from any cause or aortic reintervention procedure (redo surgical valve replacement or transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation) for bioprosthesis failure., Results: Thirty-four patients (25.6%) had leaflet calcification on baseline CT, and 18 patients (13.1%) developed an HVD between baseline and follow-up echocardiography. Fifty-two patients (38.0%) met the primary endpoint during subsequent follow-up after the second echocardiographic examination. Leaflet calcification (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.35 to 4.82; p = 0.005) and HVD (HR: 5.12; 95% CI: 2.57 to 9.71; p < 0.001) were independent predictors of the primary endpoint. Leaflet calcification, insulin resistance (homeostatic model assessment index ≥2.7), lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 activity (Lp-PLA2 per 0.1 nmol/min/ml increase), and high level of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) (≥305 ng/ml) were associated with the development of HVD after adjusting for age, sex, and time interval since aortic valve replacement., Conclusions: HVD identified by Doppler echocardiography is independently associated with a marked increase in the risk of valve reintervention or mortality in patients with a surgical aortic bioprosthesis. A dysmetabolic profile characterized by elevated plasma Lp-PLA2, PCSK9, and homeostatic model assessment index was associated with increased risk of HVD. The presence of leaflet calcification as detected by CT was a strong predictor of HVD, providing incremental risk-predictive capacity., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Tricuspid regurgitation is a common finding in patients with left-sided valvular or myocardial disease, often being a marker for late-stage chronic heart failure with a grim prognosis. However, isolated tricuspid valve surgery remains infrequent and is associated with the highest mortality among all valve procedures. Hence, a largely unmet clinical need exists for less invasive therapeutic options in these patients. In recent times, multiple percutaneous therapies have been developed for treating severe tricuspid regurgitation, including tricuspid valve repair and, more recently replacement, opening an entirely new venue for managing tricuspid regurgitation. The aim of this review is to provide an updated overview and a clinical perspective on novel transcatheter tricuspid valve therapies, highlighting potential challenges and future directions., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The risk of surgical mitral valve replacement in patients with severe mitral annular calcification (MAC) is high. Several patients worldwide with severe MAC have been treated successfully with transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) using balloon-expandable aortic transcatheter valves. The TMVR in MAC Global Registry is a multicenter registry that collects data on outcomes of these procedures., Objectives: The goal of this study was to evaluate 1-year outcomes in this registry., Methods: This study was a multicenter retrospective review of clinical outcomes., Results: A total of 116 extreme surgical risk patients with severe MAC underwent TMVR; 106 had a procedure date >1 year before data-lock and were included in the analysis. Their mean age was 73 ± 12 years, and 68% were female. The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 15.3 ± 11.6%, and 90% were in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV. Thirty-day and 1-year all-cause mortality was 25% and 53.7%, respectively. Most patients who survived 30 days were alive at 1 year (49 of 77 [63.6%]), and the majority (71.8%) were in New York Heart Association functional class I or II. Echocardiography data at 1 year were available in 34 patients. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 58.6 ± 11.2%, mean mitral valve area was 1.9 ± 0.5 cm 2 , mean mitral gradient was 5.8 ± 2.2 mm Hg, and 75% had zero or trace mitral regurgitation., Conclusions: TMVR with balloon-expandable aortic valves in extreme surgical risk patients with severe MAC is feasible but associated with high 30-day and 1-year mortality. Most patients who survive the 30-day post-procedural period are alive at 1 year and have sustained improvement of symptoms and transcatheter valve performance. The role of TMVR in patients with MAC requires further evaluation in clinical trials., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Few data exist on long-term outcomes and structural valve degeneration (SVD) in consecutive unselected patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR)., Objectives: The goal of this study was to determine the long-term outcomes of a contemporary cohort of consecutive unselected SAVR recipients with a focus on evaluating clinical outcomes and SVD based on echocardiographic criteria., Methods: A total of 672 consecutive patients (mean age: 72 ± 8 years; 61.5% male) undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthesis between 2002 and 2004 were included. Baseline and follow-up data were prospectively collected in a dedicated database. Baseline post-operative echocardiographic data were obtained in the 624 patients alive at hospital discharge and in 209 patients at 10 years (87% of the patients at risk). SVD was defined as subclinical (increase >10 mm Hg in mean transvalvular gradient + decrease >0.3 cm 2 in valve area and/or new-onset mild or moderate aortic regurgitation) and clinically relevant (increase >20 mm Hg in mean transvalvular gradient + decrease >0.6 cm 2 in valve area and/or new-onset moderate-to-severe aortic regurgitation)., Results: At a median follow-up of 10 years (interquartile range: 5 to 13 years), 432 patients (64.3%) had died. Older age, left ventricular dysfunction, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, greater body mass index, and diabetes mellitus were associated with an increased mortality risk (p < 0.05 for all). Clinically relevant SVD occurred in 6.6% of patients; 30.1% of patients had subclinical SVD. A greater body mass index and the use of a specific aortic bioprosthesis were independently associated with clinically relevant SVD (p < 0.05 for both), and 83% of these patients underwent aortic valve reintervention (valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement in 44% of them)., Conclusions: The 10-year mortality rate in elderly SAVR recipients of a bioprosthetic valve was considerable, chiefly determined by their older age and the presence of comorbidities. Clinically relevant SVD was infrequent, but close to one third of the population exhibited subclinical SVD. These results provide contemporary data on long-term clinical outcomes and SVD post-SAVR, and they should be taken into consideration when evaluating late clinical outcomes and valve durability after transcatheter aortic valve replacement., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Few data exist on patients with low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis (LFLG-AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Also, very scarce data exist on the usefulness of dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) before TAVR in these patients., Objectives: The authors sought to evaluate clinical outcomes and changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) following TAVR in patients with classical LFLG-AS., Methods: This multicenter registry included 287 patients with LFLG-AS undergoing TAVR. DSE was performed before TAVR in 234 patients and the presence of contractile reserve was defined as an increase of ≥20% in stroke volume. Transthoracic echocardiography was repeated at hospital discharge and at 1-year follow-up. Clinical follow-up was obtained at 1 and 12 months, and yearly thereafter., Results: The median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of the study population was 7.7% (interquartile range 5.3% to 12.0%), and the mean LVEF and transvalvular gradient were 30.1 ± 9.7% and 25.4 ± 6.6 mm Hg, respectively. The presence of contractile reserve was observed in 45% of patients at DSE. Mortality rates were 3.8%, 20.1%, and 32.3% at 30 days, 1 year, and 2 years, respectively. On multivariable analysis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (p = 0.022) and lower hemoglobin values (p < 0.001) were associated with all-cause mortality. Lower hemoglobin values (p = 0.004) and moderate-to-severe aortic regurgitation post-TAVR (p = 0.018) were predictors of the composite of mortality and rehospitalization due to heart failure. LVEF increased by 8.3% (95% confidence interval: 6% to 11%) at 1-year follow-up, and the lack of prior coronary artery bypass graft (p = 0.004), a lower LVEF at baseline (p < 0.001), and a lower stroke volume index at baseline (p = 0.019) were associated with greater increase in LVEF. The absence of contractile reserve at baseline DSE was not associated with any negative effect on clinical outcomes or LVEF changes at follow-up., Conclusions: TAVR was associated with good periprocedural outcomes in patients with LFLG-AS. However, approximately one-third of LFLG-AS TAVR recipients died at 2-year follow-up, with pulmonary disease, anemia, and residual paravalvular leaks associated with poorer outcomes. LVEF improved following TAVR, but DSE failed to predict clinical outcomes or LVEF changes over time. (Multicenter Prospective Study of Low-Flow Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis [TOPAS Study]; NCT01835028)., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The risk and benefit of mechanical interventions in valvular heart disease have been primarily described among patients with normal ejection fraction. The advent of nonsurgical mechanical interventions for aortic stenosis (transcatheter aortic valve replacement) may alter the risk-benefit ratio for patients who would otherwise be at increased risk for valve surgery. This review describes the epidemiology and pathophysiology of aortic stenosis with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction and summarizes the current registry and clinical trial data applicable to this frequently encountered high-risk group. It concludes with discussion of ongoing trials, new approaches, emerging indications, and a potential clinical algorithm incorporating optimal mechanical intervention for patients with aortic stenosis and concomitant reduced ejection fraction., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In recent times, there has been a considerable increase in the use of aortic bioprostheses (vs. mechanical prostheses) for treating aortic valve disease, and this tendency is likely to continue in the near future. However, the occurrence of structural valve degeneration, limiting valve durability, remains an important drawback of surgical and transcatheter bioprostheses. In this paper, we provide an overview of bioprosthetic valve durability, focusing on the definition, incidence, mechanisms, predictive factors, and management of structural degeneration of aortic bioprostheses., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is standard therapy for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high surgical risk. However, national data regarding procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes over time are limited., Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess nationwide performance trends and clinical outcomes of TAVR during a 6-year period., Methods: TAVRs performed in 48 centers across France between January 2013 and December 2015 were prospectively included in the FRANCE TAVI (French Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry. Findings were further compared with those reported from the FRANCE 2 (French Aortic National CoreValve and Edwards 2) registry, which captured all TAVRs performed from January 2010 to January 2012 across 34 centers., Results: A total of 12,804 patients from FRANCE TAVI and 4,165 patients from FRANCE 2 were included in this analysis. The median age of patients was 84.6 years, and 49.7% were men. FRANCE TAVI participants were older but at lower surgical risk (median logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation [EuroSCORE]: 15.0% vs. 18.4%; p < 0.001). More than 80% of patients in FRANCE TAVI underwent transfemoral TAVR. Transesophageal echocardiography guidance decreased from 60.7% to 32.3% of cases, whereas more recent procedures were increasingly performed in hybrid operating rooms (15.8% vs. 35.7%). Rates of Valve Academic Research Consortium-defined device success increased from 95.3% in FRANCE 2 to 96.8% in FRANCE TAVI (p < 0.001). In-hospital and 30-day mortality rates were 4.4% and 5.4%, respectively, in FRANCE TAVI compared with 8.2% and 10.1%, respectively, in FRANCE 2 (p < 0.001 for both). Stroke and potentially life-threatening complications, such as annulus rupture or aortic dissection, remained stable over time, whereas rates of cardiac tamponade and pacemaker implantation significantly increased., Conclusions: The FRANCE TAVI registry provided reassuring data regarding trends in TAVR performance in an all-comers population on a national scale. Nonetheless, given that TAVR indications are likely to expand to patients at lower surgical risk, concerns remain regarding potentially life-threatening complications and pacemaker implantation. (Registry of Aortic Valve Bioprostheses Established by Catheter [FRANCE TAVI]; NCT01777828)., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Transcatheter mitral valve repair, particularly edge-to-edge leaflet repair, is a well-established alternative for patients with severe primary mitral regurgitation (MR) considered at high or prohibitive surgical risk. More recently, transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) has emerged as a potential therapeutic option for the treatment of severe MR. TMVR may offer some advantages over transcatheter repair by providing a more complete and reproducible MR reduction. Several devices are under preclinical and clinical evaluation, and the early experience with more than 100 patients has demonstrated the feasibility of TMVR. In this review, we describe the TMVR systems currently in development and the results obtained from early clinical experiences. We also discuss the main challenges in and future perspectives on this emerging field. Future studies with a much larger number of patients are needed to provide consistent safety and efficacy data on each of the TMVR systems., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Bioprosthetic valve (BPV) thrombosis is considered a relatively rare clinical entity. Yet a more recent analysis involving a more systematic echocardiographic follow-up, the advent of transcatheter heart valve (THV) technologies coupled with the highly sensitive nature of 4-dimensional computed tomographic imaging for detecting subclinical thrombi upon both surgically implanted and THVs, has generated enormous interest in this field, casting new light on both its true incidence and clinical relevance. Debate continues among clinicians as to both the clinical relevance of subclinical BPV thrombosis and the value of empirical oral anticoagulation following BPV implantation. Furthermore, currently no systematic, prospective data exist regarding the optimal treatment approach in THV recipients. The authors provide an overview of the clinical and subclinical spectrum of BPV thrombosis of surgical and THVs, outline its diagnostic challenges, summarize its pathophysiological basis, and discuss various therapeutic options that are emerging, particularly within the rapidly expanding field of THV implantation., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Data regarding the mid- to long-term cognitive trajectory of transcatheter aortic valve (TAVR) recipients are scarce., Objectives: Changes in global cognition and specific cognitive domains up to 1 year post-TAVR were evaluated., Methods: Fifty-one patients (median age 80.0 [interquartile range: 72.0 to 85.0] years; 37% women) underwent TAVR and prospective assessment of cognitive function using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) at baseline, short-term (30 days), and 1 year post-TAVR. Processing speed and executive cognitive functions were further evaluated with the digit-symbol substitution test (DSST), Trail Making Tests (TMT), and verbal fluency tests at the same time points. Cognitive decline (CD) was determined by changes in mean scores and as a rate using practice-corrected reliable change index (RCI)., Results: The baseline mean total MoCA score was 22.71 ± 3.84. Twenty patients (39.2%) were considered cognitively impaired using a cutoff of <23 of 30 points. Mean total MoCA score improved at short-term post-TAVR and remained stable at 1 year (p = 0.022). On the basis of the RCI of total MoCA score, 4 patients (7.8%) presented with short-term CD, which persisted at 1 year in 1 patient (2.0%). Four patients (7.8%) exhibited cognitive improvement at 1 year, increasing to 15% among those with baseline cognitive impairment. No significant changes were observed over time in the mean DSST, TMT, and verbal fluency test scores. On the basis of the RCI, 10 of 40 patients (25%) presented with a reduction in performance of at least 1 test at 30 days that persisted at 1 year in 4 patients (10%)., Conclusions: TAVR was associated with global improvement in cognitive status, more pronounced among those with cognitive impairment pre-TAVR. However, early decline in some complex cognitive functions was observed in one-quarter of TAVR recipients, persisting at 1 year in 10% of patients., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)